CalvinandCalvinism

ByProfessorBenjaminB.Warfield,D.D.,LL.D.

TableofContents

I.JohnCalvin:TheManandHisWork

II.Calvin'sDoctrineoftheKnowledgeofGod

III.Calvin'sDoctrineofGod

IV.Calvin'sDoctrineoftheTrinity

V.Calvin'sDoctrineoftheCreation

VI.Calvinism

VII. On the Literary History of Calvin's "Institutes of the ChristianReligion"

APPENDIX

AddressOne-JohnCalvintheTheologian

AddressTwo-TheTheologyofCalvin

AddressThree-Present-DayAttitudetoCalvinism

JohnCalvin:TheManandHisWork

byBenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

[From The Methodist Review, Quarterly edited by Gross Alexander,October,1909(lviii.pp.642-M).Reprinted in pamphlet form, 1909, Publishing House of the M. E.Church,South.]

JOHNCALVINwasbornonthetenthofJuly,1509,atNoyon,inPicardy.Hisboyhoodwasspentundertheshadowofthe"long,straight-backed"cathedral which dominates his native town. His mother, a woman ofnotable devoutness, omitted no effort to imbue her son with her ownspirit. His father, a successful advocate and shrewd man of affairs,holdingbothecclesiasticalandciviloffices,stoodincloserelationswiththe cathedral chapter, and seems to have been impressed with theadvantagesofaclericallife.Atallevents,heearlydevotedhispromisingson to it. According to the bad custom of the times, a benefice in thecathedralwasassignedtotheyoungCalvinatanearlyage,andtoitwasafterwardsaddedaneighboringcuracy;thusfundswereprovidedforhissupport. His education was conducted in companionship with theyouthful scions of the local noble house of Montmor, and began,therefore, with the training proper to a gentleman. As changingcircumstances dictated changes of plan, he was educated, first as achurchman,thenasalawyer,andthroughallandmostabundantlyofallas a man of letters. He was an eager student, rapidly and solidlymasteringthesubjectstowhichheturnedhisattention,andearningsuchadmiration from his companions as to be esteemed by them rather ateacher than a fellow pupil. His youth was as blameless as it wasstrenuous. It is doubtless legendary, that the censoriousness of hisbearing earned for him from his associates the nickname of "TheAccusativeCase."Butserious-mindedheundoubtedlywas,dominatedbyascrupulouspietyandschooledinastrictmoralitywhichbrookedwith

difficulty immorality in his associates; an open-minded, affectionateyoung man, of irreproachable life and frank manners; somewhatsensitive,perhaps,buteasytobeentreated,andattractingnotmerelytheconfidence but the lasting affection of all with whom he came intocontact.

At the age of twenty-two this high-minded young man is foundestablished at Paris as a humanist scholar, with his ambition set uponliterary fame. His debut was made by the publication of an excellentcommentaryonSeneca'streatise"OnClemency"(April,1532),inwhicharemarkable command of the whole mass of classical literature, a fineintelligence, and a serious interest in the higher moralities areconspicuous.Agreat career as ahumanist seemedopeningbefore him,whensuddenlyhewas"converted,"andhiswholeliferevolutionized.Hehadalwaysbeennotonlyofanelevatedethical temper,butofadeeplyreligiousspirit;butnowthereligiousmotivetookcompletepossessionofhim and directed all his activities. "Renouncing all other studies," saysBeza,"hedevotedhimselftoGod."Hedidnot,indeed,ceasetobea"manofletters,"anymorethanheceasedtobeaman.Butallhistalentsandacquisitionswerehenceforthdedicatedpurely to theserviceofGodandHisgospel.Insteadofannotatingclassicaltexts,wefindhimnowwritingaProtestantmanifestofortheuseofhisfriendNicholasCop(November1,1533),adetailedstudyofthestateofthesoulafterdeath(1534),and,inhisenforcedretirementatAngouleme(1534),makingabeginningatleastwithaprimarytreatiseonChristiandoctrine,designedfortheinstructionof the people as they came out into the light of the gospel -which,however,whendrivenfromFrance,hewasdestinedtopublishfromhisasylumatBasle(springof1536), incircumstanceswhichtransformeditinto "at once an apology, a manifesto, and a confession of faith." It isinterestingtoobservethechangewhichinthemeantimehadcomeoverhisattitudetowardhiswritings.WhenhesentforthhiscommentaryonSeneca's treatise -his firstand lasthumanisticwork-hewasquiveringwithanxiety for thesuccessofhisbook;hewanted toknowhow itwasselling,whetheritwasbeingtalkedabout,whatpeoplethoughtofit.Hewas proud of his performance; hewas zealous to reap the fruits of hislabor; he was eager for his legitimate reward. Only four years havepassed,andhe issueshis firstProtestantpublication-it is the immortal

"InstitutesoftheChristianReligion"inits"firststate"-freefromallsuchtremors. He is living at Basle under an assumed name, and is fullycontentthatnooneofhisacquaintanceshallknowhimfortheauthorofthe book which was creating such a stir in the world. He hears theacclamations with which it was greeted with a certain personaldetachment.Hehassentitforthnotforhisownglory,butforthegloryofGod; he is not seeking his own advantage or renown by it, but thestrengthening and the succoring of the saints. His sole joy is that it isdoingitswork.Hehasnotceasedtobea"manofletters,"werepeat;buthehasconsecratedallhisgiftsandpowersasa"manofletters"withoutreservetotheserviceofGodandHisgospel.

What we see in Calvin, thus, fundamentally is the "man of letters" assaint.Henevercontemplatedforhimself,heneverdesired,inallhislifehe never fully acquiesced in, any other vocation.Hewas by nature, bygifts,bytraining-byinbornpredilectionandbyacquiredcapacitiesalike-a "man of letters"; and he earnestly, perhaps we may even saypassionately,wishedtodedicatehimselfassuchtoGod.Thiswasthelifewhichhemarkedoutforhimself,fromwhichhewasdivertedonlyundercompulsion,andwhichhenever inprincipleabandoned.Itwasonlyby"thedreadful imprecation"ofFarel thathewasconstrained to layasidehischerishedplansandenteruponthedirectworkofthereformationofGeneva(autumnof1536).Andwhen,aftertwoyearsofstrenuouslaboratthisuncongenialemployment,hewasdrivenfromthatturbulentcity, itcametohimonlyasa release.OncemorehesettleddownatBasleandappliedhimselftohisbelovedstudies.ItrequiredallofBucer'sstrategyas well as entreaties to entice him away from his books to an activeministryatStrasburg;andheyieldedatlastonlywhenitwasmadecleartohimthattherewouldbeleisurethereforliterarylabors.Thatleisurehecertainlynotsomuchfoundasmadeforhimself.HislittleconventicleofFrench refugees quickly became under his hand a model church. Hislecturesat the schoolattractedeverwiderandwiderattention.As timepassed,hewascalledmuchawaytoconferencesandcolloquies,whereas"the Theologian," as Melanchthon admiringly called him, he didimportant service. But itwas at Strasburg that his literary activity as aProtestantman of letters really began. There he transformed his "littlebook" of religion - the "Institutes" of 1536, which was notmuch more

thananextendedcatecheticalmanual-intoanampletreatiseontheology(August,1539).There,too,heinauguratedtheseriesofhisepoch-makingexpositionsofScripturewithhisnoblecommentaryonRomans(March,1540).Thence,too,hesentouthisbeautiful lettertoSadoleto,themostwinningly written of all his controversial treatises (September, 1539).There, too, waswritten that exquisite little popular tract on the Lord'sSupper,whichwastheinstructionandconsolationofsomanyhundredsofhisperplexedfellow-countrymen(publishedin1541).ItcausedCalvingreatperturbationwhen these fruitful laborswerebroken inuponby arenewed call toGeneva. Itwaswith the profoundest reluctance that helistenedtothiscall,andheobeyeditonlyunderthestressofthesternestsense of duty. Returning to Geneva was to him going "straight to thecross":hewent,ashesaid,"asasacrificeslainuntoGod"-"boundandfetteredtoobediencetoGod."Hewasnotthemantotakeupacrossandnotbearit;andthiscross,too,heborefaithfullytotheend.Butneitherwashethemantoforgetthelaboroflovetowhichhehadgivenhisheart.Hence theunremitting toilofhispen,withwhichheworeout thedaysand nights at Geneva; hence the immensity of his literary output,producedincircumstancesasunfavorableasanyinwhicharichliteraryoutput was ever produced. Even "on this rack" Calvin remainedfundamentallythe"manofletters."

It requires fifty-nine quarto volumes to contain the "Works of JohnCalvin" as collected in the great critical edition of Baum, Cunitz, andReuss. Astonishing for their mere mass, these " works "are still moreastonishing for theirquality.Theyarewritten in thebestLatinof theirday,elevated,crisp,energetic,eloquentwiththeeloquenceofanearnestand sober spirit - almost too good Latin, as Joseph Scaliger said, for atheologian; or in a French which was a factor of importance in thecreationof aworthyFrenchprose for thediscussionof serious themes.Thevarietyoftheirliteraryformrunsthroughthewholegamutofearnestdiscourse,fromloftydiscussionandpithycommentladenwithmeaning,toburningexhortation,vehementinvective,andbitingsatire.Thewholerangeofsubjectspropertoateacheroffundamentaltruth,whowasalsobothachurchmanandastatesman,aminuteobserverof the lifeof thepeople, and a student of the forces by which peoples are moved, istreated, and never without that touch of illumination which we call

genius.

Attheheadofthelistofhiswritingstands,ofcourse,hisgreatdogmatictreatise-the"InstitutesoftheChristianReligion."Inaveryliteralsensethis book may indeed be called his life-work. It was the first book hepublishedafterhehad"devotedhimselftoGod,"andthusintroducestheseriesofhisworksconsecrated to thepropagationof religion.But fromits first appearance in the spring of 1536 to the issue of its definitiveeditionin 1559 - throughout nearly a quarter of a century -Calvinwascontinuallybusywithit,revising,expanding,readjustingit,untilfromasimple littlehandbook, innocentof constructiveprinciple, it hadgrownintoabulkybutcompactandthoroughlyorganizedtextbookintheology.TheimportancetotheProtestantcauseofthepublicationofthisbookcanhardlybeoverstated.Itisinadequatepraisetodescribeit,astheRomanCatholichistorian,Kampschulte,describesit,as"withoutdoubtthemostoutstanding and the most influential production in the sphere ofdogmatics which the Reformation literature of the sixteenth centurypresents." This goes without saying.What demands recognition is thatthepublicationof the"Institutes"wasnotmerelya literary incidentbutanhistoricalevent,bigwithissueswhichhavenot lost their importanceto the present day. By it was given to perplexed, hard-besteadProtestantism an adequate positive programme for itsReformation. Asevenanotveryfriendlycritic iscompelledtobearwitness, in thisbookCalvin at last raised banner against banner, and sounded out a ringingsursum corda which was heard and responded to wherever men wereseekingthenewway."TheimmenseservicewhichtheInstitutesrenderedto the 'Evangelicals,'" expounds this critic - it is M. Buisson in hisbiographyofSebastienCastellion, andhe is thinkingparticularlyof the"Evangelicals"ofFrancethough,mutatismutandis,whathesayshas itsapplication elsewhere too - "was to give a body to their ideas, anexpression to their faith." Protesting against superstitious andmaterialistic interpretations of doctrine and worship, "their vagueaspirationswould,undoubtedly,haveissuedinnothingintheChurchoroutofit."Whattheyneeded,andwhatthe"Institutes"didforthem,wasthe disengagement of a principle "from this vortex of ideas," and thedevelopmentof its consequences. "Suchabook," continuesM.Buisson,"is equally removed from a pamphlet of Ulrich von Hutten, from the

satire ofErasmus, from thepopularpreaching,mystical and violent, ofLuther:itisaworkofatheologianinthemostlearnedsenseoftheterm,areligiousworkundoubtedly,penetratedwithanethicalinspiration,butbeforeall, aworkoforganizationandconcentration, a codeofdoctrinefor theminister, an arsenal of arguments for simple believers: it is theSumma of Reformed Christianity." "The author's concernment is farmore to bring out the logical force and the moral power of his owndoctrine than to descant on the weak points of the opposing doctrine.What holds his attention is not the past but the future - it is thereconstructionoftheChurch."Whatwonder,then,thatithasretaineditsinfluencethroughallsucceedingtime?Asthefirstadequatestatementofthe positive programme of theReformationmovement, the "Institutes"liesat the foundationof thewholedevelopmentofProtestant theology,and has left an impress on evangelical thought which is ineffaceable.Afterthreecenturiesandahalf,itretainsitsunquestionedpreeminenceasthegreatestandmostinfluentialofalldogmatictreatises."There,"saidAlbrechtRitschl, pointing to it, "There is themasterpiece of Protestanttheology."

Secondonlytotheserviceherenderedbyhis"Institutes"wastheserviceCalvin rendered by his expositions of Scripture. These fill more thanthirtyvolumesofhiscollectedworks,thusconstitutingthelargerpartofhis total literary product. They cover the whole of the New Testamentexcept II and III John and the Apocalypse, and the whole of the OldTestamentexcepttheSolomonicandsomeoftheHistoricalbooks.Itwasdoubtless in part to his humanistic training that he owed the acutephilological sense and the unerring feeling for language whichcharacterizeallhisexpositions.A recentwriterwhohasmadea specialstudyofCalvin'sHumanism,atleast,remarks:"Inhissobergrammatico-historicalmethod,inthestresshelaidonthenaturalsenseofthetext,bythesideofhisdeepreligiousunderstandingofit-inhisrenunciationofthe current allegorizing, in his felicitous, skillful dealing with difficultpassages,thehumanisticallytrainedmasterismanifest,pouringthenewwineintonewbottles."Calvinwas,however,abornexegete,andaddstohistechnicalequipmentofphilologicalknowledgeandtrainedskillintheinterpretation of texts a clear and penetrating intelligence, remarkableintellectual sympathy, incorruptible honesty, unusual historical

perception, and an incomparable insight into the progress of thought,whilethewholeisilluminatedbyhisprofoundreligiouscomprehension.HisexpositionsofScripturewereaccordinglyawhollynewphenomenon,and introducedanewexegesis - themodernexegesis.He standsout inthehistoryofbiblicalstudyas,whatDiestel,forexample,proclaimshim,"the creator of genuine exegesis." The authority which his commentsimmediatelyacquiredwasimmense-they"openedtheScriptures"astheScriptures never had been opened before. Richard Hooker - "thejudiciousHooker" - remarks that in the controversies of his own time,"thesenseofScripturewhichCalvinalloweth"wasofmoreweightthanif"tenthousandAugustines,Jeromes,Chrysostoms,Cyprianswerebroughtforward." Nor have they lost their value even to-day. Alone of thecommentariesof theirage themost scientificofmodernexpositors stillfindtheirprofitinconsultingthem.AsProfessorA.J.Baumgartner,whohas set himself to investigate the quality of Calvin's Hebrew learning(which he finds quite adequate), puts it, after remarking on Calvin's"astounding, multiplied, almost superhuman activity" in his work ofbiblical interpretation: "And - amost remarkable thing - thiswork hasnever grown old; these commentaries whose durable merit and highvalue men of the most diverse tendencies have signalized, - thesecommentaries remain to us even to-day, an astonishingly rich, almostinexhaustiblemine of profound thoughts, of solid and often ingeniousinterpretation, of wholesome exposition, and at the same time ofprofounderudition."

TheReformationwasthegreatestrevolutionofthoughtwhichthehumanspirithaswroughtsincetheintroductionofChristianity;andcontroversyistheveryessenceofrevolutions.OfcourseCalvin'swholelife,whichwaspassedinthethickofthings,wasacontinuouscontroversy;anddirectlycontroversialtreatisesnecessarilyformaconsiderablepartofhisliteraryoutput.Wehavealreadybeen taught, indeed, thathis fundamentalaimwasconstructive,notdestructive:hewishedtorebuildtheChurchonitstrue foundations, not to destroy its edifice. But, like certain earlierrebuilders of the Holy City, he needed to work with the trowel in onehand and the sword in the other. Probably no more effectivecontroversialisteverwrote."ThenumberofCalvin'spolemicaltreatises,"remarks an unfriendly critic, "is large; and they are allmasterpieces in

their kind." At the head of them, in time as well as in attractiveness,stands his famous "Letter to Cardinal Sadoleto," written in his exile atStrasburg for theprotection froman insidious foe of theChurchwhichhadcasthimout.Courteous,evengentleanddeferentialintone,andyetcogent, conclusive, in effect, it perfectly exemplifies the precept ofsuaviter inmodo, fortiter in re.Others are, no doubt, set in a differentkey.Thecriticwehavejustquoted(E.F.Bahler)tellsoftheonehethinks"theharshestandbitterestofall,"the"DefenseAgainsttheCalumniesofPeterCaroli.""ThelettertoSadoleto,"heremarks,"wascertainlywritteninagoodhour;thecontrarymustbesaidofthepresentbook.Fromthepoint of view of literary history, the Defense, no doubt, meritsunrestricted praise. The elegant, crisp style, the skill with which theauthornotonlycastsamoralshadowuponhisopponent,butbrandshimasanunsavorypersonnottobetakenseriously,whileoverallispouredthemostsovereigndisdain,bringstothereaderofthisbook,nowalmostfour hundred years old, such aesthetic pleasure that it is only withdifficulty thathe recallshimself to righteous indignationover the grossunfairness and open untruthfulness which the author permits himselfagainst Caroli." No doubt Calvin often spoke in harsh terms of hisopponents; they were harsh things theywere seeking for him; and thecontest in which he was engaged was not a sparring match for theamusement of the onlookers. Nor need it be asserted that he wasinfallible; though "evenhis enemieswill admit," as evenMarkPattisonallows,"thatheknowsnothowtodecorateordisguisea fact."Betweenthesuavityofthe"LettertoSadoleto"andthefuriousnessofthe"DefenseAgainst Caroli," a long list of controversial writings of very varyingmanners range themselves. A frankness of speech characterizes themwhich never balks at calling a spade a spade; we meet in them withdepreciatory, evendefamatory, epithetswhich jar sadly on ourmodernsensibilities.Thesearefaultsnotoftheman,butofthetimes:asweareremindedbyM.Lenient, thehistorianofFrenchsatire,of all figuresofrhetoric euphemism was the least in use in the sixteenth century. ButnoneofCalvin'scontroversialtractsfailstobeinformedfrombeginningtoendwithaloftinessofpurpose,tobeconductedwithaseriousnessanddirectnessofargument,andtobefilledwithasolidinstruction,suchasraisethemfarabovetheplaneofmerepartisanwrangleandgivethemaplaceamongthepermanentpossessionsoftheChurch.

Faultwasfoundwithhiminhisownday-as,forexample,byCastellion-forpermittinghimselftheuseofsatireinreligiousdebate.Thiswasnotmerely a result of native temperament with him, but a matter ofdeliberate and reasoned choice. Of course he had nothing in commonwiththemeremockersofthetime-desPeriers,Marot,Rabelais-whoselevitywasalmostasabominabletohimastheircoarseness.Satiretohimwasaweapon,notanamusement.Theproperwaytodealwithfolly,hethought,wastolaughatit.Thesuperstitionsinwhichtheworldhadbeensolongentangledwerefoolishastrulyaswicked;andhowcoulditbe,hedemanded,thatinspeakingofthingssoridiculous,sointrinsicallyfunny,we should not laugh at them "with wide-open mouth"? Of course thislaugh was not the laugh of pure amusement; and as it gained inearnestness it naturally lost in lightness of touch. It was a rapier inCalvin'shands,anditsusewastopierceandcut.Andhowwellheusesit!The Sorbonne, for example, issued a series of "Articles," declaring theorthodox doctrine on the points disputed by the Protestants. Calvinrepublishes these "Articles," and subjoins to each of them a quiteinnocent-looking"Proof," conceivedperfectly in the Sorbonnicmanner,butissuingineachcaseinahopelessreductioadabsurdum.Thus:"Itisproved,moreover, that vows are obligatory from their being dispensedandloosed:thePopecouldnotdispensevowswereitnotforthepowerofthekeys, andhence it follows that theybind the conscience," - truly asfineaspecimenoflucusanonlucendoasonewillfindinaday'ssearch.Itisonlyrarelythatthemaskisdroppedamomentandaglimpsegivenof the mocking eyes behind - as thus: "But that our masters, whencongregated inonebody,are theChurch, isproved fromthis, that theyareverylikethearkofNoah-sincetheyformaherdofallsortsofbeasts."The matter is indeed in general so subtly managed that perhaps the"Antidote," which in each instance follows on the "Proof," was notaltogetherunnecessary.Thereisnosuchsubtletyinwhatis,perhaps,thebest known of Calvin's satirical pieces - his "Admonition, Showing theAdvantage which Christendom Might Derive from an Inventory ofRelics."Herewehaveasimple,straightforwardenumerationoftherelicsexposedinvariouschurchesforthevenerationofthepeople. 'Theeffectisproducedbytheincongruity,whichgrowsmoreandmoremonstrous,of the reduplication of these relics. "Everybody knows that theinhabitantsofTholousethinkthattheyhavegotsixof thebodiesof the

apostles.Now, letusattendtothosewhohavehadtwoor threebodies.ForAndrewhasanotherbodyatMalfi,PhilipandJames theLesshaveeachanotherbodyat theChurchof theHolyApostles,andSimeonandJude, in likemanner, at theChurchof St. Peter.Bartholomewhas alsoanotherinthechurchdedicatedtohimatRome.Soherearesixwhoeachhave two bodies, and also, by way of a supernumerary, Bartholomew'sskinisshownatPisa.Matthias,however,surpassesalltherest,forhehasasecondbodyatRome,inthechurchoftheelderMary,andathirdoneat Treves. Besides, he has another head, and another arm, existingseparatelybythemselves.TherearealsofragmentsofAndrewexistingatdifferentplaces,andquitesufficienttomakeuphalfabody."Andsoonendlessly; and of coursemonotonously -which, however, is part of thecalculatedeffect.AsM.Lenientremarks,"hispitilesscalculationsgivetoamathematicaloperationallthepiquancyofabonmot,andtheironyofnumbers destroys the credit of the most respected pilgrimages." It is,however,insuchatractasthe"ExcuseoftheNicodemites"thatCalvin'ssatireisfoundatitsbest,asherailsatthoseweakProtestantswhoweretoo timid todeclare themselves. "Hispen," saysM.Lenient, "wasnevermore light or incisive. Moralist and painter after the fashion of LaBruyere, he amuses himself sketching all these profiles of effeminateChristians,withtheirslacknesses,theircompromisesofconscience,theircalculations of selfishness, and indifferent luke-warmness." Literaturethisall is,doubtless,andgood literature;andbyvirtueof it"Calvinisticsatire"-Calvin,Beza,andViretwereitsfirstmasters-hasarecognizedplace in the history of French satire. But it is not primarily or chieflyliterature,andithaditsparttoplayamongthemoralandreligiousforceswhichCalvinliberatedfortheaccomplishmentofhisreformingwork.

PerhapsenoughhasbeensaidtosuggesthowCalvinfulfilledhisfunctionasreformerbyhis literary labors.Therewere,ofcourse,other formsofhis literary product which have not been mentioned - creeds andcatechisms,Churchordinancesandformsofworship,populartractsandacademicconsilia.Weneednotstoptospeakofthemparticularly.Ofoneother product of his literary activity, however, a special word seemsdemanded. Calvin was the great letter-writer of the Reformation age.Aboutfourthousandofhislettershavecomedowntous,someofthemalmost of the dimensions of treatises, many of them practically

theological tractates, but many of them also of the most intimatecharacterinwhichhepoursouthisheart.IntheselettersweseetherealCalvin,themanofprofoundreligiousconvictionsandrichreligiouslife,of high purpose and noble strenuousness, of full and freely flowinghuman affections and sympathies. In them he rebukes rulers andinstructs statesmen, and strengthens and comforts saints. Never aperplexed pastor but has from him a word of encouragement andcounsel; never a martyr but has from him a word of heartening andconsolation. Perhaps no friend ever more affectionately leaned on hisfriends; certainly no friend ever gave himselfmore ungrudgingly to hisfriends.Hadhewritten these letters alone,Calvinwould takehis placeamongthegreatChristiansandthegreatChristianleadersoftheworld.

It is time,however, thatwe remindedourselves thatCalvin'swork as areformerisnotsummedupinhisliteraryactivities.A"manofletters"hewasfundamentally;anda"manofletters"heremainedinprincipleallhislife. But he was somethingmore than a "man of letters." This was hischosen sphere of service; and he counted it a cross to be compelled toexpendhisenergiesthroughotherchannels.Butthiscrosswaslaiduponhim,andhetookitupandboreit.Andtheworkwhichhedidunderthecrosswassuch thathadweno singleword fromhispen,hewould stillhold his rank among the greatest of the Reformers. We call him "theReformer of Geneva." But in reforming Geneva he set forces at workwhichhavebeenworld-wideintheiroperationandareactivestillto-day.Werewetoattempttocharacterizeinaphrasethepeculiarityofhisworkasareformer,perhapswecouldnotdobetterthantosayitwastheworkofanidealistbecomeapracticalmanofaffairs.Hedidnotlackthepowertowait,tomakeadjustments,toadvancebyslowandtentativesteps.Heshowed himself able to work with any material, to make the best ofcompromises,toabidepatientlythecomingoffittingopportunities.Theendswhichhesetbeforehimselfasreformerheattainedonlyinthelastyearsofhisstrenuouslife.Buthewasincapableofabandoninghisideals,of acquiescing in halfmeasures, of driftingwith the tide. Therefore hiswhole life inGenevawasaconflict.But in theendhemadeGeneva thewonder of the world, and infused into the Reformed Churches a spiritwhich made them not only invincible in the face of their foes, but anactivefermentthathaschangedthefaceoftheworld.Thusthis"manof

letters,"entering into lifewithhis ideals,was"themeans," toadopt thewords of a critic whose sympathy with those ideals leavesmuch to bedesired, "of concentrating in thatnarrow corner" of theworld "amoralforcewhichsavedtheReformation";orrather,toput itat itsfulleffect,which "saved Europe." "Itmay be doubted," as the same critic -MarkPattison - exclaims in extorted admiration, "if all history can furnishanotherinstanceofsuchavictoryofmoralforce."

When Calvin came to Geneva, he tells us himself, he found the gospelpreached there, but no Church established. "When I first came to thisChurch,"hesays,"therewasasgoodasnothinghere- iln'yavoitquasicomme rien. There was preaching, and that was all." He would havefoundmuch the same state of things everywhere else in the Protestantworld.The "Church" in the earlyProtestant conceptionwas constitutedby the preaching of the Word and the right administration of thesacraments: the correction of the morals of the community was theconcernnotoftheChurchbutofthecivilpower.Asarecenthistorian-ProfessorKarlRieker - rather flippantly expresses it: "Luther,whenhehadpreachedandsowedtheseedoftheWord,lefttotheHolySpiritthecare of producing the fruit, while with his friend Philip he peacefullydrankhisglassofWittenbergbeer."Calvincouldnottakethisviewofthematter. "Whatever othersmay hold," he observed, "we cannot think sonarrowlyof ouroffice thatwhenpreaching isdoneour task is fulfilled,andwemaytakeourrest."InhisviewthemarkofatrueChurchisnotmerelythatthegospelispreachedinit,butthatitis"followed."ForhimtheChurchisthe"communionofsaints,"anditisincumbentuponittoseetoitthatit iswhatitprofessestobe.Fromthefirsthethereforesethimself strenuously to attain this end, and the instrument which hesoughttoemploytoattainitwas,briefly-Churchdiscipline.ItcomestouswithasurprisewhichisalmostashocktolearnthatweowetoCalvinall that is involved, for the purity and welfare of the Church, in theexerciseofChurchdiscipline.But that is thesimple truth,andsosharpwas the conflict bywhich the innovationwon a place for itself, and soimportant did the principle seem, that it became the mark of theReformedChurchesthattheymade"discipline"oneof the fundamentalcriteria of the true Church. Moreover, the application of this principlecarried Calvin very far, and, indeed, in its outworking gave the world

throughhimtheprincipleofafreeChurchinafreeState.Itisultimatelytohim,therefore,thattheChurchowesitsemancipationfromtheState,andtohimgoesbackthatgreatbattle-crywhichhassincefiredtheheartsofmanysaintsinmanycrisesinmanylands:"TheCrownRightsofKingJesusinHisChurch."

Censorship of manners and morals was not introduced by Calvin intoGeneva.Suchacensorship,oftenofthemostpettyandgallingkind,wasthe immemorial practice not only of Geneva but of all other similarlyconstitutedtowns.Itwaspartoftherecognizedpoliceregulationsofthetimes.Calvin'ssolerelationtothiscensorshipwasthroughhisinfluence-he never bore civil office or exercised civil authority in Geneva, and,indeed,acquiredtherightsofcitizenshipthereonlylateinlife-graduallyto bring some order and rationality into its exercise. What Calvinintroduced - and itwas so revolutionarywith respect both to the StateandtotheChurchthatitrequiredeighteenyearsofbitterstrugglebeforeitwasestablished-wasdistinctivelyChurchdiscipline.Theprinciplesonwhich he proceeded were already laid down in the first edition of his"Institutes"(springof1536).AndwhenhecametoGenevaintheautumnof1536helostnotimeinseekingtoputthemintopractice.Alreadyattheopeningof1537wefindadocumentdrawnupbyhiminthenameoftheministers of Geneva before the Council, in which the whole newconceptionisbrieflyoutlined.ThisgreatcharteroftheChurch'sliberties- for it is as truly such as the "Magna Charta" is the charter of Britishrights - openswith these simple and direct words: "It is certain that aChurchcannotbesaidtobewellorderedandgovernedunlesstheHolySupperofourLordisfrequently-celebratedandattendedinit,andthatwithsuchgoodregulationthatnoonewoulddaretopresenthimselfatitexceptwithpietyanddeepreverence.AnditisthereforenecessaryfortheChurchtomaintaininitsintegritythedisciplineofexcommunication,bywhich those should be correctedwho are unwilling to yield themselvesamiablyandinallobediencetotheholyWordofGod."Inthebodyofthedocumentthematterisargued,andthreethingsareproposed:First,thatitbeascertainedattheoutsetwhooftheinhabitantsofthetownwished"to avow themselves of the Church of Jesus Christ." For this, it issuggested that a brief and comprehensive Confession of Faith beprepared, and "all the inhabitants of your town" be required to "make

confession and render reason of their faith, that itmay be ascertainedwhichaccordwiththeGospel,andwhichprefertobeofthekingdomofthe Pope rather than of Jesus Christ." Secondly, that a catechism beprepared,andthechildrenbediligentlyinstructedintheelementsofthefaith.Andthirdly,thatprovisionbemadebytheappointmentof"certainpersonsofgoodlifeandgoodreputeamongallthefaithful,andlikewiseof constancy of spirit and not open to corruption," who should keepwatch over the conduct of the Church members, advise with them,admonishthem,andinobstinatecasesbringthemtotheattentionoftheministers,when, if they still proveunamenable, they are "tobeheld asrejectedfromthecompanyofChristians,"and"asasignofthis,rejectedfromthecommunionoftheLord'sSupper,anddenouncedtotherestofthefaithfulasnottobecompaniedwithfamiliarly."BythisprogrammeCalvin became nothing less than the creator of the Protestant Church.Theparticularpointstobeemphasizedinitaretwo.ItispurelyChurchdisciplinewhichiscontemplated,withnoneotherbutspiritualpenalties.And the Church is for this purpose especially discriminated from thebody of the people - the State - and awedge is thusdriven in betweenChurchandStatewhichwasboundtoseparatetheonefromtheother.

InclaimingfortheChurchthisdiscipline,Calvin,naturally,hadnowishinanywaytoinfringeuponthepoliceregulationsofthecivilauthorities.They continued, in their own sphere, to command his approval andcooperation.HehastheclearestconceptionofthelimitswithinwhichthedisciplineoftheChurchmustkeepitself,andexpresslydeclaresthatitisconfinedabsolutelytothespiritualpenaltyofexcommunication.ButhejustasexpresslysuggeststhattheState,onitsownpart,mightwelltakecognizance of spiritual offenses; and even invokes the aid of the civilmagistrate in support of the authority of theChurch. "This," he says totheCouncil,afteroutlininghisschemefortheappointmentoflayhelpers-ineffectelders-intheexerciseofdiscipline,-"thisseemstousagoodwaytointroduceexcommunicationintoourChurch,andtomaintainitinitsentirety.AndbeyondthiscorrectiontheChurchcannotproceed.Butifthereareanyso insolentandabandonedtoallperversity that theyonlylaugh at being excommunicated, and do not mind living and dying insuchaconditionofrejection,itwillbeforyoutoconsiderhowlongyouwill endure and leave unpunished such contempt and suchmockery of

God and His Gospel." This is not requiring the State to execute theChurch'sdecrees:theChurchexecutesherowndecrees,anditsextremestpenaltyisexcommunication.It isonlyrecognizingthattheStateaswellastheChurchmaytakeaccountofspiritualoffenses.Andparticularlyitisdeclaring thatwhile theChurchbyher own sanctionsprotectsher ownaltars,itisthepartoftheStatebyitsownsanctionstosustaintheChurchin protecting its altars. Calvin has not risen to the conception of thecomplete mutual independence of Church and State: his view stillincludestheconceptionofan"establishedChurch."Butthe"establishedChurch"which he pleads for is a Church absolutely autonomous in itsownspiritualsphere.Inaskingthishewasaskingforsomethingnewinthe Protestant world, and something in which lay the promise andpotency of all the freedomwhich has come to the Reformed Churchessince.

OfcourseCalvindidnotgetwhatheaskedforin1537.Nordidhegetitwhenhereturnedfromhisbanishmentin1541.Butheneverlostitfromsight;heneverceasedtocontendforit;hewasalwaysreadytosufferforits assertion and defense; and at last he won it. The spiritual libertieswhichhedemandedfortheChurchin1536,fortheassertionofwhichhewas banished in 1538, for the establishment of which he ceaselesslystruggled from 1541, he measurably attained at length in 1555. In thefruitsofthatgreatvictorywehaveallhadourpart.AndeveryChurchinProtestant Christendom which enjoys to-day any liberty whatever, inperformingitsfunctionsasaChurchofJesusChrist,owesitalltoJohnCalvin.Itwashewhofirstassertedthislibertyinhisearlymanhood-hewasonlytwenty-sevenyearsofagewhenhepresentedhisprogrammetotheCouncil; itwashewhofirstgained it ina lifelongstruggleagainstadetermined opposition; it was he who taught his followers to value itabovelifeitself,andtosecureittotheirsuccessorswiththeoutpouringoftheirblood.AndthusCalvin'sgreatfigurerisesbeforeusasnotonlyinatruesensethecreatoroftheProtestantChurch,buttheauthorofallthefreedomitexercisesinitsspiritualsphere.

It is impossible to linger here on the relations of this great exploit ofCalvin's, even to point out its rooting in his fundamental religiousconceptions,oritsissueinthecreationofaspiritinhisfollowerstothe

efflorescence of which this modern world of ours owes its freeinstitutions.Wecannotevenstop to indicateother importantclaimshehasuponourreverence.Wesaynothinghere,forexample,ofCalvinthepreacher-the"manoftheWord"asDoumerguecallshim,pronouncinghimassuchgreaterthanhewasas"manofaction"or"manofthought,"asbothofwhichhewasverygreat-whofortwenty-fiveyearsstoodinthepulpit ofGeneva, preaching sometimes daily, sometimes twice a day, awordtheechoesofwhichwereheardtotheconfinesofEurope.Wesaynothing, again, of his reorganization of the worship of the ReformedChurches,andparticularlyofhisgift to themof theserviceof song: fortheReformed Churches did not sing until Calvin taught them to do it.There aremanywho think that he did few things greater ormore far-reachingintheirinfluencethanthemakingofthePsalter-thatPsalterofwhich twenty-five editions were published in the first year of itsexistence, and sixty-two more in the next four years; which wastranslatedortransfusedintonearlyeverylanguageofEurope;andwhichwrought itself into the very flesh and bone of the struggling saintsthroughoutall the "killing times"ofProtestanthistory.Theactivities ofCalvin were too varied and multiplex, his influence in numerousdirections too enormous, to lend themselves to rapid enumeration.Wecanpause furtheronly to sayanecessarywordof that systemofdivinetruthwhich,byhiswinningrestatementandpowerfuladvocacyofit,hehas stamped with his name, and with his eye upon which a RomanCatholic writer of our day - CanonWilliam Barry - pronounces Calvin"undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and, perhaps, after St.Augustine,themostpersistentlyfollowedbyhisdisciplesofanywesternwriterontheology."

Ithasbecomeverymuchthecustomofmodernhistoriansto insist thatCalvin's was not an original but only a systematizing genius. Thus, forexample,ReinholdSeebergremarks:"Hiswasanacuteanddelicatebutnotacreativemind.""Asadogmatician,hefurnishednonewideas;butwiththemostdelicatesenseofperceptionhearrangedthedogmaticideasathand inaccordancewith theiressential characterand theirhistoricaldevelopment.""Hepossessedthewonderfultalentofcomprehendinganygivenbodyofreligious ideas in itsmostdelicaterefinementsandgivingappropriateexpressiontotheresultsofhis investigations."Accordingly,

he did not leave behind him "uncoined gold, like Luther," or"questionable coinage, likeMelanchthon," but good gold wellminted -and in this lies the explanation of the greatness of his influence as atheologian. The contention may very easily be overpressed. But at itsbasisthereliestheperceptionofaveryimportantfact;perhapswemaysaythemostimportantfactinthepremises.

Calvinwasa thoroughly independent studentofScripture, andbroughtforthfromthattreasure-housethingsnotonlyoldbutnew;andifitwasnotgiventohimtorecoverfortheworldsorevolutionizingadoctrineasthatofJustificationbyFaithalone,thecontributionsofhisfertilethoughtto doctrinal advance were neither few nor unimportant. He made anepoch in the history of the doctrine of theTrinity: byhis insistence on"self-existence"asaproperattributeofSonandSpirit aswell asof theFather, he drove out the lingering elements of Subordinationism, andsecuredtotheChurchadeepenedconsciousnessoftheco-equalityoftheDivine Persons. He introduced the presentation of the work of ChristundertherubricsofthethreefoldofficeofProphet,Priest,andKing.HecreatedthewholedisciplineofChristianEthics.ButaboveallhegavetotheChurchtheentiredoctrineoftheWorkoftheHolySpirit,profoundlyconceivedandwroughtout in itsdetails,with its fruitfuldistinctionsofcommonandefficaciousgrace,ofnoëtic,aisthetic,andthelematiceffects,- a gift, we venture to think, so great, so pregnant with benefit to theChurchasfairlytogivehimaplacebythesideofAugustineandAnselmandLuther,astheTheologianoftheHolySpirit,astheywererespectivelytheTheologianofGrace,oftheAtonement,andofJustification.

Nevertheless,despitesuchcontributions–contributionsofthefirstorder- to theologicaladvance, it isquite true -and it isa truthdeserving thestrongestemphasis-thatthesystemofdoctrinewhichCalvintaught,andbyhispowerfulcommendationofwhichhisgreatestworkfortheworldwaswrought,wasnotpeculiartohimself,wasinnosensenew,-was,inpointoffact,just"theGospel"commontohimandalltheReformers,onthegroundofwhich theyspokeof themselvesas "Evangelicals,"andbytherecoveryofwhichwaswroughtout therevolutionwhichwecall theReformation.Calvindidnotoriginatethissystemoftruth;as"amanofthesecondgeneration"heinheritedit,andhisgreatestsignificanceasa

religiousteacheristhatbyhisexactanddelicatesenseofdoctrinalvaluesandrelationsandhisgeniusforsystematicconstruction,hewasable,asnone other was, to cast this common doctrinal treasure of theReformationintoawell-compacted,logicallyunassailable,andreligiouslyinspiring whole. In this sense it is as systematizer that he makes hisgreatestdemandonouradmirationandgratitude.ItwashewhogavetheEvangelicalmovementatheology.

The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the AugustinianismcommontothewholebodyoftheReformersfortheReformationwas,asfrom the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from thetheological point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. And thisAugustinianismistaughtbyhimnotasanindependentdiscoveryofhisown, but fundamentally as he learned it from Luther, whose fertileconceptions he completely assimilated, andmost directly and inmuchdetail fromMartinBucer intowhose practical, ethical point of view heperfectly entered. Many of the very forms of statement mostcharacteristic of Calvin - on such topics as Predestination, Faith, thestagesofSalvation,theChurch,theSacraments-onlyreproduce,thoughofcoursewith thatclearnessandreligiousdepthpeculiar toCalvin, theprecise teachings of Bucer, who was above all others, accordingly,Calvin'smaster intheology.Ofcoursehedoesnottakethese ideasoverfromBucerandrepeatthembyrote.Theyhavebecomehisownandissueafresh from himwith a new exactness and delicacy of appreciation, inthemselves and in their relations, with a new development ofimplications,andespeciallywithanewrichnessofreligiouscontent.FortheprimecharacteristicofCalvinasatheologianispreciselythepracticalinterest which governs his entire thought and the religious profunditywhichsuffusesitall.Itwasnottheheadbuttheheartwhichmadehimatheologian, and it is not the head but the heart which he primarilyaddressesinhistheology.

He takes his start, of course, from God, knowledge of whom andobediencetowhomhedeclaresthesumofhumanwisdom.ButthisGodhe conceives as righteous love - Lord as well as Father, of course, butFatheraswell asLord;whosewill is, of course, theprimacausa rerum(forisHenotGod?),butwhosewillalsoitwillbeourjoyaswellasour

wisdom to embrace (for is He not our Father?). It was that we mightknow ourselves to be wholly in the hands of this God of perfectrighteousnessandgoodness-not inthoseofmen,whetherourselvesorsome other men - that he was so earnest for the doctrine ofpredestination: which is nothing more than the declaration of thesupreme dominion of God. It was that our eternal felicity might hangwhollyonGod'smightylove-andnotonoursinfulweakness-thathewasso zealous for the doctrine of election:which is nothingmore than theascriptionofourentiresalvationtoGod.Ashecontemplatedthemajestyof this Sovereign Father of men, his whole being bowed in reverencebeforeHim, and hiswhole heart burnedwith zeal forHis glory. As heremembered that this great God has become in His own Son theRedeemerofsinners,hepassionatelygavehimselftotheproclamationofthe glory of His grace. Into His hands he committed himself withoutreserve:hiswholespiritpantedtobeinallitsmovementsubjectedtoHisgovernment - or, to bemore specific, to the "leading ofHis Spirit." Allthatwasgoodinhim,allthegoodhehopedmightbeformedinhim,heascribedtothealmightyworkingofthisDivineSpirit.The"gloryofGodalone"-the"leadingoftheSpirit"(or,asabrightyoungFrenchstudentof his thought has lately expressed it, la maitrise, the "mastery," thecontrol, of the Spirit),-became thus the twin principles of his wholethoughtand life.Or, rather, thedoubleexpressionof theone principle;for-sinceallthatGoddoes,HedoesbyHisSpirit-thetwoareatbottomone.

Here we have the secret of Calvin's greatness and the source of hisstrengthunveiledtous.NomaneverhadaprofoundersenseofGodthanhe; noman evermore unreservedly surrendered himself to the Divinedirection."WecannotbettercharacterizethefundamentaldispositionofCalvinthemanandthereformer,"writesarecentGermanstudentofhislife-BernhardBess-"thaninthewordsofthePsalm:'Whatisman,thatthou artmindful of him? and the son ofman, that thou visitest him?'AfterthatvirtuosoinreligionofancientIsrael,noonehasspokenofthemajestyofGodandtheinsignificanceofmanwithsuchfeelingandtruthas Calvin. The appearance which Luther's expressions often give, as ifGodexistsmerelyforman'ssake,neverisgivenbyCalvin.Godisforhimthealmightywillwhichliesbehindallthatcomestopass.Whatcomesto

pass in theworld serves no doubtman, theChurch, and salvation; butthisisnotitsultimateend,buttherevelationofthegloryandthehonorof God." If there is anything that will make a man great, surely it isplacinghimselfunreservedlyatthedisposalofGodandseekingnotonlytodonothingbutGod'swill,buttodoallGod'swill.ThisiswhatCalvindid,anditisbecausehedidthisthathewassogreat.Hewas,ofcourse,notwithouthisweaknesses.Hehadnodoubtahightemper,thoughtodohimjusticewemusttaketheterminallitssenses.Hedidnotinallthingsrisesuperior to thebestopinionofhisage.Wehaveseen, forexample,thathewasinfullaccordwithhistimeinitsextensionofthecognizanceof the civil courts to spiritualoffenses;and itwasby theconsentofhismindtothisuniversalconvictionofthedaythathewasimplicatedinthatunhappy occurrence - the execution of Servetus. But to do him justiceherewemustlearntospeakbothofhisconnectionwiththatoccurrenceandofServetushimself inquiteother terms than the reckless languagewithwhichamodernwriterof repute speakswhenhe callsCalvin "theauthorofthegreatcrimeoftheage-themurderoftheheroicServetus."Servetus, that "fool of genius," as a recent writer, not without insight,characterizeshim,wasanythingbutanheroic figure.The"crime"ofhis"murder,"unfortunately,hadscoresof fellows in that age, inwhich lifewaslightlyvalued,anditwasagreedonallhandsthatgraveheresyandgross blasphemy were capital offenses in well-organized states. AndServetuswascondemnedandexecutedbyatribunalofwhichCalvinwasnot a member, with which he possessed little influence, and whichrejected his petition against the unnecessary cruelty of the penaltyinflicted.

"There are people," remarks Paul Wernle, who is certainly under theinfluenceofnoglamourforCalvinorCalvinism-"TherearepeoplewhohavebeentoldatschoolthatServetuswasburnedthroughCalvin'sfault,andarethereforedonewiththisman.Theyoughttorememberthathadtheylivedatthetime,theywouldinallprobabilityhavejoinedinburninghim.Itisnotsoeasytobedonewiththemanwhowasthemostluminousandpenetratingtheologianofhistimeandthesourcefromwhichflowedthat power which Protestantism showed in Scotland, France, England,Holland.Weareallglad,nodoubt,thatwedidnotliveunderhisrod;butwho knows what we would all be, had not this divine ardor possessed

him?Concentrated,well-directed enthusiasm that ishis essence; itwashimself,firstofall,whomheconsumedinhiszeal;hisruleatGenevawasno more rigorous than the heroism was glorious with which hecompactedhalftheProtestantismofEuropeintoapowerwhichnothingcould break. Calvin was in very truth the soul of the battling andconqueringReformedworld; itwashewhofoughtonthebattlefieldsofthe Huguenots and the Dutch, and in the hosts of the Puritans. InscarcelyanotheroftheReformersistheretobeseensuchthoroughness,absoluteness.Andyetwhatmoderation,whatrealdreadofeverykindofexcess; withwhat deference and tact did he know how to speak to thegreat!Ifyouwouldknowtheman,howhelivedwithandforGodandtheworld, read first of all in the Institutes the section On the Life of theChristianMan. It is the portrait of himself. And then for his religiousindividuality add the sections On Justification and On Predestination,wherewill be foundwhat ismost profound,mostmoving in his life offaith."

SuchamanwasJohnCalvin;andsuchwastheworkhedidforGodandHis Kingdom on earth. Adolf Harnack has said that between Paul theApostle andLuther theReformer,Augustinewas the greatestmanGodgaveHisChurch.Wemaysurelyadd that fromLuther theReformer toourdayGodhasgivenHisChurchnogreatermanthanJohnCalvin.

Calvin'sDoctrineoftheKnowledgeofGod1

BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

The first chapters of Calvin's "Institutes" are taken up with acomprehensiveexpositionofthesourcesandguaranteeoftheknowledgeofGodanddivinethings(BookI.chs.i.-ix.).Asystematictreatiseontheknowledge of God must needs begin with such an exposition; and werequirenoaccountofthecircumstancethatCalvin'streatisebeginswithit, beyond the systematic character of his mind and the clearness andcomprehensiveness of his view. This exposition therefore makes itsappearanceintheearliesteditionofthe"Institutes,"whichattempted"togiveasummaryofreligioninallitsparts,"redactedinorderlysequence;thatistosay,whichwasintendedasatextbookintheology.Thiswasthesecondedition,publishedin1539,whichwasconsideredbyCalvintobethe first which at all corresponded to its title. In this edition thisexposition already stands practically complete. Large insertions weremadeintoitsubsequently,bywhichitwasgreatlyenrichedasadetailedexpositionandvalidationofthesourcesofourknowledgeofGod;butnomodificationsweremadeinitsfundamentalteachingbytheseadditions,andthegroundplanoftheexpositionaslaiddownin1539wasretainedunalteredthroughoutthesubsequentdevelopmentofthetreatise.

Wemayobserve inthecontroversies inwhichCalvinhadbeenengagedbetween 1536 and 1539 a certain preparation for writing thiscomprehensive and admirably balanced statement, with its equalrepudiation of Romish and Anabaptist error and its high note ofassuranceinthefaceofthescepticismoftheaveragemanoftheworld.We may trace in it the fruits of his eager and exhaustive studiesprosecuted in the interval, as pastor, professor, and Protestantstatesman;andespeciallyofhisownripeningthoughtasheworkedmoreandmoreintodetailhissystematicviewofthebodyoftruth.Butwecanattributetonothingbuthistheologicalgeniusthefeatbywhichheseta

compressedapologeticaltreatiseintheforefrontofhislittlebook-forthe"Institutes"werestillin1539alittlebook,althoughalreadyexpandedtomorethandoublethesizeoftheiroriginalform(editionof1536).Thushenot only for the first time supplied the constructive basis for theReformation movement, but even for the first time in the history ofChristian theology drew in outline the plan of a complete structure ofChristianApologetics.ForthisisthesignificanceinthehistoryofthoughtofCalvin's expositionof the sourcesandguaranteeof theknowledgeofGod, which forms the opening topic of his "Institutes." "Thus," saysJulius Köstlin, after cursorily surveying the course of the exposition,"there already rises with him an edifice of Christian Apologetics, in itsoutlines complete (fertig). With it, he stands, already in 1539, unique(einzig) among the Reformers, and among Christian theologians ingeneral up to his day. Only as isolated building-stones can appear incomparison with this, even whatMelanchthon, for example, offered inthe last elaboration of the Loci with reference to the proofs for theexistence of God."2 In point of fact, in Augustine alone among hispredecessorsdowefindanythinglikethesamegraspoftheelementsofthe problem as Calvin here exhibits; and nowhere among hispredecessors do we find these elements brought together in aconstructivestatementofanythinglikethecompletenessandsystematicbalancewhichhegavetoit.

At once on its publication, however, Calvin's apologetical constructionbecamethepropertyofuniversalChristianthought,andithasenteredsovitally into Protestant, and especially Reformed, thinking as to appearnow-a-days very much a matter of course. It is difficult for us toappreciateitsnoveltyinhimortorealizethatitisnotasnativetoeveryChristianmind as it now seems to us the inevitable adjustment of theelementsoftheproblemsraisedbytheChristianrevelation.Familiarasitseems,therefore,itisimportantthatweshouldapprehendit,at leastinitsoutlines,as it lies in itsprimarystatement inCalvin'spages.SoonlycanweappreciateCalvin'sgeniusorestimatewhatweowetohim.Averybriefabstractwillprobablysuffice,however,tobringbeforeusinthefirstinstancetheelementsofCalvin's thought.These includethepostulationof an innate knowledge of God inman, quickened and developed by averyrichmanifestationofGodinnatureandprovidence,which,however,

fails of its proper effect because ofman's corruption in sin; so that anobjective revelation of God, embodied in the Scriptures, was renderednecessary,and,aswell,asubjectiveoperationoftheSpiritofGodontheheart enabling sinfulman to receive this revelation - bywhich conjointdivine action, objective and subjective, a true knowledge of God iscommunicatedtothehumansoul.

Drawn out a little more into detail, this teaching is as follows. TheknowledgeofGod isgiven in thevery sameactbywhichweknowself.Forwhenweknowself,wemustknowitasitis:andthatmeanswemustknowitasdependent,derived,imperfect,andresponsiblebeing.Toknowself implies, therefore, theco-knowledgewith selfof thatonwhich it isdependent, from which it derives, by the standard of which itsimperfection is revealed, to which it is responsible. Of course, such aknowledgeofselfpostulatesaknowledgeofGod,incontrastwithwhomalonedoweevertrulyknowself:butthisonlythemoreemphasisesthefact thatwe knowGod in knowing self, and the relative priority of ourknowledge of twoobjects of knowledgewhichwe are conscious only ofknowingtogethermayforthemomentbeleftundetermined.Meanwhile,itisclearthanmanhasaninstinctiveandineradicableknowledgeofGod,which, moreover, must produce appropriate reactions in his thought,feeling,andwill,whenceariseswhatwecallreligion.Butthesereactionsareconditionedbythestateofthesoulwhichreacts.Although,then,mancannotavoidpossessingaknowledgeofGod,andthisinnateknowledgeofGodisquickenedanddevelopedbytherichestmanifestationsofGodinnatureandprovidence,whichnomancanescapeeitherperceivingorsofarapprehending,yettheactualknowledgeofGodwhichisframedinthe human soul is affected by the subjective condition of the soul. Thesoul,beingcorruptedbysin, isdulled in its instinctiveapprehensionofGod; and God's manifestation in nature and history is deflected in it.AccordinglythetestimonyofnaturetoGodisinsufficientthatsinfulmanshouldknowHimaright,andGodhasthereforesupernaturallyrevealedHimselftoHispeopleanddepositedthisrevelationofHimselfinwrittenScriptures. In these Scriptures alone, therefore, do we possess anadequate revelation of God; and this revelation is attested as such byirresistibleexternalevidenceandattests itselfassuchbysuchmarksofinherent divinity that no normal mind can resist them. But the sin-

darkenedmindstowhichitappealsarenotnormalminds,butdisorderedwith the awful disease of sin.What is to give subjective effect in a sin-blindedmindtoevenadirectrevelationfromGod?TherevelationofGodisitsowncredential.Itneedsnootherlighttobethrownuponitbutthatwhich emanates from itself: and no other light can produce the effectwhichitsownsplendorasarevelationofGodshouldeffect.Butall failswhen thereceptivity isdestroyedbysin.Forsinners, therefore, there isrequisite a repairing operation upon their souls before the light of theWorditself canaccredit itself to themas light.This repairingoperationonthesoulsofsinfulmenbywhichtheyareenabledtoperceivelightiscalled the testimony of the Holy Ghost: which is therefore just thesubjectiveactionoftheSpiritofGodontheheart,byvirtueofwhichitisopened for the perception and reception of the objective revelation ofGod. The testimony of the Spirit cannot, then, take the place of theobjectiverevelationoftheWord:itisnorevelationinthisstrictsense.Itpresupposes the objective revelation and only prepares the heart torespondtoandembraceit.Buttheobjectiverevelationcantakenoeffecton theunpreparedheart.What the operationof theSpirit on theheartdoes,then,istoimplant,orrathertorestore,aspiritualsenseinthesoulbywhichGod is recognized inHisWord.When this spiritual sense hasbeenproducedthenecessityofexternalproofsthattheScripturesaretheWordofGodissuperseded:theWordofGodisasimmediatelyperceivedas such as light is perceived as light, sweetness as sweetness - asimmediately and as inamissibly. The Christian's knowledge of God,therefore, rests no doubt on an instinctive perception of God native toman as man, developed in the light of a patefaction of God whichpervades all nature and history; but particularly on an objectiverevelationofGoddepositedinScriptureswhichbearinthemselvestheirown evidence of their divine origin, to which every spiritual manrespondswiththesamestrengthofconvictionwithwhichherecognizeslight as light. This is the basiswhich Calvin in his " Institutes " placesbeneathhissystematicexpositionoftheknowledgeofGod.

The elements of Calvin's thought here, it will readily be seen, reducethemselves to a few great fundamental principles. These embraceparticularlythefollowingdoctrines:thedoctrineoftheinnateknowledgeof God; the doctrine of the general revelation of God in nature and

history;thedoctrineofthespecialrevelationofGodanditsembodimentinScriptures;thedoctrineofthenoeticeffectsofsin;thedoctrineofthetestimonyof theHoly Spirit. Thatwemaydo justice tohis thoughtwemustlookinsomedetailathistreatmentofeachofthesedoctrinesandofthesubordinatetopicswhicharenecessarilyconnectedwiththem.

I.NATURALREVELATION

ThattheknowledgeofGodisinnate(I.iii.3),naturallyengravedontheheartsofmen(I.iv.4),andsoapartoftheirveryconstitutionasmen(I.iii.1),thatitisamatterofinstinct(I.iii.1,I.iv.2),andeverymanisself-taughtitfromhisbirth(I.iii.3),Calvinisthoroughlyassured.Helaysitdownas incontrovertible fact that"thehumanmind,bynatural instinctitself, possesses some sense of a deity" (I. iii. 1, ad init. et ad fin.; 3 -sensus divinitatis or deitatis),3 and defends the corollaries which flowfromthis fact, that theknowledgeofGod isuniversaland indelible.Allmen know there is aGod,who hasmade them, and towhom they areresponsible.Nosavageissunksolowastohavelostthissenseofdeity,whichiswroughtintohisveryconstitution:andthedegradationofmen'sworship is a proof of its ineradicableness - since even suchdehumanizationasthisworshipmanifestshasnotobliteratedit(I.iii.1).Itisthepreconditionofallreligion,withoutwhichnoreligionwouldeverhavearisen;anditformsthesilentassumptionofallattemptstoexpoundthe origin of religion in fraud or political artifice, as it does also of allcorruptions of religion, which find their nerve in men's incurablereligiouspropensities(I.iii.1).Theveryatheiststestifytoitspersistenceintheirill-concealeddreadofthedeitytheyprofesstodespise(I. iv.2);and the wicked, strive they ever so hard to banish from theirconsciousnessthesenseofanaccusingdeity,arenotpermittedbynaturetoforgetit(I.iii.3).Thusthecasesalikeofthesavages,theatheists,andthewicked aremade contributory to the establishment of the fact, andthe discussion concludes with the declaration that it is by this innateknowledgeofGodthatmenarediscriminatedfromthebrutes,sothatformentoloseitwouldbetofallawayfromtheverylawoftheircreation(I.iii.3,adfin.).4

If theknowledgeofGodenters thus into thevery ideaofhumanityandconstitutesalawofitsbeing,itfollowsthatitisgiveninthesameactof

knowledge by which we know ourselves. This position is developed atlengthintheopeningchapter.ThediscussionbeginswitharemarkwhichremindsusofAugustine'sfamiliarcontentionthattheproperconcernofmankind is theknowledgeofGod and the soul; towhich it is added atoncethatthesetwoknowledgesaresointerrelatedthatitisimpossibletoassigntheprioritytoeither.Theknowledgeofselfinvolvestheknowledgeof God and also profits by the knowledge of God: the better we knowourselves the betterwe shall knowGod, but also, we shall never knowourselvesaswereallyaresaveincontrastwithGod,bywhomissuppliedthe only standard for the formation of an accurate judgment uponourselves(I. i. 2). In his analysis of themode of the implication of theknowledge ofGod in the knowledge of self, Calvin lays the stress uponour nature as dependent, derived, imperfect, and responsible beings,which ifknownatallmustbeknownassuch,andtobeknownassuchmustbeknownasoveragainstthatBeingonwhomwearedependent,towhomweoweourbeing,overagainstwhomourimperfectionismanifest,andtowhomweareresponsible(I. i.1).Aswearenotself-existent,wemust recognize ourselves as "living and moving" in Another. Werecognize ourselves as products, and in knowing the product know thecause; thusourveryendowments, seeing that theydistil tousbydropsfrom heaven, form so many streams up which our minds must needstravel to their Fountainhead. The perception of our imperfections is atthesametimetheperceptionofHisperfection;sothatourverypovertydisplays to us His infinite fulness. Our sense of dissatisfaction withourselvesdirectsoureyestoHimwhoserighteousjudgmentwecanbutanticipate; and when in the presence of His majesty we realize ourmeannessandinthepresenceofHisrighteousnesswerealizeoursin,ourperceptionofGodpassesintoconsternationaswerecognizeinHimourjustJudge.

TheemphasiswhichCalvinplaces inthisanalysisuponthesenseofsinandthepartitplaysinourknowledgeofGod,atonceattractsattention.It is perhaps above everything the "miserable ruin" in which we findourselves,whichcompelsus,accordingtohim,toraiseoureyestowardsheaven,spurredonnotmerelybyasenseoflackbutbyasenseofdread:it is only, he declares, when we have begun to be displeased withourselves that we energetically turn our thoughts Godward. This is

already an indication of the engrossment of Calvin in this treatisewithpracticalratherthanmerelytheoreticalproblems.HeislessconcernedtoshowhowmanasmanattainstoaknowledgeofGod,thanhowmanasheactuallyexistsupontheearthattainstoit.Intheveryactofdeclaringthatthisknowledgeisinstinctiveandbelongstotheveryconstitutionofman as such, therefore, he so orders the exposition of themode of itsactualriseinthemindastothrowtheemphasisonaqualitywhichdoesnot belong toman as such, but only toman as actually existing in theworld- inthat"miserableruin intowhichwehavebeenplungedbythedefectionofthefirstman"(I.i.1).Manasunfallen,bytheverynecessityofhisnaturewouldhaveknownGod,thesphereofhisbeing,theauthorof his existence, the standard of his excellences; but forman as fallen,Calvinseemstosay,thestrongestforcecompellinghimtolookupwardsto theGodabovehim, streams fromhis senseof sin, fillinghimwithafearfullookingforwardtojudgment.

ItisquiteobviousthatsuchaknowledgeofGodasCalvinherepostulatesastheunavoidableandineradicablepossessionofman,isfarfromamereemptyconvictionthatsuchabeingasGodexists.TheknowledgeofGodwhich is given in our knowledgeof self is not a bareperception, it is aconception:ithascontent."Theknowledgeofourselves,therefore,"saysCalvin(I. i.1,adfin.)," isnotonlyanincitementtoseekafterGod,butbecomesaconsiderableassistancetowardsfindingGod."TheknowledgeofGodwithwhichwearenativelyendowedisthereforemorethanabareconviction that God is: it involves, more or less explicated, someunderstanding of what God is. Such a knowledge of God can never beotioseandinert;butmustproduceaneffectinhumansouls,inthewayofthinking, feeling,willing. In otherwords, our native endowment is notmerelyasensusdeitatis,butalsoasemenreligionis(I.iii.1,2;iv.1,4;v.1).ForwhatwecallreligionisjustthereactionofthehumansoultowhatitperceivesGodtobe.Calvinis,therefore,justasinsistentthatreligionisuniversal as that the knowledge of God is universal. "The seeds ofreligion,"heinsists,"aresownineveryheart"(I.iv.1;cf.v.1);menarepropensetoreligion(I.iii.2,med.);andalwaysandeverywhereframetothemselvesareligion,consonantwiththeirconceptionsofGod.

Calvin's ideas of the origin and nature of religion are set forth, if

succinctly, yetwith eminent clearness, inhis second chapter.WhereveranyknowledgeofGodexists,he tellsus, therereligionexists.He isnotspeaking here of a competent knowledge of God such as redeemedsinnershaveinChrist.ButmuchlessishespeakingofthatmerenotionthatthereissuchabeingasGodwhichissometimescalledaknowledgeofGod.Itmaybepossibletospeculateon"theessence"ofGodwithoutbeing moved by it. But certainly it is impossible to form any vitalconceptionofGodwithoutsomemovementofintellect,feeling,andwilltowards Him; and any real knowledge of God is inseparable frommovements of piety towards Him. Piety means reverence and love toGod; and the knowledge ofGod tends therefore to produce in us, first,sentimentsoffearandreverence;and,secondly,anattitudeofreceptivityand praise to Him as the fountain of all blessing. If man were not asinner,indeed,suchwouldbetheresult:men,knowingGod,wouldturntoHiminconfidenceandcommitthemselveswithoutreservetoHiscare- not so much fearing His judgments, as making them in sympatheticloyalty their own (I. ii. 2). And herein we see what pure and genuinereligion is: "it consists in faith, united with a serious fear of God,comprehendingavoluntaryreverence,andproducinglegitimateworshipagreeabletotheinjunctionsofthelaw"(I.ii.2,adfin.).5

The definition of religion to which Calvin thus attains is exceedinglyinteresting, and that not merely because of its vital relation to thefundamental thought of these opening chapters, but also because of itscareful adjustment to the state of the controversy in which he wasengagedasaleaderoftheReformation.Inthefirstoftheseaspects,aswehave already pointed out, religion is with him the vital effect of theknowledge of God in the human soul; so that inevitably religions willdifferastheconceptionsofGoddeterminingourthoughtandfeelinganddirecting our life differ. In the estate of purity, the knowledge of Godproduces reverence and trust: and the religion of sinless man willtherefore exhibit no other traits but trust and love. In sinful man, thesameknowledgeofGodmustproduce,rather,areactionoffearandhate-untilthegraceofGodinterveneswithamessageofmercy.Sinfulmancannot be trusted, therefore, to form his own religion for himself, butmustinallhisreligiousfunctioningplacehimselfunreservedlyunderthedirectionofGodinHisgraciousrevelation.Initssecondaspect,then,we

perceiveCalvincarefullyframinghisdefinitionsoastoexcludeall"will-worship" and to prepare the way for the condemnation of the "formalworship"and"ostentationinceremonies"whichhadbecomeprevalentintheoldChurch.Thepositionhetakesuphereisessentiallythatwhichhascome down to us under the name of "the Puritan principle." Religionconsists,ofcourse,notintheexternalitiesofworship,butinfaith,unitedwith a serious fear of God, and a willing reverence. But its externalexpression inworship isnot thereforeunimportant,but is tobe strictlyconfinedtowhatisprescribedbyGod:to"legitimateworship,agreeabletotheinjunctionsofthelaw"(I.ii.2,adfin.).Thisdeclarationisreturnedtoandexpoundedinastrikingsectionofthefourthchapter(I.iv.3;cf.I.v. 13),whereCalvin insists that "thedivinewill is theperpetual rule towhich true religion is to be conformed," and asserts of newly inventedmodes of worshipping God, that they are tantamount to idolatry. Godcannot be pleased by showing contempt for what He commands andsubstitutingother thingswhichHe condemns; and nonewould dare totrifle in such amannerwithHim unless they had already transformedHimintheirmindsintoanotheranddifferentBeing:andinthatcaseitisoflittleimportancewhetheryouworshiponegodormany.6

Fromthisdigression for the sakeofasserting the "Puritan," that is, the"Reformed,"principlewithreferencetoacceptableworship,it isalreadyapparent that Calvin did not suppose that men have been left to thenotitiaDeiinsitafortheframingoftheirreligion,althoughheisinsistentthat therefrom proceeds a propensity to religionwhich already securesthatallmenshallhaveareligion(I.ii.2).Onthecontrary,heteachesthatto the ineradicable revelation of Himself which He has imprinted onhumannature,Godhasaddedanequallyclearandabundantrevelationof Himself externally to us. As we cannot know ourselves withoutknowingGod, soneither canwe look abroad onnature or contemplatethecourseofeventswithoutseeingHim inHisworksanddeeds (I.v.).Calvin is exceedingly emphatic as to the clearness, universality, andconvincingnessofthisnaturalrevelationofGod.Thewholeworldisbutatheatreforthedisplayofthedivineglory(I.v.5);GodmanifestsHimselfineverypartof it,and,turnoureyeswhicheverwaywewill,wecannotavoidseeingHim;forthereisnoatomoftheworldinwhichsomesparksofHisglorydonotshine(I.v.1).SopervasiveisGodinnature,indeed,

that itmay even be said by a piousmind that nature isGod (I. v. 5) -thoughtheexpressionistooreadilymisapprehendedinaPantheistic(I.v.5)orMaterialistic(I.v.4)sensetojustifyitsuse.Accordingly,nomancanescape thismanifestationofGod;wecannotopenoureyeswithoutseeing it, and the language in which it is delivered to us penetratesthrough even the densest stupidity and ignorance (I. v. 1). To everyindividualonearth, therefore,with the exclusion of none (I. v. 7),GodabundantlymanifestsHimself(I.v.2).EachoftheworksofGodinvitesthe whole human race to the knowledge of Him; while theircontemplation in themass offers an evenmore prevalent exhibition ofHim(I.v.10).AndsoclearareHisfootstepsinHisprovidence,thatevenwhat are commonly called accidents are only so many proofs of Hisactivity(I.v.8).

In developing this statement of the external natural revelation of God,Calvinpresents firstHispatefaction in creation (I. v. 1-6)and thenHispatefaction in providence (I. v. 7-9), and under each head lays theprimarystressonthemanifestationsofthedivinewisdomandpower(I.v.2-5,wisdom;6,power;8,wisdomandpower).Buttheotherattributeswhich enter into His glory are not neglected. Thus, under the formercaption,hepointsoutthattheperceptionofthedivinepowerincreation"leadsustotheconsiderationofHiseternity;becauseHefromwhomallthingsderive theiroriginmustnecessarilybeeternal and self-existent,"while we must postulate goodness and mercy as the motives of Hiscreation and providence (I. v. 6). Under the second caption, he isparticularly copious in drawing out the manifestations of the divinebenignityandbeneficence-ofHisclemency-thoughhedoesnotscruplealso to point to the signs of His severity (I. v. 7, cf. 10). From theparticular contemplation of the divine clemency and severity in theirpeculiardistributionhere, indeed,hepauses todrawanargument forafuturelifewhenapparentirregularitieswillbeadjusted(I.v.10).

ThevigorandenthusiasmwithwhichCalvinprosecuteshisexpositionofthe patefaction of God in nature and history is worth emphasisingfurther.Heeventurnsaside(I.v.9)toexpresshisspecialconfidenceinit,incontrasttoapriorireasoning,asthe"rightwayandthebestmethodof seeking God." A speculative inquiry into the essence of God, he

suggests,merelyfatiguesthemindandfluttersinthebrain.Ifwewouldknow God vitally, in our hearts, let us rather contemplate Him in Hisworks. These, we shall find, as the Psalmist points out, declare Hisgreatness and conduce toHis praise.Oncemore,wemay observe heretheconcretenessofCalvin'smindandmethod,andareremindedof thepractical end he keeps continually in view.7 So far is he from losinghimself in merely speculative elaborations or prosecuting his inquiriesunder the spur of "presumptuous curiosity," that the practical religiousmotiveisalwayspresent,dominatinghisthought.Hisspecialinterestinthetheisticargumentis,accordingly,duelesstotheconsiderationthatitroundsouthissystematicviewoftruththantothefactthatithelpsustothevitalknowledgeofGod.Andthereforeheisnomoreanxioustosetitforthinitsfullforcethanheistopointoutthelimitationswhichaffectitspracticalvalue.8 Inandof itself, indeed, ithasno limitations;Calvin isfullyassuredofitsvalidityandanalysesitsdatawithentireconfidence;tohim nothing ismore certain than that in themirror ofHis works Godgives us clear manifestations both of Himself and of His everlastingdominion (I. v. 11). But Calvin cannot content himself with anintellectualistic contemplation of the objective validity of the theisticargument. So dominated is he by practical interests that he actuallyattachestothechapterinwhichhearguesthisobjectivevalidityaseriesofsectionsinwhichheequallystronglyarguesthesubjectiveinabilityofmantoreceiveitstestimony.Objectivelyvalidasthetheisticproofsare,theyareineffectivetoproduceajustknowledgeofGodinthesinfulheart.The insertion of these sections here is the more striking in that theyalmost seem unnecessary in view of the clear exposition of the noeticeffects of sinwhich had beenmade in the preceding chapter (ch. iv.) -although,ofcourse,theretheimmediatereferencewastothenotitiaDeiinsita,whilehereitistothenotitiaDeiacquisita.

Thus,however,ourattentionisdrawnverypointedlytoCalvin'sdoctrineof the disabilities with reference to the knowledge of God which areinduced in the human mind by sin. He has, as has just been noted,advertedformallytothemtwiceintheseopeningchaptersofhistreatise-ontheearlieroccasion(ch.iv.)withespecialreferencetotherevelationofGodmadeintheconstitutionofhumannature,andonthelateroccasion(ch.v.§§11-15)withespecialreferencetotherevelationofGodmadein

Hisworksanddeeds.Weremaninhisnormalstate,hecouldnotunderthis double revelation, internal and external, fail to know God as Godwould wish to be known. If he actually comes short of an adequateknowledge of God, therefore, this cannot be attributed to anyshortcomingsintherevelationofGod.Calvinisperfectlyclearastotheobjective adequacy of the general revelation of God.Men, however, docomeshortofanadequateknowledgeofGod;andthatnotmerelysomemen,butallmen:thefailureofthegeneralrevelationofGodtoproduceinmenanadequateknowledgeofHimisasuniversalasistherevelationitself.Theexplanationistobefoundinthecorruptionofmen'sheartsbysin,bywhichnotmerelyare theyrendered incapableof readingoff therevelation ofGodwhich is displayed inHisworks anddeeds, but theirvery instinctive knowledge of God, embedded in their constitution asmen, is dulled and almost obliterated. The energy with which Calvinassertsthisisalmoststartling,andmatchesinitsemphasisthatwhichhehadplacedontherealityandobjectivevalidityof therevelationofGod.ThoughtheseedsofreligionaresownbyGodineveryheart,yetnotonemaninahundredhaspreservedeventheseseedssound,andinnooneatallhavetheygrowntotheirlegitimateharvest.AllhavedegeneratedfromthetrueknowledgeofGod,andgenuinepietyhasperishedfromtheearth(I.iv.1).ThelightwhichGodhaskindledinthebreastsofmenhasbeensmothered and all but extinguished by their iniquity (I. iv. 4). Themanifestation which God has given of Himself in the structure andorganization of theworld is lost on our stupidity (I. v. 11). The rays ofGod'sgloryarediffusedallaroundus,butdonotilluminatethedarknessofourmind(I.v.14).Sothatinpointoffact,"menwhoaretaughtonlybynature,havenocertain,soundordistinctknowledge,butareconfinedtoconfusedprinciples;theyworshipaccordinglyanunknownGod"(I.v.12, fin.): "no man can have the least knowledge of true and sounddoctrine without having been a disciple of the Scriptures" (I. vi. 2, adfin.): "the human mind is through its imbecility unable to attain anyknowledgeofGodwithouttheassistanceoftheSacredWord"(I.vi.4,adfin.).

Calvin therefore teaches with great emphasis the bankruptcy of thenaturalknowledgeofGod.Wemustkeepfullyinmind,however,thatthisis not due in his view to any inadequacy or ineffectiveness of natural

revelation,consideredobjectively.9Hecontinuestoinsistthattheseedsofreligionaresownineveryheart(I.v.l,adinit.);thatthroughallman'scorruptiontheinstinctsofnaturestillsuggestthememoryofGodtohismind (I. v. 2); that it is impossible to eradicate that sense of the deitywhich is naturally engraved on all hearts (I. iv. 4, ad fin.); that thestructureandorganizationoftheworld,andthethingsthatdailyhappenout of the ordinary course of nature, that is under the providentialgovernmentofGod,bearawitness toGodwhich thedullestearcannotfailtohear(I.v.1,3,7,esp.II.vi.1);andthatthelightthatshinesfromcreation,while itmaybesmothered,cannotbesoextinguishedbutthatsomeraysofitfindtheirwayintothemostdarkenedsoul(I.v.14).GodhasthereforeneverleftHimselfwithoutawitness;but,"withvariousandmost abundant benignity sweetly allures men to a knowledge of Him,thoughtheypersistinfollowingtheirownways,theirperniciousandfatalerrors"(I.v.14).Thesolecauseofthefailureofthenaturalrevelationistobefound,therefore,inthecorruptionofthehumanheart.Tworesultsflow from this fact. First, it is not a question of the extinction of theknowledgeofGod, but of the corruptionof theknowledgeofGod.Andsecondly,menarewithoutexcusefortheircorruptionoftheknowledgeofGod.OnbothpointsCalvinisinsistent.

Hedoesnotteachthatallreligionhasperishedoutoftheearth,butonlythatno"genuinepiety"remains(I.iv.1,adinit.):hedoesnotteachthatmen retain no knowledge of God, but no "certain, sound or distinctknowledge" (I. v. 12, ad fin.). The seed of religion remains theirinalienable possession, "but it is so corrupted as to produce only theworstfruits"(I.iv.4,adfin.).HereweseeCalvin'sjudgmentonnaturalreligion. Its reality he is quick to assert: but equally quickly itsinadequacy - and thatbecausenotmerelyof anegative incompletenessbutalsoofapositivecorruption.Menhavecorrupted theknowledgeofGod; and perhaps Calvin might even subscribe the declaration of amodern writer that men's religions are their worst crimes.10CertainlyCalvin paints in dark colors the processes by which men form forthemselvesconceptionsofGodunderthelightofnature,orrather,inthedarknessoftheirminds,fromwhichthelightofnatureisasfarasliesintheir power excluded. "Their conceptions of God are formed, notaccordingtotherepresentationsHegivesofHimself,butbytheinvention

of theirownpresumptuous imaginations" (I. iv. 1,med.).They setHimfaroff fromthemselvesandmakeHimamere idler inheaven(I. iv.2);theyinventallsortsofvagueandconfusednotionsconcerningHim,untiltheyinvolvethemselvesinsuchavastaccumulationoferrorsasalmosttoextinguishthelightthatiswithinthem(I.iv.4);theyconfuseHimwithHisworks,untilevenaPlato loseshimself in theroundglobe(I.v. 11);theyevenendeavor todenyHis very existence (I. v. 12), and substitutedemonsinHisplace(I.v.13).Certainlyitisnotsurprising,then,thattheHolySpirit,speakinginScripture,"condemnsasfalseandlyingwhateverwasformerlyworshippedasdivineamongtheGentiles,"nay,"rejectsasfalseeveryformofworshipwhichisofhumancontrivance,"and"leavesno Deity but in Mount Zion" (I. v. 13). The religions of men differ,doubtless,amongthemselves:somearemore,somelessevil;butallareevilandtheevilofnoneistrivial.

Arementobeexcusedforthis,theircorruptionoftheknowledgeofGod?Arewetolistenwithsympathytothepleathatlighthasbeenlacking?Itisnotacaseofinsufficientlight,butofanevilheart.Excusesarevain,forthisheart-darkness is criminal. Ifwe speakof ignorancehere,wemustrememberitisaguiltyignorance;anignorancewhichrestsonprideandvanityandcontumacy(I.iv.1),anignorancewhichourownconscienceswillnotexcuse(I.v.15).What!shallwepleadthatwe lackears tohearwhatevenmutecreaturesproclaim?thatwehavenoeyestoseewhatitneeds no eyes to see? that we are mentally too weak to learn whatmindless creatures teach? (I. v. 15).We are ignorant ofwhat all thingsconspiretoinformusof,onlybecausewesinfullycorrupttheirmessage;their insufficiency has its roots in us, not in them; wherefore we arewithoutexcuse(I.iv.1;v.14-15).Our"follyisinexcusable,seeingthatitoriginates not only in a vain curiosity, but in false confidence, and animmoderate desire to exceed the limits of human knowledge" (I. iv. 1,fin.). "Whateverdeficiency of natural ability prevents us fromattainingthe pure and clear knowledge of God, yet, since that deficiency arisesfromourownfault,weareleftwithoutanyexcuse"(I.v.15,adinit.).

ThenaturalrevelationofGodfailingthustoproduceitslegitimateeffectsofasoundknowledgeofGod,becauseofthecorruptionofmen'shearts,we are thrown back for any adequate knowledge of God upon

supernatural activities of God communicating His truth to men. It isaccordingly in an assertion and validation of these supernaturalrevelatory operations of God that Calvin's discussion reaches its truecenter.To this extenthiswholediscussionofnatural revelation - in itsinception in the implantation in man of a sensus deitatis, in itsculminationinthepatefactionofGodinHisworksanddeeds,andinitsfailure through the sin-bredblindness of humanity -maybe said to bemerelyintroductorytoandintendedtopreparethewayforhisdiscussionofthesupernaturaloperationsofGodbywhichHemeetsthisotherwisehopelessconditionofhumanitysunkinitscorruptnotionsofGod.Theseoperations obviously must meet a twofold need. A clearer and fullerrevelationofGodmustbebroughttomenthanthatwhichisaffordedbynature. And the darkened minds of men must be illuminated for itsreception. In other words, what is needed, is a special supernaturalrevelation on the one hand, and a special supernatural illumination ontheother.ItistothevalidationofthistwofoldsupernaturaloperationofGodincommunicatingtheknowledgeofHimselfthatCalvinaccordinglynextaddresseshimself(chs.vi.-ix.).

Oneortwopeculiaritiesofhistreatmentofthemattractournoticeattheoutset, and seem to invite attention, before we enter into a detailedexposition of the doctrine he presents. It is noticeable thatCalvin doesnotpretendthatthissupernaturalprovisionofknowledgeofGodtomeetmen's sin-born ignorance is as universal in its reach as the naturalrevelation which it supplements and, so far as efficiency is concerned,supersedes.Onthecontrary,hedrawsitexpresslyintoanarrowercircle.That general revelation "presented itself to all eyes" and "ismore thansufficienttodeprivetheingratitudeofmenofeveryexcuse,since,"init,"God,inordertoinvolveallmankindinthesameguilt,setsanexhibitionof His majesty, delineated in the creatures, before them all withoutexception"(I.vi.1,init.).ButHissupernaturalrevelationHegrantsonly"to those whom He intends to unite in a more close and familiarconnectionwithHimself"(ibid.);"tothosetowhomHehasdeterminedtomakeHisinstructionseffectual"(I.vi.3);inaword,to"theelect"(I.vi.1; vii. 5 near end). In dealing with the supernatural revelation of God,therefore,Calvin is conscious of dealingwith a special operationof thedivine grace by means of which God is communicating to those He is

choosing to be His people the saving knowledge of Himself. It isobservable also that, in speaking of this supernatural revelation, heidentifiesitfromtheoutsetdistinctlywiththeScriptures(ch.vi.).Thisisinaccordancewiththepracticalendandengrossmentwhich,aswehavealreadyhadoccasiontonote,dominatehiswholediscussion.Hewasnotunawarethat the special revelationofGodantedates theScriptures: onoccasionhespeaksdiscriminatinglyenoughofthisrevelationinitselfandthe Scriptures in which it is embodied. But his mind is less on theabstracttruththanontheconcreteconditionswhichsurroundedhiminhis work. Whatever may have been true ages gone, to-day the specialrevelationofGodcoalesceswiththeScriptures,andhedoesnotoccupyhimselfformallywithitexceptasitpresentsitselftothemenofhisowntime.Thetaskwhichheundertakes,therefore, isdistinctlytoshowthatmenhaveintheScripturesaspecialrevelationofGodsupplementingandsofarsupersedingthegeneralrevelationofGodinnature;andthatGodsooperateswiththisHisspecialrevelationofHimselfastoovercomethesin-breddisabilitiesofman.

In this state of the case wemay perhaps be justified in leaving at thispoint the logical development of his construction and expoundingCalvin's teachingmoreformallyundertheheadsofhisdoctrineofHolyScriptureandhisdoctrineoftheTestimonyoftheHolySpirit.

II.HOLYSCRIPTURE

First,then,whatwasCalvin'sdoctrineofHolyScripture?

Under the designation of "Scripture" or "the Scriptures" Calvinunderstoodthat body ofwritingswhichhave been transmitted to us asthedivinelygivenruleoffaithandlife.Inthisbodyofwritings,thatistosay, in "the Canon of Scripture," he included all the books of the OldCovenantwhichwererecognizedbytheJewishChurchasofdivinegift,andassuchhandeddownto theChristianChurch;andall thebooksoftheNewCovenantwhichhavebeengiventheChurchbytheApostlesasits authoritative law-code.Calvin's attitude towards the canonwas thussomewhat more conservative than, say, Luther's. He knew of no suchdistinction as that between Canonical and Deutero-Canonical Books,whether in the Old or the New Testament. The so-called "Apocryphal

Books"oftheOldTestament,includedwithinthecanonbythedecreesofTrent,herejectedoutofhand:theso-called"Antilegomena"of theNewTestamentheacceptedwithoutexception.11

Therepresentationswhicharesometimesmade,totheeffectthathefeltdoubts of the canonicity of some of the canonical books or even wasconvincedoftheiruncanonicity,12restonafundamentalmisconceptionofhis attitude, andarewreckedonhis expressassertions.NodoubthehasnotleftuscommentariesonalltheBiblicalBooks,andnodoubthisomission to write or lecture on certain books is not to be explainedmerelybylackoftime,butinvolvesanactofselectiononhispart,whichwas not unaffected by his estimate of the relative importance of theseveral books or by his own spiritual sympathies.13 He has alsooccasionally employed a current expression, such as, for example, "theCanonicalEpistleofJohn,"14whenspeakingofIJohn,which, ifstrictlyinterpreted, might be thought to imply denial of the genuineness ofcertainbooksofthecanon-suchasIIandIIIJohn-andnotmerelythemomentaryorhabitualneglect of them; just as the commonuseof theterm"theApostle"ofPaulmightbesaid, ifsimilarlystrictlypressed, toimply that there was no other Apostle but he. It is also true that heexpresses himselfwithmoderationwhen adducing the evidence for thecanonicity of this book or that, and in his modes of statement quiteclearlybetrayshisrecognitionthattheevidenceismorecopiousormoreweighty insomecasesthaninothers.Butherepresentstheevidenceassufficientinallcasesanddeclareswithconfidencehisconclusioninfavorof the canonicity of thewholebodyofbookswhichmakeupourBible,and in all his writings and controversies acts firmly on thispresupposition. How, for example, is it possible to contend that somegrave reason connected with doubts on his part of their canonicalauthorityunderliesthefailureofCalvintocommenton"thethreebooksattributed to Solomon, particularly the SongofSongs,"15 in the face ofthejudgmentoftheministersofGenevawithregardtoCastellion,whichisthusreportedbyCalvinhimselfoverhissignature.16"Weunanimouslyjudgedhimonewhomightbeappointed to the functionsof thepastor,except for a single obstacle which opposed it. When we asked him,according to custom,whetherhewas inaccordwithusonallpointsofdoctrine,herepliedthatthereweretwoonwhichhecouldnotshareour

views:oneofthem. . .beingourinscribingtheSongofSolomoninthenumberofsacredbooks. . . .Weconjuredhimfirstofall,nottopermithimselfthelevityoftreatingasofnoaccounttheconstantwitnessoftheuniversalChurch;weremindedhimthatthereisnobooktheauthenticityofwhich isdoubtful, aboutwhichsomediscussionhasnotbeenraised;thateventhosetowhichwenowattachanundisputedauthenticitywerenotadmittedfromthebeginningwithoutcontroversy;thatpreciselythisone is one which has never been openly repudiated.We also exhortedhimagainsttrustingunreasonablyinhisownjudgment,especiallywherenothingwastowardwhichalltheworldhadnotbeenawareofbeforehewasborn....Alltheseargumentshavingnoeffectonhim,wethoughtitnecessary to consider among ourselves what we ought to do. Ourunanimousopinionwasthatitwouldbedangerousandwouldsetabadprecedent toadmithim to theministry in these circumstances. . . .Weshould thus condemn ourselves for the future to raise no objection toanother, should one present himself and wish similarly to repudiateEcclesiastes or Proverbs or any other book of the Bible, without beingdragged intoadebateas towhat isandwhat isnotworthyof theHolySpirit."17 Not merely the firmness with which Calvin held to thecanoncityofallthebooksofourBible,buttheimportanceheattachedtothe acceptance of the canonical Scriptures in their integrity, is madeperfectlyclearbysuchanincident;andindeedsoalsoarethegroundsonwhichheacceptedthesebooksascanonical.

Thesegrounds, to speakbriefly,werehistorico-critical.Calvin,wemustbear in mind, was a Humanist before he was a Reformer,18 and wasfamiliarwiththewholeprocessofdeterminingtheauthenticityofancientdocuments. If then he received the Scriptures from the hands of theChurch, not indulging himself in the levity of treating the constantwitnessoftheuniversalChurchasofnoaccount,hewasneverthelessnotdisposedtotake"tradition"uncriticallyat its facevalue.Hisacceptanceof the canon of the Church was therefore not a blind but a criticallymediatedacceptance.Thereforehediscarded theAprocrypha: and ifheaccepted theAntilegomena itwasbecause they commended themselvestohishistorico-criticaljudgmentasholdingofrightaplaceinthecanon.The organon of his critical investigation of the canon was in effecttwofold. He inquired into the history of the books in question. He

inquired into their internal characteristics.Have they comedown tousfrom the Apostolic Church, commanding either unbrokenly or on thewholethe suffragesof thosebest informedorbestqualified to judgeoftheircanonicalclaims?Aretheyinthemselvesconformabletotheclaimsmadeforthemofapostolic,whichisasmuchastosay,divineorigin?ItwasbytheapplicationofthistwofoldtestthatheexcludedtheApocryphaof the Old Testament from the canon. They had in all ages beendiscriminated from the canonical books, and differ from them as thewriting of an individual differs from an instrument which has passedunder theeyeofanotaryandbeensealed tobereceivedofall.19SomeFathers, it is true, deemed them canonical; evenAugustinewas of thatwayof thinking, althoughhehad toallow thatopinionsdifferedwidelyupon thematter.Others,however, couldadmit them tonohigher rankthan that of "ecclesiastical books," which inight be useful to read butcouldnotsupplyafoundationfordoctrine;amongsuchwereJeromeandRufinus.20And,whenweobservetheircontents,nosanemindwillfailtopass judgment against them.21 Romemay, indeed, find her interest indefending them, for shemay discover support in them for someofherfalse teachings. But this very fact is their condemnation. "I beg you toobserve,"hesaysoftheclosingwordsofIIMaccabees,wherethewritersets his hope in his own works: "I beg you to observe how far thisconfession fallsaway fromthemajestyof theHolySpirit"22 - that is tosay,fromtheconstantteachingofHolyScripture.

Anditwasbytheapplicationofthesametwo-foldtestthatheaccreditedtheAntilegomenaoftheNewTestamentasintegralpartsofthecanon.InthePrefacewhichhehasprefixedtoIIPeter,forexample,henotesthatEusebiusspeaksofsomewhorejectedit."Ifitisaquestion,"headds,"ofyielding to the simple authority of men, since he [Eusebius] does notnamethosewhobroughtthematterintodoubt,nonecessityseemstobelaidonustocredittheseunknownpeople.And,moreover,headdsthatafterwards it was generally received without contradiction. . . . It is amatteragreeduponbyall,ofcommonaccord,thatthereisnothinginthisEpistleunworthyofSaintPeter,butthat,onthecontrary,fromoneendof it to theother, thereareapparent the force, vehemenceandgraceoftheSpiritwithwhichtheApostleswereendowed. . . .Since, then, inallpartsoftheEpistlethemajestyoftheSpiritofChristisclearlymanifest,I

cannot reject it entirely, although I do not recognize in it the true andnaturalphraseofSaintPeter."23TomeetthedifficultyarisingfromthedifferenceofthestylefromthatofIPeter,hethereforesupposedthattheEpistleisindeedcertainlyPeter's,sinceotherwiseitwouldbeaforgery,athinginconceivableinabookofitshighcharacter,24butwasdictatedinhisoldagetosomeoneofhisdisciples,towhomitowesitspeculiaritiesofdiction.Herewehaveanargumentconductedonthe twogroundsofthe external witness of the Church and the internal testimony of thecontents of the book: and these are the two grounds on which heeverywhere depends. Of the Epistle of Jude he says:25 "Because thereadingof it isveryuseful,anditcontainsnothingthat isnot inaccordwith the purity of theApostolic doctrine; because also it has long beenheldtobeauthenticbyallthebestmen,formypart,Iwillinglyplaceitinthenumberoftheotherepistles."InothercasestheexternalevidenceoftheChurchisnotexplicitlymentionedandthestressoftheargumentislaidontheApostoliccharacterofthewritingaswitnessedbyitscontents.He receives Hebrews among the Apostolic Epistles without difficulty,because nowhere else is the sacrifice of Christ more clearly or simplydeclaredandotherevangelicaldoctrinestaught:surelyitmusthavebeendue to thewiles of Satan that theWestern Church so long doubted itscanonicity.26 James seems to him to contain nothing unworthy of anApostleofChrist,buttobeonthecontraryfullofgoodteaching,valuablefor all departments of Christian living.27 For the application of thisargumentheof course takeshis start fromtheHomologoumena,whichgave him the norm of Apostolic teachingwhich he used for testing theotherbooks.Itmustnotbesupposedthathereceivedeventhesebooks,however, without critico-historical inquiry: but only that the uniformwitness of the Church to their authority weighed with him above allgroundsofdoubt.Itwas, inaword,onthegroundofapurelyscientificinvestigation that Calvin accredited to himself the canon. It had comedown to him through the ages, accredited as such by the constanttestimony of its proper witnesses: and it accredited itself to criticalscrutinybyitscontents.28

ThesamescientificspiritattendedCalvin inhisdealingwith the textofScripture.AsaHumanisthewasfamiliarwiththeprocessesemployedinsettling the texts of classical authors; and naturally he used the same

methods in his determination of the text of the Biblical books. Hispracticehere ismarkedbyacombinationof freedomand sobriety; andhisdecisions,thoughoftenwrong,astheycouldnotbutbeinthestateoftheknowledgeofthetransmissionoftheNewTestamenttextatthetime,always manifest good sense, balance, and trained judgment. In hisremarkson thepericopeof theadulteress (Johnviii. 1-11),wemeet thesamecircleofideaswithwhichwearefamiliarfromhisremarksontheAntilegomena: "because it has always been received by the LatinChurchesandisfoundinmanyoftheGreekcopiesandoldwriters,andcontainsnothingwhichwouldbeunworthyofanapostolicalspirit,thereis no reason why we should refuse to take our profit from it."29 Heacceptsthethree-witnesspassageofIJohnv.7."SincetheGreekcodicesdo not agree with themselves," he says, "I scarcely dare reach aconclusion. Yet, as the context flows most smoothly if this clause isadded,andIseethatitstandsinthebestcodicesandthoseofthemostapprovedcredit,Ialsowillinglyadoptit."30Whenpuzzledbydifficulties,he, quite like the Humanist dealing with a classical text, feels free tosuggestthattheremaybea"menduminvoce."Thishedoes,forexample,inMat.xxiii.35,whereheadducesthispossibilityamongothers;andstillmore instructively in Mat. xxvii. 9, where he just as simply assumes"Jeremiah"tobeacorruptreading31ashisowneditorsassumethatthe"Apius" which occurs in the French version of the "Institutes" inconnectionwithJosephusisduetoaslipofhistranslators,notofhisown- remarking: "It is evident that it cannot be Calvinwho translated thispassage."32 His assurance that it cannot be the Biblical writer whostumbles leadshimsimilarly toattributewhat seems tohimamanifesterrortothecopyists.Itisonly,however,insuchpassagesasthesethatheengagesformallyintextualemendation.Ordinarilyhesimplyfollowsthecurrenttext,althoughheis,ofcourse,notwithoutanintelligentgroundforhisconfidenceinit.33Aswecursorilyreadhiscommentarieswefeelourselves in thehandsof onewho is sanely and sagely scrutinizing thetext with which he is dealing from the point of view of a scholaraccustomed to deal with ancient texts, whose confidence in its generalintegrityrepresentsthewell-groundedconclusionofatrainedjudgment.His occasional remarks on the text, and his rare suggestion of acorruption,areindiciaofthealertnessofhisgeneralscrutinyofthetextandservetoassureusthathisacceptanceofitasawholeassoundisnot

merelyinertacquiescenceintradition,butrepresentsthecalmjudgmentofaninstructedintelligence.

INSPIRATIONOFSCRIPTURE

Now,thesesixty-sixbooksofcanonicalScriptureshandeddowntous,inthesingularprovidenceofGod,34inasoundtextwhichmeetsthetestofcriticalscrutiny,CalvinheldtobetheveryWordofGod.Thisassertionheintended in its simplest and most literal sense. He was far fromoverlookingthefactthattheScriptureswerewrittenbyhumanhands:heexpressly declares that, thoughwehave received them fromGod'sownmouth, we have nevertheless received them "through the ministry ofmen."35Buthewasequallyfarfromconceivingthattherelationoftheirhumanauthorstotheirdivineauthorresembledinanydegreethatoffreeintermediaries, who, after receiving the divine word, could do with itwhattheylisted.36Onthecontrary,hethoughtofthemratherasnotaries(IV. viii. 9), who set down in authentic registers (I. vi. 3) what wasdictated to them (Argumentum in Ev. Joh.).37 They wrote, therefore,merelyastheorgansoftheHolyGhost,anddidnotspeakexsuosensu,nothumano impulsu,not sponte sua,not arbitrio suo,but set out onlyquae coelitus mandata fuerant.38 The diversity of the human authorsthus disappears for Calvin before the unity of the Spirit, the soleresponsibleauthorofScripture,which is tohimthereforenottheverbaDei,butemphaticallytheverbumDei.39ItisaDeo("Institutes,"I.vii.5);ithas"comedowntousfromtheverymouthofGod"(I.vii.5);40ithas"comedown fromheaven as if the livingwords ofGod themselveswereheard in it" (I. vii. 1);41 and "we owe it therefore the same reverencewhichwe owe toGodHimself, since it hasproceeded fromHimalone,and there isnothinghumanmixedwith it" (Com. on IITim. iii. 16).42AccordingtothisdeclarationtheScripturesarealtogetherdivine,andinthem,asheputs itenergetically inanotherplace,"it isGodwhospeakswithusandnotmortalmen"(Com.onIIPet. i.20).43Accordingly,hecitesScriptureeverywherenotasthewordofmanbutasthepurewordofGod.His"holyword"is"thescepterofGod";everystatementinwhichis"a heavenly oracle" which "cannot fail" (Dedicatory Epistle to the"Institutes,"Opp.ii.12):initGod"opensHisownsacredmouth"toaddHis direct word to the voice of His mute creatures (I. vi. 1). To say

"Scripturesays"andtosay"theHolyGhostsays"isallone.WecontradicttheHolySpirit,saysCalvin-meaningtheScriptures-whenwedenytoChristthenameofJehovahoranythingwhichbelongstothemajestyofJehovah (I. xiii. 23). "TheHoly Spirit pronounces," says he, . . . "Pauldeclares...theScripturecondemns...whereforeitisnotsurprisingiftheHolySpiritreject"-allinonerunningcontext,meaningeverthesamething (I. v. 13): just as in another context he uses interchangeably the"commandmentsofChrist"andthe"authorityofScripture"of thesamething(DedicatoryLetter).

Itmaybe thatCalvinhasnowheregivenusadetaileddiscussionof themodeofthedivineoperationingivingtheScriptures.Heissurethattheyowetheirorigintothedivinegift(I.vi.1,2,3)andthatGodhassogiventhemthattheyareemphaticallyHisword,astrulyasifwewerelisteningtoHislivingvoicespeakingfromheaven(I.vii.1):and,aswehaveseen,he is somewhat addicted to the use of language which, strictly taken,would imply that themode of their giftwas "dictation."TheScripturesare "public records" (I. vi. 2), their human authors have acted as"notaries"(IV.viii.9),whohavesetdownnothingoftheirown,butonlywhathasbeendictated to them, so that there appears no admixture ofwhat ishumanin theirproduct (onIITim. iii.16).44It isnotunfair tourge,however,thatthis languageisfigurative;andthatwhatCalvinhasinmind is not to insist that themode of inspirationwas dictation, butthat the result of inspiration is as if it were by dictation, viz., theproductionofapurewordofGodfree fromallhumanadmixtures.Theterm"dictation"wasnodoubtincurrentuseatthetimetoexpressrathertheeffectsthanthemodeofinspiration.45Thisbeingallowed,itisallthemoreunfairtourgethat,Calvin'slanguagebeinginthissensefigurative,he isnot tobeunderstoodas teachingthat theeffectof inspirationwastheproductionofapurewordofGod,freefromalladmixtureofhumanerror.This,onthecontrary,ispreciselywhatCalvindoesteach,andthatwiththegreateststrenuousness.Heeverywhereassertsthattheeffectsofinspiration are such that God alone is the responsible author of theinspiredproduct,thatweowethesamereverencetoitastoHimHimself,and should esteem the words as purely His as if we heard themproclaimedwithHis livingvoicefromheaven;andthatthere isnothinghumanmixed with them. And he everywhere deals with them on that

assumption. It is true that men have sought to discover in Calvin,particularly in his "Harmony of the Gospels," acknowledgments of thepresenceofhumanerrorsinthefabricofScripture.46ButtheseattemptsrestonverycrassmisapprehensionsofCalvin'seffortspreciselytoshowthattherearenosucherrorsinthefabricofScripture.Whenheexplains,forexample,thatthepurpose"oftheEvangelists"-or"oftheHolySpirit,"for he significantly uses these designations as synonyms - was not towriteachronologicallyexactrecord,buttopresentthegeneralessenceofthings,thisisnottoallowthattheScriptureserrhumanlyintheirrecordof the sequences of time, but to assert that they intend to give nosequencesoftimeandthereforecannoterrinthisregard.Whenagainhesuggeststhatan"error"hasfounditswayintothetextofMat.xxvii.9orpossiblyintoMat.xxiii.35,heisnotspeakingoftheoriginal,butof thetransmittedtext;47anditwouldbehardifhewerenotpermittedtomakesuchexcursionsintotheregionoftextualcriticismwithoutlayinghimselfopen to thechargeofdenyinghismostassuredconviction thatnothinghuman ismixedwithScripture. Inpointof fact,CalvinnotonlyassertsthefreedomofScriptureasgivenbyGodfromallerror,butneverinhisdetaileddealingwithScriptureallowsthatsucherrorsexistinit.48

If we ask for the ground on which he asserts this high doctrine ofinspiration,wedonotseethatanyotherreplycanbegiventhanthat itwasonthegroundoftheteachingofScriptureitself.TheScriptureswereunderstoodbyCalvintoclaimtobeinthishighsensethewordofGod;and a critical scrutiny of their contents brought to him nothing whichseemedtohimtonegativethisclaim.Therewereothergroundsonwhichhe might and did base a firm confidence in the divine origin of theScripturesandthetrustworthinessoftheirteachingasarevelationfromGod.Buttherewerenoothergroundsonwhichhecouldordidresthisconviction that these Scriptures are so from God that there is nothinghumanmixed with them, and their every affirmation is to be receivedwiththedeferencewhichisduetothelivingvoiceofGodspeakingfromheaven.OntheseothergroundsCalvinwasledtotrusttheteachingoftheScripturesasadivinerevelation:andhethereforenaturallytrustedtheirteachingastotheirownnatureandinspiration.

Such, then, are the Scriptures as conceived by Calvin: sixty-six sacred

books,"dictated"byGodtoHis"notaries"thattheymight,inthis"publicrecord,"standasaperpetualspecialrevelationofHimselftoHispeople,tosupplementortosupersedeintheircasethegeneralrevelationwhichHe gives of Himself in His works and deeds, but which is renderedineffective by the sin-bred disabilities of the human soul. For this,accordingtoCalvin,istheaccounttogiveoftheoriginofScripture,andthis the account to give of the function it serves in the world. It wasbecausemaninhissinful imbecilitywasunable toprofitby thegeneralrevelation which God has spread before all eyes, so that they are allwithoutexcuse(I.vi.1), thatGodinHisgoodnessgaveto"thosewhomHe intended to unite in a more close and familiar connection withHimself,"aspecialrevelationinopenspeech(I.vi.1).Anditwasbecauseof the mutability of the human mind, prone to errors of all kinds,corrupting the truth, that He committed this His special revelation towriting, that it might never be inaccessible to "those to whom HedeterminedtomakeHisinstructionseffectual"(I.vi.3).InCalvin'sview,therefore,theScripturesareadocumentationofGod'sspecialrevelationofHimselfuntosalvation(I.vi.1,adinit.);butadocumentationcaredforbyGodHimself,sothattheyare,infine,themselvesthespecialrevelationofGoduntosalvationindocumentaryform(I.vi.2,3).Thenecessityfortherevelationdocumented in themarises fromtheblindnessofmen intheir sin: the necessity for the documentation of this revelation arisesfromtheinstabilityofmen,evenwhentaughtofGod.Wemustconceiveof special revelation, and of the Scriptures as just its documentation,therefore,asnotpreciselyacure,butratheranassistancetomandulledinhissightsoasnottobeabletoperceiveGodinHisgeneralrevelation."For,"saysCalvin,"aspersonswhoareold,orwhoseeyeshavesomehowbecome dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though theyperceive that something is written there, can scarcely read two wordstogether,yetbytheaidofspectacleswillbegintoreaddistinctly-sotheScripture . . ." etc. (I. vi. 1). The function of Scripture thus, as specialrevelationdocumented,istoserveasspiritualspectaclestoenablethoseofdulledspiritualsighttoseeGod.

Ofcourse,theScripturesdomorethanthis.TheynotonlyrevealtheGodofNaturemorebrightlytothesin-darkenedeye;theyrevealalsotheGodofGrace,whomaynotbefoundinnature.Calvindoesnotoverlookthis

widerrevelationembodiedinthem:heparticularlyadvertstoit(I.vi.1).But he turns from it for the moment as less directly germane to hispresent object, which is to show that without the "spectacles" ofScripture,sinfulmanwouldnotbeabletoattaintoasoundknowledgeofevenGodtheCreator.Itisonthis,therefore,thathenowinsists.Itwasonly becauseGod revealedHimself in this special, supernaturalway tothem,thatourfirstfathers-"Adam,Noah,Abrahamandtherestofthepatriarchs"-wereabletoretainHimintheirknowledge(I.vi.1).Itwasonlythroughthisspecialrevelation,whetherrenewedtothembyGod,orhandeddownintradition,"by theministryofmen," that theirposteritycontinued in the knowledge ofGod (I. vi. 2). "At length, that the truthmightremainintheworldinacontinualcourseofinstructiontoallages,God determined that the same oracles which He deposited with thepatriarchs,shouldbecommitted topublicrecords" - first theLaw, thentheProphets,andthenthebooksoftheNewCovenant(I.vi.2).Itisnow,therefore, only through these Scriptures that man can attain to a trueknowledgeofGod.TherevelationofGod inHisworks isnotuseless: itmakesallmenwithoutexcuse;itprovidesanadditionalthoughlowerandlesscertainrevelationofGodtoHispeople-toaconsiderationofwhichall should seriously apply themselves, though they should principallyattendtotheWord(I.vi.2).ButexperienceshowsthatwithouttheWordthesinfulhumanmindis tooweaktoreachasoundknowledgeofGod,andthereforewithoutitmenwanderinvanityanderror.Calvinseemstospeak sometimes almost as if the Scriptures, that is special revelation,whollysupersededgeneralrevelation(I.v.12,adfin.;vi.2,adfin.;4,adfin.). More closely scrutinized, it becomes evident, however, that hemeansonlythatintheabsenceofScripture,thatisofspecialrevelation,the general revelation of God is ineffective to preserve any soundknowledgeofHimintheworld:butinthepresenceofScripture,generalrevelationisnotsetaside,butratherbroughtbacktoitspropervalidity.Therealrelationbetweengeneralandspecialrevelation,asthematterlayinCalvin'smind,thusprovestobe,notthattheonesupersedestheother,butthatspecialrevelationsupplementsgeneralrevelationindeed,butinthe first instance rather repeats and by repeating vivifies and vitalizesgeneralrevelation,andflowsconfluentlyinwithittotheoneendofboth,theknowledgeofGod(I.vi.2).Whatspecialrevelationis,therefore-andtheScripturesasitsdocumentation-isverypreciselyrepresentedbythe

figure of the spectacles. It is aid to the dulled vision of sinful man, toenableittoseeGod.

Thequestion forciblypresents itself, however,whether "spectacles"willservethepurposehere.HasnotCalvinpaintedthesin-bredblindnessofmentooblacklytoencourageustothinkitcanbecorrectedbysuchanaidtoanyremaindersofnaturalvisionwhichmaybeaccreditedtothem?The answermust be in the affirmative. But this only opens theway topointoutthatCalvindoesnotpresentspecialrevelation,ortheScripturesas special revelation documented, as the entire cure, but places by thesideofitthetestimoniumSpiritusSancti.Specialrevelation,orScriptureas itsdocumentedform,provides inpointof fact, in theviewofCalvin,onlytheobjectivesideofthecurehefindshasbeenprovidedbyGod.Thesubjective side is provided by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. ThespectaclesareprovidedbytheScriptures: theeyesareopenedthat theymayseeeventhroughthesespectacles,onlybythewitnessoftheSpiritinthe heart. We perceive, then, that in Calvin's view the figure of thespectacles is a perfectly just one. He means to intimate that specialrevelationalonewillnotproduceaknowledgeofGodinthehumansoul:thatsomethingmorethanexternalaidisneededbeforeitcansee:andtoleavethewayopentoproceedtopointoutwhatfurtherisrequiredthatsinfulmanmayseeGod.Sinfulman,wesayagain:forthewholecruxliesthere. Had there been no sin, there would have been no need of evenspecialrevelation.InthelightofthesplendidrevelationofHimselfwhichGod has displayed in the theatre of nature, man with his nativeendowmentofinstinctiveknowledgeofGodwouldhavebloomedoutintoa full and soundknowledgeofHim.Butwith sinfulman, thematter iswhollydifferent.Heneedsmorelightandheneedssomethingmorethanlight - heneeds thepower of sight.49Thatwemay apprehendCalvin'sthought, therefore,wemust turn to theconsiderationofhisdoctrineoftheTestimonyoftheSpirit.

III.THETESTIMONYOFTHESPIRIT

WhatisCalvin'sdoctrineoftheTestimonyoftheSpirit?

TheparticularquestionwhichCalvinaddresseshimselftowhenheturnstotheconsiderationofwhathecallsthetestimonyoftheSpiritconcerns

the accrediting of Scripture, not the assimilation of its revelatorycontents. The reader cannot fail to experience some disappontment atthis. The whole development of the discussion hitherto undoubtedlyfosters the expectation, not, indeed, of an exclusive treatment of theassimilationof special revelationby sinfulman - forbothproblemsareraisedby it and the twoproblemsare atbottomoneand their solutionone-butcertainlyofsomeformaltreatmentof it,andindeedofsuchatreatmentof thedouble problem that the stress should be laid on this.Calvin, however, is preoccupied with the problem of the accrediting ofScripture. This is due in part, doubtless, to its logical priority: as hehimselfremarks,wecannotbe"establishedinthebeliefofthedoctrine,till we are indubitably persuaded that God is its Author" (I. vii. 4, adinit.). But it was rendered almost inevitable by the state of thecontroversywithRome,who intrenchedherself in theposition that theProtestant appeal to Scripture as over against the Church wasinoperative,seeingthatitisonlybytheChurchthattheScripturescanbeestablishedinauthority:forwhobuttheChurchcanassureusthattheseScriptures are fromGod, or indeedwhat books enter into the fabric ofScripture, or whether they have come down to us uncorrupted? As apractical man writing to practical men for a practical purpose, Calvincouldnotfail,perhaps,togivehisprimaryattentiontotheaspectof theproblem he had raised which wasmost immediately pressing. But thisscarcelypreparesusforthealmosttotalneglectofitsotheraspect,withthe effect that the construction of his general doctrine is left with acertain appearance of incompleteness. Not really incomplete; for thesolutionoftheoneproblemis,aswehavealreadysuggested,thesolutionof theotheralso;andeven thecursory reader -orperhapswemay sayespeciallythecursoryreader-maywellbetrustedtofeelthisasheisledonthroughthediscussion,particularlyastherearenotlackingrepeatedsuggestions of it, and the discussion closeswith a direct reference to itand a formal postponement of the particular discussion of the otheraspectofthedoubleproblemtoalaterportionofthetreatise."Ipassovermany things for the present," says Calvin, "because this subject willpresent itself fordiscussioninanotherplace.Only, let itbeknownherethat thatalone is true faithwhich theSpiritofGod seals inourhearts.And with this one reason every reader of docility andmodesty will besatisfied"(I.vii.5,near theend).That isasmuchas tosay,Thiswhole

subjectisonlyoneapplicationofthegeneraldoctrineoffaith;andasthegeneraldoctrineoffaithisfullydiscussedatanotherplaceinthistreatise,wemay content ourselves herewith the somewhat incomplete remarkswehavemadeuponthisspecialapplicationofthatdoctrine;weonlyneedto remind the reader that there is no true faith except that which isbegotteninthesoulbytheHolySpirit.

We can scarcely wonder that Calvin contents himself with this simplereferenceofthetopicnowengaginghisattention,asaspecificcase,tothegenericdoctrineoffaith,whenwepausetorealizehownearlythissimplereferenceofit,asaspeciestoitsgenus,comestoasufficientexpositionofit.Weshall stopnowtosignalizeonly twopointswhichare involved inthisreference,thenotingofwhichwillgreatlyfacilitateourapprehensionofCalvin'sprecisemeaninginhisdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritto the divinity of Scripture. This doctrine is no isolated doctrine withCalvin,standingoutofrelationwiththeotherdoctrinesofhissystem:itis but one application of his general doctrine of faith; or to be morespecific, one application of his general doctrine of the function of theHolySpirit intheproductionoffaith.GivenCalvin'sgeneraldoctrineoftheworkoftheHolySpiritinapplyingsalvation,andhisspecificdoctrineofthetestimoniumSpiritusSanctiintheattestationofScripture,andinthe applying of its doctrine as well, was inevitable. It is but oneapplicationofthegeneraldoctrinethatthereisnotruefaithexceptthatwhichtheSpiritofGodseals inourhearts.ForCalvin inthisdoctrine-andthisisthesecondpointwewishtosignalize-hasinmindspecifically"truefaith."HeisnotaskingherehowtheScripturesmaybeprovedtobefromGod.Ifthathadbeenthequestionhewasasking,hewouldnothavehesitatedtosaythatthetestimonyoftheChurchisconclusiveofthefact.Hedoessayso."TheuniversaljudgmentoftheChurch"(I.vii.3,fin.)herepresentsasaveryusefulargument,"theconsentoftheChurch"(I.viii.12, init.) as a very important consideration, in establishing the divineorigin of the Scriptures: although, of course, he does not conceive theChurchaslendingherauthoritytoScripture"whenshereceivesandsealsitwithhersuffrage,"butratherasperformingadutyofpietytoherselfinrecognizing what is true apart from her authentication, and treating itwith due veneration (I. vii. 2, ad fin.). Forwhat ismore her duty than"obedientlytoembracewhat is fromGodas thesheephear thevoiceof

the shepherd"?50Were it amatter of proving the Scriptures to be theWord of God, Calvin would, again, have been at no loss for rationalargumentswhichhewasreadytopronounceirresistible.Hedoesadducesuchargumentsandhedoespronounce them irresistible.Hedevotes awhole chapter "to the adduction of these arguments (ch. viii.) - sucharguments as these: thedignity of the subject-matter of Scripture - theheavenliness of its doctrine and the consent of all its parts - (§ 1), themajestyofitsstyle(§2),theantiquityofitsteaching(§3),thesincerityofits narrative (§ 4), its miraculous accompaniment, circumstantiallyconfirmed(§§5,6),itspredictivecontentsauthenticatedbyfulfilment(§§7, 8), its continuous use through somany ages (§§9-12), its sealing bymartyrblood(§ 13): and theseargumentshe is so far fromconsideringweakandinconclusive(I.viii.13,med.)thatherepresentsthemratherascapableofcompletelyvindicatingtheScripturesagainstallthesubtletiesoftheircalumniators(ibid.).Nay,hedeclaresthattheproofsofthedivineoriginoftheScripturesaresocogent,as"certainlytoevince,ifthereisaGodinheaven,thatHeistheauthoroftheLaw,andtheProphecies,andtheGospel"(I.vii.4,nearthebeginning);astoextortwithcertaintyfromallwhoarenotwholly losttoshame,theconfessionofthedivinegiftoftheScriptures(ibid.).51 "Though I am far frompossessing anypeculiardexterity" in argument "or eloquence," he says, "yet were I to contendwiththemostsubtledespisersofGod,whoareambitioustodisplaytheirwitandtheirskillinweakeningtheauthorityofScripture,ItrustIshouldbe able without difficulty to silence their obstreperous clamor" (ibid.).Butobjectiveproofs-whethertheconclusivetestimonyofwitnesses,ortheoverwhelmingevidenceofrationalconsiderations-betheyneversocogent,52hedoesnotconsiderofthemselvescapableofproducing"truefaith." And it is "true faith," we repeat, that Calvin has inmind in hisdoctrineof thetestimoniumSpiritusSancti. If it seemedtohimasmallmatterthatmanshouldknowthatGodisifhedidnotknowwhatGodis,itequallyseemedtohimasmallmatterthatmanshouldknowwhatGodis,intheparadigmsoftheintellect,ifhedidnotreallyknowthisGodinthe intimacy of communion which that phrase imports. And equally itseemed tohimutterlyunimportant that aman shouldbe convincedbystressofrationalevidencethattheScripturesaretheWordofGod,unlesshepracticallyembracedtheseScripturesastheWordofGodandstayedhissouluponthem.TheknowledgeofGodwhichCalvinhasinmindin

this whole discussion is, thus, a vital and vitalizing knowledge of God,andtheattestationofScripturewhichheisseekingisnotanattestationmerely to the intelligence of men, compelling from them perhaps areluctant judgmentof the intellect alone (since those convincedagainsttheir will, as the proverb has it, are very apt to remain of the sameopinionstill),butsuchanattestationas takesholdof thewholeman intherootsofhisactivitiesandcontrolsallthemovementsofhissoul.

This is so important a consideration for the exact apprehension ofCalvin'sdoctrinethatitmaybecomeustopauseandassureourselvesofthesimplematteroffactfromthelanguagewhichCalvinemploysofitinthecourseofthediscussion.Weshallrecallthatfromtheintroductionofthe topic of special revelation he has in mind and keeps before hisreaders'minditsdestinationforthepeopleofGodalone.Theprovisionsfor producing a knowledge of God, consequent on the inefficiency ofnaturalrevelation,Calviniscarefultoexplain,arenotforallmen,butfor"theelect"(I.vi.1),or,astheyaremorefullydescribed,"thosewhomGodintends tounite in amore close and familiar connectionwithHimself"(ibid.),"thosetowhomHedeterminestomakeHisinstructionseffectual"(I. vi. 3). From the first provisions of His supernatural dealings,therefore, He "intends to make His instructions effectual." Morepointedlystillhespeaksof thetestimoniumSpiritusSancti as anact inwhich "God deigns to confer a singular power on His elect, whomHedistinguishesfromtherestofmankind"(I.vii.5).53Thissingularpower,now,isnothingelsebut"savingfaith,"andCalvinspeaksof it inall thesynonymyof"savingfaith."Hecallsit"truefaith"(I.vii.5),"soundfaith"(I.vii.4),"firmfaith"(I.viii.13),"thefaithof thepious"(I.vii.3),"thecertaintyofthepious"(I.vii.3),"thatassurancewhichisessentialtotruepiety" (I. vii. 4), "saving knowledge" (I. viii. 13), "a solid assurance ofeternallife"(I.vii.1).It isthethingwhichisnaturallydescribedbythissynonymywhichCalvindeclaresisnotproducedinthesoulexceptbythetestimony of the Holy Spirit. This obviously is nothing more than todeclare that that faithwhich lays hold of Christ unto eternal life is theproductoftheHolySpiritintheheart,andthatitisoneoftheexercisesof this faith to layholdof the revelationof thisChrist in theScriptureswithassuredconfidence,sothatitisonlyhewhoisledbytheSpiritwhoembraces these Scriptures with "sound faith," that is, "with that

assurancewhichisessential totruepiety"(I.vii.4).WhatCalvinhas inmind, inaword, is simplyanextendedcommentonPaul'swords: "thenaturalmanreceivethnotthethingsoftheSpiritofGod...buthethatisspiritualjudgethallthings"(ICor.ii.14,15).54

Calvin does not leave us, however, to gather from general remarksreferringittoitsclassortoinferfromitsgeneraleffects,whathemeansby the testimony of the Spirit of God to the divinity of Scripture, butdescribes for us its nature and indicates themode of its operation andspecificeffectswithgreatexactitude.55Hetellsusthatitisa"secret"(I.vii.4),"internal"(I.vii.4;viii.13),"inward"(I.vii.5)actionof theHolySpiritonthesoul,bywhichthesoulis"illuminated"(I.vii.3,4,5),soastoperceivetheirtruequalityintheScripturesasadivinebook.Wemaycall this "an inward teaching" of the Spirit which produces "entireacquiescenceintheScriptures,"sothattheyareself-authenticatingtothemind and heart (I. vii. 5); or wemay call it a "secret testimony of theSpirit," by which our minds and hearts are convinced with a firmnesssuperiortoallreasonthattheScripturesarefromGod(I.vii.4).Inbothinstancesweareusingfigurativelanguage.PreciselywhatisproducedbythehiddeninternaloperationoftheSpiritonthesoul isanewspiritualsense (sensus, I. vii. 5, med.), by which the divinity of Scripture isperceived as by an intuitive perception. "For the Scripture exhibits asclearevidenceofitstruth,aswhiteandblackthingsdooftheircolor,andsweetandbitterthingsoftheirtaste"(I.vii.2,end);andweneedonlyasense to discern its divine quality to be convinced of it with the sameimmediacyandfinalityasweareconvincedbytheirmereperceptionoflight or darkness, ofwhiteness or blackness, of sweetness or bitterness(ibid.).No conclusions based on "reasoning" or "proofs" or founded onhuman judgment can compare in clearness or force with such aconviction, which is instinctive and immediate, and finds its ultimategroundandsanctionintheHolySpiritwhohaswroughtintheheartthisspiritual sense which so functions in recognizing the divine quality ofScripture.IlluminatedbytheSpiritofGod,webelieve,therefore,notonthe groundof our own judgment, or on the ground of the judgment ofothers, but with a certainty above all human judgment, by a spiritualintuition.56 With the utmost explicitness Calvin so describes thisinstinctive conviction inapassageof great vigor: "It is, therefore," says

he, "such a persuasion as requires no reasons; such a knowledge as issupportedbythehighestreasonandinwhichthemindrestswithgreatersecurity and constancy than in any reasons; in fine, such a sense ascannotbeproducedbutbya revelation fromheaven" (I. vii.5).57Herewearetoldthatitisapersuasio,orratheranotitia,orratherasensus.Itisapersuasionwhichdoesnotrequirereasons-thatistosay,itisastateof convictionnot inducedby arguments, but by direct perception: it is,thatistosay,aknowledge,adirectperceptioninaccordwiththehighestreason, in which the mind rests, with an assurance not attainable byreasoning;ortobemoreexplicitstill,itisasensewhichcomesonlyfromdivine gift. As we have implanted in us by nature a sense whichdistinguishes between light and darkness, a sense which distinguishesbetween sweet and bitter, and the verdict of these senses is immediateand final; so we have planted in us by the creative action of the HolySpiritasenseforthedivine,anditsverdict,too,isimmediateandfinal:the spiritual man discerneth all things. Such, in briefest outline, isCalvin'sfamousdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirit.

MODEOFTHISTESTIMONY

Certain further elucidations of its real meaning and bearing appear,however,tobenecessary,toguardagainstmisapprehensionofit.WhenwespeakofaninternaltestimonyoftheHolySpirit,itisevidentthatwemust conceive it as presenting itself in one of three ways. It may beconceived as of the nature of an immediate revelation to eachman towhom it is given. It may be conceived as of the nature of a blindconvictionproducedinthemindsofitsrecipients.Itmaybeconceivedasof the nature of a grounded conviction, formed in their minds by theSpirit, by an act which rather terminates immediately on the faculties,enabling and effectively persuading them to reach a conviction ongrounds presented to them, than produces the conviction itself, apartfromorwithoutgrounds.InwhichofthesewaysdidCalvinconceivethetestimony of the Spirit as presenting itself? As revelation, or asungroundedfaith,orasgroundedfaith?

Certainlynotthefirst.ThetestimonyoftheSpiritwasnottoCalvinofthenatureofapropositional"revelation"toitsrecipients.Ofthishespeaksperfectly explicitly, and indeed in his polemic against Anabaptist

mysticisminsistently.Hedoesindeedconnecttheterm"revelation"withthe testimony of the Spirit, declaring it, for example, such a sense(sensus) as can be produced by nothing short of "a revelation fromheaven" (I. vii. 5, med.). But his purpose in the employment of thislanguage isnot todescribe itaccording to itsnature,but toclaim for itwithemphasisaheavenlysource:hemeansmerelytoassertthatitisnotearth-born,butGod-wrought,whileatthesametimeheintimatesthatinitsnature it isnotapropositionalrevelation,butan instinctive"sense."That he did not conceive of it as a propositional revelation is madeperfectlyclearbyhisexplicitassertionsat theopeningof thediscussion(I.vii.1,init.),thatwe"arenotfavoredwithdailyoraclesfromheaven,"andthattheScripturesconstitutethesolebodyofextantrevelationsfromGod. It is not to supersede nor yet to supplement these recordedrevelationsthatthetestimonyof theSpirit isgivenus,he insists,buttoconfirm them (I. ix. 3): or, as he puts it in his polemic against theAnabaptists,"TheofficeoftheSpiritwhichispromisedusisnottofeignnew and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new system of doctrine,whichwouldseduceus fromthereceiveddoctrineof theGospel,but toseal toourmindsthesamedoctrinewhichtheGospeldelivers"(I. ix.1,fin.).

InthispolemicagainsttheAnabaptists(ch.ix.)hegivesusanespeciallywell-balancedaccountof therelationswhichinhisviewobtainbetweenthe revelationofGodand thewitnessof theSpirit. Ifheholds that therevelation of God is ineffective without the testimony of the Spirit, heholdsequallythatthetestimonyoftheSpiritisinconceivablewithouttherevelationofGodembodiedintheWord.HeevendeclaresthattheSpiritisnomoretheagentbywhichtheWordis impressedontheheartthantheWordisthemeansbywhichtheilluminationoftheSpirittakeseffect."Ifapart fromtheSpiritofGod"we"areutterlydestituteof the lightoftruth,"hesays(I. ix.3,adfin.),equally "theWord is the instrumentbywhichtheLorddispenses tobelievers the illuminationof theSpirit."Sofarastheknowledgeof thetruth isconcerned,weareashelpless, then,withouttheWordaswearewithouttheSpirit,forthewholefunctionoftheSpiritwithrespecttothetruthis,nottorevealtousthetruthanew,much less to reveal to us new truth, but efficaciously to confirm theWord,revealedintheScriptures,tous,andefficaciouslytoimpressiton

our hearts (I. ix. 3). This Calvin makes superabundantly plain by anillustrationandadidacticstatementofgreatclearness.Theillustration(I.ix.3)isdrawnfromourLord'sdealingswithHistwodiscipleswithwhomafter His rising He walked to Emmaus. "He opened theirunderstandings,"Calvinexplains,"not thatrejecting theScripturestheymight be wise of themselves, but that they might understand theScriptures."Suchalso,hesays, is thetestimonyof theSpirit to-day: forwhatisit-andthisisthedidacticstatementtowhichwehavereferred-but an enabling of us by the light of the Spirit to behold the divinecountenanceintheScripturesthatsoourmindsmaybefilledwithasolidreverence for the Word (I. ix. 3)? Here we have the nature of thetestimony of the Spirit, and its manner of working and its effects,announcedtousinasingleclause.Itisanilluminationofourminds,bywhich we are enabled to see God in the Scriptures, so that we mayreverencethemasfromHim.

Other effect than this Calvin explicitly denies to the testimony of theSpirit, andhe defendshis denial from the charge of inconsistencywiththestresshehaspreviously laiduponthenecessityof thistestimony(I.ix.3).ItisnottodenythenecessityofthisworkoftheSpirit,heargues,to confine it to the express confirmation of the Word and of therevelationcontainedtherein.NorisitderogatorytotheSpirittoconfineHisoperationsnowto theconfirmationof therevealedWord.WhileontheotherhandtoattributetoHimrepeatedornewrevelationstoeachofthechildrenofGod,asthemysticsdo,isderogatorytotheWord,whichisHis inspiredproduct.To lay claim to thepossessionof such aSpiritasthis,hedeclares,istolayclaimtothepossessionofadifferentSpiritfromthatwhichdweltinChristandtheApostles-fortheirSpirithonoredtheWord-andadifferentSpiritfromthatwhichwaspromisedbyChristtoHis disciples - for this Spiritwas "not to speak ofHimself." It is to layclaim to a Spirit forwhosedivinemission and character,moreover,welackallcriterion-forhowcanweknowthattheSpiritthatspeaksinusisfromGod,saveasHehonorstheWordofGod(I. ix.1and2)?Fromallwhich it is perfectly plain not only that Calvin did not conceive thetestimony of the Spirit as taking effect in the form of propositionalrevelations,but thathedidconceive itasanoperationofGod theHolySpirit in the heart ofmanwhich is so connectedwith the revelation of

God inHisWord, that itmanifests itself only in conjunctionwith thatrevelation.

Calvin'sformulahereis,TheWordandSpirit.58Onlyintheconjunctionofthetwocananeffectiverevelationbemadetothesin-darkenedmindof man.59 The Word supplies the objective factor; the Spirit thesubjective factor; and only in the union of the objective and subjectivefactorsistheresultaccomplished.ThewholeobjectiverevelationofGodlies, thus, in the Word. But the whole subjective capacitating for thereceptionofthisrevelationliesinthewilloftheSpirit.Either,byitself,iswhollyineffectivetotheresultaimedat-theproductionofknowledgeinthehumanmind.Butwhen theyunite, knowledge isnotonlyrenderedpossible to man: it is rendered certain. And therefore it is that Calvinrepresents theprovision for theknowledgeofGodboth in theobjectiverevelation in theWord and in the subjective testimony of the Spirit asdestinedbyGodnotformenatlarge,butspecificallyforHispeople,Hiselect,those"towhomHedeterminedtomakeHisinstructionseffectual"(I.vi.3).TheCalvinismofCalvin'sdoctrineofreligiousknowledgecomestoclearmanifestationhere;andthatnotmerelybecauseofitsimplicationofthedoctrineofelection,butalsobecauseofitsimplicationofCalvin'sspecific doctrine of the means of grace. Already in his doctrine ofreligious knowledge,we findCalvin teaching thatGod is knownnot bythosewhochoosetoknowHim,butbythosebywhomHechoosestobeknown:andthissimplybecausetheknowledgeofGodisGod-given,andisthereforegiventowhomHewill.MendonotwringtheknowledgeofGodfromaDeityreluctanttobeknown:God imparts theknowledgeofHimself tomen reluctant to knowHim: and therefore none knowHimsavethosetowhomHeefficaciouslyimparts,byHisWordandSpirit,theknowledgeofHimself. "ByHisWordandSpirit " - therein is expressedalreadythefundamentalformulaoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofthe"meansofgrace."InthatdoctrinetheSpiritisnot,withtheLutherans,conceivedasintheWord,conveyedandappliedwhere-evertheWordgoes:nor istheWord,withthemystics,conceivedas intheSpiritalwaysessentiallypresentwhereverHeispresentinHispowerasaSpiritofrevelationandtruth.Thetwoareseverallycontemplated,asseparablefactors,intheoneworkofGodinproducingtheknowledgeofHimselfwhichiseternallifein thesoulsofHispeople;separable factorswhichmustboth,however,

be present if this knowledge of God is to be produced. For it is thefunctionoftheWordtosetbeforethesoultheobjecttobebelieved;anditisthefunctionoftheSpirittoquickeninthesoulbeliefinthisobject:andneitherperforms theworkof theotheror itsownworkapart fromtheother.

It still remains, however, to inquire preciselyhowCalvin conceived theSpirit tooperate inbringing thesoul toahearty faith in theWordasarevelationfromGod.ArewetounderstandhimasteachingthattheHolySpiritbyHisalmightypowercreates,inthesoulsofthosewhomGodhassetupontobringtoaknowledgeofHim,anentirelyungroundedfaithinthedivinityoftheScripturesandthetruthoftheircontents,sothatthesoul embraces them and their contents with firm confidence as arevelationfromGodwhollyapartfromandintheabsenceofallindiciaoftheirdivinityorofthetruthoftheircontents?Soithascometobeverywidelybelieved;and indeed itmayevenbe said that it hasbecome theprevalent representation that Calvin taught that believers have withinthemselves a witness of the Spirit by which they are assured of thedivinity of Scripture and the truth of its contents quite apart from allotherevidence.Theveryterm,"thetestimonyoftheSpirit,"isadducedinsupportofthisrepresentation,assettingadivinewitnesstothedivinityof Scripture over against other sources of evidence, and of coursesupersedingthem:andappealismadealongwiththistoCalvin'sstrongassertions of the uselessness and even folly of plying men with "theproofs" of the divine origin of Scripture, seeing that, it is said, in theabsence of the testimony of the Spirit such "proofs" must needs beineffective,andinthepresenceofthateffectivetestimonytheycannotbutbeadjudgedunnecessary.Whatcanhemean, then, it isasked,butthatthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritissufficienttoassureusofthedivinityofScriptureapartfromallindicia,anddoesitsworkentirelyindependentlyofthem?

Thesufficientanswertothisquestionisthathecanmean-andinpointoffactdoesmean-thattheindiciaarewhollyinsufficienttoassureusofthedivinityofScriptureapartfromthetestimonyoftheSpirit;andeffectno result independently of it. This is quite a different proposition andgives rise to quite a different series of corollaries. Calvin's dealingwith

theindiciaofthedivinityofScripturehasalreadyattractedourattentioninoneofitsaspects,anditisquiteworthyofrenewedscrutiny.Wehaveseenthathedevotesawholechaptertotheirexposition(chap.viii.)andstrongly asserts their objective conclusiveness to the fact of the divineoriginofScripture(I.vii.4).Nordoeshedoubttheirusefulnesswhethertothebelieverortheunbeliever.Thefulnessandforceofhisexpositionof them is the index to his sense of their value to the believer: for headducesthemdistinctlyasconfirmationsofbelieversintheirfaithintheScriptures(I.viii.1,13),andbetrays inevery lineof their treatmentthehighsignificanceheattachestothemassuch.Andheexplicitlydeclaresthattheynotonlymaintain in themindsof thepiousthenativedignityand authority of Scripture, but completely vindicate it against all thesubtletiesofcalumniators(I.viii.13).NomanofsoundmindcanfailtoconfessontheirbasisthatitisGodwhospeaksinScriptureandthatitsdoctrineisdivine(I.vii.4).ItisacompletemisapprehensionofCalvin'smeaning,then,whenitissuggestedthatherepresentstheindiciaofthedivinity of Scripture as inconclusive or even as ineffective.60 Theirconclusivenesscouldnotbeassertedwithmoreenergythanheassertsit:norindeedcouldtheireffectiveness-theireffectivenessinextortingfromtheunbelievertheconfessionofthedivinityofScriptureandinrenderinghimwithoutexcuseinrefusingthehomageofhismindandhearttoit-ina word, will he, nill he, convincing his intellect of its divinity; theireffectivenessalsoinconfirmingthebelieverinhisfaithandmaintaininghis confidence intact. This prevalent misapprehension of Calvin'smeaning is due to neglect to observe the precise thing for which heaffirmstheindiciatobeineffectiveandtheprecisereasonheassignsforthisineffectiveness.Thereisonlyonethingwhichhesaystheycannotdo:that is toproduce"sound faith" (I.vii.4), "firm faith" (I.viii. 13) - thatassurancewhichisessentialto"truepiety"(I.vii.4).Andtheirfailuretoproduce "sound faith" is due solely to the subjective condition of man,which is such thata creativeoperationof theHolySpiriton the soul isrequisitebeforehecanexercise"soundfaith"(I.vii.4;I.viii.13).Itistheattempt toproduce this "sound faith" in theheartofman,not renewedfor believing by the creative operation of theHoly Spirit, which Calvinpronouncespreposterousand foolish. "It is actingapreposterouspart,"he says, "to endeavor to produce sound faith in the Scriptures bydisputations":objectionsmaybesilencedbysuchdisputations,"butthis

will not fix in men's hearts that assurance which is essential to truepiety"; for religion is not amatter ofmere opinion, but a fundamentalchangeofattitudetowardsGod(I.vii.4).Itbetrays,therefore,greatfollyto wish to demonstrate to infidels that the Scriptures are theWord ofGod,herepeatsinanotherplace,obviouslywithnoothermeaning,"sincethis cannot be known without faith," that is, as the context shows,withouttheinternalworkingoftheSpiritofGod(I.viii.13,end).

ThatCalvinshouldthusteachthattheindiciaareincapableofproducing"firmfaith"inthehumanheart,disabledbysin,isamatterofcourse:andthereforeitisamatterofcoursethatheshouldteachthattheindiciaareineffective for the production of "sound faith" apart from the internaloperationoftheSpiritcorrectingthesin-breddisabilitiesofman,thatistosay,apartfromthetestimonyoftheSpirit.Butwhatabouttheindiciain conjunction with the testimony of the Spirit? It would seem to beevident that,onCalvin'sground, theywouldhave their fullpart toplayhere, and thatwemust say that,when the soul is renewedby theHolySpirittoasenseforthedivinityofScripture, it is throughthe indiciaofthatdivinitythatitisbroughtintoitsproperconfidenceinthedivinityofScripture.Intreatingoftheindicia,Calvindoesnot,however,declarethisinsomanywords.Hesometimesevenappearstospeakofthemratherasiftheylaysidebysidewiththetestimonyof theSpirit thanactedalongwithitasco-factorsintheproductionofthesupremeeffect.Hespeaksoftheir ineffectiveness in producing sound faith in the unbeliever: and oftheir value as corroboratives to the believer: and his language wouldsometimes seem to suggest that therefore it were just as well not toemploythemuntilafterfaithhadformeditselfunderthetestimonyoftheSpirit(I.viii.1,13).OftheirpartinformingfaithundertheoperationofthetestimonyoftheSpirithedoesnotappearexplicitlytospeak.61

Nevertheless,therearenotlackingconvincinghintsthattherewaslyinginhismindallthetimetheimplicitunderstandingthatitisthroughtheseindiciaof thedivinityofScripture that the soul,under theoperationofthetestimonyoftheSpirit,reachesitssoundfaithinScripture,andthathehasbeenwithheldfrommoreexplicitlystatingthisonlybythewarmthofhiszeal for thenecessityof the testimonyof theSpiritwhichhas ledhim to a constant contrasting of this divine with those human

"testimonies." Thuswe findhim repeatedly affirming that these indiciawillproducenofruituntiltheybeconfirmedbytheinternaltestimonyoftheSpirit(I.vii.4,5;viii.1,13):"Ourreverencemaybeconciliatedbyitsinternalmajesty[theScripture's],butitneverseriouslyaffectsus,tillitisconfirmedbytheSpiritinourhearts"(I.vii.5)."Withoutthiscertainty,... invainwilltheauthorityofScripturebeeitherdefendedbyargumentsor established by the consent of the Church, or of any other supports:since,unlessthefoundationbelaid,itremainsinperpetualsuspense"(I.viii.1).Theindicia"arealonenotsufficienttoproducefirmfaithinit[theScriptures],tilltheheavenlyFather,discoveringHisownpowertherein,places itsauthorityaboveallcontroversy"(I.viii.13).It is,however, inhisgeneralteachingastotheformationofsoundfaithinthedivinityofScripturethatwefindthesurestindicationthathethoughtoftheindiciaas co-working with the testimony of the Spirit to this result. This isalready given, indeed, in his strenuous insistence that the work of theSpirit is not of the nature of a revelation, but of a confirmation of therevelation deposited in the Scriptures, especially when this is taken inconnectionwithhis teaching thatScripture is self-authenticating.WhattheSpiritofGodimpartstous,hesays,isasenseofdivinity:suchasensediscoversdivinityonlywheredivinityisandonlybyaperceptionofit-aperception which of course rests on its proper indicia. It is becauseScripture"exhibitstheplainestevidencethat it isGodwhospeaksinit"that the newly awakened sense of divinity, quickened in the soul,recognizesitasdivine(I.vii.4).Thesensesdonotdistinguishlightfromdarkness, white from black, sweet from bitter - to use Calvin's ownillustration(I.vii.2)-savebythemediationofthoseindiciaoflightanddarkness, whiteness and blackness, sweetness and bitterness, bywhichthesequalitiesmanifestthemselvestothenaturalsenses;andbyparityofreasoning we must accredit Calvin as thinking of the newly implantedspiritual sense discerning the divinity of Scripture only through themediationoftheindiciaofdivinitymanifestedinScripture.Totasteandsee that the Scriptures are divine is to recognize a divinity actuallypresent in Scripture; and of course recognition implies perception ofindicia, not attribution of a divinity not recognized as inherent.Meanwhile it must be admitted that Calvin has not at this pointdevelopedthissideofhissubjectwiththefulnesswhichmightbewished,buthasleftittothegeneralimplicationsoftheargument.

OBJECTTESTIFIEDTO

Closely connected with the question of the mode in which Calvinconceived the testimony of the Spirit to be delivered, is the furtherquestion of the matters for which he conceived that testimony to beavailable. On the face of it it would seem that he conceived it directlyavailable solely for the divinity of the Scriptures and therefore for therevelatorycharacterof their contents.Soheseems to imply throughoutthediscussion,and,indeed,toassertrepeatedly.Nevertheless,thereisawidespread impression abroad that he appealed to it to determine thecanonofScripturetoo,62andindeedalsotoestablishtheintegrityofitstext.Thisimpressionisgenerally,thoughnotalways,connectedwiththeview thatCalvinconceived themodeofdeliveryof the testimonyof theSpirittobethecreationinthesoulofablindfaith,unmotivedbyreasonsandwithoutrooting ingrounds; and ithasbeenmuchexploitedof lateyears in the interests of a so-called "free" attitude towards Scripture,which announces itself as following Calvin when it refuses toacknowledgeasauthoritativeScriptureanyportionoforelement in thetraditionally transmitted Scriptures which does not spontaneouslycommend itself to the immediate religious judgment as divine.Undoubtedly this is to reverse the attitude of Calvin towards thetraditionallytransmittedScriptures,anditisdifficulttobelievethattwosuchdiametricallycontradictoryattitudestowardstheScripturescanbeoutgrowthsof thesameprincipalroot.Inpointof fact,moreover,aswehave already seen, not only does Calvin not conceive the mode of thedeliveryofthetestimonyoftheSpirittobebythecreationofablindandunmotivedfaith,but,tocomeatoncetothemattermoreparticularlyinhand, he does not depend on the testimony of the Spirit for thedetermination of canonicity or for the establishment of the integrity ofthe text of Scripture. So far from discarding the via rationalis here, hedetermines the limits of the canon and establishes the integrity of thetransmissionofScripturedistinctlyonscientific,thatistosay,historico-critical grounds. In no case of his frequent discussion of such subjectsdoes he appeal to the testimony of the Spirit and set aside theemployment of rational and historical argumentation as invalid orinconclusive; always, on the contrary, he adduces the evidence of validtraditionandapostolicityofcontentsasconclusiveofthefact.It ishard

tobelievethatsuchaconsequentmindcouldhavelivedunconsciouslyinsuchaninconsistentattitudetowardsaquestionsovital tohimandhiscause.63

SofarassupportfortheimpressionthatCalvin lookedtothetestimonyof theSpirit todetermine forhim the canonofScripture and to assurehim of its integrity is derived from his writings, it rests on amanifestmisapprehensionofasinglepassageinthe"Institutes,"andwhatseemstobeamisassignmenttohimofapassageintheoldFrenchConfessionofFaith.

Thepassage in the"Institutes" isaportionof theparagraphswhicharedevotedtorepellingtheRomishcontentionthat"theScriptureshaveonlysomuchweightasisconcededtothembythesuffragesoftheChurch;asthoughtheeternalandinviolabletruthofGoddependedonthearbitrarywill ofmen" (I. vii. 1). "For thus,"Calvin says - and this is thepassagewhichisappealedto-"Forthus,dealingwiththeHolySpiritasamerelaughing stock (ludibrio), they ask, Who shall give us confidence thatthese [Scriptures]have come fromGod, -whoassureus that theyhavereachedourtimesafeandintact,-whopersuadeusthatonebookshouldbereceivedreverently,anotherexpungedfromthenumber(numero)- ifthe Church should not prescribe a certain rule for all these things? Itdepends,therefore,theysay,ontheChurch,bothwhatreverence isdueto Scripture, andwhat books should be inscribed (censendi sint) in itscatalogue(ineiuscatalogo)"(I.vii.1).ThispassagecertainlyshowsthattheRomishcontroversialistsinendeavoringtoprovethattheauthorityofScriptureisdependentontheChurch'ssuffrage,arguedthatitisonlybytheChurchthatwecanbeassuredevenofthecontentsofScriptureandof its integrity - that its very canon and text rest on the Church'sdetermination.Buthowcan itbe inferred thatCalvin's response to thisargumentwouldtaketheform:No,ofthesethingswecanbeassuredbytheimmediatetestimonyoftheSpirit?Inpointoffact,hesaysnothingofthekind,andtheinferencedoesnotlieintheargument.WhathesaysisthattheRomishmethodofarguing isasabsurdas it isblasphemous,amerecavil (I. vii. 2), aswell asderogatory to theHolySpirit.TheHolySpirit,hesays,assuresusthatintheScripturesGodspeakstous.TobiduspauseonthegroundthatitisonlytheChurchwhocanassureusthat

thisorthatbookbelongstothebodyoftheScriptures,thatthetexthasbeen preserved to us intact and the like, is to interpose frivolousobjections,andcanhavenootherend than toglorify theChurchat theexpense of souls. Accordingly, he remarks that these objectors arewithout concernwhat logicaldifficulties theymay cast themselves into:they wish only to prevent men taking their comfort out of the directassurancebytheSpiritofthedivinityoftheScriptures.Herepudiates,inaword,theentireRomishargument:butwecanscarcelyinferfromthis,thathisresponsetoitwouldbethattheimmediatewitnessoftheSpiritprovidesuswithdirect answers to their carpingquestions. It is at leastequally likely from themere fact that he speaks of these objections ascavils (I.vii.2)andgirdsat the logicof theRomishcontroversialistsasabsurd, that his responsewould be that the testimony of the Spirit forwhich hewas contending had no direct concernmentwith questions ofcanonandtext.

The passage in theConfession of LaRochelle, on the other hand, doescertainly attribute the discrimination of the canonical books in somesense-inwhatsensemayadmitofdebate-tothetestimonyoftheSpirit.InthethirdarticleofthisConfessionthereisgivenalistofthecanonicalbooks.64The fourth article, then, runs as follows: "We recognize thesebookstobecanonicalandtheverycertainruleofourfaith,notsomuchby the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the inwardwitness and persuasion of the Holy Spirit, who makes us distinguishthem fromtheotherecclesiasticalbooks,uponwhich, though theymaybeuseful,noarticleof faithcanbefounded."Thisarticle,however,wasnotthecompositionofCalvin,butwasamongthoseaddedbytheSynodofParistothedraftsubmittedbyCalvin.65Calvin'sownarticle"OntheBooksofHolyScripture,"whichwasexpandedbytheSynodintoseveral,reads only: "This doctrine does not derive its authority frommen, norfromangels,butfromGodalone;webelieve,too(seeingthatitisathingsurpassingallhumansensetodiscernthatitisGodwhospeaks),thatHeHimselfgivesthecertitudeofittoHiselect,andsealsitintheirheartsbyHis Spirit."66 In this fine statement we find the very essence of theteaching of the "Institutes" on this subject; the ideas and even thephraseologyofwhicharereproduced.

Wemaylearn,therefore,atmost,fromtheConfessionofLaRochelle,notthatCalvin,butthatsomeofhisimmediatefollowersattributedinsomesense the discrimination of the canonical books to the witness of theSpirit. Other evidences of this fact are not lacking. The BelgianConfession, for example,much like that of LaRochelle, declares of theScripturalbooks, just enumerated (Art. v.): "We receive all thesebooksalone, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation andestablishmentofourfaith,andwefullybelieveallthattheycontain,notsomuchbecausetheChurchreceivesandapprovesthem,butprincipallybecausetheSpiritgiveswitnesstotheminourheartsthattheyarefromGod,andalsobecausetheyareapprovedbythemselves;fortheveryblindcanperceive that the thingscome topasswhich theypredict." Perhaps,however,wemayfindamoreinstructiveinstancestillinthewordsofoneoftheProtestantdisputantsinaconferenceheldatParisin1566betweentwo Protestant ministers and two doctors of the Sorbonne.67 To theinquiry, How do you know that some books are canonical and othersApocryphal,theProtestantdisputant(M.Lespine)answers:"BytheSpiritofGodwhichisaSpiritofdiscrimination,bywhomallthosetowhomHeiscommunicatedareilluminated,soastobemadecapableofjudginganddiscerning spiritual things and of recognizing (cognoistre) andapprehendingthetruth(whenitisproposedtothem),bythewitnessandassurancewhichHegivestothemintheirhearts.Andaswediscriminatelightanddarknessbythefacultyofsightwhichisintheeye;so,wecaneasily separate and recognize (recognoistre) truth from falsehood, andfrom all things in general which can be false, absurd, doubtful orindifferent,whenweareinvestedwiththeSpiritofGodandguidedbythelightwhichHe lights in our hearts."M.Lespinehad evidently readhisCalvin; though there is a certain lackof crisp exactness inhis languagewhichmayraisedoubtwhetherhehasnecessarilyreproducedhimwithprecision. Clearly his idea is that the Spirit of God in His creativeoperation on the hearts of Christ's people has implanted in them - orquickened in them - a spiritual sense, which recognizes the stamp ofdivinity upon the books which God has given to the Church, and soseparatesthemoutfromallothersandthusconstitutesthecanon.ThisistoattributethediscriminationofthecanonicalbookstothewitnessoftheSpiritnotdirectlybut indirectly,namely, through the intermediationofthedeterminationof thebookswhich areof divineorigin,which, then,

being gathered together, constitute the canon, or divinely given rule ofour faithand life.This conceptionof themovementof themind in thismatter became very common, and was given very clear expression, forexample, by Jurieu, in a context which bears as evident marks ofreminiscencesofCalvin asdoM.Lespine's remarks. "That gracewhichproducesfaithinasoul,"sayshe,68"doesnotbegin...bypersuadingitthat a given book is canonical. This persuasion comes only afterwardsandasaconsequence.Itgivestotheconsciousnessatasteforthetruth:itapplies this truth to the mind and heart; it proceeds from thissubsequently that the believer believes that a given book is canonical,becausethetruthswhich'find'himarefoundinit.Inaword,wedonotbelievethatwhichiscontainedinabooktobedivinebecausethisbookiscanonical.Butwebelievethatagivenbookiscanonicalbecausewehaveperceivedthatwhat itcontains isdivine.Andwehaveperceived thisasweperceivethelightwhenwelookonthefire,sweetnessandbitternesswhen we eat."Whether we are to attribute this movement of thought,however, to Calvin, is another question.69 There is no hint of it in hiswritings.

It is not even obvious that this precise movement of thought is theconceptionwhichlayinthemindoftheauthorsoftheadditionalarticlesin the Confession of La Rochelle and of the similar statement in theBelgian Confession. The interpretation of these articles is particularlyinteresting,as theybothundoubtedlycameunder theeyeofCalvinandtheirdoctrinewasneverdisavowedbyhim.Itisnot,however,altogethereasy,becauseofacertainambiguityintheuseoftheterm"canonical."Itisonaccountoftheambiguitywhichattendstheuseofthistermthatinspeaking of their teaching we have guardedly said that they appear tosuspendthecanonicityoftheScripturalbooksinsomesensedirectlyonthetestimonyoftheSpirit.ThisambiguitymaybebroughtsharplybeforeusbyplacinginjuxtapositiontwosentencesfromQuenstedtinwhichtheterm "canonical" is employed, obviously, in two differing senses. "Wedeny,"sayshe,"thatthecatalogueofcanonicalbooksisanarticleoffaith,superaddedtotheothers[articlesoffaith]containedinScripture.Manyhave faith and may attain salvation who do not hold the number ofcanonicalbooks.Iftheword'canon'beunderstoodofthenumberofthebooks,we concede that sucha catalogue isnot contained in Scripture."

"Thesearetwodifferentquestions,"saysheagain,"whethertheGospelofMatthew is canonical, and whether it was written by Matthew. Theformerbelongs to saving faith; the latter tohistorical knowledge.For iftheGospelwhichhascomedowntousunderthenameofMatthewhadbeenwrittenbyPhiliporBartholomew, itwouldmakenodifference tosavingfaith."Intheformerextractthequestionofcanonicityisremovedfromthecategoryofarticlesof faith; in the latter it ismadean integralelementofsavingfaith.Thecontradictionisglaring-unlesstherebeanundistributed middle. And this is what there really is. In the formerpassage, where Quenstedt is engaged in repelling the contention thatthere are articles of faith that must be accepted by all, which are notcontainedinScripture-indefending,inaword,theProtestantdoctrineofthesufficiencyorperfectionofScripture-heusestheterms"canon,""canonical"inthepurelytechnicalsenseoftheextentofScripture.Inthelatterpassage,whereheisinsistingthattheauthorityofScriptureastheWordofGodhangsonitsdivine,notonitshuman,author,heusestheterm "canonical" in the sense of "divinely given." The term "canonical"was current, then, in the two senses of "belonging to the list ofauthoritativeScriptures,""enteringintothebodyoftheScriptures,"and"God-given," "divine." In which of these two senses is it used in theGallican and Belgian Confessions? If in the former, then theseConfessionsteachthatthetestimonyoftheSpiritisavailabledirectlyforthedeterminationof thecanon: if in the latter, thentheyteachnosuchthing,butonlythatitisonthetestimonyoftheSpiritthatweareassuredofthedivineoriginandcharacterofthesebooks.

That the Gallican Confession employs the term in the latter of thesesenses, seems at least possible when once attention is called to it,although regard for the last clause of the statement, "who makes usdistinguish them from theother ecclesiasticalbooks," etc., prevents therepresentation of this interpretation as certain. Its declaration,succeeding the catalogue of the books given in the third section, isobviouslyintendedtoaffirmsomethingthatistrueofthemalreadyasadefinite body of books before themind. "We recognize these books," itsays, "tobe canonical and the very certain rule of our faith."That is tosay, to this body of books we ascribe the quality of canonicity andrecognize their regulative character. What would seem, then, to be in

questionisaqualitybelongingtoalistofbooksalreadydeterminedandinthemindoftheframerofthestatementasawhole.Thesamemaybesaid of the Belgian Confession. It, too, has already given a list of thecanonicalbooks,andnowproceedstoaffirmsomethingthatistrueof"allofthesebooksandthemonly."Thethingaffirmedisthattheyare"holyandcanonical,"wherethecollocationsuggeststhat"canonical"expressesaqualitywhichrangeswith"holy."Wecannothelp,suspecting,then,thatthese early confessions use the term "canonical" not quantitatively butqualitatively, not extensively but intensively; and in that sense it is theequivalent of "divine."70 Even the inference back from them to CalvinthathemayhavesupposedthatthetestimonyoftheSpiritisavailabletodetermine the canon becomes therefore doubtful: and no other reasonexistswhyweshouldattributethisviewtohim.Wecannotaffirmthatthemovement of his thought was never from the divinity of Scripture,assuredtousbythetestimonyof theSpirit, tothedeterminationof thelimitsof thecanon:butwehavenoreason toascribe thismovementofthoughttohimexceptthatitwasadoptedbysomeofhissuccessors.

Ontheotherhand,Calvinconstantlyspeaksasiftheonlythingwhichthetestimonyof theSpirit assuresusof in the caseof theScriptures is thedivinityoftheiroriginandcontents:andhealwaystreatsScripturewhensospeakingofitasadefiniteentity,heldbeforehismindasawhole.71Inthese circumstances his own practice in dealing with the question ofcanonicity and text, makes it sufficiently clear that he held theirsettlement to depend on scientific investigation, and appealed to thetestimonyof theSpiritonly toaccredit thedivineoriginof theconcretevolume thus put into his hands. The movement of his thought wastherefore along this course: first, the ascertainment, on scientificgrounds,ofthebodyofbookshandeddownfromtheApostlesastheruleof faith and practice; secondly, the vindication, on the same class ofgrounds,oftheintegrityoftheirtransmission;thirdly,theaccreditingofthemasdivine on the testimony of the Spirit. It is not involved in thisthatheistobeconsideredtohavesupposedthatamanmustbeascholarbeforehecanbeaChristian.HesupposedwebecomeChristiansnotbyscholarshipbutbythetestimonyoftheSpiritintheheart,andhehadnoinclination to demand scholarship as the basis of ourChristianity. It isonlyinvolvedinthepositionweascribetohimthathemustbecredited

with recognizing that questions of scholarship are for scholars andquestionsofreligiononlyforChristiansassuch.Hewouldhavesaid-hedoes say - that he in whose heart the Spirit bears His testimony willrecognize the Scriptures whenever presented to his contemplation asdivine,willdependonthemwithsoundtrustandwillembracewithtruefaith all that theypropound tohim.Hewoulddoubtless have said thatthisactoffaithlogicallyimplicatesthedeterminationofthe"canon."Buthewouldalsohavesaid-hedoesineffectsay-thatthisdeterminationofthe canon is a separable act and is to be prosecuted on its ownappropriate grounds of scientific evidence. It involves indeed afundamentalmisapprehension of Calvin'swhole attitude to attribute tohim the view that the testimony of the Spirit determines immediatelysuchscientificquestionsasthoseofthecanonandtextofScripture.ThetestimonyoftheSpiritwastohimemphaticallyanoperationoftheSpiritofGodontheheart,whichproduceddistinctivelyaspiritualeffect:itwasdirected tomakingmenChristians,72 not tomaking them theologians.The testimony of the Spirit was, in effect, in his view, just what we inmoderntimeshavelearnedtocall"regeneration"consideredinitsnoeticeffects.That"regeneration"hasnoeticeffectshe isexplicitand iterativein affirming: but that these noetic effects of "regeneration" couldsupersedethenecessityofscientificinvestigationinquestionswhichrestfor their determination onmatters of fact - Calvinwould be the last toimagine. He who recognized that the conviction of the divinity ofScripturewroughtbythetestimonyoftheSpiritrestsasitsgroundontheindicia of the divinity of Scripture spiritually discerned in their trueweight, could not imagine that the determination of the canon ofScriptureortheestablishmentofitstextcouldbewhollyseparatedfromtheirproperbasisinevidenceandgroundedsolelyinablindtestimonyofthe Spirit alone: which indeed in that case would be fundamentallyindistinguishable from that "revelation" which he rebuked theAnabaptistsforclaimingtobetherecipientsof.

THETESTIMONYANDTHERELIGIOUSLIFE

When we clearly apprehend the essence of Calvin's doctrine of thetestimonyoftheSpirittothedivinityofScripturetobethenoeticeffectsof"regeneration"weshallknowwhatestimatetoplaceuponthecriticism

whichissometimespasseduponhimthathehasinsufficientlycorrelatedhisdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritwiththeinner73religiouslifeofthe Christian, has given too separate a place to the Spirit's witness toScripture, and thus has overestimated the formal principle ofProtestantism in comparison with the material principle,74 with theeffect of giving a hard, dry, and legalistic aspect to Christianity asexpounded by him. With Luther, it is said, everything is made ofJustification and the liberty of the Christian man fills the horizon ofthought;andthisisbecausehismindissetonthe"faith"outofwhichallgood things flow and by which everything - Scripture itself - isdominated.WithCalvin, on theotherhand,withhisprimary emphasisontheauthorityofScripture,accreditedtousbyadistinctactoftheHolySpirit,thewatchwordbecomesobedience;andthehorizonofthoughtisfilledwithasenseofobligationandlegalisticanxietyastoconduct.

How Calvin could have failed to correlate sufficiently closely thetestimony of the Spirit with the inner Christian life, or could haveemphasized the formalprinciple ofProtestantismat the expenseof thematerial,whenheconceivedofthewitnessoftheSpiritasjustoneoftheeffectsof"regeneration,"itisdifficulttosee.Sotoconceivethetestimonyof the Spirit is on the contrary to make the formal principle ofProtestantism just an outgrowth of thematerial. It is only because ourspiritshavebeenrenewedbytheHolySpiritthatweseewithconvincingclearness the indicia of God in Scripture, that is, have the Scripturessealed tousby theSpirit asdivine. It isquitepossible thatCalvinmayhave particularly emphasized the obligations which grow out of ourrenewal by the Holy Spirit and the implantation in us of the Spirit ofAdoptionwherebywebecome the sonsofGod -obligations to comportourselvesasthesonsofGodandtogovernourselvesbythelawofGod'shouseasgivenusinHisWord;whileLuthermayhaveemphasizedmorethe liberty of the Christianmanwho is emancipated from the law as acondition of salvation and is ushered into the freedom of life whichbelongs to the children of God. And it is quite possible that in thisdifferencewemayfindafundamentaldistinctionbetweenthetwotypesof Protestantism - Lutheran and Reformed - by virtue of which theReformedhavealwaysbeencharacterizedbyastrongethicaltendency-inthoughtandinpractice.Butitismisleadingtorepresentthisasdueto

aninsufficientcorrelationonCalvin'spartof thetestimonyof theSpirittothedivinityofScripturewiththeinnerChristianlife.ItwouldbemoreexacttosaythatCalvininthiscorrelationthinksespeciallyofwhatinourmodern nomenclature we call "regeneration," while the mind of hisLutheran critics is setmoreupon justification and that "faith"which isconnectedwithjustification.WithCalvin,atallevents,therecognitionofthe Scriptures as divine and the hearty adoption of them as the divineruleofourfaithandlifeisjustoneoftheeffectsofthegraciousoperationoftheSpiritofGodontheheart,renewingit intospiritual life,or,whatcomes to the same thing, one of the gracious activities into which thenewlyimplantedspirituallifeeffloresces.

Whetherwe should say also that itwaswith him the first effect of thecreative operation of the Spirit on the heart, the first act of the newlyrenewed soul, requires some discrimination. If wemean logically first,thereisasenseinwhichweshouldprobablyanswerthisquestionalsointhe affirmative. Calvin would doubtless have said that it is in theScripturesthatChristisproposedtoourfaith,or,toputitmorebroadly,thatChrististheverysubstanceofthespecialrevelationdocumentedinthe Scriptures, and that the laying hold of Christ by faith presupposestherefore confidence in the revelation the substance of which He is -whichisasmuchastosaytheembracingoftheScripturesinfirmfaithasa revelation from God. If the Word is the vehicle through which theknowledgeofChristisbroughttothesoul,itfollowsofitselfthatitisonlywhenourmindsarefilledwithasolidreverencefortheWord,whenbythe light of the Spirit we are enabled and prevalently led to see Christtherein, thatwe can embrace Christ with a sound faith: so that itmaytrulybesaidthatnomancanhavetheleasttrueandsoundknowledgeofChristwithoutlearningfromScripture(cf.I.ix.3;I.vi.2).InthissenseCalvinwouldcertainlyhavesaidthatourfaithinChristpresupposesfaithintheScriptures,ratherthanthatwebelieveintheScripturesforChrist'ssake.Butifourmindsaresetonchronologicalsequences,theresponsetothequestionwhichisraisedismoredoubtful.Faithintherevelationthesubstance of which is Christ and faith in Christ the substance of thisrevelation are logical implicates which involve one another: and weshould probably be nearest to Calvin's thought if, without raisingquestions of chronological succession, we should recognize them as

arisingtogetherinthesoul.TherealdifferencebetweenCalvin'sandtheordinaryLutheranconceptionatthispointliesinthegreaterprofundityofCalvin'sinsightandthegreaterexactnessofhisanalysis.TheLutheranisprone tobeginwith faith,which isnaturally conceivedat itsapex,asfaith in Jesus Christ our Redeemer; and to make everything else flowfrom this faith as itsultimate root.Forwhat comesbefore faith, out ofwhichfaithitselfflows,hehaslittleimpulseaccuratelytoinquire.Calvinpenetrates behind faith to the creative action of theHoly Spirit on theheart and thenew creaturewhich results therefrom,whoseact faith is;andisthereforecompelledbyanimpulsederivedfromthematteritselftoconsidertherelationsinwhichtheseveralactivitiesofthisnewcreaturestand to one another and to analyse the faith itself which holds theprimacyamongthem(fortrust is theessenceofreligion,chap. ii.), intoitsseveralmovements.Theeffectofthisisthat"efficaciousgrace"-whatwecallinmodernspeech"regeneration"-takestheplaceoffundamentalprinciple in Calvin's soteriology and he becomes preeminently thetheologianof theHolySpirit. Inpointof fact it is fromhimaccordinglythattheeffectivestudyoftheworkoftheHolySpirittakesitsrise,anditisonlyinthechannelscutbyhimandatthehandsofthinkerstaughtbyhimthatthetheologyoftheHolySpirithasbeenrichlydeveloped.75

ItishisprofoundsenseofthesupernaturaloriginofallthatisgoodinthemanifestationsofhumanlifewhichconstitutesthecharacteristicmarkofCalvin'sthinking:anditisthiswhichliesatthebottomofanddetermineshisdoctrineof thewitnessof theHolySpirit.Hedidnotdoubtthattheact of faith by which the child of God embraces the Scriptures as arevelation of God is his own act and the expression of his innermostconsciousness.Butneitherdidhedoubt that this consciousness is itselftheexpressionof a creative act of theSpirit ofGod.And itwason thisaccount that he represented to himself the act of faith performed asrestingultimatelyon"thetestimonyoftheSpirit."Itssupernaturaloriginwas to him the most certain thing about it. That language very muchresembling his ownmight be employed in a naturalistic sense was, nodoubt,madestartlinglyplaininhisowndaybytheteachingofCastellion.Outofhispantheising rationalismCastellion found it possible to speakalmostinCalvin'swords."Itisevident,"sayshe,"thattheintentionandsecret counsels of God, hidden in the Scriptures, are revealed only to

believers, the humble, the pious, who fear God and have the Spirit ofGod." If the wicked have sometimes spoken like prophets, they haveneverthelessnotreallyunderstoodwhattheysaid,butarelikemagpiesinacagegoingthroughtheformsofspeechwithoutinnerapprehensionofits meaning.76 But Castellion meant by this nothing more than thatsympathy is requisite to understanding. Since his daymultitudesmorehave employed Calvin's language to express little more than this; andhaveevenrepresentedCalvin'sownmeaningasnothingmorethanthatthehumanconsciousnessacquiresbyassociationwithGodinChristthepowerofdiscriminatingthetruthofGodfromfalsehood.Nothingcouldmore fundamentally subvertCalvin'swhole teaching.The verynerve ofhis thought is, that the confidence of the Christian in the divine originandauthorityofScriptureandtherevelatorynatureof itscontents isofdistinctively supernatural origin, is God-wrought. The testimony of theSpiritmay be delivered through the forms of our consciousness, but itremainsdistinctivelythetestimonyofGodtheHolySpiritandisnottobeconfused with the testimony of our consciousness.77 Resting on thelanguageofRom.viii.16,fromwhichtheterm"testimonyof theSpirit"wasderived,heconceiveditasaco-witnessalongwiththewitnessofourspiritindeed,butonthatveryaccountdistinguishablefromthewitnessofourspirit.Thisparticularpointisnowherediscussedbyhimatlarge,butCalvin'sgeneralsenseisperfectlyplain.Thatthereisadoubletestimonyheisentirelysure-thetestimonyofourownspiritandthatoftheHolySpirit:thatthesearethoughdistinguishableyetinseparable,heisequallyclear: his conception is therefore that this double testimony runsconfluentlytogether intoone.This isonlyasmuchastosayafreshthatthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit isnotdeliveredtous inapropositionalrevelation,norbythecreating inusofablindconviction,butalongthelines of our own consciousness. In its essence, the act of the Spirit indelivering His testimony, terminates on our nature, or faculties,quickeningthemsothatwefeel,judge,andactdifferentlyfromwhatweotherwiseshould.Inthissense,thetestimonyoftheSpiritcoalesceswithour consciousness. We cannot separate it out as a factor in ourconclusions, judgments; feelings, actions, consciously experienced ascoming from without. But we function differently from before: werecognizeGodwherebeforewedidnotperceiveHim;wetrustandloveHimwherebeforewefearedandhatedHim;wefirmlyembraceHimin

HisWordwherebeforeweturnedindifferentlyaway.Thischangeneedsaccountingfor.WeaccountforitbytheactionoftheHolySpiritonourhearts; and we call this His "testimony." But we cannot separate HisactionfromourrecognitionofGod,ourturningintrustandlovetoHimandthelike.ForthisistheveryforminwhichthetestimonyoftheSpirittakes effect, into which it flows, by which it is recognized. We areprofoundly conscious that of ourselveswe neverwould have seen thus,andthatourseeingthuscanneverfinditsaccount inanythinginusbynature. We are sure, therefore, that there has come upon us arevolutionaryinfluencefromwithout;andwearesurethatthisistheactof God. Calvin would certainly have cried as one of his most eloquentdisciples cries to-day: "The Holy Spirit is God, and not we ourselves.Whatwe are speaking of is a Spiritwhich illuminates our spirit,whichpurifiesourspirit,whichstrivesagainstourspirit,whichtriumphsoverourspirit.AndyousaythisSpiritisnothingbutourspirit?Bynomeans.TheHolySpirit,theSpiritofGod-thisisGodcomingintous,notcomingfrom us."78 It is with equal energy that Calvin declares thesupernaturalnessofthetestimonyoftheSpiritandrepelseveryattempttoconfounditwiththehumanconsciousnessthroughwhichitworks.Tohim this testimony is just GodHimself inHis intimate working in thehumanheart,openingittothelightofthetruth,thatbythisilluminationitmayseethingsastheyreallyareandsorecognizeGodintheScriptureswiththesamedirectnessandsuretyasmenrecognizesweetnessinwhatissweetandbrightnessinwhatisbright.Hereindeedliestheveryhingeofhisdoctrine.79

IthasseemeddesirabletoenterintosomedetailwithrespecttoCalvin'sdoctrine of the testimony of the Spirit, not only because of its intrinsicinterest, but also because of its importance for understanding Calvin'sdoctrineoftheknowledgeofGodandindeedhiswholesystemoftruth,and for a proper estimate of his place in the history of thought. Hisdoctrineof the testimonyof theSpirit is thekeystoneofhisdoctrineofthe knowledge of God. Men endowed by nature with an ineradicablesensus deitatis, which is quickened into action and informed by a richrevelationofGodspreaduponHisworksandembodiedinHisdeeds,areyetheldbackfromattainingasoundknowledgeofGodbythecorruptionoftheirhearts,whichdullstheirinstinctivesenseofGodandblindsthem

toHis revelation inworks anddeeds.ThatHis peoplemayknowHim,therefore,GodlovinglyintervenesbyanobjectiverevelationofHimselfinHis Word, and a subjective correction of their sin-bred dullness ofapprehensionofHimthroughtheoperationofHisSpiritintheirhearts,whichCalvincalls theTestimonyof theHolySpirit.Obviously it isonlythrough this testimony of the Holy Spirit that the revelation of God,whetherinworksorWord,isgivenefficacy:itisGod,then,who,throughHis Spirit, reveals Himself to His people, and they know Him only astaughtbyHimself.ButalsoonthisveryaccounttheknowledgetheyhaveofHimistrustworthyinitscharacterandcompleteforitspurpose;beingGod-given,itissafeguardedtousbythedreadfulsanctionofdeityitself.This beingmade clear, Calvin has laid a foundation for the theologicalstructure - the scientific statement and elaborationof theknowledgeofGod-thanwhichnothingcouldbeconceivedmorefirm.Thereremainednothingmore for him to do before proceeding at once to draw out theelementsoftheknowledgeofGodastheylieintherevelationsoassuredto us, except to elucidate the indicia by which the Christian under theinfluenceofthetestimonyoftheSpiritisstrengthenedinhisconfidencethat the Scriptures are the very Word of God, and to repudiate thetendency to neglect these Scriptures so authenticated to us in favor offancied continuous revelations of the Spirit. The former he does in achapter (chap. viii.) of considerable length and great eloquence, whichconstitutes one of the fullest and most powerful expositions of theevidenceforthedivineoriginoftheScriptureswhichhavecomedowntous from the Reformation age. The latter he does in a briefer chapter(chap. ix.), of crisp polemic quality, the upshot of which is to leave itstronglyimpressedonthereader'smindthatthewholeknowledgeofGodavailable to us, as the whole knowledge of God needful for us, liesobjectivelydisplayedinthepagesofScripture,which,therefore,becomesthesolesourceofasoundexpositionoftheknowledgeofGod.

Thisstrongstatementisnotintended,however,toimplythattheSpirit-ledmancanlearnnothingfromthemoregeneralrevelationofGodinHisworks and deeds. Calvin is so far from denying the possibility of a"Natural Theology," in this sense of the word, that he devotes a wholechapter (chap.v.) tovindicating therichrevelationofGodmade inHisworks and deeds: though, of course, he does deny that any theology

worthy of the name can be derived from this natural revelation by the"naturalman,"thatis,bythemantheeyesofwhosemindandheartarenotopenedby theSpiritofGod-who isnotunder the influenceof thetestimony of the Spirit; and in this sense he denies the possibility of a"NaturalTheology."Whatthestrongstatementinquestionisintendedtoconvey is that there is nothing to be derived from natural revelationwhich is not also to be found in Scripture, whether as necessarypresupposition,involvedimplicationorclearstatement;andthatbesidethat documented in Scripture there is no supernatural revelationaccessibletomen.TheworkoftheSpiritofGodisnottosupplementtherevelationmadeinScripture,farlesstosupersedeit,butdistinctivelytoauthenticate it. It remains true, then, that thewholematter of a soundtheologyliesobjectivelyrevealedtousinthepagesofScripture;andthisis themainresult towhichhiswholediscussion tends.Butsidebysidewithitrequirestobeplacedasaresultofhisdiscussionsecondaryonlytothis, this further conclusion, directly given in his doctrine of thetestimony of the Spirit - that only a Christian man can profitablytheologize. It is in the union of these two great principles thatwe findCalvin's view of the bases of a true theology. This he conceives as theproduct of the systematic investigation and logical elaboration of thecontentsofScripturebyamindquickenedtotheapprehensionof thesecontentsthroughtheinwardoperationsoftheSpiritofGod.Itisonthisbasis and in this spirit that Calvin undertakes his task as a theologian;and what he professes to give us in his "Institutes" is thus, to put itsimply,justaChristianman'sreadingoftheScripturesofGod.

The Protestantism of this conception of the task of the theologian isapparent on the face of it. It is probably, however, still worth while topoint out that its Protestantism does not lie solely or chiefly in thepostulate that the Scriptures are the sole authoritative source of theknowledge of God - "formal principle" of the Reformation though thatpostulate be, and true, therefore, asChillingworth's famous declarationthat"theBibleandtheBibleonlyisthereligionofProtestants"wouldbe,ifonlyChillingworthhadkeptittothissense.Itliesmorefundamentallystill in the postulate that these Scriptures are accredited to us as therevelationofGodsolelybythetestimonyoftheHolySpirit-thatwithoutthis testimony they lie before us inert andwithout effect on our hearts

andminds,whilewithittheybecomenotmerelythepowerofGoduntosalvation,butalsothevitalizingsourceofallourknowledgeofGod.ThereisembodiedinthisthetrueProtestantprinciple,superiortoboththeso-calledformalandtheso-calledmaterialprinciples-bothofwhichareinpoint of fact but corollaries of it. For it takes the soul completely andforciblyoutof thehandsof theChurchand fromunder itsdomination,andcastsitwhollyuponthegraceofGod.InitsformulationCalvingaveto Protestantism for the first time, accordingly, logical stability and aninwardsenseofsecurity.Menwerenomorepuzzledby thepolemicsofRomewhentheywereasked,YourestonScripturealone,yousay:butonwhat does your Scripture rest? Calvin's development of the doctrine ofthe testimony of the Spirit provided themwith their sufficient answer:"On the testimony of the Spirit of God in the heart." Here we see thehistorical importanceofCalvin's formulation of this doctrine.Andherewe see the explanationof the two great factswhich reveal its historicalimportance, the facts, to wit, that Calvin had no predecessors in theformulationofthedoctrine,andthatatonceuponhisformulationofititbecamethecommondoctrineofuniversalProtestantism.

IV.HISTORICALRELATIONS

ThesearchforanticipationsofthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritamong the Fathers and Scholastics80 reveals only such sporadicassertionsofthedependenceofmanontheinwardteachingoftheHolySpiritfortheknowledgeorthesavingknowledgeofGodascouldnotfailin the speechof a seriesofChristianmenwhohad read theirBibles.AsentenceofthiskindfromJustinMartyr,81anotherfromChrysostom,82twoorthreefromHilaryofPoitiers,83almostexhaustwhatthefirstageyields. It is different with Augustine. With his profound sense ofdependenceonGodandhisvitalconvictionofthenecessityofgraceforallthatisgoodinman,inthewholecircleofhisactivities,hecouldnotfail to work out a general doctrine of the knowledge of God in allessentials the same as Calvin's. In point of fact, as we have alreadypointedout,hedidso.Thereremain,however,someveryinterestingandsomeverysignificantdifferencesbetween the two.84It is interesting tonote,forinstance,thatwhereCalvinspeaksofaninnatesensusdeitatisinman,as lyingat therootofallhisknowledgeofGod,Augustine,witha

moreprofoundontologyofthisknowledge,asatleastmadeexplicitinthestatement,speaksofacontinuousreflectionofaknowledgeofHimselfbyGod in the human mind.85 There is here, however, probably only adifferenceinfulnessofstatement,oratmostonlyofemphasizedaspect.On the other hand, it is highly significant that, instead of Calvin'sdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirit,Augustine,inconformitywiththestress he laid upon the "Church" and the "means of grace" in theconferenceofgrace,speaksoftheknowledgeofGodasattainableonly"intheChurch."86Accordingly, inhimalsoandhis successors thereare tobe found only such anticipations specifically of the doctrine of thetestimonyoftheSpiritasareaffordedbytheincreasedfrequencyoftheirreferencestothedependenceofmanforallknowledgeofGodanddivinethingsongraceandtheinwardteachingoftheheavenlyInstructor.Thevoiceofmenmayassailourears,saysAugustine,forinstance,butthoseremain untaught "towhom that inward unction does not speak,whomtheHolySpiritdoesnot inwardly teach": for"HewhoteachesthehearthasHisseatinheaven."87Moseshimself,yea,evenifhespoketousnotinHebrewbutinourowntongue,couldconveytousonlytheknowledgeof what he said: of the truth of what he said, only the Truth Himself,speakingwithinus, inthesecretchamberofour thought,canassureusthoughHespeaksneitherinHebrewnorinGreeknorinLatin,noryetinanytongueofthebarbarians,butwithoutorgansofvoiceortongueandwithnoleastsyllabicsound.88FurtherthanthismendidnotgetbeforetheReformation:89 nor did the firstReformers themselves get further.Nodoubt theydiscernedthevoiceof theSpirit in theScriptures,as theFathersdidbeforethem;andinasinglesentence,written,however,afterthe "Institutes" of 1539 (viz., in 1555), Melanchthon notes with theFathersthatthemindis"aidedingivingitsassent"todivinethings"bythe Holy Spirit."90 Zwingli here stands on the same plane with hisbrethren.Hestronglyrepels theRomishestablishmentofconfidence inthe Scriptures on the ipse dixit of theChurch, indeed: and asserts thatthosewho sincerely search the Scriptures are taught by God, and eventhat none acquire faith in the Word except as drawn by the Father,admonishedby theSpirit, taughtby theunction - as, sayshe, all piousmen have found.91 But such occasional remarks as this could not failwherevertheAugustinianconceptionofgracewasvitally felt; and showonlythatthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritwasalwaysimplicitin

thatdoctrine.92

ThesameremarkappliestothefirsteditionofCalvin's"Institutes"(1536)also,thoughwithadifference.Thisdifference-that,ifwecannotsaythatthedoctrineof the internal testimonyof theSpirit to thedivinityof theScripturesisfoundtherealreadyingerm93anymorethanwecansaythesame of the Augustinian Fathers, and the criticism passed94 on theadductionofMelanchthon'ssinglesentenceinthisreferencetotheeffectthathe speaks rather "of theactionof theHolySpiritwith reference totheobjectoffaith,thatistosay,tothecontentsoftheWordofGod"than"withreferencetothedivinityoftheScripturesthemselves,"isvalidalsoforCalvin'sfirstedition;yetitiscertainlytruethatthegeneraldoctrineofthe internal testimony of the Spirit comes much more prominentlyforwardineventhefirsteditionofthe"Institutes"thaninanyprecedingtreatise of the sort - that much more is made in it than in any of itspredecessors of the poverty of the human spirit and the need andactuality of the prevalent influence of the Spirit of God that manmayhave-whetherinknowledgeoract-anygoodthing.Weshallhavetogoback to Augustine to find anything comparable to the conviction andinsightwithwhicheveninthishisearliestworkCalvinurgesthesethings.Calvin's whole thought is already dominated by the conception of thepowerlessness of the human soul in its sin in all that belongs to theknowledge ofGodwhich is salvation, and its entire dependence on thesovereignoperationsoftheHolySpirit:andinthissense itmaybesaidthatthechaptersinthenew"Institutes"of1539inwhichhedevelopsthisdoctrineofthenoeticeffectsofsinandtheircurebyobjectiverevelation,documented in Scripture, and subjective illumination wrought by theHolySpirit,layimplicitlyinhisdoctrineofman'sneedanditscurebytheindwelling Spirit which pervades the "Institutes" of 1536. There healready teaches that the written law was required by the decay of ourconsciousnessofthelawwrittenontheheart;thattoknowGodandHiswillwehaveneedtosurpassourselves;thatitistheSpiritdwellinginusthatisthesourceofallourrightknowledgeofGod;andthatitisduetothepoweroftheSpiritalone"thatwehearthewordoftheHolyGospel,thatweacceptitbyfaith,andthatweabideinthisfaith"(p.137,orOpp.i. 72).With eminent directness and simplicity he already there tells usthat "our Lord first teaches and instructs us by HisWord; secondarily

confirmsusbyHisSacraments;andthirdlybythelightofHisHolySpiritilluminatesourunderstandingsandgivesentranceintoourheartsbothtotheWordandtotheSacraments,whichotherwisewouldonlybeatuponour ears and stand before our eyes, without penetrating or operatingbeneaththem"(p.206,orOpp.i.104).Thereis,inotherwords,veryrichteachinginthe"Institutes"of1536oftheentiredependenceofsinfulmanontheSpiritofGodforeverysoundreligiousmovementofthesoul:butthere is nodevelopment of the precise doctrine of the testimonyof theHolySpirittothedivinityoftheScriptures.ItisnotmerelythatthetermtestimoniumSpiritusSanctidoesnotoccur inthisearlydraft,oroccursonly once, and then not in this sense:95 it is that the thing is notexplicated and is present only as implicated in the general doctrine ofgrace,whichisverypurelyconceived.

Itwasleft,then,totheeditionof1539tocreatethewholedoctrineat,asitwere,asinglestroke.96For,aswehavealreadyhadoccasiontonote,Calvin'swholeexpositionofthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirittothe divinity of Scripture appears all at once in its completeness in thesecondeditionof the "Institutes," the first editionwhichhe issuedas atextbook on theology, that of 1539. This exposition was reproducedwithout curtailment or alteration in all subsequent editions, and isthereby given the great endorsement of Calvin's permanent approval:whiletheadditionswhicharemadetoitintheprogressiveexpansionofthe treatise,while large inamount, aredevoted toguarding it from themisapprehension that the necessity it asserted for the testimony of theSpiritinanywaydetractedfromtheobjectivevalueoftheindiciaof thedivinity of Scripture, rather than to modifying the positive doctrineexpounded. The additions within the limits of chapter vii. consistessentiallyoftheinsertionofthediscussionofAugustine'sdoctrinein§3andofthecaveatwithreferencetotheunderestimationoftheindiciain§4, while practically the whole of chapter viii. - all except the openingsentence- isof laterorigin. Ifwewillomit the firstsentenceofchaptervii.,thewholeof§§3and4,withtheexceptionofthesentencenearthebeginningofthelatter,whichbegins:"Nowifwewishtoconsultthetrueintent of our conscience" - and thebeginning and endof § 5, retainingonly the central passage beginning: "For though it conciliate ourreverence..."downtothewords:"Superiortothepowerofanyhuman

willorknowledge,"andalsothetwostrikingsentences,beginningwith:"It is such a persuasion" and ending with "a just explication of thesubject" - we shall have substantially the text of the edition of 1539,needing only to add the two opening sentences of chapter viii. and themajorpartofchapter ix. Itwillatoncebeseenthat theeditionof1539containstheentirepositiveexpositionofthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritasretainedbyCalvintotheend.

TheformulationofthisprincipleofthetestimonyoftheSpiritbyCalvinin 1539 had an extraordinary effect both immediate and permanent.97UniversalProtestantismperceivedinitatsightthepureexpressionoftheProtestantprincipleandthesheet-anchorof itsposition.TheLutheransaswellastheReformedadopteditatonceandmadeitthebasisnotonlyoftheirreasoneddefenceofProtestantism,butalsooftheirstructureofChristiandoctrineandoftheirconfidenceinChristianliving.98ToittheybothcontinuedtoclingsolongandsofarastheycontinuedfaithfultotheProtestant principle itself. It has given way only as the structure ofProtestantismhasitselfgivenwayinreactiontotheRomishposition,or,more widely, as the structure of Christian thought has given way inrationalizingdisintegration.Nodoubtithasundergoneatthehandsofitsvariousexpounders,fromtimetotime,moreorlessmodification,andinitsjourneyingstotheendsoftheearth,hassufferednowandagainsomesea-change - sometimes through sheer misapprehension, sometimesthrough sheer misrepresentation, sometimes through more or lessadmixtureofboth.Aspuriousrevivalofthedoctrinewas,forexample,seton foot by Schleiermacher in his strong revulsion from the coldrationalism which had so long reigned in Germany to a more vitalreligious faith; and sentences may be quoted from his writings which,when removedout of the context of his system of thought, almost giveexpressiontoit.99Butafterall,hisrevivalofitwasrathertherevivalofsubjectivityinreligionthanofthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpiritas the basis of all faith: and it has borne bitter fruit in a widespreadsubjectivism, the mark of which is that it discards (as "external") theauthorityofthoseveryScripturestowhichthetestimonyoftheSpirit isborne.NotinsuchcirclesisthecontinuedinfluenceofthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirittobesoughtoritscontinuedadvocacytobefound.IfwewouldseeitinitspurityinthemodernChurchwemustlookforit

inthehandsoftruesuccessorsofCalvin- inthewritings, tonameonlymenofourowntime,ofWilliamCunningham100andCharlesHodge101andAbrahamKuyper102andHermanBavinck.103

Aswehavealreadyhadoccasiontonote,theprincipleofthetestimonyoftheSpiritasthetruebasisofourconfidenceintheScripturesastheWordofGodwasalmostfromthehandsofCalvinhimselfincorporatedintotheReformed Creeds. We have already pointed out the sharpness andstrengthof itsexpressionintheGallican(1557-1571)andBelgian (1501-1571)Confessions,anditfindsatleasttheexpressionofsuggestionintheSecondHelveticConfession(1562).Itwasnot,however,merelyintotheConfessionsof theReformationage that itwas incorporated. It isgivenanexpressionasclearasitisprudent,asdecidedasitiscomprehensive,in that confessionof their faithwhich thepersecutedWaldenses issuedafter the massacres of 1655;104 and it is incorporated into theWestminster Confession of Faith (1646) in perhaps the best and mostbalanced statement it has ever received - the phraseology of which isobviouslyderivedinlargepartfromCalvin,eitherdirectlyorthroughtheintermediation of George Gillespie,105 but the substance of which wasbut the expression of the firmly held faith of the whole body of theframersofthatculminatingConfessionoftheReformedChurches.

"We recognize thedivinity of these sacred books," says theWaldensianConfession(chap.iv.),"notonlythroughthetestimonyoftheChurch,butprincipally through the eternal and indubitable truth of the doctrinewhich is contained in them, through the excellence, sublimity, andmajestyofthepuredivinity(dutoutdivine)whichareapparentinthem,andthroughtheoperationoftheHolySpiritwhichmakesusreceivewithdeferencethetestimonywhichtheChurchgivestothem,whichopensoureyes to receive the rays of the celestial light which shines in theScriptures, and so corrects our taste that we discern this food by thedivinesavorwhich itpossesses."Thedependenceof this fine statementonCalvin'sexpositionisevident;butwhatismoststrikingaboutitistheclaritywithwhichitconceivesandthefulnesswithwhichitexpoundstheexactmodeofworkingof the testimonyof theSpirit and its relationtotheindiciaofdivinityinScripture,throughwhich,andnotapartfromorinoppositiontowhich, itperformsitswork.Sofarfromsupposingthat

the witness of the Spirit is of the nature of a new and independentrevelation from heaven or works only a blind faith in us, setting thusasideallevidencesofthedivinityofScripture,externalandinternalalike,thiscarefulstatementparticularlyexplainsthatourfaithinthedivinityofScripturerests,under the testimonyof theSpirit,ontheseevidencesasits ground, but not on these evidences by themselves, but on them asapprehended by a Spirit-led mind and heart - the work of the Spiritconsisting in so dealingwith our spirit that these evidences are, underHisinfluence,perceivedandfeltintheirrealbearingandfullstrength.

An even more notable statement of the whole doctrine is thatincorporated into theWestminster Confession (i. 4, 5), and in a morecompressedformintotheLargerCatechism(Q.4)."TheauthorityoftheHolyScripture, forwhich it ought to be believed andobeyed," says theConfession, "dependeth not upon the testimony of anyman or church,but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; andthereforeit istobereceived,becauseit istheWordofGod.WemaybemovedandinducedbythetestimonyoftheChurchtoahighandreverentesteem of the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, theefficacy of the doctrine, themajesty of the style, the consent of all theparts, thescopeof thewhole (which is togiveallglory toGod), the fulldiscovery itmakes of the only way ofman's salvation, themany otherincomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, areargumentswherebyitdothabundantlyevidenceitselftobetheWordofGod; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of theinfallibletruth,anddivineauthoritythereof, is fromtheinwardworkoftheHolySpirit,bearingwitnessbyandwith theWord inourheart." Inthe Larger Catechism this is reduced to the form: "The ScripturesmanifestthemselvestobetheWordofGod,bytheirmajestyandpurity;bytheconsentofalltheparts,andthescopeofthewhole,whichistogiveallglorytoGod;bytheirlightandpowertoconvinceandconvertsinners,to comfort and build up believers unto salvation; but the Spirit ofGodbearingwitnessbyandwiththeScripturesintheheartofman,isaloneable fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God." Thefundamental excellence of this remarkable statement (for the fullunderstanding of which what is said of "faith" in chapter xiv. of theConfessionandQuestion72oftheCatechismshouldbecomparedwithit

- justasCalvin referredhis readers tohis laterdiscussionof "faith" forfurtherinformationonthetopicofthetestimonyoftheSpirit)isthecarewithwhichtheseveralgroundsonwhichwerecognizetheScripturestobe from God are noted and their value appraised, and that yet thesupremeimportanceofthewitnessoftheSpiritissafe-guarded.106Theexternal testimony of the Church is noted and its value pointed out: itmovesand inducesus toahigh and reverent esteem forScripture.Theinternal testimonyof the characteristics of the Scriptures themselves isnoted and its higher value pointed out: they "abundantly evidence" or"manifest"theScriptures"tobetheWordofGod."Theneedandplaceofthe testimony of the Spirit is then pointed out in the presence of this"abundantevidencing"or "manifesting": it isnot toaddnewevidence -whichisnotneeded-buttosecuredeeperconviction-whichisneeded;and not independently of theWord with its evidencing characteristics,but"byandwiththeWord"or"theScriptures."WhatthisevidenceoftheSpiritdoesis"fullytopersuadeus"that"theScripturesaretheveryWordofGod," - towork inus "fullpersuasionandassuranceof the infallibletruth and divine authority" of the Word of God. It is a matter ofcompleteness of conviction, not of grounds of conviction; and thetestimony of the Spirit works, therefore, not by adding additionalgroundsofconviction,butbyaninwardworkontheheart,enablingittoreactuponthealready"abundantevidence"withareally"fullpersuasionand assurance." Here we have the very essence of Calvin's doctrine,almostinhisownwords,andwithevenmorethanhisowneloquenceandprecisionofstatement.

What Calvin has given to the Reformed Churches, therefore, in hisformulation of the doctrine of the Testimony of the Spirit is afundamentaldoctrine,whichhasbeenas suchexpoundedby thewholebodyoftheirtheologians,andincorporatedintothefabricoftheirpublicConfessions,sothatithasbeenmadeandcontinuestobeuntilto-daytheofficiallydeclaredfaithoftheReformedChurchesinFranceandHolland,Switzerland, Italy, Scotland, and America, wherever the fundamentalReformedCreedsarestillprofessed.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,vii.1909,pp.219-325.2. Article on "Calvin's Institutio, nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer

geschichtlichenEntwickelung,"printed in theTheologischeStudienundKritikenfor1868,p.39.Köstlin'swholeaccountoftheoriginofthesesectionsintheeditionof1539isworthreading(pp.38-39).

3. "Institutes," I. iii. 1: Quemdam inesse humanae menti, et quidemnaturaliinstinctu,divinitatissensum,extracontroversiamponimus;iii.3,adinit.:"Thisindeedwithallrightlyjudgingmenwillalwaysbeassured, that there is engraved on the minds of men divinitatissensum,quideleranumquampotest"; iii. 3,med.: vigere tamenacsubinde emergere quem maxime extinctum cuperent, deitatissensum; iv. 4, ad fin.: naturaliter insculptum esae deitatis sensumhumanis cordibus; iv. 4, ad fin.: manet tamen semen illud quodrevelli a radice nullo modo potest, aliquam esse divinitatem. Thephraseology by which Calvin designates this "natural instinct"(naturalisinstanctus;iii.1,adinit.)variesfromsensusdivinitatisorsensusdeitatistosuchsynonymsas:numinisintelligentia,deinotio,deinotitia. It is thebasison theonehandofwhatevercognitiodeiman attains to and on the other of whatever religio he reaches;whenceitiscalledthesemenreligionis.

4. ThattheknowledgeofGodisinnatewasthecommonpropertyoftheReformed teachers. Peter Martyr, "Loci Communes," 1576, praef.,declaresthatDeicognitioomniumanimisnaturaliterinnata[est].Itwas thrown into great prominence in the Socinian debate, as theSocinianscontended that thehumanmind isnativelya tabula rasaand all knowledge is acquired. But in defending the innateknowledge of God, the Reformed doctors were very careful that itshould not be exaggerated. Thus Leonh. Riissen, "F. TurretiniCompendium ... auctumet illustratum," 1695, i.8, remarks: "Somerecentwritersexplainthenaturalsenseofdeity(numinis)asanideaof God impressed on our minds. If this idea is understood as aninnatefacultyforknowingGodaftersomefashion, itshouldnotbedenied;but if itexpressesanactualandadequaterepresentationofGod from our birth, it is to be entirely rejected." (Heppe, "Die

DogmatikderevangelischrcformirtenKirche,"1861,p.4.)5. En quid sit pura germanaque religio, nempe fides, cum serio Dei

timore coniuncta; ut timor et voluntariam reverentiam in secontineat, et secum trahat ligitimum cultum, qualis in Legepraescribitur.

6. Thesignificanceandrelationsof"thePuritanprinciple"ofabsolutedependenceontheWordofGodas thesourceofknowledgeofHiswill,andexclusivelimitationtoitsprescriptionsofdoctrine,life,andevenformofChurchgovernmentandworship,aresuggestedbyJ.A.Dorner, "Hist. of Protest. Theol.," 1871, i. p. 390, who criticizes itsharplyfromhis"freer"Lutheranstandpoint.ButevenLutherknewhow, on occasion, to invoke "the Puritan principle." Writing toBartimevonSternberg,Sept.1,1523,hesays:"ForaChristianmustdonothingthatGodhasnotcommanded,andthereisnocommandas to such masses and vigils, but it is solely their own invention,whichbringsinmoney,withouthelpingeitherlivingordead"("TheLetters ofMartin Luther" (selected and translated) byMargaret A.Currie,1908,p.115).

7. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,p.8:"IfZwingli follows more the a priori, Calvin follows the a posteriorimethod";andE.Rabaud,"Hist.deladoctrinedel'inspiration,etc.,"1883,p.58:"hislucidand,aboveeverything,practicalgenius."

8. It is this distribution of Calvin's interest which leads to theimpression thathe lays little stresson "the theisticproofs."On thecontrary,heassertstheirvaliditymoststrenuously:onlyhedoesnotbelievethatanyproofscanworktruefaithapartfrom"thetestimonyoftheSpirit,"andheismoreinterestedintheirvaluefordevelopingthe knowledge of God than for merely establishing His existence.Hence P. J.Muller iswrongwhen he denies the one to affirm theother,as,e.g., inhis"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,p.11: "Neither by Zwingli nor by Calvin are proofs offered for theexistenceofGod,althoughsomepassages in theirwritings seem tocontainsuggestionsofthem.Theproposition,'Godexists,'needednoproof either for themselves, or for their coreligionists, or evenagainst Rome. The so-called cosmological argument has no doubtbeen foundby some inZwingli (Zeller,Das theolog. Syst. Zwingli'sextractedfromtheTheol.Jahrbücher,Tübingen,1853,p.33;[orp.

126 in the Th. Jahrb.] ), and the physico-theological in Calvin(Lipsius,Lehrbuchderev.Prot.Dogmatik,ed.2,1879,p.213);butitwouldnotbedifficulttoshowthatwehavetodoinneithercasewitha philosophical deduction, but onlywith ameans for attaining thecomplete knowledge of God." Though Calvin (also Zwingli) makesuse of the theistic proofs to develop the knowledge ofGod, it doesnot follow thathe (orZwingli) didnot value themasproofs of theexistenceofGod.Andwedonot thinkMuller is successful (pp. 12sq.)inexplainingawaytheimplicationofthelatter inZwingli'suseof these theistic arguments, or in Calvin's (p. 16). Schweizer,"Glaubenslehrederev.-ref.Kirche,"1844,i.p.250,findsinCalvin'scitationofCicero'sdeclarationthatthereisnonationsobarbarous,no tribe sodegraded, that it isnotpersuaded thataGodexists, anappeal to the so-calledhistorical argument for thedivine existence(cf.theuseofitbyZwingli,"Opera,"SchulerundSchultessed.,1832,iii.p.156):butCalvin'srealattitudetothetheisticargumentisrathertobesoughtintheimplicationsofthenotablyeloquentch.v.

9. P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,pp.18sq.,doesnotseemtobearthisinmind,althoughhehadclearlystateditinhis"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,pp.13-25.

10. Cf.F.C.Baur,"DiechristlicheLehrevonderDreieinigkeit,etc.," iii.1843, p. 41: "From this point of view" - he is expounding Calvin'sdoctrine-"theseveralmanifestations in thehistoryofreligionsareconceivednotas stages in thegraduallyadvancingevolutionof thereligious consciousness, but as inexcusable, sinful aberrations, aswilfulperversionsanddefacementsoftheinbornideaofGod."

11. Cf.J.Cramer,NieuweBijdragenophetgebiedvanGodgeleerdheidenWijsbegeerte,iii.1881,p.102:"BytheScriptureortheScriptureshe [Calvin] understood the books of the Old andNew TestamentswhichhavebeentransmittedtousbytheChurchascanonical,astherule of faith and life. The Apocrypha of the O. T. as they weredetermined by the Council of Trent, he excludes. They are to himindeed libri ecclesiastici, in many respects good and useful to beread;buttheyarenotlibricanonici'adfidemdogmatumfaciendam'(ActaSynodiTridentinae,cumantidoto,1547)."Inalaterarticle,"DeRoomsch-Katholieke en de Oud-protestantscheSchriftbeschouwing," 1883, p. 36, Cramer declares that by the

Scriptures,Calvinmeans "nothing else than the canon, establishedby the Synods of Hippo and Carthage, and transmitted by theCatholicChurch,withtheexceptionoftheso-calledApocryphaoftheO.T.,"etc.Cf.Leipoldt, "GeschichtedesN.T.Kanons," ii. 1908,p.149: "We obtain the impression that it is only for form's sake thatCalvinundertakes to testwhether thedisputedbooksarecanonicalornot.Inrealityitisalreadyasettledmatterwithhimthattheyare.CalvinfeelshimselfthereforeinthematteroftheN.T.canonboundtothemediævaltradition."Cf.alsoOttoRitschl,"DogmengeschichtedesProtestantismus,"i.1908,pp.70,71,tothesameeffect.

12. Cf. e.g. J. Pannier, "Le témoignage du Saint-Esprit," 1893, pp. 112sq.: "One fact strikes us at first sight: not only did Calvin notcommentontheAprochryphalbooks,forwhichhewroteaveryshortpreface,whichwas evermore andmore abridged in the successiveeditions,buthedidnotcommentonalltheCanonicalbooks.Andiflack of time may explain the passing over of some of the lessimportanthistoricalbooksoftheOldTestament,itwasundoubtedlyforagraverreasonthathelefttoonesidethethreebooksattributedtoSolomon,notablytheSongofSongs.'IntheNewTestamentthereis ordinarily mentioned only the Apocalypse, neglected by Calvinundoubtedly for critical or theological motives analogous to thosewhichdeterminedthemostofhiscontemporaries,butitisnecessarytonotethatthetwolesserepistlesofJohnarealsolacking,andthatinspeakingofthelargeepistleCalvinalwaysexpresseshimselfasifit were the only existing one' (Reuss, Revue de Theologie deStrasbourg,vi.1853,p.229).Ineffect,attheverytimewhenhewasdefending particularly the authority of the Scriptures against theCouncilofTrent,whenhewasdedicatingtoEdwardVI,theKingofEngland,hisCommentariesonthe'EpistleswhichareaccustomedtobecalledCanonical' (1551),he included in theCanononly theFirstEpistleofPeter,theFirstEpistleofJohn,Jamesand,attheveryend,the Second Epistle of Peter and Jude." - Reuss, however, in his"HistoryoftheCanonoftheHolyScripturesintheChristianChurch"(1863, E. T. 1884), greatlymodifies the opinion here quoted fromhim: "Some have believed it possible to affirm that he [Calvin]rejected the Apocalypse because it was the only book of theN. T.,except the two short Epistles of John, on which he wrote no

commentary.But thatconclusion is toohasty. In theInstitutes, theApocalypse is sometimes quoted like the other Apostolic writings,and even under John's name. If there was no commentary, it wassimplythattheillustriousexegete,wiserinthisrespectthanseveralofhis contemporariesandmanyofhis successors,understood thathis vocation called him elsewhere" (p. 318).He adds, indeed, of IIandIIIJohn:"ItmightbesaidwithmoreprobabilitythatCalvindidnot acknowledge the canonicity of these two writings. He neverquotes them, and he quotes the First Epistle of John in a way toexcludethem:Joannesinsuacanonica,Instit. iii.2.21;3.23(Opp.ii.415,453)."But thisopinionrequiresrevision, justas thatontheApocalypsedid,asweshallseebelow.Cf.further,inthemeantime:Reuss,"Hist.oftheSacredScripturesoftheN.T.,"1884,ii.p.347,and S. Berger, "La Bible au seizieme siecle," 1879, p. 120, whoexpresseshimselfmostpositively:"Calvinexpressesnojudgmentonthe lesser Epistles of St. John. But we remark that he never citesthemandthathementionstheFirstintheseterms:'AsJohnsaysinhiscanonical.'Thiswordexcludes,inthethoughtoftheauthor, thetwootherEpistlesattributedtothisApostle."

13. Thismay have been the case with the Apocalypse, which not onlyReuss, aswehave seen, but Scaliger thoughthimwisenot tohaveenteredupon;andwhichheis-perhapscredibly-reportedtohavesaid in conversation he did not understand (cf. Leipoldt's"Geschichte des N. T. Kanons," ii. 1908, p. 148, note). But howimpossible it is to imagine that this implies any doubt of thecanonicityorauthorityofthebookwillbequicklyevidenttoanyonewho will note his frequent citation of it in the same fashion withotherScriptureandalongsideofotherScripture(e.g.Opp.i.736=ii.500;i.953-ii.957;i.1033=ii.1063;i.1148;ii.88,859;v.191,196,532;vi.176;vii.29,118,333;xxxi.650,sometimesmentioningitbyname(vii.469;i.733=ii.497),sometimesbythenameofJohn(i.715=ii.492,viii.338[alongwithIJohn]),sometimesbythenameofboth"John"and"theApocalypse"(ii.124,vii.116,xxx.651,xlviii.122),andalwayswithreverenceandconfidenceasaScripturalbook.HeevenexpresslycitesitunderthenameofScriptureandexplicitlyasthedictationof theSpirit:vii.559,"Fear,not,saystheScripture(Eccles.xviii.22)....Again(Rev.xxii.11)...and(Johnxv.2)";i.624:

"ElsewherealsotheSpirittestifies..."(alongwithDanielandPaul).Cf. also such passages as ii. 734, "Nor does the Apocalypse whichtheyquoteaffordthemanysupport..";xlviii.238:"Ishouldliketoask thePapists if they thinkJohnwas so stupid that . . . etc. (Rev.xxii.8)";alsovi.369;v.198.

14. Weusethesimpleexpression"theEpistleofJohn";theapparently,but only apparently, stronger and more exclusive, "the CanonicalEpistle of John," which Calvin employs, although it would bemisleading in our associations, is its exact synonym. Thosesomewhat numerous writers who have quoted the form "theCanonical Epistle of John " as if its use implied the denial of thecanonicity of the other epistles of John forget that this was theordinarydesignationintheWestoftheCatholicEpistles-"theSevenCanonicalEpistles"-andthattheyareallcurrentlycitedbythistitlebyWesternwriters.Thematterhasbeenset rightbyA.Lang: "DieBekehrung Johannis Calvins" (II. i. of Bonwetsch and Seeberg's"Studien zür Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche," 1897, pp.2Cr29).Onthetitle"CanonicalEpistles"fortheCatholicEpistles,seeLücke,SK.1836,iii.pp.643-650;Bleek,"Introd.totheN.T.,"§202atend(vol.ii.1874,p.135);Hilgenfeld,"Einleitungind.N.T.,"1875,p. 153; Westcott, "Epp. of St. John," 1883, p. xxix.; Salmond,Hastings' BD. i. 1898, p. 360. In 1551, Calvin published his"Commentarii in Epistolas Canonicas" - that is on the CatholicEpistles;alsohis"Commentairesurl'ÉpistreCanoniquedeSt.Jean,"i.e. on "the Epistle of John"; also his "Commentaire sur l'ÉpistreCanoniquedeSt.Jude."Calvindoesnotseemevertohavehappenedto quote from II and III John. The reference given in the IndexprintedinOpp.xxii.,viz.,IIIJohn9,Opp.xb.81,occursinaletter,not by Calvin but by Christof Libertetus to Farel. Cf. J. Leipoldt,"GeschichtedesN.T.Kanons"(2ndPart,Leipzig,1908),p.148,note1:"ThesmallerJohannineEpistlesCalvinseemsnevertohavecited.Hecites IJohn inInst. III. ii.21by the formula:dicitJohannes insuacanonica.Neverthelessitisveryquestionablewhetherinferencescanbedrawnfromthis formulaas toCalvin'sattitude toIIandIIIJohn."HeaddsareferencetoLangasabove.

15. Pannier,ascited,p.113.16. Opera, xi. 674-676: cf. Buisson, "Castellion," 1892, i, pp. 198-199.

BuissondiscussesthewholeincidentandquotesfromtheminutesoftheCouncilbeforewhichCastellionbroughtthematter:thepointofdispute is therebrieflyexpressed thus: "MossrCalvinrecognizesasholy,andthesaidBastianrepudiates"(p.197)thebookinquestion.

17. Calvinemploysall these"threebooksattributed toSolomon" freelyas Scripture and deals with them precisely as he does with otherScriptures.Aswastobeexpected,hecitesProverbsmostfrequently,Canticles least: but he cites them all as Solomon's and asauthoritative Scripture. "'I havewashedmy feet' says the believingsoul in Solomon . . " is the way he cites Canticles (Opp. i. 778, ii.589)."TheymakeabucklerofasentenceofSolomon's,whichisascontrarytothemasisnootherthatisintheScriptures"(vii.130)isthe way he cites Ecclesiastes. He indeed expressly contrastsEcclesiastesasgenuineScripturewiththeApocryphalbooks:"Asthesoulhasanoriginapart,ithasalsoanotherpreeminence,andthisiswhatSolomonmeanswhenhesaysthatatdeaththebodyreturnstotheearthfromwhichitwastakenandthesoulreturnstoGodwhogaveit(Eccl.xii.7).ForthisreasonitissaidintheBookofWisdom(ii.23)thatmanisimmortal,seeingthathewascreatedintheimageofGod.ThisisnotanauthenticbookofHolyScripture,butitisnotimpropertoavailourselvesofitstestimonyasofanancientteacher(Docteurancien)-althoughthesinglereasonoughttobeenoughforus that the imageofGod, as it hasbeenplaced inman, can resideonlyinanimmortalsoul,etc."(vii.112,writtenin1544).

18. Cf. A. Bossert, "Calvin," 1906, p. 6: "Humanist himself as well asprofound theologian . . ."; Charles Borgeaud, "Histoire del'Universite de Geneve," 1900, p. 21: "Before he was a theologian,CalvinwasaHumanist..."

19. Cf.thePrefaceheprefixedtotheApocryphalBooks(forthehistoryofwhich, seeOpera, ix.827,note) : "Thesebookswhichare calledApocryphalhaveinallagesbeendiscriminatedfromthosewhicharewithout difficulty shown to be of the Sacred Scriptures. For theancients, wishing to anticipate the danger that any profane booksshouldbemixedwiththosewhichcertainlyproceededfromtheHolySpirit,madearolloftheselatterwhichtheycalled'Canon';meaningby this word that all that was comprehended under it was theassuredrule towhichwe should attach ourselves.Upon the others

theyimposedthenameofApocrypha;denotingthattheyweretobeheld as private writings and not authenticated, like publicdocuments.Accordinglythedifferencebetweentheformerandlatteris thesameas thatbetweenan instrument,passedbeforeanotary,andsealed tobereceivedbyall,andthewritingofsomeparticularman.It istruetheyarenottobedespised,seeingthattheycontaingoodandusefuldoctrine.Nevertheless it isonlyrightthatwhatwehavebeengivenby theHolySpirit shouldhavepreëminenceaboveallthathascomefrommen."Cf.,inhisearliest theological treatise,the "Psychopannychia" of 1534-1542 (Opp. v. 182), where, afterquoting Ecclus. xvii. 1 andWisd. ii. 23 as "two sacredwriters," headds:"Iwouldnoturgetheauthorityofthesewritersstronglyonouradversaries,did theynotoppose them tous.Theymaybeallowed,however,someweight,ifnotascanonical,yetcertainlyasancient,aspious,andasreceivedbythesuffragesofmany.Butletusomitthemandletusretain..."etc.Inthe"Psychopannychia"hisdealingwithBaruch on the other hand is more wavering. On one occasion (p.205)itisquotedwiththeformula,"sicenimloquiturpropheta,"andonanother(p.227),"inprophetiaBaruch"correctedin1542.Inthe"Institutes" of 1536 he quotes it as Scripture: "alter vero prophetascribit" (Opp. i. 82) - referring back to Daniel. This is alreadycorrected in 1539 (i. 906; cf. ii. 632). In 1534-1536, then, heconsideredBaruchcanonical:afterwardsnotso.Hisdealingwith itinv.271(1537),vi.560(1545),vi.638(1546)isadhominem.

20. "ActaSynodiTridentinae,cumantidoto"(1547),Opp.vii.365-506.21. "Veraecclesiaereformandaeratio,"Opp.vii.613:quaedivinitusnon

esseprodita,saniomnes,saltemubimonitifuerint,iudicabunt.22. "Acta Synodi Tridentinae, cum antidoto," Opp. vii. 413: Quantum,

obsecro,aSpiritusSanctimaiestatialienaesthaecconfessio!23. ThisistranslatedfromtheFrenchversion,ed.Meyrueis,iv.1855,p.

743. The Latin is the same, though somewhat more concise: nihilhabet Petro indignum, ut vim spiritus apostolici et gratiamubiqueexprimat...eamprorsusrepudiaremihireligioest.

24. HaecsutemfictioindignaessetministroChristi,obtenderealienampersonam.

25. Ed.Meyrueis,iv.p.780.26. Ibid.,iv.p.362.

27. Ibid.,iv.p.694.Latin:mihiadepistolamhancrecipiendamsatisest,quodnihilcontinetChristiapostoloindignum.

28. Cf.J.Cramer,ascited,p.126:"Itwasthus,inthefirstplace,astheresult of scientific investigations that Calvin fixed the limits of thecanon . . . not a priori, but a posteriori, that he came to therecognitionofthecanonicityoftheBiblicalbooks."Butespeciallyseethe excellently conceived passage on pp. 155-6, to the followingeffect: "What great importance Calvin attaches to the questionwhetheraBiblicalbookisapostolic!Ifitisnotapostolic,hedoesnotrecognize it as canonical. To determine its apostolicity, he appealsnotmerely to the ecclesiastical tradition of its origin, but also andprincipallytoitscontents.Thisiswhathedoesinthecaseofalltheantilegomena. The touchstone for this is found in thehomologoumena. That he undertakes no investigation of theapostolicoriginoftheselatterisamatterofcourse.This,forhimandforallhiscontemporaries,stoodirreversiblysettled.Thetouchstoneemployed by Calvin is a scientific one. The testimonium SpiritusSanctinodoubtmade its influence felt.Butwithout thehelpof thescientific investigation, this internal testimony would not have thepower to elevate the book into a canonical book. That Calvin wastreading here in the footprints of the ancient Church will beunderstood. The complaint sometimes brought against theChristians of the earliest centuries is unfounded, that they held allwritings canonical in which they found their own dogmatics. Nodoubt they attached in their criticism greatweight to this. But notless to the question whether the origin of the books was traceableback to the apostolical age, and their contents accorded withapostolic doctrine, as it might be learned from the indubitablyapostolicwritings.Sofarassciencehadbeendevelopedintheirday,theyemployeditintheformationofthecanon...."InalaterarticleCramersays:"In thedeterminationof thecompassofScripture,he[Calvin], like Luther, took his start from the writings which morethan the others communicated the knowledge of Christ in HiskingdomandhadbeenrecognizedalwaysbytheChurchasgenuineand trustworthy. Even if the results of his criticism were more inharmonythanwasthecasewiththoseoftheGermanreformerwiththe ecclesiastical tradition, he yet walked in the self-same critical

pathway.He took over the canon of the Church just as little as itsversionanditsexegesiswithoutscrutiny"("DeRoomsch-Katholiekeen de Oud-protestansche Schriftbeschouwing," 1883, pp. 31-32).CramerconsidersthiscriticalprocedureonCalvin'spartinconsistentwith his doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit, but (p. 38) herecognizesthatwecannotspeakofitasthenoddingofHomer:"Itisnot here and there, but throughout; not in his exegetical writingsalone, but in his dogmatic ones, too, that he walks in this criticalpath.Weneverfindthefaintesttraceofhesitation."

29. Comment on John viii. 1 (Meyrueis' ed. of the Commentaries, ii.1854,p.169).

30. Comment on I John v. 7 (Meyrueis' ed. of the Commentaries, iv.1855,p.682).

31. QuomodoJeremiaenomenobrepserit,menescire fateor,neeanxielaboro;certeJeremiaenomenerrorepositumesseproZachariareaipsa ostendit; quia nihil tale apud Jeremiam legitur (Opera, xlv.749).

32. Opera,iii.100,note3.33. Cf. J. Cramer, as cited, pp. l1f-117: "Calvin does not largely busy

himself with textual criticism. He follows the text which wasgenerallyreceivedinhisday.Itdeservesnoticeonlythatheexercisesa free and independent judgment and recognizes the rights ofscience."CrameradduceshistreatmentofIJohnv.7andproceeds:"He comes forward on scientific grounds against the Vulgate. ThedecreeofTrentthatthisversionmustbefollowedas'authentical,'hefindssilly;andreverenceforitasifithadfallendownfromheaven,ludicrous.'Howcananyonedisputetherighttoappealtotheoriginaltext?Andwhatabadversionthisis!Therearescarcelythreeversesinanypagewellrendered'(ActaSynod.Trident.,etc.,pp.414-116)."

34. "Institutes,"I.viii.10.Cf.I.vi.2-3.35. I.vii.5,adinit.:"WehavereceiveditfromGod'sownmouthbythe

ministryofmen"36. It isquitecommontorepresentCalvinaswithoutatheory,at least

anexpressedtheory,oftherelationofthedivineandhumanauthorsofScripture.ThusJ.Cramer,ascited,p.103,says:"Howwearetounderstand the relationof thedivineandhumanactivities throughwhichtheScriptureswereproducedisnotexactlydefinedbyCalvin.

A precise theory of inspiration such as we meet with in the laterdogmaticians isnot found inhim."Cramer isonly sure thatCalvindidnotholdtothetheorywhichlaterProtestantsupheld:"ItistruethatCalvingavetheimpulse[fromwhichthelaterdogmaticviewofScripture grewup],more than any other of theReformers.Butwemust not forget that here we can speak of nothingmore than theimpulse.WenowherefindinCalvinsuchamagicalconceptionoftheBibleaswefindinthelaterdogmaticians.Itistrueheusedtheterm'dictare'andotherexpressionswhichheemploysundertheinfluenceoftheterminologyofhisday,butontheotherhand- inhowmanyrespectsdoeshe recognize thehuman factor in theScriptures!" (p.142).SimilarlyPannier,ascited,p.200:"InanycaseCalvinhasnotwritten a single word which can be appealed to in favor of literalinspiration.What is divine for him, if there is anything specificallydivinebeyondthecontents,thebrightnessofwhichisreflecteduponthecontainer,isthesenseofeachbook,oratmostofeachphrase,-nevertheemploymentofeachword.Calvinwouldhavedeploredthepetty dogmatics of the Consensus Helveticus, which declares thevowel points of theHebrew text inspired, and the exaggerationsofthe theopneusty of the nineteenth century." Yet nothing is morecertainthanthatCalvinheldbothto"verbalinspiration"andto"theinerrancyofScripture,"howeverhemayhaveconceivedtheactionofGodwhichsecuredthesethings.

37. Cf.OttoRitschl, "Dogmengeschichte desProtestantismus," 1908, i.p. 63: "If we may still entertain doubts whether Bullinger reallydefendedthestricterdoctrineof inspiration, itcertainly is foundinCalvin after 1543.Hemayhavemerely takenover fromButzer theexpressionSpiritusSanctiamanuenses;butitispeculiartohimthathe conceives both the books of the Old Testament inclusively ascontained in the historical enumerations, and those of the NewTestament,asarisingoutofaverbaldictationoftheHolySpirit."

38. ThesephrasesarebroughttogetherbyJ.Cramer(ascited,pp.102-3)fromtheCommentsonIITim.iii.16andIIPet.i.20.

39. Cf. Pannier, as cited, p. 203: "The Word of God is for him one,verbumDei,andnotverbaDei.ThediversityofauthorsdisappearsbeforetheunityoftheSpirit."

40. AbipsissimoDeioreadnosfluxisse.

41. EcoelofluxisseacsivivaeipsaeDeivocesillicexaudirentur.42. Hoc prius est membrum, eandem scripturae reverentiam deberi

quam Deo deferimus, quia ad eo solo manavit, nee quidquamhumanihabetadmistum.

43. Justa reverentia inde nascitur, quum statuimus, Deum nobiscumloqui,nonhominesmortales.

44. TheaccountofCalvin'sdoctrineof inspirationgivenbyE.Rabaud,"Histoiredeladoctrinedel'inspiration. . .danslespaysde languefrançaise,"1883,pp.52sq.,isworthcomparing.Calvin'sthoughtonthissubject,hetellsus,wasmorepreciseandcompactthanthatoftheotherReformers,althoughevenhisconceptionofinspirationwasfar from possessing perfectly firm contours or supplying theelements of a really systematic view (p. 52). He was the first,nevertheless, togive thesubjectofSacredScripturea fundamental,theoretic treatment, led theretonotby thepressureof controversy,but by the logic of his systematic thought: for his doctrine ofinspiration (not yet distinguished from revelation) is one of theessentialbases,ifnottheverypointofdepartureofhisdogmatics(p.55).Tohim "theBible ismanifestly thewordofGod, inwhichHerevealsHimself tomen," and as such "proceeds fromGod." "But "(pp.56sq.)"theactionofGoddoesnot,inCalvin'sview,transformthe sacred authors into machines. Jewish verbalism, Scripturalmaterialism,maybepresent ingermintheideasoftheInstitutes-and the cold intellects of certain doctors of the Protestantscholasticismofthenextcenturydevelopedthem-buttheyareveryremote fromthe thoughtof theReformer.ChosenandordainedbyGod, the Biblical writers were subject to a higher impulse; theyreceived a divine illumination which increased the energy of theirnatural faculties; they understood the Revelation better andtransmitted it more faithfully. It was scarcely requisite for this,however,thattheyshouldbepassiveinstruments,simplesecretaries,pensmovedby theHolySpirit.Appointedbut intelligentorgansofthedivinethought,farfrombeingsubjecttoadictation,incompleteobedience to the immediate will of God, they acted under theimpulsion of a personal faith which God communicated to them.'Now, whether God was manifested to men by visions or oracles,what iscalledcelestialwitnesses,orordainedmenasHisministers

who taught their successors by tradition, it is in every case certainthatHe impressedon theirhearts sucha certitudeof thedoctrine,thattheywerepersuadedandconvincedthatwhathadbeenrevealedandpreached to themproceeded fromthe trueGod: forHealwaysratified His word so as to secure for it a credit above all humanopinion. Finally, that the truth might uninterruptedly remaincontinuallyinvigorfromagetoage,andbeknownintheworld,HewilledthattherevelationswhichHehadcommittedtothehandsoftheFathersasadeposit,shouldbeputonrecord:anditwaswiththisdesignthatHehadtheLawpublished,towhichHeafterwardsaddedthe Prophets as its expositors' (Institutes, I. vi. 2). These few linesresumeinsummary formtheverysubstanceofCalvin'sdoctrineofinspiration.Wemayconcludefromitthathedidnotgivehimselftothe elaboration of this dogma, with the tenacity and logical rigorwhichhisclearandaboveallpracticalgeniusemployedinthestudyand systematization of other points of the new doctrine.We shallseekinvainaprecisedeclarationonthemodeofrevelation,ontheextentand intensity of inspiration, on the relationof thebook andthe doctrine. None of these questions, as we have already hadoccasion to remark, had as yet been raised: the doctors gavethemselves to what was urgent and did not undertake to prove ordiscuss what was not yet either under discussion or attacked. Theprinciplewhichwaslaiddownsufficedthem.Godhadspoken-thiswasthefaithwhicheveryconsciousnessofthetimereceivedwithoutrepugnance, and against which no mind raised an objection. TosearchouthowHediditwaswhollyuseless:toundertaketoproveit,no less so" (p. 58). There is evident in this passage a desire tominimize Calvin's view of the divinity of Scripture; the use of thepassagefromI.vi.2asthebasisofanexpositionofhisdoctrineofinspiration is indicative of this - whereas it obviously is a veryadmirableaccountofhowGodhasmadeknownHiswilltomanandpreservedtheknowledgeof it throughtime.ThedoublecurrentsofdesiretobetruetoCalvin'sownexpositionofhisdoctrineandyettowithhold his imprimatur from what the author believes to be anoverstrained doctrine, produces some strange confusion in hisfurtherexposition.

45. Cf.J.Cramer,ascited,p.114:"HowCalvinconceivesofthisdictare

by the Holy Ghost it is difficult to say. He borrowed it from thecurrent ecclesiastical usage, which employed it of the auctorprimariusofScripture,asindeedalsooftradition.ThustheCouncilofTrentusestheexpressiondictanteSpirituSanctooftheunwrittentradition inspired by the Holy Spirit." Otto Ritschl,"DogmengeschichtedesProtestantismus," i. 1908,p.59,argues fortaking the term strictly in Calvin. It is employed, it is true, incontemporaryusageinthefigurativesense,ofthedeliverancesofthenaturalconscience,forexample;andsomeReformedwritersuseitofthe internal testimonyof theSpirit.Calvinalsohimselfspeaksas ifheemployeditofScriptureonlyfiguratively-e.g.Opp.i.632:verbaquodammodo dictante Christi Spiritu. Nevertheless, on the wholeRitachlthinkshemeantitintheliteralsense.

46. Cf., e.g., J. Cramer, as cited, pp. 114-116, whose instances arefollowed in the remarks which succeed. Cf. also p. 125. HowwidespreadthisefforttodiscoverinCalvinsomeacknowledgmentoferrors in Scripture has become may be seen by consulting thecitationsmade by DunlopMoore, The Presbyterian and ReformedReview,1893,p.60:hecitesCremer,vanOosterzee,Farrar.Cf.evenA. H. Strong, "Syst. Theol.," ed. 1907, vol. i. p. 217, whose list of"theologicalwriterswhoadmittheerrancyofScripturewritersastosome matters unessential to their moral and spiritual teaching"requiresdrasticrevision.Leipoldt("GeschichtedesN.T.Kanons,"ii.1908, p. 149) says: "Fundamentally Calvin holds fast to the olddoctrineofverbalinspiration.Hissoundhistoricalsenseleadshim,hereandthere,itistrue,tobreakthroughthebondsofthisdoctrine.InhisharmonyoftheGospels(CommentariiinharmoniamexMat.,Mk.,etLk.compositam,1555),e.g.,Calvinshowsthatthelettersarenot sacred to him; he moves much more freely here than MartinChemnitz.ButinothercasesagainCalvindrawsstrictconsequencesfromthedoctrineofverbal inspiration.Heascribes,e.g., toall fourGospels precisely similar authority, although he (with Luther andZwingli)considersJohn'sGospelthemostbeautifulofthemall."

47. Thisissolidlyshown,e.g.,byDunlopMoore,ascited,pp.61-62:alsoforActsvii.16.

48. Despite his tendency to lower Calvin's doctrine of inspirationwith respect to its effects, J. Cramer in the following passage (as

cited, pp. 120-121) gives in general a very fair statement of it: "wehave seen that Calvin, although he has not given us a completedtheory of inspiration, yet firmly believed in the inspiration of theentirety of Scripture. It is true we do not find in him the crassexpressionsofthelaterReformed,aswellasLutheran,theologians.But the foundation on which they subsequently built - thoughsomewhat onesidedly - is here. We cannot infer much from suchexpressionsas'fromGod,' 'camefromGod,' 'flowedfromGod.'JustasinZwingli,theseexpressionsweresometimesinCalvinsynonymsof 'true.'Thus,atTitus ii. 12,hesayshecannotunderstandwhysomany are unwilling to draw upon profane writers, - 'for, since alltruthisfromGod(aDeo),ifanythinghasbeensaidwellandtrulybyprofanemen,itoughtnottoberejected,forithascomefromGod(aDeo est profectum).' More significant are such expressions as,'nothinghumanismixedwithScripture,' 'weowetothemthesamereverenceastoGod,'God'istheauthorofScripture'andassuchhas'dictated'(dictavit)all that theApostlesandProphetshavewritten,so that we 'must not depart from the word of God in even thesmallestparticular,'etc.AllthisappliesnotonlytotheScripturesasawhole, notmerely to their fundamental ideas and chief contents,buttoallthesixty-sixbooksseverally.Incontra-distinctionfromtheApocrypha,theyhavebeengivenbytheHolySpirit(Préfacemiseentêtedeslivresapocryphesdel'AncienTest.:Opp.ix.827).ThebookofActs 'beyondquestion is theproductof theHolySpiritHimself,'Mark'wrotenothingbutwhattheHolySpiritgavehimtowrite,'etc.TothinkheremerelyofaprovidentialdirectionbyGod,inthesensethat God took care that His people should lack nothing of aScripturalrecordofHisrevelation-isimpossible.For,howeveroftenCalvinmayhavedirectedattentiontosucha'singularisprovidentiaecura' (Inst., I. vi. 2, cf. I. viii. 10; Argumentum in Ev. Joh.) withrespecttoScripture,heyetsawsomethingoverandabovethisintheproductionofthesacredbooks.Helookeduponthemasthewritingsof God Himself, who, through an extraordinary operation of HisSpirit, guarded His amanuenses from all error as well when theytransmitted histories as when they propounded the doctrine ofChrist. Thus to him Scripture (naturally in its original text) was acompletework ofGod, towhichnothing could be added and from

whichnothingcouldbetakenaway."49. In I. v. 14 Calvin says that the Apostle inHeb. xi. 3, "By faith we

understandthattheworldswereframedbytheWordofGod"wishesto intimate that "the invisible divinity was represented indeed bysuchdisplaysofHispower,but thatwehavenoeyes toperceive itunless theyare illuminated through faithby the innerrevelationofGod" (Invisibilem divinitatem repraesentari quidem talibuaspectaculis, sed ad illamperspiciendamnon essenobis oculos,nisiinteriore Dei revelatione per fidem illuminentur). Here hedistinguishesbetweentheexternal,objectiverepresentation,andtheinternal,subjectivepreparationtoperceivethisrepresentation.GodisobjectivelyrevealedinHisworks:maninhissins isblindtothisrevelation:theinterioroperationofGodisanopeningofman'seyes:manthensees.TheoperationofGodisthereforeapalingenesis.Thispassageisalreadyined.1539(i.291);thelastclause(nisi...)isnot,however, reproduced in theFrench versions of either 1541 or 1560(iii.60).

50. In his response to the Augsburg Interim ("Vera Ecclesiaereformandae ratio," 1549, Opp. vii. 591-674) he allows it to be theproprium ecclesiae officium to scripturas veras a suppositiisdiscernere;butonlythatobedienteramplectitur,quicquidDeiest,asthesheephearthevoiceoftheshepherd.ItisneverthelesssacrilegaimpietasecclesiaejudiciosubmitteresacrosanctaDeioracula.SeeJ.Cramer, as cited, p. 104, note 3. Cramer remarks in expoundingCalvin'sview:"Bytheapprobationshegivestothem"-thebooksofScripture - "the Church does not make them authentic, but onlyyieldsherhomagetothetruthofGod."

51. It would require that we should be wholly hardened (nisi adperditam impudentiam obduruerint) that we should not perceivethat thedoctrineof Scripture is heavenly, thatwe shouldnot havethe confession wrung from us that there are manifest signs inScripturethatitisGodwhospeaksinandthroughit(extorquebiturillia haec confessio, manifests, signa loquentia Dei conspici inScripturaexquibuspateatcoelestemesseeiusdoctrinam)-I.vii.4.

52. Theexactrelationsofthe"proofs"tothedivinityofScripture,whichCalvinteaches,wassufficientlycleartobecaughtbyhissuccessors.It is admirably stated in theWestminsterConfession of Faith, i. 5.

And we may add that the same conception is stated also verypreciselybyQuenstedt:"Thesemotives,aswellinternalasexternal,bywhichweare led to theknowledgeof theauthorityofScripture,make the theopneustyofSacredScriptureprobable, andproduce acertitudewhich is notmerely conjectural butmoral ... they do notmakethedivinityofScriptureinfallibleandaltogetherindubitable."("Theologiadidactico-polemica,siveSystematheologicum,"Lipsiae,1715,Parsprima,pp.141-2.)Thatistosay,theyarenotofthenatureof demonstration, but nevertheless give moral certitude: thetestimony of the Spirit is equivalent to demonstration - as is thedeliveranceofanysimplyactingsense.

53. Cf.Pannier,as cited,pp.207-8: "wesee that thisunderstandingoftheScriptures,thiscapacitytoreceivethetestimonyoftheSpirit,isnot,accordingtoCalvin,possibleforall;andthat, lessandless . . .Hecontinuallyemphasisesmoreandmoretheincapacityofmantopersuade another of it, without the aid of God; but he emphasisesstillmoreprogressivelytheimpossibilityofobtainingthisaidifGoddoes not accord it first. 1550 (I. viii. at end): 'Those who wish toprovetounbelieversbyargumentsthattheScripturesarefromGodareinconsiderate;forthisisknownonlytofaith.'1559(I.vii.infine):ThemysteriesofGodarenotunderstood,exceptbythosetowhomitis given.... It isquite certain that thewitnessof theSpiritdoesnotmakeitselffeltexcepttobelievers,andisnot in itselfanapologeticmeanswithrespecttounbelievers....Thenaturalmanreceivethnotspiritualthings."

54. Cf.Pannier,ascited,pp.195-6:"First letusrecall this, - forCalvinthis testimonyof theHolySpirit isonlyoneactof thegreatdramawhichisenactedintheentiresoulofthereligiousman,andinwhichthe Holy Spirit holds always the principal role. While the laterdogmatistsmaketheHolySpirit,sotospeak,functionmechanically,atagivenmoment,inthepenoftheprophetsorinthebrainofthereaders, Calvin sees the Holy Spirit constantly active in the manwhom He wishes to sanctify, and the fact that He leads him torecognizethedivinityandthecanonicityofthesacredbooksisonlyone manifestation, - a very important one, no doubt, but only aparticular one, - of His general work." It is only, of course, theLutheranandRationalizingdogmatistswho, constructively, subject

theactionoftheSpirittothedirectionofman-whetherbymakingitrestontheapplicationofthe"meansofgrace"orontheactionofthehumanwill.Calvinandhisfollowers-theReformed-maketheactofmandependonthefreeandsovereignactionoftheSpirit.

55. J.Cramer,ascited,pp.122-3,somewhatunderstatesthis,butinthemaincatchesCalvin'smeaning:"Calvindoesnot,itistrue,tellusinsomanywords precisely what this testimonium Sp. S. is, but it iseasy to gather it from the whole discussion. He is thinking of theHolySpirit,who,asthespiritofouradoptionaschildren,leadsustosay Amen to the Word which the Father speaks in the HolyScripturestoHischildren.HeevensaysexpresslyinInst.I.vii.4:'Asif the Spirit was not called "seal" and "earnest" just because Heconfersfaithonthepious.'Butmoreplainlystill,andindeedsothatno doubt can remain, we find it in Beza, the most beloved andtalented pupil of Calvin, who assuredly also in his conception ofScripture was the most thoroughly imbued with the spirit of histeacher. Inhis reply toCastellion,Beza says: 'The testimonyof theSpiritofadoptiondoesnotlieproperlyinthis,thatwebelievetobetruewhattheScriptures testify (for this isknownalso to thedevilsand to many of the lost), but rather in this, that each applies tohimself the promise of salvation in Christ ofwhich Paul speaks inRom.viii.15,16.'Accordinglyafewlinesfurtherdownhespeaksofa'testimonyofadoptionandfreejustificationinChrist.'IntheessenceofthematterCalvinwillhavemeantjustthisbyhistestimonyoftheHoly Spirit. . . ." Beza's words are in his "Ad defensiones etreprehensiones Seb. Castellionis" ("Th. Bezae Vezelii Opera," i.Geneva, 1582, p. 503): Testimonium Spiritus adoptionis non in eopropriepositumestutcredamusverumessequodScripturatestatur(namhoc ipsumquoque sciunt diaboli et reprobimulti), sed in eopotius ut quisque sibi salutis in Christo promissionem applicet, dequa re agit Paulus, Rom. viii. 15, 16.... That it was generallyunderstood in the first age that this was the precise nature of thewitnessoftheSpiritisshownbyitsdefinitioninthissensenotonlybytheReformed,butbytheLutherans.Forexample,Hollazdefinesthus:"ThetestimonyoftheHolySpiritisthesupernaturalact(actussupernaturalis) of the Holy Spirit by means of the Word of Godattentively read or heard (His own divine power having been

communicated to the Scriptures) by which the heart of man ismoved,opened,illuminated,turnedtotheobedienceoffaith,sothattheilluminatedmanoutoftheseinternalspiritualmovementstrulyperceives theWordwhich ispropoundedtohimtohaveproceededfromGod,andgivesitthereforehisunwaveringassent."("Exaministheologiciacroamaticiunivers.theologiamthet.polem.,"HolmiaeetLipsiae, 1741,p. 125.)TheLutheranismof thisdefinition resides inthe clauses: "Bymeans of theWord of God" . . . "His own divinepowerhavingbeencommunicatedtotheScriptures"...whichmaketheactionoftheHolySpirittobefromoutoftheWord,inwhichHedwells intrinsicus. But the nature of the testimony of the Spirit ispurely conceivedasanactof theHolySpirit bywhich theheart ofmanisrenewedtospiritualperception,intheemploymentofwhichheperceivesthedivinequalityofScripture.

56. Suprahumanumiudicium,certocertiusconstituimus(nonsecusacsi ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur) hominum ministerio, abipsissimoDeioreadnoafluxisse(I.vii.5).

57. Talisergoestpersuasioquserationesnonrequirat; talisnotitia,cuioptima ratio constet: nempe in qua securius constantiusque mensquiescit quam in ullis rationibus; talis denique sensus, qui nisi excoelestirevelationenascinequeat(I.vii.5).

58. Köstlin, as cited, pp. 412-13, especially 413, note a, adverts to thiswith a reference to Dorner, "Gesch. d. protest. Theologie," p. 377,whomakes it characteristicofCalvin indistinction fromZwingli todrawtheouterandinnerWordmorecloselytogether.ThejusticeofDorner'sview,whichwouldseemtoassigntoCalvininhisdoctrineof the Word as a means of grace a position somewhere betweenZwingli and Luther, may well be doubted. According to Dorner,Calvin "modified the looser connection between the outward andinward Word held by Zwingli and connected the two sides moreclosely together." "In reference, therefore, to the principle of theReformation,"hecontinues,"with its twoaides,Calvin isstillmorethan Zwingli, of one mind and spirit with the German LutheranReformation" (E.T. i. 1871,p. 387).Again (i. p. 390): "Thedoubleform of the VerbumDei externum and internum, held by Zwingli,givesplaceindeedinCalvintoamoreinwardconnectingofthetwosides;theScripturesareaccordingtohimnotmerelythesignofan

absentthing,buthaveinthemselvesdivinematterandbreath,whichmakes itself actively felt."We do not find that Calvin and Zwinglidifferinthismatterappreciably.

59. Cf. his response to Sadolet (1539), Opp. v. 393: tuo igiturexperimentodiscenonminusimportunumessespiritumiactaresineverbo, quam futurum sit insulsum, sine spiritu verbum ipsumobtendere.

60. There is a certain misapprehension involved, also, in speaking ofCalvinsubordinatingtheindiciatothewitnessoftheSpirit,asifheconceived them on the same plane, but occupying relatively lowerandhigherpositionsonthisplane.ThewitnessoftheSpiritandtheindiciamove in different orbits. We find Köstlin, as cited, p. 413,accordingly speaking not quite to the point, when he says: "Hesubordinatedtothepowerofthisone,immediate,divinetestimony,allthoseseveralcriteriabythepiousandthoughtfulconsiderationofwhichourfaithintheScripturesandtheircontentsmayandshouldbefurthermediated.Evenmiracles,asNiednerhasrightlyremarked(Philosophie-undTheologiegeschichte,p.341,note2), takeamongtheevidencesforthedivinityoftheBiblicalrevelation,'nothingmorethan a coordinate' place: we add in passing that Calvin introducesthemhereonlyintheeditionof1550,andthenenlargesthesectionwhichtreats of them in the editionof 1559.Hedoesnot, however,put a lowestimate on such criteria; hewould trust himself - as hesaysinanadditionmadeintheeditionof1559(xxx.59)-tosilencewiththemevenstiff-neckedopponents;butthiscertaintywhichfaithshouldhave,canneverbeattained,sayshe,bydisputation,butcanbe wrought only by the testimony of the Spirit." The questionbetweenthetestimonyoftheSpiritandtheindiciaisnotaquestionofwhichgivesthestrongestevidence;itisaquestionofwhateachisfittedtodo.Theindiciaaresupreme in their sphere; theyand theyalone give objective evidence. But objective evidence is inoperativewhen the subjective condition is such that it cannot penetrate andaffectthemind.Allobjectiveevidenceisinthissensesubordinatetothe subjective change wrought by the Spirit: but considered asobjective evidence it is supreme in its own sphere. The term"subordinate"isaccordinglymisleadinghere.Fortherest, it is truethatCalvinplacesthemiraclesbywhichthegivingofScripturewas

accompaniedratheramong theobjectiveevidencesof theirdivinitythanat theirapex:but this isduenot toanunderestimationof thevalueofmiraclesasevidence,buttotheveryhighestimateheplacedontheinternalcriteriaofdivinity,bywhichtheScripturesevidencethemselves tobedivine.Andabove allwemustnotbemisled intosupposing thatheplacesmiraclesbelowthe testimonyof theSpiritinimportance.Suchacomparisonisoutsidehisargument:miraclesare part of the objective evidence of the deity of Scripture; thetestimonyof theSpirit is the subjectivepreparationof theheart toreceive theobjective evidence in a sympathetic embrace.Hewouldhavesaid,ofcourse-hedoessay-thatnomiracle,andnobodyofmiracles, could or can produce "true faith": the internal creativeoperation of the Spirit is necessary for that. And in that sense theevidenceofmiracles is subordinated to the testimonyof theSpirit.Butthisisnotbecauseofanydepreciationoftheevidentialvalueofmiracles;butbecauseofthefullappreciationofthedeadnessofthehumansoulinsin.Theevidentialvalueofmiracles,andtheirplaceintheobjectiveevidencesof thedivineoriginof theScriptures,arewhollyunaffectedbythedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirit;andthe strongest assertions of their valuelessness in the production offaith,apartfromthetestimonyoftheSpirit,donotintheleastaffecttheestimateweputonthem,asobjectiveevidences.

61. Cf. Köstlin, as cited, pp. 413-415: "We find in Calvin theaforementioned several criteria set alongside of thiswitness of theSpirit, and indeed especially those which are internal to theScriptures themselves, such as their elevation above all merelyhuman products, which cannot fail to impress every reader, etc. Itwould certainly be desirable to trace an inner connection betweenthisimpressionmadebythecharacter,bythestyleofspeech,bythecontentsofScripture,andthatsupremeimmediatetestimonyoftheSpirit for it.AssuredlyGodHimself, theAuthorofScripture,worksuponusalsoinsuchimpressions,whichweanalyseinourreflectinghuman consideration, and in our debates strive to set beforeopponents;andwefeel,ontheotherside,aneedtoanalyse,asfarasispossibleforus,eventhesupremewitnessoftheSpirit,inspiteofits immediacy, and to relate it with our other experiences andobservationswithrespecttoScripture,soastobecomeconsciousof

the course by which God passes from one to the other. Calvin,however,doesnot enter into this; he sets the two sideby side andoveragainstoneanother:'Although(Scripture)conciliatesreverenceto itselfby itsownsuprememajesty, itdoesnotseriouslyaffectus,untilitissealedtoourheartsbytheSpirit'(XXIX.295;XXX.60;ed.3,I.vii.5):hedoesnotshowtheinnerrelationofonetotheother.Hedoesnotdothisevenintheeditionof1559,wherehewithgreateloquencespeaksmorefullyofthepowerwithwhichtheWordoftheNewTestamentwitnessesmanifests itsdivinemajesty.ThewitnessoftheSpiritcomesforwardwithCalvinthussomewhatabruptly.Bymeans of it the Spirit works true faith, which the Scripture, eventhroughitsinternalcriteria,cannotestablishindivinecertainty;andindeed He does not work it in the case of all those - and has nointention of working it in the case of all those - to whom theScripture is conveyed with its criteria, but, as the section onPredestination further shows, only in the case of those who havebeen elected thereto fromall eternity.Herewe are alreadypassingover into the relation of the Calvinistic conception of the FormalPrincipleortheAuthorityofScripture,toitsconceptionofthemeansofgrace.InthismattertheLutherandoctrinestandsinconflictwithit. Butwith reference towhatwe have been discussing,we do notfind that the Lutheran dogmaticians, when they come to occupythemselvesmoreparticularlywiththetestimoniumSpiritusSanctitotheScriptures,dealtmorevitallywithitsrelationtotheoperationofthese criteria on the human spirit. No doubt, in Luther's ownconception this was more the case: but he gave no scientificelaborationofit."

62. Cf.Köstlin,ascited,p.417:"ThecertaintythattheScripturesreallypossess such authority, rests for us not on the authority of theChurch, but just on this testimony of the Spirit. Calvin's referencehere is even to the several books of Scripture:he is aware that theopponents ask how, without a decree of the Church, we are to beconvincedwhatbookshouldbereceivedwithreverence,whatshouldbe excluded from the canon; he himself adduces in opposition tothis, even here, nothing else except the testimonium Spiritus: theentiretyofScriptureseems tohimtobeequally, so to say, enbloc,divinelylegitimatedbythis."SoalsoPannier,ascited,p.202:"The

questionofcanonicityneverpresenteditselftothethoughtofCalvin,except in the second place as a corollary of the problem of thedivinity(I.vii.1).IftheHolySpiritatteststousthatagivenbookisdivine,He in thatveryactattests that it formsapartof theruleoffaith, that it is canonical. Nowhere has Calvin permitted, as hissuccessorshavedone, a primary place to be taken by a theologicaldoctrine which became less capable of resisting the assaults ofadversaries when isolated from the practical question. Perhaps,moreover, he did not render as exact an account aswe are able torenderafterthelapseoftwocenturies,ofthewhollynewsituationinwhichtheReformation found itselfwithrespect to thecanon,orofthe new way in which he personally resolved the question."Accordingly, at an earlier point Pannier says: "It is true that thefaculty of recognizing the Word of God under the human formsincluded for Calvin, and especially according to the Confession ofFaithof1559,thefacultyofdeterminingthecanonicityofthebooks.This is a consequence secondary but natural, and so long as theymaintainedtheprinciple,theReformeddoctorsplacedthemselvesinafalsepositionwhen theyshowed themselvesdisposed toabandontheconsequencestothecriticismsoftheiropponents"(p.164).Cf.J.Cramer,NieuweBijdragen,iii.p.140:"Butyoumustnotthink...ofanimmediatewitnessoftheSpirittotheparticularpartsoftheHolyScriptures.Theoldtheologiansdidnotthinkofthat.Theyconceivedthe matter thus: The testimonium Spiritus Sancti gives witnessdirectly to the religio-moral contents of Scripture only. Since,however, the religio-moral contents must necessarily have aparticular form,and thedogmaticcontent is closelyboundupwiththe historical, neither the chronological nor the topographicalelement can be separated out, etc. - therefore the testimoniumSpiritusSanctigivestothetotalcontentofScripturewitnessthatitisfromGod."This,afterall, then, isnottoappealtothetestimoniumSpiritusSancti,directlytoauthenticatethecanon;buttoconstructacanon on the basis of a testimony of the Spirit given solely to thedivinity of Scripture, the movement of thought being this: AllScripturegivenby inspirationofGod isprofitable; thisScripture isgivenbyinspirationofGod;accordinglythisScripturebelongstothecategoryofprofitableScripture,thatistothecanon.

63. Reuss, in the sixteenth chapter of his "History of the Canon of theHoly Scriptures," E. T. 1884, expounds Calvin, with his usuallearning and persuasiveness, as basing the determination of thecanonsolelyon the testimonyof theSpirit.But theexposition fallsintotwoconfusions:aconfusionoftheauthorityofScripturewithitscanonicity,andaconfusionofthedivinewiththeapostolicoriginofScripture.Ofcourse,CalvinrepelledtheRomishconceptionthattheauthorityofScripturerestsonitsauthenticationbytheChurchandits tradition (p.294),but thatdidnotdeterhim fromseekingbyahistorical investigation to discover what especial books had beencommittedbytheapostlestotheChurchasauthoritative.Ofcourse,hefoundedthesureconvictionofthedivineoriginoftheScripturesonthewitnessoftheSpiritofGodbyandwiththemintheheart,butthatdidnotpreventhisappealingtohistorytodeterminewhattheseScriptures which were so witnessed were in their compass.AccordinglyevenReusshastoadmitthatitisexceedinglydifficulttocarry through his theory of Calvin's theoretical procedureconsistently with Calvin's observed practice. In point of fact, theReformers,andCalvinamongthem,didnotseparatetheApocryphafrom the Old Testament on the sole basis of the testimony of theSpirit:theyappealedtotheevidenceof theJewishChurch(p.312).Nor did they determine the question of the New Testamentantilegomena on this principle: this, too, was with them "a simplequestion of historical criticism" (p. 316) - although Reuss here (p.318)confusesCalvin'sappealtotheinternalevidenceofapostolicitywithappealto"religiousintuition."Inaword,Reuss'sexpositionofCalvin'sprocedureindeterminingthecanonrestsonafundamentalmisconceptionofthatprocedure.

64. "All thisHolyScripture is comprised in the canonical books of theOld and New Testaments, the number (le nombre) of which is asfollows"...thelistensuing.SeeOpp.ix.741.

65. Opp. ix., prolg., pp. lvii.-lx.: cf. Dieterlen, "Le Synode general deParis,"1873,pp.77,89;Pannier,ascited,pp.126-7;andforabriefprécis, Müller, "Bekenntnisschriften der reform. Kirche," 1903, p.xxxiii.

66. Opp.ix.741.67. "ActesdeladisputeetconferencetenueàParisèsmoisdejuilletet

aoust1566"(Strasbourg,1566),printedintheBiblioth.delaSoc.del'Hist.duProt.franc.WedrawfromtheaccountofitinPannier,ascited,pp.141sq.

68. "Levraysystemede l'Egliseet laveritableanalysede la foy,"1686,III.ii.453.Pannier,ascited,quotesthis,pp.167-168.

69. As we have seen, it is attributed to Calvin by both Pannier andCramer. Pannier (p. 203) remarks that "if Calvin was not able toappreciate in all its purity" the new situation with regard to thecanon into which the Reformation broughtmen, "it was even lessincumbentonhimtorenderaccountofthepersonalattitudewhichhe himself took up with reference to it." "It is his successors onlywho,inadoptinghisconclusions(exceptthattheyapplythemmoreor less), have asked themselves how they reached them, and havereconstructed the reasoning which no doubt Calvin himself hadunconsciously followed." Is not this a confession that after all theviewinquestionwasnotCalvin'sownview?Atleastnotconsciouslytohimself?ButPannierwouldsay,nodoubt,eitherthiswasCalvin'sview or he appealed to the testimony of the Spirit directly toauthenticatethecanon.

70. Thefollowingis theaccountof thetreatmentof thequestionof thecanoninthesecreeds,givenbyJ.Cramer("DeRoomsch-Katholiekeen deOud-protestantache Schriftbeschouwing," 1883, pp. 48 sq.) :"And onwhat now, does that authority rest? This question, too, isamplydiscussedintheReformedConfessions,andthat,asconcernstheprincipalmatter,whollyinthespiritofCalvin.Only,morevalueisascribedtothetestimonyoftheChurch.Nodoubttheauthorityofthe Scriptures is not made to rest on it; but it is permitted animportantvoiceinthequestionofthecanon.Whenitissaidthat'allthat is said in the Holy Scriptures is to be believed not so muchbecausetheChurchreceivesthemandholdsthemascanonical,butespeciallybecausetheHolySpiritbearswitnesstotheminourheartthat they are from God,' a certain weight is attributed to thejudgmentof theChurch.This appearsparticularly from theway inwhich the canonical books are spoken of in distinction from theApocryphal books. In enumerating the Bible books, the BelgianConfessionprefixes thewords: 'Againstwhichnothing canbe said'(Art.iv.).Bythisapparentlyismeant,thatagainstthecanonicityof

thesebooks,fromahistoricalstandpoint,withtheeyeonthewitnessoftheChurch,nothingcanbealleged(a thingnot tobesaidof theApocrypha).InthesamespirittheAnglicanArticles,whenspeakingof the books of the Old and New Testaments, says that 'Of theirauthority therehasneverbeenanydoubt in theChurch.' IwillnotraisethequestionherehowthatcanbeaffirmedwiththeeyeontheAntilegomena.Itshows,however,certainlythatmuchimportanceisattached to the ecclesiastical tradition. The fundamental ground,however,whytheScripturesof theOldandNewTestamentsare tobeheldtobetheWordofGodissoughtintheScripturesthemselves,and,assuredly,inthetestimonywhichtheHolySpiritbearstotheirdivinity in the hearts of believers. Like Calvin, the Confessionssuppose that thus theyhavegivenan immovable foundation to thedivine authority of the Scriptures, and have taken an impregnableposition over against Rome, which appealed to the witness of theCatholic Church. . . ." Calvin, however, allowed as much to thetestimonyoftheChurch-externalevidence-asishereallowed,andtheveryadductionofitstestimonyshowsthatsoledependencewasnotplacedonthetestimonyoftheSpiritforthecanonicityofabook:whatitisappealedtoforisthedivinityofthecanonicalbooks.

71. SoevenKöstlinperceives,ascited,p.417:"TheentiretyofScriptureappeared to him divinely legitimated by the testimonium Spiritus,altogether,sotosay,enbloc....ThedeclarationsofCalvinastotheWord spoken by the prophets and apostles, which they rightlyasserted to be God's Word, pass without hesitation over intodeclarations as to the Holy Scriptures, as such, and that in theirentirety; with the proposition 'the Law and the Prophets and theGospel have emanated from God' is interchanged the proposition'theScriptureisfromGod,'-andthewitnessoftheSpiritassuresusof it." So alsoPannier (pp. 203-204): "Everything goes back to hisconsideringthingsnotindetailbutenbloc.TheWordofGodisforhim one, verbum Dei, not verba Dei. The diversity of the authorsdisappearsbeforetheunityoftheSpirit.Thesamereasoningappliesto each single book as to the whole collection. All the verses holdtogether;andifone introducesustotheknowledgeofsalvationwemay conclude that the book is canonical.Given the collection, it isenough inpractice, sinceall thepartsareofasort, toestablish the

value of one of them to guarantee the value of all the others. It iscertain that the critical theologianand the simplebelieverevenyetproceedsomewhatdifferentlyinthismatter;thesimplestandsurestmethodisthatofthehumblesaint,andCalvinwasveryrightnottorangehimselfamongthetheologiansatthispoint.'Thejustshallliveby faith.' This affirmation seemed to him a revealed truth: heconcluded fromit that thewholeepistle to theRomans is inspired;some remarks of this kind in other passages of theEpistles, of theGospels,andthecanonicityoftheNewTestamentisestablished.Thesame for the Old Testament. The Second Epistle of Peter and theSongofSongsthusgowiththerest.Thehumantestimonies,internalandexternalcriteria,usefulforconfirmingtheotherpartsofabookofwhichapassagehasbeenrecognizedasinspired,areinsufficienttoexpel from the canonabookwhich thewitnessof theSpirithasnotrecognizedasopposedtothedoctrineofsalvation."WequotethewholepassagetogivePannier'swholethought:butwhatweadduceitforisatpresentmerelytosignalizetheadmissionitcontainsthatCalvindealtwiththeScripturesinthematterofthetestimonyoftheSpirit, so to speak, "in the lump" - as a whole. Pannier citesapparently as similar to Calvin's view, Gaussen, "Canon," ii. p. 10:"Thistestimony,whicheveryChristianhasrecognizedwhenhehasreadhisBiblewithvitalefficacy,mayberecognizedbyhimonlyinasinglepage;but thispage isenough to spreadover thebookwhichcontains it an incomparable brightness." That is, Calvin, like thesimple believer, has a definite book - the Bible - in his hands andtreats it as all of a piece - of course, in Calvin's case, not withoutreasonablegrounds for treating it as all of a piece: in otherwords,thecanonwasalreadydeterminedforhimbeforeheappealedtothetestimonyof theSpirit to attest its divinity. Cf. Cramer (p. 140) asquotedabove.Cramer isquite right so far, therefore,whenhe says(pp. 156-157): "Although we determine securely by means of thehistorical-critical method what must be carried back to theapostolical age and what accords with the apostolical doctrine, wehavenotyetprovedthedivineauthorityofthesewritings.Thishangsonthis, -whether theHolySpiritgivesusHiswitness to them.Onthiswitnessalonerestsourassuranceoffaith,notontheforceofahistorical-critical demonstration." This, so far as appears, was

Calvin'smethod.72. CalvinwouldcertainlyhavesubscribedtothesewordsofPannier,as

cited, p. 164: The most of the Catholics "have always strangelymisapprehendedtheilluminationwhich,accordingtotheReformed,the least of believers is capable of receiving and of applying to thereading of the Bible. It is a question, not as they suppose, ofbecoming theologians,butofbecomingbelievers,ofhavingnot theplenitudeofknowledge,butthecertitudeoffaith."

73. Cf. Köstlin, as cited, pp. 415-416. After raising the question of therelation of the witness of the Spirit to the inner experience of theChristian,andtherelativepriorityofthetwo-andremarkingthatincase the vital process is conceived as preceding the witness of theSpirittothedivinityoftheScriptures,itwillbehardnottoallowtothe Christianized heart the right and duty of criticism of theScriptures (where the fault in reasoning lies in the termprocess),Köstlincontinues:"Wetouchhereontherelationbetweenthe formal and material sides of the fundamental evangelicalprinciple.Andwethinkatonceoftherelationinwhichtheystoodtoone another in Luther's representation, by which his well-knowncritical attitude, with respect, say, to the Epistle of James, wasrenderedpossible.Calvin,too,nowhasnowishtospeakofawitnessoftheSpiritmerelywithreferencetotheScriptures,andisfarfromdesiring to isolate that witness of the Spirit for the Scriptures. Hecomesbacktoitsubsequently,whenspeakingof faith inthesavingcontentoftheGospel,declaringthattheSpiritsealsthecontentsoftheWord in our hearts (1539, XXIX. 456 sq., 468 sq.; further in1559,III.2[InKöstlin'spagination,givenhere,XXIX.referstothe"Corpus Ref." as a whole; III. 2 stands for "Institutes," Book III.chap. ii., orXXX. 397 sq.]).He also inserted in the section on theHoly Scriptures and thewitness of the Spirit to them, in 1550, anadditional special sentence, in which he expressly refers to hisintention tospeak furtheronsuchawitnessof theSpirit in a laterportion of the treatise, and declares of faith in general, that therebelongstoitasealingofthedivineSpirit(XXIX.296[1559,I.vii.5,near end]). Inanyeventhemusthave recurred to such aSpiritualtestimonyfortheassuranceofindividualChristiansoftheirpersonalelection.Butinthefirstinstance-andthisagainispreciselywhatis

characteristicforCalvin-heneverthelesstreatsofthedoctrineofthedivine origin and the divine authority of the Scriptures, andof thewitness of the Spirit for them, wholly apart. The presentationproceedswithhiminsuchamanner,thattheSpiritfirstofallfullyproducesfaithinthischaracteroftheScriptures,andonlythentheBible-believing Christian has to receive from the Scriptures itscontents,inallitsseveralparts,asdivinelytrue,-though,nodoubt,thisreceptionandthisfaithintheseveralelementsofthetruthareby no means matters of human thought, but are rather to beperformed under the progressive illumination and the progressivesealingofthesecontentsintheheartbytheHolySpirit.Eventhoughhe,meanwhile,callsthatthe'truth'oftheScriptures,whichwecometo feel in the power of the Spirit, hemeans by this in the sectionbeforeus,anabsolutetruth-character,whichmustfromthestartbeattributed to the Scriptures as awhole, andwill be experienced inand with the divinity of the Scriptures in general. So the matteralreadystandsintheeditionof1539...(XXIX.292sq.)."AccordinglyCalvinteachesthattheScripturesinalltheirpartsareofindefectibleauthority,andshouldbemetinalltheirprescriptionswithunlimitedobedience(p.418),becauseitisjustGodwhospeaksinthem.Then:"WithDorner(Geschichtederprotest.Theologie,p.380)-andevenmore decisively than he does it -wemust remark on all this: 'TheformalaideoftheprotestantprincipleremainswithCalvinanover-emphasis, in comparison with the material, and with this isconnected that he sees in the Holy Scriptures above all else therevelationof thewillofGodwhichhehasdictated toman throughthe sacred writers.' And this tendency came ever more stronglyforward with him in the successive revisions of the Institutes. Hisconception of the formal principle thus left no room for such acriticism as Luther employed on the several parts of the canon."Later Lutheranism, however, Köstlin concludes by saying, adoptedCalvin'spointofviewhereandevenexaggeratedit.

74. "The formal sideof theProtestantprinciple retainswithCalvin theascendencyoverthematerial;andwiththisisconnectedthefactthathe sees in the Holy Scriptures chiefly the revelation of the will ofGod,whichhehasprescribedtomenthroughthesacredwriters."-Dorner,"Hist.ofProtest.Theology,"i.1871,p.390.Cf.p.387:"The

formalprincipleis,accordingtohim,thenormandsourceofdogma,whilsthedoesnottreatfaith,inthesamewayasLuther,asasourceof knowledge for the dogmatical structure, that is to say, as themediativeprincipleofknowledge."HenceDornercomplains(p.390)of the more restricted freedom which Calvin left "for the freeproductionsofthefaithoftheChurchinlegislationanddogma,"andinstances his treatment of "the Apostolic Age as normative for alltimes,evenforquestionsofChurchconstitution,"andthelittleroomhe left for destructive Biblical criticism. Cf. what is said above ofCalvin'sadoptionof"thePuritanprinciple"(pp.38sq.).

75. Cf. the Introduction to the English Translation of Kuyper's "TheWork of the Holy Spirit," 1900, especially pp. xxxiii.-iv. Cf. whatPannier,pp.102-104,saysofCalvin'sgeneraldoctrineoftheworkoftheSpiritandtherelationbornetoitbyhisparticulardoctrineofthetestimony of the Spirit to Scripture. "If we pass beyond the twoparticularchapterswhosecontentswehavebeenanalysingandseekintheInstitutesfrom1536to1560forotherpassagesrelatingtotheHolySpirit,weshallseeCalvininsistingevermoreandmoreandonall occasions - as in the Commentaries - upon these diversemanifestationsof theHoly Spirit, andpresenting themallmore orlessastestimonies.Heconstantlyrecurstothenaturalincapacityofman and the necessity of divine illumination in his mind, andespeciallyinhisheart,fortheactoffaith.ItisfromthispointofviewthathebringstogethertheideasoftheSpiritandtheWordofGodinthedefinitionoffaith:'Itisafirmandcertainknowledgeofthegoodwill ofGod towardsus:which, beinggrounded in the freepromisegiveninJesusChrist,isrevealedtoourheartbytheHolySpirit.'Heintroduces the same ideas in his introductory remarks on theApostles'Creed,andtheylieatthebasisoftheexplicationhegivesoftheThirdArticleinallitsforms,...e.g.,intheed.of1580:'Insum,He is setbeforeusas the sole fountain fromwhichall thecelestialriches flow down to us.... For it is by His inspiration that we areregenerated into celestial life, so as no longer to govern or guideourselves,buttoberuledbyHismovementandoperation;sothatifthereisanygoodinus,itisonlythefruitofHisgrace....Butsincefaith is His prime master-piece, the most of what we read in theScripturesofHisvirtueandoperation relates itself to this faith, by

which He brings us to the brightness of the Gospel, in a mannerwhich justifies callingHim the King bywhom the treasures of thekingdomof heaven are offered to us, andHis illuminationmay becalled the longing of our souls.' From these quotations it is madeplainthatthewitnessoftheHolySpiritwhichattheopeningoftheInstitutes in 1539 appeared as the means of knowledge, wasthenceforwardneverthelessconsidered,intheprogressofthework,as themeans of grace, and that taking his start from this point ofview,Calvindiscoveredevermorewidelyextendinghorizons, soasat the end to speak particularly of the Holy Spirit in at least fourdifferentconnections, but always - even in the first - in direct andconstantrelationtofaith,withrespecttoitsorigin,andwithrespecttoitsconsequences;andbynomeansalmostexclusivelywithrespecttoassuranceoftheauthorityoftheScriptures."TheprogresswhichPannier supposes he traces in Calvin's doctrine of the work of theSpiritseemsillusory:thegeneraldoctrineoftheworkoftheSpiritisalreadyprettyfullyoutlinedin1536.Buttherelatingofthetestimonyof theSpirit toScripture toCalvin'sgeneraldoctrineof faithastheproductoftheSpiritisexactandimportantfortheunderstandingofhis teaching. From beginning to end, Calvin conceived theconfidenceoftheChristianinScripture,wroughtbytheHolySpirit,asoneoftheexercisesofsavingfaith.CalviniseverinsistentthatallthatisgoodinmancomesfromtheSpirit-whetherinthesphereofthought,feeling,oract."Itisanotionofthenaturalman,"hesaysonJohn xiv. 17 (1553: xlvii. 329-330), "to despise all that the SacredScriptures say of the Holy Spirit, depending rather on his ownreason, and to reject the celestial illumination. . . . For ourselves,feeling our penury, we know that all we have of sound knowledgecomes fromnoother fountain.Nevertheless thewords of the LordJesusshowclearlythatnothingcanbeknownofwhatconcernstheHolySpiritbyhumansense,butHeisknownonlybytheexperienceof faith." "No one," says he again ("Institutes" of 1543, i. 330),"should hesitate to confess that he attains the knowledge of themysteries of God only so far as he has been illuminated by God'sgrace.Hethatattributesmoreknowledgetohimselfisonlythemoreblindthathedoesnotrecognizehisblindness."

76. Opp.xiv.727-733(Pannier,ascited,p.120).

77. TheclassicalinstanceofthisconfusionissuppliedbytheteachingofClaude Pajon (1626-1685), who, in accordance with his generaldoctrine that "without any other grace than that of theWord,Godchangesthewholeman,fromhisintellecttohispassions,"explainedthe "testimony of the Spirit" as nothing else than the effect of theindicia of divinity in Scripture on the mind. The effect of these"marks" is a divine effect, because it is wrought in prearrangedcircumstances prepared for this effect: facit per alium facit per se.Theconceptionisessentiallydeistic.It isnosmall testimonytothecardinalplacewhichthedoctrineof"thetestimonyoftheSpirit"heldin theReformed systemof the seventeenth century that Pajon stilltaught it; and it is no small testimony to its current conception asjust "regeneration" that Pajon too identified it with regeneration,explained, of course, in accordancewith his fundamental principlethatall thatGodworksHeworksthroughmeans.SeeonthewholematterJurieu,"TraittédelaNatureetdelaGrace,"1688,pp.25,26,whoquotesalikefromPajonandhisfollowers.

78. Doumergue,"Leproblemeprotestant,"1892,p.46(Pannier,ascited,p.192).

79. Pannier,ascited,pp.188sq.,isquiterightininsistingonthis.AfterquotingD.H.Meyer("Delaplaceetdurôledel'apologetiquedanalathéologieprotestante,"intheRevuedethéologieetdesquest.relig.,Jan.,1893,p.1) to theeffect that"thewitnessof theHolySpirit intheheartofChristians isnota subjectivephenomenon . . . it is anobjective thing and comes from God," - he continues: "Now thisobjectivecharacterofthewitnessoftheHolySpiritispreciselywhatappearstomakeit'incomprehensible'toourmoderntheologians(soA.E.Martin,LaPolemiquedeR.SimonetdeJ.LeClerc, 1880,p.29:'ThisinterventionoftheHolySpiritdistinctfromtheindividualconsciousness appears to us incomprehensible'). We are notspeakingof thosewhoventure topretend thatCalvin identifies thewitness of the Holy Spirit with 'the intimate feeling' of eachChristian.WhenonetakeshisplacebythesideofCastellionhemaylawfully say, Forme as for him 'the inspiration of theHoly Ghostconfounds itself with consciousness; these revelationsmade to thehumblearenothingmorethantheintuitionsofamoralandreligioussense fortified bymeditation' (Buiason, Castellion, i. p. 304, cf. p.

201: 'Castellion placed above the tradition of the universal Churchhisownsense,hisownreason,orrather,letussayitallatonce,foritis the foundation of the debate, his consciousness'). But when oneinvokes the real fathers of the real Reformation, ah, please do nottake for theirs the very opinions they combat. To make of thetestimonyof theHoly Spirit the equivalent of the testimony of thehuman spirit, of the individual consciousness, is to deny the realexistenceandthedistinctroleoftheHolySpirit,istoshowthatwehave nothing in common with the faith expounded by Calvin soclearly, and defended through a century against the attacks of theCatholicsasoneoftheessentialbasesoftheReformedtheologyandpiety."Again,Pannierisquiterightinhisdeclaration(p.214):"Whatwe deny is that our reason - moral consciousness, religiousconsciousness,thetermisofnoimportance-can,ofitself,makeusseethedivinityoftheScriptures.Itisthiswhichseesit;butitistheHolySpiritwhichmakesusseeit.Heisnottheinnereyeforseeingthe truth which is outside of us, but the supernatural hand whichcomes to open the eye of our consciousness - an eye which is, nodoubt,divineinthesensethatittoowascreatedbyGod,butwhichhasbeenblindedbytheconsequencesofsin."

80. See especially P. Du Moulin, "Du Iuge dea controverses traitté,"1838,pp.294sq.,andcf.Pannier,ascited,pp.64-88.

81. "DialoguewithTrypho," vii. ("Opera," ed.Otto. I. ii. 32) : ouv ga.rsunopta. ouvde. sunnohta. pa/sin evstin( eiv mh, tw| qeo.j do|/sunie,nai(kai.o`Cristo.jautou/:"these thingscannotbeperceivedor understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and HisChristhavegivenittounderstandthem."

82. "InCap.v.etvi.Genes.homil.xxi."(Migne,liii.175):Dia,toitou/toprosh,keih`ma/ju`po.th/ja;nwqenca,ritojo`dhgoume>nouj(kai.th.n para. tou/ a`gi,ou Pneu,matoj e;llamyin dexame,nouj ou;twjevpie,naita.qei/alo,gia)Ouvde.ga.rsofi,ajavnqrwpi,nhjdei/taih`qei,aGrafh. pro.j th.n katano,hsin tw/n gegramme,nwn( avlla. th/jtou/Pneu,matojavpokalu,yewj...."Forwemustbeledbythegracefromabove,andmustreceivetheilluminationoftheHolySpirit,toapproach the divine oracles; for it is not human wisdom but therevelation of the Holy Spirit that is needed for understanding theHoly Scriptures." It will be perceived that it ismore distinctly the

understandingoftheScripturesthanthereceptionof themasfromGodwhichisinquestionwithbothJustinandChrysostom.

83. "De Trinitate," ii. 34: Animus humanus, nisi per fidem donumSpiritus hauserit, habebit quidem naturam Deum intelligendi, sedlumenacientiaenonhabebit;iii.24:nonenimconcipiuntimperfectaperfectum, neque quod ex alio subsistit, absolute vel auctoris suipotestintelligentiamobtinere,velpropriam;v.21:nequeenimnobiseanaturaest,utse incoelestemcognitionemsuisviribusefferat.ADeodiscendumestquiddeDeo intelligendumsit;quianonnisi seauctore cognoscitur. . . . Loquendum ergo non aliter de Deo est,quamutipseadintelligentiamnostramdeselocutusest.(Forthesecitations see Migne, "Patro. Lat.," x. 74-75; x. 92; x. 143.) Hilarycertainly teaches that for such creatures as men there can be noknowledgeofGodexceptitbeGod-taught:butitisnotsoclearthatheteachesthatforsinfulcreaturestheremustbeaspecialillapseoftheSpiritthatsuchastheymayknowGod-mayperceiveHiminHisWord and so recognize thatWord as fromHim and derive a trueknowledgeofHimfromit.It is thissoteriologicaldoctrinewhichisCalvin'sdoctrineoftheHolySpirit'stestimony:notthatontologicalone.

84. Cf. article: "Augustine's Doctrine of Knowledge and Authority," inThePrincetonTheologicalReviewforJulyandOctober,1907.

85. Ibid.,pp.360sq.86. Ibid.,pp.571sq.87. "Tract.iii.inEp.Joan.adParthos,"ii.13(Migne,xxxv.2004).Again:

"Thereis,then,Isay,aMasterwithinthatteacheth:Christteacheth;Hisinspirationteacheth.WhereHisinspirationandHisunctionarenot,invaindowordsmakeanoisefromwithout."

88. "Confessions,"xi.3(Migne,xxxii.811).Cf.vi.5(Migne,xxxii.723).89. Pannier,loc.cit.,says:"ThewholeofthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit

isnotyethere.OnlyonceistheHolySpiritHimselfnamed[inthesepassages from Augustine] in a formal way. But Augustine has theintuitionofamysteriousworkwroughtinthesouloftheChristian,of an understanding of the Bible which comes not from man butfromapowerexteriorandsuperiortohim;andhesetsforththerolewhich this direct correspondencebetween the book and the readermay play in the foundation of Christian certitude. In this, as in so

manyotherpoints,AugustinewastheprecursoroftheReformation,andaprecursorwithoutimmediatefollowers:forexceptacoupleofvery vague and isolated hints in Salvianus (De Provid., iii. 1) andGregorytheGreat (†604,Homil. inEzek., I.x.),nothing further isfoundonthissubjectthroughtencenturies:itcomesintoviewagainattheapproachof thenewage,when thoughtaspired to free itselffromtheScholasticruts,withBiel(†1495,Lib.iii.Sent.dist.25,dub.3)andCajetan(†1534,Opera,II.i.1)."

90. "Loci,"ed.1555("CorpusRef.,"xxi.605).91. "De vera et falsa religione": Cum constet verbo nusquam fidem

haberiquamubiPatertraxit,Spiritusmonuit,unctiodocuit...hancrem solae piae mentea norunt. Neque enim ab hominumdisceptatione pendet, sed in animis hominum tenacissime sedet.Experientiaest,nampiiomneseamexpertisunt. "Articlesof1523"(Niemeyer,"Collectioconfessionumineccles.ref.publ.,"1840,p.5):Art. xiii. Verbo Dei quum auscultant homines pure et sinceritervoluntatemDeidiscunt.DeindeperSpiritumDeiinDeumtrahunturet veluti transformantur. "Von Klarheit und Gewusse des WortsGottes"("Werke,"SchulerundSchulthess,1828,i.81;or"Werke"in"Corp.Ref.," i.382): "TheScriptures . . . came fromGod,not fromman;...andtheGodwhohasshinedintothemwillHimselfgiveyoutounderstandthattheirspeechcomesfromGod."Cf.theinterestingbiographical account of how he came to depend on the Scripturesonly,onp.79(or"Corp.Ref.,"i.379).

92. E.Rabaud,"Hist.deladoctr.del'inspiration,"etc.,1883,pp.32-33,42-43, 47 sq., 50, expounds the earlier Reformers as in principlestandingonthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirit.Withrespectto the interpretation of Scripture he remarks: "The hermeneuticalprincipleofthewitnessoftheHolySpirit(ifwemayspeakofitasaprinciple) is common to all the Reformers. Luther only, withoutbeing ignorant of it,makes no use of it. Besides responding to thepolemicneeds,itrespondedtotheaspirationsofthefaithandofthepiety of simple men, better than rational demonstrations" (p. 50,note 4). "In a general way," he remarks, pp. 32-33, "LutherconsideredtheBibleasthesoleincontestableandabsoluteauthority.Hereisthesolidfoundationoftheedifice,theimpregnablecitadelinwhichheshuthimself inordertorepelvictoriouslyallattacks.It is

for him, in truth, a religious axiom, a postulate of faith, and not adogmaoratheory;itisrevealedtohisbelievingsoulindependentlyofall intellectualactivity.ThusLuther, trusting in theactionof theHoly Spirit, operating through the Scriptures, does not pause toproveitsauthority,nortoestablishitdialectically:itimposesitself;asystematictreatmentisnotneeded.Moreandmoreascircumstancesdemandedit,hegavereasonsforhisfaithandhissubmission.Poorargumentstomodernthinking,butinhistimes,andcommendedbyhisvibranteloquenceandpowerfulpersonality,possessingapowerofpersuasionveryimpressive....ItseemedidletoLuther,wemaysay,toenterintoanargumenttoestablishwhatwasevidenttohim.Hedidnotattempt,therefore,toprovetheauthorityoftheBible-heasserteditrepeatedlyinwarmwords,...inpassionatedeclarations,butrarely if everproceedsbya formaldemonstration."Raising thequestionofZwingli'sdoctrineofthemodeandextentofinspiration(p.47),heremarks:"NomorethantheothersdoesZwinglirespondtothesequestions,whichhadnotyetbeenraised.Godhasspoken:theBiblecontainsHisword:thatisenough.ThedivinityoftheBibleisoncemoreafact,anaxiom,somuchsothathedoesnotdreamofestablishingitdialecticallyorofdefendingit."

93. SoPannier,ascited,p.83:"Likeall theotheressentialpartsof theReformedDogmatics, the doctrine of the internal testimony of theHoly Spirit is found in germ in the first edition of the Institutes,althoughstillwithoutanydevelopment.Itisalmostpossibletodenythat it exists there, as has been done with predestination.Nevertheless, if the doctrine is not yet scientifically formulated, itmayyetbeperceivedtopreexistnecessarilyasanessentialmemberofthecompletebodyofdoctrinewhichisslowlytogrowup."WhenPanniercomes,however(pp.72-77),toexpoundindetailthegermsof the doctrine as they lie in the edition of 1536, it turns out thatthereisnotonlynofulldevelopmentofthedoctrineinthatedition,but alsono explicitmentionof it, as it is applied to the convictionwhich the Christian has of the divinity of Scripture; so that itpreexistsinthiseditiononlyasimplicitinitsgeneraldoctrineoftheSpiritandHiswork.

94. ByPannier,p.69.95. Pannier, as cited, p. 77, notes that "thewords: testimonio Spiritus

Sanctioccuronlyasingletime,attheend,andintheoldsenseof-'bythedivinelyinspiredScriptures."'Hereferstotheed.of1536,p.470,thatis,Opp.i.228:andnotesthatthispassagewasdroppedintheeditionof 1559 (Opp. iv. 796,note5).Thepassage runs: "ThusHezekiah is praised by the testimony of the Holy Spirit" - that is,obviously, "by the inspiredScriptures" - "for havingbrokenup thebrazenserpentwhichMoseshadmadebyDivinecommand."

96. Köstlin,ascited,p.411,stronglystatesthesefacts.Thewholeofthediscussiononthesourcesandnormsofreligioustruth"isaltogetherlacking intheoriginal form"of the"Institutes":"Calvinworkedoutthissectionforthefirsttimefortheeditionof1539":butitisfoundherealready thoroughlydone, "inall its fundamental traits alreadycomplete and mature." He adds that the Lutheran dogmatists (aswellastheReformed)atonce,however,tookuptheconstructionofCalvinandmadeittheirown.

97. ThehistoryofthedoctrineamongtheReformedistouchedonbyA.Schweiser, "Glaubenslehre," i. § 32; among the old Lutherans byKlaiber, "Die Lehre der altprotestantischen Dogmatiker von demtest.Sp.Sancti" in theJahrbucher fürd.Theologie, 1857,pp. 1-54.ItshistoryamongFrenchtheologiansistracedbyPannier,ascited,Part iii.pp.139-181,cf.188-193:hisnotesonthehistoryoutsideofFrance(pp.181-185)areveryslight.Onpp.161-163Pannieressaystogathertogether,chiefly,asitappears,fromthescatteredcitationsinthe Protestant controversialists of the seventeenth century (p. 162,note2),thehintswhichappearintheRomishwriters,mainlyJesuitsoftheearlyseventeenthcentury,ofrecognitionoftheinternalworkof the Holy Spirit illuminating the soul. These bear more or lessresemblancetotheProtestantdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheSpirit.Someofthepassageshecitesarequitestriking,butdonotgobeyondthecommonboundariesofuniversalChristiansupernaturalism.

98. In his brief remarks on the subject in his "Dogmengeschichte desProtestantismus," i. 1908, pp. 178 sq., Otto Ritschl seeks todiscriminate between the Reformed and Lutherans in theirconception of the testimony of the Spirit; but his discriminationtouchesrathertheapplicationthantheessenceofthematter.

99. Someofthemarecited,e.g.,bySchweizer,op.cit.,followed,e.g.,byPannier, as cited (p. 186, note 1) - such as: "Faith is already

presupposedwhenapeculiar authority is conceded toScripture," -"The recognition of what is canonical comes into existence onlygraduallyandprogressively,sincethesenseforthetrulyApostolicisagraciousgiftwhichgrowsuponlygraduallyintheChurch,"-"FaithcannotbeestablishedinunbelieversbytheScriptures,sothattheirdivineauthority is inthefirst instanceprovedfrommerelyrationalconsiderations." - There ismuch that is true andwell said in suchremarks, and they enrich the writings of Schleiermacher and hisfollowers with a truly spiritual element. But at bottom the centralpositionoccupiedisvitiatedbytheuseof"faith"asan"undistributedmiddle,"andtheremarksofwritersofthistypedonotsomuchtendto exalt the place of saving faith as to depress the authority ofScripture, by practically denying the existence or validity of fideshumana. That attitude towards the Scriptures which gladly andheartilyrecognizesthemastheWordoftheLivingGod,andwithalldelightinthemassuch,seekstosubjectallthoughtandfeelingandactiontotheirdirection,certainlyis,ifnotexactlyaproductof"truefaith,"yet (as theWestminsterConfessiondefines it)anexerciseoftrue faith, and a product of that inward creative operation of theHolySpirit fromwhichall true faith comes: thatkeen taste for thedivinewhichistheoutgrowthofthespiritualgiftofdiscrimination-the "distinguishing of things that differ" which Paul gives a placeamong Christian graces - is assuredly a "gift of grace" which maygrowmoreandmorestrongastheChristianlifeeffloresces;andsucha taste for the divine cannot be awakened in unbelievers by thenaturalactionoftheScripturesoranyrationalargumentswhatever,butrequiresforitsproductiontheworkoftheSpiritofGodabextraaccidens.Butitisatotallydifferentquestionwhetherthepeculiarityof Scripture as a divine revelation can call out no intellectualrecognitioninthemindsof inquiringmen,butmustremainwhollyhidden and produce nomental reaction conformable to its nature,untiltruefaithhasalreadybeenbornintheheart:whetherthereareno valid tests ofwhat is apostolical except a spiritual sense for thetruly apostolical which can only gradually grow up in the Church;whethertheunbelievermaynotbegivenawell-groundedintellectualconviction of the apostolic origin, the canonical authority, and thedivinecharacterofScriptureby thepresentation tohimof rational

evidence which, however unwillingly on his part, will compel hisassent.Thequestionhereisnotwhetherthisfideshumanaisofanygreatuse in the spiritual life: thequestion iswhether it ispossibleand actual.Wemay argue, if wewill, that it is notworthwhile toawake it - thoughopinionsmaydifferthere:buthowcanwearguethatit isathinginherentlyimpossible?Tosaythis isnotmerelytosay that reason cannot save, which is what Calvin said and all hisfollowers: it is to say that salvation is intrinsically unreasonable -which neither Calvin nor any of his true followers could for amoment allow. Sinmay harden the heart so that itwill not admit,weigh, or yield to evidence: but sin, which affects only the heartsubjectively, and not the process of reasoning objectively, cannotalter the relations of evidence to conclusions. Sin does not in theleastdegreeaffect thecogencyofanyrightlyconstructedsyllogism.Noman,nodoubt,waseverreasonedintothekingdomofheaven:itis the Holy Spirit alone who can translate us into the kingdomofGod's dear Son. But there are excellent reasons why every manshouldenterthekingdomofheaven;andthesereasonsarevalidintheforumofeveryrationalmind,andtheirvaliditycanandshouldbemademanifesttoall.

100. "TheologicalLectures,"etc.,NewYork,1878,pp.317,320sq.101. "TheWayofLife,"1841;also"SystematicTheology,"asperIndex.102. "Encyclopædie,etc.,"ii.1894,pp.505sqq.103. "Gereformeerde Dogmatiek," ed. 1, i. pp. 142-145, 420-422, 490-

491.104. Written, nodoubt, byLéger,moderator at the time of "theTable,"

and preserved for us in his "Histoire générale des églisesévangéliquesdesvalléesdePiédmont,"1669,i.p.112(cf.p.92).SeePannier,ascited,p.133.

105. Dr. A. F. Mitchell ("The Westminster Assembly, its History andStandards," the Baird Lecture for 1882, ed. 2, 1897, p. 441, note),followingProf.J.S.Candlish(Brit.andFor.Ev.Rev.,1877,p.173),is"verysure"thatGilleapiehashere"lefthismarkontheConfession."The"MiscellanyQuestions," in thexxi.ofwhichoccurs thepassagefromGillespiefromwhichtheConfessionissupposedtohavedrawn,was a posthumous work, published in 1649; but a number of thepapers ofwhich it ismade up have the appearance of being briefs

drawnupbyGillespieforhisownsatisfaction,oraspreparationsforspeeches, or possibly even as papers handed in to committees,duringthediscussions of theWestminsterAssembly.The languageinquestion,however,whetherinGillespieorintheConfession,issostronglyreminiscentofCalvin, that thepossibility seems to remainopen that the resemblancebetweenGillespie and theConfession isdue to their common relation to Calvin. Here is the passage inGillespie ("Presbyterian Armoury" ed., vol. ii. pp. 105-106): "TheScripture isknown to be indeed theWord ofGodby the beamsofdivine authority it hath in itself, and by certain distinguishingcharacters,whichdoinfalliblyproveittobetheWordofGod;suchas the heavenliness of the matter; the majesty of the style; theirresistible power over the conscience; the general scope, to abasemanandtoexaltGod;nothingdrivenatbutGod'sgloryandman'ssalvation; the extraordinary holiness of the penmen of the HolyGhost,withoutrespecttoanyparticularinterestsoftheirown,orofothersoftheirnearestrelations(whichismanifestbytheirwritings);thesupernaturalmysteriesrevealedtherein,whichcouldneverhaveentered into the reasonofmen; themarvellousconsentofallpartsandpassages (thoughwritten by divers and several penmen), evenwhere there is some appearance of difference; the fulfilling ofprophecies; the miracles wrought by Christ, by the prophets andapostles; the conservation of the Scriptures against the malice ofSatanandfuryofpersecutors;-theseandthelikearecharactersandmarkswhichevidencetheScripturestobetheWordofGod;yetallthese cannot beget in the soul a full persuasion of faith that theScriptures are theWord of God; this persuasion is from the HolyGhost in our hearts. And it hath been the common resolution ofsound Protestant writers (though now called in question by thesceptics of this age [the allusion being to "Mr. J. Godwin in hisHagiomastix"])thattheseargumentsandinfalliblecharactersintheScriptureitself,whichmostcertainlyproveittobetheWordofGod,cannot produce a certainty of persuasion in our hearts, but this isdonebytheSpiritofGodwithinus,accordingtotheseScriptures,ICor. ii. 10-15; I Thes. i. 5; I John ii. 27; v. 6-8, 10; John vi. 45." -Whatever may be the immediate source of the Confessionalstatement,CalvinisclearlytherealsourceofGillespie'sstatement.-

For theessenceof thematterGillespie'sdiscussion isnotably clearandexact,particularlywithreferencetotherelationoftheindiciatothetestimonyoftheSpirit,amatterwhichhestrangelydeclareshadnot to his knowledge been discussed before. The clarity of hisdeterminationshereisdoubtlessduetothespecifictopicwhichheisinthisQuestioninvestigating,viz.,thevalidityoftheargumentfrommarksandfruitsofsanctificationtoourinterestinChrist:aparallelquestioninthebroadersoteriologicalspheretotheplaceofindiciainourconviction of the divinity of Scripture,whichhe therefore usesillustratively for hismain problem. "Itmay be asked," he remarks,"anditisaquestionworthytobelookedinto(thoughImustconfessI have not read it, nor heard it, handled before), How doth thisassurance by marks agree with or differ from assurance by thetestimony of the Holy Spirit? May the soul have assurance eitherway,ormusttherebeaconcurrenceofboth(forIsupposetheyarenotoneandthesamething)tomakeuptheassurance?"(p.105).Heprovesthat theyare"notoneandthesamething";andthenshowssolidlythatforassurancethere"mustbeaconcurrenceofboth.""Tomakenotrialbymarks,"hesays,"andtotrustaninwardtestimony,under thenotionof theHolyGhost's testimony,when it iswithoutthe least evidence of any true graciousmarks, thisway (of its ownnature,andintrinsically,or in itself) isadeludingandensnaringofthe conscience" (p. 105). That is to say, a blind confidence andconviction, without cognizable grounds in evidence cannot betrusted.Againandveryclearly:"Sothat,inthebusinessofassuranceandfullpersuasion,theevidencesofgracesandthetestimonyoftheSpirit, are two concurrent causesorhelps, bothof themnecessary.Without the evidenceof graces, it isnot a safenor awellgroundedassurance" (p. 106). It remains only to add thatwhile arguing thisoutinthewidersoteriologicalsphere,GillespieappearstotakeitasamatterofcourseintheaccreditingoftheScripturesasdivine-givingthatcase, in thecourseofhisargument,asan illustration toaid indetermininghisconclusion.

106. For the meaning of the Confession's statement, supported byillustrative excerpts from its authors, see The Presbyterian andReformed Review, iv. 1893, pp. 624-32; and cf. W. Cunningham,"Theological Lectures," New York, 1878, pp. 320 sq., and The

PresbyterianQuarterly,January,1894,pp.19sq.

Calvin'sDoctrineofGod1

BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

Havingexpoundedintheopeningchaptersofthe"Institutes"thesourcesandmeansoftheknowledgeofGod,Calvinnaturallyproceedsinthenextseriesofchapters(I.x.xi.xii.xiii.)tosetforththenatureoftheGodwho,by the revelationofHimself inHisWord andby theprevalent internaloperationofHisSpirit,framestheknowledgeofHimselfintheheartsofHispeople.Hewhoexpectstofindinthesechapters,however,anorderlydiscussionof the several topicswhichmakeup the locusdeDeo inourformal dogmatics,willmeetwith disappointment. Calvin is notwritingout of an abstract scientific impulse, but with the needs of souls, and,indeed, also with the special demands of the day in mind. And as hispurpose is distinctively religious, so his method is literary rather thanscholastic. In the freedom of his literary manner, he had permittedhimselfintheprecedingchaptersrepeatedexcursionsintoregionswhich,inanexactarrangementof thematerial,mightwellhavebeenreservedforexplorationatthislaterpoint.Totakeupthesetopicsagain,now,forfuller and more orderly exposition, would involve much repetitionwithout substantially advancing the practical purpose for which the"Institutes" were written. Calvin was not a man to confound formalcorrectnessofarrangementwith substantial completenessof treatment;norwasheatalossfornewtopicsofpressingimportancefordiscussion.Heskillfullyinterposesatthispoint,therefore,ashortchapter(chap.x.)inwhichundertheformofpointingoutthecompleteharmonywiththerevelationofGodinnatureoftherevelationofGodintheScriptures-thedivineauthorityofwhichinthecommunicationoftheknowledgeofGodhe had just demonstrated - he reminds his readers of all that he hadformerlysaidofthenatureandattributesofGodonthebasisofnaturalrevelation,andtakesoccasiontosaywhatitremainednecessarytosayofthe same topicson thebasisof supernatural revelation.Thushebrieflybuteffectivelybringstogetherunder the reader's eye thewholebodyofhisexpositionof these topicsandfreeshishandstogivehimself,under

theguidanceofhispracticalbentandpurpose, to the two topics fallingundertherubricofthedoctrineofGodwhichwereatthemomentofthemostpressingimportance.HisactualformaltreatmentofthedoctrineofGodthusdividesitselfintotwoparts,theformerofwhich(chaps.xi.xii.),instrongAnti-Romishpolemicisdevotedtotheuprootingofeveryrefugeofidolatry,whilethelatter(chap.xiii.),inequallystrongpolemicagainsttheAnti-trinitarianismoftheday,developswiththeologicalacumenandvitalfaiththedoctrineofTrinityinUnity.

It is quite true, then, as has often been remarked, that the "Institutes"contain no systematic discussion of the existence, the nature, and theattributesofGod.2Andthelackofformal,systematicdiscussionofthesefundamental topics, may, no doubt, be accounted a flaw, if we are toconceivethe"Institutes"asaformaltreatiseinsystematictheology.Butitisnotat all true that the "Institutes" containno sufficient indicationofCalvin's conceptions on these subjects: nor is it possible to refer theabsence of formal discussion of them either to indifference to themonCalvin'spartortoanypeculiarityofhisdogmaticstandpoint,3orevenofhistheologicalmethod.4Theomissionbelongsrathertothepeculiarityofthistreatiseasaliteraryproduct.Calvindoesnotpassoverallsystematicdiscussionof the existence, nature, and attributes ofGodbecause fromhistheologicalstandpointtherewasnothingtosayuponthesetopics,norbecause,inhistheologicalmethod,theywereinsignificantforhissystem;butsimplybecausehehadbeenledalreadytosayinformallyaboutthemallthatwasnecessaryforthereligious,practicalpurposehehadinviewin writing this treatise. For here as elsewhere the key to theunderstanding of the "Institutes" lies in recognizing their fundamentalpurposetohavebeenreligious,andtheirwhole,notcoloringmerely,butsubstance, tobeprofoundlyreligious- inthisonly reflecting indeed themostdeterminativetraitofCalvin'scharacter.

Itisimportanttoemphasizethis,forthereseemstobestillanimpressionabroadthatCalvin'snaturewasatbottomcoldandhardanddry,andhislife-manifestation but a piece of incarnated logic:while the "Institutes"themselves are frequently represented, or rathermisrepresented - it isdifficulttobelievethatthosewhosospeakofthemcanhavereadthem-asabodyofpurelyformalreasoningbywhichintolerableconclusionsare

remorselesslydeducedfromasetofmetaphysicalassumptions.5PerhapsM. Ferdinand Brunetière may be looked upon as a not unfairrepresentative of the class of writers who are wont so to speak of the"Institutes."6Accordingtohim,Calvinhas"intellectualized"religionandreducedittoaformwhichcanappealonlytothe"reasonable,"orratherto the "reasoning" man. "In that oratorical work which he called TheInstitutes,"M.Brunetièresays,"ifthereisanymovement...itisnotonewhich comes from the heart . . . and - I am speaking here only of thewriter or the religious theorizer, not of the man - the insensibility ofCalvin is equalled only by the rigor of his reasoning. . . ." The religionCalvin sets forth is "a religion which consists essentially, almostexclusively, in the adhesion of the intellect to truths all butdemonstrated,"andcommendsitselfbynothing"exceptbytheliteralnessofitsagreementwithatext-whichisamatterofpurephilology-andbythe solidityof its logical edifice -which isnothingbutamatterofpurereasoning."ToCalvin,headds, "religious truthattests itself innoothermanner and by no othermeans thanmathematical truth. As he wouldreasononthepropertiesofatriangle,orofasphere,soCalvinreasonsontheattributesofGod.Allthatwillnotadjustitselftotheexigenciesofhisdialectic,hecontestsorherejects...CartesianbeforeDescartes,rationalevidence,logicalincontradictionareforhimthetestortheproofoftruth.Hewouldnotbelieveiffaithdidnotstayitselfonaformalsyllogism....Froma'matteroftheheart,'ifImaysosay,Calvintransformedreligionintoan'affairoftheintellect.'"

Wemustnotfailtoobserve,inpassing,thatevenM.Brunetièrerefrainsfrom attributing to Calvin's person the hard insensibility which herepresents as the characteristic of his religious writings - a tribute,wemay suppose, to the religious impression which is made by Calvin'spersonalityuponallwhocomeintohispresence,andwhichledevenM.ErnestRenan,whootherwisesharesverylargelyM.Brunetiere'sestimateofhim,todeclarehim"themostChristianmanofhisage."7Norcanwehelp suspecting that the violence of the invectives launched against theremorselesslogicofthe"Institutes"andofCalvin'sreligiousreasoningingeneral,isbuttheindexofthedifficultyfeltbyM.Brunetièreandthosewhosharehispointofview,insustainingthemselvesagainsttheforceofCalvin's argumentative presentation of his religious conceptions. It is

surely no discredit to a religious reasoner that his presentationcommendshis system irresistibly to all "reasonable," or let us even say"reasoning"men. A religious system which cannot sustain itself in thepresence of "reasonable" or "reasoning" men, is not likely to remainpermanently in existence, or at least in power among reasonable orreasoningmen; and onewould think that the logical irresistibility of asystemofreligioustruthwouldbedistinctlyacountinitsfavor.ThebiteofM.Brunetière'sassaultisfound,therefore,purelyinitsnegativeside.HewouldcondemnCalvin'ssystemofreligionasnothingbutasystemoflogic;and the "Institutes," themost systematic presentation of it, as inessencenothingbutacongeriesofsyllogisms,issuinginnothingbutasetoflogicalpropositions,withnoreligiousqualityorupliftinthem.Inthis,however, he worst of all misses the mark; and we must add he waspeculiarlyunfortunateinfixing,inillustrationofhismeaning,onthetwomattersof the "attributesofGod"as thepointofdeparture forCalvin'sdialectic and of the intellectualizing of "faith" as the height of hisoffending.

In Calvin's treatment of faith there is nothing more striking than hisdeterminationtomakeitclearthatitisamatternotoftheunderstandingbut of the heart; and he reproaches the Romish conception of faithprecisely because itmagnifies the intellectual side to the neglect of thefiducial. "We must not suppose," it is said in the Confession of FaithdrawnupfortheGenevanChurch,8eitherbyhimselforbyhiscolleaguesunderhiseye,"thatChristianfaithisanakedandmereknowledgeofGodor understanding of the Scriptures, which floats in the brain withouttouchingtheheart....Itisafirmandsolidconfidenceoftheheart."Or,as he repeats this elsewhere,9 "It is an error to suppose that faith is anakedandcoldknowledge.10...Faithisnotanakedknowledge,11whichfloats in the brain, but drawswith it a living affection of the heart."12"True Christian faith," he expounds in the second edition of the"Institutes,"13..."isnotcontentwithasimplehistoricalknowledge,buttakes its seat in the heart of man." "It does not suffice that theunderstandingshouldbeilluminatedbytheSpiritofGodiftheheartbenot strengthened by His power. In this matter the theologians of theSorbonneverygrosslyerr,-thinkingthatfaithisasimpleconsenttotheWord of God, which consists in understanding, and leaving out the

confidence and assurance of the heart." "What the understanding hasreceivedmustbeplantedintheheart.ForiftheWordofGodfloatsintheheadonly, ithasnotyetbeenreceivedbyfaith; ithas its true receptiononlywhen ithas takenroot in thedepthsof theheart."Again, tociteacouple of passages in which the less pungent statement of the earliereditions has been given new point and force in the final edition of the"Institutes": "It must here be again observed," says he,14 "that we areinvited to theknowledgeofGod -notaknowledgewhich, contentwithemptyspeculation, floatsonly inthebrain,butonewhichshallbesolidandfruitful,ifrightlyreceivedbyus,androotedintheheart.""TheassentwegivetoGod,"hesaysagain,15"asIhavealreadyindicatedandshallshowmore largely later - is rather of the heart than of the brain, andrather of the affections than of the understanding."16 It is quite clear,then, that Calvin did not consciously address himself merely to thesecuring of an intellectual assent to his teaching, but sought to movemen's hearts.Hiswhole conception of religion turned, indeed, on this:religion, he explained, to be pleasing to God, must be a matter of theheart,17 and God requires in His worshippers precisely heart andaffection.18Alltheargumentsintheworld,heinsists,ifunaccompaniedbytheworkoftheHolySpiritontheheart,willfailtoproducethefaithwhichpietyrequires."

Thisscarcelysoundslikeamantowhomreligionwassimplyamatteroflogicalproof.

And so far is he from making the attributes of God, metaphysicallydetermined,thestarting-pointofabodyofteachingdeducedfromthembyquasi-mathematicalreasoning-asonewoulddeducethepropertiesofa triangle from its nature as a triangle - that it has been made hisreproach thathehas so little to sayof thedivinenatureandattributes,andinthislittleconfineshimselfsostrictlytothemanifestindiciaofGodin His works and the direct teaching of Scripture, refusing utterly tofollow"thehighpriori"roadeitherindeterminingthedivineattributesorfromthemdeterminingthedivineactivities.Thus,hisdoctrineofGodis,it is said, no doubt notably sober and restrained, but also, whencomparedwithZwingli's,forexample-equallynotablyunimportant.20Itisconfessed,however,thatitisatleastthoroughlyreligious;andinthisis

found, indeed, its fundamental characteristic. Precisely where Calvin'sdoctrine differs from Zwingli's markedly is that he constantlycontemplated God religiously, while Zwingli contemplated himphilosophically - that to him God was above and before all things theobjectofreligiousreverence,whiletoZwinglihewaspredominatinglytheFirstCause,fromwhomallthingsproceed.21"Itisnotwiththedoctrineof God," says the historian whose representations we have beensummarizing,"butwiththeworshipofGodthatCalvin'sfirstconcernwasengaged. Even in his doctrine of God - as we may perceive from hisremarksuponit-religionstandseverintheforeground(I. ii.1).Beforeeverything else Calvin is a religious personality. The Reformationconfronts Catholicismwith a zeal to live for God.With striking justiceCalvin remarked that 'all alike engaged in theworship of God, but fewreally reverencedHim, - that therewaseverywheregreatostentation inceremoniesbut sincerity ofheartwas rare' (I. ii. 2).Reverence forGodwas thegreat thing forCalvin. Ifwe lose sightof thisapersonality likeCalvincannotbeunderstood;and it isonlybyrecognizing thereligiousprinciplebywhichhewasgoverned,thatajustjudgmentcanbeformedof his work as a dogmatician. . . ."22 Again, Calvin "considers theknowledgeofthenatureandoftheattributesofGodmoreamatteroftheheartthanoftheunderstanding;andsuchaknowledge,hesays,mustnotonlyarouseusto'theserviceofGod,butmustalsoawakeinusthehopeofafuturelife'(I.v.10).Inhisextremepracticality-asthelastremarkshows us - Calvin rejected the philosophical treatment of the question.TheScriptures,forhimthesourceof theknowledgeofGod,hetakesashis guide in his remarks on the attributes. . . ."23 Still again, "AlreadymorethanoncehavewehadoccasiontonotethatwhenCalvintreatsofGod,hedoesthisasabeliever,forwhomtheexistenceofGodstandsasafixedfact;andwhathesaysofGod,hedrawsfromtheScripturesashisfundamentalsource,findinghisprideinremainingaBiblicaltheologian,and whenever he can, taking the field against the philosophico moreinterpretarioftheScripturaltexts(seee.g.I.xvi.3).HisdoctrineofGodhasthepracticalendofservingtheneedsofhisfellow-believers.Itisalsonoteworthy that he closes every stage of the consideration with anexhortation to the adorationofGodor to the surrender of the heart toHim.OfthedoctrineoftheTrinityhedeclaresthathewillholdhimselfevertrulytotheScriptures,becausehedesirestodonothingmorethan

to make what the Scriptures teach accessible to our conceptionsplanioribusverbis,andthiswillapplyequallytothewholeofhisdoctrineofGod."24 In a word, nothing can be clearer than that in his specificdoctrineofGodaswellasinhisgeneralattitudetoreligioustruthCalvinis as far as possible from being satisfied with a merely logical effect.Whenwelistentohimonthesehighthemeswearelisteninglesstotheplayofhisdialecticthantothethrobbingofhisheart.

Itwasduetothishiscontrollingreligiouspurpose,andtohisdominatingreligious interest, that Calvin was able to leave the great topics of theexistence, the nature, and the attributes of God, without formal anddetailed discussion in his "Institutes." It is only a matter, we mustreiterate,oftheomissionofformalanddetaileddiscussion;foritinvolvesnot merely a gross exaggeration but a grave misapprehension torepresenthimasleavingthesetopicswhollytooneside,andmuchmoreto seek to account for this assumed fact from some equally assumedpeculiarity of Calvin's theological point of view or method. Under theimpulseofhisgoverningreligiousinterest,hewasabletocontenthimselfwithsuchanexpositionofthenatureandattributesofGod,inmatterandform, as served his ends of religious impression, and was under nocompulsion to expand this into such details and order it into such amethodical mode of presentation as would satisfy the demands ofscholastictreatment.Buttoomitwhatwouldbeforhispurposeadequatetreatmentof thesefundamentalelementsofacompletedoctrineofGodwould have been impossible, we do not saymerely to a thinker of hissystematicgenius,buttoareligiousteacherofhisearnestnessofspirit.Inpoint of fact, we do not find lacking to the "Institutes" such afundamental treatmentof thesegreat topicsaswouldbeappropriate insuchatreatise.Weonlyfindtheirformalandseparatetreatmentlacking.AllthatitisneedfulfortheChristianmantoknowonthesegreatthemesisherepresent.Only,itispresentsotospeakinsolution,ratherthaninprecipitate:distributedthroughthegeneraldiscussionoftheknowledgeofGodrather thangatheredtogether intooneplaceandapportionedtoformal rubrics. It is communicatedmoreover in a literaryandconcreteratherthaninanabstractandscholasticmanner.

Itwill repayus togatherout fromtheirmatrix in the flowingdiscourse

the elements of Calvin's doctrine of God, that we may form some fairestimateoftheprecisenatureandamountofactualinstructionhegivesregarding it. We shall attempt this by considering in turn Calvin'sdoctrineoftheexistence,knowableness,nature,andattributesofGod.

Wedonotreadfarintothe"Institutes"beforewefindCalvinpresentingproofs of the existence of God. It is quite true that this book, beingwrittenbyaChristianforChristians,ratherassumesthedivineexistencethanundertakestoproveit,andconcernsitselfwiththeso-calledproofsof the divine existence as means through which we rather obtainknowledgeofwhatGodis,thanmerelyattaintoknowledgethatGodis.ButthisonlyrendersitthemoresignificantofCalvin'sattitudetowardsthese so-called proofs that he repeatedly lapses in his discussion fromtheir use for the former into their use for the latter and logically priorpurpose. That he thus actually presents these proofs as evidencesspecificallyoftheexistenceofGodcanadmitofnodoubt.25

If, for example, he adduces that sensus deitatiswithwhich allmen, heasserts, are natively endowed, primarily as the germ which may bedeveloped into a profound knowledge of God, he yet does not failexplicitlytoappealtoitalsoasthesourceofanineradicableconviction,embeddedintheverystructureofhumannatureandthereforepresentinallmenalike,oftheexistenceofGod.Hetellsusexpresslythatbecauseofthissensusdivinitatis,presentinthehumanmindbynaturalinstinct,allmen without exception (ad unum omnes) know (intelligant, perceive,understand) "that God exists" (Deum esse), and are therefore withoutexcuseiftheydonotworshipHimandwillinglyconsecratetheirlivestoHim(I. iii. 1). It is tobuttressthisassertion thatheciteswithapprovalCicero'sdeclaration26that"there isnonationsobarbarous,notribesosavage, that there is not stamped on it the conviction that there is aGod."27Thusheadduces theargumentof the consensusgentium- theso-called "historical" argument - with exact appreciation of its truebearing,notdirectlyasaproofoftheexistenceofGod,butdirectlyasaproofthattheconvictionofthedivineexistenceisanativeendowmentofhumannature,andonlythroughthatindirectlyasaproofoftheexistenceof God. This position is developed in the succeeding paragraph into adistinct anti-atheistic argument. The existence of religion, he says,

presupposes,andcannotbeaccountedforexceptby,thepresenceinmanofthis"constantpersuasionofGod"fromwhichasaseedthepropensitytoreligionproceeds:menmaydeny "thatGodexists,"28"butwill they,nillthey,whattheywishnottoknowtheycontinuallyareawareof."29Itisapersuasion ingeneratednaturally intoall, that "someGodexists"30(I.iii.3),andthereforethisdoesnotneedtobeinculcatedintheschools,but everyman is from the womb his ownmaster in this learning, andcannotbyanymeansforgetit.Itisthereforemeredetestablemadnesstodenythat"Godexists"(I.iv.2).31InallthesepassagesCalvinisdealingexplicitly,notwiththeknowledgeofwhatGodis,butwiththeknowledgethat God is. It is quite incontrovertible, therefore, that he grounds anargument-orrathertheargument-fortheexistenceofGodintheveryconstitutionofman.TheexistenceofGodis,inotherwords,withhiman"intuition," and he makes this quite as plain as if he had devoted aseparatesectiontoitsexposition.

Similarly, although he writes at the head of the chapter in which heexpounds the revelationwhichGodmakesofHimself inHisworksanddeeds: "That the knowledge of God ismanifested in themaking of theworldanditscontinuousgovernment"(chap.v.),he isnotabletocarrythrough his exposition without occasional lapses into an appeal to thepatefactionofGodinHisworksasaproofofHisexistence,ratherthanasarevelationofHisnature.Themostnotableoftheselapsesoccursinthecourse of his development of the manifestation of God made by thenatureofmanhimself(I.v.4),whereoncemorehegivesusanexpressanti-atheistic argument. "Yea," he cries, "the earth is supporting to-daymanymonstrousbeings,whowithouthesitationemploytheveryseedofdivinitywhichhasbeensowninhumannatureforeclipsingofthenameofGod.Howdetestable,Iprotest,isthisinsanity,thataman,discoveringGodahundredtimesinhisbodyandsoul,shouldonthisverypretextofexcellencedenythatGodexists!32Theywillnotsaythat it isbychancethattheyaredifferentfrombrutebeasts;theyonlydrawoverGodtheveilof 'nature,'which theydeclare themakerofall things,and thusabolish(subducunt)Him.Theyperceive themost exquisiteworkmanship in alltheir members, from their countenances and eyes to their very fingernails.Here,too,theysubstitute'nature'intheplaceofGod.Butaboveallhowagilearethemovementsofthesoul,hownobleitsfaculties,howrare

its gifts,discovering a divinitywhich does not easily permit itself to beconcealed: unless the Epicureans, from this eminence, should like theCyclopsaudaciouslymakewaragainstGod.Isittruethatallthetreasuresofheavenlywisdomconcurforthegovernmentofawormfivefeetlong,and the universe lacks this prerogative? To establish the existence of akindofmachineryinthesoul,correspondenttoeachseveralpartof thebody,makes so little to theobscuringof thegloryofGod that it ratherillustratesit.LetEpicurustellwhatconcourseofatomsinthepreparationof foodanddrinkdistributespart to the excrements, part to theblood,andbringsitaboutthattheseveralmembersperformtheirofficeswithasmuchdiligenceas if somanysoulsbycommonconsentweregoverningonebody.""Themanifoldagilityofthesoul,"heeloquentlyadds(I.v.5,med.), "bywhich it surveystheheavensand theearth, joins thepast tothe future, retains in memory what it once has heard, figures to itselfwhateveritchooses;itsingenuity,too,bywhichitexcogitatesincrediblethings andwhich is themother of somanywonderful arts; are certaininsigniainmanofdivinity....NowwhatreasonexiststhatmanshouldbeofdivineoriginandnotacknowledgetheCreator?Shallwe,forsooth,discriminate between right and wrong by a judgment which has beengiventous,andyettherebenoJudgeinheaven?...Shallwebethoughtthe inventors of somany useful arts, that wemay defraud God of Hispraise-althoughexperiencesufficientlyteachesusthatallthatwehaveisdistributedtousseverallyfromelsewhere?..."Calvin,ofcourse,knowsthatheisdigressinginapassagelikethis-that"hispresentbusiness isnotwiththatstyofswine,"ashecallstheEpicureans.Butdigressionornot, the passage is distinctly an employment of the so-called physico-theologicalprooffortheexistenceofGod,andadvisesusthatCalvinheldthatargumentsoundandwouldcertainlyemployitwheneveritbecamehisbusinesstodeveloptheargumentsfortheexistenceofGod.

TheproofsfortheexistenceofGodonwhichweperceiveCalvinthustorelyhadbeentraditionalintheChurchfromitsfirstage.Itwaspreciselyupon these two lines of argument that the earliest Fathers rested. "Hewho knows himself," says Clement of Alexandria, quite in Calvin'smanner, "will know God."33 "The knowledge of God," exclaimsTertullian,"isthedowryofthesoul."34"Ifyousay,'ShowmethyGod,"'Theophilusretortstotheheathenchallenge,"Ireply,'Showmeyourman

andIwillshowyoumyGod."'35TheGodwhocannotbeseenbyhumaneyes, declares Theophilus,36 "is beheld and perceived through Hisprovidenceandworks":wecannomoresurely inferapilot fortheshipwe see making straight for the harbor, than we can infer a divinegovernorfortheuniversetendingstraightonitscourse."Thosewhodenythatthisfurnitureofthewholeworldwasperfectedbythedivinereason,"arguestheOctaviusofMinuciusFelix,37 "andassert that itwasheapedtogetherbycertainfragmentscasuallyadheringtoeachother,seemtometohaveneithermind,norsense,nor,infact,evensight itself.""Whencecomes it," asks Dionysius of Alexandria, criticizing the atomic theoryquite in Calvin's manner,38 that the starry hosts - "this multitude offellow-travellers, allunmarshalledby any captain, all ungiftedwith anydetermination of will, and all unendowed with any knowledge of eachother, have nevertheless held their course in perfect harmony?" LiketheseearlyFathers,Calvinadducesonlythesetwolinesofevidence:theexistenceofGodisalreadygiveninourknowledgeofself,anditissolidlyattestedbyHisworksanddeeds.Whether,hadwefromhimaprofessedinstead of amerely incidental treatment of the topic, themetaphysicalargumentswouldhaveremainedlackinginhiscaseasintheirs,39wecanonly conjecture; but it seems very possible that as foreign to his aposteriorimethod (cf. I. v. 9) they lay outside of his scheme of proofs.Meanwhile, he has in point of fact adverted, in the course of thisdiscussion,only to the twoargumentsonwhich theChurch teachers atlargehaddepended from thebeginningofChristianity.He states thesewithhis accustomed clearness and force, andhe illuminates themwithhis genius for exposition and illustration; but he gives them onlyincidental treatment after all. In richness as well as in fulness ofpresentationheissurpassedherebyZwingli,40anditistoMelanchthonthat we shall have to go to find among the Reformers a formalenumerationoftheproofsforthedivineexistence.41

That this God, the conviction of whose existence is part of the veryconstitution of the human mind and is justified by abundantmanifestationsofHimself inHisworksanddeeds, isknowablebyman,liesonthefaceofCalvin'sentirediscussion.Thewholeargumentoftheopening chapters of the "Institutes" is directed precisely to theestablishmentofthisknowledgeofGodonanirrefragablebasis:andthe

emphasiswithwhichtherealityandtrustworthinessofourknowledgeofGodisassertedisequalledonlybytheskillwithwhichthedevelopmentof our native instinct to knowGod into an actual knowledge ofHim istraced(inchap.i.),andtherichnesswithwhichHisrevelationofHimselfin His works and deeds is illustrated by well-chosen and strikinglyelaborated instances (inchap.v.).Ofcourse,Calvindoesnot teach thatsinful man can of himself attain to the knowledge of God. The noeticeffects of sinhe takes very seriously, andhe teacheswithout ambiguitythat allmenhave grossly degenerated from the true knowledge ofGod(chap.iv.).ButthisisnotadoctrineoftheunknowablenessofGod,butratheroftheincapacitatingeffectsofsin.AccordinglyheteachesthattheinadequatenessoftheknowledgeofGodtowhichalonesinnerscanattainisitselfasin.Men'snaturespreparethemtoserveGod,God'srevelationsofHimselfdisplayHimbeforemen'seyes:ifmendonotknowGodtheyare without excuse and cannot plead their inculpating sinfulness asexculpation.Godremains,then,knowabletonormalman:itisnaturaltomantoknowHim.AndifinpointoffactHecannotbeknownsavebyasupernaturalactionoftheHolySpiritontheheart,thisisbecausemanisnot in his normal state and it requires this supernatural action of theSpiritonhisheart to restorehim tohispropernatural powers asman.The"testimonyoftheHolySpiritintheheart"doesnotcommunicatetomananynewpowers,powersalientohimasman:itisrestorativeinitsnatureand inprinciplemerelyrecovershispowers fromtheirdeadnessinducedbysin.TheknowledgeofGodtowhichmanattainsthroughthetestimonyoftheSpirit isthereforetheknowledgewhichbelongstohimas normal man: although now secured by him only in a supernaturalmanner,itisinkind,and,sofarasitistheproductofhisinnatesensusdeitatisandtherevelationofGodinHisworksanddeeds, it is inmodealso,naturalknowledgeofGod.Calvin'sdoctrineof thenoeticeffectsofsinandtheir removalby the"testimonyof theSpirit," that is to say,bywhatwecall"regeneration,"mustnotthenbetakenasadoctrineoftheunknowableness of God. On the contrary it is a doctrine of theknowablenessofGod,andsuppliesonlyanaccountofwhymenintheirpresentconditionfailtoknowHim,andanexpositionofhowandinwhatconditions theknowablenessofGodmaymanifest itself inmanasnowconstitutedinanactuallyknownGod.WhentheSpiritofGodenterstheheartwith recreative power, he says, then even sinfulman, his blurred

eyesopened,mayseeGod,notmerelythatthereisaGod,butwhatkindofbeingthisGodis(I.i.1;ii.1;v.1).

Of course, Calvin does notmean thatGod can be known to perfection,whether by renewedman, or by sinlessmanwith all his native powersuninjuredbysin. In thedepthsofHisbeingGod is tohimpast findingout; the human intelligence has no plumbet to sound those profounddeeps. "His essence" (essentia), he says, "is incomprehensible(incomprehensibilis); so that His divinity (numen) wholly escapes allhumansenses"(I.v.1,cf.I.xi.3);andthoughHisworksandthesignsbywhich He manifests Himself may "admonish men of Hisincomprehensible essence" (I. xi. 3), yet, beingmen, we are not capaxDei; as Augustine says somewhere, we stand disheartened before Hisgreatnessandareunable to takeHim in (I. v.9).42Wecanknow thenonlyGod'sglory(I.v.1), that istosay,Hismanifestedperfections(I.v.9), bywhichwhatHe is to us is revealed tous (I. x. 2).WhatHe is inHimself,wecannotknow,andallattemptstopenetrateintoHisessenceare but cold and frigid speculations which can lead to no usefulknowledge."Theyaremerelytoyingwithfrigidspeculations,"hesays(I.ii.2),"whosemindissetonthequestionofwhatGodis(quidsitDeus),whenwhatitreallyconcernsustoknowisratherwhatkindofapersonHe is (qualis sit) andwhat is appropriate toHis nature (natura)" (I. ii.2).43WearetoseekGod,therefore,"notwithaudaciousinquisitivenessbyattemptingtosearchintoHisessence(essentia),whichisrathertobeadored than curiously investigated; but by contemplating Him in Hisworks,inwhichHebringsHimselfneartousandmakesHimselffamiliarand in somemeasure communicatesHimself to us" (I. v. 9). For if weseektoknowwhatHe is inHimself (quis sitapudse)rather thanwhatkindofapersonHeistous(qualiserganos)-whichisrevealedtous inHisattributes(virtutes)-wesimplyloseourselvesinemptyandmeteoricspeculation(I.x.2).

ThedistinctionwhichCalvin isheredrawingbetween theknowledgeofthequidandtheknowledgeofthequalisofGod;theknowledgeofwhatHeis inHimselfandtheknowledgeofwhatHeistous, istheordinaryscholastic one and fairly repeats what Thomas Aquinas contends for("Summa Theol.," i. qu. 12, art. 12), when he tells us that there is no

knowledge of God per essentiam, no knowledge of His nature, of Hisquidditasperspeciempropriam;butweknowonlyhabitudinemipsiusadcreaturas. There is no implication of nominalism here; nothing, forexample, similar to Occam's declaration that we can know neither thedivineessence,northedivinequiddity,noranythingintrinsictoGod,noranythingthatGodisrealiter.WhenCalvinsaysthattheDivineattributesdescribenotwhatGod isapudse,butwhatkindofapersonHe iserganos,44 he is not intending to deny that His attributes are truedeterminationsof thedivinenatureand truly reveal tous thekindof apersonHeis;heisonlyrefusingtospeculateonwhatGodisapartfromHisattributesbywhichHerevealsHimselftous,andinsistingthatitisonlyintheseattributesthatweknowHimatall.Heisrefusingallapriorimethodsofdeterminingthe nature ofGod and requiring of us to formour knowledge of Him a posteriori from the revelation He gives us ofHimself inHis activities. ThisHe insists is the only knowledgewe canhaveofGod,andthistheonlywaywecanattaintoanyknowledgeofHimatall.Ofwhatvalueisittous,heasks(I.v.9),toimagineaGodofwhoseworkingwehavehadnoexperience?Suchaknowledgeonlyfloatsinthebrainasanemptyspeculation.ItisbyHisattributes(virtutes)thatGodismanifested; it is only through them that we can acquire a solid andfruitful knowledge of Him. The only right way and suitablemethod ofseekingHim,accordingly,isthroughHisworks,inwhichHedrawsneartousand familiarizesHimself tous and in somedegree communicatesHimself to us. Here is not an assertion that we learn nothing of GodthroughHisattributes,whichrepresentonlydeterminationsofourown.On the contrary, here is an assertion that we obtain through theattributesasolidandfruitfulknowledgeofGod.OnlyitisnotpretendedthattheattributesofGodasrevealedinHisactivitiestellusallthatGodis,oranythingthatHeisinHimself:theyonlytellus,inthenatureofthecase,whatHeis tous.Fortunately,saysCalvin, this iswhatweneedtoknow concerning God, and we may well eschew all speculationconcerningHisintrinsicnatureandcontentourselveswithknowingwhatHeisinHisrelationtoHiscreatures.Hisobjectis,nottodenythatGodiswhatHeseems-thatHisattributesrevealedinHisdealingswithHiscreatures represent true determination of His nature. His object is toaffirmthatthesedeterminationsofHisnature, revealed inHisdealingswithHiscreatures,constitutethesumofourrealknowledgeofGod;and

that apart from them speculation will lead to no solid results. He iscalling us back, not from a fancied knowledge of God through HisactivitiestotherecognitionthatweknownothingofHim,thatwhatwecallHisattributesareonlyeffectsinus:butfromanaprioriconstructionof an imaginary deity to an a posteriori knowledge of the Deity whichreallyisandreallyacts.Thismuchweknow,hesays,thatGodiswhatHisworks and acts revealHim to be; though itmust be admitted that Hisworks and acts reveal not His metaphysical Being but His personalrelations-notwhatHeisapudse,butwhatHeisquoadnos.

OfthenatureofGodintheabstractsense,thus-thequiddityofGod,inscholasticphrase-Calvinhaslittletosay.45ButhisrefusaltogobehindtheattributeswhicharerevealedtousinGod'sworksanddeeds,affordsno justification to us for going behind them for him and attributing tohimagainsthisprotestdevelopedconceptionsofthenatureofthedivineessence,whichhe vigorously repudiates.Calvinhas sufferedmore thanmostmenfromsuchgratuitousattributionstohimofdoctrineswhichheemphaticallydisclaims. Thus, not only has it beenpersistently assertedthathereducedGod,afterthemanneroftheScotists,tothebarenotionof arbitrary Will, without ethical content or determination,46 but thecontradictory conceptions of a virtual Deism47 and a developedPantheism48have with equal confidence been attributed to him. Toinstancebutasingleexample,PrincipalA.M.Fairbairnpermitshimselftosaythat"Calvinwasaspure,thoughnotasconsciousandconsistentaPantheistasSpinoza."49Astonishingassuchadeclarationis in itself, itbecomesmoreastonishingstillwhenweobservethegroundonwhichitisbased.Thisconsistsessentially in thediscovery that the fundamentalconception of Calvinism is that "God's is the only efficient will in theuniverse,andsoHeistheoneultimatecausalreality"50-uponwhichthecertainlyvery trueremark ismadethat"theuniversalizedDivinewill isan even more decisive and comprehensive Pantheism than theuniversalized Divine substance."51 The logical process by which theCalvinistic conception of the sovereign will of God as the prima causarerum -where the very termprimaimplies the existence and reality of"secondcauses"-istransmutedintothePantheisingnotionthatthewillofGod is the soleefficient causeoperative in theuniverse;orbywhichtheCalvinistic conceptionofGodas the sovereign ruler of theuniverse

whose"willisthenecessityofthings"istransmutedintothereductionofGod, Hegelian-wise, into pure and naked will52 - although it hasapparentlyappealedtomany, iscertainlyveryobscure. Inpointof fact,whentheCalvinistspokeofGodastheprimacausarerum(thephraseiscitedfromWilliamAmes53)hemeantbyitonlythatallthattakesplacetakesplaceinaccordancewiththedivinewill,notthatthedivinewill isthe only efficient cause in the universe; and when Calvin quotesapprovinglyfromAugustine-forthewordsareAugustine's54-that"thewillofGod is thenecessityof things,"so little iseitherheorAugustinemakinguseofthewordsinaPantheisticsensethathehastenstoexplainthatwhat hemeans is only thatwhateverGodhaswilledwill certainlycometopass,althoughitcomestopassin"suchamannerthatthecauseandmatterof itarefoundin"thesecondcauses(utcausaetmateria inipsisreperiatur).55

Calvin beyond all question did cherish a very robust faith in theimmanenceofGod."Ourveryexistence,"hesays,"issubsistenceinGodalone"(I.i.1).Heevenallows,asDr.Fairbairndoesnotfailtoinformus,thatitmaybesaidwithapiousmeaning-soonlyitbetheexpressionofapious mind - that "nature is God" (I. v. 5, end).56 But Dr. FairbairnneglectstomentionthatCalvinaddsatonce,thattheexpressionis"crudeand unsuitable" (dura et impropria), since "nature is rather the orderprescribedbyGod";and,moreover,noxious,becausetendingto"involveGodconfusedlywiththeinferiorcourseofHisworks."Heneglectsalsotomention that the statement occurs at the end of a long discussion, inwhich,afterrebukingthosewhothrowanobscuringveiloverGod,retireHimbehindnature, and so substitutenature forHim - Calvin inveighsagainstthe"babbleaboutsomesortofhiddeninspirationwhichactuatesthe whole world," as not only "weak" but "altogether profane," andbrandsthespeculationofauniversalmindanimatingandactuating theworldassimplyjejune(I.v.4and5).EvenhisbelovedSenecaisreprovedfor"imaginingadivinitytransfusedthroughallpartsoftheworld"sothatGodisallthatweseeandallthatwedonotseeaswell(I.xiii.1),whilethe Pantheistic scheme of Servetus is made the object of an extendedrefutation(II.xiv.5-8).ToascribeanessentiallyPantheisticconceptionofGodtoCalvininthefaceofsuchfrequentandenergeticrepudiationsofit on his own part57 is obviously tomiss hismeaning altogether. If he

"maybe said tohaveanticipatedSpinoza inhisnotionofGodas causaimmanens,"and"Spinozamaybesaid...tohaveperfectedandreducedtophilosophicalconsistencytheCalvinisticconceptionofDeity"58- thiscanmeannothingmorethanthatCalvinwasnotaDeist.Andinpointoffact he repudiated Deism with a vehemence equal to that which hedisplays against Pantheism. To rob God of the active exercise of Hisjudgment and providence, shutting Him up as an idler (otiosum) inheaven,he characterizes asnothing less than "detestable frenzy," since,sayshe,"nothingcouldlesscomportwithGodthantocommittofortunetheabandonedgovernmentoftheworld,shutHiseyestotheiniquitiesofmenandletthemwantonwithimpunity"(I.iv.2).59

Calvin's conceptionofGod is thatofapureandclearTheism, inwhichstress is laid at once on His transcendence and His immanence, andemphasis is thrown onHis righteous government of theworld. "Let usbear in mind, then," he says as he passes from his repudiation ofPantheism, "that there isoneGod,whogovernsallnatures" (I. v.6,adinit.),"andwishesustolooktoHim,-toputourtrustinHim,toworshipandcalluponHim"(I.v.6);towhomwecanlookupastoaFatherfromwhomweexpectandreceivetokensoflove(I.v.3).SolittleisheinclinedtoreducethisdivineFathertobarewill,thathetakesrepeatedoccasionexpresslytodenouncethisScotistconception.ThewillofGod,hesays,isto us indeed the unique rule of righteousness and the supremely justcauseofall things;butwearenot likethesophiststoprateaboutsomesort of "absolute will" of God, "profanely separating His righteousnessfrom His power," but rather to adore the governing providence whichpresidesoverallthingsandfromwhichnothingcanproceedwhichisnotright, though the reasons for itmaybehidden fromus (I.xvii.2, end)."Nevertheless," he remarks in another place, after having exhorted hisreaders to find in the will of God a sufficient account of things -"nevertheless,wedonotbetakeourselvestothefictionofabsolutepower,which,asitisprofane,sooughttobedeservedlydetestabletous;wedonotimaginethattheGodwhoisalawtoHimselfisexlegem,...thewillof God is not only pure from all fault, but is the supreme rule ofperfection,eventhelawofall laws"(III.xxiii.2,end).60Inaword,thewillofGodistoCalvinthesupremeruleforus,becauseitistheperfectexpressionofthedivineperfections.61

Calvin thusrefuses tobeclassifiedaseitherDeist,Pantheist,orScotist;and those who would fain make him one or the other of these havenothing to go upon except that on the one hand he does proclaim thetranscendence of God and speaks with contempt of men who imaginethatdivinityistransfusedintoeverypartoftheworld,andthatthereisaportionofGodnotonlyinusbuteveninwoodandstone(I.xiii.1,22);andontheotherhedoesproclaimtheimmanenceofGodandinvitesustolookuponHisworksortodescendwithinourselvestofindHimwho"everywhere diffuses, sustains, animates and quickens all things inheaven and in earth," who, "circumscribed by no boundaries, bytransfusingHisownvigor intoall things,breathes into thembeing, lifeandmotion"(I,xiii.14);whilestillagainhedoesproclaimthewillofGodtobeinscrutablebysuchcreaturesasweareandtoconstitutetousthelaw of righteousness, to be accepted as such without murmurings orquestionings.Inpointoffact,allthesechargesarebutseveralmodesofexpressing the dislike their authors feel for Calvin's doctrine of thesovereigntyofthedivinewill,which,followingAugustine,hedeclarestobe"thenecessityofthings":theywouldfainbrandthishatedconceptionwithsomenameofopprobrium,and,therefore,seektorepresentCalvinnowashidingGoddeisticallybehindHisownlaw,andnowasreducingHimtoamerestreamofcausality,orat least tomerenakedwill.62Bythusdecliningalternatelytocontradictoriestheyshowsufficientlyclearlythat in reality Calvin's doctrine of God coincides with none of thesecharacterizations.

The peculiarity of Calvin's conception of God, we perceive, is notindefiniteness, but reverential sobriety. Clearing his skirts of allPantheistic,Deistic,Scotistnotions-andturningasideeventorepudiateManichaeism and Anthropomorphism (I. xiii. 1) - he teaches a pureTheismwhichhelooksuponasnativetomen(I.x.3).ThenatureofthisoneGod,heconceives,canbeknowntousonlyasHemanifestsitinHisworks (I. v. 9); that is to say, only inHisperfections.Whatwe call theattributes of God thus become to Calvin the sum of our knowledge ofHim.InthesemanifestationsofHischaracterweseenotindeedwhatHeis inHimself,butwhatHe is tous(I.x.2);butwhatweseeHimtobethustous,Hetrulyis,andthisisallwecanknowaboutHim.Wemightexpect to find in the "Institutes," therefore, a comprehensive formal

discussionoftheattributes,bymeansofwhichwhatGodistousshouldbefullysetbeforeus.This,however,aswehavealreadyseen,wedonotget.63Andmuchlessdowegetanymetaphysicaldiscussionofthenatureof the attributes of God, their relation to one another, or to the divineessence of which they are determinations. We must not thereforesuppose, however, that we get little or nothing of them, or little ornothing to the point. On the contrary, besides incidental allusions tothem throughout the discussion, from which we may glean much ofCalvin's conceptions of them, they are made the main subject of twowhole chapters, the one of which discusses in considerable detail therevelationofthedivineperfectionsinHisworksanddeeds,theothertherevelationmadeof them inHisWord.Wehavealready remarkeduponthe skill with which Calvin, at the opening of his discussion of thedoctrine of God (chap. x.), manages, under color of pointing out theharmony of the description of God given in the Scriptures with theconceptionofHimwemaydraw fromHisworks, tobringallhehad tosayofthedivineattributesatoncebeforethereader'seye.TheScriptures,sayshe,areinessenceheremerelyaplainer(I.x.1)republicationofthegeneral revelation given of God inHis works and deeds: they "containnothing"intheirdescriptionsofGod,"butwhatmaybeknownfromthecontemplation of the creatures" (I. x. 2, med.). And he illustrates thisremarkbyquotingfromMoses(Ex.xxxiv.6),thePsalms(cxlv.)andtheprophets (Jer. ix. 24), passages in which God is richly described, andremarking on the harmony of the perfections enumerated with thosewhichhehadintheearlierchapter(v.)pointedoutasillustratedinthe,divine works and deeds. This comparison involves a tolerably fullenumerationand somediscussionof theseveral attributes, here on thebasisofScripture,asformerly(chap.v.)onthebasisofnature.Hedoesnot, therefore, neglect the attributes so much as deal with them in asomewhatindirectmanner.And,wemayadd, inahighlypracticalway:forheretoohiszealistoavoid"airyandvainspeculations"ofwhatGodisin Himself and to focus attention upon what He is to us, that ourknowledge of Him may be of the nature of a lively perception andreligiousreaction(I.x.2,adinit.etadfin.).

In a number of passages Calvin brings together a plurality of theattributes-hisnameforthemis"virtues"64-andevenhintsatacertain

classificationofthem.Oneofthemostbeautifulofthesepassagesformedtheopeningwordsofthefirstdraftofthe"Institutes,"butfelloutinthesubsequent revisions - to the regret of some, who consider it, on thewhole,themostcomprehensivedescriptionofGodCalvinhasgivenus.65It runs as follows: "The sumof holy doctrine consists of just these twopoints, - theknowledge ofGod and the knowledge of ourselves. These,now,arethethingswhichwemustkeepinmindconcerningGod.First,we should hold fixed in firm faith that He is infinite wisdom,righteousness, goodness, mercy, truth, power (virtus), and life, so thatthere exists no other wisdom, righteousness, goodness, mercy, truth,power, and life (Baruch iii.; James i.), and wheresoever any of thesethings is seen, it is fromHim (Prov. xvi.). Secondly, that all that is inheavenoronearthhasbeencreated forHisglory (Ps.cxlviii.;Dan. iii.;andit is justlyduetoHimthateverything,according to itsownnature,should serve Him, acknowledge His authority, seek His glory, andobediently acceptHim as Lord and King (Rom. i.). Thirdly, thatHe isHimselfajustjudge,andwillthereforebeseverelyavengedonthosewhodepartfromHiscommandments,andarenotinallthingssubjecttoHiswill;whointhought,word,anddeedhavenotsoughtHisglory(Ps.vii.;Rom.ii.).InthefourthplacethatHeismercifulandlong-suffering,andwill receive into His kingdom, the miserable and despised who takerefugeinHisclemencyandtrustinHisfaithfulness;andisreadytospareandforgivethosewhoaskHis favor, tosuccorandhelpthosewhoseekHisaid,anddesirousofsavingthosewhoputtheirtrustinHim(Ps.ciii.;Is.Iv.;Ps.xxv., ixxxv.)."Inthefirstclauseofthisstrikingparagraphwehave a formal enumeration of God's ethical attributes, which isapparentlymeanttobegenericallycomplete-although in thecourseoftheparagraphotherspecific formsofattributeshereenumeratedoccur;andallofthemaredeclaredtoexistinGodinaninfinitemode.Thelistcontains seven items: wisdom; righteousness; goodness (clemency);mercy (long-sufferingness); truth;power; life.66 Ifwe compare this listwiththeenumerationinthefamousdefinitionofGodintheWestminster"ShorterCatechism"(Q.4),67weshallseethatitispracticallythesame:theonlydifferencebeingthatCalvinaddstothegeneralterm"goodness"themorespecific"mercy,"affixes"life"attheend,andomits"holiness,"doubtless considering it to be covered by the general term"righteousness."

If just this enumeration does not recur in the "Institutes" as finallyrevised, something very like it evidently underlies more passages thanone. Even in the first section of the first chapter, which has taken itsplace,wehaveanenumerationofthe"goodthings"(bona)inGodwhichstandopposed toour "evil things" (mala), thatbrings togetherwisdom,power,goodness,andrighteousness:forinGodalone,wearetold,canbefound"thetruelightofwisdom,solidpower(virtus),aperfectaffluenceofallgoodthings,andthepurityofrighteousness"(I.i.1).Intheopeningsection of the next chapter we have two enumerations of the divineperfections,obviouslyrhetorical,andyetbetrayinganunderlyingbasisofsystematic arrangement: the later and fuller of these brings togetherpower,wisdom,goodness, righteousness, justice,mercy - closingwithareferencetoGod'spowerful"protection."God,wearetold,"sustainsthisworld by His immense power (immensa potentia), governs it by Hiswisdom, preserves it by His goodness, rules over the human raceespecially byHis righteousness and justice (iudicium), bears with it inHis mercy, defends it by His protection (praesidium)." The mostcomplete enumerations of all, however, are given, when, leaving theintimations of nature, Calvin analyses some Scriptural passages with aview to drawing out their descriptions of the divine perfections. HisanalysisofExod.xxxiv.6isparticularlyfull(I.x.2).Hefindsthedivineeternity and self-existence embodied in the name Jehovah; the divinestrength and power (virtus et potentia) expressed in the nameElohim;and in the description itself an enumeration of those virtues whichdescribeGodnotindeedasHeisapudse,butasHeiserganos-towit,His clemency, goodness, mercy, righteousness, justice, truth. Thestrongest claimwhich this passage has on our interest, however, is thesuggestionitbearsofaclassificationoftheattributes.ThepredicationtoGod of eternity and self-existence (auvtousi,a) evidently is for Calvinsomething specifically different from the ascription to Him of thosevirtuesbywhicharedescribednotwhatHeisapudse,butwhatHeshowsHimself tobeerganos.They inawordbelong rather to thequiddityofGod than to His qualitas. In a subsequent passage (xiii. 1) we have aplainerhinttothesameeffect.Therewearegiven"twoepithets"whichweare toldareappliedbyScripture to thevery "essence"ofGod, in itsrare speech concerning His essence - immensity and spirituality.68 Itseemsquiteclear,then,thatCalvinwasaccustomedtodistinguishinhis

thoughtbetweensuchepithets,describingwhatGodisapudse,andthosevirtuesbywhichHeismanifestedtousinHisrelationserganos.Thatistosay,hedistinguishesbetweenwhataresometimescalledHisphysicalormetaphysical and His ethical attributes: that is to say, between thefundamentalmodesoftheDivineBeingandtheconstitutivequalitiesoftheDivinePerson.69

Ifweprofitbythishintandthencollecttheattributesofthetwoclassesas Calvin occasionally mentions them, we shall in effect reconstructCalvin'sdefinitionofGod.70Thiswouldrunsomewhatasfollows:Thereis but one only true God,71 a self-existent,72 simple,73 invisible,74incomprehensible75 Spirit,76 infinite,77 immense,78 eternal,79perfect,80 in His Being, power,81 knowledge,82 wisdom,83righteousness,84 justice,85 holiness,86 goodness,87 and truth.88 Inaddition to these more general designations, Calvin employs aconsiderablenumberofmorespecificterms,bywhichhemorepreciselyexpresses his thought and more fully explicates the contents of theseveralattributes.Thus,forexample,heisfondoftheterm"severity"89when he is endeavoring to give expression to God's attitude as a justjudge to the wicked; and he is fond of setting in contrast with it thecorresponding term "clemency"90 to express His attitude towards therepentant sinner. It is especially the idea of "goodness" which he thusdraws out into its several particular manifestations. Beside the term"clemency"hesetsthestillgreaterword"mercy,"or"pity,"91andbythesideofthisagainhesetstheevengreaterword"grace,"92whilethemoregeneral ideaof "goodness"hedevelopsby the aidof such synonyms as"beneficence"93and"benignity,"94andalmost exhausts the capacityofthelanguagetogiveexpressiontohissenseoftherichnessoftheDivinegoodness.95God is "goodandmerciful" (ii.2), "benignandbeneficent"(v.7),"thefountandsourceofallgood"(ii.2),theirfecund"author"(ii.2), whose "will is prone to beneficence" (x. 1), and in whom dwells a"perfect affluence," nothing less than an "infinity," of good things. Andtherefore he looks upwards to thisGodnot only as our Lord (ii. 1) theCreator (ii. 1), Sustainer (ii. 1), andGovernor (ii. 1) of theworld - andmoreparticularly itsmoral governor (ii. 2), its "just judge" (ii. 2) - butmoreespeciallyasour"defenderandprotector,"96ourFather97whoisalsoourLord,inwhose"fatherlyindulgence"98wemaytrust.

There is in the "Institutes" little specific exposition of the manner inwhichwearriveattheknowledgeoftheseattributes.TheworksofGod,wearetold,illustrateparticularlyHiswisdom(v.2)andHispower(v.6).ButHispower,weare further told, leadsuson to thinkofHis eternityand His self-existence, "because it is necessary that He from whomeverything derives its origin, should Himself be eternal and have thegroundofHisbeinginHimself":99whilewemustpositHisgoodnesstoaccountforHiswilltocreateandpreservetheworld.100BytheworksofprovidenceGodmanifestsprimarilyHisbenignityandbeneficence;andin His dealing with the pious, His clemency, with the wicked Hisseverity101-whicharebutthetwosidesofHisrighteousness:although,of course, "His power and wisdom are equally conspicuous."102 It isprecisely the same body of attributeswhich are ascribed toGod in theScriptures,103andthatnotmerely in suchapassageasEx.xxxiv.6, towhichwehavealreadyalluded,but everywhere throughout their course(x.1,adfin.).Psalmcxlv.,forexample,soexactlyenumeratesthewholelist of God's perfections that scarcely one is lacking. Jeremiah ix. 24,while not so full, is to the same effect. Certainly the three perfectionstherementionedarethemostnecessaryofallforustoknow-thedivine"mercy in which alone consists all our salvation; His justice, which isexercisedonthewickedeveryday,andawaitsthemmoregrievouslystillin eternal destruction; His righteousness, by which the faithful arepreserved andmost lovingly supported."Nor, addsCalvin, is there anyreal omission here of the other perfections - "either of His truth, orpower, or holiness, or goodness." "For how could we be assured, as ishere required, ofHis righteousness,mercy and justice, unless weweresupportedbyHis inflexibleveracity?Andhowcouldwebelieve thatHegoverns theworld in justiceandrighteousnessunlesswe acknowledgedHispower?AndwhenceproceedsHismercybutfromHisgoodness?AndifallHiswaysarejustice,mercy,righteousness,certainlyholinessalsoisconspicuousinthem."Thedivinepower,righteousness,justice,holiness,goodness,mercy,andtruthareherebrought togetherandconcatenatedonewiththeothers,withsomeindicationof theirmutualrelations,andwithaclear intimation thatGod isnotproperly conceivedunlessHe isconceived in all His perfections. Any description of Him which omitsmore or fewer of these perfections, it is intimated, is justly chargeablewith defect. Similarly when dealing with those more fundamental

"epithets"bywhichHis essence is described (xiii. 1), hemakes it plainthat not to embrace them all in our thought of God, and that in theirintegrity,istoinvadeHismajesty:thefaultoftheManichaeanswasthattheybrokeuptheunityofGodandrestrictedHisimmensity.104

There is no lack in Calvin's treatment of the attributes, then, of a justsenseoftheirvarietyorofthenecessityofholdingthemalltogetherinasingle composite conception that we may do justice in our thought toGod.Heobviouslyhasinmindthewholeseriesofthedivineperfectionsin clear and just discrimination, and he accurately conceives them asfallingapartintotwoclasses,theonequalitiesofthedivineessence,theother characteristics of the divine person - in a word, essential andpersonalattributes:andhefullyrealizestherelationofthesetwoclassesto each other, and as well the necessity of embracing each of theattributes in its integrity in our conception ofGod, ifwe are to do anyjusticewhatevertothatconception.

What seems to be lacking in Calvin's treatment of the attributes isdetaileddiscussionofthenotionimbeddedineachseveralattributeandelaboration of this notion as a necessary element in our conception ofGod. Calvin employs the terms unity, simplicity, self-existence,incomprehensibility, spirituality, infinity, immensity, eternity,immutability,perfection,power,wisdom,righteousness,justice,holiness,goodness,benignity,beneficence,clemency,mercy,grace,105ascurrenttermsbearingwell-understoodmeanings, anddoes not stop to developtheirsignificanceexceptbyincidentalremarks.106Theconfidencewhichheplaces in their conveyanceof theirmeaning seems to be justifiedbythe event; although, no doubt, much of the effect of their mereenumeration is due to the remarkable lucidity of Calvin's thought andstyle: he uses his termswith such consistency and exactness, that theybecomeself-definingintheircontext.Wearefar,then,fromsayingthathismethodofdealingwith theattributes,bymereallusionaswemightalmostcallit, isinadequateforthepracticalreligiouspurposeforwhichhewaswriting: and certainly it is farmore consonantwith the literaryratherthanscholasticformhegiveshistreatise.Whenwesuggest, then,thatfromthescholasticpointofviewitseemsthat it ispreciselyat thispoint that Calvin's treatment of the attributes falls somewhat short of

whatwemightdesire,wemustnotpermittoslipoutofourmemorythatCalvin expressly repudiates the scholastic point of view and is of setpurposesimpleandpractical.107HedoesnotseektoobtainforhimselfortorecommendtootherssuchaknowledgeofGodasmerely"raisesidlespeculationinthebrain";butsuchas"shallbefirmandfruitful"andhaveits seat in the heart. He purposely rejects, therefore, the philosophicalmodeofdealingwiththeattributesanddevoteshimselftoawakeningintheheartsofhisreadersapracticalknowledgeofGod,aknowledgewhichfunctions first in the fear (timor) of God and then in trust (fiducia) inHim.

Andherewemustpausetotakenoteofthistwo-foldcharacterizationofthereligiousemotion,corresponding,asitdoesinCalvin'sconception,tothedoubleaspectinwhichGodiscontemplatedbythosewhoknowHim.GodisourLord,inwhosepresenceaweandreverencebecomeus;GodisourFather,towhomweowetrustandlove.Fearandlove-bothmustbepresentwheretruepietyis:for,saysCalvin,what"Icallpiety(pietas)isthat reverence combined with love of God, which a knowledge of Hisbenefitsproduces" (I. ii. 1). In the formhehasgiven thisstatement theelement of reverence (reverentia) appears to be made the formativeelement:pietyisreverence,althoughitisnotreverencewithoutlove.Butif it is not reverence in and of itself but only the reverence which isinformedby love, loveafterallmaybeheld tobecome thedeterminingelement of true piety. AndCalvin does not hesitate to declarewith thegreatest emphasis that the apprehension of God as deserving of ourworship and adoration - in a word as our Lord - simpliciter, does notsuffice to produce true piety: that is not born, he says, until "we arepersuadedthatGodisthefountainofallthatisgoodandceasetoseekforgoodelsewhere than inHim" (ibid.); that is to say, untilwe apprehendHimasourFatheraswellasourLord."For,"addshe,"untilmenfeelthattheyoweeverythingtoGod,thattheyarecherishedbyHispaternalcare,thatHe is the author to them of all good things and nothing is to besoughtoutofHim,theywillneversubject themselves toHiminwillingobedience (observantia, reverent obedience); or rather I should say,unless they establish for themselves a solid happiness inHim theywillneverdevotethemselvestoHimwithoutreservetrulyandheartily(vereetexanimototos)."Andthenheproceeds(I. ii.2)toexpoundat length

howtheknowledgeofGodshouldfirstinspireuswithfearandreverenceandthenleadustolooktoHimforgood.ThefirstthoughtofHimawakesustoourdependenceonHimasourLord:anyclearviewofHimbegetsinusasenseofHimasthefountainandoriginofallthatisgood-suchasinanyonenotdepravedbysinmustinevitablyarouseadesiretoadheretoHimandputhistrust(fiducia)inHim-becausehemustrecognizeinHim a guardian and protector worthy of complete confidence (fides)."Because he perceives Him to be the author of all good, in trial or inneed,"heproceeds,stillexpoundingthestateofmindofthetrulypiousman, "he at once commits himself to His protection, expectant of Hishelp;becausehe isconvinced thatHe isgoodandmerciful,herestsonHiminassuredtrust(fiducia),neverdoubtingthataremedyispreparedinHis clemency forallhis ills;becausehe recognizesHimas Lord andFather,he is sure thatheought to regardHisgovernment inall things,revere His majesty, seek His glory, and obey His behests; because heperceives Him to be a just judge, armed with severity for punishinginiquities,hekeepsHistribunalalwaysinview,andinfearrestrainsandcheckshimselffromprovokingHiswrath.Andyet,heisnotsoterrifiedbythesenseofHisjustice,thathewishestoescapefromit,evenifflightwere possible: rather he embraces Him not less as the avenger of thewickedthanasthebenefactorofthepious,sinceheperceivesittobelongtoHisglorynotlessthatthereshouldbemetedoutbyHimpunishmentto the impious and iniquitous, than the reward of eternal life to therighteous.Moreover,herestrainshimself fromsinningnotmerely fromfearofpunishment,butbecausehelovesandreverencesGodasafather(locopatris) andhonors andworshipsHim as Lord (loco domini), andeventhoughtherewerenohellhewouldquaketooffendHim."

We have quoted this eloquent passage at length because it throws intoprominence, as few others do, Calvin's deep sense not merely ofreverencebutof lovetowardsGod.Tohimtruereligionalwaysinvolvesthe recognition of God not only as Lord but also as Father. And thisdoubleconceptionofGodispresentwhetherthisreligionbeconceivedasnaturalorasrevealed."TheknowledgeofGod,"sayshe(I.x.2,adfin.),"whichisproposedtousintheScripturesisdirectedtonootherendthanthatwhichismanifestedtousinthecreation:towit,itinvitesusfirsttothefearofGod,thentotrustinHim;sothatwemaylearnbothtoserve

Himinperfectinnocenceoflifeandsincereobedience,andaswelltorestwholly in His goodness." That is, in a word, the sense of the divineFatherhoodisasfundamentaltoCalvin'sconceptionofGodasthesenseof His sovereignty. Of course, he throws the strongest conceivableemphasisonGod'sLordship: thesovereigntyofGod is thehingeofHisthought of God. But this sovereignty is ever conceived by him as thesovereignty of God our Father. The distinguishing feature of Calvin'sdoctrineofGod is, inaword,precisely theprevailingstresshecastsonthis aspect of the conception of God. It is a Lutheran theologian whotakesthetroubletomakethisplaintous."ThechiefelementswhicharedealtwithbyCalvininthematterofthereligiousrelation,"hesays,"aresummedup in theproposition:God isourLord,whohasmadeus,andourFatherfromwhomallgoodcomes;weoweHim,therefore,honorandglory, love and trust.Wemust, so we are told in the exposition of theDecalogue in the first edition of the Institutes, just as we are told inLuther'sCatechism-wemust'fearandlove'God....[But]wefindintheInstitutes, and, indeed, particularly in the final edition, expressions inwhichthesecondoftheseelementsisgiventhepreference.. . .Wemayfind,indeed,inLutherandtheLutherans,theelementoffearinpietystillmoreemphasizedthaninCalvin...."108Inaword,withallhisemphasisonthesovereigntyofGod,Calvin throwsanevenstrongeremphasisonHis love:andhisdoctrineofGod ispreeminentamongthedoctrinesofGodgivenexpressionintheReformationageinthecommandingplaceitgivestotheDivineFatherhood."LordandFather"-fatherlySovereign,orsovereignFather-thatishowCalvinconceivedGod.

Itwas precisely becauseCalvin conceived ofGodnot only as Lord, butalsoasFather,andgaveHimnotmerelyhisobediencebuthislove,thathe burnedwith such jealousy forHis honor. Everything that tended torobGodof thehonordueHimwas accordinglypeculiarly abhorrent tohim. We cannot feel surprised, therefore, that he devotes so large aportionofhisdiscussionofthedoctrineofGodtorepellingthatinvasionofthedivinerightswhichwaswroughtbygivingtheworshipduetoHimalone to others, andparticularly to idols, thework ofman's own hand.Hissoul filledwith thevisionof themajestyofaGodwhowillnotgiveHis glory to another, andhis heart aflamewith a sense of the FatherlylovehewasreceivingfromthisgreatGod,theLordofheavenandearth,

heturnedwithpassionatehatredfromtheidolatrousritesintowhichtheworshipoftheoldChurchhadsolargelydegenerated,andfeltnothingsopressingly his duty as to trace out the fallacies in the subtle pleas bywhichmensoughttojustifythemtothemselves,andsofaraslaywithinhimtorescuethosewholookedtohimforguidancefromsuchdreadfulprofanationof thedivinemajesty.Asapracticalman,withhismindonthepractical religiousneeds of the time, this "brutal stupidity" ofmen,desiringvisiblefiguresofGod-whoisaninvisibleSpirit-corruptingthedivineglorybyfabricatingforthemselvesgodsoutofwood,orstone,orgold,orsilver,oranyotherdeadstuff,seemedtohimtocallforrebukeaslittle else could. The principle on which he proceeds in his rebuke ofidolatryisexpressedbyhimselfinthewords,thattoattributetoanythingelse than to the one trueGod, anything that is proper todivinity is "todespoil God of His honor and to violate His worship."109 So deeplyrooted is the jealousy for the divine honor given expression in thisprinciplenotonlyinCalvin'sthought,butinthatofthewholetendencyofthought which he represents, that it may well be looked upon as adeterminative traitof theReformedattitude -whichhastherefore beendescribed as characterized by a determined protest against all that ispaganinlifeandworship."110

Certainly the zealofCalvinburnedwarmly against thedishonorhe feltwasdonetoGodbythemethodsofworshippingHimprevalentintheoldChurch.GodhasrevealedHimselfnotonlyinHisWord,butalsoinHisworks,astheoneonlytrueGod.ButthevanityofmanhasevertendedtocorrupttheknowledgeofGodandtoinventgodsmanyandlordsmany,andnotcontentwiththat,hassunkeventothedegradationofidolatry-fabricatinggodsofwoodorstone,goldorsilver,orsomeotherdeadstuff.It is,ofcourse,notidolatryingeneral,butthe idolatryof theChurchofRome that Calvin has his eye particularly upon, as became him as apracticalman, absorbed in the real problems of his time.He thereforeparticularly animadverts upon the more refined forms of idolatry,ruthlesslyreducingthemtothesamelevelinprinciplewiththegrossest.Goddoesnotcompareidolswithidols,hesays,asifonewerebetterandanotherworse:Herepudiatesallwithoutexception-allimages,pictures,oranyotherkindoftokensbywhichsuperstitiouspeoplehaveimaginedHecouldbebroughtneartothem(I.xi.1,end).Heembracesallformsof

idolatry, however, in his comprehensive refutation; he even expresslyadverts to the "foolish subterfuge" (inepta cautio) of the Greeks, whoallowpaintedbutnotgravenimages(I.xi.4,end).OrratherhebroadenshiscondemnationuntilitcoverseventhefalseconceptionsofGodwhichweframeinourimaginations(I.xi.4,adinit.),substitutingthemfortherevelationsHemakesofHimself:forthe"mindofman,"hesays,"is,ifImay be allowed the expression, a perpetual factory of idols" (I. xi. 8).Thus he returns to "the Puritan conception" which we have seen himalreadyannouncing in former chapters, andproclaimsashis governingprinciple(I.xi.4,med.)that"allmodesofworshipwhichmenexcogitatefromthemselvesaredetestable."111

Hedoesnotcontenthimself,however,withproclaimingandestablishingthisprinciple.Hefollowstheargumentfortheuseofimages inworshipinto itsdetailsandrefutes it itemby item.To thepleathat"images arethe books of the illiterate" and by banishing them he is depriving thepeopleoftheirbestmeansofinstruction,herepliesthatnodoubttheydoteach something, but what they teach is falsehood: God is not as theyrepresentHim(§§5-7).Tothecaveatthatnooneworshipstheidols,butthe deity through the idols, that they are never called "gods" and thatwhat is offered them is doulei,a, not latrei,a - he replies that all this isdistinction without difference; the Jews in their idolatry reasoned in asimilarmanner,and it is easy toerectadistinctionbetweenwords,butsomewhatmoredifficulttoestablisharealdifferenceinfact(§§9-11).Tothereproachthatheisexhibitingafanaticismagainsttherepresentativearts,herejoinsthatsuchisfarfromthecase;heisonlyseekingtoprotectthesearts from abusive application towrong purposes (§§ 12, 13). Andfinally to the appeal to the decisions of the Council ofNice of 786-787favorabletoimage-worship,herepliesbyanexposureofthe"disgustinginsipidities"and"portentousimpiety"oftheimage-worshippingFathersatthatCouncil(§§14sq.).Thediscussionisthenclosed(chap.xii.),withachapterinwhichheurgesthatGodaloneistobeworshippedandonlyinthewayofHisownappointment;andaboveallthatHisgloryisnottobe given to another. Thus the ever-present danger of idolatry, asevidenced in the gross practices of Rome, is itself invoked to curbspeculationonthenatureoftheGodheadandtothrowmenbackonthesimpleandvitalizingrevelationofthewordofaGodlikeusinthatHeisa

spiritual person, but unlike us in that He is clothed in inconceivablemajesty.Thesetwoepithets-immensityandspirituality-thusstandoutas expressing the fundamental characteristics of the divine essence toCalvin's thinking: His immensity driving us away in terror from anyattempt tomeasure Him by our sense; His spirituality prohibiting theentertainment of any earthly or carnal speculation concerning Him (I.xiii.1).

Inthecourseof thisdiscussiontherearethreemattersonwhichCalvinsomewhat incidentally toucheswhich seem too interesting tobepassedoverunremarked.Thesearewhatwemaycallhisphilosophyofidolatry,hispraiseofpreaching,andhisrecommendationofart.

Hisphilosophyof idolatry (I. xi.8,9) takes the formofapsychologicaltheory of its origin.While allowing an important place in the fosteringandspreadof idolatry to theancientcustomsofhonoring thedeadandsuperstitiously respecting their memory, he considers idolatry moreancientthanthesecustoms,andtheproductofdebasedthoughtsofGod.Heenumeratesfourstagesinitsevolution.First,themindofman,filledwithprideandrashness,darestoimagineagodafteritsownnotion;112andlaboringinitsdullnessandsunkinthecrassestignorance,naturallyconceivesavainandemptyspectreforGod.Next,manattemptstogiveanoutwardformtothegodhehasthusinwardlyexcogitated;sothatthehandbringsforththeidolwhichthemindbegets.Worshipfollowshardonthisfigment;for,whentheysupposetheyseeGodintheimages,mennaturallyworshipHiminthem.Finally,theirmindsandeyesalikebeingfixeduponthe images,menbegintobecomemore imbruted,andstandamazedandlostinwonderbeforetheimages,asifthereweresomethingofdivinityinherentinthem.ThuseasyCalvinsupposestobethedescentfrom false notions of deity to the superstitious adoration of stocks andstones,andthusclearlyandreiteratedlyhediscoverstherootsofidolatryin false conceptions of God and proclaims its presence in principlewherever men permit themselves to think of God otherwise, in anyparticular,thanHehasrevealedHimselfinHisworksandWord.

As we read Calvin's energetic arraignments of the sinfulness of ourdeflected conceptions of God - the essential idolatry of the imaginaryimagesweformofHim-andourdutydiligentlytoconformourideasof

God to the revelations of Himself He has graciously given us, we areremindedofaneloquentpicturewhichthelateProfessorA.Sabatieroncedrew113 of a concourse of professing Christians coming together toworship in commonaGodwhomeach conceives afterhisown fashion.Anthropomorphists,Deists, Agnostics, Pantheists - all bow alike beforeGodandworship, saysProf.Sabatier;and theworshipofoneandall isacceptable, equally acceptable, to God.Not so, rejoinsM. Bois:114 andthereisnotalessadmirablespectacleintheworldthanthis.Calvinwasof M. Bois's opinion. To his thinking we have before us in suchaconcourseonlyacompanyofidolaters-eachworshippingnottheGodthatisbutthegodwhointheprideofhishearthehasmadehimself.AndtoeachandallCalvinsendsoutthecryof,Repent!turnfromthegodyouhavemadeyourselfandservetheGodthatis!

Itisinthemidstofhisresponsetothespeciouspleathatimagesarethebooks of the illiterate and the only means of instruction available forthemthatCalvinbreaksoutintoanotableeulogyonpreachingasGod'sordainedmeansofinstructingHispeople(I.xi.7).Eventhoughimages,heremarks,weresoframedthattheyboretothepeopleamessagewhichmightbeproperlycalleddivine-whichtoofrequentlyisveryfarfromthecase-theirchildishsuggestions(naeniae)arelittleadaptedtoconveythespecial teaching which God wishes to be taught His people in theirsolemn congregations, andhasmade the common burden ofHisWordandSacraments-fromwhichitistobefeared,however,themindsofthepeople are fatallydistractedas their eyes roamaround to gaze on theiridols.Do you say thepeople are too rude and ignorant to profit by theheavenlymessageandcanbereachedonlybymeansoftheimages?YetthesearethosewhomtheLordreceivesasHisowndisciples,honorswiththe revelation of His celestial philosophy, and has commanded to beinstructedinthesavingmysteriesofHiskingdom!Iftheyhavefallensolowasnottobeabletodowithoutsuch"books"asimagessupply,isnotthat onlybecause theyhave beendefrauded of the teachingwhich theyrequired?Theinventionofimages,inaword,isanexpedientdemandednot by the rudeness of the people somuch as by the dumbness of thepriests. It is in the true preaching of the Gospel that Christ is reallydepicted - crucified before our eyes openly, as Paul testifies: and therecanbenoreasontocrowdthechurcheswithcrucifixesofwoodandstone

andsilverandgold,ifChristisfaithfullypreachedasdyingonthecrosstobearourcurse,expiatingoursinsbythesacrificeofHisbody,cleansingusbyHisbloodandreconcilingustoGodtheFather.Fromthis simpleproclamationmoremaybe learned than froma thousandcrosses.ThusCalvin vindicates to the people of God their dignity as God's childrentaught by His Spirit, their right to the Gospel of grace, their capacityundertheinstructionoftheSpirittoreceivethedivinemessage,andthecentral place of the preaching of the atonement of Christ in theordinancesofthesanctuary.

ItseemsthemoreneedfulthatweshouldpauseuponCalvin'sremarksonart in thisdiscussion longenough to take in their full significance, thatthis is one of the matters on which he has been made the object ofpersistent misrepresentation. It has been made the reproach of theReformation in general and of Calvinism in particular that they havemorosely set themselves inopposition toall artisticdevelopment,whileCalvin himself has been inveighed against as the declared enemy of allthatisbeautifulinlife.Thus,forexample,Voltaireinhisbitingversehasexplained that the only art which flourished at Geneva (where mencypheredbutcouldnotlaugh)wasthatofthemoney-reckoners:andthatnothingwassung therebut theantiqueconcertsof "thegoodDavid" inthe belief "that God liked bad verses." Even professed students of thesubjecthavepassionatelyassailedCalvin as insensible to the charmsofartandinimicaltoallformsofartisticexpression.Thus,M.D.Courtois,the historian of sacred music among the French Reformed, permitshimself,quitecontrarytothefactsinthesphereofhisownespecialformof art, to say that Calvin "nourished a holy horror for all that couldresembleanintrusionofartintothereligiousdomain";andM.E.Müntz,whowrites on "Protestantism and Art," exclaims that "in Calvin's eyesbeautyistantamounttoidolatry";whileM.O.Douen,thebiographerofClementMarot,brandsCalvinas"anti-liberal,anti-artistic,anti-human,anti-Christian." The subject is too wide to be entered upon here in itsgeneralaspects.ProfessorE.DoumergueandDr.A.Kuyperhavemadeall lovers of truth their debtors by exposing to the full the grossness ofsuchcalumnies.115

InpointoffactCalvinwasaloverandfostererofthearts,countingthem

alldivinegiftswhichshouldbecherished,andexpresslydeclaringevenofthosewhichminister only to pleasure that they are by nomeans to bereckoned superfluous and are certainly not to be condemned as ifforsooththeywereinimicaltopiety.Evenintheheatofthisarraignmentofthemisuseofart-representationsinidolatrywhichisatpresentbeforeus, we observe that he turns aside to guard himself against beingmisunderstoodascondemningart-representationsingeneral(§12).Thenotion that all representative images are to be avoided he brands assuperstitionanddeclaresoftheproductsbothofthepictorialandofthesculptural arts that they are the gifts ofGodgranted to us forHis owngloryandourgood."Iamnotheld,"hesays,"inthatsuperstition,whichconsidersthatnoimagesatallaretobeendured.IonlyrequirethatsincesculpturesandpicturesaregiftsofGod,theuseofthemshouldbepureand legitimate; lestwhathasbeen conferredonusbyGod forHis ownglory and for our good, should not only be polluted by preposterousabuse, but even turned toour injury."Here is no fanatical suspicion ofbeauty: no harsh assault upon art. Here is rather the noblest possibleestimateofartasconduciveinitsrightemploymenttotheprofitofmanandthegloryoftheGodwhogivesit.HereisonlyananxietymanifestedtoprotectsuchanoblegiftofGodfromabusetowrongends.Accordinglyinthe"TableorbriefsummaryoftheprincipalmatterscontainedinthisInstitution of the Christian religion," which was affixed to the Frenchedition of 1560, the contents of this section are described as follows:"That when idolatry is condemned, this is not to abolish the arts ofpaintingandsculpture,buttorequirethattheuseofbothshallbepureandlegitimate;andwearenottoamuseourselvesbyrepresentingGodbysomevisible figure,butonlysuchthingsasmaybeobjectsof sight."116Calvin,then,doesnotatallcondemnart,butonlypleadsforapureandreverentemploymentofartasahighgiftofGod,tobeusedlikeallothersofGod'sgiftssoastoprofitmanandglorifytheGreatGiver.

If we inquire more closely what he held to be a legitimate use of thepictorial arts, we must note first of all that he utterly forbids allrepresentationsofGodinvisiblefigures.117Thisprohibitionherestsontwo grounds: first, GodHimself forbids it; and secondly, "it cannot bedonewithoutsomedeformationofHisglory,"-inwhichwecatchagainthenoteofzealagainsteverythingwhichdetractsfromthehonorofGod.

To attempt the portraiture of God is, thus, to Calvin, not merely todisobey God's express command, but also to dishonor Him by anunworthyrepresentationofHim,whichisessentialidolatry.Highlyasheesteemed the pictorial arts, as worthy of all admiration in their truesphere,hecondemnedutterlypressingthembeyondtheirmark,lesteventheyshouldbecomeprocurerstotheLordsofHell.Wenotesecondlythathedissuadedfromtheornamentationofthechurcheswiththeproductsof the representative arts (I. xi. 13); but this on the ground not of theexpresscommandmentofGodorofaninherentincapacityofarttoservethe purposes contemplated, but of simple expediency.118 Experienceteachesus,hesays,thattosetupimagesinthechurchesistantamounttoraisingthestandardofidolatry,becausethefollyofmanissogreatthatitimmediately falls to offering them superstitiousworship. And a deeperreasonliesbehind,whichwoulddeterminehisjudgmentevenifthisperilwerenotsogreat.TheLordhasHimselfordained livingandexpressiveimagesofHisgraceforHistemples,bywhichoureyesshouldbecaughtandheld-suchceremoniesasBaptismand theLord'sSupper -andwecannot require others fabricated by human ingenuity; and it seemsunworthyofthesanctityoftheplacetointrudethem.Thereis,ofcourse,anechohereofCalvin's fundamental "Puritanprinciple"with referencetotheworshipofGod:hisconstantandunhesitatingcontentionthatonlythatworshipwhichisordainedbyHimselfisacceptabletoGod.HadGoddesired the aid of pictorial representations to quicken the devotions ofHispeopleHewouldhaveordainedthem:toemploythemisinprincipletodespisetheprovisionsHehasmadeandtoinventothers-andwemaybesureinadequateifnotmisleadingones-forourselves.

This is not the place to inquire into Calvin's positive theory of art-representation. It is worth while, however, as illustrating the wideinterestsoftheman,tonotethathehassuchatheoryandbetraysthefactthathehas itandsomewhatof the linesonwhich it runs, in incidentalremarks,eveninsuchadiscussionasthis.Itemerges,forexample,thathewouldconfinethesphereoftherepresentativeartstothedepictingofobjectsofsight(easolaquorumsintcapacesoculi)-ofsuchthingsastheeye sees. Of these, however, he discovers two classes - "histories andtransactions" on the one side, "images and forms of bodies" on theother.119Theformermaybemadeuseful forpurposesof instructionor

admonition,hethinks;thelatter,sofarashesees,serveonlytheendsofdelectation. Both are, however, alike legitimate, if only they be kept totheirproperplacesandusedfortheirproperends;forthedelectationofman is as really a human need as his instruction. So little does Calvinthen set himself with stern moroseness against all art-representation,that he is found actually forming a comprehensive theory of art-representationandpleading for itsuse,notonly for theprofit,butalsoforthepleasureofman.

ItremainstospeakofCalvin'sdoctrineoftheTrinity.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,vii1909,pp.381-436.2. Cf.Köstlin,"Calvin'sInstitutio,"etc.,inStudienundKritiken,1868,

i.pp.61-2:"Ontheotherhand-andthisisforusthemostimportantmatter, - there is not given there any comprehensive exposition oftheattributes, especiallynotof theethicalattributesofGod,nor isany such afterwards attempted." Again, iii. p. 423: "We cannotpresent and follow out the doctrine of the Institutio on the divinenatureand thedivineattributes, and their relations,asawhole,aswecanitsdoctrineoftheTrinity,becauseCalvinhimself,aswehavementionedalready,hasnowherepresentedthemasawhole."Cf.alsoP. J. Muller, "De Godaleer van Zwingli en Calvijn," 1883, p. 11:"Neither by Zwingli nor by Calvin are there offered proofs of theexistenceofGod"(cf.p.18).Again,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,p. 26: "A doctrine of the nature of God as such we do not find inCalvin." Ibid., p. 38: "We find nowhere in Calvin a special sectionwhich is devotedparticularly to the treatment ofGod's attributes";"sincehegivesno formaldoctrineof theattributes,we find inhimalsonoclassificationoftheattributes."

3. AsKöstlin,forexample,hassuggested,ascited,p.423, followedbyP.J.Mullerinhisearlierwork,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,pp.10,46.

4. SoP.J.Mullerexpresseshimselfinhislatervolume-"DeGodsleervan Zwingli en Calvijn," 1883, p. 46 - modifying his earlier view:"Köstlin asks if it does not belong to Calvin's dogmatic standpoint

that he does not venture to seek after a bond between the severalelementswhichcomeforwardinGod'smany-sidedrelationtomen.This question can undoubtedly be answered in the affirmative,althoughwe should rather speak here of the peculiarity of Calvin'smethod."Thatistosay,Mullerherepreferstoreferthephenomenonin question to Calvin's a posteriori method rather than to histheologicalstandpoint.

5. AndreDuran,"LeMysticismedeCalvin,"1900,p.8,justlysays:"TheInstitutes are remarkable precisely for this: the absence ofspeculation.ItisespeciallywiththeheartthatCalvinstudiesGodinHis relations with men; and it is by the heart that he attains tocomplete union ofmanwithGod." For a satisfactory discussion ofthe "heart in Calvin's theology" see E. Doumergue, "Jean Calvin,"etc., iii. 1905, pp. 560-563. Compare also the third address inDoumergue's " L'Art et le sentiment dans l'oeuvre de Calvin,"Geneva,1902.

6. "Discoursdecombat,"1903,pp.135-140.7. "Étudesd'histoire religieuse,"ed. 7, 1864,p. 342: "l'homme leplus

chrétiendesonsiècle."ItmustbeborneinmindthatthisisnotveryhighpraiseonM.Renan's lips;andwas indeedintendedbyhimtobedepreciatory.WeneednotputanexcessiveestimateonCalvin'sgreatness, he says in effect; he lived in an age of reaction towardsChristianity and he was the most Christian man of his age: hispreeminenceisthusaccountedfor.

8. "Instructionetconfessiondefoydontonuseen l'eglisedeGenève"(Opp.xxii.47).TheStrasburgeditorsassignittoCalvin'scolleagues;Doumergue("JeanCalvin,"ii.1902,pp.236-251)toCalvin.

9. "VeraChristianaepacificationisetecclesiaereformandaeratio,"1549(Opp.vii.598-M).

10. nudamfrigidamquenotitiam.11. nudamnotitiam.12. vivumaffectumquicordiinsideat.13. Ed. of 1539: the quotations are made from the French version of

1541,pp.189,202,204.SeeOpp.iii.15,53,57.14. I.v.9.15. III.ii.8.16. Cordis esse magis quam cerebri, et affectus magis quam

intelligentiae.17. fidemetveritatemcordis.18. coretanimum(Opp.vi.477,479).19. I.vii.4.20. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn," 1883,p. 111:

"AtheologianlikeCalvin,Zwingliwasnot;butstillinthehistoryofthedoctrineofGodthepagesdevotedtoZwingliaremoreimportantthanthosedevotedtoCalvin.ThelocideTrinitate,deCreatione,anddeLapsoapart,Zwingli's system isundeniablymore coherent thanthatofCalvin,inwhichwemissthebondbywhichtheseveralpartsarejoined.Ontheotherhand,however,wemissinZwingli'sdoctrineofGodpreciselywhatconstitutesthevalueofadoctrineofGodforthetheologian,thatistosay,itsreligiouscharacter.Wedonot findin Zwingli as in Calvin a recoil from the consequences of his ownreasoning, which leads necessarily to the ascription to God of theoriginationofevil,orsin, justbecauseGod isnotwithhimaswithCalvin conceived above everything as the object of religiousreverence,butratherastheobjectofspeculativethought."

21. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,p.6:"IfthedoctrineofGodforthetheologianisdeterminedbyitsreligiouscharacter, the contemplation of God as the object of religiousreverence will take a higher place with him than the merelyphilosophicalcontemplationofGodastheultimatecause.Sinceitisnot tobedenied -as the followingexpositionwill show- thatwithZwingli God is speculatively contemplated much more as theultimate cause than as the object of religious reverence, we mayconclude that - so far as religious value is concerned - Zwingli'sdoctrineofGodmust be ranked belowCalvin's."Again (p. 21): "InthenatureofthecaseCalvin'sconceptionsofthenatureofGodmustbeverysober.Fortohim,Godwasverypredominantlytheobjectofreligious reverence, and he could not therefore do otherwise thandisapprove of the attempt to penetrate into the nature of theGodhead (I. v. 9).With Zwingli, on the contrary, in whose systemGodispreeminentlyconceivedastheultimatecause,thedoctrineofthenatureofGodmust formoneof themost importantsectionsofthedoctrineofGod."Oncemore(p.23):"Calvin,whoseprideitwasto be a 'Biblical theologian,' does not follow the method of the

philosophers,- the aprioristicmethod.He is therefore sober in hisconceptions of the nature of God, since he had noted that in theScriptures God speaks little of His nature, that He may teach ussobriety"-quotingI.xiii.1:utnos insobrietatecontineat,parcedesuaessentia[Deus]disserit.

22. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,p.117.23. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,pp.46,

47.Theauthorof theanonymousIntroductiontotheeditionof the"Institutes" inFrench,publishedbyMeyrueisetCie,Paris,1859,p.xii., says similarly: "Of a mind positive, grave, practical, removedfrom all need of speculation, very circumspect, not expressing itsthoughtuntilitsconvictionhadattainedmaturity,takingthefactofadivinerevelationseriously,CalvinlearnedhisfaithatthefeetoftheHolyScriptures..."

24. P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,pp.103-104.25. P. J.Muller's view is different, asmay be seen from the following

extracts:"NeitherbyZwinglinorbyCalvinarethereofferedproofsoftheexistenceofGod,althoughthereareparticularpassagesintheirwritingswhichseemtorecallthem.Theproposition'ThatGodexists'neededneitherforthemselvesnorfortheirfellow-believers,norevenagainst Rome, any proof. It has been thought indeed that the so-called cosmological argument is found in Zwingli, the physico-theological argument in Calvin (Lipsius, Lehrb. der ev. prot.Dogmatik,ed.2,1879,p.213).Butitwouldnotbedifficulttoshowthat in the case of neither have we to do with a philosophicaldeduction,butonlywithanaid forattainingacompleteknowledgeofGod"("DeGodsleervanZ.enC.,"1883,p.11,cf.p.14).InanoteProf.MulleradvertstothepossibleusebyCalvin,I.iii.1,of"theso-called historical argument." "If Zwingli gives us no proof of God'sexistence, the same is true of Calvin. It is true that the physico-theologicalargumenthasbeendiscoveredintheInstitutes.Yetashewroteoverthefifthchapterofthefirstbook,'ThattheknowledgeofGodismanifestedinthemakingandcontinuousgovernmentof theworld,'-itisalreadyevidentfromthisthathedidnotintendtoarguefromtheteleologyoftheworldtotheexistenceofGodasitsCreator,Sustainer,andGovernor,but thathewishedmerely topoint to theworld as to 'a beautiful book,'-to speak in the words of our

[Netherlandish]Confession(Art. ii.),- 'inwhichallcreatures,smallandgreat,serveasletterstodeclaretoustheinvisiblethingsofGod.'Here,too,wehaveaccordinglytodosimplywithameansforarisetoafullerknowledgeofGod"(Do.,p.16)."TheScholasticsmayindeed- although answering the inquiry affirmatively - begin with thequestion, Is there aGod? Such a question cannot risewithCalvin.TheReformer,assuredofhispersonalsalvation,thegroundofwhichlayinGodHimself,couldalsoforhisco-believersleavethisquestiontooneside.PracticalvalueattachedonlytotheinquiryhowmencancometoknowGod,ofwhoseexistenceCalvinentertainednodoubt"("DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,p.11).

26. utethnicusilleait(theallusionistoCicero,"Denaturadeorum," i.16).

27. Deumesse.28. quiDeumessenegent.29. velinttamennolint,quodnescirecupiunt,subindesentiscunt.30. imoetnaturaliteringenitamesseomnibushancpersuasionem,esse

aliquemDeum.31. negantesDeumesse.32. Deumesseneget.33. "Paed.," III. i. ed. Stählin, i. 1905, p. 235; cf. E. T. in the "Ante-

NiceneChristianLibrary": "ClementofAlexandria," i. 1867,p.273.Cf."Strom.,"V.xiii.;"Protrep.,"vi.

34. "Adv.Marc.,"i.10:E.T."TheAnte-NiceneFathers,"iii.1903,p.278.Cf."Detest.animae,"vi.:E.T.op.cit.,p.179.

35. "AdAutol.,"i.2:E.T."Ante-NiceneFathers,"ii.1903,p.89.36. Do.,i.5:E.T.op.cit.,p.90.37. Chap.xvii.:E.T."Ante-NiceneFathers,"iv.1902,p.182.38. "Adv.Epic.,"iii.:E.T."Ante-NiceneFathers,"vi.1899,p.88.39. H. C. Sheldon, "History of Christian Doctrine," i. 1886, p. 56:

"MetaphysicalproofsoftheexistenceofGod,suchasthoseadducedby Augustine, Anselm, and Descartes, were quite foreign to thetheology of the first three centuries." But in the next age they hadalready come in; cf. Sheldon, p. 187: "We find a new class ofarguments, something more in the line of the metaphysical thananything which the previous centuries brought forward. Threewritersinparticularaspiredtothisorderofproofs;viz.,Diodorusof

Tarsus,Augustine,andBoëthius."Augustineistherealfatheroftheontological argument: butAugustine only chronologically belongedtotheoldworld;asSiebeckputsit,hewas"thefirstmodernman."

40. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodaleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,pp.11-16,whereaveryinterestingaccountisgivenofZwingli'shandlingofthe theisticproofs-thoughProf.Muller thinks thatZwingli employsthem not to establish the existence of God but to increase ourknowledge of God. With Zwingli all knowledge of God rests atbottomonRevelation,whichishiswayofsayingwhatCalvinmeansby his universal sensus deitatis. Zwingli says, on his part, that "acertainseedofknowledgeofGod is sown[byGod]alsoamong theGentiles"(iii.158).Butheargueswithgreatforceandinverystrikinglanguage, that all creation proclaims its maker. Cf. A. Baur,"ZwinglisTheologie," i.1885,pp.382-383:"InthedoctrineofGod,Zwingli distinguishes two questions: first that of the nature, andsecondly that of the existence of God. The answer to the firstquestion surpasses the powers of the human mind; that of thesecond,doesnot."ThattheknowledgeoftheexistenceofGod,which"maybejustifiedbeforetheunderstanding"(Muller,p.13),doesnotinvolveaknowledge ofHis nature, Zwingli holds, is proved by thewidefactofpolytheismontheonehandandtheaccompanyingfact,ontheother,thatnaturaltheismisalwayspurelytheoretical(Baur,p.383).

41. Intheearliest"LociCommunes"(1521)therewasnolocusdeDeoatall. Inthesecondform(1535-1541)therewasa locusdeDeo,but itwas not to it but to the locus de Creatione that Melanchthonappended some arguments for the existence of God, remarking("Corp.Ref.,"xxi.369): "After themindhasbeenconfirmed in thetrueand rightopinionofGodandofCreationby theWordofGoditself,itisthenbothusefulandpleasanttoseekoutalsothevestigesofGodinnatureandtocollectthearguments(rationes)whichtestifythat there isaGod."These remarksareexpanded in the final form(1542+) and reduced to a formal order, for the benefit of "goodmorals." The list ("Corp. Ref.," xxi. 641-643) consists of nine"demonstrations, the considerationofwhich isuseful fordisciplineand for confirming honest opinions inminds." "The first is drawnfrom the order of nature itself, that is from the effects arguing a

maker....Thesecond,fromthenatureofthehumanmind.Abrutethingisnotthecauseofanintelligentnature....Thethird,fromthedistinction between good and evil . . . and the sense of order andnumber....Fourthly:naturalideasaretrue:thatthereisaGod,allconfessnaturally:thereforethisideaistrue....Thefifthistaken,inXenophanes, from the terrors of conscience. . . . The sixth frompolitical society. . . . The seventh is . . . drawn from the series ofefficient causes. There cannot be an infinite recession of efficientcauses....Theeighthfromfinalcauses....Theninthfrompredictionoffutureevents.""Thesearguments,"headds,"notonlytestifythatthere is a God, but are also indicia of providence.... They areperspicuousandalways affect goodminds.Manyothers also couldcertainly be collected; but because they are more obscure, I leaveoff."...G.H.Lamers,"GeschiedenisderLeeraangandeGod,"1897,p.179(6871,remarks:"ItshouldbenotedthatMelanchthonalwayswhen speaking of God, whether as Spirit or as Love, wisheseverywhere to ascribe the highest value to God's ethicalcharacteristics. Even the particulars, nine in number, to which he(Doedes,InleidingtotdeLeervanGod,p.191)pointsasproofsthatGod'sexistencemustberecognized,showthatethicalconsiderationsespecially attract him." More justly Herrlinger, "Die TheologieMelanchthons," 1879, comments on Melanchthon's use of the"proofs" as follows: "The natural knowledge of God, resting on aninnateideaandawakenedespeciallybyteleologicalcontemplationofthe world, Melanchthon makes in his philosophical writings,particularly in his physics, the object of consideration, so that wemay speak of the elements of a natural theology in him" (p. 168).Melanchthonheapsupthesearguments,enumeratingnineofthem,in the conviction that they will mutually strengthen one another.Herrlingerthinksthat,astheyoccurinmuchthesameorderinmoreofMelanchthon'swritingsthanone, theymaybearrangedonsomeprinciple - possibly beginning with particulars in nature andman,proceedingtohumanassociation,andrisingtotheentiretyofnature(p.392).Hecontinues(p.393):"Clearlyenoughitistheteleologicalargument which in all these proofs is the real nerve of the proof.Melanchthon accordswith Kant, as in the high place he gives thisproof,soalsoinperceivingthatalltheseproofsfindtheirstrengthin

the ontological argument, in the innate idea of God, which is themostdirectwitnessforGod'sexistence.15.564;'ThemindreasonsofGod fromamultitude of vestiges.But this reasoningwouldnot bemade if there were not infused (insita) into the mind a certainknowledge(notitia)orpro,lhyijofGod.'Similarly,DeAnima,13.144,169." The relation of the proofs to the innate sensus deitatis hereindicated,holdsgoodalsoforCalvin.

42. "In Psalmos," 144: illum non possumus capere, velut sub eiusmagnitudinedeficientes.

43. WecannotknowthequiddityofGod:wecanonlyknowHisquality:thatis,tosaywhatHisessenceis,isbeyondourcomprehension,butwemayknowHiminHisattributes.

44. Cf.thepassageined.2andothermiddleeditionsinwhich,refutingthe Sabellians, he says that such attributes as strength, goodness,wisdom,mercy,are"epithets"which"showqualiserganossitDeus,"while the personal names, Father, Son, Spirit, are "names" which"declarequalisapudsemetipsumveresit"(Opp.i.491).

45. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodaleervanCalvijn,"1881,p.26:"AdoctrineofthenatureofGodassuchwedonot findinCalvin."Toteachusmodesty,Calvinsays,Godsays littleofHisnature inScripture,buttoteachuswhatweoughttoknowofHimhegivesustwoepithets-immensityandspirituality(p.29).Again,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,pp.30-31: "The little thatCalvingivesuson thissubject (the Divine Essence) limits itself to the remark that God'sessenceis'immenseandspiritual'(I.xiii.1),'incomprehensibletous'(I. v. 1)." Again, p. 38: "If the aprioristicmethod [as employed byZwingli]isthusnotfavorabletothedevelopmentofadoctrineoftheTrinity, Calvin's aposterioristic method is on the other hand thereason that his conceptions of the nature of God - apart from theTrinity - are of less significance than Zwingli's. Since ourunderstanding, according to Calvin, is incapable of grasping whatGodis,itisfollytoseekwitharrogantcuriositytoinvestigateGod'snature, 'which is much rather to be adored than anxiously to beinquiredinto'(OnRomans,i.19:'TheyaremadwhoseektodiscoverwhatGod is'; Institutes, I. ii.2: 'TheessenceofGod is rather tobeadored than inquired into'). If we nevertheless wish to solve theproblemuptoacertainpoint,letthisbedoneonlybymeansofthe

ScripturesinwhichGodhasrevealedHisnaturetoussofarasitisneedful for us to know it. The warning he gives us is thereforecertainly fully comprehensible, - that 'thosewhodevote themselvesto the solving of the problem of what God is should hold theirspeculationswithinbounds;sinceitisofmuchmoreimportanceforustoknowwhatkindofabeingGodis'(I.ii.2).Howcanamanwhocannot understand his own nature be able to comprehend God'snature?'LetusthenleavetoGodtheknowledgeofHimself:and'-soCalvinsays - 'we leave it toHimwhenweconceiveHimasHehasrevealedHimselftous,andwhenweseekto inquirewithreferencetoHimnowhereelsethaninHisWord'(I.xiii.21)...."

46. This is fast becoming the popular representation. Cf. e.g.WillistonWalker, "John Calvin," 1906, p. 149: "Thus he owed to Scotus,doubtless without realizing the obligation, the thought of God asalmightywill,formotivesbehindwhosechoiceitisasabsurdasitisimpioustoinquire."Again,p.418:"WhetherthisScotistdoctrineoftherightfulnessofallthatGodwillsbythemerefactofHiswillingit,leavesGodamoral character, it isperhapsuseless to inquire." ButCalvin does not borrow unconsciously from Scotus: he openlyrepudiatesScotus.AndCalvinissofarfromrepresentingthewillofGod to be independent of His moral character, that he makes itmerelytheexpressionofHismoralcharacter,andonlyinscrutabletous.Cf.alsoC.H.Irwin,"JohnCalvin,"1909,p.179:"HoldingashedidthetheoryofDunsScotus,thatathingisrightbythemerefactofGodwillingit,heneverquestionedwhetheracoursewasorwasnotinharmonywiththeDivinecharacter,ifhewasonceconvincedthatitwas a course attributed toGod in Scripture." But Calvin did notholdthatathingismaderightbythemerefactthatGodwillsitbutthatthefactthatGodwillsit(whichfactScripturemaywitnesstous)isproof enough tous that it is right.Thevogueof this remarkablemisrepresentationofCalvin'sdoctrineofGodisdoubtlessduetoitsenunciation (though ina somewhatmoreguarded form)byRitschl(Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie, 1868, xiii. pp. 104 sq.). Ritschl'sfundamentalcontentionisthattheNominalisticconceptionofGod,crowded out of the Roman Church by Thomism, yet survived inLuther'sdoctrineoftheenslavedwillandCalvin'sdoctrineoftwofoldpredestination(p.68),whichpresupposetheideaof"thegroundless

arbitrariness of God" inHis actions. Calvinwas far from adoptingthisprincipleintheoryorapplyingitconsistently.Heisawareofandseeks to guard against its dangers (p. 106); but his doctrine of adouble predestination (in Ritschl's opinion) proceeds on itsassumption:"InspiteofCalvin'sreluctance,wemustjudgethattheideaofGodwhichgovernsthisdoctrinecomestothesamethingasthe Nominalistic potentia absoluta" (p. 107). The same line ofreasoningmaybereadalsoinSeeberg,"Text-BookoftheHistoryofDoctrines,"§79,4 (E.T. ii. 1905,p.397),whoalso is compelled toadmitthatthisconceptionofGodisbothrepudiatedbyCalvinandisdestructive of his "logical structure"! For a sufficient refutation ofthiswholenotionseeMaxScheibe's"Calvin'sPrädestinationslehre,"1897, pp. 113 sq. "Calvin," says Scheibe, "could therefore veryproperly repudiate the charge of proceeding on the Scoto-nominalisticideaofthepotentiaabsolutaofGod....WithCalvin,onthe contrary, the conception of the will of God as the highestcausalityhas theparticularmeaning thatGod isnotdetermined inHis actions by anything lying outside of Himself, . . . while it isdistinctlynotexcludedthatGodactsbyvirtueofaninnernecessity,accordantwithHisnature."

47. Cf.e.g.A.V.G.Allen,"TheContinuityofChristianThought,"1884,p. 299: "The God who is thus revealed is a being outside theframeworkoftheuniverse,whocalledtheworldintoexistencebythepowerofHiswill.Calvinpositivelyrejectedthedoctrineofthedivineimmanence.Whenhespokeofthat'dogofaLucretius'whominglesGodandnature,hemayhavealsohadZwingliinhismind.Inorderto separatemore completely betweenGod andman, he interposedranksofmediators...."Also,p.302:"InsomerespectsthesystemofCalvinnotmerelyrepeatsbutexaggeratestheleadingideasofLatinChristianity.InnoLatin,writerisfoundsuchadeterminedpurposetoreject the immanenceofDeityandassertHis transcendenceandHis isolation fromtheworld. Inhis conceptionofGod, asabsolutearbitrarywill,hesurpassesDunsScotus....TheseparationbetweenGod and humanity is emphasized as it has never been before, forCalvininsists,dogmaticallyandformally,uponthatwhichhadbeen,to a large extent, hitherto, an unconscious though controllingsentiment." Prof. Allen had already represented the Augustinian

theology as "resting upon the transcendence of Deity as itscontrollingprinciple,"-whichheexplainsasa"tacitassumption"ofDeism(pp.3,171).

48. Cf.PrincipalD.W.Simon,"ReconciliationbyIncarnation,"1898,p.282, where he speaks of "the Pantheism . . . with which Calvin islogically chargeable - strongly as hemight resent the imputation -when he says: 'Nothing happens but what He has knowingly andwillinglydecreed';'AllthechangeswhichtakeplaceintheworldareproducedbythesecretagencyofthehandofGod';'Notheavenandearthandinanimatecreaturesonly,butalsothecounselsandwillsofmenaresogovernedastomoveexactlyinthecoursewhichHehasdestined.'" To Dr. Simon providential government of the worldimpliespantheism!

49. "ThePlaceofChristinModernTheology,"1893,p.164.EvenH.M.Gwatkin, "The Knowledge of God," etc., 1906, ii. p. 226, havingspokenofCalvinas"takingoverfromtheScotists"hisconceptionofGodas"sovereignandinscrutablewill,"addsthatheneededonlytosuppose further that "the divine will" is "necessitated as well asinscrutable" to have taught a Pantheistic system. But as he thusallows Calvin did not suppose this, and had just pointed out thatCalvinexplainsthatGodisnotan"absoluteandarbitrarypower,"weprobablyneednotlookuponthislanguageasotherthanrhetorical:itcertainlyisnottruetothefactsineitherofitsmembers.

50. P. 164, Cf. p. 430. It isAmesius towhomDr. Fairbairn appeals tojustifythisstatement:buthemisinterpretsAmesius.

51. P.168.52. Cf.Baur,"DiechristlicheLehrevonderDreieinigkeit,"iii.1843,pp.

35sq.53. "Medulla," I. vii. 38: "Hence the will of God is the first cause of

things.'Bythywilltheyareandwerecreated'(Apoc.iv.11).ButthewillofGod,asHewillstooperateadextra,doesnotpresupposethegoodnessoftheobject,butbywillingpositsandmakesitgood."

54. ThephraseisquotedbyDr.Fairbairn(p.164)asCalvin's,tosupporttheassertionthathewas"aspure...apantheistasSpinoza."Butitis cited by Calvin (III. xxiii. 8) from Augustine. The matter inimmediatediscussionistheperditionofthereprobate.

55. III.xxiii.8.

56. Cf. Muller, "De Godsleer van Zwingli en Calvijn," 1883, p. 28:"AccordinglyalsoPlinywasright-accordingtoZwingli(DeProvid.DeiAnamnema,iv.90)- incallingwhathecallsGod,nature,sincethe learned cannot adjust themselves to the conceptions of God oftheununderatandingmultitude;inasmuchasbynaturehemeantthepowerwhichmovesandholdstogetherallthings,andthatisnothingelse but God." Again, on the general question of the charge ofPantheismbroughtagainstZwingli,pp.26-28:"Asiswellknown,ithas been supposed that there is a pantheistic element in Zwingli'sAnamnema. It cannot be denied that there are some expressionswhichsoundSpinozistic;andforthosewhoseePantheismineverycontroversionoffortuitism,ZwinglimustofnecessitybeaPantheist.Yet if we are to discover Spinozism in Zwingli, we can with littledifficultypointtotracesofSpinoziamalsoinPaul.Suchapassageasthefollowing,forexample,wouldcertainlyhavebeensubscribedbyPaul: 'If anything comes topassby its ownpoweror counsel, thenthewisdomandpowerofourDeitywouldbesuperfluousthere.Andif that were true, then the wisdom of the Deity would not besupreme, because itwould not comprehend and take in all things;andhispowerwouldnotbeomnipotent,because then therewouldexist power independent of God's power, and in that case therewouldbeanotherpowerwhichwouldnotbethepoweroftheDeity'(Opp. vi. 85). In any case, Zwingli cannot be given the blame ofstanding apart from the other Reformers on this point. Calvincertainlyrecognizes(Inst.I.v.5)that-soitoccurs,simply-'itmaybe said out of a piousmind that nature isGod'; (cf. Zwingli, vi. a.619: 'CallGodHimselfNature,with thephilosophers, theprinciplefromwhichallthingstaketheirorigin,fromwhichthesoulbeginstobe'); although he adds the warning that in matters of suchimportance 'no expressions should be employed likely to causeconfusion.'Danaeus(Lib.i.11ofhisEthicesChrist.lib.tres)marvelsthat those who would fain bear the name of Christians, shouldconceiveofGodandnatureas twodifferenthypostases, sinceeventheheathenphilosophers(andlikeZwingli,henamesSeneca)moretrulytaughtthat'thenaturebywhichwehavebeenbroughtforthisnothingelsethanGod...."'

57. Cf.instancesinadditionatI.xiv.1,I.xv.5.

58. Fairbairn,op.cit.,pp.165-166.59. Cf. I. xvi. 1: "Tomake God amomentaneous creator,who entirely

finishedallHisworkatonce,were frigidand jejune," etc. Also theGenevanCatechismof1545(Opp.vi.15-18):TheparticularizationofGod's creatorship in the creed isnot tobe taken as indicating thatGodsocreatedHisworksatoncethatafterwardsHerejectsthecareof them.It is ratherso tobeheld that theworldas itwasmadebyHimatonce,sonowisconservedbyHim;andHeistoremaintheirsupremegovernor,etc.

60. It is not uncommon for historians of doctrine who are inclined torepresent Calvin as enunciating the Scotist principle, therefore, tosuggest thathe isscarcelyconsistentwithhimself.Thus,e.g.,H.C.Sheldon,"HistoryofChristianDoctrine,"1888,ii.pp.93-94:"Some,who were inclined to extreme views of the divine sovereignty,assertedtheScotistmaximthatthewillofGodistheabsoluteruleofright.Luther'swordsarequiteasexplicitasthoseofScotus....'ThewillofGod,'saysCalvin.. .(Inst.III.xxiii.2)....Calvin,however,notwithstanding this strong statement, suggests after all that hemeantnot somuch thatGod'swill is absolutely thehighest ruleofright,asthatitisonewhichwecannottranscend,andmustregardasbindingonourownjudgment;forheadds,'WerepresentnotGodaslawless,whoisalawtoHimself."'Cf.VictorMonod,"LeproblèmedeDieu," 1910,p.44: "CalvinwasassuredlynothimselfaScotist;buthis disciples were." Again: "It was in the Calvinistic logic to placeGod above themoral law itself, and Calvinwas not always able toresistthistendency."

61. "The goodness of God," says Calvin ("Institutes," II. iii. 5), "is sounitedwithHisdivinity that it isasmuchanecessity toHimtobegood as to be God." Again (Opp. viii. 361): "It would be easier toseparate the lightof the sun from itsheat,or itsheat from its fire,than to separate the power of God from His righteousness." Cf.Bavinck,"Geref.Dogmatiek," ii. 1897,p.226,who,afterremarkingonCalvin'srejectionof theScotistnotionofpotentiaabsoluta,as a"profaneinvention"-adducing"Institutes,"III.xxiii.1,5;I.xvi.3;II.vii. 5; IV. xvii. 24; "Comm. in Jes.," xxiii. 9, "in Luk.," i. 18, adds:"The Romanists on this account charge Calvin with limiting andthereforedenyingGod's omnipotence (Bellarmine,De gratia et lib.

arbitrio, iii. chap. 15). But Calvin is not denying that God can domore than He actually does, but only opposing such a potentiaabsoluta as is not connected with His Being or Virtues, and canthereforedoallkindsofinconsistentthings."

62. AflagrantexamplemaybefoundinthelongargumentofF.C.Baur,"Diechristl.LehrevonderDreieinigkeit,"iii.1843,pp.35ff.,whereherepresentstheCalvinisticdoctrineofelectionandreprobationaspostulatinginGodaschismbetweenmercyandjusticewhichcanbereducedonlyby thinkingofHimaswholly indifferent togood andevil, and indeed of good and evil as a non-existent opposition. IfjusticeisanequallyabsoluteattributewithGodasgrace,heargues,thenevilandgoodareatone, inthatrealitycannotbegiventotheattribute in which the absolute being of God consists without evil.EvilhasthesamerelationtotheabsolutebeingofGodasgood;and"God is in thesamesense theprincipleofevilasofgood"; and "asGod's justice cannot be without its object, God must provide thisobject"(pp.37-38)."ButifevilaswellasthegoodisfromGod,thenon that very account evil is good: thus good and evil are entirelyindifferentwith respect to each other, and the absoluteDualism isresolved into the same absolute arbitrariness (Willkür) in whichDuns Scotus had placed the absolute Being of God" (p. 38). This,however,isnotrepresentedasCalvin'sview,butastheconsequenceofCalvin'sview-asdrawnoutintheHegelianizingdialecticofBaur.

63. Cf.P.J.Muller, "DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn," 1883,p.40:"NeitherinZwinglinorinCalvindowemeetwithaformal'doctrineoftheattributes'orwithaclassificationoftheattributes.Nodoubtithappens that both occasionally name a number of attributestogether;andhavesomethingtosayofeachattributeinparticular."

64. VirtutesDei,I.ii.1;v.7,9,10;x.2.Inxiii.4,med.,heusesthetermattributa.Inxiii.1,speakingofthedivinespiritualityandimmensity,heusedepitheta.

65. Köstlin,ascited,pp.61-62:"Ontheotherhand,-andthisisthemostimportant for us, - there is not given in the Institutes anycomprehensive presentation of the attributes, especially of theethical attributes of God, nor is any such attempted anywhereafterwards;thefirstedition,whichbeganwithsomecomprehensivepropositions about God as infinite wisdom, righteousness, mercy,

etc., rather raises an expectation of something more in the later,more thoroughly worked out editions of the work: but thesepropositions fell out of the first edition and were never afterwarddeveloped."Intheintermediateeditions(1543-1550)thisparagraphhas takenthe formof: "Nearlythewholesumofourwisdom-andthiscertainlyshouldbeesteemedtrueandsolidwisdom-consistsintwofacts:theknowledgeofGodandofourselves.Theone,now,notonly shows that there is one God whom all ought to worship andadore, but at the same time teaches also that this one God is thesourceofalltruth,wisdom,goodness,righteousness,justice,mercy,power,holiness, so thatweare taught thatwe ought to expectandseekall these things fromHim,andwhenwereceive them to referthem to Him with praise and gratitude. The other, however, bymanifesting to us our weakness, misery, vanity and foulness, firstbrings us into serious humility, dejection, diffidence and hatred ofourselves,andthenkindlesalonginginustoseekGod,inwhomistobefoundeverygoodthingofwhichwediscoverourselvestobesoemptyandlacking."

66. Inthelistwhichtakestheplaceofthisinthemiddleeditionsofthe"Institutes,"theorderisdifferent(andscarcelysoregular),and"life"isomitted,while"justice"isaddedto"righteousness,"and"sanctity"appendedattheend,and"potentia"substitutedfor"virtus":"truth;wisdom; goodness; righteousness; justice; mercy; (power) ;holiness."

67. "Wisdom,power,holiness,justice,goodness,andtruth."68. Quodde immensaetspiritualiDeiessentia traditur inScripturis ...

parcedesuaessentiadisserit,duobustamenillisquaedixiepithetis....

69. See the distinction very luminously drawn out by J.H. Thornwell,"Works,"i.1871,pp.168-169.

70. PerhapsasnearasCalvinevercametoframinganexactdefinitionofGod apud se, is the description of God in the middle edd. of the"Institutes," vi. 7 (Opp. i. 480), summed up in the openingwords:"ThatthereisoneGodofeternal, infiniteandspiritualessence, theScripturescurrentlydeclarewithplainness."TheessenceofGodtheniseternal,infiniteandspiritual.Cf."Adv.P.CaroliCalumnias"(Opp.vii.312):"TheoneGodwhichtheScripturespreachtouswebelieve

inandadore,andwethinkofHimasHeisdescribedtousbythem,towit,asofeternal,infiniteandspiritualessence,whoalsoalonehasinHimselfthepowerofexistencefromHimselfandbestowsituponHiscreatures."

71. unicusetverusDeus,I.ii.2;unicusDeus,xii.1;xiii.2;xiv.2;unusDeus,ii.1;v.6;x.3;xii.1;verusDeus,x.3;xiii.2;unitasDei,xiii.1,etc.

72. aseipsoprincipiumhabens,v.6;auvtousi,a,x.2;auvtousi,a,idestaseipsoexistentia,xiv.3.

73. simplexDeiessentia,xiii.2;simplexetindividuaessentiaDei,xiii.2;unasimplexqueDeitas,"Adv.Val.Gent."(Opp.ix.365).

74. invisibilisDeus,I.v.1;II.vi.4(madevisibleinChrist,soalsoII.ix.1);invisibilisI.xi.3(ofHolySpirit).

75. incomprehensibilis, v. 1; xi. 3 (in xiii. 1 apparently used forimmensa).

76. spiritualisDeiessentia,xiii.1;spiritualisnatura,xiii.1.77. in Deo residet bonorum infinitas, i. 1 (cf. ed. 1, i. ad init. [p. 42],

infinitsa).78. eius immensitas, xiii. 1; immensitas, xiii. 1; immensa Dei essentia,

xiii.1.79. aeternitas,v.6;x.2;xiii.18;xiv.3;aeternus[Deus],v.6.80. exactaiusticiae,sapientiae,virtutiseiusperfectio,i.2.81. potentia,ii.1;v.3,6,8;x.2;immensapotentia,ii.1;omnipotentia,

xvi. 3; omnipotens, xvi. 3; virtus, i. 1, 3; v. 1, 6, 10; x. 2; virtus etpotentia,x.2.

82. notitia,III.xxi.5;praescientia,III.xxi.5.83. sapientia,i.1,3;ii.1;v.1,2,3,S,10;mirificasapientia,v.2.84. iustitia,ii.1;v.10;x.2;xv.1;III.xxiii.4;iustitiaepuritas,i.1;iustitia

iudiciumque,ii.1.85. iudicium,ii.2;x.2;iustitiaiudiciumque,ii.1;iustusiudex,ii.2.86. sanctitas,x.2;puritas,i.3;divinapuritas,i.2.87. bonitas,ii.1;v.3,6,9,10;x.1,2;xv.1;bonus,ii.2.88. veritas,x.2;Deusverax,III.xx.26.89. severitas,ii.2;v.7,10;xvii.1.90. clementia,v.7,8,10;x.2.91. misericordia,ii.1;x.2;misericors,ii.2(bonusetmisericora).92. gratia,v.3.

93. beneficus,v.7;voluntasadbeneficentiamproclivis,x.1;Deifavoretbeneficentia,xvii.1.

94. benignitas,v.7;benignusetbeneficus,v..7.95. bonus et misericors, ii. 2; benignus et beneficus, v. 7; bonorum

omniumfonsetorigo, ii.2;bonorumomniumautor, ii.2;voluntasadbeneficentiamproclivis,x.1;bonorumomniumperfectaaffuentia,i.1;inDeoresidetbonoruminfinitas,i.1.

96. tutoretprotector,ii.2.97. DominusetPater,ii.2.98. paternaindulgentia,v.7.99. v.6:iamipsapotentianosadcogitandameiusaeternitatemdeducit;

quiaaeternumesse,etaseipsoprincipiumhaberenecesseestundeomniumtrahuntoriginem.

100. Do.101. v.7.102. v.8.103. x.2.104. I. xiii. 1: Certe hoc fuit et Dei unitatem abrumpere, et restringere

immensitatem.105. Theseare fairlybrought togetherbyP.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervan

Calvijn," 1881, pp. 39-44. The third section of the "Instruction"(French, 1537) or "Catechism" (Latin, 1538) is almost a completetreatiseinbriefontheattributes.Asinthe"Institutes,"onwhichthis"Catechism" is based, the attributes derived from the study of theDivineWorksarefirstenumeratedandthenthosederivedfromtheWord. As to the former, Calvin says: "For we contemplate in thisuniverse of things, the immortality of our God, from which hasproceeded the commencement and origin of all things; His power(potentia) which has both made and now sustains so great astructure (moles,machine);Hiswisdom,which has composed andperpetuallygoverns so great and confused a variety in an order sodistinct; His goodness, which has been the cause to itself that allthese things were created and now exist; His justice, whichwonderfully manifests itself in the defense of the good and thepunishmentofthewicked;Hismercy,which,thatwemaybecalledto repentance, endures ourwickedness with so great a clemency "(Opp.v.324-325).

106. Observe the admirable discussion of the omnipotence of God afterthisincidentalfashionin"Institutes,"I.xvi.3.

107. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,p.45:"Nodoubtweshouldexpectadoctrineoftheattributes,whenwehearhimsaythatGodhasrevealedHimselfinHisvirtutes,butweshouldbearinmindthat Calvin (although not always free himself from philosophicalinfluences) renounces philosophical treatment of theologicalquestions, and is extremely practical, so that it is to him, forexample, less important to seek a connection between the severalattributes, than to point out whatwemay learn from them not somuchofGod,asforourselvesandourlives."-So,also,"DeGodsleervan Zwingli en Calvijn," 1883, pp. 46-47: "Calvin does notrecommend such a 'knowledge of God' as merely 'raises an idlespeculation in the brain,' but such an one 'as should be firm andfruitful also in consequences, which can be expected only of theknowledgewhichhasitsseatintheheart'(I.v.9).HeconsiderstheknowledgeofthenatureandoftheattributesofGodmoreamatteroftheheartthanoftheunderstanding;andsuchknowledgenotonlymustarouseusto 'theserviceofGod,butmustalsoplant inusthehopeofafuturelife'(I.v.10).Inhisextremepracticality-asthelastremarkshowsus-Calvinrejectedthephilosophicaltreatmentofthequestion. The Scriptures, for him the fountain of the knowledge ofGod,hetakesashisguideinhisremarksontheattributes."Comparewhat Lobstein says in his "Études sur la doctrine Chrétienne deDieu,"1907, p. 113: "The passages of Calvin's Institutes devoted tothe idea of the divine omnipotence are inspired and dominated bythe living interest of piety, which gives to their discussions arestrained emotion and a warmth to which no reader can remaininsensible."

108. Köstlin,ascited,pp.424-425.109. I,xii.1:Quodautempriorelocoposui,tenendumest,nisiinunoDeo

resideat quidquid proprium est divinitatis, honore suo ipsumspoliari,violariqueeiuscultum.

110. Cf.Schweizer,"Glaubenslehred.rf.Kirche,"i.1844,p.16:"Onlyanessentially complete surveyof theparticularReformeddogmascanleadtothefundamentaltendencytowhichtheyallbelong.Thiscanberepresentedasadominatingprotestagainstallthatispagan."P.

25:"Protestationagainst thedeificationof thecreature is thereforeeverywhere the dominating, all-determining impulse of ReformedProtestantism."(Cf.pp.40,59,andtheexpositionthereofhowthisprincipleworkedtopreventallhalf-measuresandinconsequencesinthedevelopmentofReformed thought.)Cf.alsoScholten, "DeLeerder Hervormde Kerk," 1870, ii. pp. 12, 13: "Schweizer finds thecharacteristic of the Reformed doctrine in the Biblical principle ofman'sentiredependenceonGod, togetherwithprotestationon theground of original Christianity against any heathenish elementswhich had seeped into the Church and its teaching. That in theoppositionoftheReformedtoRome,suchanaversiontoall that isheathenishexhibiteditself,historytellsus,andcannotbedenied."P.17: "Themaintenance of the sovereignty of God is the point fromwhich,withtheReformed,everythingproceeds.Henceaswelltheirprotestagainst thepaganelement in theRomishworship. . . ."Pp.150-151: "What led Luther to repudiate the intercession andadorationofMaryand the saintswasprimarily the conviction thatthe saints are sinners and their intercession andmerits, therefore,cannotavailus,cannotcoveroursinsbeforeGod.ZwingliandCalvintaketheirstartingpointhere,fromtheconceptionofGodanddenythattheloveofGodcanbedependentonanyintercession,andrejecttheworshipofMaryandthehonoringofthesaintsasadeificationofcreatures,andaninjurytothesovereigntyofGod"(cf.alsopp.139-140;16sq.).

111. Ut hoc fixum sit, detestabiles esse omnes cultus quos a se ipsishominesexcogitant.

112. procaptusuo.113. Inhis"Esquissed'unephilosophiedelareligion,"1897,pp.303-304.

The chapter of which this is a part was published separately in aslightly different form in 1888, with the title: "La vie intime deadogmesetleurpuissanced'évolution."

114. H.Bois:"Delaconnaissancereligieuse,"1894,p.36.115. See:A.Kuyper,"CalvinismeendeKunst,"1888;"Calvinism,"Stone

Lectures for 1898-1899, Lecture v.; E. Doumergue, "L'Art et lesentimentdansl'oeuvredeCalvin,"1902(thesecond"Conference"ison"PaintingintheWorkofCalvin");"JeanCalvin,"etc.,ii.1902,pp.479-1187;"Calvinet l'art" inFoietVie,16March,1900.Cf.alsoH.

Bavinck, "De Algemeene Genade," 1894; also article "Calvin andCommonGrace"inThePrincetonTheologicalReview,1909,vii.pp.437-465.

116. Opp.iv.1195.Cf.theparallelremarkinthe"GenevanCatechism"of1545(Opp.vi.55):"Itisnottobeunderstoodthen;thatallsculptureandpaintingareforbidden,ingeneral;butonlyallimageswhicharemadefordivineserviceor forhonoringHiminthingsvisible,or inanywayabusingtheminidolatry...."

117. Deumeffingivisibilespecienefasesseputamus.118. expediat.119. A.Bossert,"Calvin,"1906,pp.203-204,afterquotingthisstatement

of Calvin's adds: "It is the program of Dutch painting," in thisrepeatingwhatE.Doumergueinhis"Conference"on"PaintingintheWorkofCalvin"(ascited,pp.36-51)hadfullysetforth.

Calvin'sDoctrineoftheTrinity1

BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

When Calvin turns, in his discussion of the doctrine of God, from theDivine Being in general to the Trinity (chap. xiii.), he makes thetransitionmostskillfullybyaparagraph(§1)whichdoubtlesshas thedesign,asitcertainlyhastheeffect,ofquickeninginhisreadersasenseofthemysteryofthedivinemodeofexistence.2TheScriptures,hetellsus,speaksparinglyofthedivineessence.Yetbytwo"epithets"whichtheyapply to it, theyeffectually rebukenotonly the follies of the vulgarbutalsothesubtletiesofthelearnedintheirthoughtofGod.Theseepithetsare"immensity"and"spirituality";andtheyalonesufficeatoncetocheckthecrassand tocurb theaudacious imaginationsofmen.HowdareweinvadeinourspeculationsconcerningHimeither thespiritualityor theimmensityofthisinfiniteSpirit,conceivingHimlikethePantheistsasanimpersonal diffused force, or like the Manichaeans limiting Hisimmensity or dividing His unity? Or how can we think of the infiniteSpiritasaltogetherlikeourselves?DowenotseethatwhentheScripturesspeakofHimunderhumanformstheyaremerelyemployingtheartlessartofnursesastheyspeaktochildren?Allthatwecaneithersayorthinkconcerning God descends equally below His real altitude. Calvin thuspreparesus to expectdepths in theDivineBeingbeyondour sounding,and then turns at once to speak of the divine tripersonality, which herepresentsasamysteriouscharacteristicofthedivinemodeofexistencebywhichGodismarkedofffromallelsethatis."But"-thisisthewayheputsit(xiii.2,adinit.)-"HepointsHimselfoutbyanotherspecialnotealso,bywhichHemaybemoreparticularlydefined:forHesopredicatesunityofHimselfthatHeproponesHimselftobeconsidereddistinctivelyinthreePersons;andunlessweholdtothesethereisnothingbutabareandemptynameofGod,bynomeans(sine)thetrueGod,floatinginourbrain."

Thatwemay catch the full significance of this remarkable sentenceweshouldattendtoseveralof itselements.Wemustobserve, forexample,

that it ranges the tripersonalityofGodalongsideofHis immensityandspiritualityasanotherspecial"note"bywhichHeismoreexactlydefined.Thewordsare:"ButHedesignatesHimselfalsobyanotherspecialnote,by which He may be more particularly distinguished," - the anotherreferring back to the "epithets" of immensity and spirituality.3 ThetripersonalityofGodisconceivedbyCalvin,therefore,notassomethingadded to the complete idea of God, or as something into which Goddevelops in the process ofHis existing, but as somethingwhich entersintothevery ideaofGod,withoutwhichHecannotbeconceived in thetruth of His being. This is rendered clearer and more emphatic by anadditionalstatementwhichheadjoins-surelyfornootherpurposethanto strengthen this implication - to the effect that "if we do not hold tothese[thethreePersonsinthedivineunity],wehavenothingbutanakedandemptynameofGod,bynomeansthetrueGod,floatinginourbrain."AccordingtoCalvin,then,itwouldseem,therecanbenosuchthingasamonadisticGod; the ideaofmultiformity enters into the verynotionofGod.4 The alternative is to suppose that he is speaking here purely aposteriori andwith hismind absorbed in the simple fact that the onlytrueGodisactuallyaTrinity:sothathemeansonlytosaythatsincetheonlyGodthatis,is,inpointoffact,aTrinity,whenwethinkofadivinemonadweare,asamerematteroffact,thinkingofaGodwhichhasnoexistence-whichisamerenakedandemptyname,andnotthetrueGodatall.ThesimplicityofCalvin's speech favors this supposition; and thestress he has laid in the preceding discussion upon the necessity ofconceiving God only as He reveals Himself, on pain of the idolatry ofinventing unreal gods for ourselves, adds weight to it. But it scarcelyseems to satisfy thewhole emphasis of the statement. The vigor of theassertionappearsrathertoinviteustounderstandthatinCalvin'sviewadivine monad would be less conceivable than a divine Trinity, andcertainly suggests to us that to him the conception of the Trinity gavevitalitytotheideaofGod.5

This suggestion acquires importance from the circumstance that theReformers in general and Calvin in particular have been sometimesrepresentedasfeelinglittleornointerestinsuchdoctrinesasthatoftheTrinity. Suchdoctrines,we are told, theymerely took over by traditionfromtheoldChurch, if indeed theydidnotby the transferenceof their

interesttoaprincipleofdoctrinalcrystallizationtowhichsuchdoctrineswere matters of more or less indifference, positively prepare for theirultimate discarding. Ferdinand Christian Baur, for example, points outthat the distinctive mark of the Reformation, in contrast withScholasticism with its prevailing dialectic or intellectualistic tendency,wasthatitwasadeeplyreligiousmovement,inwhichtheheartcametoitsrightsandeverythingwasthereforeviewedfromthestandpointofthegreatdoctrinesofsinandgrace.6Hethenseekstoapplythisobservationasfollows:"ThemoredecisivelyProtestantismsetthecentralpointofitsdogmaticconsciousness in this portion of the system, themorenaturalwastheconsequencethatevensuchdoctrinesasthatoftheTrinitywereno longer able tomaintain the preponderating significance which theypossessedintheoldsystem;andalthoughmenwerenotatonceclearlyconsciousofthealteredrelation-as, inpointoffact,theywerenotandcouldnotbe-itisneverthelessthefactthatthedoctrineswhichbelongtothiscategoryattractedtheinterestoftheReformersonlyinasubordinatedegree;and,withoutgivingthemselvesanexactaccountofwhyitwasso,men merely retained with reference to them the traditional modes ofteaching - abiding by these all the more willingly that they could notconceal from themselves the greatness of the difference which existedbetweenthemandtheiropponentsinsomanyessentialpoints."7Theynodoubt set themselves in opposition to the more radical spirits of theirtimewho, taking their starting point from the same general principles,wereledbytheirpeculiaritiesofindividualityandrelations,ofstandpointandtendency, todiscardthedoctrineof theTrinityaltogether.Buttheycould not stem the natural drift of things. "How could the Protestantprincipleworksothoroughgoinganalterationinonepartofthesystem,andleavetherestofitunaffected?"8Andwhatwastobeexpectedexceptthat thepolemic attitudewith referenceto the ecclesiastical doctrine oftheTrinity,whichwasatfirstconfinedtosmallpartiesoutsidethelimitsof recognized Protestantism, should ultimately become a part ofProtestantismitself?9

Inaccordancewiththisschematization,BaurrepresentsMelanchthonas,in the first freshness of hisReformation-consciousness, passing over inhis "Loci" such doctrines as that of the Trinity altogether asincomprehensiblemysteriesofGodwhichcall rather foradorationthan

scrutiny;10and,thoughhereturnedtothemsubsequently,doingsowithadifference,adifferencewhichemphasizedtheirsubordinateandindeedlargelyformalplaceinhissystemofthought.11WhileasregardsCalvin,heseesinhimthebeginningsofaradicaltransformationofthedoctrineof the Trinity. Calvin does, indeed, like Melanchthon, present thedoctrine as the teaching of Scripture, and attaches himself to theecclesiasticaldefinitionsof itasmerelyarepublicationof theScripturaldoctrineinclearerwords."Weperceive,however,thathedoesnotknowhowtobringthedoctrineitselfoutofitstranscendentalremotenessintocloser relationswithhis religious anddogmatic consciousness. Instead,therefore, of speculatively developing the Trinitarian relation as theobjective content of the idea of God, out of itself, he rather repels thewholeconceptionasasuperfluitywhichleadstoemptyspeculation(Inst.,I.xiii.19and20),orelsewhereheentersmostpreciselyintoit,inclinesto a mode of apprehending it in which the ecclesiastical homoousia istransmuted into a rational relation of subordination."12 "The intentionwastoretaintheoldorthodoxdoctrineunchanged;butitwasinternally,in thenewconsciousnessof the times,alreadyundermined, since therewasnolongerfeltforitthesamereligiousanddogmaticinterest,asmaybeseenfromthewholemanner inwhich it isdealtwith in theseoldestProtestant theologians.Men could no longer find their way in the old,abstract form of the dogma. A newmotive impulse must first proceedfrom the central point of the Protestant consciousness. The firstbeginningsofatransformationofthedogmaarealreadydiscoverableinCalvin,whenhelocatesthechiefelementofthedoctrineoftheTrinityinthepracticalconsciousnessoftheoperationsinwhichtheSonandSpiritmake themselves known as the peculiar principles of the divine life (I.xiii. 13, 14), and finds the assurance of the election inwhich the finitesubjecthastheconsciousnessofhisunitywithGodsolelyintherelationin which the individual stands to Christ."13 That is to say, if weunderstand Baur aright, the new construction of the Trinity alreadyforeshadowedinCalvinwastorevolvearoundChrist;butaroundChristasGod-manconceivedasthemediatingprinciplebetweenGodandman,theunityofthefiniteandinfinite,bearingtoustheassurancethatwhatGod is inHimself thatalsoHemustbe for the finiteconsciousness- inwhichmode of statementwe see, however, a great dealmore of Baur'sHegelianismthanofCalvin'sProtestantism.

SofarasthisrepresentationimpliesthatCalvin'sinterestinthedoctrineof the Trinity was remote and purely traditional, it is alreadycontradicted,aswehaveseen,by the first five linesofhisdiscussionofthesubject(I.xiii.2,adinit.)-if,thatis,aswehaveseensomereasontobelieve,he reallydeclares there that vitality is given to the idea ofGodonly by theTrinitarian conception ofHim. It is indeed contradicted byitself. For the real meaning of the constitutive place given in Calvin'sthoughtoftheTrinityto"thepracticalconsciousnessoftheoperationsinwhich the Son and Spirit make themselves known as the peculiarprinciplesofthedivinelife,"isthatthedoctrineoftheTrinitydidnotforhim stand out of relation to his religious consciousness but was apostulateofhisprofoundestreligiousemotions;wasgiven,indeed,inhisexperience of salvation itself.14 For him, thus, certainly in no lessmeasurethanithadbeenfromthebeginningofChristianity,thenerveofthe doctrine was its implication in the experience of salvation, in theChristian'scertaintythattheRedeemingChristandSanctifyingSpiritareeachDivinePersons.NordidhedifferinthisfromtheotherReformers.TheReformationmovementwas,of course,atbottomagreat revivalofreligion. But this does notmean that its revolt from Scholasticismwasfromthedoctrines"ofGod,ofHisunityandHistrinity,ofthemysteryofcreation, of the mode of the incarnation"15 themselves, but from theformalismand intellectualismof the treatmentof thesedoctrinesat thehands of the Scholastic theologians. When Melanchthon demandswhether,whenPaulsetdownacompendiumofChristiandoctrineinhisEpistletotheRomans,hegavehimselfovertophilosophicaldisquisitions(philosophabatur) "on themysteries of the Trinity, on themode of theincarnation, on active and passive creation," and the like, wemust notneglect the emphasis on the term "philosophical disquisitions."16Melanchthonwas as far as possible fromwishing to throwdoubt uponeither the truth or the importance of the doctrines of the Trinity, theIncarnation, Creation. He only wished to recall men from uselessspeculationsuponthemysteriousfeaturesofthesedoctrinesandtofocustheirattentionnodoubtonthegreatcentraldoctrinesofsinandgrace,but also on the vital relations of such doctrines as the Trinity, theIncarnation, andCreation tohumanneedsand thedivineprovision formeeting them. The demand of the Reformers, in a word, was not thatmenshouldturnawayfromthesedoctrines,butthattheyshouldaccord

their deepest interest to those elements and aspects of them whichminister to edification rather than to curious questions that furnishexercise only to intellectual subtlety. Any apparent neglect of thesedoctrineswhichmayseemtobetraceable in theearliestwritingsof theReformers was, moreover, due not merely to their absorption in theproclamationofthedoctrineofgrace,butalsotothebroadfactthatthesedoctrineswerenotindisputeintheirgreatcontroversywithRome,andtherefore did not require insisting upon in the stress of their primaryconflict.Sosoonastheywerebroughtintodisputebytheradicalsoftheage,wefindtheReformersrevertingtothemandreassertingthemwithvigor:andthatistherealaccounttobegivenof the increasedattentiongiventotheminthelaterwritingsoftheReformers,whichseemstothosehistorians who have misinterpreted the relatively small amount ofdiscussion devoted to them in the earlier years of the movement,symptomatic of a lapse from the purity of their first love and of areentanglement in the Scholastic intellectualism from which theReformation, as a religiousmovement,was a revolt. In point of fact, itmarksonlytheabidingfaithoftheReformersindoctrinesessentialtotheChristiansystem,butnothithertolargelyassertedanddefendedbythembecause,shortly, therewasnothithertooccasion for extendedassertionanddefenseofthem.

InnooneisthegeneralattitudeoftheReformerstothedoctrineof theTrinitymoreclearlyillustratedthaninCalvin.ThehistorianofProtestantDogmatics,WilhelmGass,tellsusthat"Calvin'sexpositionoftheTrinityis certainly the best and most circumspect which the writings of theReformersgiveus:surveyingasitdoesthewholecompassofthedogmaandwithout any loss to the thing itselfwisely avoiding all stickling forwords."17 That this judgment is quoted by subsequent expounders ofCalvin'sdoctrineoftheTrinity,18surprisesusonlyinsofarassoobviousa fact seems not to need the authority of Gass to support it. Apart,however,fromthesuperiorityofCalvin'stheologicalinsight,bywhichhistreatment of thedoctrine of theTrinity ismadenot only "the best andmostcircumspectwhichthewritingsoftheReformershavegivenus,"buteven one of the epoch-making discussions of this great theme, Calvin'swholedealingwith thedoctrineof theTrinity suppliesanexceptionallyperfect reflection of the attitude of theReformers at large to it. At one

withtheminhisgeneralpointofview,thecircumstancesofhislifeforcedhim into a fulness and emphasis in the exposition of this doctrine towhichtheywerenotcompelled.Themorecomprehensivecharacterofthework,eveninitsearliestform,coöperatedwiththecomparativelatenessofthetimeofitspublication19andhishighersystematicgenius,tosecuretheincorporationintoeventhefirsteditionofCalvin's"Institutes"(1536)not only of a Biblical proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, argued withexceptionaloriginalityandforce,butalsoofastronglywordedassertionand defense of the correctness and indispensableness of the currentecclesiastical formulation of it. No more than the earlier Reformers,however,wasCalvininclinedtoconfoundtheessenceofthedoctrinewithaparticularmodeofstatingit;norwashewillingtoconfusethemindsofinfantileChristianswiththesubtletiesofitslogicalexposition.Themainthingwas,heinsisted,thatmenshouldheartilybelievethatthere isbutoneGod,whom only they should serve; but also that Jesus Christ ourRedeemerandtheHolySpiritourSanctifieriseachnolessthisoneGodthanGodtheFathertowhomweoweourbeing;whileyetthesethreearedistinct personal objects of our love and adoration.20 He was whollyagreedwithhiscolleaguesatGenevainholdingthat"inthebeginningofthe preaching of the Gospel," it conduced more to edification andreadiness of comprehension to refrain fromthe explanation of themysteriesoftheTrinity,andevenfromtheconstantemploymentofthosetechnical terms inwhich thesemysteries are best expressed, and to becontentwithdeclaringclearlythedivinityofChristinallitsfulness,andwith giving some simple exposition of the true distinction between theFather,Son,andHolySpirit.21Heactedonthisprincipleindrawingupthe formularies of faith with which he provided the Church at Genevaimmediatelyafterhis settlement there, andhe vigorouslydefended thisprocedurewhenitwascalledinquestionbythat"theologicaladventurer,"ashehasbeennotunjustlycalled,22PeterCaroli.This,of course,doesnotmeanthathewasunderanyillusionsastotheindispensablenesstotheChristianfaithofaclearaswellasafirmbeliefinthedoctrineoftheTrinity, or as to the value for the protection of that doctrine of thetechnicaltermswhichhadbeenwroughtoutforitsmoreexactexpressionanddefenseinthecontroversiesofthepast.Hewasalreadycommittedtoan opposite opinion by his strong assertions in the first edition of his"Institutes" (1536), which he retained unaltered through all the

subsequent editions; and the controversies in which he wascontemporaneously embroiled - with Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians,"theological quacks" - were well calculated to fix in his mind a veryprofound sense of the importance of stating this doctrine exactly anddefending it with vigor.Hewas only asserting, as strongly as he knewhow, the right of a Christian teacher, holding the truth, to avoid strifeaboutwordsandtousehisbestendeavorsto"handlearightthewordoftruth." He never for one moment doubted, we do not say the truthmerely,butalsotheimportancefortheChristiansystem,ofthedoctrineof theTrinity.Heheld thisdoctrinewithapurity andhigh austerity ofapprehension singular among its most devoted adherents. As we haveseen, he conceived it not only as the essential foundation of thewholedoctrineofredemption,butasindispensableeventoavitalandvitalizingconception of the Being of God itself. He did not question even theimportanceofthetechnicalphraseologywhichhadbeeninventedfortheexpressionanddefenseof thisdoctrine, inordertoprotect it fromfatalmisrepresentation. He freely confessed that by this phraseology alonecould thesubtletiesofheresyaimingat itsdisintegrationbeadequatelymet. But he asserted and tenaciously maintained the liberty of theChristian teacher, holding this doctrine in its integrity, to use it in hiswisdomashesawwasmostprofitablefortheinstructionofhisflock-notwith a view to withdrawing it in its entirety or in part from theircontemplation or to minimizing its importance in their sight or tocorrupting theirapprehensionof it,butwithaview tomaking itavitalelementintheirfaith;firstperhapsmoreorlessimplicitly-asimpliedintheverycoreoftheircreed-andthenmoreorlessexplicitly,astheywereable to apprehend it; but never as a mere set of more or lessuncomprehendedtraditionalphrases.Tohimitwasagreatandinspiringreality: and as such he taught it to the babes of the flock in its mostessential and vital elements, and defended it against gainsayers in itsmostcompleteandstrictformulation.

The illusion into which it is perhaps possible to fall in the case of theearlierReformers,bywhichthisdoubletreatmentofthedoctrineof theTrinityissupposedtorepresentconsecutivestatesofmind,isimpossiblein the case of Calvin. Circumstances compelled him to deal with thedoctrineafterbothfashionscontemporaneously.Nonecansayofhim,as

Baur says of Melanchthon - in our belief wrongly interpreting thephenomena - that he first passed by the doctrine of the TrinityunconcernedlyandafterwardsrevertedtotheScholasticstatementof it.At the verymoment that Calvin was insisting on teaching the doctrinevitallyratherthanscholastically,hewasequallyinsistingthatitmustbeheld in its entirety as it had been brought into exact expression by theecclesiasticalwriters.

CalvinbeganhisworkatGenevaonthefifthdayofSeptember,1536,andamong the other fundamental tasks with which he engaged himselfduring the winter of 1536 and 1537 was the drawing up of his firstcatechism,the"InstructionusedintheChurchatGeneva,"asitiscalledinitsFrenchform,whichwaspublishedin1537,orthe"CatechismussiveChristianaeReligionisInstitutio,"asitiscalledintheLatinform,whichwas published early (March) in 1538. Alongwith this Catechism, therehadbeenpreparedinbothlanguagesalsoabriefer"ConfessionofFaith,"written, possibly, not by Calvin himself, but by his colleagues in theGenevanministry, or, to bemore specific, by Farel,23 but certainly inessence Calvin's, and related to the Catechism very much as theCatechismwasrelatedtothe"Institutes"of1536;thatistosay,itisafreecondensationof theCatechism. In this Confession of Faith, although itwasthefundamentaldocumentationofthefaithoftheGenevanChurchto which all citizens were required to subscribe, there is no formalexpositionof thedoctrineof theTrinityatall: theunityofGodaloneisasserted(§2),anditislefttothemererecitationoftheApostles'Creed,which is incorporated into it (§ 6), supported only by a rare (§ 15)reference to Jesus as God's Son, to suggest the Trinity. Even in theCatechism24thestatementofthedoctrine,althoughexplicitandprecise,and supported by equally explicit assertions of the uniqueness of ourLord'sSonship("HeiscalledSonofGod,notlikebelievers,byadoptionandgrace,buttrueandnaturalandthereforesoleandunique,soastobedistinguished from theothers,"p. 53, cf. pp.45-46,53,60,62), andofHistruedivinity("Hisdivinity,whichHehadfromalleternitywith theFather,"p.53),isfarfromelaborate.ItisconfinedindeedverymuchtotheassertionofthefactoftheTrinity-althoughevenhereitissuggestedthat it enters by necessity into our conception of God; and even thisassertionismadeapparentlyonlybecauseitseemedtobeneededforthe

understanding of the Apostles' Creed. In the general remarks on thisCreed,beforetheexpositionofitsseveralclausesistakenup(p.52),weread as follows: "But in order that this our confession of faith in theFather,SonandHolySpiritmaytroublenoone,itisnecessaryfirstofalltosayalittleaboutit.WhenwenametheFather,SonandHolySpiritwebynomeansimaginethreeGods;buttheScripturesandpiousexperienceitselfshowus in theabsolutelysimple(tres-simple)essenceofGod,theFather,His Son and His Spirit. So that our intelligence is not able toconceivetheFatherwithoutatthesametimecomprehendingtheSoninwhomHis living image is repeated, and theSpirit, inwhomHispowerand virtue are manifested. Accordingly, we adhere with the wholethought of our heart to one soleGod; butwe contemplateneverthelesstheFatherwith the Son andHis Spirit." There is certainly here a clearandfirmassertionofthefactoftheTrinity;wemayevenadmiretheforcewithwhich,insofewwords,thesubstanceofthedoctrineisproclaimed,anditisalsosuggestedthatithasitsrootsplantednotonly inScripturebutinChristianexperience,andindeedis involvedinavitalconceptionof God. Calvin assuredly was justified in pointing to it, when thecalumniesraisedbyCaroliwerespreadabroadandmenwereacquiringasuspicion that his "opinion concerning the personal distinctions in theoneGod dissented somewhat (non nihil) from the orthodox consent oftheChurch,"asaproof thathehad fromthe first taught theChurchatGeneva "a trinity of persons in the one essence of God."25 But it isperhapsnotstrangethatthisshouldseemtosomeverylittletosayonthefundamental doctrine of the Trinity in a statement of fundamentaldoctrines which extends to some forty-two pages in length.26 In itsbrevity it may perhaps illustrate almost as strikingly as the entireomission of all statement of the doctrine from the accompanyingConfession(exceptasimpliedintherepetitionoftheApostles'Creed)thefeelingofCalvinandhiscolleagues that theelaborationof thisdoctrinebelongsrathertothelaterstagesofChristianinstruction,whileforbabesin Christ it were better to leave it implicit in their general religiousstandpoint (seeing that it is implicated in the experienceof piety itself)thantoclogtheunformedChristianmindwithsubtledisputationsaboutit.Meanwhile,attheverymomentwhenCalvinandhiscolleagueswerepreparing these primary statements of faith, inwhich no or so small aspacewasgiventothedoctrineof theTrinity, theywerealsovigorously

engagedinconfutingandexcludingfromtheGenevanChurchimpugnersofthatdoctrine.ForfromtheverybeginningofhisworkatGenevaCalvinwas brought into conflict with that anti-trinitarian radicalism theconfutation of which was to draw so heavily upon his strength in thefuture. There were already in the early spring of 1537 Anabaptists toconfuteandbanish,amongwhomwasthatJohnStordeurwhosewidowwasafterwardstobecomeCalvin'swife.27Andtherewastodealwithjustbeforetheirappearancethatpoorhalf-crazyfanaticClaudeAliodi-onceFarel'scolleagueatNeuchâtel-whohadasearlyas1534beendenyingthe preëxistence of Christ, and was in the spring of 1537 at Geneva,teachinghisanti-trinitarianheresies.28

Calvin'sexactattitudeonthedoctrineoftheTrinityanditsteachingwas,moreover, just at this time forced into great publicity by the assaultsmadeupontheGenevanpastorsbyoneofthemostfrivolouscharactersbrought to the surface by the upheaval of the Reformation.29 It wasprecisely at this time (January, 1537) that PeterCaroli,whowas at themomentgivinghimselftheairsofabishopas"firstpastor"atLausanne,conceived the idea of avenging himself upon the pastors of Geneva forwhathethoughtpersonalinjuriesbybringingagainstthemthechargeofvirtualArianism.That thechargereceivedanattentionwhich itdidnotdeservewas,nodoubt, due inpart to anoldsuspicionwhich had beenaroused against Farel by the calumnies ofClaudeAliodi.30Thesewerefoundedonthecircumstancethatinhis"Sommaire"(1524-1525),Farel-withapurelypaedagogicalintent,asheexplainedinaprefaceprefixedtotheeditionof1537-1538,becausehebelievedthedoctrineof theTrinitytoodifficultatopicforbabesinfaith-hadpassedoverthedoctrineoftheTrinity, just as the Genevan pastors did again in their Confession of1537.31 It is difficult for us, in any event, however, at this late date, tounderstand the hearing which a man like Caroli obtained for hiscalumnies.ThewholeProtestantworldwas filledwithsuspicionsof theorthodoxyoftheGenevanpastors.Itwaswhisperedfromonetoanother-atBern,Basle,Zurich,Strasburg,Wittenberg-thattheywerestrangelychary of using the terms "Trinity," "Person," - that they were even"heady" in their refusal toemploy them in theirpopular formularies. Itwas widely reported that they were beginning to fall into Arianism, orrather into thatworst of all errors (pessimus error)which Servetus the

Spaniardwasspreadingabroad.Notonlywasalocalcrisisthuscreated,which entailed personal controversies and synods and decisions, but awidelyspreadatmosphereofdistrustwasproduced,whichdemandedthemostcarefulandpromptattention.AllthespringandsummerCalvinwasoccupied in writing letters hither and thither, correcting the harmfulrumorswhichhad,ashesaid,beensetgoingby"amerenobody"(homonihili), urged on by "futile vanity."32 And after the conferences andsynods and letters, there came at length treatises. The result is that allexcuse is taken away for any misapprehension of Calvin's preciseposition.

Throughout thewhole controversy - inwhichCalvinwas ever the chiefspokesman,comingforwardloyallytothedefenseofhiscolleagues,who,rather thanhe,wereprimarilystruckat - twocurrents run,as theyrunthroughallhiswritingsontheTrinity,andnotleastthroughhischapter(I. xiii.) on that subject in the "Institutes." There is everywheremanifestednotonlyaclearandfirmgraspofthedoctrine,butalsoaverydeep insight into it, accompanied by a determination to assert it at itsheight.Alongwiththisthereisalsomanifestanequallyconstantandfirmdeterminationtopreservefulllibertytodealwiththedoctrinefreefromall dictation from without or even prescription of traditional modes ofstatement. There is nothing inconsistent in these two positions.Ratheraretheyoutgrowthsofthesamefundamentalconviction:buttheobverseand reverse of the samemental attitude. At the root of all lies Calvin'sprofoundpersuasionthatthisisasubjecttoohighforhumanspeculationandhis consequent fixed resolve to eschewall theoretical constructionsuponit,andtoconfinehimselfstrictlytotherevelationsofScripture.Onthe one hand, therefore, because he appealed to Scripture only, herefused to be coerced in his expression of the doctrine by presentauthority or even the formularies of the past; on the other, because hetrustedScripturewholly,hewasinsistentingivingfullvaliditytoallthathe found there. It was the purity of his Protestantism, in other words,which governed Calvin's dealing with this doctrine; giving it anindependence which is not yet always understood and has affordedoccasiononceandagainforcommentuponhisattitudewhichbetraysasomewhatsurprisinginabilitytoenterintohismind.33

Forthematter,whichhasbeenthusvexed,wasperfectlysimple.Calvinrefused to subscribe the ancient creeds at Caroli's dictation, not in theleast becausehedidnot findhimself in accordwith their teaching, butsolely because he was determined to preserve for himself and hiscolleaguesthelibertiesbelongingtoChristianmen,subjectinmattersoffaithtonootherauthoritythanthatofGodspeakingintheScriptures.Hetellsushimselfthatitwasneverhispurposetorejectthesecreedsortodetract from their credit;34 and he points out that he was notmisunderstoodevenbyCarolitoberepudiatingtheirteaching;butCaroliconceded that what he did was - in Caroli's bad Latin, or as Calvinfacetiously calls it, "his Sorbonnic elegance" - "neither to credit nor todiscredit them."35 He considered it intolerable that the Christianteacher's faith should be subjected to the authority of any traditionalmodesofstatement,howevervenerable,orhowevertrue;andherefusedto be the instrument of creating a precedent for such tyranny in theReformedChurches by seeming to allow that a teachermight be justlytreated as a heretic until he cleared himself by subscribing ancientsymbols thrust beforehimby this or thatdisturber of thepeace.Therewerehiswritings,andtherewashispublicteaching,andhewasreadytodeclareplainlywhathebelieved:lethimbejudgedbytheseexpressionsofhisfaithinaccordancewiththeWordofGodaloneasthestandardoftruth. Accordingly, when he first confronted Caroli in behalf of theGenevan ministers, he read the passage on the Trinity from the newCatechism as the suitable expression of their belief. And when Carolicried out, "Awaywith these newConfessions; and let us sign the threeancientCreeds,"Calvin,notwithoutsomeshowofpride,refused,onthegroundthathe accorded authority indivine things to theWordofGodalone.36 "We have professed faith in God alone," he said, "not inAthanasius, whose Creed has not been approved by any properlyconstituted Church."37 His meaning is that he refused to treat anyhumancompositionasanauthoritativedeterminationofdoctrine, fromwhichwemaydeclineonlyonpainofheresy:thatbelongstotheWordofGodalone.At thesubsequentCouncilofLausannehe tookuppreciselythe same position, and addressing himself more, as he says,38 adhominem than ad rem, turned the demand that he should express hisfaith in the exactwordsof former formularies into ridicule.Hewas,hetells us, inwhat he said about theCreeds just "gibing"39Caroli.Caroli

had attempted to recite theCreeds andhadbroken down at the fourthclause of the Athanasian Symbol.40 You assert, Calvin said, that wecannot acceptably confess our faith except in the exact words of theseancient symbols. You have just pronounced these words from theAthanasian Creed: "Which faith whosoever doth not hold cannot besaved."Youdonotyourselfholdthisfaith:andifyoudid,youcouldnotexpressitintheexactwordsoftheCreed.Trytorepeatthosewords:youwill infallibly again stick fast before you get through the fourth clause.Nowwhatwouldyoudo,ifyoushouldsuddenlycometodieandtheDevilshoulddemandthatyougototheeternaldestructionwhichyouconfessawaitsthosewhodonotholdthisfaithwholeandentire,meaningunlessyouexpress thisyour faith in these exact terms?Andas for theNiceneCreed-isitsoverycertainitwascomposedbythatCouncil?OnewouldsurelysupposethoseholyFatherswouldstudyconcisenessinsoseriousamatterasacreed.Butseethebattologyhere:"GodofGod,LightofLight,veryGodof veryGod."Why this repetition -which adds neither to theemphasisnortotheexpressivenessofthedocument?Don'tyouseethatthis is a song, more suitable for singing than to serve as a formula ofconfession?41Wemayormaynot thinkCalvin'spleasantryhappy.Butwecertainly cannot fail tomarvelwhenwe read in even recentwritersthatCalvinrefusedtosigntheAthanasianCreedbecauseofitsdamnatoryclauses, "which are unjust and uncharitable," and that he "depreciatedtheNiceneCreed."42Accordingtohisowntestimony,hedidnothingofthe kind: he "never had any intention of depreciating (abiicere) thesecreedsorofderogatingfromtheircredit."43HissoledesignwastomakeitapparentthatCaroli'sinsistencethatonlyinthewordsofthesecreedscouldfaithintheTrinitybefitlyexpressedwasridiculous.

Calvin'srefusaltobeconfinedtotheverywordsoftheoldformulasinhisexpressionof thedoctrineof theTrinitydidnotcarrywith it, therefore,any unwillingness to employ in his definition of thedoctrine the termswhichhadbeenbeatenout in theTrinitarian controversies of the past.These terms he considered rather the best expressions for stating anddefending the doctrine. That they were unwilling to employ them hadindeedbeenmadethesubstanceofoneofthechargesbroughtbyCaroliagainsttheGenevanpastors.Buttherefutationofthiscalumny,sofarasCalvinhimselfwasconcerned,waseasy.Hehadonlytopointtothefirst

editionofthe"Institutes"(1536),inwhichhehadnotonlyfreelyusedtheterms inquestion,buthaddefendedat large the rightandasserted theduty of employing them, as the technical language by which alone thedoctrine of the Trinity can be so expressed as to confound hereticalmisconstructions. When, then, Caroli expressed his wonder at "thepertinacitywithwhichCalvinrefusedtheterms'Person,''Trinity,'"Calvinreplied flatly that neither he nor Farel nor Viret ever had the smallestobjectiontotheseterms."ThewritingsofCalvin,"headds,"testifytothewholeworldthathealwaysemployedthemfreely,andevenreprehendedthesuperstitionofthosewhoeitherdislikedoravoidedthem."44ThattheGenevan pastors passed them by in their Confession, and refused toemploythemwhenthiswasviolentlydemandedofthem,heexplains,wasdue to two reasons. Theywere unwilling to consent to such tyranny asthat when a matter has been sufficiently and more than sufficientlyestablished, credit should be bound to words and syllables. But theirmore particular reason was, he adds, that they might "deprive thatmadmanoftheboasthehadinsolentlymade.""ForCaroli'spurposewasto cast suspicion on the entire doctrine ofmen of piety and to destroytheir influence."45 Though they felt to the full, therefore, the value oftheseterms,notonly forconfoundingheresy,butalso forconsolidatingchurches in a common confession, when their use was contentiouslydemanded of them they followed a high example and refused to giveplace,inthewayofsubjection,evenforanhour.

Calvin's attitude to the employment of this technical language issufficientlyinterestinginitselftorepayapausetoobserveit.Aswehaveintimated,itisfullysetforthalreadyinthefirsteditionofthe"Institutes"(1536)inaveryinterestingpassage,whichisretainedwithoutsubstantialalteration throughout all the subsequent editions. The position of thispassage in the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, however, ischangedinthefinaleditionfromitsend(asinalltheearliereditions)toitsbeginning.Inthefinaledition,therefore,itappearsasaprefacetothediscussion of the substance of the doctrine (I. xiii. 3-5), and it isstrengthened in this edition by an introductory paragraph (§ 2), inwhichanattempt ismade to vindicate for one of these technical termsdirectBiblicalauthority.Calvinfindstheterm"Person"intheu`po,stasijof Heb. i. 3; and insists, therefore, that it, at least, is not of human

invention(humanitusinventa).Theargumentinwhichhedoesthisistoocharacteristic of him and too instructive, not only as to his attitudetowards the terms inquestion,butalsoas tohisdoctrineof theTrinityandhisexegeticalmethods,tobepassedoverinsilence.Wemustpermitourselvessomuchofadigression,therefore,aswillenableustoattendtoit.

WhatCalvindoes,inthisargument,isinessencetosubjectthestatementofHeb.i.3thattheSonis"theveryimageofthehypostasisofGod"-thecarakth.r th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou/ - to a strict logical analysis. Thetermu`po,stasij,heargues,mustdesignatesomethingtheSonisnot:forHecouldscarcelybesaidtobethe imageofsomethingHeis.Whenwesay image, we postulate two distinct things: the thing imaged and thething imaging it. If the Son is the image ofGod's hypostasis, then, thehypostasis ofGodmust be somethingwhich the Son does not share; itmust be rather somethingwhichHe is like. The Son shares theDivineessence: hence hypostasis here cannotmean essence. Itmust be takenthen in its alternative sense of "person": and what the author of theEpistlesays,therefore,isthattheSonisexactlyliketheFatherinperson;Hisdouble,sotospeak.ThisEpistle,therefore,expresslyspeakshereoftwoPersonsintheGodhead,onePersonwhichisimaged,anotherwhichpreciselyimages it.AndthesamereasoningmaybeappliedtotheHolySpirit. There is Biblical warrant, therefore, for teaching that there arethree hypostases in the one essence ofGod - "therefore, ifwewill givecredit to the Apostle's testimony, there are inGod three hypostases," -and since the Latin "person" is but the translation of the Greek"hypostasis," it is mere fastidiousness to balk at the term "person." Ifanyoneprefers the term "subsistence" as amore literal rendering,why,lethimuseit:oreven"substance," if itbetakeninthesamesense.Thepoint is not the vocable but the meaning, and we do not change themeaning by varying the synonyms. Even the Greeks use "person"(pro,swpon) interchangeably with "subsistence" (u`po,stasij) in thisconnection.

It isnot likely that thispieceofexegesiswillcommend itself tous.Norindeed is it likely that we shall feel perfect satisfaction in the logicalanalysis, evenasapieceof logicalanalysis.Afterall, theSon isnot the

imageoftheFatherinHisPersonality-ifweare,likeCalvin,totakethePersonality here in strict distinction from the Essence. What the Sondiffers from the Father in is, rather, just in His "Personality," in thissense:asPersonHeistheSon,theFathertheFather,andwhatwesumup under this "Fatherhood" and "Sonship" is just the distinguishing"properties" by which the two are differentiated from each other. ThatconcretePersonwe call the Son is exactly like that concretePersonwecalltheFather;butthelikenessisduetothefactthateachissharerintheidentical essence. After all, therefore, the reason why the Son is theexpressimageoftheFatherisbecause,sharingthedivineessence,HeisinHisessenceallthattheFatheris.HeistherepetitionoftheFather:buttherepetitioninsuchasensethattheoneessenceinwhichthelikenessconsists is common to the two, and notmerely of like character in thetwo. The fundamental troublewith Calvin's argument is that it seeks adirect proof for the Trinitarian constitution of the Godhead from apassagewhichwasintendedasadirectproofonlyoftheessentialdeityoftheSon.WhattheauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrewshadinmindwasnot to reveal the relation of the Son to the Father in the Trinity - as adistinct hypostasis in the unity of the essence; but to set forth theabsolutedeityoftheSon,todeclarethatHeisallthatGodis,theperfectreflection of God, giving back to God when set over against Him Hisconsummateimage.Theterm"hypostasis"isnotindeedtobetakenhere,in the narrow sense, as "essence": but neither is it to be taken, in theabstractsense,as"person."Itmeanstheconcreteperson,that is tosay,thewholesubstantialentitywecallGod;whichwholesubstantialentityissaid to be in the Son exactly what it is in the Father. Nothing is saiddirectlyastotherelationoftheSontotheFather,asdistinctpersonsintheTrinity; thewholedirectsignificanceof thedeclaration isexhaustedintheassertionthatthis"Son"differsinnosingleparticularfrom"God":HeisGodinthefullheightoftheconceptionofGod.

Itisnot,however,thesuccessorlackofsuccessofCalvin'sexegesiswhichmost interests us at present. It is rather two facts which his exegeticalargumentbringsbeforeuswithpeculiarforce.Theoneofthemisthatthedeveloped doctrine of the Trinity lay so firmly entrenched in his mindthat he makes it, almost or perhaps quite unconsciously, the majorpremiseofhisargument.Andtheotheristhathewasso littleaverseto

designating thedistinctions in theGodhead by the term "persons" thatthat termwas ratherheldbyhim tohavedefinite Biblicalwarrant.Hisargument thatu`po,stasij in this passage cannot mean "essence," butmustmean"person,"turnsonthisprecisehinge-thattheFatherandSonarenumericallyoneinessence,andcanberepresentedasdistinctonlyinperson:"ForsincetheessenceofGodissimpleandindivisible(simplexetindividua) Him - who contains in Himself the whole of it, not inapportionmentorindeflection,butinunbrokenperfection(integraperfectione)-itwouldbeimproperorratherinepttocallitsimage."Inotherwords, the doctrine of the Trinity in its complete formulation is thepostulateofhisargument.Andtheoutcomeof theargument is that theEpistle to the Hebrews distinctly sets the Father and Son over againsteach other as distinguishable "Persons," employing this preciseterm,u`po,stasij, to designate them in their distinction. "Accordingly,"saysCalvin,"ifthetestimonyoftheApostleobtainscredit,itfollowsthatthere are inGod three hypostases." This term as the expression of thenature of the distinctions in the Godhead is therefore not a "humaninvention"(humanitusinventa)toCalvin,butadivinerevelation.

Since,then,theBiblehadobtainedcreditwithCalvin,hecouldnotobjecttotheuseoftheterm"person"toexpressthedistinctionsintheTrinity.But he nevertheless takes over from the earlier editions, in which thediscoveryoftheterminHeb.i.3isnotyettobefound,adefenseoftheuseofthistermontheassumptionthatitisnotBiblical.Andthisdefenseis inessence theassertionof therightand theexpositionofa theoryofinterpretation. There are men, says Calvin, who cry out against everytermframedaccordingtohumanjudgment(hominumarbitrioconfictumnomen)anddemandthatourwordsaswellasourthoughtsconcerningdivine thingsshallbekeptwithin the limitsofScriptureexample. IfweuseonlythewordsofScriptureweshall,saythey,avoidmanydissensionsanddisputes,andpreservethecharitysofrequentlybrokeninstrifesover"exoticwords."Certainly,respondsCalvin,weoughttospeakofGodwithnotlessreligionthanwethinkofHim.Butwhyshouldweberequiredtoconfine ourselves to the exact words of Scripture if we give the exactsenseofScripture?Tocondemnas "exotic" everywordnot found in somany syllables in Scripture, is at once to put under a ban allinterpretation which is not a mere stringing together of Scriptural

phrases. There are some things in Scripture which are to ourapprehensionintricateanddifficult.Whatforbidsourexplainingtheminsimpler terms - if these terms are held religiously and faithfully to thetrue sense of Scripture, and are used carefully and modestly and notwithout occasion? Is it not an improbity to reprobate words whichexpressnothingbutwhatistestifiedandrecordedbytheScriptures?Andwhen these words are a necessity, if the truth is to be plainly andunambiguously expressed -maywenot suspect that the realquarrel ofthosewhoobjecttotheiruseiswiththetruththeyexpress;andthatwhattheyareoffendedby is thatby their use the truthhasbeenmade clearand unmistakable (plana et dilucida)? As to the terms in which themystery of the Trinity is expressed - the term Trinity itself, the termPerson,andthoseothertermswhichthetergiversationsofhereticshavecompelledbelieverstoframeandemploythatthetruthmaybeassertedandguarded-suchashomoousios, forexample -noonewould care todraw sword for them as mere naked words. Calvin himself would bealtogetherpleasedtoseethemburiedwhollyoutofsight-ifonlyallmenwouldheartily receive the simple faith, that theFather, Son, andSpiritareoneGodandyetneitheristheSontheFather,northeSpirittheSon,buttheyareeachdistinguishedbyacertainproperty(I.xiii.5).Butthatis just the trouble.Menwillnot accept the simple faith, but palter in adoublesense.AriuswasloudenoughindeclaringChristtobeGod-butwished to teachalso thatHe is a creature andhashad a beginning: hewaswillingtosayChrist isonewiththeFather, ifhewerepermittedtoaddthatHisoneness is thesameinkindasourownonenesswithGod.Say, however, the one word o`moou,sioj - "consubstantial" - and themaskis tornfromthefaceofdissimulationandyetnothingwhatever isaddedtotheScriptures.Sabelliuswasinnowayloathtoadmitthatthereare in the Godhead these three - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but hereallydistinguishedthemonlyasattributesaredistinguished.Saysimplythat in "theunityofGoda trinityofpersons subsists,"andyouhaveatoncequenchedhisinaneloquacity.Now,ifanyonewhodoesnotlikethewordswill ingenuously46confess the things thewordsstand for - caditquaestio: we shall not worry over the words. "But," adds Calvinsignificantly,"Ihavelongsincelearnedbyexperience,andthatoverandoveragain,thatthosewhocontendthuspertinaciouslyaboutterms,arereallycherishinga secretpoison; so that it ismuchbetter to bear their

resentment than to consent to use less precise and clear language fortheir behoof" (I. xiii. 5, ad fin.).Goldenwords!How often sinceCalvinhas the Church had bitter cause to repeat them! When we read, forexample,William Chillingworth's subtle pleas for the use of Scripturallanguageonlyinmattersoffaith;hiseloquentasseverations-"TheBible,Isay,theBibleonlyisthereligionofProtestants";hisloudrailingat"thevain conceit, thatwe can speak of the things ofGod better than in thewords ofGod," "thus deifying our own interpretations and tyrannouslyenforcingthemuponothers"-weknowwhatitallmeans:thatunderthiscloakofcharityaretoliehiddenamultitudeofsins.WhenwehearCalvinrefusing to swear in the words of another, we must not confuse hisdefenseofpersonalrightwithalatitudinarianismlikeChillingworth's.Ifhe said, It is theWord ofGod, not theword of Athanasius, towhich Isubmit my judgment, he said equally, The sense of Scripture, not itswords,isScripture.NoambiguousmeaningsshouldbepermittedtohidebehindamererepetitionofthesimplewordsofScripture,butallthattheScripture teaches shallbe clearlyandwithout equivocationbroughtoutandgivenexpressionintheleastindeterminatelanguage.47

Calvin's interestwas, in otherwords, distinctly in the substance of thedoctrineoftheTrinityratherthaninanyparticularmodeofformulatingit.Itrestedonthetermsinwhichitwasformulatedonlybecause,andsofar as, they seemed essential to the precise expression and effectiveguarding of the doctrine. This was consistently his attitude from thebeginning.Already in the "Institutes" of 1536, aswe have seen, he hadgiven this attitude an expression so satisfactory to himself that heretainedthesectionsdevotedtoituntiltheend.Itis indeedastonishinghowcompleteastatementofthedoctrineoftheTrinityitselfwasalreadyincorporatedintothisearliesteditionofthe"Institutes,"andhowclearlyin that statement all the characteristic features of Calvin's treatment ofthe doctrine already appear. The discussion was no doubt greatlyexpanded in its passage from the first to the last edition. In the firstedition (1536) it occupies only five columns in the Strasburg edition;thesehavegrowntofifteenandahalfcolumnsinthemiddleeditionsandtotwenty-sevenandahalf(ofwhichelevenandahalfareretainedfromtheearliereditionsandsixteenarenew)inthefinaleditionof1559.Thatis to say, its original compass was tripled in the middle editions and

almostdoubledagain in the finaledition,where ithasbecomebetweenfiveandsix timesas longas in the firstdraft.48And in thisprocessofexpansion it has not only gathered increment but has suffered change.This change isnot, however, in the substanceof the doctrine taught oreveninthemodeofitsformulationorthelanguageinwhichitiscouchedor in the general tonewhich informs it. It is only in the range and thegoverningaimofthediscussion.

Thestatementinthefirsteditionisdominatedbyasimpledesiretogiveguidance to docile believers, and therefore declines formal controversyandseeksmerelytosetdownbrieflywhatistobefollowed,whatistobeavoided on this great subject. Positing, therefore, at the outset that theScripturesteachoneGod,notmany,butyetnotobscurelyassertthattheFatherisGodandtheSonisGodandtheHolySpiritisGod;Calvinhereatoncedevelops,bycombiningEph. iv.5andMat.xxviii. 19,aBiblicalproof of the Trinity which in its strenuous logic reminds us of theanalyticalexaminationofHeb.i.3whichwehavealreadynoted.Paul,hesays, connects together one baptism, one faith and one God; but inMatthewwereadthatwearetobebaptizedinthenameoftheFatherandof theSonandof theHolySpirit - andwhat is thatbut to say that theFatherandtheSonandtheHolySpiritaretogethertheoneGodofwhichPaulspeaks?49ThisissupportedbyJeremiah's(xxiii.33)designationofthe Son by "that name which the Jews call ineffable"50 and otherScriptural evidence that our Lord is one God with the Father and theSpirit. He has in mind to prove both elements in the doctrine of theTrinity, the unity of God and the true distinction of persons, andtherefore introduces these citations with the words: "There are extantalso other clear (luculenta) testimonies, which assert, in part, the onedivinity of the three, and in part their personal distinctions."51 ThencomesthedefenseofthetechnicalwordsbywhichthetruthoftheTrinityis expressed and protected, of which we have already spoken. Theenlargedandreadjustedtreatmentofthetopicforthesecondeditionof1539 seems to have been composed under the influence of thecontroversywith Caroli. It ismarked at least by the incorporation of athoroughproofoftheGodheadoftheFather,SonandSpirit,oftheunityof their essence, and of the distinction between them, and a coloringapparently derived from this controversy is thrown over the whole

discussion, inwhich liberty to formulate thedoctrine inourownwordsandthevalueofthetechnicaltermsalreadyinuseareequallyvigorouslyasserted. The material of 1539 remains intact throughout the middleeditions (1543, 1550), although some short quotations from Augustine(§§16,20)andfromJeromeandHilary(§24)were introduced in1543.Butitisveryfreelydealtwithinthefinaledition(1559).Onlysometwo-thirds of it (eleven andahalf columns out of fifteen and a half) ispreserved in that edition,while sixteen new columns are added: aboutthree-fifths of the whole is thus new.52 Moreover, whole sections areomitted(§§ 10 and 15), aneworderof arrangement is adopted, andmuchminoralterationis introduced.Inthis recastingandexpansionofthediscussionthechiefplaceintheformativeforcesdeterminingitsformand tone is taken by the attack of the radical Antitrinitarians. TheexistenceoftheseAntitrinitarianscoffersisrecognized,indeed,fromthefirst: they are explicitly adverted to already in the edition of 1536 as"certain impiousmen,whowish to tearour faithupby the roots": it isquiteclear,indeed,thatServetus'teachingswerealreadybeforehismindat this date.But it is only for the final edition (1559) that their assaultassumes the determining position at the basis of the whole treatment:andit isonly in thiseditionthatServetus, forexample, isnamed.Now,Calvin not only arrays against them the testimony of Scripture in adeveloped polemic, but adjusts the whole positive exposition of thedoctrine to its new purpose, shaping and phrasing its statements andmodifyingthembyaddedsentencesandclauses.Theresultisapolemicthe edge of which is turned no longer against those who may havedoubtedCalvin'sorthodoxy, aswas the case in 1539,but ratheragainstthosewhohaveessayed tobring intodoubtor evenopenly todeny themysteries which enter into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Thesharpanti-scholastic sentenceswhicharepermitted to remain, serve togive a singular balance to the discussion, and tomake it clear that thepolemic against the Antitrinitarians has in view vital interests and notmeremattersofphraseology.

Thedispositionofthematerialinthisitsfinalformfollowsthelinesofitsnew dominant interest. The discussion opens, as we have seen, with aparagraphdesignedtobearinonthemindasenseofthemysterywhichmust characterize the divine mode of existence (§ 1). This is

immediately followedbyanannouncementof theTrinitarian factand adefenseofthetechnicaltermsusedtoexpressandprotectit(§§2-5).After this introduction the subject itself is takenup (§6, ad init.) andtreatedintwogreatdivisions,bywayfirstofpositivestatementandproof(§§6-20)andbywaysecondlyofpolemicdefense (§§21 to end).Thepositiveportionopenswithacarefuldefinitionofwhat ismeantbythe"Trinity"(§6)andisprosecutedbyanexhibitionof theScripturalproof of the doctrine in three sections: first the proof of the completedeity of the Son (§§ 7-13), then the proof of the deity of the Spirit(§§ 14-15), and then the proof of the Trinitarian distinctions, whichincludesadissertationonthenatureofthesedistinctionsonthebasisofScripture(§§16-20).Thepolemicphaseofthediscussionbeginswithsome introductory remarks (§ 21) and then defends in turn the truepersonalityof the Son against Servetus (§ 22) andHis complete deityagainstitsmodernimpugners,ValentinusGentilisbeingchiefly inmind(§§23-29).

Thiscomprehensiveoutlineisrichlyfilledinwithdetails,allofwhicharetreated,however,withacircumspectionandmoderationwhichillustrateCalvin's determination to eschew human speculations upon this highthemeandtoconfinehimself totherevelationsofScripture,onlysofarexplicated in human language as is necessary for their pure expressionandprotection.53Weobserve,forexample,thatheintroducesnoproofsor illustrations of the Trinity derived from metaphysical reasoning ornaturalanalogies.FromtheexampleofAugustine ithadbeenthehabitthroughout the Middle Ages to make much of these proofs orillustrations, and the habit had passed over into the Protestant usage.Melanchthon,forexample,gavenewcurrencyaliketotheoldontologicalspeculations which under the forms of subject and object sought toconceivetheLogosastheimageofHimselfwhichthethinkingFathersetover against Himself, and to the human analogies by which theTrinitariandistinctionswerefanciedtobeillustrated,such,forexample,as the distinctions between the intellect, sensibility and will in man.Calvinheldhimself aloof from all such reasoning, doubting, as he says(§18), "thevalueof similitudes fromhumanthings for expressingtheforce of the Trinitarian distinction," and fearing that their employmentmight afford only occasion to those evil disposed for calumny and to

thoselittleinstructedforerror.54WhathedesiredwasaplainprooffromScripture itselfof theelementsof thedoctrine, freed from all additionsfromhumanspeculation.Thisproofheattempted, inoutlineat least, tosetdowninhispages.Itisinterestingtoobservehowheconductsit.

Hebegins,aswehavealreadypointedout,withaplainstatementofwhathemeansbytheTrinity(§6).Sucha"shortandeasydefinition"(brevisetfacilisdefinitio)hadbeenhisobjectfromtheoutset(§2,adinit.),anditwasinfactinordertoobtainitthatheentereduponthedefense,whichfillsthefirstsections,ofthetermandconceptionof"Person"asappliedtothedistinctions intheGodhead.Reverting to itafter thisdefense,hecarefullydefines (§ 6)what hemeans by "Person" in this connection,viz.,"asubsistenceintheDivineessence,which,relatedtotheothers,isyetdistinguishedbyanincommunicableproperty."Whathehastoprove,therefore, he conceives to be that in the unity of the Godhead there issuchadistinctionofpersons;or,ashephrasesit,inastatementderivedfromTertullian, that "there is inGoda certaindispositionor economy,whichmakesnodifference,however, totheunityof theessence";or,ashe puts it himself a little later on (§ 20, ad init.), that "there isunderstood under the name of God, a unitary and simple essence, inwhichwecomprise threepersonsorhypostases." Inorder toprove thisdoctrine,itwouldbenecessarytoprovethatwhileGodisone,therearethree persons who are God, and Calvin undertakes the proof on thatunderstanding.Hedoes not pause here, however, to argue theunity ofGodatlength,takingthatforthemomentforgranted,thoughherevertsto it in the sequel to show that the distinction of persons which heconceiveshimselftohaveestablishedinnorespectinfringesonit(§19),andindeedinhispolemicagainstValentinusGentilisveryfullyvindicatesitfromtheobjectionsoftheArianisersandTritheists(§§23sq.).Hisproofresolvesitself,therefore, intotheestablishmentof thedistinctionsintheGodhead;andinordertodothisheundertakestoprovefirstthatthe Son and the Holy Spirit are each God, and then to show that theScriptures explicitly recognize that there is such a distinction in theGodhead as their divinity (taken in connection with the Divine unity)implies.

TheproofofthedeityoftheSonisverycomprehensiveanddetailed,and

isdrawnfromeachTestamentalike.TheWordofGod,bywhich,asGod"spake," Hemade the worlds, it is argued, must be understood of thesubstantialWord,which isalsocalled inProverbs,Wisdom(§7); andmustaccordinglybeunderstoodaseternal. Inconnectionwith this, thewhole scheme of temporal prolation as applied to the Son is sharplyassaulted. It is impious to suppose that anything new can ever havehappened to God in Himself (in se ipso), and there is "nothing lesstolerablethantoinventabeginningforthatWord,whobothwasalwaysGodandafterwardsbecamethemakeroftheworld"(§8).Tothismoregeneralargument isbroughtthesupportofanumberofOldTestamentpassages,which, it is contended, advert to the Sonwithdeclarations ofHisdeity:suchastheForty-fifthPsalm,"Thythrone,OGod, is foreverand ever "; Is. ix. 6, "His Name shall be calledMighty God, Father ofEternity";Jer.xxiii.6,"TheBranchofDavidshallbecalledJehovahourRighteousness" (§ 9). And then the phenomena connected with themanifestationsoftheAngelofJehovahareadducedincorroboration(§10). The New Testament evidence is marshalled under two heads: thedivinenamesareappliedtoChristbytheNewTestamentwriters(§11),anddivineworks and functions are assigned toHim (§§ 12-13).Notonly are Old Testament passages which speak of Jehovah applied toChristintheNewTestament(Is.viii.14,Rom.ix.33;Is.xlv.23,Rom.xiv.10, 11; Ps. lxviii. 18, Eph. iv. 8; Is. vi. l, Jno. xii. 41), but these writersthemselves employ the term "God" in speaking of Christ (Jno. i. 1, 14;Rom.ix.5;ITim.iii.16;IJno.v.20;Actsxx.28;Jno.xx.28),andthelike.AndwhatdivineworkdonottheNewTestamentwriterscreditHimwith,either fromHisown lipsor theirs?TheyrepresentHimashavingbeencoworkerwithGodfromalleternity(Jno.v.17),astheupholderandgovernoroftheworld(Heb.i.3),astheforgiverofiniquities(Mat.ix.6)andthesearcherofhearts(Mat.ix.4).TheynotonlyaccreditHimwithmighty works, but distinguish Him from others who have wroughtmiracles,preciselyby this - theseotherswrought themby thepowerofGod,HebyHisownpower(§13a).TheyrepresentHimasthedispenserofsalvation,thesourceofeternallifeandthefountainofallthatisgood:theypresentHimastheproperobjectofsavingfaithandtrust,andevenofworshipandprayer(§13b).

Thedeity of theSpirit is similarly arguedon the ground of certainOld

Testamentpassages (Genesis i. 2; Is. xlviii. 16)where theSpiritofGodseemstobehypostatized;ofthedivineworksattributedtoHim,suchasubiquitousactivity,regeneration,andthesearchingofthedeepthingsofGodontheonehandandthebestowingofwisdom,speechandallotherblessingsonmenontheother;andfinallyoftheapplicationofthenameGodtoHimintheNewTestamentwritings(e.g., ICor. iii. 16,vi. 19; IICor.vi.16;Actsv.3;xxviii.25;Mat.xii.31).Havingthusestablishedthedeity of the Son and the Spirit, Calvin turns to the passages whichelucidatetheirdeitytousbypresentingtousthedoctrineoftheTrinity.These are all in the New Testament, as was natural (suggests Calvin),because the advent of Christ involved a clearer revelation of God andthereforeafullerknowledgeofthepersonaldistinctionsinHisbeing(§16).ThestressoftheargumenthereislaiduponEph.iv.5inconnectionwithMat.xxviii.19,whichwerealreadyexpoundedatlength,aswehaveseen, in the first edition of the "Institutes," and are here onlystrengthenedandclarifiedbyabetter statement.Asweare initiatedbybaptismintofaithintheoneGodandyetbaptismis inthenameoftheFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit,arguesCalvin,itis"solidlyclear"thattheFather,SonandSpiritarethisoneGod;whenceitisperfectlyobviousthat"therereside(residere)intheessenceofGodthreePersons,inwhomtheoneGod iscognized"(cognoscitur);and"since it remains fixed thatGodisonenotmany,wecanonlyconcludethattheWordandtheSpiritare nothing other than the essence of God itself." The Scriptures,however,heproceeds (§17),nomore thus identifytheSon and SpiritwithGod than theydistinguish them-distinguish,notdivide them.HeappealstosuchpassagesasJno.v.32,viii.16,18,xiv.16,"another";55xv.26, viii. 16, "proceeding," "being sent": but this part of the subject islightly passed over on the ground that the passages already adducedthemselvessufficientlyshowthattheSonpossessesa"distinctproperty"bywhichHe isnot theFather - for, sayshe, "theWord could not havebeenwithGodunlessHehadbeenanotherthantheFather,neithercouldHehavehadHisglorywiththeFather,unlessHewasdistinctfromHim":the distinction noted in which passages it is plain, further, is not onewhichcouldhavebegunattheincarnation,butmustdatefromwhateverpointHemaybethoughttohavebeguntobe"inthebosomoftheFather"(Jno. i. 18). The determination that there is a personal distinctionbetweenFatherandSonandHolySpiritleadsCalvintoinquirewhatthis

distinctioncarrieswithit.HefindsittobeScripturaltosaythat"totheFatherisattributedtheprincipiumagendi,as fountainandsourceofallthings;totheSon,wisdom,counselandtheactualdispensationofthingstobedone;buttotheSpiritisassignedthepowerandefficiency(virtusetefficacia)oftheaction"-thatistosay,ifwemaybepermittedtoreducethedefinitionstosinglewords,theFatherisconceivedastheSource,theSonastheDirector,theSpiritastheExecutorofallthedivineactivities;theFatherastheFountain,theSonastheWisdomemergingfromHim,theSpiritasthePowerbywhichthewisecounselsofGodareeffectuated(§18).56Onlynowwhenthisargument is finishedandhisconclusiondrawn (§ 19) does Calvin pause formally to point out that "thisdistinctioninnowayimpedestheabsolutelysimpleunityofGod"-sincetheconceptionis thatthe"wholenature(natura) is ineachhypostasis,"while"eachhasitsownpropriety.""TheFather,"headds,"istotusintheSon,andtheSontotusintheFather"-asChristHimselfteachesinJno.xiv.10.Wearehere,however,obviouslypassingbeyondtheprooftotheexposition of the Trinity - a topic which occupies some later sections(§§19and20).

It will have already become apparent from the citations incidentallyadduced that in his doctrine of the Trinity Calvin departed in nothingfrom the doctrine which had been handed down from the orthodoxFathers. If distinctions must be drawn, he is unmistakably Westernrather than Eastern in his conception of the doctrine, an Augustinianrather than an Athanasian.57 That is to say, the principle of hisconstruction of the Trinitarian distinctions is equalization rather thansubordination.Hedoes,indeed,stillspeakintheoldlanguageofrefinedsubordinationism which had been fixed in the Church by the Niceneformularies;andheexpresslyallowsan"order"offirst,secondandthirdin the Trinitarian relations. But he conceives more clearly and appliesmore purely than had ever previously been done the principle ofequalizationinhisthoughtoftherelationofthePersonstooneanother,andthereby,aswehavealreadyhinted,marksanepochinthehistoryofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Thathewasenabledtodothiswasaresult,nodoubt, at least in part, of his determination to preserve the highestattainablesimplicityinhisthoughtoftheTrinity.Sweepinghismindfreefromsubtletiesinminormatters,heperceivedwithunwontedluciditythe

main things, and thus was led to insist upon them with a force andclearness of exposition which throw them out into unmistakableemphasis.IfwelookfortheprimecharacteristicsofCalvin'sdoctrineoftheTrinity,accordingly,weshallundoubtedlyfixfirstuponitssimplicity,thenuponitconsequent lucidity,andfinallyuponitseliminationof thelastremnantsofsubordinationism,soastodofulljusticetothedeityofChrist.Simplification, clarification, equalization - these three terms arethenotesofCalvin'sconceptionoftheTrinity.And,ofcourse,itisthelastof these notes which gives above all else its character to hisconstruction.58

Thenoteofsimplificationisstruckat theoutsetof thediscussionwhenCalvinannouncesitashisintentiontoseek"ashortandeasydefinitionwhichshallpreserveusfromallerror"(I.xiii.2,adinit.).Whattheshortandeasydefinitionwhichhehadinmindincludedissuggestedwhenhetellsuslater(20)that"whenweprofesstobelieveinoneGod,underthenameofGodistobeunderstoodthesingleandsimpleessenceinwhichwecomprehendthreepersonsorhypostases."He accordingly expressespleasure in thedefinitionofTertullian,whenproperly understood, that"there is inGod a certain disposition or economy, which in no respectderogatesfromtheunityoftheessence"(6,adfin.);andfranklydeclaresthatforhimthewholesubstanceofthedoctrineisincludedinthesimplestatement"thattheFatherandtheSonandtheSpiritareoneGod;andyet neither is the Son the Father nor the Spirit the Son, but they aredistinctbyacertainproperty"(5).Similarsimpleformsofstatementarethicklyscatteredthroughthediscussion."GodsopredicatesHimselftobeone," he says at its outset, "that He propones Himself to be distinctlyconsideredinthreePersons"(2,adinit.)."TheretrulysubsistintheoneGod, orwhat is the same thing, in theunity ofGod," he says again, "atrinity of Persons" (4, ad fin.). "There are three proprietates in God "(ibid.). "In the one essence of God, there is a Trinity of Persons," andtheseare"consubstantial" (5,ad fin.)."In thedivineessence thereexistthreePersons,inwhomtheoneGodiscognized"(16)."ThereisaTrinityofPersonscontainedintheoneGod,notatrinityofGods"(25).Itisquiteclear,not only fromthe frequencywithwhichhe lapses into suchbriefformulas,butalsofromthedistinctnesswithwhichhedeclaresthattheycontainallthatisessentialtothedoctrineoftheTrinity(e.g.,§5),that

inCalvin'shabitualthoughtoftheTrinityitlaysummedupinhismindinthesesimplefacts:thereisbutoneGod;theFather,theSon,theSpiritiseachthisoneGod,theentiredivineessencebeingineach;thesethreearethree Persons, distinguished one from another by an incommunicableproperty.59

Calvin'smaininterestamongtheelementsofthissimpledoctrineoftheTrinityobviouslylayinhisprofoundsenseoftheconsubstantialityofthePersons.Whatever theFather isasGod, that theSonandtheSpiritarealso.TheSon - and,of course, also theSpirit - contains inHimself thewhole essence of God, not part of it only nor by deflection, but incompleteperfection(§2).WhattheFatheris,reappearsthereforeinitstotality(setotum)intheSonandintheSpirit.Thisisamerecorollaryoftheir community in the numerically one essence. If the "entire nature"(totanatura,§19) is included in each, itnecessarily carrieswith it allthe qualities by which it is made this particular nature which we calldivine. Calvin is accordingly never weary of asserting that every divineattribute,intheheightofitsmeaning,ismanifestedasfullyintheSon-and,ofcourse,alsointheSpirit-asintheFather.Inthisindeedlayforhimtheverynerveof thedoctrineof theTrinity.And in it,consistentlycarried out, lies the contribution which he made to the clearapprehension and formulation of that doctrine. For, strange as it mayseem,theologiansatlargehadbeenaccustomedtoapplytheprincipleofconsubstantiality to the Persons of the Trinity up to Calvin's vigorousassertionofit,withsomeatleastapparentreserves.Andwhenheapplieditwithoutreserve it struckmanyasastartlingnovelty ifnotahereticalpravity. The reason why the consubstantiality of the Persons of theTrinity, despite its establishment in the Arian controversy and itsincorporation in the Nicene formulary as the very hinge of orthodoxy,wassolongincomingfullytoitsrightsinthegeneralapprehensionwasno doubt that Nicene orthodoxy preserved in its modes of stating thedoctrine of the Trinity some remnants of the conceptions andphraseology proper to the older prolationism of the Logos Christology,and these, although rendered innocuous by the explanations of theNiceneFathersandpracticallyantiquatedsinceAugustine,stillheldtheirplace formally and more or less conditioned the thought of men -especially those who held the doctrine of the Trinity in amore or less

traditionalmanner. The consequence was that when Calvin taught thedoctrineinitspurityandfreefromtheleavenofsubordinationismwhichstill found a lurking place in current thought and speech, he seemedviolently revolutionary to men trained in the old forms of speech andimbuedwiththeoldmodesofconception,andcalledoutreprobationinthemostunexpectedquarters.

Particular occasion of offense was given by Calvin's ascription of "self-existence" (aseity, auvtoousi,a) to the Son, and the consequentdesignation of Him by the term auvto,qeoj. This term, which becamefamous in later controversy as designating Calvin's doctrine of Christ,seems,however,tohavecomeforwardonlyinthelatestyearsofhislife,in the dispute with Valentinus Gentilis (1558, 1561); and indeed to beratherGentilis' word than Calvin's. Calvin, indeed, does not appear tohavehimselfemployedit,butonlytohavereclaimeditforChrist(andtheSpirit)whenGentilisassertedthatitwasexclusivelyGodtheFatherwhocouldbe sodesignated. "TheFather alone," saidGentilis, "isauvto,qeoj,that is, essentiated by no superior divinity; but is God a se ipso"; "thelo,goj of God is not that oneauvto,qeojwhoselo,goj it is; neither is theSpiritofGodthatimmenseandeternalSpiritwhoseSpirititis."60Suchassertions,declaresCalvin,areagainstallScripture,whichmakesChristveryGod:for"whatismorepropertoGodthantoexist(vivere),andwhatelse isauvtoousi,athanthis?"61But the thing representedby the term -"self-existence" - Calvin asserts of Christ from the beginning of hisactivityasaChristianteacher.ItdoesnotseemtobeexplicitlydeclaredofChrist that He is self-existent, indeed, in the first edition of the"Institutes"(1536), although it is already implied there too, not only inthegeneralvigorwithwhichtheabsolutedeityofChristisassertedwithall itsimplications,butalsointheidentificationofChristwithJehovah,whichwastoCalvintheespecialvehicleofhisrepresentationofHimasthe self-existent God. "That name which the Jews call ineffable isattributedtotheSoninJeremiah"(Jer.xxiii.33),62healreadyheretellsus.Inthespringof thefollowingyear,"63however,at thecouncilsheldwithinafewdaysofoneanotherrespectivelyatLausanneandBern,ourLord's self-existence was fairly enunciated in so many words in thestatement of his faith which Calvinmade in rebuttal of the charges ofCaroli. He begins with a very clear exposition of the doctrine of the

Trinity, and then comes to speak of what peculiarly concerns Christ,advertingespecially toHistwonatures. "For,"hecontinues, "beforeHeassumed flesh He was the eternal Word itself, begotten by the Fatherbeforetheages,veryGod,ofoneessence,power,majestywiththeFather,andindeedJehovahHimself,whohasalwayshad itofHimself thatHeshouldbeandhasinspiredthepowerofsubsistinginothers."64Caroliatonce seized upon this declaration, and complained that therein "Christwas set forth as Jehovah, as if He had His essence of Himself (a seipso)."65Fromthisbeginningrosethecontroversy.Forinthisoneofhis"calumnies" Caroli found some following, and Calvin was worried bypetty attacks upon this element of his teaching through a series ofyears.66

Calvin apparently was somewhat astonished by the pother which wasraisedoveranassertionwhichseemedtohimnotonlyaverynaturalonetomake, but also a verynecessary one tomake if the truedeity of ourLordistobedefended.HecallsthisparticularoneofCaroli'sassaultsthe"most atrocious" of all his calumnies, andhe betrays some irritation attherepetitionofitbyothers.Oneeffectofitwas,however,tomakehimsee that, although itmight seem to him amatter of course to speak ofChristastheself-existentGod,itwasnotamatterwhichcouldbetakenforgranted,butneededassertionanddefense.Heinserted,therefore,inthe "Institutes" of 1539 (second edition) a clear declaration on thesubject, which, with only the adduction of some additional supportchieflydrawnfromAugustine(inserted in1543and1559),wasretainedthroughout the subsequent editions. "oreover," says he in this passage,"theabsolutelysimpleunityofGodissofarfrombeingimpededbythisdistinction,thatitratheraffordsaproofthattheSonisoneGodwiththeFather,becauseHepossesses one and the sameSpiritwithHim:whilethe Spirit is not another Being diverse from the Father and the Son,because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For in eachhypostasis the whole nature is understood, along with that which ispresenttoeachoneasHispropriety.TheFatherisasawhole(totus)intheSon,theSonasawholeintheFather,asHeHimselfalsoasserts:'Iinthe Father and the Father in me'; and that one is not separated fromanother by any difference of essence is conceded by the ecclesiasticalwriters.67 By this understanding the opinions of the fathers are to be

conciliated, which otherwise would seem altogether at odds with oneanother.FortheyteachnowthattheFatheristheprincipiumoftheSon;and now they assert that the Son has from Himself (a se ipso) bothdivinityandessence.68When,however, theSabelliansraiseacavil thatGodiscallednowFather,nowSon,nowSpirit,innowaydifferentlyfromHisbeingnamedbothstrongandgoodandwiseandmerciful,theymayeasily be refuted from this, - that these manifestly are epithets whichshowwhatGod iswithrespect tous,while theothersarenameswhichdeclarewhatHeisreallywithrespecttoHimself.NeitheroughtanyonetobemovedtoconfoundtheSpiritwiththeFatherandtheSon,becauseGodannouncesHimselfasawholetobeaSpirit(Jno.iv.24).ForthereisnoreasonwhythewholeessenceofGodshouldnotbespiritual,andinthatessencetheFather,SonandSpiritbecomprehended.AndthisverythingismadeclearbytheScriptures.ForaswehearGodcalledaSpiritinthem,soalsoweheartheHolySpiritspokenof,andthatbothasGod'sSpiritandasfromGod."69

Calvin was not permitted, however, to content himself with this briefpositivedeclaration.Arunningfirewaskeptupuponhisassertionofself-existence for Christ by two pastors of Neuchâtel and its neighboringcountry,JeanChaponneau(Capunculus)andJeanCourtois(Cortesius)-the latter of whom hadmarried the daughter of Chaponneau'swife.70Calvin was disposed at first to treat their criticism lightly, but wasultimately driven to give it serious attention.Writing to theNeuchâtelministersregardingcertainarticleswhichCourtoishaddrawnup-withthehelp,aswasunderstood,ofChaponneau-Calvinremarksthatheseesno reason for supposing them directed as awhole against him.One ofthem,however,herecognizesashavinghiminview-thatoneinwhich,"as from a tripod," the writer pronounces heretics those who say that"Christ, asHe isGod, is a se ipso." "Theanswer,"hedeclares, "is easy.First let him tellmewhether Christ is true and perfectGod.Unless hewishestoparcelouttheessenceofGod,hemustconfessthatthewholeofit is inChrist. AndPaul'swords are express: that 'inHimdwelleth thefulnessoftheGodhead.'AgainIask,'IsthatfulnessoftheGodheadfromHimselforfromsomeothersource?'ButhewillobjectthattheSonisofthe Father. Who denies it? That I, for one, have not only alwaysacknowledged, but even proclaimed. But this is where these donkeys

deceivethemselves:becausetheydonotconsiderthatthenameofSonisspoken of the Person, and therefore is included in the predicament ofrelation, which relation has no place where we are speaking simply(simpliciter)ofthedivinityofChrist."71InsupportofthisdistinctionhethenquotesAugustine, andproceeds to cite Cyril on themain point atissue - passages towhichwe shall revert in the sequel. This letter waswritten at the end of May, 1543, and later in the year we find Calvinholding a conference with Courtois, the course of which he reports totheNeuchâtel ministers in a letter written in November.72 Courtoiswent away, however, still unconvinced, and Calvin found himselfcompelled not many months later (opening of 1545) to write totheNeuchâtelpastorsagainatlengthonthesubject,underconsiderableirritation.73 "This," he here declares, "is the state of the controversy(statuscontroversiae):WhetheritmaybetrulypredicatedofChrist,thatHeis,asHeisGod,aseipso?ThisCapunculusdenies.Why?BecausethenameofChristdesignatestheSecondPersonintheGodhead,whostandsinrelationtotheFather.IconfessthatifrespectbehadtothePerson,weoughtnotsotospeak.ButIsaywearenotspeakingofthePersonbutofthe essence. I hold that theHoly Spirit is the real (idoneum= proper)author of this manner of speaking, since He refers to Christ all thedeclarations in which auvtoousi,a is predicated of God, as in otherpassages, so in the first chapter of the Epistle to theHebrews. . . . He[Capunculus]contendsthatChrist,becauseHeisofthesubstanceoftheFather, isnotase ipso,sinceHehasaprincipiumfromanother.This IallowtohimofthePerson.Whatmoredoeshewant?. . .IconfessthattheSonofGodisoftheFather.Accordingly,sincethePersonhasacause(ratio),IconfessthatHeisnotaseipso.Butwhenwearespeaking,apartfromconsiderationofthePerson,ofHisdivinityorsimplyoftheessence,whichisthesamething,IsaythatitisrightlypredicatedofHimthatHeis a se ipso. For who, heretofore, has denied that under the name ofJehovah,thereisincludedthedeclarationofauvtoousi,a?..."

Itwas,however, inhis"DefenseAgainsttheCalumniesofPeterCaroli,"whichwas sentout in 1545 in reply toanew"libel"put forthbyCaroliearly that year,74 that Calvin speaks most at large on this subject,gathering up into this one defense, indeed, all themodes of statementandformsofargumenthehadhithertoworkedout.HeregardsCaroli's

strictures upon his assertion of Christ's self-existence as the mostatrocious of all his calumnies, and prefixes to his discussion of them acitationofhisownexplanationofthematter,whichhecallsa"briefandnakedexplication."This runsas follows: "Whenwe are speaking of thedivinity of Christ all that is proper to God is rightly ascribed to Him,because respect is there had to the Divine essence and no question israisedastothedistinctionwhichexistsbetweentheFatherandtheSon.In this sense it is true to say that Christ is the One and Eternal God,existingofHimself(aseipsoexistentem).Norcanitbeobjectedtothisstatement-whatcertainlyisalsotaughtbytheecclesiasticalwriters-thattheWordorSonofGodisoftheFather(aPatre),evenwithrespecttoHiseternal essence; since there is a notation of Persons, when there iscommemoratedadistinctionoftheSonfromtheFather.ButwhatIhavebeenspeakingofisthedivinity,inwhichisembracednotlesstheFatherandtheSpiritthantheSon.SoCyril,whoisoftenwonttocalltheFathertheprincipiumof theSon,holds it in thehighestdegreeabsurd for theSonnottobebelievedtohavelifeandimmortalityofHimself(aseipso).He also teaches that if it is proper to the ineffable nature to be self-existent (ase ipsa), this is rightlyascribedto theSon.Andmoreover inthetenthbookofhisThesaurus,hearguesthattheFatherhasnothingofHimself(aseipso)whichtheSondoesnothaveofHimself(aseipso)."75Fromthisbeginning,heproceedstoelucidatethewholesubject,drawingfreely upon all that he had previously written upon it. The note of thediscussionisgiveninthewords:"Iassertbothtruths-boththatChristisoftheFatherasHeisthesecondPerson,andthatHeisofHimself(aseipso) if we have respect to the Divine essence simpliciter"76 - adeclarationwhichhe supports from theFathers,particularlyAugustine,thus:"SimilarlyAugustine(Sermo38'detempore'):'Thosenameswhichsignifythesubstance...oressenceofGod,orwhateverGodissaidtobein Himself (ad se), belong equally to all the Persons. There is not,therefore,anynameofnaturewhichcansobelong to theFather that itmaynotbelongalsototheSon,orHolySpirit.'"Thewholeisbroughttoaconclusion by a passage the substance of which we have already hadbefore us, but which seems worth quoting again that its force may beappreciated in its new setting: "I confess that if respect be had to thePersonwe ought not so to speak, but I saywe are not speaking of thePersonbutoftheessence.IholdthattheHolySpiritistherealauthorof

thismannerofspeaking,sinceHereferstoChristallthedeclarationsinwhichauvtoousi,a is predicated ofGod, aswell in otherpassages, as inthe first chapter of the Epistle to theHebrews. . . . They contend thatChrist,becauseHeisof(ex)thesubstanceoftheFather,isnotofHimself(a se ipso), sinceHe hasHis principium from another. This I allow tothemof thePerson.Whatmoredo they ask? I acknowledge, then, thattheSonofGodisoftheFather,andwhenwearespeakingofthePersonIacknowledge that He is not of Himself. But when, apart fromconsiderationofthePerson,wearespeakingofHisdivinity,orwhichisthesamethingsimpliciteroftheessence,Isaythatitistrulypredicatedofitthatitisaseipso.ForwhohithertohasdeniedofthenameJehovah,that it includes thedeclarationof auvtoousi,a?When, then, they objectthat theSon isof theFather, that Inotonlywillinglyacknowledge,buthaveevencontinuallyproclaimed.Buthereiswherethesedonkeysareinerror - that theydonot consider that thenameofSon is spokenof thePerson,and is therefore contained in thepredicationof relation;whichrelationhasnoplacewhenwearetalkingofChrist'sdivinitysimpliciter.AndAugustine discourses eloquently on this matter " . . . quoting thepassagesfromAugustinetowhichwehavealreadymadereference.77

That Calvin let the paragraph he had prepared on this subject for thesecond edition of his "Institutes" (1539) stand practically unchanged -strengthenedonlybyacoupleofpassagescitedfromAugustine- intheeditionsof1543and1550,maybetakenas indicationthathesupposedthatwhathehadbroughttogetherinhis"DefenseAgainsttheCalumniesof Caroli" (1545), incorporating as it does the essence of formerexpositions anddefenses,was a sufficient expositionof the subject anddefenseofhispointof view. In themeantime,however, the troubles intheItalianchurchinGenevahadbrokenout,culminatingafterawhileinthecontroversieswithValentinusGentilis(1558),inwhichnewoccasionwas given for asserting the self-existence of Christ, and this brought itabout that something more on this subject was incorporated into the"Institutes"of 1559.Thepositive statementwas left, indeed,muchas ithadbeengiven form in the "Institutes"of 1539 (§19):but in the longdefenseof thedoctrineof theTrinityagainstGentilisandhiscongenerswith which the discussion of the doctrine closes in this edition muchmore is added on the self-existence of Christ. As over against these

opponentstheespecialpointinthedoctrineoftheTrinitywhichrequireddefense was the true deity of the second and third Persons. On thisdefenseCalvinenteredconamore,forheevershowedhimself,ashehadhimselfexpressedit,a"detesterassacrilegiousofallwhohavesoughttooverturn or to minimise or to obscure the truth of the divine majestywhichisinChrist."78TheGodwhomIsaiahsawintheTemple(vi.1),hesays,John(xii.41)declarestohavebeenChrist;theGodwhomthesameIsaiah declares shall be a rock of offense to the Jews (viii. 14) PaulpronouncestobeChrist(Rom.ix.33);theGodtowhomthesameIsaiahasserts everyknee shall bow (xlv. 23),Paul tellsus isChrist (Rom. xiv.11); theGodwhom thePsalmist proclaims as laying the foundations ofthe earth and whom all angels shall worship (Ps. cii. 25, xcvii. 7) theEpistle to theHebrews identifieswith Christ (i. 6, 10).Now, continuesCalvin, ineveryoneofthesepassagesit isthename"Jehovah"whichisused,andthatcarrieswith it theself-existenceofChristwithrespecttoHisdeity.79"ForifHeisJehovah,itcannotbedeniedthatHeisthesameGodwhoelsewherecriesthroughIsaiah(xliv.6),'I,Iam,andbesidesmethere is no God.' We must also weigh," he adds, "that declaration ofJeremiah(x.11):'thegodswhichhavenotmadetheheavenandtheearthshall perish from the earthwhich is under heaven'; while on the otherhanditmust be acknowledged that it is the Son ofGodwhose deity isoftenprovedbyIsaiahfromthecreationoftheworld.Buthowshall theCreatorwhogivesbeingtoallthingsnotbeself-existent(exseipso)butderiveHisessencefromanother?ForwhoeversaystheSonisessentiatedbytheFather,deniesthatHeisofHimself(aseipso).ButtheHolySpiritcriesoutagainstthisbynamingHimJehovah.""Thedeity,therefore,weaffirm,"hesaysalittlelater,80"tobeabsolutelyself-existent(exseipsa).WhenceweacknowledgetheSon,too,asHeisGod,tobeself-existent(exseipso),whenreferencetoHisPersonisnotpresent:while,asHeisSon,wesayHeisof theFather.Thus theessence iswithoutprincipium;buttheprincipiumofthePersonisGodHimself."

Itdoesnotseemnecessary,however,tomultiplycitations.Enoughhavealreadybeenadduced,doubtless,toillustratetheclearness,iteranceandemphasis with which Calvin asserted the self-existence of Christ asessential to His complete deity; and at least to suggest his mode ofconceivingtheTrinity inaccordancewiththisemphasisontheabsolute

equality,orrather,letussay,identityofthethreePersonsoftheGodheadintheirdeity.Hisconceptioninvolved,ofcourse,astronglyemphasizeddistinctionbetweentheessenceandthePersonality.InessencethethreePersons are numerically one: the whole essence belongs to eachPerson:81thewholeessence,ofcourse,withallitsproperties,whichareonly its peculiarities as an essence and are inseparable from it justbecause they are not other substances but only qualities. In person,however, the three Persons are numerically three, and are as distinctfrom one another as the distinguishing qualities by which one is theFather, another the Son and the third the Spirit. In these facts Calvinfoundtheessenceof thedoctrineof theTrinity,andinaccordancewithhisprofessedpurposetofindabriefandeasydefinitionoftheTrinitywemaysaythatinthesefactsaresummedupallheheldtobenecessarytoadoctrineoftheTrinity.

NeverthelessCalvin'sconceptionof theTrinity, ifwecannotexactly saynecessarily included, yet in point of fact included, more than this. Itincludedthe postulation of an "order" in thePersons of the Trinity, bywhich the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. And itincludedadoctrineofgenerationandprocessionbyvirtueofwhich theSonasSonderivesfromtheFather,andtheSpiritasSpiritderivesfromthe Father and the Son. Perhaps this aspect of his conception of theTrinity is nowheremore succinctly expressed than in a passage in theeighteenthsectionof thischapter(xiii.).Hereheexplicitlydeclaresthat"althoughtheeternityof theFather is theeternityof theSonandSpiritalso,sinceGodcouldneverbewithoutHisWisdomandPower,-andineternitythereisnoquestionoffirstandlast-itisneverthelessnotvainorsuperfluoustoobserveanorder[inthethreePersons],sincetheFatherisenumeratedasthefirst,nexttheSonexeo,andafterwardstheSpiritexutroque.Foreveryone'smindinstinctivelyinclinestoconsiderGodfirst,thentheWisdomemergingfromHim,andfinallythePowerbywhichHeexecutes the decrees ofHis counsel. For this reason the Son is said tocomeforth(exsistere)fromtheFather(aPatre),theSpiritalikefromtheFatherandtheSon."Theintimationswhichareherebroughttogetherareoften repeated. Thus, for example: "For since the properties in thePersonsbearanorder,sothatintheFatheristheprincipiumetorigo...theratioordinisisheld,which,however,innorespectderogatesfromthe

deityoftheSonandSpirit"(§20).Again:"ButfromtheScripturesweteachthatessentialiterthereisbutoneGod,andthereforetheessenceaswellof theSonasof theSpirit isunbegotten(ingenitam).Yet inasmuchas (quatenus) the Father is first in order and has begotten His ownWisdom ex se, He is justly (as we have just said) considered theprincipium et fons of the whole divinity" (§ 25). Again, although he"pronouncesitadetestablefigmentthattheessenceisthepropertyoftheFather alone as if He were the deificator of the Son," he yet"acknowledgesthatrationeordinisetgradus,theprincipiumdivinitatisisintheFather"(§24)."TheFatheristhefountainofthedeity,notwithrespectoftheessence,buttheorder"(§26).AndbecausetheFatheristhus the fons et principiumdeitatis (§ 23) fromwhom (ex eo, § 18)therehavecomeforth(exsistere,§18)theSonandafterwardsfromtheSonalongwiththeFathertheSpirit(§18,exutroque),thereisinvolvedhereadoctrineofaneternalgenerationoftheSonandprocessionoftheSpirit.Botharerepeatedlyasserted.OftheSon,forexample,weread:"Itis necessary to understand that the Word was begotten of the Father(genitum ex Patre) before time (ante saecula)" (§ 7); "we concludeagain, therefore, that the Word, before the beginning of time, wasconceived(conceptum)byGod" (§8); "He is theSonofGod, becauseHe is theWordbegottenof theFather (genitusaPatre)beforetheages(saecula)"(§23);"HeiscalledtheSonofGod,...inasmuchasHewasbegottenof theFather (genitusexPatre)before theages (saecula)" (§24).82

Although such passages, however - and they are very numerous, orwemayperhapsbettersay,pervasive, inCalvin'sdiscussionoftheTrinity-makeitperfectlyplainthathetaughtadoctrineoforderandgradeinthePersonsoftheTrinity,involvingadoctrineofthederivation-andthat,ofcourse,beforealltime-ofthesecondandthirdPersonsfromthefirstasthe fountain and origin of deity, it is important for a correctunderstandingofhisconceptionthatweshouldattendtothedistinctionsbywhichhe guardedhismeaning.Of course, hedidnot teach that theessenceof theSonorof theSpirit is theproductof their generationorprocession. Ithadbeentraditional in theChurch fromthebeginningofthe Trinitarian controversies to explain that generation and processionconcernedonly thePersonsof theSonandSpirit;83andCalvinavailed

himselfofthistraditionalunderstanding."Theessence,aswelloftheSonasof theSpirit, isunbegotten(ingenitam)"(§25). "Theessenceof theSonhasnoprincipium,butGodHimselfistheprincipiumofHisPerson"(§25).Thematterdoesnotrequireelaborationhere,bothbecausethisisobviouslythenaturalviewforCalvintopresentandhencegoeswithoutsaying, and because his mode of presenting and arguing it has beensufficiently illustrated in passages already cited.84 There is anotherdistinction he appears to have made, however, which is not so clear.AlthoughhetaughtthattheSonwasbegottenoftheFather,andofcoursebegottenbeforealltime,oraswesayfromalleternity,heseemstohavedrawnbackfromthedoctrineof"eternalgeneration"asitwasexpoundedby the Nicene Fathers. They were accustomed to explain "eternalgeneration" (in accordance with its very nature as "eternal "), not assomethingwhichhasoccurredonce forall at somepointof time in thepast - however far back in thepast -but as somethingwhich is alwaysoccurring, a perpetual movement of the divine essence from the firstPersontothesecond,alwayscomplete,nevercompleted.85Calvinseemstohavefoundthisconceptiondifficult,ifnotmeaningless.Intheclosingwords of the discussion of the Trinity in the "Institutes" (I, xiii. 29, adfin.) he classes it among the speculations which impose unnecessaryburdens on the mind. "For what is the profit," he asks, "of disputingwhether theFather alwaysgenerates (semper generet), seeing that it isfatuous to imagine a continuous act of generating (continuus actusgenerandi)when it is evident that threePersonshave subsisted inGodfrometernity?"Hismeaningappearstobethattheactofgenerationmusthave been completed from all eternity, since its product has existedcompletefromalleternity,andtherefore it ismeaninglesstospeakof itas continually proceeding. If this is the meaning of his remark, it is adefiniterejection of theNicene speculation of "eternal generation."Butthisisveryfarfromsayingthatit isarejectionoftheNiceneCreed-orevenof the assertion in thisCreed to the effect that theSon is "GodofGod." We have just seen that Calvin explicitly teaches the "eternalgeneration"oftheSon, inthesensethatHewasbegottenbytheFatherbefore all time. Itmanifestlywas amatter of fixed beliefwith him.Hedoesindeedrefusetofindprooftextsforitinmanyofthepassageswhichit had been the custom to cite in evidence of it.86 But he does notthereforefeelthathelacksadequateproofofit.Thereisoneargumentfor

it,hetellsus,whichseemstohimworthathousanddistortedtexts."ItiscertainthatGodisnotaFathertomenexceptthroughtheintercessionofthat only begotten Son, who alone rightly vindicates to Himself thisprerogative, andbywhosebeneficence itderives to us.ButGod alwayswishedtobecalleduponbyHispeoplebyHisnameofFather:whenceitfollows that therewasalready then inexistence theSon throughwhomthatrelationshipwasestablished."87ThattheSonis"GodofGod"he istherefore as fully convinced as the Nicene Fathers themselves. When,then,hecriticisestheformulasoftheNiceneCreed,"GodofGod,LightofLight,veryGodofveryGod,"asrepetitious,thisisacriticismoftheform,notofthecontentofthisstatement.88Andwhenhespeaksofthe"DeusdeDeo"of theCreedasa "hardsaying"(dura locutio),hebynomeansdeniesthatitis"trueanduseful,"inthesenseitsframersputonit,inthesense, that is, that the Son has His principium merely as Son in theFather, but onlymeans that the form of the statement is inexact - theterm"Deus"requiringtobetakenineachcaseofitsoccurrenceinanon-naturalpersonalsense-andthat,beinginexact,itisliabletobemisusedin the interests of a created God, in the sense of Gentilis, and mustthereforebecarefullyexplained.89Hispositionis,inaword,thatofonewho affirms the eternal generation of the Son, but who rejects thespeculationsoftheNiceneFathersrespectingthenatureoftheactwhichtheycalled"eternalgeneration."Itisenough,hesaysineffect,tobelievethattheSonderivesfromtheFather,theSpiritfromtheFatherandtheSon,withoutencumberingourselveswithaspeculationuponthenatureoftheeternallygeneratingacttowhichthesehypostasesarereferred.Itisinteresting to observe that Calvin's attitude upon these matters isprecisely repeated by Dr. Charles Hodge in his discussion in his"SystematicTheology."90ItseemstobeexactlyCalvin'spointofviewtowhichDr.Hodgegivesexpressionwhenhewrites:"AdistinctionmustbemadebetweentheNiceneCreed(asamplifiedinthatofConstantinople)andthedoctrineoftheNiceneFathers.Thecreedsarenothingmorethanthewell-orderedarrangementofthefactsofScripturewhichconcernthedoctrineoftheTrinity.TheyassertthedistinctpersonalityoftheFather,SonandSpirit; theirmutual relationasexpressedby these terms;theirabsoluteunity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfectequality;andthesubordinationoftheSontotheFather,andoftheSpirittotheFatherandtheSon,astothemodeofsubsistenceandoperation.

TheseareScriptural facts, towhich thecreeds inquestionaddnothing;and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the ChurchUniversal. But the Nicene Fathers did undertake in a greater or lessdegreetoexplainthesefacts.TheseexplanationsrelateprincipallytothesubordinationoftheSonandSpirittotheFather,andtowhatismeantbygeneration, or the relation between the Father and the Son. . . . As inreference to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, asassertedintheancientcreeds,itisnottothefactthatexceptionistaken,but to the explanation of that fact, as given by theNicene Fathers, thesameistruewithregardtothedoctrineofEternalGeneration."

The circumstance that Dr. Charles Hodge, writing three centuriesafterwards (1559-1871), reproduces precisely Calvin's position mayintimate to us something of the historical significance of Calvin'sdiscussionoftheTrinity.ClearlyCalvin'spositiondidnotseemamatterofcourse,whenhefirstenunciatedit.Itrousedoppositionandcreatedaparty.Butitdidcreateaparty:andthatpartywasshortlytheReformedChurches,ofwhichitbecamecharacteristicthattheyheldandtaughttheself-existenceofChristasGodanddefendedthereforetheapplicationtoHimofthetermauvto,qeoj; that is tosay, inthedoctrineof theTrinitytheylaidthestressupontheequalityofthePersonssharinginthesameessence,andthusset themselveswithmoreor lessabsolutenessagainstallsubordinationismintheexplanationoftherelationsofthePersonstoone another.WhenCalvin asserted,with the emphasis which he threwuponit,theself-existenceofChrist,heunavoidablydidthreethings.Firstandforemost,hedeclaredthefullandperfectdeityofourLord,intermswhich could not be mistaken and could not be explained away. Thetermauvto,qeoj served the same purpose in this regard that the termo`moou,sioj had served against the Arians and the term u`po,stasijagainst theSabellians.Nominimizing conception of the deity of Christcould live in the face of the assertion of aseity or auvtoqeo,thj of Him.ThiswasCalvin'spurpose inassertingaseityofChristanditcompletelyfulfilled itself in the event. In thus fulfilling itself, however, two furthereffectswereunavoidablywroughtby it.The inexpugnableoppositionofsubordinationistsofalltypeswasincurred:allwhowereforanyreasonorin any degree unable or unwilling to allow to Christ a deity in everyrespect equal to that of the Father were necessarily offended by the

vindicationtoHimoftheultimateDivinequalityofself-existence.Andallthose who, while prepared to allow true deity to Christ, yet wereaccustomed to think of the Trinitarian relations along the lines of thetraditionalNiceneorthodoxy,withitsassertionofacertainsubordinationoftheSontotheFather,atleastinmodeofsubsistence,werethrownintomore or less confusion of mind and compelled to resort to nicedistinctions in order to reconcile the two apparently contradictoryconfessionsofauvtoqeo,thj andofqeo.j evkqeou/of ourLord. It is notsurprising,then,thatthecontroversyrousedbyCaroliandcarriedonbyChaponneau and Courtois did not die out with their refutation; butprolongeditselfthroughtheyearsandhasindeedcomedowneventoourownday.Calvin'sso-called innovationwithregardtotheTrinityhas, inpointoffact,beenmadetheobjectofattackthroughthreecenturies,notonlybyUnitariansofalltypes,noronlybyprofessedSubordinationists,but also byAthanasians, puzzled to adjust their confession ofChrist as"GodofGod,LightofLight,veryGodofveryGod"totheatleastverballycontradictoryassertion that in respectofHisdeityHe isnotofanotherbutofHimself.

TheattackhasbeenespeciallysharpnaturallywheretheassailantswerepredisposedtocriticismofCalvinonothergrounds,aswasthecase, forexample,withRomanists, Lutherans and afterwardwithArminians. Aswas to be expected, it is found in its most decisive form among theRomanists,andweareafraidwemustsaywithGomarusthatwiththemit seems to have been urged in the first instance, rather because of adesiretodisparageCalvinandtheCalviniststhaninanydistinctdoctrinalinterest.91 The beginning of the assault seems to have been made byGenebrardus,who"inthefirstbookofhistreatiseontheTrinity,refuteswhathe calls theheresyof thosedenominatedAutotheanites, that is ofthosewhosaythatChristisGodofHimself(aseipso),notoftheFather,attributingthisheresytoCalvinandBezaandinthePrefacetohiswork[mistakenly]surmisingthatFrancisStancaruswastheoriginatorofit."92Thewaythusopened,however,waslargelyfollowedbythewholecrowdofRomish controversialists, themost notable of whom in the first agewere probably Anthony Possevinus, Alphonsus Salmeron, WilliamLindanus,PeterCanisius,DionysiusPetavius,93allofwhomexhausttheresources of dialectics in the endeavor to fix upon Calvin and his

followersastigmaofheresyinthefundamentaldoctrineoftheTrinity.AmorehonorablecoursewaspursuedbyprobablythetwogreatestRomishtheologians of the time, Gregory of Valentia and Robert Bellarmine.AlthoughinnowaydisinclinedtofinderrorintheteachingofCalvinandtheCalvinists, thesemore cautiouswriters feel compelled to allow thatCalvin inhiszeal todo full justice to thedeityofChristhasnotpassedbeyond Catholic truth, and blame him therefore only for inaccuracy ofphrase. Gregory of Valentia, whom Gomarus calls "the Coryphaeus ofPapaltheologians,"speakingof theerrorof theAutotheanites,remarks:"Genebrardus has attributed this error to Calvin (Inst., I. xiii), but, inpoint of fact, if he be read attentively, it will be seen that he [Calvin]meantmerelythattheSon,asHeisindeedessentiallyGod,isexse,andis ex Patre only as He is a Person: and that is true. For although theFathersandCouncilsassertthatHeisDeusexDeomosttruly,bytakingtheterm[God]personally,sothatitsignifiesthePersonitselfatonceoftheFather andof the Son;94 nevertheless the Son, asHe is essentiallyGod, that is, asHe is that one,most simpleBeingwhich isGod, is notfromanother,becauseassuchHeisanabsolutesomewhat.If thiswereallthatweremeantbytheotherhereticswhoarecalled 'Autotheanites,'therewouldbenooccasionforcontendingwiththem.For itwas inthissense that Epiphanius, Haer. 69, seems to have called the Sonauvtoqeo,j."95Bellarmine'scandorscarcelystretchessofarasGregory's.WhilehetoofeelscompelledtoallowthatCalvin'smeaningiscatholic,heyet very strongly reprobates his mode of stating that meaning anddeclares that it gives fair occasion for the strictures which have beenpasseduponhim."When,"sayshe,"Inarrowlylookintothematteritself,andcarefullyconsiderCalvin'sopinions,Ifinditdifficulttodeclarethathewas inthiserror.Forheteachesthat theSon isofHimself(ase), inrespectofessence,notinrespectofPerson,andseemstowishtosaythatthePersonisbegottenbytheFather[but]theessenceisnotbegottenorproduced, but is of itself (a se ipsa); so that if you abstract from thePersonof theSontherelationtotheFather, theessencealoneremains,andthatisofitself(aseipsa)."ButontheotherhandBellarminethinks"thatCalvinhasundoubtedlyerredinhismannerofexpressinghimself,andgivenoccasiontobespokenofashehasbeenspokenofbyour[theRomish] writers." This judgment is supported by the followingspecifications: "For he [Calvin] says, Inst., I. xiii. 19: 'The ecclesiastical

writersnowteachthattheFatheristheprincipiumoftheSon,nowassertthat the Sonhas bothdivinity and essence ofHimself (a se ipso).' Andbelow this: 'Accordingly,whenwe speak of the Son simpliciterwithoutrespect to the Father, we may well and properly assert that He is ofHimself (a se).' And in the twenty-third section, speaking of the Son,'How,'heasks, 'shall thecreatorwhogivesbeing toall thingsnotbeofHimself (a se ipso), but derive His essence from another?' And in hisletter to the Poles and in his work against Gentilis, Calvin frequentlyassertsthattheSonisauvto,qeoj,thatis,GodofHimself(aseipso),and[declares] the expression in the Creed 'God of God, Light of Light' animproperandhardsaying."96

The gravamen of Bellarmine's charges we see from a later passage (p.334b, near bottom) turns on Calvin's assertion that "the Son has [His]essence from Himself (a se)." This, Bellarmine declares, is to be"repudiated simpliciter," as he undertakes to demonstrate, on thegroundsthatitisrepugnanttoScripture,thedefinitionsoftheCouncils,theteachingoftheFathers,andreasonitself,andaswelltoCalvin'sownopinions;andisnotestablishedbytheargumentswhichCalvinadducesinitsbehalf.InBellarmine'sview,however,insospeakingCalvinmerelyexpressedhimselfbadly:hereallymeantnothingmorethanthattheSonwithrespecttoHisessence,whichisHisastrulyasitistheFather's,isofHimself (a se ipso). He thinks this is proved by the fact that Calvinelsewherespeaksintermswhichinferhisorthodoxyinthepointatissue.HespeaksoftheSon,forexample,asbegottenoftheFather,whichwouldbemeaningless, ifHedoesnot receiveHisnature,oressence, fromtheFather,since"itisnotamererelationwhichiscalledtheSon,butarealsomewhat subsisting in the divine nature," and the Son is "not a merepropriety but an integra hypostasis." He even plainly says in so manywords(I.xiii. 28) that the essence is communicated from theFathertotheSon:"Ifthedifferenceisintheessence,letthemreplywhetherHehasnot shared it (communicaverit) with the Son. . . . It follows that it iswholly and altogether (tota et in solidum) common to the Father andSon." And he does not embrace the errors which would flow fromascribingtotheSonHisessenceofHimself:forexample,heascribesbutasingleessencetothePersonsoftheTrinity,andhedoesnotdistinguishtheessencefromthePersonsrealiterbutonlyratione.

PetaviusdoesnotfinditpossibletofollowBellarmineinthisexculpatingjudgment.Forhispart,hewillinglyadmitsthatCalvinsometimesspeaksinconsistentlywithhimself,buthecannotdoubtthathemeanswhathesays,whenhedeclaresthattheSonhasHisessencenotfromtheFatherbutfromHimself-andthisisathingwhich,sayshe,isnotonlyfalse,butimpioustosay,andcannotbeaffirmedbyanyCatholic.Foritstandstoreason,heargues,thateveryone"hashisessencefromhimbywhomheisbegotten; since generation is just the communication of the nature, -whether,as increatedthings, inkind,or,as inthedivineproductionoftheWord, innumber.It is indeedimpossibletoformanyconceptionofgenerationwithoutthenature,andsomecommunicationoftheessence,occurring to the mind."97 The whole question of Calvin's orthodoxy,between thesewriters, itwillbeseen, turnson their judgmentas tohisattitude towards thedoctrineof "eternalgeneration."Bellarmine judgesthat, on the whole, though he has sometimes expressed himselfinconsistentlywithregardtoit,Calvinsoundlybelievesinthedoctrineof"eternal generation"; and therefore he pronounces him orthodox.Petaviusjudgesthat,thoughhesometimesexpresseshimselfinthetermsofthedoctrineof"eternalgeneration,"Calvindoesnotreallybelieveinit;andthereforehepronounceshimheretical.TobothauthorsalikethetestoforthodoxyliesinconformityofthoughttotheNicenespeculation,andtheycannot conceive of a sounddoctrine of theTrinity apart from thisspeculationandallthenicediscriminationsandadjustmentswhichresultfromit.98AnditcanscarcelybedeniedthatCalvinlaidhimselfopentosuspicion from this point of view. The principle of his doctrine of theTrinitywasnottheconceptionheformedoftherelationoftheSontotheFatherandoftheSpirittotheFatherandSon,expressedrespectivelybythe two terms "generation" and "procession": but the force of hisconviction of the absolute equality of the Persons. The point of viewwhich adjusted everything to the conception of " generation " and "procession " asworked out by theNicene Fatherswas entirely alien tohim. The conception itself he found difficult, if not unthinkable; andalthough he admitted the facts of " generation " and " procession," hetreatedthemasbarefacts,andrefusedtomakethemconstitutiveofthedoctrine of the Trinity. He rather adjusted everything to the absolutedivinityofeachPerson,theircommunityintheoneonlytrueDeity;andto thiswe cannotdoubt thathewas readynot only to subordinate, but

even to sacrifice, if need be, the entire body of Nicene speculations.Moreover,itwouldseematleastverydoubtfulifCalvin,whileheretainedtheconceptionof "generation"and"procession," strongly asserting thattheFather is theprincipiumdivinitatis, that the Sonwas "begotten" byHimbeforeallagesandthattheSpirit"proceeded"fromtheFatherandSon before time began, thought of this begetting and procession asinvolving any communication of essence. His conception was that,becauseitisthePersonoftheFatherwhichbegetsthePersonoftheSon,and the Person of the Spirit which proceeds from the Persons of theFather and Son, it is precisely the distinguishing property of the Sonwhichisthethingbegotten,nottheessencecommontoFatherandSon,andthedistinguishingpropertyoftheSpiritwhichistheproductof theprocession, not the essence which is common to all three persons. Ofcourse,hedidnothold,asBellarminephrasesit,that"theSonisamererelation," "a mere property": the Son was to him too, as a matter ofcourse,"aliquidsubsistensinnaturadivina,""integrahypostasis."Buthedid hold that Sonship is a relation and that the Son differs from theFatheronlybythispropertyofSonshipwhichisexpressedasarelation(I.xiii.6);anditlooksverymuchasifhisthoughtwasthat it isonlyinwhat is expressed by the term Sonship that the second Person of theTrinity is theSonof theFather, or,what comes to the same thing, hasbeenbegotten of theFather.His idea seems tobe that theFather, SonandSpirit are one in essence, anddiffer fromone another only in thatproperty peculiar to each, which, added to the common essence,constitutesthemrespectivelyFather,SonandSpirit;andthattheFatherisFatheronlyasFather,theSon,SononlyasSon,orwhatcomestothesamething,theFatherbegetstheSononlyasSon,orproducesbytheactof generation only that by virtue of which He is the Son, which is, ofcourse,whatconstitutesjustHisSonship.

TheevidenceonwhichBellarminereliesforhisviewthatCalvintaughtacommunication of essence from Father to Son is certainly somewhatslender. If we put to one side Bellarmine's inability to conceive thatCalvincouldreallybelieveinatruegenerationoftheSonbytheFatherwithoutholding that theSonreceivesHisessence fromtheFather,andhis natural presumption that Calvin's associates and pupils accuratelyreproducedtheteachingoftheirmaster-forthereisnodoubtthatBeza

and Simler, for example, understood bygeneration a communication ofessence - the evidence which Bellarmine relies on reduces to a singlepassageinthe"Institutes"(I.xiii.23).Calvinthere,arguingwithGentilis,opposes to the notion that the Father and Son differ in essence, thedeclarationthattheFather"shares"theessencetogetherwiththeSon,sothatitiscommon,totaetinsolidum,totheFatherandtheSon.Itmaybepossible to take the verb "communicate" here in the sense of "impart"ratherthaninthatof"haveincommon,"butitcertainlyisnotnecessaryand it seems scarcely natural; and there is little elsewhere in Calvin'sdiscussion to require it of us. Petavius points out that the sentence isrepeatedinthetractagainstGentilis-butthatcarriesusbutalittleway.It isquite true that there isnothingabsolutely clear to be found to theopposite effect either. But there are several passages which may bethought to suggest a denial that the Son derives His essence from theFather.Preciselywhat ismeant, forexample,whenweare told that theSon "contains in Himself the simple and indivisible essence of God inintegralperfection,notportioneautdeflexu," isnodoubtnot clear:butby deflexu it seems possible that Calvin meant to deny that the Sonpossessedthedivineessencebyimpartationfromanother(I.xiii.2).Itisperhapsequallyquestionablewhatweightshouldbeplacedontheformofthestatement(§20)thattheorderamongthePersonsbywhichtheprincipium and origo is in the Father, is produced (fero) by the"proprieties";oronthesuggestionthatthemoreexactwayofspeakingoftheSonistocallHim"theSonofthePerson"(§23)-theFatherbeingmeant-thetermGodinthephrase"SonofGod"requiringtobetakenofthePersonoftheFather.Whenitisarguedthat"whoeverassertsthattheSon is essentiatedby theFatherdenies thatHe is selfexistent" (§23),and"makesHisdivinityasomethingabstractedfromtheessenceofGod,or a derivation of a part from the whole," the reference to Gentilis'peculiar views of the essentiation of the Son by the Father, i.e., HiscreationbytheFather,seemstoprecludeaconfidentuseofthephraseinthepresentconnection.NordoestheexpositionoftheunbegottennessoftheessenceoftheSonandSpiritaswellasoftheFather,sothatitisonlyasrespectsHisPersonthattheSonisoftheFather(§25)lenditselfanymore certainly to our use. A survey of the material in the "Institutes"leadstotheimpressionthusthatthereissingularlylittletobringustoaconfident decision whether Calvin conceived the essence of God to be

communicatedfromtheFathertotheSonin"generation"andfromtheFatherandSontotheSpiritin"procession."Andoutsidethe"Institutes"the same ambiguity seems to follow us. Ifwe read that Christ has "thefulnessof theGodhead"ofHimself(Opp.xi.560),wereadequally thattheFatherstaughtthattheSonis"oftheFatherevenwithrespecttoHiseternalessence"(vii.322),andisofthesubstanceoftheFather(vii.324).Inthisstateofthecaseopinionsmaylawfullydiffer.Butonthewholeweare inclined to think thatCalvin, althoughperhapsnotalways speakingperfectly consistently, seeks to avoid speaking of generation andprocessionasimportingthecommunicationoftheDivineessence;sothatPetaviusappearstoberightincontendingthatCalvinmeantwhathesayswhenhe represents the Son as "having fromHimself both divinityandessence"(I.xiii.19).

Wehavethoughtitworthwhiletodwellwithsomefulnessonthismatter,because,aswehavesuggestedalready,itispreciselyinthispeculiarityofCalvin's doctrine of the Trinity that the explanation is found of thewidespreadoffensewhichwas takenat it.Menwhosewhole thoughtoftheTrinitylived,movedandhaditsbeingintheideasofgenerationandprocession, that is, in the notion of a perpetual communication of theDivine essence from the Father as the fons deitatis to the Son, who istherebyconstitutedtheSon,and fromtheFatherandSon to theSpirit,whois therebyconstituted theSpirit, couldnotbut feel that theTrinitytheyhadknownandconfessedwastakenawaywhenthisconceptionwasconspicuousonlyby itsabsence,orwasatbestbut remotely suggested,andallthestresswaslaidontheabsoluteequalityoftheFather,SonandHolySpirit.Suchaconceptionof theTrinitywould inevitablyappear tothemtosavorofSabellianismorofTritheism,accordingas theirmindsdweltmoreontheemphasiswhichwaslaiduponthenumericalunityoftheessencecommontoallthePersonsoronthatwhichwaslaiduponthedistinctness of the Persons. Dissatisfaction with Calvin's TrinitarianteachingwasthereforenotconfinedtoRomishcontroversialistsseekinggroundofcomplaintagainsthim,butwasrepeatedinallwhosethoughthad run strictly in the moulds of Nicene speculation. Despite anoccasionaldefenderlikeMeisnerorTarnov,99theLutherantheologians,forexample,generallycondemnedit.Many,likeTilemannHeshusiusandAegidiusHunniusand,later,Stechmannus,hotlyassailedit,andthebest

that couldbehoped for atLutheranhandswas some such firm thoughmoderately worded refusal of it as is found, for example, in JohnGerhard's "Loci Theologici." "The Greek doctors," he tells us,100 "callonlytheFatherauvto,qeojkai.auvtoou,sioj,notbecausethereisagreaterperfection of essence in the Father than in the Son, but becauseHe isavge,nhtojandase ipsoanddoesnothavedeity throughgeneration orspiration.Bucanus,Loc. i,DeDeo,p.6,respondsthus: 'TheSonisaseipsoasHeisGod;fromtheFatherasHeisSon.'ThishegotfromCalvin,who,BookI,c.xiii,§25,writes:'TheSonasHeisGodweconfessisexseipso,consideredapart fromHisPerson,butasHeisSonwesaythatHe is of theFather; thusHis essence iswithoutprincipium,but ofHisPerson God is Himself the principium.' We are not able, however, toapprovethesewords,butconfessratherwiththeNiceneCreedthat 'theSonisbegottenoftheFather,GodofGod,LightofLight,'andfollowthesayingofChrist,Jno.v.26 . . .Prov. viii. 24. . . .ZachariasUrsinus101thereforeisrighttoseparatefromhispreceptorhere,writinginCatech.,p.II.q.25,p.179:'TheSonisbegottenoftheFather;thatis,HehastheDivineEssence in an ineffablemanner communicated toHim from theFather.' D. Lobechius, disp. 3 in Auqustinum Conf. th. 26, says: 'Theessence should be considered in a two-fold way, either with respect toitself or with respect to its own being, or else with respect to itscommunication: ithasnoprincipiumwithrespect to itsownbeing;butwith respect to its communication we say that the essence has as itsprincipium, to be from the Father in the Son, for it has beencommunicated from the Father to the Son.'" Nevertheless, Gerhard, ofcourse,doesnotdenythat,whenproperlyexplained,theSonmayfitlybecalled auvto,qeoj; since that would be tantamount to denyingHis truedivinity. Accordingly he writes elsewhere:102 "The term is ambiguous:for it is either opposed to communication of the divine essence and inthat sense we deny that Christ isauvto,qeoj, because He receives theessence by eternal generation from the Father; or it is opposed to theinequalityoftheDivineessence,andinthatsenseweconcedethatChristisauvto,qeoj.GregoryofValentia,DeTrinitate,i.22:'TheSonasHeisaPersonis fromanother;as themost simplebeing, isnot fromanother.'ChristisverilyandinHimselfGod(vereetseipsoDeus),butHeisnotofHimself(aseipso)God."OnewouldthinkGerhardwasskatingonverythin ice toagreewithGregoryofValentia -whoagreeswithCalvinand

useshisverymodeofstatement-andyetnotagreewithCalvin.

The subordinationism103 of the Arminians was of quite a differentquality from that of the Lutherans. The dominant note which theLutheran Christology sounded was the majesty of Christ; nothing thattendedtoexaltChristcouldbewithoutitsappealtoLutherans;theydrewback fromCalvin'sassertionofHisauvtoqeo,thjonly in the interests ofthetraditionalNiceneconstructionoftheTrinity.TheArminianshad,ontheotherhand,adistincttendencytothepropersubordinationismoftheOrigenists; and in the later members of the school, indeed, there waspresent a strong influence from the Socinians. To them, of course, theFatheralonecouldbethoughtofasauvto,qeojandtheSonwasconceivedas in His very nature, because God only by derivation, less than theFather.As in hiswhole theological outlook, Arminius himselfwas herebetterthanhissuccessors.Hefairlysaveshisorthodoxy, indeed;butheemphaticallydeniestheauvtoqeo,thjoftheSon.TheSonmayjustaswellbecalledFather,heintimates,asberepresentedas"havingHisessencease ipso or a nullo"; and the employment of such language cannot bejustified by saying that to affirm that the Son of God, as God, has Hisessencease ipso, isonlytosaythatthedivineessence isnotabaliquo:therecan,infact,benoreasonforcallingtheSonauvto,qeoj.104Ontheotherhand,nevertheless,herecognizesthatthewordauvto,qeojmay betakenintwosenses.ItmaydescribetheonetowhomitisappliedeithermerelyasvereetseipsoGod,orelseasGodase.Intheformerusageitisasapplied to theSon tolerable; in the latternot.105He argues thatwemust distinguish between saying that the essencewhich the Son has isfromnone,andthattheSonwhichhasthisessence is fromnone:"for,"says he, "the Son is the name of a person, which has a relation to theFather,andthereforecannotbedefinedorcontemplatedapartfromthisrelation; while the essence, on the other hand, is an absolutesomewhat."106"Tocontend,"heurges,"that tosay 'He isGod'and 'HehasHisessencefromnone'areequivalentstatements,istosayeitherthattheFatheraloneisGod,orelsethattherearethreecollateralGods."Hecheerfullyallows thatneitherof theseassertionsexpresses themeaningof Calvin or Beza: but he contends that they use misleading languagewhentheycallChristauvto,qeojandheappealstoBeza'sadmission,whenexcusingCalvin,that"Calvinhadnotstrictlyobservedthediscrimination

betweentheparticlesaseandperse."

The gravitation of Arminianismwas, however, downward; andwe findalreadytaughtbyEpiscopius,nolongeracertainsubordinationinorderamongthePersonsoftheTrinityintheinterestsoftheNicenedoctrineof"eternal generation " and "procession," but rather a generation andprocession in the interests of a subordination in nature among thePersonsof theTrinity. "It is certain" fromScripture,says he, "that thisdivinity and the divine perfections are to be attributed to these threepersons, not collaterally and coordinately, but subordinately." "Thissubordination,"headds,"shouldbecarefullyattendedto,becauseof itsextremely great usefulness, since by it not only is there fundamentallyoverthrownthetriqeo,thjwhichcollateralismalmostnecessarilyinvolves,butalsotheFather'sgloryispreservedtoHimunimpaired."Wherefore,he continues, "they fall into perilous error who contend that the Sonisauvto,qeoj,insuchamannerthatasHeisGodHeisofHimself,asHeis Son of the Father; because from this point of view, the truesubordination between the Father and the Son is taken away."107 It isscarcelynecessarytopausetopointoutwithTriglandius108 that to saythattheSonandSpiritarenotcollaterallyorcoordinallydivinewiththeFatheristosaytheyarenotequallydivinewithHim,andtosaythatitisinjurious to the Father's glory to call the Sonauvto,qeoj, even as He isGod, is to say thatHe is inferior to theFather even inHis essence.NodoubtEpiscopiussaysinthesamebreaththat"oneandthesamedivinenature" is to be attributed to the three Persons. But this is not easy toconciliate with his argument, except on the supposition that in saying"one and the same nature," his thought wavered somewhat betweennumericalonenessandspecificoneness,109orelsethatheconceivedtherelation of the several Persons to this one nature to differ amongthemselves-onepossessingitofHimself,theothersbyderivationfrom-shallweevensuggest,byfavorof?-another.

The path thus opened by Episcopius was eagerly walked in by hissuccessors. All thatmay be thought to be latent in Episcopius came tolightinCurcellaeus.Wewill,however,permitanotherhandtodescribetoushisteachingwithregardtotheTrinity."Ifyoutakehisownaccount,"writesRobertNelson,inhis"LifeofDr.GeorgeBull,"110therewouldbe

nomanmoreorthodoxandcatholic"thanCurcellaeusis"inthedoctrineoftheTrinity,asalsointhatoftheIncarnationofChrist.Andheinsisted,thatboth fromthepulpitandfromthechair,hehadalways taughtandvindicatedthatfaith,intowhichhehadbeenbaptized,andwhichhehadpublicly professed in the congregation, according to the form generallyreceived; and did even teach and vindicate the same at that very time,whenthechargeofAnti-trinitarianismwasbroughtagainsthim.Yea,heexpressed so great a zeal for the orthodox doctrine in this greatfundamental, as hewould seem forward to seal the truth thereof, evenwith his blood; if, as he said, God would vouchsafe him this honor.Notwithstandingallthis,it isnotoriouslyknown,andthatfromhisownveryApology, thathewasno lessanenemyto theCouncilofNice thanhismasterbeforehim,ifnotmorethanhe;thathewasnofriendatalltotheuseoftheword'Trinity';thathesoexplainedhimselfconcerningthatmystery as to assert no more than a 'specifical unity' in the divinePersons;thathedefendedthecauseofValentinusGentilis,beheadedatBerninSwitzerlandforTritheism,maintaininghisdoctrinetohavebeenthe same with that of the primitive Fathers, particularly of Ignatius,Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and ClemensAlexandrinus; that he impeached the common (which he called theModernandScholastic) doctrine of theTrinity for approaching so verynearSabellianism,ashardlytobedistinguishedfromit,andchargedittobea thousandyears younger than thatwhichwas taught byChrist andHis apostles; that he exploded the notion of consubstantiality, in thesenseinwhichitisnowgenerallytaken,whenappliedtotheFatherandSon; thathewasverymuchafraid tohavehismindperplexedwith the'divine relations,'orwith themannerof 'generation' and 'procession' inthe Deity, or with modes of 'subsistence' and 'personalities,' or with'mutualconsciousness,'andthelike;andthereforewasfordiscardingatonceallsuchtermsandphrasesasarenot 'expresslylegitimated'bythesacred writers; that he fully believed the Godhead of the Father to bemoreexcellentthanthatoftheSon,oroftheHolyGhost,evensofarastolookuponthissuperiorityasathingunquestionable,andtoappealtotheconsentient testimony of the primitive Church for evidence; and lastlythat he took care to recommend Petavius, and the author of IrenicumIrenicorum,111a learnedphysicianofDantzick . . . to theperusalofhisreaders,forthesakeofthatcollectionoftestimonieswhichistobefound

inthem, aswherein theymight easily find 'an account of the primitivefaith' concerning these great articles." A subordinationism like this, ofcourse, could not endure Calvin's Trinitarianism, of which thecornerstonewastheequalityofthePersonsintheTrinity-whichequalityitwasthatwassafeguardedbytheascriptionofauvtoqeo,thjtoChrist.

Indeed,thisascriptionwasequallyunacceptabletoasubordinationismoffar less extreme a type than that of Curcellaeus and his Remonstrantsuccessors.ItisthebiographerofGeorgeBulltowhomwehaveappealedto bring Curcellaeus' trinitarian teaching before us: andGeorge Bull isperhapsthebestexampleofthatlessextreme,convinced,nodoubt,butwell-guarded, subordinationism which we have now in mind - thesubordinationismwhich entrenched itself in theNicene definitions andtheexplanationsoftheNiceneFathers,interpreted,however,ratherfromthe tentative and inadequate constructions out of which they wereadvancingtoasounderandtruertrinitarianism,thanfromthissounderandtruertrinitarianismofwhichtheyweretheexpression.Itcanscarcelybe doubted that Bull's subordinationism owed much to the Arminianmovement, from the extremes ofwhich, on this point at least, he drewback. The Arminianism flowing in from the continent had been apowerful co-factor in the production of that Catholic reaction ofseventeenth centuryEngland ofwhichBullwas, in its post-Restorationdays of triumph, one of the representatives and ornaments. It isinterestingtonotethatthe"TheologicalInstitutes"ofEpiscopius,at thetime that Bull was contemplating writing his "Defence of the NiceneCreed," was "generally in the hands of students of divinity in bothuniversities, as the best system of Divinity that had appeared,"112 andthatBullhimselfspeaksofEpiscopiuswithhighrespectinallexcepthisattitudetowardstheNiceneFathers.113Indeed,whenhecomestostatethe subordinationism which he professes to defend as commended byCatholic antiquity, he avails himself of Episcopius' precise phrase,declaringthatall"theCatholicDoctors,thosethatlivedbeforeandthosethatlivedaftertheCouncilofNice,""withoneconsenthavetaughtthatthe divineNature andPerfections do agree to the Father and Son, notcollaterally or coordinately, but subordinately."114 But the particularformwhichBull's subordinationism tookwas determined, naturally, bythat special appeal which the neo-Catholic party to which he belonged

made to primitive antiquity, by which he was led - with some insularexaggerationoftheimportanceofhisownposition-tosupposethatthedesignofPetaviusinhisexpositionoftheunformedtrinitarianismoftheante-NiceneFatherswastohelp"thecauseof thePopebyshowingthat"thereisverylittleregardtobehadtotheFathersofthethreefirstages,towhomtheReformedCatholics"-thatistosay,theCatholizingpartyoftheChurchofEngland-"generallydoappeal."115Whatevermaybesaidof this conjecture, it cannot be doubted that Bull's designwas to showthattheappealtothe"firstthreeages"yieldedinthematteroftheTrinitytheself-samedoctrinewhichtheNiceneFathersformulated.Inordertodothis,however,hewascompelledtosaddleupontheNicenedoctrineasubordinationismwhich,of theveryessenceof theLogosChristologyofthesecondandthirdcenturies,wasintheNiceneconstructionhappilyinthe act of being transcended. In the interests of this subordinationismCalvin'sequalizationoftheSonwiththeFatherthroughtheascriptiontoHim ofauvtoqeo,thjwas necessarily distasteful to Bull. That the Son is"veryGod"andinthatsensemayfitlybecalledauvto,qeojhe is, indeed,frank to allow, for he is himself, with all the Fathers, a true and firmbelieverintheGodheadofChrist:butthattheSonisauvto,qeoj,"GodofHimself," he repudiates with decision as inconsistent with "catholicconsent"whichpronouncesHimratherqeo.jevkqeou/.For,dependinghereonPetavius,hewillnotallowthatitispossibletosay"thattheSonisfromGodtheFather,asHeisSon,andnotasHeisGod;thatHereceivedHisPerson,notHisessence,orDivineNature,fromtheFather";ontheground that begettingmeans just communication of essence.116 It is alittle amusing to see Bull, from his Anglican tripod, as Calvin wouldhimself have said, patronizing Calvin. He graciously allows that Calvinhas deserved well of us "for the good service which he rendered inpurging the Church of Christ from the superstition of popery"; but he"earnestly exhortspiousandstudiousyouths tobewareofa spirit fromwhichhaveproceededsuchthing"asCalvin'sunreverentialallusionstotheNicene Creed,which he had dared to speak of as containing harshexpressionsand"vainrepetitions."117"EventhezealofMr.Bull"thus,ashis admiring biographer tells us, "hath not here hindered him fromtreating with esteem the author of so dangerous an opinion" as thatChristisGodofHimself,theself-existentGod,"whileatthesametimeheis confuting it, for the sake of some laudable qualifications which he

discerned in him, and was endeavoring to excuse him as well as thematter could bear, against the insults of themost learnedwriter of hiswholeorder, so famous for learning"118 - bywhichwe supposeNelsonmeans to intimate that Bull defended Calvin against injuriousimputationsofPetavius;thoughwehavefailedtoobservethisfeatureofBull'sdiscussion.

InEngland,too,however,thedownwardmovementfulfilled itself.AfterBullcameSamuelClarkeandhisfellowAriansintheestablishedChurch,matchedbytheSociniandriftamongthedissenters.Tothese,naturally,Calvin'sauvto,qeojwasasfarbeyondtherangeofpracticalconsiderationasitwastoCrell119orSchlichting,120whodidhimthehonortoexpresstheir dissent from it. Clarke, however, may claim from us a moment'snotice,notsomuchonhisownaccount,as for thesakeofadistinctionwhichWaterlandwasledtomakeinrefutinghim.ClarkewaswillingtoadmitthattheSonmayhavebeenbegottenoftheessenceoftheFather,thoughhewishedittobeallowedthatitwasequallypossiblethatHemayhavebeenmadeoutofnothing."Bothareworthyofcensure,"hesaid,121"whoontheonehandaffirmthattheSonwasmadeoutofnothing,oronthe other affirm that He is self-existent substance." In his response,Waterlandexhibitsafreshthedifficultieswhichlieinwaitforthosewhotake their startingpoint from even the measure of subordinationismwhichisembalmedinthelanguageoftheNiceneformularies,whentheyseektodojusticetothefulldeityofChrist.IntheinterestsoftheNicenedoctrine of eternal generation, he proposes to distinguish betweennecessary existence and self-existence, and,denying the latter, to claimonlytheformerfortheSon.TheSecondPersonoftheGodhead,hesays,participates in the one substance of the Godhead, and is thereforenecessarilyexistent;butHeparticipatesinitbycommunicationfromtheFather,notofHimself,andthereforeHeisnotself-existent."Wesay,"heexplains,122"theSonisnotself-existent,meaningHeisnotunoriginate.You"-thatis,Clarke-"notonlysaythesame,butcontendforit,meaningnot necessarily existing." "Self-existence as distinct from necessaryexistence, is expressive only of the order and manner in which theperfectionsareintheFather,andnotofanydistinctperfection."123Thatistosay,inWaterland'sview,theSonisallthattheFatheris,butnotinthesamemanner:theFatherisallthatHeisinthismanner,viz.,thatHe

isitofHimself;theSon,inthismanner,viz.,thatHeisitoftheFather.Botharenecessarilyallthattheyare,andthereforebotharenecessarilyexistent: but only theFather is all thatHe is ofHimself, and thereforeself-existence can be predicated of Him alone. What is really declaredhere isobviouslyonly that thegenerationof theSon isanecessaryandnotavoluntarymovementinthedivinenature:andallthatisaffirmedisthereforemerely that the existence of the Son is not dependent on thedivine will. Is this all that need be affirmed, however, in order tovindicate to the Son true deity? We must bear in mind that it is notimpossibletoconceivecreationitselfasnecessary:thehistoryoftheologyhas not been a stranger to the idea that the world is the eternal andnecessaryproductofthedivineactivity.InordertovindicatetruedeitytotheSonitisnotsufficient,therefore,toaffirmthatHeisequallywiththeFather"necessaryinrespectofexistence."124ThatmightbetrueofHimeven were He a creature. What must be affirmed of Him if we wouldrecognizeHistruedeityisnotmerelythatHecouldnotbutexist,butthatthe ground of His existence is in Himself. It is self-existence, notnecessaryexistence,inotherwords,whichreallyimportsdeity,anditisadegradationofthisgreatandfundamentalattributetoattempttoreduceit to a mere synonym of "ingenerate." It is rather the synonym ofnecessary existence as applied to deity, describing this necessaryexistence in its deeper significance and implications. The artificialdistinctionwhichWaterlandwishestomakebetweenthetwoasappliedto the Son, seems thus merely an invention to "save the face" of theNicenedoctrineof"generation."Letusadmit,sayshe,ineffect,thattheSonisequallywiththeFather"necessaryinrespectofexistence."Thatis,ofcourse,"self-existent"accordingtothepropersignificanceoftheterminitsapplicationtoaDivineBeing.Butletusagreetosaythatwewillnotusetheterm"self-existence"but"necessarilyexisting"inthissense,andwill reserve "self-existence" for another sense, distinct from "necessaryexistence."Now, "as distinct fromnecessary existence," "self-existence"canexpressonly"theorderandmanner inwhich theperfectionsare intheFather" andnot "anydistinctperfection."Granted. Ifwe are tousetheterm"self-existence"toexpresssomeotherideathanself-existence-then it may express something which the self-existing, i.e., necessarilyexisting God who is the Son is not. But then it remains true that thisnecessarilyexistingGodwhoistheSonisatthisverymomentconfessed

tobetheself-existentGod-underitssynonymof"necessarilyexistent."Inaword, ifwewillagree touse the term"selfexistent" in the senseof"ingenerate" -which itdoesnot in the leastmean -wemay, of course,deny that theSonwho is "generate" is "self-existent":but ifwe employthat term in the sense of "necessarily existent," - which is just what itmeans in the full reach of that term as applied to God - why, thenwemustsaythattheSonis"self-existent."Toputthethinginanutshell:theNicenedoctrinethatthegenerationoftheSonandtheprocessionoftheSpiritarenecessarymovements inthedivineessenceandnotvoluntaryacts of God the Father, carries with it the ascription of necessaryexistence, in the sense of that term applicable to God, that is of"selfexistence,"totheSonandSpiritandrequiresthateachbespokenofasauvto,qeoj.Todenytothemthequalityofauvtoqeo,thjisthuslogicallytomakethemcreaturesoftheFather'spower,ifnotofHiswill;bywhichtheirtruedeityisdestroyed.Thusthetendencyamongtheso-calledstrictNicenists to deny to our Lord that He is, as God, a se ipso betrays alurking leaven of subordinationism in their thought. It indicates atendencytotreattheNicenedoctrineofeternalgeneration,not,asitwasintendedby its framers,as thesafeguardof theabsoluteequalityof theSonwiththeFather,butratheras theproclamationof the inferiorityofthe Son to the Father: the Son because generate must differ from theingenerateFather-mustdifferinthis,thatHecannotbe,asistheFather,self-existentGod,which is,ofcourse,allonewithsaying thatHe isnotGod at all, since the very idea of God includes the idea of self-existence.125

Itwas,therefore,averygreatservicetoChristiantheologywhichCalvinrenderedwhenhefirmlyassertedforthesecondandthirdpersonsoftheTrinity theirauvtoqeo,thj. It has never since been possible for men toescapefacingthequestionwhethertheyreallydojusticetothetrueandcomplete deity of the Son andSpirit in their thoughtof theTrinitariandistinctions. It has not even been possible since for men who heartilybelieveinthedeityoftheSonandSpirittorefusetothemthedesignationofauvtoqeo,j. They may have distinguished, indeed, betweenauvto,qeojandauvtoqeo,j-Self-ExistentGodandVeryGod-andallowedthelattertothesecondandthirdPersonswhilewithholdingtheformer.126Butintheveryactofdrawingsuchadistinction,theyhaveemphasizedthetrue

deity of the second and third Persons, and have been deterred fromascribingauvtoqeo,thj to them in the sense of self-existence only byconfusing it with "ingeneration." It is, however, a part of the heritage,particularly of the Reformed Churches, that they have learned fromCalvin to claim for Christ the great epithet ofauvto,qeoj:127 and theircharacteristicmark has therefore become the strength of the emphasiswhichtheythrowonthecompletedeityoftheLord.Whateverdifferencesmay have existed among them have not concerned the true deity ofChrist,butrathertheattitudetakenbytheirteacherstowardstheNicenespeculation of "eternal generation." Concerning this speculationdifferencesearlymanifestedthemselves.ImmediatesuccessorsofCalvin,suchasTheodoreBezaandJosiahSimler,wereasfirmandexactintheiradhesiontoitasCalvinwasdubiouswithreferencetoit."TheSon,"saysBeza,"isoftheFatherbyanineffablecommunicationfrometernityofthewhole nature."128 "We deny not," says Simler, "that the Son has Hisessence fromGod the Father;whatwe deny is a begotten essence."129Andnolessor lessprejudicedanauthoritythanBellarminepronouncesthesedeclarations"Catholic."130Indeed,despitetheinfluenceofCalvin,the great body of the Reformed teachers remained goodNicenists. Butthey were none the less, as they were fully entitled to be, good"Autotheanites"also.TheysawclearlythatarelationwithintheGodheadbetween Persons to each of whom the entire Godhead belongs, cannotdeprive any of these Persons of any essential quality of the Godheadcommontothemall.131AndtheyweredeterminedtoassertthefullandcompleteGodheadofthemall.Ofcourse,therehavebeenothers,ontheother hand, who have followed Calvin in sitting rather loosely to theNicene tradition. Examples of this class are furnished by Trelcatius,Keckermann, Maccovius.132 Keckermann, for example, while notdenying thatmanyhavepreferred to say that "theSonhasHis essencecommunicatedfromtheFather,"yetconsidersthatthiscanbesaidonlyin a modified sense and must be accompanied by certain importantexplanations-for,sayshe,"itisfalseifspokenoftheessenceconsideredabsolutely,sincetheSon(asalsotheHolySpirit)hasthisaseipso."Forhimselfheprefers,therefore,tosaythat"thesecondmodeofexistenceinthe Trinity, which is called the Son, . . . is communicated from theFather."133Thisis,aswehaveseen,apparentlyCalvin'sownview,whilethemore advanced position still which rejects, or at least neglects, the

conception of "communication" altogether, whether of essence or ofmodeofexistence,134althoughitcannotfindanexampleinCalvin,mayyet be said to have had its way prepared for it by him. The directScriptural proof which had been customarily relied upon for itsestablishmenthedestroyed,refusingtorestadoctrinaldeterminationon"distortedtexts."Heleft,therefore,littleBiblicalbasisforthedoctrineof"eternalgeneration"exceptwhatmightbeinferredfromthemereterms"Father,""Son"and"Spirit,"andthegeneralconsiderationthatourownadoption into the relation of sons of God in Christ implies for Him aSonship of a higher and more immanent character, which is His bynature and into participation in the relation of which we are admittedonly by grace.135 Certainly other explanations of these facts arepossible;136andthepossibility-orpreferability-ofotherexplanationswas certain sooner or later to commend itself to some. Nothing,meanwhile, could illustrate more strikingly the vitality of theecclesiastical tradition than that in such a state of the case the Niceneconstructionof theTrinity held its ground: held its groundwithCalvinhimselfinitssubstantialcore,andwiththemajorityofhisfollowersinitscompletespeculativeelaboration.Weareastonishedatthepersistenceofso large an infusion of the Nicene phraseology in the expositions ofAugustine, after that phraseology had really been antiquated by hisfundamental principle of equalization in his construction of theTrinitarian relations:wearemoreastonishedat theeffortwhichCalvinmade to adduce Nicene support for his own conceptions: and we aremoreastonishedstillatthetenacitywithwhichhisfollowersclingtoalltheoldspeculations.137

Therepeatedappealswhichhemakes to theFathers is,aswehave justhinted, a notable feature of Calvin's discussion of the Trinity andespecially of his defense of his construction of the Trinitarianrelationships. The citations he drew from the Fathers for this purposewerenaturallymuchstrivenover.Oneinstanceseemsworthscrutinizing,as on it was founded an accusation that Calvin did not know thedifferencebetweenthetwoLatinprepositions"ad"and"a.,"orelsechoseto"playtothegallery,"whichhecounteduponnottoknowit.Thatthebest Latinist of his day, whose Latin style is rather classical thanmediaeval,couldfailtofeeltheforceofthecommonprepositionsofthat

language is, of course, absurd: that a reasoner conspicuous forhis fair-mindedness in his argumentation could have juggled with ambiguousphrasesisevenmoreimpossible.Anattentivereadingofthepassagesinquestionwill, aswas tobeexpected,quicklymake it clear that it isnotCalvin but his critics who are at fault. Bellarmine, arguing that thereasonswhichCalvinassignsforcallingourLordauvto,qeojarenotvalid,adduceshisappealtothepassagesinwhichAugustineremarksthatourLord "is called Son, with reference to the Father (ad patrem) andGodwithreferencetoHimself(adseipsum).""But,"headds,inrebuttal,"itisnotthesamethingtosaythattheSonisGodadse,andthatHeisGodase.""For,"hesomewhatsuperfluouslyargues,"thefirstsignifiesthatthename of God is not relative and yet belongs to the Son: and thisAugustine says and says truly, for although the Son is a relative, it isnevertheless a relativewhich exists, is divine, and accordingly includesthe essence which is absolute. But [to say] that the Son is God a sesignifies that the Son ofGod is not the Son ofGod, but is unbegotten,whichAugustineneversaid,butCalvinfalselyattributestohim."138"Itiseither,"writesPetavius,139improvingevenonBellarmine,"aremarkablepieceofchicaneryorelsearemarkablehallucinationinCalvin,whenheseemstotakeasequivalentsthesetwotermsadseandase:asalsothesetwo, adaliumandab alio,which" [i.e., ad seandad alium] "Augustinemakes freeuse of in explaining themystery of theTrinity."Then, afterquotingCalvin'scitationofAugustine,heconcludes:"UnlessCalvinhadsupposedadsetobethesameasase,andadaliumtobethesameasabalio,hewouldnothaveemployedthesepassagesfromAugustine."140Inpointoffact,however,Calvindoesnotconfuse"ad"and"a"andhedoesnotciteAugustine'suseof theoneas ifhehademployedtheother.HiscitationsarenotintendedtoshowthatAugustinetaughtthattheSonisnotoftheFatherbutofHimself:butonlytoshowthatwemay-orrathermust-speakinatwofoldwayof theSon,absolutely, towit,asHe is inHimselfandrelatively,asHeiswithreferencetotheFather.Itishisownstatement,notAugustine's,whenheproceeds to say thatwhenwe thusspeakofourLordabsolutelyasHeisinHimself,wearetosaythatHeisase,andonlywhenwespeakofHimrelativelyasHeiswithreferencetotheFatherarewetospeakofHimasaPatre.Itismarvellousthatanyonecouldconfusethisperfectlyclearargument:moremarvellousstillthat,onthegroundofsuchaconfusion,anyoneshouldventuretochargeCalvin

withgrossignoranceofthemeaningofthesimplestLatinwordsorelseof"remarkable chicanery" in his use of Latin texts. Here is what Calvinactually says: "By these appellations, which denote distinction, saysAugustine, that is signified by which they are mutually related to oneanother: not the substance itself by which they are one. By whichexplanation,thesentimentsoftheancientswhichotherwisemightseemcontradictorymay be reconciledwith one another. For now they teachthattheFatheristheprincipiumoftheSon;andnowtheyassertthattheSonhasHisdivinity andessence alikeofHimself, and is therefore oneprincipiumwiththeFather.Thecauseofthisdiversity iselsewherewelland perspicuously explained by Augustine when he speaks as follows:ChristiscalledGodwithrespecttoHimself,HeiscalledSonwithrespecttotheFather.Andagain,theFatheriscalledGodwithrespecttoHimself,with respect to the SonHe is calledFather.What is called FatherwithrespecttotheSonisnottheSon;what iscalledSonwithrespecttotheFatherisnottheFather:whatiscalledFatherwithrespecttoHimselfandSonwith respect toHimself is God.When, then, we speak of the Son,simply,withoutrespecttotheFather,werightlyandproperlyassertthatHe is of Himself; and we therefore call Him the sole (unicum)principium;butwhenwearenoting the relation inwhichHe stands totheFather,we justlymake theFather theprincipiumof theSon."141Asimple reading of the passage is enough to refute the suggestion thatCalvin makes Augustine assert that Christ is "of Himself" when he ismerely asserting that Christ is God when considered with respect toHimself and not relatively to the Father. If a matter so clear in itself,however, can bemade clearer by further evidence, it is easy enough toadducedirectevidence.ForCalvinhasincorporatedintothe"Institutes"herematerial he uses often elsewhere. And inmore than one of theseinstances of its use elsewhere, he distinctly tells us that he did notunderstandAugustineinthesepassagestobeassertingtheaseityof theSon. We may take, for example, a letter to the Neuchâtel pastors,writteninNovember,1543,withrespecttoCortesius,withwhomhehadbeenhavingadiscussiononourLord'saseity-orasCalvinputsit,peri.auvtoousi,ajChristi.Inthecourseofthediscussion,hesays,"wecametothatdifficultythathedidnotthinkhecouldspeakoftheessenceofChristwithoutmention of the person. I opposed to this first the authority ofAugustine,whotestifiesthatwecanspeakinatwofoldway(bifariam)of

Christ, as He is God - according to relation, that is, and simply(simpliciter).Andthatthediscussionmightnotbeprolonged,Iadducedcertain passages of Cyril, where in somanywords (dissertis verbis) hepronouncesonwhatwewerediscussing."142Thatistosay,thepassagesofAugustinewereappealedtonotasdirectwitnesstotheauvtoousi,aofChrist,butonlytoprovethesubordinatepointthatwecanspeakofourLordinatwofoldway:thepassagesfromCyrilalone"expressly"declareon the point at issue. The declaration that Cyril was adduced aspronouncingon thepoint itself in somanywords, is a declaration thatAugustinewasnotsoadduced.

In his assertion of theauvtoqeo,thj of the Son Calvin, then, was so farfrom supposing that he was enunciating a novelty that he was able toquotetheNiceneFathersthemselvesasassertingit"insomanywords."And yet in his assertion of it hemarks an epoch in the history of thedoctrineoftheTrinity.Notthatmenhadnotbeforebelievedintheself-existenceoftheSonasHeisGod:butthatthecurrentmodesofstatingthedoctrineof theTrinity leftadooropenfortheentranceofdefectivemodesofconceivingthedeityoftheSon,toclosewhichtherewasneededsomesuch sharpassertionofHisabsolutedeityaswas suppliedby theassertion of Hisauvtoqeo,thj. If we will glance over the history of theeffortsoftheChurchtoworkoutforitselfanacceptablestatementofthegreatmysteryoftheTrinity,weshallperceivethat it isdominatedfromthe beginning to the end by a single motive - to do full justice to theabsolutedeityofChrist.Andweshallperceivethatamongthemultitudesof great thinkers who under the pressure of this motive have laboredupontheproblem,andtowhomtheChurchlooksbackwithgratitudeforgreat services, in the better formulation of the doctrine or the bettercommendationofittothepeople,threenamesstandoutinhighrelief,asmarking epochs in the advance towards the end in view. These threenamesarethoseofTertullian,AugustineandCalvin.ItisintothisnarrowcircleofelectspiritsthatCalvinentersbythecontributionhemadetotheright understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. That contribution issummed up in his clear, firm and unwavering assertion oftheauvtoqeo,thj of the Son. By this assertion the o`moousio,thj of theNiceneFathersatlastcametoitsfullright,andbecameinitsfullestsensethehingeofthedoctrine.

Endnotes:

1. FromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,vii.1909,pp.553-652.2. Something like Calvin's mode of transition here is repeated by

Triglandiuswhenhearrivesatthistopicinhis"Antapologia"(c.v.)."That God is most simple in His essence," writes Triglandius,"eternal,infinite,andthereforeofinfiniteknowledgeandpower,hasbeensufficientlydemonstrated in theprecedingchapter.Whence itisclearthatHeisoneandunique.ButScripturesetsbeforeushereagreatmystery,namelythat in theoneuniqueessenceofGod, theresubsist threehypostases, the firstofwhich is called theFather, thesecond the Son, the third the Holy Spirit. An arduous mysteryindeed, and one simply incomprehensible to the human intellect;one, therefore, not to be measured by human reason, nor to beinvestigated by reasons drawn from human wisdom, but to beaccreditedsolelyfromtheWordofGod;bygoingforwardasfarasitleadsus,andstoppingwhereitstops.Wheneverthisruleisneglectedthehumanreasonwandersinalabyrinthandcannotdiscerneitherendorexit"(in"RefutatioApologiaeRemonstrantium,"p.76).

3. We must not fancy, however, that Calvin conceived the personaldistinctions in the Godhead as mere "epithets," that is, that heconceived the Trinity Sabellianwise as merely three classes ofattributesormodesofmanifestationofGod.Hedoesnotsaythatthetripersonality ofGod is another "epithet" but another "note" alongwith His immensity and spirituality - that is to say, anothercharacteristicfactdefiningGodasdifferingfromallotherbeings.Heexplicitlydeniesthatthepersonaldistinctionsareanalogousinkindto the qualities of the divine essence. He says: "Yet in that oneessence ofGodwe acknowledge theFather,withHis eternalWordand Spirit. In using this distinction, however, we do not imaginethreeGods,asiftheFatherweresomeotherentity(aliudquiddam)thantheWord,noryetdoweunderstandthemtobemereepithets(nudaepitheta)bywhichGod is variouslydesignated, according toHis operations; but, in commonwith the ecclesiastical writers, weperceive in the simpleunity ofGod these threehypostases, that is,subsistences,which,althoughtheycoexistinoneessence,arenotto

beconfusedwithoneanother.Accordingly,thoughtheFatherisoneGodwithHisWordandSpirit, theFather isnot theWord,nor theWord the Spirit." - "Adveraus P. Caroli Calumnias," Opp. vii. 312.And again in refuting the Sabellians he expressly draws thedistinction: "The Sabellians do indeed raise the cavil that God iscallednowFather,nowSon,nowSpiritinnoothersensethanHeisspokenofasbothstrongandgood,andwiseandmerciful;buttheyareeasilyrefutedbythis,-thatitisclearthattheselatterareepithetswhichmanifest what God is erga nos, while the others are nameswhichdeclarewhatGod really is apud semetipsum." - "Institutes,"ed.2,andothermiddleedd.,Opp.i.491.

4. Theideaof"multiformity,"notof"multiplicity"-whichwouldimplycomposition. Hence Calvin, I. xiii. 2, ad fin., declares that it isimpious to represent the essenceofGodas "multiplex"; andat thebeginning of that section he warns against vainly dreaming of "atriplexGod,"anddefinesthatasmeaningthedivisionofthesimpleessence ofGod among three Persons. The samewarning had beengivenbyAugustine,"DeTrinitate,"VI.vii.9:"Neither,becauseHeisaTrinity, isHe tobe therefore thought tobe triplex;otherwise theFather alone, or the Son alone,would be less than the Father andSontogether,-althoughitishardtoseehowwecansay,eithertheFatheralone,ortheSonalone,sinceboththeFatheriswiththeSonandtheSonwiththeFatheralwaysinseparably."Thatistosay,Godis not a compound of three deities, but a single deity which isessentially trinal.Thismodeof statementbecame traditional. ThusHollazsays:"Thatistriunewhich,oneinessence,hasthreemodesofsubsistence; that is triplex which is compounded of three.We sayGod is triune;butweare forbiddenby theChristianreligiontosayHe is triplex " (in "ExaminisTheol.Acroam.," 1741,p.297).Again:"Wemay speakof the trinal, butnot of the tripledeity."Note alsoHase's "Hutterus Redivivus," 1848, pp. 166-167; and Keckermann,"Syst.S.S.Theol.,"1615,p.21.

5. Soinhis"Instruction"or"Catechism"of1537and1538(Opp.v.337orxxii.52),Calvinsays:"TheScriptures,andpiousexperienceitself,showusintheabsolutelysimpleessenceofGod,theFather,theSon,and theHolySpirit; so thatour intelligence isnotable toconceivethe Father without at the same time comprehending the Son in

whom His living image is repeated, and the Spirit in whom Hispowerandvirtuearemanifested."Cf.theCommentaryonGen.i.26:"Iacknowledge that there is something inmanwhich refers to theFather and the Son and the Spirit" - the exact meaning of which,however,isnotapparent(seebelow,note54,p.225).

6. "DiechristlicheLehrevonderDreieinigkeit,"iii.1843,pp.6-7.7. Pp.9-10.8. Pp.10-11.9. P.10.10. P.20.11. Pp.24sq.12. Pp.42-43.13. Pp.44-45.14. In the "Catechism" of 1537, 1538 (Opp. v. 337 or xxii. 52) he says:

"Scripture and pious experience itself show us in the absolutelysimpleessenceofGod,theFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit."

15. ThisisMelanchthon'senumerationofthedoctrineswhichhewillnotenter into largely in his "Loci" Cf. Augusti's ed. of 1821, p. 8, asquoted by Baur, p. 20: "Proinde non est, cur multum operaeponamus in locis supremis deDeo, de unitate, de trinitateDei, demysteriocreationis,demodoincarnationis."HowlittleMelanchthonwas intending tomanifest indifference to thesedoctrines isalreadyapparent from the word supremis here. Baur's comment is: "It ispreciselywiththesedoctrineswhichthedialecticspiritofspeculationof the Scholastics regarded as its peculiar object, and on which itexpended itselfwith thegreatest subtlety and thoroughness, -withthe doctrines of God, of His unity and trinity, of creation,incarnation,etc.,-thatMelanchthonwouldhavesolittletodo,thathedidnotevenmakeaplacefortheminhisLoci,andthatnotontheground that it did not belong to the plan of that first sketch ofProtestantdogmaticstocoverthewholesystem,butonthegroundoftheobjective character of thosedoctrines, as they appeared tohimfrom the standpointdeterminedby theReformation" (p.20).Evenso, however, there is not involved any real underestimate of theimportanceofthesedoctrines,butonlyareferenceofthemtoaplaceinthesystemlessimmediatelyrelatedtotheexperienceofsalvation.Normustwe forget theoriginof the "Loci" in an expositionof the

EpistletotheRomansanditsconsequentlackofallsystematicform,orcompleteness.

16. "Loci," as above, p. 9, quoted by Baur, p. 21. The point ofMelanchthon's remark is that Paul did not give himself over tophilosophical disquisition on abstruse topics, but devoted himselfsingle-heartedlytoapplyingthesalvationofChristtosinningsouls.

17. "GeschichtederprotestantischenDogmatik,"i.1854,p.105.18. Köstlin,TheologischeStudienundKritiken, 1868,p.420;Muller,

"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,p.31.19. For example, Servetus' "De Trinitatis erroribus" appeared in 1531,

andhis"DialogideTrinitate"in1532.20. "Institutes,"I.xiii.5,ad init.:"Icouldwish that they[thetechnical

termsbywhich theTrinity is expressedandguarded]were buried,indeed,ifonlythisfaithstoodfastamongall:thattheFatherandtheSonandtheSpiritareoneGod;andyetneitheristheSontheFather,northeSpirittheSon,buttheyaredistinctbyacertainproperty."

21. Cf.theirdefenseofthemselves,Opp.xi.6.22. PhilipSchaff,"HistoryoftheChristianChurch,"vii.1892,p.351:"A

more serious trouble was created by Peter Caroli, a doctor of theSorbonne, an unprincipled, vain, and quarrelsome theologicaladventurerandturncoat....He[Caroli]raisedthechargeofArianismagainstFarelandCalvinatasynodinLausanne,May,1537,becausethey avoided in theConfession themetaphysical termsTrinity andPerson, (though Calvin did use them in his Institutio and hisCatechism)andbecausetheyrefused,atCaroli'sdictation,tosigntheAthanasianCreedwith itsdamnatoryclauses,whichareunjustanduncharitable."SeealsoSchaff's"CreedsofChristendom," i.1881,p.27, note 1: "Calvin, who had a very high opinion of the Apostles'Creed,depreciatestheNiceneCreed,asa'carmencantillandomagisaptum,quamconfessionis formula' (DeReform.Eccles.)." Itwouldnot,however,beeasy tocrowdmoreerroneoussuggestions intosofewwordsthanDr.Schaffmanagestodohere.Calvindidnothavedifficultywith themetaphysical terminology of the doctrine of theTrinity;hedidnotobjecttothedamnatoryclausesintheAthanasianCreed;hedidnotdepreciatetheNiceneCreed.NoristhepassageinwhichhespeaksoftheNiceneCreedasmoresuitableforasongthanacreedtobefoundinthetract,"Devera,ecclesiaereformatione."

23. So the Strasburg editors and also A. Lang ("Die HeidelbergerKatechismus," 1907, pp. xxxv.-xxxvi.; "Johannes Calvin," 1909, pp.38 and 208). Doumergue ("Jean Calvin," ii. 1902, pp. 236-251)agreeswithRilliet ("LeCat, fran. deCalvin, publie en 1537," 1878,pp.lii.-lvii)inassigningittoCalvinhimself.

24. Opp.xxii. 33-74. The Latin edition of this Catechism (Opp. v. 317-354) was not printed until 1538, but it must have been preparedcontemporaneouslywiththeFrench,sinceitwasquotedbyCalvininthedebatewithCaroliasearlyasFebruary,1537(seeBahler,"PetrusCaroliundJohannesCalvin," in theJahrbuch fürschweizerischeGeschichte,xxix.1904,p.64,note).

25. PrefacetotheLatinTranslation,whichwasissued,infact,preciselyto meet these calumnies, which had obtained an incredible vogue(Opp.v.318).

26. Wemay compare, however, the brevitywithwhich the doctrine oftheTrinityisdealtwithintheWestminsterConfessionandShorterCatechism.

27. SoColladontellsus,Opp.Calvini,xxi.59;theregistersoftheCouncilofGenevareadthename,"JehanTordeur."SeeN.Weiss,Bulletindela société de l'histoire du protestantisme français, lvi. 1907,pp.228-229.

28. Cf. Doumergue, "Jean Calvin," ii. 1902, pp. 241-242. Herminjard,"Correspondance," etc., ed. 2, iii. 1878, Index (note especially pp.172-175,notes1,5,7).Cf.alsotheclearbriefaccountofE.Bähler,"Petrus Caroli und Johannes Calvin" (in the JahrbuchfürschweizerischeGeschichte,xxix.1904),pp.73sq.

29. TheStrasburgeditors(CalviniOpera,vii.p.xxx.)characterizeCarolias "vir vana ambitione agitatus, opinionibus inconstans, moribuslevis."Doumergue'sjudgmentuponhimisembodiedinthesewords:"Unhappilyhis characterwasnotashighashis intelligence, and ifthenewideasattractedhimtheydidnottransformhim"(ii.1902,p.252). He quotes Douen's characterization of him as "a bold andadventurousspiritbadlybalanced,andmoredistinguishedbytalentsthanbyrectitudeofconduct"(p.253,note2).Kampschulte("JohannCalvin,"i.1869,p.162)contentshimselfwithcallinghim"amanofrestless spirit and changeable principles" - who (p. 295) was notaboveplayingonoccasionadishonorablepart.A.Lang's("Johannes

Calvin,"1909,p.40)characterizationruns:"Acutebutalsoweakincharacter and self-seeking." The inevitable rehabilitation of Carolihas been undertaken byEduardBähler, Pastor at Thierachern inSwitzerland, in a long article entitled "Petrus Caroli und JohannesCalvin:EinBeitragzurGeschichteundKulturderReformationszeit,"published in the twenty-ninth volume of the Jahrbuch fürschweizerischeGeschichte(1904,pp.39188).Bähler'sthesisisthatCaroli belonged really to that large semi-Protestant party in theFrenchChurchwhichfounditsinspirationinFaberStapulensisandits spiritual head in William Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux;occupyingthusamiddlegroundhecouldrestcontentneitherintheRoman nor in the Protestant camp - and from this ambiguousposition is to be explained all his vacillations and treacheries.Granting the general contention and its explanatory value up to acertain point, it supplies no defense of Caroli's character andconduct,whichBähler'srehabilitationleaveswhereitfoundthem.Cf.A.Lang's estimateofBähler's lackof success: "There remainsclinging to Caroli enough of wretched frivolity and of the mostdeplorable inconstancy. How great over against him stands outparticularlyFarel!"("JohannesCalvin,"1909,p.209).OnCarolithehistoriansoftheProtestantmovementinMetzshouldbeconsulted,e.g., Dietsch, "Die evang. Kirche vonMetz," pp. 68-77, andWinkelmann, "Der Anteil der deutschen Protestanten an denkirchlichenReformbestrebungeninMetzbis1543,"intheJahrbuchder Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte undAltertumskunde,ix.1897,pp.229sq.

30. Cf.Doumergue, "JeanCalvin," ii. 1902, p. 258,note; andBähler,"PetrusCaroliundJohannesCalvin,"p.73.

31. Cf.Bähler,ascited,p.71.32. Doumergue,ii.1902,pp.266-268.33. An old instance is supplied by Bellarmine, who, on Caroli's

testimony, seeks to intimate that Calvin's refusal at the Council ofLausannetosigntheCreedsresembledtheconductof theArians atthe Council of Aquileia ("Controversia de Christo," ii. 19, nearmiddle,in"Opp.Omnia,"Paris,i.1870,p.335)."Calvin,"hesays,"isnot unlike the Arians in this: for at the Council of Aquileia, St.Ambrose never could extort from the two Arian heretics that they

should say that the Son is very God of very God; for they alwaysresponded that the Son is the very Only-begotten, Son of the veryGod, and the like, but never that He is very God of very God,although theywere askedperhapsahundred times.And that fromCalvinattheCouncilofLausanne,itcouldneverbeextortedthatheshouldconfess that theSon isGodofGod,PetrusCaroli,whowaspresent,reportsinhislettertotheCardinalofLorraine."BellarmineisblindtothefactthatCalvinwasreadytoconfessallthattheCreedscontained to the exaltation of the Son andmore, while the Arianswould not confess so much. Even F. W. Kampschulte ("JohannCalvin,"u.s.w.,ii.1899,p.171)permitshimselftosaythatCalvin"inthe controversy with Caroli expresses himself on the Athanasiansymbol in a very dubiousway (in sehr bedenklichemMasse)," andaddsinanote:"Itwasnotgroundlesslythathewasupbraidedwiththis by his later opponents. 'Calvin waxes angry and employs thesametauntsastheanti-trinitariansagainsttheSymbolofAthanasiusand the Council of Nice, when his opinion touching the Trinity isbrought under discussion.' Cf. F. Claude de Saintes, Declarationd'aucunsatheismesdeladoctrinedeCalvin,Paris,1568,p.108."Cf.on Kampschulte, Doumergue, "Jean Calvin," ii. 1902, p. 266. WehavealreadyhadoccasiontopointouttheuncomprehendingwayinwhichDr. Schaff speaks of thematter (above, p. 199, note 22), inwhich,however,heisonlythetypeofagreatcrowdofwriters.

34. "Adv. P. Caroli calumnias," Opp. vii. 315: Calvino quidem et aliispropositumnequaqueeratsymbols,abiicereautillisderogarefidem.ComparewhathewritesonOct.8,1539,toFarelofthediscussionatStrasburg: Quamquam id quoque diluere promtum erat, nos nonrespuisse, multo minus improbasse, sed ideo tantum detrectassesubscriptionem, ne ille, quod captaverat, de ministerio nostrotriumpharet(Herminjard,vi.1883,p.53).

35. "Adv. P. Caroli calumnias," Opp. vii. 316: ego neque credo nequediscredo.SoCalvintellsFarelthatCarolihadreportedatStraaburgnot that Calvin and his colleagues had denied the teaching of thethree Symbols, but: nos vero non tantum detrectasse[subscriptionem], sed vexasse multis cachinnis symbola, illa. quaeperpetua bonorum consensione authoritatem firmam in Ecclesiasemperhabuerunt(Herminjard,vi.1883,p.52).And,whenwriting

tothePope,whatCarolichargestheProtestantpreacherswithdoingis "ridiculing, satirizing, defaming" the symbols and denying nottheir truthbuttheirauthority:eoquedevenisseutconciliiNicenietdivi Athanasii symbols, maiori ex parte riderent, proacinderent,proculcarent,etabecclesialegitimaumquamfuisaereceptanegarent(Herminjard, iv. ed. 2, 1878, p. 249). Compare below, note 37, p.209.

36. Cf.A.Lang("JohannesCalvin,"1909,p.41):"ThereshowsitselfhereCalvin'sself-relianceandindependenceasoveragainsteverykindofecclesiastical tradition....Thus, intheConfessionwhichheadducedat Lausanne in his and his colleagues' names, he explains: 'WecannotseekGod'smajestyanywhereexceptinHisWord;norcanwethinkanythingaboutHimexceptwithHisWord,orsayanythingofHimexceptthroughHisWord.'...'AreligiousConfessionisnothingbutawitnesstothefaithwhichabidesinus;...thereforeitmustbedrawnonlyfromthepurefountainofScripture."'

37. Opp.xb.83-84(Herminjard,iv.ed.2,1878,pp.185-186):"AdhaecCalvinus, nos in Dei unius fidem iurasse respondit, non Athanasiicuius Symbolum nulla unquam legitima ecclesia approbasset,"Doumergue("JeanCalvin,"ii.1902,p.256)renderscorrectly:"Nousavons jure la foi en un seul Dieu, et non en Athanase, dont lesymbole n'aétéapprouvépar aucuneÉglise légitime."Williston Walker ("John Calvin," 1906, p. 197), missing theconstruction,rendersmisleadingly:"WeswearinthefaithoftheoneGod,notofAthanasius,whosecreednotruechurchwouldeverhaveapproved." So alsoA. Lang ("JohannesCalvin," 1909, p. 40): "Wirhaben den Glauben an den einen Gott beschworen, aber nicht anAthanasius, dessen Symbol eine wahre Kirche nie gebilligt habenwürde."Perhapsworst of all, JamesOrr, "TheChristianViewofGodandtheWorld,"1893,p.309,note:"WehavesworntothebeliefinOneGod,andnottothecreedofAthanasius,whosesymbolatrueChurchwouldneverhavehadadmitted."CalvinisnotdeclaringtheAthanasianCreedunworthyof the approbationof any true church;heisrecallingthefactthatitisaprivatedocumentauthorizedbynovalid ecclesiastical enactment. For Caroli's account of what Calvinsaid, see above, note 35, end. Nevertheless, the Athanasian Creedhad attained throughout the Western Church a position of the

highest reverence (for the extent of its "reception and use" seeOmmaney,"ACriticalDissertationontheAthanasianCreed,"1897,pp. 420 sq.), and was soon to be "approbated" by the ProtestantChurchesatlarge.Zwingliinthe"FideiRatio"(1530)andLuther inthe Smalcald Articles (1537) had already placed it among theSymbolsof theChurches,whoseauthoritytheyrecognized:and the"FormulaConcordiae" andmanyReformedConfessions, beginningwiththeGallican,weresoonformallytoaccorditaplaceofauthorityin theProtestantChurches.SeeLoofs, "Athanasianum," inHerzog,"Realencyklopadie,"ed.3,ii.p.179;Schaff,"CreedsofChristendom,"ed. 1, i. p. 40; E. F. Karl Miller, "Die Bekenntnisschriften derreformierten Kirche," Index sub voc., "Athanasianum";Ménégoz,ascitedinnote42.CalvinfoundatStrasburgthatthemanner inwhichhehad spokenof theCreedswasoffensive tohiscolleaguesthere.HewritestoFarel(Herminjard,vi.1883,p.53):"Itwas somewhat harder to purge ourselves in the matter of theSymbols: for this was what was offensive (odiosum), that werepudiatedthem,thoughtheyoughttobebeyondcontroversy,sincetheywerereceivedbythesuffragesofthewholeChurch.Itwaseasyto explain that we did not disapprove, much less reject them, butonlydeclinedtosubscribethemthathe[Caroli]mightnotenjoythetriumph over our ministry which he longed for. Some odium,however,alwaysremained."

38. Opp.vii.316:nontamadremquamadhominem.39. iocatusest(ibid.,p.315).40. "When he had recited three clauses of the Athanasian Symbol, he

wasnotabletorecitethefourth..."(ibid.,p.311,top).41. Ibid.,pp.315-316.ThismannerofspeakingoftheNiceneCreedalso

impressed the Strasburg theologians unfavorably. Calvin writes toFarel Oct. 8, 1539 (Herminjard, vi. 1883, p. 54): "I had to givesatisfactionaboutthebattologies.Icouldnotbyanyeffortconvincethem that there is any battology there. I admitted, however, that IshouldnothavesospokenifIhadnotbeencompelledbythatman'swickedness."

42. Schaff:seep.199above,note22.E.Ménégozisthereforeintheessentials of the matter right, when he expresses his wonder thatmencansupposethatthecircumstancesthatCalvin"oncerefusedto

obeyaninjunctiontosigntheSymbol,"or"pronouncedajudgmentunfavorabletotheliteraryformofthisdocument"-M.Ménégozis confusing for the moment the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds -prove that "in the depths of his heart he held these anathemas inaversion"("PublicationsdiversessurleFidéisme,"1900,pp.276-277).Headdswithequaljustice:"Itisaninfelicitousideatoappealto Calvin as a witness that Protestantism, though receiving theCatholic Symbols, had no intention of approving their anathemas.AnditisahistoricalerrortoimaginethattheReformerswouldhaveacceptedtheseSymbols,iftheyhadnotfirmlybelievedthem,iftheyhadfeltanyscruples,orcherishedanymentalreservationsregardingthedamnatoryclauses.Therewasnopaltering inadoublesense inthatage.Therewasnopracticeof 'economy.' . . . If theProtestantshadfeltanyhesitationabouttheanathemas,theywouldhavesaidsowithoutambiguity,andtheywouldhavepurelyandsimplydiscardedtheSymbols.Nothingwouldhavebeeneasier."

43. Opp.vii.315.44. Opp.vii.318.45. "Adv.P.Carolicalumnias":Opp.vii.318.46. nonfraudulenter.47. Dorner'saccountofCalvin'sattitude to thesequestions isnotquite

exacteitherinthemotivesuggested,orinthepreciseactionascribedto him, though it recognizes Calvin's contribution to a betterunderstandingofthedoctrine("DoctrineofthePersonofChrist,"E.T. II. ii. 1862, p. 158, note 1): "Even Calvin, about the time of hisdisputewithCaroli,assertedthenecessityofadevelopingrevisionofthe doctrine of the Trinity. On this ground he declined pledginghimselftotheAthanasianCreed,andwishedtocastasidetheterms'persona,' 'Trinitas,' as scholastic expressions. At the same time hewasso far frombeing inclinedtowards theAntitrinitarians, thathewishedtocarryoutthedoctrineoftheTrinitystillmorecompletely.Hesawclearly that in the traditional formof thedoctrine, theSonhadnotfulldeity,becauseaseity(aseitas)wasreservedtotheFatheralone, who thus received a preponderance over the Son, and wasidentified with the Monas, or the Divine essence. TheAntitrinitarians,withwhomhehadtostruggle,usuallydirectedtheirattacksonthisweakpointofthedogma,anddeducedtherefromthe

Antitrinitarianconclusions."48. The "Institutes" as awholewere about doubled in length from the

firstedition(1536)tothesecond(1539),andagainaboutdoubledinthe last edition (1559), so that the last edition (1559) is about fourtimes as long as the first (1536). The treatment of the Trinitywas,therefore,alittlemoreexpandedthanthevolumeasawhole.

49. Thisargumentisretainedinthelatereditionsandappearsinitsfinalformintheed.of1559,I.xiii.16.Initsearlieststatementitrunsthus(1536, pp. 107-108: Strasburg ed., p. 58): "Paul so connects thesethreethings,God,faithandbaptism,thathereasonsfromonetotheother (Eph. 4). So that,because there is one faith, thence hedemonstrates that there is oneGod; because there is one baptism,thenceheshowsthatthereisonefaith.Forsincefaithoughtnottobe looking about hither and thither, neither wandering throughvarious things, but should direct its view towards the one God, befixedonHimandadheretoHim;itmaybeeasilyprovedfromthesepremises that if there bemany faiths there should bemanyGods.Againbecausebaptismisthesacramentoffaith,itconfirmstousHisunity,seeingthatitisone.ButnoonecanprofessfaithexceptintheoneGod.Thereforeaswearebaptizedintotheonefaith,soourfaithbelieves in theoneGod.Both that therefore isoneand this isone,becauseeachisofoneGod.HencealsoitfollowsthatitisnotlawfultobebaptizedexceptintotheoneGod,becausewearebaptizedintofaith inHim, inwhose namewe are baptized.Now, the Scriptureshavewished(Mat.atend)thatweshouldbebaptizedintothenameoftheFatherandoftheSonandoftheHolyGhost,atthesametimethatitwishesalltobelievewithonefaithintheFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.Whatisthat,truly,exceptaplaintestimonythattheFather,SonandHolySpiritareoneGod?For ifwearebaptized intheir name,we are baptized into faith in them. They are thereforeoneGod,iftheyareworshippedinonefaith."

50. Opp, i, 58. This awkward periphrasis suggests that, when the"Institutes"werewritten - in 1534-1535 -Calvinhadnoconvenientexpression at hand for the Tetragrammaton. This conjecture issupported by the circumstance that "Jehovah" does not seem tooccurinthefirstedition;itislackingeveninthePrefacetotheFirstCommandment, where the customary Dominus takes its place.

Alreadyinthe springof 1537,however (Opp. vii. 314; ix. 704, 708,709;xb.107,121)itisusedfamiliarly;andthenceforwardthroughoutCalvin's life.Duringhis sojourn atBasle (1535) Calvin had studiedHebrew with Sebastian Munster (Baumgartner, "CalvinHébraïsant,"1889,p.18),anditwasdoubtlessfromhimthatheacquired thepronunciation "Jehovah" (seeMunster onEx. vi. 3 in"Critici Sacri," Amsterdam ed., 1698, i. 107, 108; Frankfort ed., i.447;cf.32).FromhisowncommentonEx.vi.3wemay learn theclearness of Calvin's conviction that "Jehovah" is the rightpronunciation:"Itwouldbetedioustoenumeratealltheopinionsonthename'Jehovah.'ItiscertainlyafoulsuperstitionoftheJewsthattheydarenoteitherpronounceorwriteit,butsubstitute'Adonai'forit.Itisnomoreprobablethat,asmanyteach,itisunpronounceablebecauseitisnotwrittenaccordingtogrammaticalrule....NordoIassenttothegrammarianswhowillnothaveitpronouncedbecauseits inflection is irregular. . . ." How fixed the pronunciation"Jehovah"hadbecomeatGenevaby1570isrevealedbyanincidentwhichoccurred at the "Promotions" at theAcademy that year.TheHebrewProfessor,CorneilleBertram,havingdeclaredinresponsetoaninquirythat"Adonai"not"Jehovah"wastoberead,wasrebukedthereforandcompelledtoapologize:"ThisM.deBèzeandall theCompanyfoundill-said,andremonstratedwithhimforagitatingthiscurious and idlequestion, and for affirminganopinionwhichverymanygreatmenofthisage,ofgoodknowledge,piety,andjudgment,have held to be absurd, superstitious and merely Rabbinic" (Reg.Comp., 31 May, 1570, cited by Charles Borgeaud, "Histoire del'Universite de Geneve," 1900, p. 228). - The history of thepronunciation"Jehovah"hasnotbeenadequately investigated.See,however,G.F.Moore,"NotesontheNamehyhy,"A.J.T.,1908,xii.pp.34-52;A.J.S.L.,1909,xxv.pp.312-318;1911,xxviii.pp.56-62.IthasbecomethescholastictraditiontosaythatitwasintroducedbyPeter Galatin, confessor of Leo X, and first appears in his "DeArcanis Catholicae Veritatis," ii. 10 (the first of two chapters sonumbered)whichwas first published in 1516 (cf. Buhl's "Gesenius'Lexicon,"ed.13,1899,p.311,"about1520";Brown,Driver,Briggs,"HebrewandEnglishLexicon,"1906,p.218a,1520;Kittel,"Herzog,"3viii.pp.530-531,1518;Davidson,Hastings'B.D.,art."God,"1520;

A.J.Maclean,Hastings'OneVol.B.D., 1909,p.300a, 1518;A.H.McNeile,"WestminsterCommentaryonExodus,"1908,p.23,1518;OxfordEnglishDictionary,subvoc.,1516;andMoore,op.cit.,1518:cf.theverystrongstatementofDillmann,"Alttest.Theologie,"1895,p.215).Butthistraditionissimplyreportedfrommouthtomouth,from Drusius' tract on the Tetragrammaton ("Critici Sacri,"Amsterdam ed., vol. I. part ii. pp. 322 sq.: also inReland, "Decas.Exercitationum ... de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehova," 1707).SinceDrusiusnooneseemstohavemadeanyindependentefforttoascertainthefacts,exceptF.Böttcher,"AusführlichesLehrbuchderHebräischenSprache,"i.1866,§88(p.49,note2).IncopyingDrusiusthescholarshavefailedtonotethathehimselfpointsoutinalaternote,insertedonp.355,thattheform"Jehovah"(Porchetus'formisJohova,notJehova)occursalreadyinPorchetus,A.D.1303:andithasbeenpointedoutalsothatitoccursinRaimundMartini's"PugioFidei,"whichwaswrittenabout1270(Böttcher'ssuggestionthat itmay be an interpolation in the "PugioFidei" doesnot seemconvincing,althoughMooreagreeswithhimhere,op.cit.).ItisnotunlikelythatGalatin,whodrawsheavilyonMartinieitherdirectlyorthroughPorchetti,mayhavederiveditfromhim:andinanyeventheusesitnotasanovelinventionofhisown,butasawell-knownform.Theoriginandageofthepronunciationareaccordinglyyettoseek.ThewordsofDr.F.Chance(TheAthenæum,No.2119,June6,1868,p.796)arehereinpoint:"Thereisnodoubt,Ithink,thatthelettersjhvhwere fromthevery introductionof theHebrewpointspointedastheynoware...andifso,surelyanybodythatreadwhathehadbefore him must have read Jehovah. If the word were never sowrittenbefore the sixteenth century, itwasprobablybecauseup tothattimeHebrewwasstudiedbyveryfewpeople,exceptbyJewswhocould notwrite this holiest of God's names, and by Gentiles who,having learned theirHebrew from Jews, followed their example insubstitutingforitinreadingandwriting,Adonai,theLord,etc."-Nodoubtthevogueoftheforminthemiddleofthesixteenthcenturyisdue, not to its accidental occurrences in Galatin's book, but to theprogressofHebrewscholarshipinsequencetotherevivalofletters,which looked upon the Jewish refusal to pronounce the name asmere superstition and attached an exaggerated importance to the

Massoreticpointing.Thedebate about the proper pronunciation ofthenameis,inanyevent,aHumanisticphenomenon,andtheform"Jehovah" is found in use everywhere where Hebrew scholarshippenetrated,untilitwascorrectedbythisscholarshipitself.Reuchlinindeedappearsnottohaveusedit;norMelanchthon.Butitisusedby Luther (1526-1527 and 1543, though not in his Bible), and byMatthewTyndale inhisPentateuchof 1530, and soprevailingly byProtestant scholars that Romish controversialists were tempted torepresent it as an impiety (so Genebrardus) of the "Calviniani etBezani" followingtheexampleofSanctesPagninus(who,accordingtoMS.butnotprintedcopiesdidindeeduseit).

51. Opp.i.58.52. Themostnotableadditionsaretheargumentonu`po,stasijinHeb.

i.3(§2);thedefinitionof"person"(§6);andthewholepolemicagainst Servetus and Gentilia (§§ 22 to end). These sectionscontainnineofthesixteennewcolumns.

53. Cf.Köstlin,StudienundKritiken,1868,p.419,whospeaksof"thecircumspect, cautious moderation with which Calvin confineshimself to the simplest principles of the Church conception andrefuses to pass beyond the simple declarations of Scripture to adogmatic formulation, much more to scholastic questions andanswers,one step farther than seemed to him to be demanded fortheprotectionoftheGodheadoftheRedeemerandoftheHolySpiritfromtheassaultsofoldandnewenemies."

54. Cf.I.xv.4,adfin.Cf.CommentaryonGenesis,i.26,where,speakingof the human faculties, he remarks: "But Augustine, beyond allothers, speculates with excessive refinement for the purpose offabricatingatrinityinman.Forinlayingholdofthethreefacultiesof the soul enumerated byAristotle, the intellect, thememory andthewill,heafterwardsoutofonetrinityderivesmany.Ifanyreader,having leisure,wishes to enjoy such speculations, let him read thetenthandfourteenthbooksofTheTrinity,alsotheeleventhbookofTheCity of God. I acknowledge indeed that there is something inmanwhich refers to theFather, and theSon, and theSpirit; and Ihavenodifficultyinadmittingtheabovedistributionofthefaculties,...butadefinitionoftheimageofGodoughttorestonafirmerbasisthan such subtleties." For the later Reformed attitude, see Heppe,

"DieDogmatikderev.-ref.Kirche,"1861,pp.85sqq.55. Ined.1 (1536)heremarks(Opp. i. 59) that "that theHolySpirit is

'another' thanChrist isprovedbymorethantenpassages from theGospelofJohn(Johnxiv.xv.)."

56. This passage is already found in ed. 1 (1536) (Opp. i. 62): "ThePersonsaresodistinguishedbytheScripturesthattheyassigntotheFather the principium agendi, and the fountain and origin of allthings;totheSonthewisdomandconsiliumagendi;totheSpiritthevirtusetefficaciaactionis;whencealsotheSoniscalledtheWordofGod,notsuchasmenspeakorthink,buteternalandunchangeable,asemerginginanineffablemannerfromtheFather."

57. Cf.L.L.Paine,"TheEvolutionofTrinitarianism,"1900,p.95:"Itisaremarkable fact that theProtestantReformationonly increased theprestige of Augustine. . . . The question of the Trinity was not asubject of controversy and the Augustinian form of trinitariandoctrinebecameafixedtradition.TheNiceneCreed,as interpretedby the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed, was accepted on all sides andpassed into all the Protestant Confessions. It is to be noted thatCalvininsistedontheuseoftheterm'person'astheonlywordthatwould unmask Sabellianism. He also held to numerical unity ofessence.Thiswould seem to indicate thatCalvinbelieved thatGodwasoneBeinginthreerealpersons,and,ifso,hemusthaveallowedthat inGod nature and person are not coincident. Yet he nowhereraisesthequestion,andIaminclinedtothinkhewasnotconsciousofanydeparturefromtheviewsofAugustine."Calvindoes,however,repeatedly raise the question whether "nature" and "person" arecoincidentandrepeatedlydecidesthattheyare,inthesensethattheperson is the whole nature in a personal distinction. "The wholenature (tota natura)" is affirmed to be "in each hypostasis (inunaquaquehypostasi)," thoughthere ispresenttoeachoneitsownpropriety(I.xiii.19).Hencethereisnosuchthingas"atriplexGod,"as "the simple essence of God being divided among the threePersons"(xiii.2);theessenceisnotmultiplex,andtheSoncontainsthewholeofitinHimself(totaminse),etc.(ibid.).

58. It is the same thing that ismeant by G. A.Meier, "Lehre von derTrinität,etc.,"1844, ii.pp.58-59,where,afterremarkingthattheReformed were prone to emphasize especially the unity of God

(which involves whatwe have called "equalization"), he proceeds:"External circumstances early led to the sharp emergence of thispeculiarity.InthecontroversywithGentilis,whomaintainedthattheessentialbeingoftheSonwasfromtheFather,Calvinwascompelledto contend that in His Godhead and in His nature, the Son is ofHimself, and without principium, and only in His personalsubsistence,hasHisprincipiumintheFather.1Catholictheologians,especially Petau, have chargedhimwith heresy for this, though hewasonlyenunciatingwithincreasedsharpnesstheconvictionoftheChurch, and rightly recalling that otherwise a plurality of Godswouldbe introduced.2"At the points indicated the following notesareadded."1.'SincethenameJehovahisusedinthepassagescitedabove, it follows that the Son of God is with respect to His deitysolelyofHimself.'Val.Gentilisimpietatumbrevisexplic.(Calv.Opp.,Amstel.1667,viii.p.572).'TheessenceoftheSonhasnoprincipium,but theprincipiumof thePerson isGodHimself' (loc. cit., p.573).'WeconcedethattheSontakesoriginfromtheFather,sofarasHeisSon,butitisanoriginnotoftime,norofessence....butoforderonly'(l. c.,p. 580)." "2. 'Unlessmoreover theSon isGodalongwith theFather, a plurality of Gods will necessarily be brought in' (Ep. adFratresPolonos,p.591).AccordinglyCalvincalledthe"DeusdeDeo"a"hardsaying."AgainsthimseePetau,Detheol.dogm.,II.lib.iii.c.3,§§2,3.Ontheotherhand,Bellarmineacknowledgesthatinthemaintenanceoftheauvtoqeo,thjoftheSonthereisnorealdeparturefromthedoctrineoftheChurch."

59. Cf. "Adv. P. Caroli calumnias" (Opp. vii. 312): "Yet in that oneessence of Godwe acknowledge the Father withHis eternalWordand Spirit. In using this distinction, however, we do not imaginethreeGods,asiftheFatherweresomeotherthingthantheSon,noryet dowe understand them to be naked epithets, bywhich God isvariously designated from His actions; but, along with theecclesiasticalwriters,we perceive in the simple unity ofGod thesethreehypostases,thatissubsistences,whichalthoughtheycoexistinone essence are not to be confused with each other. Accordingly,thoughtheFatherisoneGodwithHisWordandSpirit,theFatherisnottheWord,northeWordtheSpirit."

60. "ExpositioimpietatisValentiniGentilis,"1561(Opp.ix.374,380).

61. Ibid.,Preface, p. 368.Cf.Beza inhisLife ofCalvin,who speaks ofGentilisunder theyear1558anddescribeshimaswishingtomaketheFatheraloneauvto,qeoj(Opp.xxi.154).Thesefourreferences(ix.368, 374, 380; xxi. 154) are all that are given in the Index to theStrasburg ed. (xxii. 493 - thisworddoes not occur in the Index ofxxiii.sq.)ofCalvin'sworksunderthewordauvto,qeoj.

62. Opp.i.58,atbottomofcolumn.63. May14and31,1537.64. Opp.vii.314:quiaseipsosemperhabuitutesset,etaliissubsistendi

virtuteminspiravit.Cf.ix.707;xb.107,121.Cf.Ruchat,"HistoiredelareformationdelaSuisse,"1835sq.,v.pp.27-28;Bähler,ascited,p.78;andalsoMerleD'Aubigné, "Historyof theReformation inEuropeintheTimeofCalvin,"E.T.vi.1877,p.316.

65. Ibid.,p.315.66. Ibid., p. 322: "But the most atrocious calumny of all is where he

impugnsthisstatement:thatChristalwayshaditofHimselfthatHeshouldbe;inwhichhehasbeenfollowedbysomeothers,menofnoaccount,who,however,worrygoodmenwiththeirimprobity;inthenumber of whom is a certain rogue (furcifer) very like himself(Caroli),whocallshimselfCortesius."

67. References to Augustine and Cyril are given in themargin: and in1543thefollowingisinsertedhereinthetext:"'Bytheseappellationswhich denote distinctions,' says Augustine, 'what is signified is areciprocalrelation;notthesubstanceitselfwhichisone."'

68. In1543therewasadded:"andthereforeisoneprincipiumwiththeFather. The cause of this diversity, Augustine explains well andperspicuously in another place, speaking as follows: 'Christ withreference to Himself (ad se) is called God; with reference to theFather (ad patrem) is called Son.' And again 'The Father ad se iscalledGod,adfiliumiscalledFather.WhatiscalledFatheradfiliumisnottheSon;whatiscalledSonadpatremisnottheFather:whatiscalledFatheradse,andSonadseisthesameGod.'WhenthereforewespeaksimpliciteroftheSonwithoutrespecttotheFather,wewellandproperlyassertHimtobease,andthereforecallHimtheuniqueprincipium.When,however,wearenotingtherelationinwhichHestandstotheFather,weproperlymaketheFathertheprincipiumoftheSon."Tothisthereisfurtheraddedin1559:"Totheexplication

of thismatter the fifth book of Augustine's De Trinitate, is whollydevoted.Itisfarsafertorestinthatrelationwhichheteaches,thanby more subtly penetrating into the divine mystery to wanderthrough many vain speculations." And with these words theparagraphclosesin1559.

69. Opp.,i.490-491.70. SeeHaag,"LaFranceprotestante,"subnom.,"Chaponneau,"ed.2,

iii.p.1084:"ShortlyafterwardsChaponneaumarried;hemarriedawidowwhose daughter soon became thewife in turn of thePastorJohn Courtois, known by some disputes that he had with Calvin.Chaponneaunomorethanhisson-in-lawhesitatedtoenterthelistswithCalvin.ThequarrelhaditsrisefromaquestionrelatingtothepersonofJesus...."

71. Opp.xi.560,Letter474.72. Opp.xi.652,Letter521.73. Opp. xii. 16, Letter 607; cf. the letter of Capunculus, Opp. xi. 781,

Letter590.74. The "Defensio" was pseudonymously published under the name of

Nicholas des Gallars, Calvin's secretary. Bähler, as cited, pp. 153sq., judges it very unfavorably and sharply criticises the advantagetaken of its pseudonymity and its inaccuracies, as well as itsharshnessoftone."ThenumberofCalvin'spolemicalwritings,"sayshe,"isgreat,andtheyareallmasterworksof theirorder.Noother,however,surpassestheDefensioinharshnessandbitterness.Itisallinall,scarcelyahappycreationofCalvin's....Fromthestandpointofliterary history the Defensio indisputably deserves unrestrictedpraise. The elegant, crisp style, the skillwithwhich the author notonlymorallyannihilateshisopponent,butputsuponhimthestampofanimpertinentpersonnottobetakenseriously,andpermeatesallwiththemostsovereignscorn,makesthereadingofthisbook,nownearly four hundred years old, an aesthetic enjoyment, whichobscures the protest of righteous indignation at the startlinginjustices and glaring untruths which the author has permittedhimself against Caroli. No doubt Calvin's conduct, if it cannot beexcused,mayyettoacertaindegreebeunderstood,whenwereflectthatCaroli,throughalmosttenyears,hadbroughttotheReformerofGenevaincessantannoyancesandthemostbittermortification,and

byhisaccusationshad imperilledhis life-workasperhapsnootherantagonist had been able to do" (p. 159). Compare the moremeasuredcensureofA.Lang("JohannesCalvin,"1909,p.42)oftheharshnessoftoneandopprobriouslanguageusedtowardsCaroli,incontrast with the high praise given the three Reformers - "when,although it was questionless written by Calvin himself, it waspublishedinthenameofhisamanuensis,NicholasdesGallars."

75. Opp.vii.322.76. Opp.vii.323.77. Opp.vii.323-324.78. Opp.vii.314.79. Opp.ii.110;"Institutes,"1559,I.xiii.23:namquumubiqueponatur

nomenIehovae,sequiturdeitatisrespectuexseipsoesse.80. P.113:I.xiii.25.81. Cf.I.xiii.2:TheSoncontainsinHimselfthewholeessenceofGod:

notapartofitonly,norbydeflectiononly,butinintegraperfectione.82. Already in the first edition of the "Institutes" this phraseology is

fixed; Opp. i. 64: "By which we confess that we believe in JesusChrist,who,weareconvinced,istheuniqueSonofGodtheFather,not like believers by adoption and grace only, but naturally asbegotten from eternity by the Father." So p. 62: "TheWord of theFather - not such as men speak or think, but eternal andunchangeable,asemerginginanineffablemannerfromtheFather."

83. Cf. DeMoor, "InMarckii Compend.," i. 1761, p. 775: "The Nicenefathers had reference to nothing but the personal order ofsubsistencewhen they said theSon is 'GodofGod,LightofLight';while,consideredabsolutelyandessentially,theSonisthesameGodwith the Father." This is expressed by Dr. Shedd with his wontedclearnessandemphasisasfollows("AHistoryofChristianDoctrine,"1873, i. pp. 339 sq.): "The Nicene Trinitarians rigorously confinedtheideasof 'Sonship'and 'generation'tothehypostaticalcharacter.ItisnottheessenceoftheDeitythatisgenerated,butadistinctioninthat essence. And, in likemanner, the term 'procession' applied totheHolySpiritpertainsexclusively to the thirdhypostasis,andhasnoapplicationtothesubstanceoftheGodhead.Theterm'begotten'in the Nicene trinitarianism is descriptive only of that which ispeculiar to the second Person, and confined to Him. The Son is

generated with respect only to His Sonship, or, so to speak, Hisindividuality (ivdio,thj), but is not generated with respect to Hisessenceornature....Thesamemutatismutandis is trueof theterm'procession.'...Thus,fromfirsttolast,intheNiceneconstructionofthe doctrine of the Trinity, the terms 'beget,' 'begotten,' and'proceed,'areconfinedtothehypostaticaldistinctions,andhavenolegitimate or technical meaning, when applied to the Trinity as awhole, or, in other words, to the Essence in distinction from thehypostasis." . . . Calvin was fully entitled to avail himself of thisdistinction,ashefullydidso.

84. HislaterTrinitariancontroversieswithGentilisandhiscompanionsbroughtoutmanystrongassertionspreciselyinpoint.Forexample,in the discussion in the "Institutes" (I. xiii. 23 sq.), he defines theprecisethinghewishestorefuteastherepresentationoftheFatheras"thesoleessentiator"who"informingtheSonandtheSpirithastransfused His own deity into them" (§ 23); to whom thereforealonethe"essenceofGodbelongs"andtowhomas"essentiator"theSon and Spirit owe their essence. In opposition to this he declaresthat "although we confess that in point of order and degree theprincipiumdivinitatisisintheFather,weneverthelesspronounceita detestable figment that the essence is the property of the Fatheralone, as ifHewere the deificator of the Son; because in thiswayeithertheessencewouldbemultiplexortheSonwouldbecalledGodonlyinatitularandimaginarysense.IftheyallowthattheSonisGodbutsecondfromtheFather,thentheessencewillbeinHimgenitaetformata, which is in the Father ingenita et informis" (§24, nearend)."weteachfromtheScriptures,"heexplains(§25,beginning)"that there is one God in point of essence (essentialiter), andtherefore the essence of both Son and Spirit is ingenita. Butinasmuch as the Father is first in order and has begotten fromHimself(genuitexse)Hisownwisdom,Heisrightlyconsidered,asIhave just said, the principium et fons totius divinitatis. Thus Godindefinitely is ingentitus;and theFatherwithregard toHisPersonalso is ingenitus." Calvin's weapon against the tritheists, therefore,waspreciselythattheessenceofGod,whetherinthefirst,secondorthird Person, is not generated: that it is only the Person which isgenerated, and that, strictly speaking, only thePersonof theSon -

thePersonoftheFatherbeingingenerate,anditbeingmorepropertospeakof thePersonof theSpiritas"proceeding."This ismerely,however,thetraditionalrepresentation,utilizedbyCalvin,notanewviewofhisown.

85. Cf. Sheldon, "History of ChristianDoctrine," 1886, i. p. 202: "LikeOrigen,theNicenefathersseemtohaveconceivedofthegeneration,not as something accomplished once for all, but as somethingparallel with the eternal life of the Son, ever complete and evercontinued."Also,Shedd, "AHistoryofChristianDoctrine," i. 1864,p.317: "Eternalgeneration isan immanentperpetualactivity inaneverexistingessence."

86. OfthisScholten,"DeLeerderHervormdeKerk,"ed.4,ii.p.237(cf.i. p. 24, ii. p. 229) makes great capital. In the middle edd. of the"Institutes," i. 483, however, Calvin in the very act of discardingthese texts as proof asserts his firmbelief in the fact of theDivineSonship of our Lord, as is immediately to be shown. On Calvin'sclear-sightedness and critical honesty in dealing with such textsBaumgartner has some good remarks ("Calvin Hébraïsant,"1889, pp. 37, 38). He illustrates the scandal it created at the timeamong those accustomed to rely on these texts by citing AegidiusHunnius'bookwiththeportentoustitle:Calvinusjudaizans,hocest:Judaicae glossae et corruptelae quibus Johannes Calvinusillustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca et testimonia de gloriosatrinitate,deitateChristietSpiritusSancti,cumprimisautemvaticiniaprophetarum de adventu Messiae, nativitate ejus passione etresurrectione, ascensione in coelos et sessione ad dextram Dei,detestandum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit. Addita estcorruptelarumconfutatio(Wittemberg:1593).

87. Middleedd.of"Institutes,"Opp.i.483.88. Opp.vii.315,whereitisexplicitlydeclaredthathehadnointention

ofderogatingfromthesymbol:cf.p.316.89. Preface to the "Expositio impietatisValen.Gentilis," 1561 (Opp. ix.

368):"ButthewordsoftheCouncilofNicerun:DeumessedeDeo.A hard saying (dura locutio), I confess; but for removing itsambiguity no one can be a more suitable interpreter thanAthanasius,whodictated it.Andcertainly thedesignof the fatherswas none other than to maintain the origin which the Son draws

from theFather in respectofPerson,without inanywayopposingthe sameness of the essence and deity in the two, so that as toessencetheWordisGodabsqueprincipio,while inPerson theSonhasHisprincipiumfromtheFather."Petavius'criticismisthereforewideofthemarkwhen("DeTrinitate,"III.iii.2,ed.Paris,1865,pt.ii.p.523;cf.alsoBellarmine,"DeChristo,"Prefaceofhis"Opera,"i.p. 244) he declares that Calvin "speaks rashly and altogetheruntheologically(temereetprorusavqeologh,twj)when he calls thislocution'hard,'becausehesupposesthatChrist,asHeisGodisaseipso, i.e., auvto,qeoj." But Calvin (who certainly does believe thatChrist is self-existent God and therefore may properly be calledauvto,qeoj),doesnot find the locutionDeus de (or ex)Deo "hard"(dura)onthataccount:hethoroughlybelievesbothintheqeo,jevkqeou/of theCreedand in theauvtoqeo,thjofChrist, and foundnodifficultywhatever inharmonizing them.Whenhepronounces thislocution "harsh"hismind is on the possibility of itsmisuse by theAntitrinitarians as if it meant that the Son was made God by theFather.When,therefore,Petaviusadds(§3,p.524):"Sothen,thelocution,God is fromGod, is not only true but useful (proba) andconsentaneous to Christian teaching; not as the Autotheani andCalvinists ignorantly babble, hard" - he says no more for thesubstanceof it thanCalvinhadhimself said in the very passage inwhichhecalledthelocution"harsh,"-thatistosay,thatitexpressesanimportanttruth,this,towit,thattheSondrawsHisorigin,withrespect to His Person, from the Father. No doubtCalvin may alsosuggest that theremightwiselyhavebeenchosena lessambiguousway of saying this than the "harsh" locutionDeus deDeo - whichcertainlyiscapableofbeingmisunderstoodasteachingthattheSonowesHisdivinitytotheFather-asGentilis taught.Seebelow,note94.

90. "SystematicTheology,"i.1874,pp.462sq.Onpp.466,467hegivesaveryclear statementofCalvin'sposition,ofwhichheexpressesfullapproval.

91. "Diatribe de Christo auvtoqew|/," printed by Voetius, in "SelectaeDisputationesTheologicae,"Parti.1648,p.445:calumniandipotiuslibidinequamerroriscumArianissocietate.

92. Wearequoting fromBellarmine, "DeChristo," II. cap. xix. ad init.

(his"Opera,"i.p.333).Cf.theopeningwordsofPetavius'discussion,"DeTrinitate," VI. xi. 5 (his "Opera," iii. p. 251): "With respect tomorerecentwriters, thereexistsa far fromsmall altercationof theCatholicswithheretics, especiallywithCalvin,Beza and their crew(asseclis). For Genebrardus in the first book of his "De Trinitate"very sharply upbraids (insectatur) them and gives them the nameautotheanites,becausetheysaytheSonhasHisdivinityandessenceofHimself;anerrormentionedalsobyWilliamLindanus."

93. Voetius,"Dispt.,"i.pp.453,454,givesanaccountof theopponentsoftheReformedascriptionofauvtoqeo,thjtoChrist.Therearethreeclasses:Romanists,Lutherans,andArminians, towhichheaddsasfourth and fifth classesPeterCaroli, and theAntitrinitarians (Crelland Schlichting). The Romanists he subdivides into two classes,thosewhofindthatCalvintaughtheresyandthosewhoobjecttohislanguage only. The latter sub-class includes only Bellarmine andGregory of Valentia. Under the former, however, he enumerates along list of writers with exact references. Cf. also De Moor, "InMarck.Comp.,"i.1761,pp.773-774(V.x.).

94. Thatistosay,thephrase"GodofGod"isinterpretedtomean"GodtheSon,ofGodtheFather"-Godinthefirstinstancemeaning(notthe essencebut) thePersonof theSon, and in the second instance(not the essence but) the Person of the Father. Only on thissupposition, as Gregory allows, can the phrase "God of God" beappliedtoChristinexactnessofspeech.Thatistosay,GregoryfindsthephraseasinexactasCalvindoeswhenhecallsitaduralocutio.

95. We repeat the passage from Gomarus' citation in Voetius'"Disputat.," i. 1648, p. 448. Gomarus cites Gregory, "Ad summaeThomae," part i. disp. 2, quaest. 1, punct. 1, p. 718. The passage isfound also, however, in Gregory's treatise "De Trinitate," ii. 1 (towhichVoetiusrefersus,p.454,addingappropriatereferencesalsotoi. 22 and ii. 17). See Gregorii de Valentia ". . . de rebus fidei hoctemporecontroversisLibri,"Paris,1610,p.205,firstcolumn,BandC.

96. Op.cit.,p.334a.97. Op.cit.,p.252a.98. It is interesting to observe how constantly the argument hangs

formally on the suppressed premise of the Nicene doctrine of

generation.ThusBellarmineargues(p.334b)that"thosewhoassertthattheSonhasHisessenseaseipsoerrbecausetheyarecompelledeither(1)tomaketheSoningenerateandthesamepersonwiththeFather,or(2)tomultiplytheessences,oratleast(3)todistinguishtheessencefromthepersonrealiterandsointroduceaquaternity."AsCalvindoesnoneof these things,he ispronouncedorthodox inmeaning.Butthepointnowtobe illustrated lies intheassumptionunder(1)thattomaketheSoningenerateistomakeHimthesamepersonwith theFather. Itdoesnotoccur toBellarmineaspossiblethatoneshoulddenytheSontobegeneratedandyetnotmakeHimthesamepersonwiththeFather,whileholdingfreefrom(2)and(3).Similarly,whenreplyingtoDanaeus,whoasks:"IfHe isnotGodase, how isHeGod?" Petavius (p. 256) declares that so to speak isperfidiousandignorant-"for,"sayshe,"iteitherrobstheSonofHisdeityordeniesthatHeisGodbegottenoftheFather."Theoneseemstohimas intolerableas theother.NeitherBellarminenorPetaviusseems fairly to have faced the possibility of a doctrine of a trueTrinityofPersonsinoneessencewhichdidnothangonthedoctrineof "eternal generation," which seemed to them, thus, equipollentwiththedoctrineoftheTrinity.

99. ItistobehopedthatmodernLutheransingeneralwillsubscribetheexcellent remarks of Prof. Milton Valentine, "Christian Theology,"1906,i.309:"Emphasismust...belaidontheattributeofaseityasbelongingtothewholeGodhead,tothedivineBeingassuch. . . .Itcannot therefore be allowable to think of God as originating theTrinalityof theGodhead,as thoughtherewasa timewhenHewasnot Tripersonal in His Being. . . ." Accordingly he ascribes self-existence to the Son (pp. 321-322). A. Ritschl, "Justification andReconciliation," iii. E. T. 1900, p. 470, represents " theologicaltradition,"whichat least includesLutheran tradition, as "expresslyexcludingaseity"initsrepresentationsoftheDeityofChrist.

100. Ed.Cotta,i.Tubingen,1762,pp,291-292(Loc.IV.parsii.cap.v.§179).

101. Itmust not be supposed, however, that Ursinus separated himselffrom Calvin as to the self-existence of the Son as He is God: hislanguageis:"theSonisbegottenoftheFather,oftheessenceoftheFather, but the essence of the Son is not begotten, but, existent of

itself (a se ipsa existens), is communicated to the Son at Hisbegetting(nascenti)by(a)theFather.""AndwhatissaidconcerningthegenerationoftheSon,"headds,"istobeunderstoodalsooftheprocessionoftheSpirit"("Loci,"p.542).

102. iii.Tubingen,1764,p.395(LocusIV.cap.v.§67).103. Cf.H.Bavinck,"Geref.Dogmatiek,"ed.1,ii.p.263.Remarkingthat

the tendency which finds its typical form in Arianism, hasmanifesteditselfinvariousformsintheChurchforcenturies:"FirstofallintheformofSubordinationism:theSonistobesureeternal,generatedoutoftheessenceoftheFather,nocreature,andnotmadeofnothing;butHeisneverthelessinferiortoorsubordinatedtotheFather.TheFatheraloneiso`qeo,j(phgh,qeo,thtoj,theSonisqeo,j,receivesHisnaturebycommunicationfromtheFather.ThiswastheteachingofJustin,Tertullian,Clement,Origen,etc.,alsooftheSemi-Arians,EusebiusofCaesareaandEusebiusofNicomedia,whoplacedtheSon evkto.j tou/patro,j anddeclaredHim o`moioou,sioujwiththeFather;andlateroftheRemonstrants(Conf.Art.3;ArminusOp.theol. 1629,pp.232sq.;Episcopius,Instit. theol. IV. sect. ii. c. 32;Limborch, Theol. Christ. II. c. xvii. §25), of the Supranaturalists(Bretschneider,Dogm., i9 pp. 602 sq.; Knapp, Glaubenslehre, i. p.260;Muntinghe,Theol.Christ.pars theor.§ 134 sq., etc.), andofverymanytheologiansofrecenttimes(Frank,Syst.d.chr.Wahr.,i.pp.207sq.;Beck,Chr.Gl.ii.pp.123sq.;Twesten,ii.p.254;Kahnis,i.pp.353,398;vanOosterzee, ii.§52;Doedes,Ned.Gel.71sq.)."Cf.alsoH.C. Sheldon, "History of ChristianDoctrine," ii. 1886, p.97:"TheArminians,while theyheldto thedoctrineof threeDivinePersons intheGodhead,diverged fromthecurrent teachingon thesubject by an express emphasis upon the subordination of the Sonand the Spirit. Arminius was not specially related to thisdevelopment,andcontentedhimselfwithdenying, inopposition toCalvin'sphraseology,theproprietyofattributingself-existencetotheSon. But Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and Limborch were verypronounced in the opinion that a certain preeminence must beassignedtotheFatherovertheSonandtheSpirit."

104. "Declaratio sententiae suae ad ordinesHoll. etWestfr.," in "OperaTheol.," 1635, pp. 100-101. SeeE. T. "Works," translatedbyJamesNichols,London,i.1825,pp.627-631.

105. "Resp,adxxxi.Articulos,"in"Opera,"p.131(E.T."Works,"ii.1828,pp.29-32).

106. Ibid.,p.132.107. Cf.Episcopius' theologialworks,printedatAmsterdam,1650-1665;

espec.his"Instit.Theolog.," lib. iv.§11,deDeo, capp.32-36.ButwecitefromTriglandius.

108. Triglandius,"Antapologia,"cap.v.pp.77sq.109. Cf.Triglandius,pp.579,580.110. London,1713,pp.290sq.111. DanielZwicker.See"Allgem.deutecheBiog.,"xlv.1900,p.533.112. Nelson,ascited,p.301.113. "Defence," Proem., §5. Ralph Cudworth was at the moment

teaching a doctrine of the Trinity indistinguishable from that ofEpiscopiusandhisfollowers.

114. Nelson,p.315,Bull,Sect.iv.cap.i.§1(E.T.Oxford,1852,p.557,inthe"LibraryofAnglo-CatholicTheology").

115. Nelson,p.287:Bull,Proem,§8.116. "DefenceoftheNiceneFaith,"IV.i.7sq.117. Ibid.,§8.118. Nelson,pp.319sq.119. "Tract.deunoDeoPatre,"BookI.sect.ii.cap.2.120. "ContraMeisnerum."121. "On the Trinity," 1712, Part ii. § 14, p. 276. Cf. ii. § 5. An

interestingaccountofClarkemaybe found inNelson, as cited, pp.322sq.

122. "Vindication,"etc.,Q.xiii.(Cambridge,1721,p.207).123. "SecondDefense,"Q.iii.(London,1723,p.172).124. Ibid.125. DeMoor,"InMarck.Compend.,"i.1761,p.772,seemstopreferthe

word"independence"fortheexpressionof theaseityofGodandoftheSonasGod:"Byparityofreasoning,itiscertainthatiftheSonbetrueGod, He is independent God; for independence is easily firstamongtheattributesofGod,andisinseparablefromtheessenceofGod....Andthisbeingtrue,thetitleauvto,qeojorauvtoqeo,j(forthetheologiansaccentitdifferently)cannotbedeniedtotheSon,nortotheSpirit, as if this titlewere suitable to theFather only." . . . "Byindependence,"hecontinues,"Godis,aswehaveseenatchap.iv.§

20,aseinthenegativesense,notinthesenseofapropercausalityofHimself,anditisthisthatthetitleauvtoqeo,jexpresses.1.IfthentheSon is the supreme and independent God He isauvtoqeo,j. 2. Andsince the reality of the Divine essence cannot exist withoutindependence,theSonwouldnotbetrueGodunlessHewasat thesame timeauvtoqeo,j. 3. If the Father be acknowledged tobeauvtoqeo,j,theSonmustalsobesuch,unlesstheSonbedeniedtobethesameGodwiththeFatherandapluralityofGodsiserected,anumerical plurality of divine essences. For the same God and thesameDivineessencecannotatthesametimebeaseipsoandnotaseipso.TheSonisnot,ofcourse,auvtoui`o,j,Sonaseipso;butHecertainlyisauvtoqeo,j,Godaseipso.HeisoftheFatherrelativelytoHisbeingSon,butHeisaseconsideredabsolutelyasHeisGod:asHehastheDivineessenceexistingase,andnotdividedorproducedbyanotheressence;butnotasifhavingthatessenceaseipso.Heis'Godase';not,'Heisase,God,'or,whatisthesamething,HeisnotSonase."

126. Thedebateontheauvtoqeo,thjof theSoncausedthetheologianstoenter into long disquisitions on the force ofauvto,j in compositionand the proper sense or senses ofauvto,qeoj. Voetius, for example(pp. 449-451) argues thatauvto,j in composition has five senses. Iteither (1) emphasises singularity; or (2) distinguishes as kat vevxoch,n;or(3)meansase;or(4)perse,intrinsically,essentially;or(5)perseandoperatingwithaproperandsufficientprincipialforce,producing somewhat. Accordingly it is improper to assume thattheologiansalwaysmeanthethirdsense,whentheyemploythetermauvto,qeoj. Any one of five senses may be intended: (1) Godkat vejxoch,n; (2) The only, sole God; (3) God essentially, not byparticipation,perseandnotperaccidens,inseandessentially,notinsomeexternal respectordenomination; (4)Godaseandnotabalio, a;narcoj, that is to say, kai. avnai,tioj; (5) God, the primusagens,primusmotor,dependentonnone,butthefirstcause.

127. Voetius, "Diap.," i. 1648, p. 460, gives a characteristic list ofReformed doctors who previous to himself (1648) had taught thatChrist isproperly tobe calledauvto,qeoj- lestanyone should thinkthattheauvtoqeo,thjofChristhadbeenproclaimedonlybyonehereandthere,zealousfortheirownnotionorlovingnovelty,ratherthan

byallinthenecessarydefenseofthecommontruth.Hislistincludes,besides Calvin, Beza, Simler, the whole mass of representativeReformed teachers: Danaeus, Perkins, Keckermann, Trelcatius,Tilenus, Polanus, Wollebius, Scalcobrigius, Altingius, Grynaeus,Schriverius, Zanchius, Chamierus, Zadeel, Lectius, Pareus,Mortonus, Whittaker, Junius, Vorstius, Amesius, Rivetus. Heppe,"Dogmat.d.ev:ref.Kirche,"1861,p.84,records:"AndmoreovertheSonisassuchnotcreatedormadebyGod,oradoptedoutoffavororonaccountofdesert,butHeisaccordingtoHisnatureGodtheSon,and is therefore like the Father and the Holy Spiritveritablyauvtoqeo,j."

128. "Axiomat.deTrinitate,"Axiom14.129. "Epist.adPolon."or"Lib.deFilioDei."130. Op.cit.,p.334b.131. Cf. the remark ofDeMoor, "InMarck. Compend.," i. 1761, p. 775:

"Distinctions inmodeofsubsistence,and thepersonalorderwhichflowsfromthis,cannotaffecttheequalityofessence;andinferiorityandinequalitycannotconsistwithnumericalonenessofessence."

132. Cf. Voetius, as cited, p. 465: "Trelcatius, Loc. Com., andKeckermann, Syst. Theol., seem to deny the communication of theessence: and Maccovius, in his Metaphysica, c. 8, follows them,when,againstArminius,hedeterminesthatnottheessence,butthepersonality, is communicated from the Father." "Strictly speaking,however,wemustsay,"addsVoetius,"thatthePersonisbegottenbythe communication of the essence: though these authors are to beexcusedbecausetheytooktheword 'communication' toophysicallyandhadValentinusGentilisinview."Voetius'ownviewisexpressedinthe"maxims"(p.461)that:"Theessenceindivinisneitherbegetsnorisbegotten,butthepersonoftheFatherbegetsin,deandexHisessencewhichisthesamewiththeessenceoftheSon":"theessencemaythereforebesaidtobecommunicated,given,bytheFather,andreceived, and had, by the Son from that communication or gift.Briefly,thePersonoftheFatherbegetsthePersonoftheSonbythecommunicationoftheessence."

133. "SystemaSS.Theologiae,"Hanoviae,1615,p.54.134. Thispositionwas takenbyHermanAlexanderRoëll,professor at

Franeker,attheendoftheseventeenthcentury.Theideaof"eternal

generation" he held to be wholly unscriptural and at war with theperfectnatureofGod-whetherasFatherorasSon.ThedesignationoftheSecondPersonoftheTrinityasSonheatfirstfoundtorestonHis consubstantiality with the Father ("By the words 'Son' and'Generation'issignified,inemphasis,thattheSecondPersonhasthesameessenceandnaturewiththeFirst,andhascoexistedwithHimfrometernity,"-"DeGenerationeFilii,"1689,p.5),butafterwardstobe expressive rather of His divine mission, and the clear relationexistingbetweenGodtheSenderandGodtheSent.Agoodaccountis given of his views by Ypeij and Dermout, "Geschiedenis derNederlandscheHervormdeKerk," ii. 1822, pp. 544 sq. The idea ofHermanMuntinghe,professoratHardewijkandlateratGroningen,attheendofthenextcentury(seeYpeijandDermout, iv.1827,pp.271 sq.)was similar.Much the same notionswere introduced intotheCongregationalchurchesofNewEnglandbyNathanielEmmons."WefeelconstrainedtorejecttheeternalgenerationoftheSon,andtheeternalprocessionoftheHolyGhost,assuchmysteriesascannotbe distinguished from real absurdities, and as such doctrines asstrikeat the foundationof the truedoctrineof three equallydivinepersons in one God" ("Works," iv. 1842, p. 114). "The Scriptureteachesus thateachof thedivinepersons takesHispeculiarnamefrom the peculiar office which He sustain's in the economy ofredemption....ThefirstpersonassumesthenameofFather,becauseHeisbyofficetheCreatororAuthorofall things,andespeciallyofthehumannatureofChrist.ThesecondpersonassumesthenameofSonandWord,byvirtueofHisincarnationandmediatorialconduct....ThethirdpersonintheTrinityiscalledtheHolyGhostonaccountof His peculiar office as Sanctifier" (p. 109). This view becamethereafter the common view among the New England churches,finding its complete expression in Moses Stuart (" Letters on theEternalGenerationoftheSon,"1822)andHoraceBushnell("GodinChrist," 1849). Cf. George P. Fisher, "Discussions in History andTheology,"1880,p.273:"HopkinswasthelasttoholdtotheNicenedoctrine of the primacy of the Father and the eternal Sonship ofChrist. The whole philosophy of the Trinity, as that doctrine wasconceivedby itsgreatdefenders intheageofAthanasius,whenthedoctrine was formulated, had been set aside. It was even derided;

and this chiefly for the reason that it was not studied. ProfessorStuart had no sympathy with or just appreciation of the NicenedoctrineofthegenerationoftheSon."Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthe"eternalprimacy"oftheFatherandthe"eternalgeneration"of the Son do not necessarily go together. Neither RoëllnorEmmons, for example, while decidedly denying the "eternalgeneration"oftheSon,doubtedthattheFatherisfirstintheTrinity,notonlyinofficebutalsoinorder-asEmmons(p.137)expressesit,is"theheadofthesacredTrinity."Theydodeny,however, thattheFatherissuperiortotheSoninnature;andtheytaketheirstartingpointfromtheabsolutedeityoftheSon,intheinterestsofwhichitislargelythattheydenythedoctrineof"eternalgeneration."WhenDr.Fisher(p.273)says,"TheeternalfatherhoodofGod,theprecedenceof the Father, is as much a part of the orthodox doctrine of theTrinityasisthedivinityoftheSon,"bytheorthodoxdoctrineoftheTrinity hemeans the doctrine as itwas formulated by "theNiceneFatherswhoframedtheorthodoxcreed."Therejoinderliesreadyathand that theNiceneFathersoverdid thematter from thepoint ofview of "the precedence of the Father," and left the way open fordoinglessthanjusticeto"thedivinityoftheSon"-whichthereforerequiresreassertionandbetterguarding.Inpointoffact,itisaroundthese two foci - "the precedence of the Father," which in itsexaggerationbecomesArianism,and"thedivinityoftheSon,"whichin its exaggeration becomes Sabellianism - that the Trinitarianconstructions have revolved. The Trinitarian problem is, to find amodeofstatementthatdoesfulljusticetoboth.Todothisitmustofcourse be carefully ascertained from Scripture in what sense "theFather" has "precedence" of the Son; and inwhat sense the Son isGod. Roëll and Emmons deny that the Scriptures accord such"precedence" to the Father as is expressed by the phrase "God ofGod": they affirm that the Scriptures ascribe absolute deity to theSon. On the New England doctrine of the Trinity from Emmonsdown seeL. L. Paine,"TheEvolution of Trinitarianism," 1900, pp.104sq.

135. Cf.thestrikingpassage,alreadyalludedtoinpart,whichisfoundinthe middle editions of the "Institutes," at the opening of thediscussion(Opp.i.482-483):"Butsinceeverythingfollowsfromthe

proofofthedivinity[oftheSon],weshalllayourchiefstressontheassertionofthat.TheAncients,whoseideawasthattheSonexisted(exstitisse) by eternal generation from the Father, endeavored toproveitbythetestimonyofIsaiah(Is.liii.8),'WhoshalldeclareHisgeneration?'But it isclearthattheywereunderan illusionincitingthis text. For the prophet does not speak there of how the Fathergenerated the Son but by how numerous a posterity His kingdomshouldbeincreased(so1539:but1550sq.:"butthroughhowlongaperiodHiskingdomshouldendure"].NeitheristheremuchforceinwhattheytakefromthePsalms:'fromthewombbeforethemorningstarhaveIbegottenThee';forthatversionisbynomeansconsonantwiththeHebrew,whichrunsthus(Ps.ex.3):'Fromthewombofthemorning is to thee the dew of thy nativity.' The argument, then,whichseemstohavespecialplausibility,istakenfromthewordsoftheApostle inwhich it is taught that theworldsweremade by theSon; forunless therehadalreadybeenaSon,Hispower could nothave been put forth. But little weight can attach to this argumenteither, as appears from similar formulas. For none of uswould beaffectedifanybodysoughttotaketheword'Christ'backtothattime,inwhichPaulsaysthat'Christ'wastemptedbytheJews(ICor.x.9)[whereCalvinevidentlyreads"Christ"].Foritsparticularapplicationbelongsproperlytothehumanity[ofChrist].Similarly,becauseitissaid (Heb. xiii. 8) that 'Jesus Christ' was yesterday, is to-day, andshallbeforever,ifanybodyshouldcontendthatthenameof'Christ'belongedtoHimalways,hehasaccomplishednothing.Whatdowedo but expose the holy and orthodox doctrines of religion to thecavils of heretics, when we contort texts after this fashion, which,whentakenintheirpropersense,serveourcauseeithernotatallorvery little?Tome,however, thisoneargument isworthathousandforconfirmingmy faith in the eternity of the Son ofGod. For it iscertain that God is not a Father to men, except through theintercessionof thatonlybegottenSon,whoalonerightlyvindicatesthisprerogative toHimself,andbywhose favor itcomestous.ButGodalwayswishedtobeworshippedbyHispeopleunderthenameofFather; fromwhich it follows thatalready then [i.e., semper]HewasSon,throughwhomthatrelationshipisestablished."SimilarlyinhisCommentariesheexplainsMicahv.1,2of theeternaldecreeof

God,notof theeternityof thegenerationofChrist:andonPs. ii.7prefers to follow Paul (Acts xiii. 33) to referring it to the eternalgenerationofChristby"subtlyphilosophizingontheword'to-day.'"IntheNewTestamenthefollowstherule(withfewexceptions)"thatthe writers of the New Testament, and especially Jesus Himself,speak of Christ not as the absolute Logos but as the God-man....Especially in the Gospel of John, the declarations of Jesusconcerning Himself are expounded not out of an absolute logos-consciousnessbutoutofthetheanthropicconsciousnessofJesus,sothat after John i. 14 there is no further reference to the Logosa;sarkojor to thenudadivinitasChristi exceptonly inJno. viii. 58andxvii. 5 " (Scholten, "DeLeerderHervormdeKerk,"ed.4, ii.p.231;cf.p.229andi.p.24).SimilarlyoftheHolySpirit(p.236)herefusestogetproofforHistrinitarianrelationeitherfromJno.xiv.16orICor.ii.10.

136. As, for example, that the terms "Son," "Spirit"are not expressiveof"derivation" (by "generation" or "spiration") but just of"consubstantiality."TheSonistherepetitionoftheFather;theSpiritistheexpressionofGod.SoRoëllinhisfirstview;andevenStuartremarks,justly:"TheHebrewidiomcallshimthesonofanypersonorthing,whoexhibitsaresemblanceindispositionorcharacter"(op.cit., p. 105).More broadly,W.Robertson Smith ("TheO. T. in theJewish Church," ed. 1, p. 427) remarks: "Among all Semitesmembership inaguild is figuredassonship."That is to say, in theSemiticview, sonshipdenotesbroadlyonenessofkind,class;morespecifically likeness;at theheightof itsmeaning, consubstantiality;anddoesnotsuggestderivation.As thesonofaman isaman, theSon of God is God. It is the Indo-European consciousness whichimpartstothetermsSon,Spirittheideaofderivation.

137. When during the first weeks of its sessions, the WestminsterAssembly was engaged on the revision of the Thirty-nine Articles,and Article viii. on the Three Creeds came up for discussion,objectionwasmadetotheevkqeou/clauses.Itdoesnotappearthatthere was any pleading for the subordinationist position: theadvocatesforretainingtheCreedsratherexpendedtheirstrengthinvoiding the credal statement of any subordinationist implications.ThusDr.Featley'sreplytothecurrentobjectionwasthat"although

ChristisGodofGod,itdothnotthereforefollowthatthedeityoftheSonisfromthedeityoftheFather,...asitdoesnotfollowquiaDeuspassus est ergoDeitaspassa est, orquiaMariamaterDei, ergo estMariamaterdeitatis" (seehisspeechprinted inhis"DippersDipt,"London,1651,pp.187-189).WerethistakenliterallyitwouldexplaintheSonshipofourLordwhollyfromthesideofHishumiliationandidentifyHisfiliationwiththeincarnation.

138. Op.cit.,p.335.139. Op.cit.,p.252.140. WesupposeArminius scarcely intended to repeat Bellarmine's and

Petavius' accusation of confusion between a se and ad se when ("Works,"E.T.ii.1828,p.32)heremarksonthemodifiedmannerinwhichauvtoqeo,jisusedwhenappliedtoChrist,andadds:"Buttheirexplanation does not agree with the phraseology they employ. Forthis reasonBeza excusesCalvin, and openly confesses 'that hehadnotwith sufficient strictnessobserved thedifferencebetween theseparticles a se and per se.'" The remark of Beza is referred to his"Praef.inDialog.Athanasii."WehavenotaccesstoBeza'seditionofthisPseudo-Athanasian tractate and cannot assure ourselves of hismeaning.WeassumethathewasnotcriticizingCalvin'sphilologicalequipmentbuthisdoctrinalconstruction;andwesuspectthatwhathesaysisthatCalvinininsistingthatChristisGodaseipsowasnotsufficientlycarefullydisguishingbetweensayingHeisGodperse-inandofHimself,andthatHeisGodase-fromHimself.Inthatlikelycase Beza is only explaining the differences between himself andCalvinwhich are expressed in Calvin's denial that the Son hasHisessence from the Father and Beza's affirmation that He has Hisessence from the Father. Calvin here, he says, is not sufficientlyconsideringthedifferencebetweenbeingGodaseandbeingGodperse.InthiscaseBeza'sdistinction ismuch likeWaterland'sbetweenself-existent and necessarily-existent God and makesauvtoqeo,thjmeanmerely ingenerateness; andwe note that if our conjecture isright, there is involved a testimony from Beza that Calvin's realthought of the Trinity denied the communication of essence fromFather toSon. Inhis letter toPrinceRadziwilon"TheUnityof theDivineEssence and the three Persons subsisting in it," against thePolishUnitarians,Bezadeclares("Tractat.Theolog.,"1582,i.p.647)

that it is inepttosaythat"theFatheralone isauvto,qeoj, that is, astheyinterpretit,hasHisBeingaseipsoandthereforecanbecalledGod," - and gives his reason: "For to be a se and ab alio, do notconstitutedifferentkindsofnature;andthereforetheFathercannotonthatgroundbesaidtobethesoleanduniqueGod,noroughtHetobe,butratherthesoleanduniqueFather,as theSon issoleandunique because 'only-begotten.'" Canwe really say that "to be a seandabaliodonotconstitutedifferentkindsofnature(aliamnaturaespeciem)?Ifthecontrastisthatofself-existingandderivedBeingitcan scarcely be said. But if the contrast is between ingenerate andgenerate Being - it is true enough. Every father and son areconsubstantial,andtheverypointoftheusageofFatherandSoninthis connection seems to be to assert their consubstantiality. Bezahas this latter contrast in view and only means to say that theascriptionofauvtoqeo,thj totheSonis innoway interferedwithbythefactthatHeis"generate"-forthegenerateandthegeneratorareeverthesameinkind.

141. "Institutes,"I.xiii.19.142. Opp.xi.653.

Calvin'sDoctrineoftheCreation1

BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

Indevelopinghis system,Calvin proceeds at once from the doctrine ofGodtoanexpositionofHisworksofcreationandprovidence(I.xiv.-xv.andxvi.-xviii.).ThathepassesoverthedivinePurposeorDecreeat thispoint, though it would logically claim attention before its execution increation and providence, is only another indication of the intenselypracticalspiritofCalvinandthesimplicityofhismethodinthiswork.Hecarries his readers at once over from what God is to what God does,reserving the abstruser discussions of the relation of His will tooccurrencesforalaterpointinthetreatise,whenthereader'smind,byacontemplationofthedivineworks,willbebetterpreparedtoreadofftheunderlyingpurpose from the actual event. The practical endwhich hasdeterminedthissequenceoftopicsgovernsalsothemannerinwhichthesubjectofcreation,nowtakenup(chaps.xiv.-xv.),isdealtwith.Thereisnodiscussionof it froma formalpointof view: the treatment iswhollymaterialandisdevotedrathertothenatureofthecreateduniversethantothemodeoftheDivineactivityincreatingit.Evenindealingwiththecreateduniverse, there isnoattemptat completenessof treatment.Thespiritualuniverse ispermitted toabsorb theattention;andwhat is saidabout the lower creation is reduced to a mere hint or two introducedchiefly, itappears, torecommendthecontemplationof itasameansofquickening in the heart a sense of God's greatness and goodness (xiv.§§20-22).

Itisquiteobvious,infact,fromthebeginning,thatCalvin'smindissetinthiswholediscussionofcreationprimarilyonexpoundingthenatureofman as a creature of God; and all else that he incorporates into it issubsidiary to this.He iswriting formen and bends all he iswriting towhathe conceives tobe theirpractical interests.Hedoesnot reach theactualdiscussionofmanascreature,tobesure(chap.xv.),untilafterhehasinterposedalongexpositionofthenatureofangelsanddemons(xiv.3-12,and13-19).Butthiswholeexpositioniscastinaformwhichshows

thatangelsanddemonsareinterestingtoCalvinonlybecauseofthehighestimateheplacesuponthe topic for thepractical lifeofman;and it isintroduced by a remarkwhich betrays that his thoughtwas already onmanastherealsubjectofhisexpositionandallhehadtosayaboutotherspiritualcreatureswasconceivedasonlypreliminarytothatmoredirectobjectofinterest."ButbeforeIbegintospeakmorefullyconcerningthenature of man," he says quite gratuitously at the opening of thediscussion (xiv. 3, ad init.), "something should be inserted (inserere)aboutangels."Whatheactuallysaysaboutangels,goodandbad, intheamountofspaceoccupiedbyit,ismorethanwhathesaysaboutman;butit stood before his mind, we observe, as only "something," and assomething,beitnoted,"inserted,"beforetherealsubjectofhisdiscoursewasreached. InhisownconsciousnesswhatCalvinundertakes inthesechapters is tomakemanawareofhisownnatureasa creatureofGod,and to place him as a creature of God in his environment, the mostimportantelementsofwhichheconceivestobetherestoftheintelligentcreation.

It isnot tobe inferred, of course, from the lightnesswithwhichCalvinpassesoverthedoctrineofcreationitself inthisdiscussionthathetooklittleinterestinitordeemeditamatterofnogreatsignificance.Thathedoesnotdwellmore fullyon it isdue, aswehave said, to thepracticalnatureofhisundertaking,andwasrenderedpossiblebythecircumstancethatthisdoctrinewasnotindispute.2Allmeninthecircleswhichhewasaddressingwereofonemindonit,andthereweresourcesofinformationwithinthereachofallwhichrendereditunnecessaryforhimtoenlargeon it.3 That he had a clear and firm conception of the nature of thecreativeactandattributedimportancetoitsproperapprehensionismadeabundantly plain; and is emphasized by his consecration of the fewremarks he gives professedly to the topic to repelling assaults upon itscredibilitydrawnfromthenatureoftheDivineBeing(xiv.1-2).

InhisconceptionofcreationCalvindefinitelyseparatedhimselffromalldualistic,4 and especially from all pantheistic5 elements of thought bysharply asserting that all substantial existence outside of God owes itsbeingtoGod,thatitwascreatedbyGodoutofnothing,andthatitcamefromGod'shandverygood.Hiscrispestdefinitionofcreationheletsfall

incidentally in repelling the pantheistic notion that, as he scornfullydescribes it,"theessenceof theCreator isrent intofragmentsthateachmayhaveapartofit.""Creation,"hesays,"isnotthetransfusion,buttheorigination out of nothing, of essence."6 "God," says he again, "by thepowerofHisWordandSpiritcreatedoutofnothing,theheavensandtheearth,"thatistosay,allthatexists,whethercelestialorterrestial.7Firmlystated as this doctrine of creation is, however, so as to leave us in nodoubtastoCalvin'sconception,8theelementsofitarelittleelaborated.There is no attempt for example to validate the doctrine of creation exnihilo whether on Biblical9 or on such rational grounds as we findappealed tobyZwingli,whoarguesthat creation exmateria implies aninfiniteserieswhetherthematerialoutofwhichthecreationismadebeconceivedaslikeorunlikeinkindtothatwhichismadefromit.10Aswehaveseen,Calvindoesargue,however,(likeZwingli),thatcreationinitsverynatureis"originationofessence,"sothathewouldhavesubscribedZwingli's declaration: "This is the definition of creation: to be out ofnothing."11HedoesnotevendwelluponthepartwhichtheSontakesinthe creating, although he does not leave this important matterunmentioned,butdeclaresthat"theworldswerecreatedbytheSon"(I.xiii.7),andthatGodcreatedtheheavensandearth"bythepowerofHisWord and Spirit" (I. xiv. 20), thus setting the act of creation in itsTrinitarianrelation.Itis,however,ratherintheprecedingchapterwhereheadducesthesharetheytookincreationinproofofthedeityoftheSonand the Spirit that Calvin develops this fact. There he urges that "thepower to create and the authority to command were common to theFather,Son,andSpirit,"asisshown,hesays,bythewords"Letusmakeman in our image" of Genesis i. 26; and he argues at length from thecreation-narrative of Genesis and theWisdom passage in Proverbs, nolessthanfromHeb.i.2,3,thatitwasthroughtheSonthatGodmadetheworlds.12 On one thing, however, he manages to insist despite thesketchinesswithwhichhetreatsthewholesubject.Thisisthatwhatevercamefromthedivinehandscamefromthemgood."Itismonstrous,"hedeclares,13"toascribetothegoodGodthecreationofanyevilthing,"andwemay not admit that there is in thewholeworld anything evil in itsnature,14 but must perceive that in all that He has made God hasdisplayed His wisdom and justice. Wherever evil has appeared, then,whetherinmanordevil,itisnotexnatura,butexnaturaecorruptione(I.

xiv.3),notexcreationebutexdepravatione(I.xiv.16,adinit.).Wemustbeware, therefore, lest in speakingof evil asnatural toman,we shouldseem to refer it to the author of nature, whether we more coarselyconceive it as in somemeasure proceeding fromGodHimself, or,withmoreappearanceofpiety,ascribeitonlyto"nature."WecannotattributetoGodwhatisinthemostabsolutesensealientoHisverynature,anditis equally dishonoring to Him to ascribe any intrinsic depravity to the"nature"whichcomesfromHishands.15

Calvinexpresslydisclaimstheintentionofexpoundingindetailthestoryofthecreationoftheworld,16andjudgesitsufficienttoreferhisreaderstotheaccountgivenbyMoses,alongwiththecommentsperhapsofBasilandAmbrose,forinstructionintheparticularsofitshistory(I.xiv.20,adinit.;cf.I.xiv.1).Heletsfall,however,afewremarksbytheway,whichenable us to perceive his attitude towards the narrative of Genesis.Needless to say he takes it just as he finds it written. The six days he,naturally,understandsassixliteraldays;and,acceptingtheprimafaciechronology of theBiblical narrative, he dates the creation of the worldsomethinglessthansixthousandyearsinthepast.Hedoesnotsuppose,however,thatMoseshasincludedinhisstoryanythinglikeanexhaustiveaccountof all thatwas created.The instanceof angels, ofwhose originMoses givesnohistory, is conclusive to the contrary.Moses,writing tomeettheneedsofmenatlarge,accommodatedhimselftotheirgradeofintellectualpreparation,andconfineshimselftowhatmeetstheireyes.17OntheotherhandCalvinwillnotadmitthatthecreateduniversecanbeproperlyspokenofas infinite.Godaloneis infinite;and,"howeverwidethecircuitoftheheavensmaybe,itneverthelesshassomedimension."18He frankly conceives of the created universe as geocentric,19 or moreproperly as anthropocentric. "God Himself," he declares, "hasdemonstratedby theveryorderofcreation, thatHemadeall things forthe sakeofman."20 For, beforemakingman, "He prepared everythingwhichHeforesawwouldbeusefulorsalutaryforhim"(I.xiv.22).Itwas"forhumanusethatHedisposedthemotionsof thesunandstars, thatHe filled the earth, the waters, the air with living creatures, that Heproducedanabundanceofallkindsoffruitswhichmightbesufficientforfood-thusactingthepartofaprovidentandsedulousfatherofafamilyandshowingHiswonderfulgoodnesstowardsus"(I,xiv.2).

Twodifficultieswhichariseoutof theconsiderationof the infinitudeofGod in connection with His creative work, Calvin finds sufficientlyimportanttopauseeveninsorapidasketchtodealwith.Theseconcerntherelationoftheideaofcreationtothatofeternityontheonehand,andthedescription of the creation as a process on the other. Both of thesealso,however,hetreatsratherfromapracticalthanatheoreticalpointofview.

He does not even hint at the metaphysical difficulty which has beenperennially derived from the Divine eternity and immutability, that adefinitecreationimpliesachangeinGod-thedifficultywhichWollebiussoneatly turnsby the remark that "creation isnot thecreator'sbut thecreature's passage from potentiality to actuality."21 The difficulty towhichheaddresseshimselfisthepurelypopularone,which,withaviewtorenderingtheideaofadefiniteactofcreationonGod'spartincredible,askswhatGodwasdoingall thoseagesbeforeHecreated theworld (I.xiv.1).Hisresponseproceedsingeneralontheprincipleofansweringafoolaccordingtohisfolly,althoughitisdirectedtotheseriouspurposeofrecallingmen'sminds,fromfruitlessattemptstofathomthemysteriesofinfinity,toaprofitableuseofthecreation-narrativeasamirrorinwhichisexhibitedalivelyimageofGod.22Thegistofthisresponseseemstobesummed up in a sentence which occurs in the Argument to hisCommentary on the first chapter of Genesis - which runs very muchparalleltothediscussionhere."God,"hesays,"beingwhollysufficientforHimself,didnotcreateaworldofwhichHehadnoneed,untilitpleasedHimtodo so."Hedoesnotdisdain,however,before closing, to advert,undertheleadingofAugustine,23eventothemetaphysicalconsiderationthatthereisnoplaceforaquestionof"timewhen"inourthoughtofthatact of God by which time began to be. We might as well inquire,Augustine had reasoned, why God created the world where He did, aswhyHecreated itonlywhenHedid.Wemaypuzzleourselveswith thenotionthatthereisroomininfinitespaceforaninfinitenumberoffiniteuniversesasreadilyaswiththeparallelnotionthattherewasopportunityineternaltimeforthecreationofaninfiniteseriesofworldsbeforeourswasreached.Thetruthis,ofcourse,that,asthereisnospaceoutsideofthatmaterialworldthedimensionsofwhichwhenabstractlyconsideredconstitutewhatwecall"space";sothereisnotimeoutsidethatworldof

mutable existence fromwhichweabstract thenotionof successionandcallit"time.""Iftheysay,"reasonsAugustine,"thatthethoughtsofmenare idle, when they conceive of infinite places, since there is no placebeside the world, we reply that, by the same showing, it is vain toconceive of past times of God's rest, since there is no time before theworld." Utilizing Augustine's remarks Calvin warns his readers againstvainly striving to press "outside of the world" (extramundum) by "theboundariesofwhichwearecircumscribed,"andexhortsthemtoseekin"the ample circumference of heaven and earth" and the certainlysufficient space of "six thousand years" material for meditating on theglory of God who has made them all. The primary matter for us toobserve in thisdiscussion is thepersistencewithwhichCalvinclings tothepracticalpurposeofhis treatise,soaseven inconnectionwithsuchabstrusesubjectstoconfinehimselftothe"practicaluse"ofthem.Butitisnotillegitimatetoobservealsothehintsthediscussionsuppliesofhismetaphysical opinions. His doctrines of "space" and "time" are heresuggested to us. Clearly, he holds that what we call "space" is only anabstraction from the concrete dimensions of extended substance; andwhat we call "time," an abstraction from the concrete successions ofmutable being. "Space" and "time," therefore, were to him qualities offinitebeing,andhavecomeintoexistenceandwillpassoutofexistencewithfinitebeing.Tospeakof"infinite"spaceor"infinite"timecontainsaccordinglyacontradictioinadjecto.

Perhaps itmaynot be improper to pausehere amoment toobserve inpassing the employment of humor by Calvin in his discussions. It isratheramordantbitofhumorwhichappearshere,itistrue-thisstoryofthe "pious oldman"whowhen a "scoffer" demanded of himwhatGodhad been doing beforeHe created the world, replied, "Making hell forinquisitive people" (fabricasse inferos curiosis); and moreover it isborrowed-ultimately-fromAugustine.24ButthoughborrowingastoryofAugustine's,CalvindoesnotfollowAugustineinhisattitudetowardsit.Augustine declines to commend such a response, because, says he, hewould shrink from making a laughing-stock of anyone who bringsforwardaprofoundquestion;whileCalvinapprovesitasafitanswertoascoffer who raises frivolous objections.25 Andmordant though it is, itprovides an instance of that use of humor in argument which was a

markedtraitofCalvin'smanner-andwhichrevealstousanelementofhischaracternotalwaysfullyrecognized.Asthishumormanifests itselfin his writings - which are predominantly controversial in tone - it issufficientlypungent.Theinstancebeforeusisafairsampleofit;andwehave already had occasion to note another characteristic instance - hisrallyingofCaroliinthematteroftheancientcreeds.26His"VeryusefulNotice of the great profit which would accrue to Christianity if thereshouldbemadeaninventoryofalltheholybodiesandrelicswhicharetobe found in Italy, France, Germany, Spain and other kingdoms andnations" (1543)mightalmostbesaid toreekwith similar instances.HebecamequicklyfamousforhisbitingpenandwassolemnlyreprovedbySebastianCastellionforemployingsuchweaponsandencouragingothersin the use of them.He not only, however, approved Beza's and Viret'ssatiricalpolemicsandheartilyenjoyed them- commending them tohisfriendsasfullofdelightfulness-butheevendevelopsatheoryoftheuseofhumorininstruction,andofthenatureoftruefacetiousness."Many-or perhapswemay say,most -men," he says, "aremuchmore readilyhelpedwhen they are instructed in a joyous andpleasantmanner thanotherwise. . . .Thosewhohave thegift to teach insuchamanneras todelight their readers, and to induce them toprofit by thepleasure theygivethem,aredoublytobepraised.""Hewhowishestousehumor,"headds, however, "ought to guard himself from two faults," - he mustneitherbeforcedinhiswit,normusthedescendtoscurrility.

Buthis cutting satirewasonlyonemanifestationof a special talent forpleasantrywhichcharacterizedallhisintercourse.Laughter,hetaught,isthe gift of God: and he held it the right, or rather the duty, of theChristianmantopractiseitinitsdueseason.Heisconstantlyjokingwithhisfriendsinhisletters,27andheeagerlyjoinswiththeminallthejoysoflife."IwishIwerewithyouforhalfaday,"hewritestooneofthem,"tolaughwithyou."28 In aword, contrary to a general impression, Calvinwasamanofagreatfreshnessandjocundnessofspirit;andsolittlewashe inclined to suppress the expression of the gayer side of life that herathersedulouslycultivateditinhimselfandlookedwithpleasureonitsmanifestation in others. He enjoyed a joke hugely,29 with that open-mouthedlaughwhich,asoneofhisbiographersphrasesit,30belongedtothe men of the sixteenth century. And he knew even how to smile at

human folly - wishing that the people might not be deprived of theirpleasures31 and might even be dealt with indulgently in their faults.Whenhisstudentsmisbehaved, for example,he simply saidhe thoughttheyoughttohavesomeindulgenceandshouldbeaccordedtherighttobesometimesfoolish.32

Thattheworkofcreationshouldbethoughttooccupytimewasasmuchamatterofscoffingfromtheevil-disposedasthatitshouldtakeplaceintime.WhyshouldtheomnipotentGodtakesixdaystomaketheworld?DidHeperhaps find it tooharda task for a single effort?33This cavil,too,Calvindealswithpurelyfromthepracticalpointofview,notsomuchundertakingtorefuteitasrecallingmen'smindsfromittodwellonthecondescension of God in distributing His work into six days that ourfiniteintelligencemightnotbeoverwhelmedwithitscontemplation;andon the goodness of God in thus leading our thoughts up to theconsiderationoftherestoftheseventhday;andaboveallonthepaternalcareofGodinsoorderingtheworkofbringingtheworldintobeingastoprepareitformanbeforeHeintroducedhimintoit.Indrawingthemindthus away from the cavil, Calvin does not, however, fail to meet thedifficulty itself, which was adduced. His response to it, is, in effect, toacknowledgethatGodperfectedtheworldbyprocess(progressus,I.xiv.2);buttoassertthatthismethodofperformingHisworkwasnotforHisown sake, but for ours; so that, so far is this progressive method ofproducing theworld from being unworthy ofGod, because "alien fromHis power,"34 that it rather illustrates His higher attributes - Hispaternal love, for example, which would not create man until He hadenriched the world with all things necessary for his happiness.ConsideredinHimself,"itwouldhavebeennomoredifficult"forGod"tocompleteatoncethewholeworkinallitsitemsinasinglemoment,thantoarriveatitscompletiongraduallybyaprocessofthiskind."35

Itshouldbeobservedthatinthisandsimilardiscussionsfoundedontheprogressivecompletionof theworld,Calvindoesnot intendtoattributewhatwemayspeakstrictlyofasprogressivecreationtoGod.WithCalvin,while the perfecting of theworld - as its subsequent government - is aprocess,creation,strictlyconceived,tendedtobethoughtofasanact."InthebeginningGodcreated theheavensand theearth": after that itwas

not"creation"strictlysocalled,but"formation,"gradualmodelling intoform, which took place. Not, of course, as if Calvin conceived creationdeistically;asifhethoughtofGodashavingcreatedtheworld-stuffandthenleftittoitselftoworkoutitsowndestinyunderthelawsimpressedonitinitscreation.A"momentaryCreator,whohasonceforalldoneHiswork,"was inconceivable tohim:andhe therefore taught that it isonlywhen we contemplate God in providence that we can form any trueconception of Him as Creator.36 But he was inclined to draw a sharpdistinctioninkindbetweentheprimalactofcreationoftheheavensandthe earth out of nothing, and the subsequent acts of moulding thiscreatedmaterialintotheformsitwasdestinedtotake;andtoconfinetheterm"creation," strictlyconceived, to the former.Hence inperhaps thefulleststatementofhisdoctrineofcreationgivenusinthesechapters(I.xiv.20),heexpresseshimself carefully thus: "God,by thepowerofHisWord and Spirit created out of nothing (creasse ex nihilo) the heavensandtheearth;thenceproduced (produxisse)every kindof animate andinanimatething,distinguishedbyawonderfulgradationtheinnumerablevariety of things, endowed each kind with its own nature, assigned itsoffices, appointed its place and station to it, and, since all things aresubject to corruption, provided, nevertheless, that each kind should bepreserved safe to the last day." "Thus," he adds, "He marvellouslyadornedheaven and earthwith the utmost possible abundance, varietyandbeautyofallthings,likeagreatandsplendidhouse,mostrichlyandabundantly constructed and furnished; and then at last by forming(formando) man and distinguishing him with such noble beauty, andwith so many and such high gifts, he exhibited in him the noblestspecimenofHisworks."37It isGodwhohasmadeall thingswhat theyare, he teaches: but, in doing so, God has acted in the specific modeproperly called creation only at the initial step of the process, and theresultowesitsrighttobecalledacreationtothatinitialactbywhichthematerialofwhichallthingsconsistwascalledintobeingfromnon-being."Indigestedmass"as itwas,yet in thatworld-stuffwas"theseedof thewholeworld,"andoutofitthatworldaswenowseeit(for"theworldwasnotperfectedatitsverybeginning,inthemanneritisnowseen"38)hasbeen evoked by progressive acts of God: and it is therefore that thisworld,becauseevokedfromit,hastherighttobecalledacreation.

ThedistinctionwhichCalvinheredraws,itistobeobserved,isnotthatwhichhasbeencommonlymadebyReformeddivinesunder the terms,First and Second Creation, or in less exact language Immediate andMediateCreation.ThisdistinctionpositsasequenceoftrulycreativeactsofGod throughout thesixdays,and thereforedefinescreation,soas tomeetthewholecase,asthatact"bywhichGodproducedtheworldandallthatisinit,partlyexnihilo,partlyexmaterianaturaliterinhabili,forthemanifestationofthegloryofHispower,wisdomandgoodness";39ormorefully,asthat"firstexternalworkofGod,bywhichinthebeginningoftime,withoutsufferinganychange,byHisownfreewill,HeproducedbyHissoleomnipotentcommandimmediatepersethingswhichbeforewerenot,fromsimplenon-beingtobeing-andthat,eitherexnihilo,orexmateriawhichhadaforebeenmadeenihilo,butisnaturaliterinhabiliforreceivingtheformwhich,createdoutofnothing,theCreatorinducesintoit."40ItispreciselythissequenceoftrulycreativeactswhichCalvindisallows; and he so expresses himself, indeed, as to give it a directcontradiction.PerhapsasdistinctastatementofhisviewasanyisfoundinhiscommentonGenesisi.21,wheretheterm"create"isemployedtodesignatethedivineproductionoftheanimalsoftheseaandair,which,according to verse 20, had been brought forth by the waters at thecommand ofGod. "A question arises here," remarksCalvin, "about theword'created.'Forwehavebeforecontendedthattheworldwasmadeofnothingbecause itwas 'created':butnowMosessaysthethings formedfromothermatterwere 'created.'Thosewhoassert that the fishesweretruly andproperly 'created' because thewaterswere innoway suitable(idoneae) or adapted (aptae) to their production, only resort to asubterfuge; for the fact would remain,meanwhile, that thematerial ofwhichtheyweremadeexistedbefore,which,instrictpropriety,theworddoesnotadmit.Ithereforedonotrestrict'creation'[here]totheworkofthefifthday,butrathersayit[suse]refersto(hangsfrom,pendet)thatshapelessandconfusedmasswhichwas, as itwere, the fountainof thewhole world. God, then, is said to have 'created' the seamonsters andother fishes, because the beginning of their 'creation' is not to bereckoned from themoment inwhich they received their form,but theyare comprehended in theuniversalmatter (corpus, corpore)whichwasmade out of nothing. So thatwith respect to their kind, formonlywasthen added to them; 'creation' is nevertheless a term used truly with

respecttothewholeandtheparts."

Calvin'smotive in thus repudiating the notion of "Mediate Creation" isnotatallcharinessonhispartwithrespecttothesupernatural.Itisnotthesupernaturalnessoftheproductionofthecreatureswhichthewatersandearthbroughtforthwhichhedisallows;butonlytheapplicabilitytotheirproductionoftheterm"creation."Onverse24,hecommentsthus:"ThereisinthisrespectamiracleasgreatasifGodhadbeguntocreateout of nothing these thingswhichHe commanded to proceed from theearth." Calvin's sole motive seems to be to preserve to the great word"create"theprecisesignificanceofto"makeoutofnothing,"andhewillnotadmitthatitcanbeappliedtoanyproductioninwhichpreëxistentmaterialisemployed.41Thismightappeartoinvolvetheviewthatafterthecreationof theworld-stuffrecorded inGenesis i. 1, therewasneveranythingspecificallynewproducedbythedivinepower.Andthismightbeexpressedby saying that, from that point on, the divineworkswerepurely works of providence, since the very differentia of a providentialworkisthatitistheproductproximatelyofsecondcauses.Probablythiswould press Calvin's contention, however, a little too far: he wouldscarcely say there was no immediacy in the divine action in theproductions of the five days of "creation," or indeed in the working ofmiracles.Butwemustbearinmindthathisviewofprovidencewasaveryhigh one, and he was particularly insistent that God acted throughmeans,whenHedidactthroughmeans,throughnonecessitybutpurelyatHis ownvolition. Second causes, inhis view, are nothingmore than"instrumentsintowhichGodinfusesasmuchofefficiencyasHewishes,"andwhichHe employs or not atHis will (I. xvi. 2). "The power of nocreatedthing,"saysCalvin,"ismorewonderfulorevidentthanthatofthesun....ButtheLord...willedthatlightshouldexist...beforethesunwascreated.Apiousmanwillnotmakethesun,then,eithertheprincipalor the necessary cause of the things which existed before the sun wascreated,but only an instrumentwhichGoduses becauseHewishes to;sinceHecouldwithoutanydifficultyatalldowithoutthesunandactofHimself."42 The facility with which Calvin sets aside the notion of"mediate creation" is then due in no sense to desire to remove theproductions of the five days of "creation" out of the category of divineproducts, but is itself mediated by the height of his doctrine of

providence.43

It is important further thatweshouldnotsuppose thatCalvinremovedthe production of the human soul out of the category of immediatecreation, in the strictest sense of that term. When he insists that theworks of the days subsequent to the first, when "in the beginningGodcreatedtheheavensandtheearth,"werenotstrictlyspeaking"creations,"because theywere not productions ex nihilo, he is thinking only of thelowercreation, inclusive,nodoubt,of thehumanbody;all this ismadeoutofthatprimal"indigestedmass"whichsprangintobeingattheinitialcommandofGod.Thesoulisadifferentmatter;andnotonlyinthefirstinstance,but ineverysucceedinginstance, throughoutthewholecourseofhumanpropagation,isanimmediatecreationexnihilo.Moses,hetellsus,perfectlyunderstood that thesoulwas created fromnothing;44 andheannounceswithemphasis("Institutes,"I.xv.5),thatitiscertainthatthesoulsofmenare"nolesscreatedthantheangels,"addingthedecisivedefinition: "now, creation is the origination of essence ex nihilo." It isthuswiththelowercreationaloneinhismindthatCalvininsiststhatallthatcan justlybecalledby thehighnameof"creation"waswroughtbyGodon the firstday, in thatoneactbywhichHecreated, that iscalledintobeingoutofnothing,theheavensandtheearth.

It should scarcely be passed without remark that Calvin's doctrine ofcreationis,ifwehaveunderstooditaright,forallexceptthesoulsofmen,anevolutionaryone.The"indigestedmass," includingthe"promiseandpotency"ofallthatwasyettobe,wascalledintobeingbythesimplefiatofGod.Butall thathascomeintobeingsince-exceptthesoulsofmenalone-hasarisenasamodificationofthisoriginalworld-stuffbymeansoftheinteractionofitsintrinsicforces.NottheseforcesapartfromGod,ofcourse:Calvinisahightheist,thatis,supernaturalist,inhisontologyof the universe and in his conception of the whole movement of theuniverse.TohimGodistheprimacausaomniumandthatnotmerelyinthe sense that all things ultimately - in the world-stuff - owe theirexistencetoGod;butinthesensethatallthemodificationsoftheworld-stuffhavetakenplaceunderthedirectlyupholdingandgoverninghandofGod,andfindtheiraccountultimately inHiswill.Buttheyfindtheiraccountproximatelyin"secondcauses";andthisisnotonlyevolutionism

butpureevolutionism.Whataccountwegiveofthesesecondcausesisamatterofontology;howweaccountfortheirexistence,theirpersistence,their action - the relation we conceive them to stand in to God, theupholder and director as well as creator of them. Calvin's ontology ofsecond causeswas,briefly stated, a verypure and completedoctrine ofconcursus,byvirtueofwhichheascribedallthatcomestopasstoGod'spurpose and directive government. But that does not concern us here.What concerns us here is that he ascribed the entire series ofmodificationsbywhichtheprimal"indigestedmass,"called"heavenandearth," has passed into the form of the ordered world which we see,includingtheoriginationofall formsof life,vegetableandanimalalike,inclusivedoubtlessof thebodily formofman, tosecondcausesastheirproximateaccount.Andthis,wesay,isaverypureevolutionaryscheme.He does not discuss, of course, the factors of the evolutionary process,nordoesheattempttotracethecourseoftheevolutionaryadvance,noreven expound the nature of the secondary causes by which it waswrought.ItisenoughforhimtosaythatGodsaid,"Letthewatersbringforth. . . . Let the earth bring forth," and they brought forth. Of theinteraction of forces by which the actual production of forms wasaccomplished,hehaddoubtlessnoconception:hecertainlyventuresnoassertionsinthisfield.Howhepicturedtheprocessinhisimagination(ifhe pictured it in his imagination) we do not know. But these aresubordinate matters. Calvin doubtless had no theory whatever ofevolution;butheteachesadoctrineofevolution.Hehasnoobjectinsoteaching except to preserve to the creative act, properly so called, itspurity as an immediate production out of nothing. All that is notimmediately produced out of nothing is therefore not created - butevolved.Accordinglyhisdoctrineofevolution isentirelyunfruitful.Thewhole process takes place in the limits of six natural days. That thedoctrineshouldbeofuseasanexplanationofthemodeofproductionofthe ordered world, it was requisite that these six days should belengthenedoutintosixperiods-sixagesofthegrowthoftheworld.Hadthat been done Calvin would have been a precursor of the modernevolutionary theorists. As it is, he only forms a point of departure forthemtothisextent-thatheteaches,astheyteach,themodificationoftheoriginal world-stuff into the varied formswhich constitute the orderedworld, by the instrumentality of second causes - or as amodernwould

putit,ofitsintrinsicforces.Thisishisaccountoftheoriginoftheentirelowercreation.45

Ofthislowercreationhehas,however,ashasalreadybeenpointedout,very little to say in the discussion of the creature which he hasincorporated in the"Institutes" (I.xiv.20-22).Andwhathedoessay ischieflydevotedtothepracticalendofquickeninginourheartsasenseofthegloryandperfectionsofitsMaker,whosewisdom,power,justiceandgoodness are illustrated by it, and of raising our hearts in gratitude toHim forHis benefits to us. These are the two things, he says, which acontemplationofwhatismeantbyGodbeingtheCreatorofheavenandearthshouldworkinus:anapprehensionofHisgreatnessastheCreator(§ 21) and an appreciation of His care for us His creatures, in themanner inwhichHehascreatedus (§22).More than to suggest this,thescopeofhistreatisedoesnotappeartohimtodemandofhim;as itdoesnotpermithimtodwellonthedetailsofthehistoryofcreation-forwhich he therefore contents himself with referring his readers to thenarrative of Genesis, with the comments of Basil and Ambrose. Hepauses, therefore, only to insert the comprehensive statement of theelementsof thematterwhichhasalreadybeencited, andwhichassertsthat"GodbythepowerofHisWordandSpiritcreatedoutofnothingtheheavensandtheearth"andafterwardsmouldedthiscreatedmaterialintotheorderedworldweseearoundus,whichalsoHesustainsandgoverns;inwhich, then,Hehasplacedman,up towhomall the resthas tendedand in whom He has afforded the culminating manifestation of Hiscreativepower(§20).Themainitemsofhisteachingastothephysicaluniversemaythereforebesummedupinthepropositionsthatitowesitsexistence absolutely to the Divine power;46 that it was created out ofnothing; that it was perfected through a process of formation whichextendedthroughsixdays;thatitwasmadeandadornedforthesakeofman,andhasbeensubjectedtohim;andthatitillustratesinitsstructureandinallitsmovementstheperfectionsofitsMaker.

ItistothespiritualuniversethatCalvinturnswithpredilection,andthegreater portion of the fourteenth chapter is devoted accordingly to athoroughlyBiblicalaccountofangelicbeings,goodandbad(§§3-19).The careful Scripturalness of this account deserves emphasis. Calvin

himselfemphasizesit,andevenpermitshimselftofall intoadigressionhere, in order to expound at some length the proper attitude of thetheological teacher to Scripture (I. xiv. 4). His design is to transmitplainlyandclearlywhat theScripturesteach,47andnot topassbeyondthe simple doctrine of Scripture in anything.48He thereforewarns hisreadersagainstspeculationsasto"theorders"ofangels,askingthemtoconsider carefully the meagreness of the Scriptural foundation thesehave;49 and holds the Pseudo-Dionysius up as a terrible example ofmisplaced subtlety and acuteness in such matters (I. xiv. 4). WhereasPaul,whowasactuallyraptbeyondthethirdheavenssealedhislipsanddeclareditnot lawful foramantospeakof thehiddenthingswhichhesaw,Dionysiuswhoneverhad suchanexperiencewriteswitha fulnessand confidence of detail which could be justified only if he had comedownfromheavenandwasrecountingwhathehadhadtheprivilegeofobservingcarefullywithhisowneyes.Suchpratingofthingsofwhichwecanreallyknownothingisunworthyofatheologian,saysCalvin;"foritisthepartofthetheologiannottoamusetheearwithemptywords,buttoconfirm the conscience by teachingwhat is true, certain, profitable."50And,"sincetheteachingoftheSpiritisinvariablyprofitable(utiliter),butin matters which are of less moment for edification, either He isaltogether silentor toucheson themonly lightlyandcursorily, it is ourbusiness cheerfully to remain ignorant of what is of no advantage tous."51Therearetworulesthereforewhichthemodestandsobermanwillcertainlybearinmindinthewholebusinessofteachingreligion.Oneis,inobscurematters,neither to speaknor to think,nor even todesire toknow,anythingmore thanwhathasbeengivenus in theWordofGod.Theotheris,inreadingScripture,totarryforprolongedinvestigationandmeditation only on what conduces to edification, and not to indulgecuriosityor fondness foruseless things.52Practisingwhathepreaches,Calvin endeavors therefore in all he has to say of angels to hold to thelimitwhich the ruleofpietyprescribes, lestby indulging in speculationbeyondmeasureheshould leadthe readerastray fromthesimplicityofthe faith (I. xiv. 3, end). There are many things about angels, indeed,whichitmaybeamatterofregret tosomethat theScriptureshavenottoldus(I.xiv.16).ButsurelyweoughttobecontentwiththeknowledgewhichtheLordhasgivenus,especiallyas,passingbyfrivolousquestions,Hiswishhasbeentoinstructusinwhatconducestosolidpiety,thefear

ofHisname,trueconfidenceandthedutiesofholiness(I.xiv.4).IfwearenotashamedtobeHisdisciples,howcanwebeashamedtofollowthemethod He has prescribed (§ 4)? Nay, will we not even abhor thoseunprofitablespeculationsfromwhichHerecallsus,andrestincomfortinthe simple Scriptural teaching, which with respect to good angelsconsoles us and confirms our faith by making us see in them thedispensers and administrators of the Divine goodness towards us,guarding our safety, assuring our defence, directing our ways, andprotectingusbytheircarefromevil(§6,adinit.)-withrespecttoevilangels,warnsusagainsttheirartificesandcontrivancesandprovidesuswithfirmandstrongweaponstorepeltheirattacks(§13,adinit.)?

InaccordancewiththeseviewsofourrelationtoScriptureasasourceofandguide toknowledge,Calvin'swholediscussionofangels isnotonlykeptclosetoScripture,butismarkedbythestrongestpracticaltendency.Perhaps what strikes the reader most forcibly upon the surface of thediscussion is the completeness of the faithwhich it exhibits in the realexistenceofangelicbeingsandtheconcernmentofmanwith them.WewillrecallthevividnessofLuther'ssimilarfaith.Perhapswemaysaythatthe supernaturalistic tone of the conceptions of the Reformers is innothingmorevisiblethanintheirvitalsenseofthespiritualenvironmentin which human life is cast. To them angels and demons were actualfactors in men's lives, to be counted upon and considered in ourarrangement and adjustments as truly as our fellow men.53 Denial oftheir reality as substantial existences was indeed prevalent enough torequire notice and refutation. Calvin's refutation of it is, of course,derived entirely, however, from Scripture, and he recognizes that,therefore, it can have no force for those who do not believe in theScriptures. He does not consider that it is on that account useless.Hedesigns it to fortifypiousminds against suchmadness and to call backtheslothfulandincautioustoamoresoberandbetterregulatedmodeoflife. For those who believe in the Scriptural revelation, it must beconfessedthathisargumentiscompleteandfinal,adducingasitdoesinthe clearestway the chiefBiblical evidence for the actual existenceandactivityofthesesuperhumanintelligences(I.xiv.9and19).

Calvin, then, teaches in accordance with Scripture, that angels are not

"qualitiesorinspirationswithoutsubstance,butrealspirits."54Hecallsthem "spirits," "minds," and as such defines them as beings whosecharacterizingqualitiesare"perceptionandintelligence."55Hisintentionis to represent them as purely spiritual beings; and therefore heincidentally remarks that "it is certain" that they "have no form."56As"celestial spirits" (I. xiv. 5), they are of higher powers than man, andreceive in Scripture designations by which their dignity is indicated:Hosts,Powers,Principalities,Dominions,Thrones,even"Gods"-notofcourse as if they were really "Gods" or ought to be worshipped, but"because in theirministry, as in a glass, they represent in somedegreedivinitytous."57"Thepreëminence(praestantia)oftheangelicnaturehas,"tobesure,"soimpressedthemindsofmany"thattheyhavefeltitwould be an injury to angels to degrade them, as it were, under thecontroloftheOneonlyGod;andthustherehasbeeninventedforthemacertainkindofdivinity (I. xiv.3).Theyareof course likeGod: for theyweremade in the imageofGod.58Theyare,however, just creatures ofGod,HisservantswhoexecuteHiscommands.59Moses,itistrue,inthehistoryofcreation,doesnotgiveanyaccountof theircreation:but thathistory does not pretend to be complete, but limits itself to the visiblecreation, and it is easy to collect from his subsequent introduction ofangelsasGod'sministersthatHeistheirmaker.60Soamatterofcoursedoes this seem toCalvin, that he does not stop here to adduce specificScriptural assertions of the origination of angels by creation. Thesehoweverheemphasizeselsewhere.Thusforexample,inhiscommentaryonthepassage,heexpoundsCol.i.16asfollows:"BecausePaulwishedtomake this assertion" - that all things were created in the Son -"particularly of angels, he nowmentions the invisible things: not only,then,theheavenlycreaturesvisibletooureyes,butalsothespiritualones(spirituales) have been made (conditae) by the Son of God." TheinferiorityofangelstoChrist,heproceedstoremark(inhiscommentaryonthenextverse), ismanifestedinthefourpoints:First,"becausetheywerecreated(creati)byHim;secondly,becausetheircreation(creatio)isreferredtoHimasitslegitimateend;thirdly,becauseHealwaysexistedbefore they were created (crearentur); fourthly, because it is He whosustains them byHis power and conserves them in their condition."61Creation in and of itselfmeans with Calvin, as we have seen, absoluteorigination of essence, and he therefore teaches that the angels have

been, likeallothercreatures,createdoutofnothing.It is tobeheld,hesays,asathingcertainthatthesoulsofmenandangelsalike"havebeencreated" - adding at once: "Now creation is not transfusion but theoriginationoutofnothingofessence."62

ThequestionsofwhentheywerecreatedandhowtheircreationistoberelatedtoMoses'narrativeCalvinputsasideasfrivolous.Mosesnarratesthattheearthwasperfected,andtheheavenswereperfectedwithalltheirhosts(Gen.ii.1):thatiscertainlybroadenoughtocoverthefactoftheircreation-whymakeanxious inquisitionas to theday, inwhichbesidesthestarsandplanets,theseothermorehidden(reconditi)celestialhostsbegan to be?63 The very language in which he repels the question,however, as it certainly suggests that Calvin conceived of the entirecreation, inclusive of the angelic hosts, as a systematizedwhole, seemsalsotohintthathehimselfthoughtofthecreationofthisunitarywholeas taking place at the one creative epoch, if such language can bepardoned.Ifso, theninhis instinctivethoughtonthissubjectonwhich,however, he laid no stress - he followed the scholastic opinion, asexpounded, say, by Thomas Aquinas rather than that of the GreekFathers,whointerposedanimmenseintervalbetweenthecreationofthespiritual and the subsequent creation of the corporeal universe.64 It isdoubtless, however, a mistake to press his language to imply that hethoughtofthecreationoftheangelsastakingplaceonthesamedaywiththestarsandplanets,thatistosay,onthefourthday.Moreprobablyhethought of them as produced as part of the general creation of the"heavensandearth,"thatistosayonthefirstday,65andthisbecamethetraditional view in the Reformed Churches. "When were the angelscreated?"asksBucanus,andanswers,"Notbeforetheages,fortheSonofGodalonewasexistentbeforetheages:whenceitfollowsthattheyweremade in the beginning of all things. On what day, however, cannotcertainlybedefined,thoughitmaybegatheredwithprobabilityfromthehistory ofMoses that they were created on the first day, in which theheavens,theinhabitantsofwhichtheyare,werecreated;wherefromtheyarecalledthe 'angelsofheaven.'"66"The firstdayof thecreation,"saysWollebius,67 "is illustrious for three works," the first of which is "thecreationoftheangelswiththehighestheaven(theheavencalledthatoftheblessed)";for,heargues,"thecreationoftheangelscanbereferredto

nobettertimethanthefirstday,becausewhenGodlaidthefoundationsof the earth, it was already celebrated by them (Job xxxviii. 7)" - anargument which is repeated by others, as for example by VanMastricht,68whoreasonsingeneralthat"itiscertainthattheywerenotcreatedbeforethefirstdayofcreationsincebeforethattherewasnothingbuteternity,...anditisequallycertainthattheywerenotcreatedafterman,whomtheyseduced."69DoubtlesssomesuchreasoningasthiswasbeforeCalvin'smindalso, although it is clear thathedidnot take it soseriously.

On anothermatter of speculative construction, however, hewas not somuch inclined to an attitude of indifference. This concerned thedistribution of angels into ranks and orders. We have already hadoccasion tonotehis reprobationof thePseudo-Dionysius forhis emptyspeculations on the "celestial hierarchy" (I. xiv. 4). He returns to thegeneralmatterlater(I.xiv.8)toexpresstheopinionthatdataarelackinginScripturetojustifyanattempt"todeterminedegreesofhonoramongangels,todistinguishtherespectiveclassesbytheirinsignia,ortoassignitsplaceandstationtoeach."Hispositiveattitudehereisdue,ofcourse,tothecomparisoninstitutedbytheRomanistsbetweenthecelestialandtheecclesiasticalhierarchies,70whichhewishestodiscredit.Heretooheset the fashion for the Reformed theology. Quite in this sense VanMastricht71remarksthat"theReformedrecognize,indeed,thatthereissomeorderamongtheangels,notonlybecauseGodtheirMakerisaGodoforder...butbecausethevariousnamesoftheangelsseemtosuggestanordertous(Col.i.16,Eph.iii.10,cf.Ezek.ix.3,Is.vi.2,IThes.iv.16,Gen. iii. 24, Jude 9) while the disjunctive particle, ei;te qro,noi( ei;tekurio,thtej (Col. i. 16), seems especially to confirm some order amongangels, to say nothing of the existence of some order among the evilspirits themselves (Mat. xii. 24). But they believe it is not possible formeninthisimperfectiontodeterminewhattheorderamongtheangelsis."IfthisseemstoallowalittlemorethanCalvindoes,itistogoalittlefurther than he does in denial on the other hand, to contend withHyperius that there are no permanent distinctions among angels "byvirtue of which some angels are always preëminent, others alwayssubordinate," or even with Bucanus, that there are no distinctions innature among the angels but only differences in office. Surely these

determinationsareopentoCalvin'srebukeofpretensions toknowledgewhich we do not possess, and contrast sharply with the sobriety withwhichCalvinabidesbythesimplestatementsofScripture,allowingthattherearesomehintsinScriptureofranksamongangels(I.xiv.8;cf.14)and contending only that these hints are insufficient to enable us todevelopacompletetheoryoftheirorganization.

Inholdingbackfromthetemptationtospeculateontheorganizationofthe angelic hosts, however, Calvin betrays no tendency to minify theirnumbers,andheofcourserecognizesthegreatdistinctionbetweengoodandbadangels.Thenumbersofbothareverygreat.Ofthegoodangels,hetellsus,"wehearfromthemouthofChristofmanylegions(Mat.xxvi.53), from Daniel of many myriads (Dan. vii. 10); Elisha's servant sawnumerouschariots; andwhen it is said that theyencamparoundaboutthosethatfearGod(Ps.xxxiv.8),agreatmultitudeissuggested"(I.xiv.8).Whenhecomestospeakofevilangelshislanguagetakesonanevenincreasedenergy.Hespeaksof"greatcrowds"(magnascopias)ofthem,and even with the exaggerating emphasis of deep conviction of the"infinitemultitude" of them (I. xiv. 14). Though these two hosts standnowarrayedagainsteachothertheyareinoriginandnatureone;fortheevilspiritsarejustgoodspiritsgonewrong.ThefundamentalfactswhichCalvinmost insistsuponwith respect towhathecalls "devils" (diaboli)arethattheyarecreaturesofGodandwerethereforeoncegood-"foritisimpious (nefas) to ascribe to the good God the creation of any evilthing"72-andthattheyhavebecomeevilbycorruptingthegoodnaturewithwhichGodendowedthem.73Theirevil,sayshecrisply,is"notfromcreation but fromdepravation."74 "At their original creation theywereangels ofGod, but theydestroyed themselves through degeneration."75To ascribe to God, their Creator, the evil they have acquired by theirdefectionandlapse,wouldbetoascribetoHimwhataboveallthingsismostalienfromHim;76andthusfartheManichaeansareright-forthegood God cannot have created any evil thing (I. xiv. 3, as above). TheScriptural evidence of the fall of the "devils" Calvin states with greatbrevitybutwithsufficientpoint.HeadducesIIPeterii.andJude6asaclearstatement:andITimothyv.21asatacitimplication;andhearguesthatwhenourLord(Jno.viii.44)declaresthatwhenSatan"speakethaliehespeakethofhisown,"andaddsasareason"becauseheabodenot

in the truth,"He implies thathehadoncebeen in the truthand issuedfromitbyanactofhisown(I,xiv.16).Inhisotherwritingshereturnsrepeatedly to these conceptions andalwayswith thegreatest directnessandforceofstatement."Thedevils,"sayshe,"havebeenangelsofGodbuttheydidnotretaintheconditioninwhichtheywerecreatedbuthavefallen by a horrible fall, so as to become the examples of perdition."77"ThedevilswerecreatedbyGodaswellastheangels,butnotastheynoware.Wemust always reserve this, - that the evil which is in the devilsproceedsfromthemselves...."78"Forweknowthatthedevilisevilnotbynature,norfromhisoriginalcreation(creationisorigine),butby thefaultofhisowndefection."79

Itisworthwhiletodwellonthesedeliverances,becausetheycontainnotmerely Calvin's doctrine of devils, but also, so far, his doctrine of theoriginofevil.This includes,wealreadyperceive,avigorousrepudiationof the notion that God can be in any way the author of evil. TheAugustiniandoctrine thatomneesseestbonumisexplicitly reaffirmed.God is good and it is impious to suppose that He may have createdanythingevil(malum).ButasGodistheauthorofallthatis,everythingthathascomeintobeingisinitsnaturegood.Thereis,therefore,nosuchthingintheuniverseasanevilnature(malanatura).Allthatisevilarises(I.xiv.3)notfromnature(exnatura)but fromcorruptionofnature(exnaturae corruptione). This corruption has been introduced by the freeaction of the creature: it is (I. xiv. 16) not "of creation" but "ofdepravation," - a depravation of which the creature itself is the cause(cuiusipsesibicausa).Toputitallinanutshell,-evilaccordingtoCalvinhasitssourcenotinthecreativeactofGodbutinthedeflectedactionofthecreaturelywill.Suchanassertiontakesus,ofcourse,onlyalittlewaytowardsatheodicy:butitisimportantthataswepassweshouldnoteasa firststep inCalvin's theodicy thatheveryenergeticallyrepudiatesthenotionthatGod,who isgood,canbe,asCreator, theauthorofanyevilthing.AllthatcomesfromHishandsis"verygood."

AstheangelsowetheirexistencetoGod,soofcoursetheysubsistinHim.Theywerenotbroughtintobeingtostand,deistically,overagainstGod,sufficient to themselves: like all the rest of His creatures theirdependenceonGodisabsolute.Nothingcanbeascribedtothemasif it

belongedtothemapartfromHim.Theyare,indeed,immortal:butthisissofarfrommeaningthatitisbeyondthepowerofGodtodestroythem,that it rathermeansmerely that it is thewillofGodtosustain theminendless being. In themselves considered, like all other creaturelyexistences,theyaremortal.80"Weknow,"remarksCalvin,81"thatangelsare immortal spirits, for God has created them for this condition, thattheyshallneverbedestroyedanymorethanthesoulsofmenshallperish....Theangelsareimmortalbecausetheyaresustainedbypowerfromonhigh,andGodmaintains them-Hewhois immortalbynatureand thefountainoflifeisinHim,assaysthePsalmist(xxxvi.10)....Theangelsare not stable save as God holds their hand. They are no doubt calledMightsandPowers;butthisisbecauseGodexecutesHispowerbythemandguidesthem.Briefly,theangelshavenothinginthemselvesbyreasonofwhich theymayglory in themselves.For all that they have of powerand stability they possess from God. . . ." In all their activities,accordingly,angelsarebuttheinstrumentsofGod,although,tobesure,they are "the instruments inwhichGod especially (specialiter) exhibitsthepresenceofHisdivinity(numinis)"(I.xiv.5).Wemustnotthinkofthem,then,asinterposedbetweenusandGod,soastoobscureHisglory;normustwe transfer to themwhatbelongs toGodandChrist alone (I.xiv.10)-worshippingthem,perchance,82oratleastattributingtothemindependent activities. The splendor of the divine majesty is indeedreflectedinthem;83buttheglorybywhichtheyshineisaderivedglory,anditwouldbepreposteroustoallowtheirborrowedbrightnesstoblindus to its source. In all their varied activities they must be consideredmerely "the hands of God, which move themselves to no work exceptunderHisdirection."84

Somequestionmayariseas to thewidenessof the sphereof activity inwhich angels are employed as "the hands of God." There is at least aprima facieappearance thatCalvin thought of themas the instrumentsthroughwhich the entirety of God's providential work is administered.Hedwellsespecially,tobesure,ontheiremploymentas"thedispensersandadministratorsofthedivinebeneficence"towardsHispeople(I.xiv.6);butheappearstolookuponthisasonlytheculminatinginstanceofauniversalactivity.Whenhesaysthattheyare"God'sministersordainedfor the execution of His laws,"85 wemay indeed hesitate to press the

language. But three several spheres of activity of increasingcomprehensivenessseemtobedistinguished,whenhetellsusGod"usestheirservicefortheprotectionofHispeople,andbymeansofthembothdispenses His benefits among men and executes also the rest of Hisworks."86AndthewholeseemssummedupinaphrasewhenhetellsusagainthatGod"exercisesandadministersHisgovernment in theworldthrough them."87 The universal reach of their activities appears to beexplicitlyasserted in the comprehensive statement thatGod "uses theirministryandserviceforexecutingallthatHehasdecreed."88Itcertainlywould appear from such broad statements thatCalvin looked upon theangels as agents through which God carries on His entire providentialgovernment.

ThequestionisnotunnaturallyraisedwhetherbythisconceptionCalvindoesnotremoveGodtoo far fromHisworks, interposingbetweenHimandHis operations a body of intermediaries by whichHe is separatedfrom theuniverse after the fashionof a false transcendenceism.89 It isquite plain that Calvin did not so conceive the matter. So far fromsupposing that the execution of the works of providence through themedium of angels involves the absence of God from these works, heinsists that they are only the channels of the presence of God. "Howpreposterous it is,"heexclaims,"thatweshouldbeseparatedfromGodbytheangelswhentheyhavebeenconstitutedfortheexpresspurposeoftestifying the completer presence of His aid to us" (I. xiv. 12). Are weseparated from theworks of our hands because it is by ourhands thattheyarewrought?Andtheangels,ifrightlyconceived,mustbethoughtofjustasthehandsofGod- theappropriate instruments,notwhichworkinsteadofHim,butbywhichHeworks(I.xiv.12).He,therefore,onceforalldismisses"thatPlatonicphilosophy"whichinterposesangelsbetweenGodandHisworld,andevenasksustoseekaccesstoGodthroughtheangels, as if we had not immediacy of access to Him. "For this is thereasontheyarecalledAngelsofPowerorPowers,"heremarksinanotherplace;90"notthatGod,resigningHispowertothem,sitsidleinheaven,but because, by acting powerfully in them,HemagnificentlymanifestsHispowertous.Theythereforeactillandperverselywhoassignanythingtoangelsasofthemselves,orwhosomakethemintermediariesbetweenusandGodthattheyobscurethegloryofGodasifitwereremovedtoa

distance;sincerather itmanifests itselfaspresent inthem.AccordinglythemadspeculationsofPlatoaretobeshunnedasinstitutingtoogreatadistancebetweenusandGod. . . ." Inhisview, therefore, theangelsdonot stand betweenGod and the world to hold them apart but to drawthemtogetheraschannelsofoperationthroughwhichGod'spowerflowsintoHisworks.

If he were asked whether he does not, by this interposition of angelsbetween God and His works, infringe on the conception of the DivineimmanenceandraisedoubtastoGod'simmanentactivity,Calvinwoulddoubtlessreplythathedoesnot"interpose"theangelsbetweenGodandHisworks,butconceives themas just "thehandsofGod"working;andthathe,ofcourse,conceivesGodasimmanentintheangelsthemselves,so that their working is just His working through them, as Hisinstruments.Wemustnot confuse thequestionof themethodofGod'simmanent activity with that of the fact of that activity. The suggestionthatGodcarriesonHisprovidential government through theagencyofangelsisonlyasuggestionofthemethodofHisimmanentworkingandcan raise doubt of the reality of His immanent working only on thesupposition that these angels stand so over against God in theirindependenceastobreak-sotospeak-HiscontactwithHisworks.Thisis Deism, and is therefore of course inconsistent with the Divineimmanence; but it has nothing to do with the question whether HeemploysangelsinwhichHeisimmanentinHisoperations.InanyeventGod executes His works of providence through the intermediation ofsecondcauses;forthisistheverydefinitionofaworkofprovidence.Thediscovery that among these second causes there are alwayspersonal aswell as impersonal agencies to be taken into account, can raise noquestion as between immanence and transcendence in God'smodes ofaction - unless personal agents are conceived to be, as such, soindependentofGodastoexcludeinallthatisperformedbytheiragencytheconceptionofHisimmanentworking.AndinthatcasewhatshallwesayoftheDivineimmanenceinthesphereofhumanlifeandactivity?Ina word, Calvin's conception that all the works of God's providence arewroughtthroughtheintermediationofangelsexcludestheimmanenceofGodinHisworldaslittleastherecognitionofhumanactivitiesexcludestheimmanenceofGodinhistory.

Therealinterestofhisconceptiondoesnotlie,therefore,inanybearingit may be supposed to have on his view of the relation of God to theuniverse-itleaveshisviewonthatpointunaffected-butintheinsightitgives us into Calvin's pneumatology.We have already had occasion tonotethevividnessofhissenseofthespiritualenvironmentinwhichourlife is cast. We see here that he conceived the universe as in all itsoperations moving on under the guiding hand of these superhumanintelligences.This isasmuchastosaythattherewasnodualisminhisconception of the universe: he did not set the spiritual and physicalworlds, or the earthly and supramundane worlds, over against oneanother as separate and unrelated entities. He conceived them as allworking together in one unitary system, acting and interacting on oneanother. And he accustomed himself to perceive beneath the events ofhumanhistory-whethercorporateorindividual-andbeneaththeveryoperations of physical nature - notmerely the hand ofGod, upholdingandgoverning;buttheactivitiesofthose"handsofGod"whohearkentoHis voice and fulfilHisword, andwhomHe not only chargeswith thecare of His "little ones," and the direction of the movements of thepeoples,butmakeseven"winds"anda"flamingfire."

To the question why God thus universally operates through theinstrumentalityofsubordinateintelligences,Calvinhasnoanswer,initsgeneralaspects,exceptanegativeone.ItcannotbethatGodneedstheiraid or is unable to accomplish without them what He actually doesthroughthem.IfHeemploysthem,"Hecertainlydoesnotdothis fromnecessity, as if He were unable to do without them; for whenever Hepleases,Hepasses themby and accomplishesHiswork bynothing butHismerewill;sofararetheyfromrelievingHimofanydifficultybytheiraid"(I.xiv.11).Thesewordshavetheirapplicationtothewholesphereofangelical activities, as indeed they have to the entire body of secondcauses(I.xvi.2),buttheyarespokendirectlyonlyoftheemploymentofangelsasministerstotheheirsofsalvation.ItischaracteristicofCalvinthatheconfineshisdiscussionof thesubjectto thishighest functionofangelicservice,asthatwhichwasofspecialreligiousvaluetohisreaders,andthattowhichasapracticalmanseekingpracticalends itbehoovedhim particularly to address himself. In this highest sphere of angelicoperationheisnotwithoutevenapositiveresponsetothequerywhyGod

usesangelstoperformHiswill.ItisnotforHissakebutforthesakeofHis people; it is, in fact, a concession to their weakness. God is able,certainly,toprotectHispeoplebythemerenodofHispower;andsurelyitoughttobeenoughforthemandmorethanenoughthatGoddeclaresHimself theirprotector.91To look around for further aid afterwehavereceivedthepromiseofGodthatHewillprotectus,isundeniablywronginus.92IsnotthesimplepromiseofthegreatGodofheavenandearthsufficientsafeguardagainstalldangers?Butweareweak;93andGodisgood- fullof leniencyandindulgence94-andHewishes togiveusnotonlyHisprotectionbutthesenseofHisprotection.Dealingwithusasweare,notasweoughttobe,Heiswillingtoappealtoourimaginationandto comfort us in our feeling of danger or despair by enabling us toapprehend,inourownway,thepresenceofHisgrace.He,therefore,hasadded toHis promise thatHewillHimself care for us, the further onethat"weshallhaveinnumerableescortstowhomHehasgivenchargetosecureoursafety"(§11).LikeElisha,then,who,whenhewasoppressedby the numerous army of the Syrians, was shown themultitude of theangels sent to guard him, we, when terrified by the thought of themultitudeofourenemies,may find refuge in thatdiscoveryofElisha's:"Therearemoreforusthanagainstus."

In insisting upon this particular function of angels above all others,Calvin feelshimself tobe, asaBiblical theologian, simply followingtheleadofScripture.For, intentespeciallyonwhatmaymostmakeforourconsolationandtheconfirmationofourfaith,theScripturelaysitsstress,hetellsus,onangelsasthedispensersandadministratorsof theDivinebeneficencetowardsGod'speople;and"remindsusthattheyguardoursafety, undertake our defence, direct our ways, and exercise solicitudethat no harm shall befall us" (I. xiv. 6). These great provisions areuniversal, he tells us, and belong "to all believers" without exception.Every follower of Christ has, therefore, pledged to his protection thewholehostoftheangelsofGod.Inthe interestsof thegreatnessof thispledge,Calvinentersthelistsagainsttheideaof"guardianangels,"whichhadbecomethesettleddoctrineoftheoldChurch(I.xiv.7),notindeedwith the sharpness and decision which afterwards obtained in theReformedChurches,95 but yet with an obvious feeling that this notionlacksScripturalbasisandofferslessthanwhattheScripturesprovidefor

theconsolationandsupportofGod'speople.Ifitistobeacceptedatall,Calvinwishesittobeacceptednot insteadof,butalongsideof,whathefeels tobe themuchgreaterassurance that thewholebodyof angels isconcernedwiththeprotectionandsalvationofeveryoneofthesaints."Ofthisindeed,"heremarks,"wemaybesure-thatthecaseofeachoneofusisnotcommittedtooneangelalone,butthatallofthemwithoneconsentwatchoveroursalvation"(I.xiv.7).Thisbeingasettledfact,hedoesnotconsiderthequestionof"guardianangels"worthconsidering: if"all theordersofthecelestialarmystandguardoveroursalvation,"heasks,whatdifferencedoesitmaketouswhetheroneparticularangelisalsotoldofftoactasourparticularguardianornot?ButifanyonewishestorestricttheprotectiongrantedusbyGodtothisoneangel-whythatisadifferentmatter: that would be to do a great injury to himself and to all themembers of the Church, by depriving them of the encouragement theyreceive from the divine assurance that they are compassed about anddefendedonallsidesintheirconflictbytheforcesofheaven.96

WhatCalvinhastosayabouttheevilspirits-the"devils"ashecallsthem- is determined by the same practical purpose which dominates hisdiscussionofthegoodangels.Hebegins,therefore,withtheremarkthat"almosteverythingwhichScripturetransmitsconcerningdevils,hasasitsend that we should be solicitous to guard against their snares andmachinations,andmayprovideourselveswithsucharmsasarefirmandstrongenoughtorepel themostpowerfulenemies"(§13,ad init.).Heproceedsbylayingstressonthenumbers,themalice,andthesubtletyofthese devils; and by striving in every way to awaken the reader to arealizingsenseof thedesperationof theconflict inwhichhe isengagedwiththem(§§13-15).Theeffect istopaintaveryvividpictureof theworld of evil, set over against the world of good as in some sense itscounterfeit,97 determined upon overturning the good, and to that endwaging a perpetualwar againstGod andHis people.98He then pointsoutthat the evil of thesedreadful beings is of themselves,not ofGod-comingnot fromcreationbut fromcorruption(§16)-andcloseswithtwo sections upon the relation they sustain to God's providentialgovernment.Totheseclosingsections(§§17and18),itwillrepayustodevote careful attention. In them Calvin resolves the dualism which isintroduced into theuniverseby the intrusionof evil into it,by showing

thatthisevil itself isheldunder thecontrolofGodand isemployedforHisdivinepurposes;andhedoesthisinsuchamannerthatwescarcelyknow whether to admire most the justice of the conceptions or theprecision and clearness of the language in which they are givenexpression.99

Thefirstof thesesectionsassertsthecompletenessof thecontrolwhichGodexercisesoverthedevils.ItistruethatSatanisatdiscordandstrifewith God:100 he is by nature - that is, acquired nature - wicked(improbus) and every propension of his will is to contumacy andrebellion;ofhisownaccordhedoesnothing,therefore,whichhedoesnotmeantobeinoppositiontoGod(§17).Butheis,afterall,butacreatureofGod'sandGodholdshiminwiththebridleofHispowerandcontrolshiseveryact.Although,therefore,everyimpulseofhiswill is inconflictwithGod,hecandonothingexceptbyGod'swillandapproval.101Soitisuniformly represented in Scripture. Thuswe read that Satan could notassaultJobuntilhehadobtainedpermissionsotodo;102thatthe lyingspiritbywhichAhabwasdeceivedwascommissionedfromtheLord;103thattheevilspiritwhichpunishedSaulforhissinswasfromtheLord;104that the plagues of Egypt, sent by God as they were, were wrought,nevertheless,byevilangels.105AndthusPaul,generalizing,speaksoftheblindingofunbelieversbothasthe"workofGod"andthe"operationofSatan,"meaningofcoursethatSatandoesitonlyunderthegovernmentof God.106 "It stands fast, therefore," Calvinconcludes, "that Satan isunderGod's power, and is so governed by God's will (nutu) that he iscompelled to render God obedience. We may say certainly that Satanresists God, and his works are contrary to God's works; but we at thesame timeassert that this repugnancy and this strife are dependent onGod'spermission.Iamnotnowspeakingofhiswill(voluntate),noryetof his efforts (conatu), but only of the results(effectu). For the devil iswickedbynatureandhasnottheleastpropensiontowardsobediencetothedivinewill,butiswhollybentoncontumacyandrebellion.Whathehas fromhisown iniquity, therefore, is thathedesires andpurposes toopposeGod:by thisdepravityhe isstimulatedto try todo those thingswhichhethinksinthehighestdegreeinimicaltoGod.ButGodholdshimbound and curbedby the bridleofHis power, so that he can carry outonlythosethingswhicharedivinelypermittedtohim,andthus,willhe

nill he, he obeys his Creator, seeing that he is compelled to performwhateverserviceGodimpelshimto"(§17,end).

This important passage appears first in the edition of the "Institutes"publishedin1543;butitsentiresubstancewasinCalvin'smindfromthebeginning. It is given expression, first, in the course of the broaderdiscussionoftherelationofGod'sprovidencetotheevilactsofmenanddevilsincorporatedintothesecondchapter(DeFide)ofthefirsteditionof the "Institutes" (1536).107 "Thus, the affliction of Job," Calvin theredeclares,"wastheworkofGodandofthedevil;andyetthewickednessofthe devilmust be distinguished from the righteousness ofGod; for thedevilwasendeavoringtodestroyJob,Godwastestinghim(Jobi.andii.).SoAssurwastherodoftheLord'sanger,SennacheribtheaxeinHishand(Is.x.);all called, raisedup, impelledbyHim, inawordHisministers.But how? While they were obeying their unbridled lust, they wereunconsciouslyservingtherighteousnessofGod(Jer.xxvii.).BeholdGodand them, the authors of the same work, but in the same work therighteousness of God and their iniquity manifested!" The same line ofthought ismuchmorecompletelyworkedout, andvery fully illustratedfromtheinstanceofJob,asapartofthediscussionofman'ssinfulnessinthepresenceofthemachinationsofevilandtheprovidenceofGod,whichwas incorporated into the second edition of the "Institutes" (1539) andretained from it throughout all the subsequent editions - in the finaledition forming the opening sections of the discussion of "How Godworksintheheartsofmen"(II.iv.1-2).108

MuchthesamelineofthoughtisdevelopedagaininthefulldiscussionoftheprovidenceofGodwhichappearsinthetractagainsttheLibertines,whichwaspublishedin1545.SpeakinghereoftheparticularprovidenceofGod,Calvinproceedsasfollows:109"Itisfurthermoretobenotedthatnot only doesGod serveHimself thuswith the insensible creatures, toworkandexecuteHiswillthroughthem;butalsowithmenandevenwithdevils.So thatSatanand thewickedare executorsofHiswill.ThusHeusedtheEgyptianstoafflictHispeople,andsubsequentlyraiseduptheAssyrians to chastise them, when they had sinned; and others in likemanner.Asforthedevil,weseethathewasemployedtotormentSaul(ISam.xvi.14,xviii.10),todeceiveAhab(IKingsxxii.22),andtoexecute

judgmentuponall thewickedwhenever they require it (Ps. lxxviii.49);andontheotherhandtotesttheconstancyofGod'speople,asweseeinthe case of Job. The Libertines, now,meeting with these passages, aredumfounded by them and without due consideration conclude that,therefore, the creatures do nothing at all. Thus they fall into a terribleerror.FornotonlydotheyconfoundheavenandearthtogetherbutGodandthedevil.Thiscomes fromnotobserving two limitationswhich arevery necessary. The first is that Satan and wicked men are not suchinstrumentsofGodthattheydonotactalsooftheirownaccord.Forwemustnot imagine thatGodmakesuseofawickedmanpreciselyasHedoes of a stone or of a piece of wood. He employs him rather as areasonable creatureaccording to thequalityof thenatureHehasgivenhim.When, then,we say thatGodworks bymeans of thewicked, thisdoes not forbid that the wicked work also on their own account. ThisScriptureshowsuswithevenremarkableclearness.Forwhile,ontheonehand,itdeclaresthatGodshallhiss(Is.v.26),andasitweresoundthedrumtocalltheinfidelstoarmsandshallhardenorinflametheirhearts-yet,ontheother,itdoesnotleaveoutofaccounttheirownthoughtandwill,andattributestothemtheworktheydobytheappointmentofGod.ThesecondlimitationwhichtheseunhappymendisregardisthatthereisaveryrealdistinctionbetweentheworkofGodandthatofawickedmanwhenheservesastheinstrumentofGod.Foritisbyhisownavarice,orhisownambition,orhisownjealousy,orhisowncruelty,thatawickedmanisincitedtodowhathedoes;andhehasnoregardtoanyotherend.Anditisaccordingtotheroot,whichistheaffectionoftheheart,andtothe end which it seeks, that the work is qualified; and so it is rightlyaccounted wicked. But God has an entirely contrary purpose. It is toexecuteHisrighteousness,tosaveandconservethegood,toemployHisgoodness and grace towards the faithful, to chastise the ill-deserving.Here,then,liesthenecessityofdistinguishingbetweenGodandmen,soas to contemplate in the same work God's righteousness, goodness,judgment,and,ontheotherside,themaliceofthedevilorofthewicked.LetustakeagoodandclearmirrorinwhichtoseeallthatIamsaying.When Job heard the news of the loss of his goods, of the death of hischildren,ofthemanycalamitieswhichhadfallenonhim,herecognizedthatitwasGodwhowasvisitinghim,andsaid,'TheLordhasgiven,theLordhastakenaway.'And,intruth,itwasso.Butwasitnotalsothedevil

whohadbrewedthispottage?WasitnottheChaldeanswhohadspoiledhis goods? Did he commend the thieves and brigands, and excuse thedevil,becausehisafflictionhadcometohimfromGod?Certainlynot.Hewellknewtherewasanimportantdistinctiontobeobservedhere.Andsohe condemns the evil, and says 'Blessed be the name of the Lord.'SimilarlyDavid,whenhewaspersecutedbyShimei,nodoubtsaidthathehadreceivedthisfromtheLord(IISam.xvi.11),andsawthatthiswretchwasarodbywhichGodwaschastisinghim.ButwhilehepraisedGod,hedidnotomittocondemnShimei(IKingsii.9).Weshallreturntothisatanotherplace.Forthepresentletitsufficetohearthis:thatGodsousesHiscreaturesandmakesthemserveHisprovidence,thattheinstrumentwhichHeemploysmayoftenbebad;thatHisturningthemaliceofSatanorofbadmentogooddoesnotintheleastexcusetheirevilormaketheirwork other than bad and to be condemned, seeing that every workreceives itsquality fromthe intentionwithwhich it isdone. . . .Onthecontrary,wemustneedsobservethatthecreaturesdotheirworkshereintheirowndegree,andthesearetobeestimatedasgoodorbadaccordingastheyaredoneinobediencetoGodortooffendHim.Allthetime,Godis above, directing everything to a good end, and turning the evil intogood,or,atleast,drawinggoodoutofwhatisevil,actingaccordingtoHisnature,thatisinrighteousnessandequity;andmakinguseofthedevilinsuch a manner as in no way to mix Himself with him so as to haveanything in common with him, or to entangle Himself in any evilassociation,ortoeffacethenatureofwhatisevilbyHisrighteousness.Itis just like the sun which, shining on a piece of carrion and causingputrefaction in it, contractsno taintwhatever from the corruption, anddoesnotbyitspuritydestroythefoulnessandinfectionofthecarrion.SoGoddealsinsuchamannerwiththedeedsofthewickedthattheholinesswhich is inHimdoes not justify the infectionwhich is in them, nor iscontaminatedbyit."

We have thought it desirable to quote at some length one of themoreextendedpassages inwhichCalvin develops the doctrine announced inthesectionbeforeus,althoughitleadsussomewhatawayfromthesinglepointheretobeemphasized,intothemysteriesofthedivineprovidence.Thisbroaderviewoncebeforeus,however,wemayreturntoemphasizethesinglepointwhichnowconcernsus-Calvin'steachingoftheabsolute

controloftheevilspiritsbyGod.ThisseemedtoCalvintoliesoclosetothe center of Christian hope and life that he endlessly repeats it in hisoccasionalwritings, andhas even incorporated an assertion of it in hisCatechism (1545).110 "But what shall we think of the wicked and ofdevils,"hethereasks-"arethey, too,subject toGod?"Andheanswers:"AlthoughGoddoesnot lead thembyHisSpirit,Heneverthelessholdsthem in check as with a bridle, so that they cannot move save as Hepermitsthem.AndHeevenmakesthemministersofHiswill,sothatHecompels them to execute unwillingly and against their determinationwhat seems good to Him." The recognition of this fact seemed to himessentialeventoanintelligenttheism,which,heurges,certainlyrequiresthatGodshouldbeconceivednotlessasGovernorthanasCreatorofallthings-as,indeed,thetwothingsgotogether."If,then,weimagine,"hewrites,111"thatGoddoesnotgovernall,butthatsomethingscomeaboutbyfortune,itfollowsthatthisfortuneisagoddesswhohascreatedpartof theworld, and that the praise is not due toGod alone. And it is anexecrableblasphemy ifwe think that thedevil candoanythingwithoutthe permission of God: that is all one withmaking him creator of theworldinpart.""NowSatan,"saysheagain,112"isalsosubjecttoGod,sothatwearenottoimaginethatSatanhasanyprincipalityexceptwhatisgivenhimbyGod;andthereisgoodreasonwhyheshouldbesubjecttoHimsinceheproceedsfromHim.ThedevilswerecreatedbyGodaswellas the angels, but not such as they are. It is necessary that we alwaysreserve this, - that the evil which is in the devils proceeds fromthemselves."113

Calvinwasnottheman,however,toinsistonthecontrolofthedevilsbyGod without consideration of the ends for which this control wasexercised. He therefore follows up his assertion of this control (§ 17)with a discussion of the use Godmakes of "unclean spirits" (immundispiritus) (§18).Thisuse,he tellsus, is twofold.Theyare employed totest, try, exercise and develop the faithful. And they are employed topunishthewicked.Onthelatterofthesehedwellsaslittleasitsfaithfulpresentationpermitted.ThosewhomGod "does not design to enroll inHisownflock,"hetellsus,HedeliversovertothecontrolofSatanastheministerofthedivinevengeance;andhepicturesinafewburningwordstheterriblenessoftheirfate.OntheemploymentofSatanandhisangels

fortheprofitofGod'speoplehedwellsmoreat lengthandwithevidentreminiscenceofhisownChristianexperience."Theyexercisethefaithfulwithfighting,"hetellsus,"theyassailthemwithsnares,harassthemwithassaults,pushthemincombat,evenfatiguethemoften,confuse,terrify,and sometimes wound them." Yet they never, he adds, "conquer orovercomethem."God's childrenmayoftenbe filledwith consternation,buttheyareneversodisheartenedthattheycannotrecoverthemselves;theymaybe struckdownby the violenceof theblows they receive,buttheyalwaysriseagain; theymaybewounded,but they cannotbe slain;theymaybemadetolaborthroughtheirwholelives,butintheendtheyobtainthevictory.

There are several things that are thrown out into a high light in thisdiscussionwhichitwillrepayustotakenoticeof.Weobserve,firstofall,Calvin's view of the Christian life as a conflict with the powers of evil."This exercise," he says, or we might perhaps almost translate it "thisdrill"(exercitium)-itisthewordformilitarytraining-"iscommontoallthe children of God."We observe, next, his absolute confidence in thevictoryofGod'schildren.Thepromisethattheseedof thewomanshallcrush the head of Satan belongs not only to Christ, but to all Hismembers;and,therefore,hecancategoricallydenythatitispossibleforthe faithful ever to be conquered or overcomeof evil. The dominion ofSatanisoverthewickedalone,andshallneverbeextendedtothesoulofa singleoneof the faithful.Weobserve again thatCalvin conceives thevictoryasthereforecompletealreadyinprincipleforeveryonewhoisinChrist."InourHead indeed,"hedeclares, "thisvictoryhasalwaysbeenfulland complete (adplenumexstitit); because the prince of theworldhad nothing inHim."Andwe observe, finally, that he holdswith clearconvictionthatitwillneverbecompleteforanyofusinthislife.Welaborherethroughoutthewholecourseoflife(totovitaecurriculo)andobtainthe victory only in the end (in fine). The fulfilment of the promise ofcrushingtheheadofSatanisonly"beguninthislife,"thecharacteristicofwhichisthatitistheperiodofconflict(ubiluctandumest):itisonlyafterthis period of conflict is over (post luctam) that it shall be completelyfulfilled.ItisonlyinourHeadthatthevictoryisnowcomplete:inuswhoaremembers,itappearsasyetonlyinpart:anditisonlywhenweputoffourflesh,accordingtowhichweare liable to infirmity, thatweshallbe

filledwiththepoweroftheHolySpirit.IntheseseveralconsiderationswehaveoutlinedforusveryvividlyCalvin'sconceptionofthelifewhichwenowliveintheflesh,alifeoffaithandhope,notoffullattainment:alifefilledwithconflict,butwiththesurepromiseofvictory.

The preoccupation of Calvin's mind with man throughout his wholediscussionofcreationisverystrikinglyillustratedbyhisabsorption,evenwhile discussing angels and devils, with human relations and humanproblems. What he is apparently chiefly concerned about is that menshallunderstandandtaketheircomfortoutoftheassurancethatangelichosts encamp about them for their protection, and angelicmessengersare busied continually with their direction; that men shall understandandtaketheiradmonitionfromthecertaintythatnumerousmostsubtleandmalignantunseenfoeslieinwaitcontinuallyfortheirsouls.Wehavepointed out that Calvin's conception of the universe was franklyanthropocentric.Weseethatthisanthropocentrismofthoughtembracedinitthespiritualaswellasthephysicaluniverse.Hedoesnotsay,indeed,that thesehigherspiritual existences existpurely forman:heonly saysthatforourconsolationandtheconfirmationofourfaiththeScripturesinsist principally on their employment for the dispensing andadministering of God's kindness to His people. Here is no speculativeinvestigation into the final cause of angels. Here is only a practicalreferencetothosefunctionsofangelswhichitmostconcernsustoknow.But he does teach of course (on the basis of Col. i. 16) that the verycreation of angels is referred to Christ as its end: and it might becontendedthatinthisdeclarationthereliethebeginningsofa"gospelofcreation"bywhichallthingswithoutexceptionwhichhavebeenbroughtintobeingaresetforthasancillarytothegreatendoftheredemptionofthehumanrace.Acertainamountofconfirmationmaybefoundforthiscontention in the unitary conception which, as has been pointed out,Calvincherishedoftheuniverseasasystematizedwhole.Meanwhilewehavenoformaldiscussionfromhimofthefinalcauseofangels,andnoteven (at this place, at all events) any guiding hints of how he wouldresolvesuchaquestion.Leastofallhavewehereanysuchdiscussionasmeets us in many of his followers of the final cause of the devil,114althoughtheelementsofsuchadiscussionareinvolvedinanytheodicy,and cannot escape suggestion in any attempt to deal seriouslywiththe

great problemof evil.Calvin, therefore, has not failed to suggest them;butnot directly in our present context,wherehe contentshimselfwithassuming the existence of evil in the spiritual world, declaring itsorigination by the creature and asserting the divine control of it andutilization of it in God's government of the world.115 For what maypenetrate into the problemmore deeply than this, we shall have to goelsewhere.

Meanwhile,havingexpoundedatsomelengththenatureofthespiritual,andmorebrieflythenatureofthephysical,environmentofman,Calvinis now able to turn definitely to the subject which had really beenoccupying his thoughts throughout the entire discussion of creation -man,consideredasacreatureofGod.Theruinwhichhasbeenwroughtin man by sin, he postpones for a later discussion; here he concernshimselfonlywiththenatureofmanassuch.Notofcourseasifhewereinvitingan idle contemplationof somethingwhichno longer exists andthereforecannotdeeplyconcernus.Butwithatwofoldpracticalobjectinview. In the firstplace, thatwemaynotattribute toGod, theauthorofour nature, those natural evils which we perceive in ourselves, in ourpresent condition. And next, that we may properly estimate thelamentableruinintowhichwehavefallen,byseeingitasitreallyis-asacorruptionanddeformityofourpropernature.Withtheseends inviewhe invites us to attend to a descriptio integrae naturae, that is to anaccountoftheconstitutionandnatureofmanassuch(I.xv.1).

Man, inhisview,oweshisorigin,ofcourse, totheproductiveenergyofGod(I.xv.5)andisspokenofbyCalvinasamongalltheworksofGod,"the most noble and supremely admirable example of the Divinerighteousnessandwisdomandgoodness."116HispeculiarityamongthecreaturesofGodisthatheisofaduplexnature.Forthatmanconsistsoftwodisparateelements-soulandbody-ought,inCalvin'sopinion,tobebeyondcontroversy.117On theone side, then,man takes hold of lowernature-"hewastakenfromearthandclay";118andthissurelyoughttobeacurbtoourpride.Ontheotherside-which is"thenoblerpart"ofman119 - he is an immortal spirit dwelling in this earthly vessel as adomicile;andinthishemayjustlygloryasamarkofthegreatgoodnessofhisMaker.120Calvin,weperceivethen,isadichotomist,andthatnot

merely inadvertently butwith an express rejectionof the trichotomisticschematization. He recognizes some plausibility in the argumentsadvancedtodistinguishbetweenthesensitiveandrationalsoulsinman;buthefindsthatthereisreallynosubstanceinthemandadvisesthatwedrawofffromsuchquestionsasfrivolousanduseless.121

Ofthebodilynatureofman,Calvinhas(hereatleast)littletosay.Heisnotinsensibletothedignityofthehumanformandcarriage,celebratingitinafamiliarclassicalquotation;122andheadmitsthatbyasmuchasitdistinguishesandseparatesusfrombruteanimalsbythatmuchitbringsusnearertoGod.123ThoughheinsiststhattheimageofGodisproperlyspiritual,124andthateventhoughitmaybediscernedsparklingintheseexternalthingsit isonlyastheyareinformedbythespirit;125heyet inthisverystatementseemsinsomesensetoallowthatitdoes"sparkle"atleast in these external things, and indeed says plainly that "there is nopart of man including the body itself, in which there is not someluminous spark of the divine image."126 What he objected to inOsiander's view accordinglywasnot. that he allowed to the body someshare in the divine image but that he placed the image of God"promiscuously" and "equally" in the soul and body.127 Calvin mightallowittoextendeventothebody,butcertainlyhewouldnotadmitthatithaditsseatthereinequalmeasureasinthesoul.TheonlyproperseatoftheimageofGodwastohimindeedpreciselythesoul itself,128fromwhichonlyitmightshineintothebody.129

Heeven,indeed,permitshimselftospeakofthebodyasa"prison"fromwhichthesoulisliberatedatdeath;130thoughthisisdoubtlessmerelyaclassicalmannerofspeech,adheredtowithoutintentionalimplicationofitscorollaries,131whenever at leasthismind isnot consciouslyon "thebodyofthisdeath,"thatis,specifically,thesinfulbody.Incontrastwiththesoul,henever tires indeedofpouringcontemptupon thebodyasamerelumpofclay,whichissustainedandmovedandimpelledsolelybythesoulwhichdwells in it.132Dust in its origin, it shall in accordancewith its nature, in obedience to the curse of God, return to dust,133althoughofcourseafterwardsitshallberaisedagaininvirtueofChrist'sredemption;butherewe are speaking againof thebody,not as it is initself, but as it is under sin, subject on theonehand to thedeathfrom

whichitwaswhollyfreeinthestateofintegrity134andtotheredemptionbywhichitisrecoveredfromthedeathincurredbysin.Thoughthenourbodiesareinthemselves,undersin,merecarcasses,yetas"membersofChrist"theycannot"sinkintoputrefactionwithouthopeofresurrection"(III.xxv.7).Theymaybe"wretchedcorpses,"buttheydonotceasetobe"templesoftheHolyGhost,"andGod"wishestobeadoredinthem.""Weare the altars at which He is worshipped, in our bodies and in oursouls."135Hence,aswellasforotherreasons,Calvinhasmuchtosayofthe duty of a proper care of the body - of its health and even of itscleanliness. IfGoddeigns todwell inusweshouldendeavor towalk inpurity of body aswell as of soul, to keepour bodies indecency, not toafflict them with austerities, or to neglect them in disease, but so toregulateour lives thatwe shallbeable to serveGod,andbe in suitableconditiontodogood.136

Even the body, itmust be borne inmind, was not according to Calvincreatedtobethepreyofdeath.InhiscommentaryonGen.ii.16hetellsusthathadmannotsinned,hisearthlylifeindeedwouldhaveceasedbutonlytogivewaytoaheavenlylifeforthewholeman.137Thatmandiesisduethereforeentirelytosin.Withoutsinthebodyitselfwouldhavebeenimmortal. Its exinanitio is asmuch due to sin as themaledictiowhichfallsonthesoul.138ByAdam'ssindeathenteredintotheworld139andthus alienation fromGod for the soul, and return todust for thebody.AndthereforebytheredemptioninChristthereispurchasedforthesoulrestoration to communion with God and for the body return from thedust,inorderthatthewholeman,soulandbody,mayliveforeverintheenjoymentoftheDivinefavor.Thebodyisnotinandofitselftherefore,althoughthelowerpartofmanandunitinghimwiththelowercreation,anunworthyelementofhumannature.All that isunworthy in itcomesfromsin.140

The"noblerpart"141ofman,the"soul,"orasitisalternativelycalled,the"spirit,"142differsfromthebodynotmerelyinnaturebutinorigin.Initsnature, Calvin conceives it as distinctively percipient substance: whose"verynature,withoutwhichitcannotbyanymeansexist, ismovement,feeling,activity,understanding."143FromthemetaphysicalpointofviewCalvindefines it as "an immortal, yet createdessence,"144 and he is at

considerablepainstojustifyeachelementofthisdefinition.

Inoppositiontothenotionthatthesoulisbutabreath(flatus)orpower(vis)divinely infusedintobodies,but itself lackingessence(quaetamenessentiacareat),145heaffirmsthatitisasubstantialentitydistinctfromthebody, incorporeal in itsownnature(substantia incorporea),146 andthereforeincapableofoccupyingspace,andyetinhabitingthebodyasitsdomicile "not only that it may quicken all its parts,147 and render itsorgansfit (apta)anduseful fortheiractivities,butalsothat itmayholdtheprimacy(primatum)inthegovernmentofthelifeofman,"whetherinconcerns of this life or in those of the life to come (§ 6). Thesubstantiality of the soul as an essence distinct from the body heconsiders to be clear on its own account, and on the testimony ofScripture as well.148 The powers with which the soul is endowed, heurges, transcend the capacities of physical substance, and themselvesafford therefore ample proof that there is "hidden in man somethingwhich is distinct from the body."149 Here is conscience, for example,which,discriminatingbetweengoodandevil, responds to the judgmentof God. "How shall an affection without essence150 penetrate to thetribunal ofGod and strike terror into itself from its guilt"; or fear of apurely spiritual punishment afflict the body?Here is the knowledge ofGoditself.Howshouldanevanescentactivity(evanidusvigor)risetothefountain of life? Here is the marvelous agility of the human mind,traversingheavenandearth,andallthesecretplacesofnature;herearethe intellect and memory gathering into themselves all the ages,arranging everything in proper order and even forecasting the futurefromthepast;here is the intellect,conceivingthe invisibleGodandtheangels, which have nothing in common with the body, apprehendingwhat is right, and just, and honest, things to which no bodily sense isrelated:musttherenotbesomethingessentiallydistinct. fromthebodywhich is the seat of such intelligence (§ 2)? It is upon the Scripturalargumentforthedistinctnessofthesoul,however,thatCalvinespeciallydwells; and he has, of course, no difficulty inmaking it perfectly plainthat frombeginning to end the Scriptures go on the assumption of thedistinctnessandeventheseparabilityofthesoulfromthebody(§2,adfin.).

Thiswholeargumentwasinsertedintothe"Institutes"forthefirsttimein the preparation of the last edition (1559). But it is old ground forCalvin.Itwasalreadytraversedbyhimwithgreatfulnessinhisyouthfultractagainst theadvocatesofSoul-Sleep(1534), themaincontentionofwhichisthatthesoul"isasubstanceandlivesafterthedeathofthebody,endowedwith sense and intelligence."151 Ten years later (1544) it wasgone over again somewhatmore concisely in his "Brief Instructions toarm all good Christians against the errors of the common sect of theAnabaptists," among whose errors was the contention that "souls,departed from the body, do not live until the resurrection," whetherbecause the soul was conceived, not as "a substance or as a creationhavingessence,butonlyas thepowerwhichmanhas tobreathe,moveandperformtheotheractsoflife,whileheisliving,"orbecause,whileitwasconceivedas"anessentialcreature,"itwasthoughttosleep"withoutfeelingorknowledge"untilthejudgmentday.Asoveragainsttheformerand extremer type of Anabaptism he undertakes to demonstrate that"soulshaveanessenceoftheirown"152"giventothembyGod."153TherichnessoftheScripturalmaterialatCalvin'sdisposalisfairlyillustratedbythefactthatinthesethreeScripturalarguments,althoughsomeofitisemployed more than once, yet much of it is in each case drawn fromdifferentpassages.

It is interestingtoobservethatCalvinconceiveshimselftoestablishtheimmortality of the soul in establishing its distinct substantiality. In theargument in the "Institutes," the two topics of the essentiality and theimmortalityofthesoularetreatedsocompletelyasone,thatthereaderisapt to be a little confused by what seems their confusion (I. xv. 2).Calvin'sideaseemstobethatifitbeclearthatthereis"somethinginmanessentiallydistinctfromthebody,"thesubjectofallthesegreatpowersofintellect, sensibility and will, it will go of itself that this wonderfulsomewhat will survive death. This point of view is perhaps alreadypresent to hismind in the "Psychopannychia," although there hemoreclearlydistinguishesbetweentheproof"thatthesoulorspiritofmanisasubstancedistinctfromthebody,"andtheproofthatthesoulremainsinexistenceafter thedeathof thebody, representing the latterspecificallyas thequestionof the immortalityof the soul154 - although itdoesnotseemobviousthateventhequestionofthesurvivalofthecrisisofdeath

isquite the samequestionas thatof immortality.Hismethod seems inpoint of fact to be the result of a more fundamental conception. Thisfundamentalconceptionwhichunderlieshiswholepointofviewseemstobe that a spiritual substance is, as uncompounded, naturally immortal.On that presupposition the proof that there is a spiritual substance inmanistheproofofhisimmortality.Ofcoursethisassumptionisnottobeunderstood to mean that Calvin imagined that any creatures of Godwhethermenor angels are so immortal in andof themselves, thatGodcannotdestroy themor that theyexistotherwise than"inHim,"andbyvirtuenotonlyofHispurposeinconstitutingthemasHehasconstitutedthem,butofHisconstantupholdingpower.155ItmeansonlythatCalvinsupposedthatinconstitutingthemspiritsGodhasconstitutedthemforimmortality and given them natures adapted for and implicating theirendless existence. The proof that there is an uncompounded spirit inman,therefore,isinhisviewalreadyaproofofimmortality.

Itmustnotbeinferred,however,thatCalvinalwaysreliessolelyonthisindirectproofoftheimmortalityofthesoul.Moredirectproofsarefoundelsewhereinthe"Institutes"asforexample,inthechapteronthewitnessof theworks anddeeds ofGod toHim (I. v. 10),where a digression ismadetopointoutthattheapparentinequalityofthemoralgovernmentoftheworldsuggeststhehypothesisofafurtherlifeforitsrectification.But the simplicity with which he as a Biblical theologian relies on theScriptures precluded the development by Calvin of an extended or acomplete argument for immortality on general considerations. On hisviewofthedisabilitiesofthehumanmindinducedbysin,hewouldnotlook for such an argument among the heathen. The heathenphilosophers, he tells us accordingly, having no knowledge of theScriptures, scarcely attained to a knowledge of immortality. Almost noone of them, except Plato, roundly asserts the soul to be an immortalessence. Certain other Socratics reach out towards such a conceptionindeed; but they are all inmore or less doubt and cannot teach clearlywhattheyonlyhalfbelieve.NeverthelessCalvinispersuadedthatthereisineradicablyimprintedontheheartofmanadesireforthecelestiallife,andalsosomeknowledgeof it (I. xv.6).Nomancanescape then fromsomeintimationsofimmortality.AndafterthehearthasbeenquickenedbygraceandtheintellectilluminatedbytheworkingsoftheSpirit,proofs

ofitwillabundantlysuggestthemselves.156

Now, this immortal substance, alternately called soul and spirit, whichconstitutes the animating or governing principle in the humanconstitution, Calvin is insistent, is an immediate creation of God. Heinsistsuponthis,notmerelyinoppositiontothenotionthatitisnothingat all, but amere "breath" or "power," butwith equal strenuousness inoppositiontothat"diabolicalerror"whichconsidersthesouladerivative(traducem)of the substance ofGod - seeing that thiswouldmake "thedivinenaturenotonlysubject tochangeandpassions,but to ignorancealso,todepraveddesires,toweaknessandeverykindofvice"(I.xv.5)..."rendingtheessenceoftheCreatorthateveryonemaypossessapartofit."No, says he, "it is to be held as certain that souls are created" and"creation is not transfusion of essence, but the origination of it fromnothing"(§5).This"originationofthesouloutofnothing,"whichalonecanbecalled"creation,"heinsistson,again,notmerelywithreferencetotheoriginofthefirstsoul,157butalsowithreferencetoeverysoulwhichhas come into existence since. It is horrible, says he, that it should bethrown intodoubt bymenwho call themselvesChristians,whether thesouls of men are a true created substance.158 Calvin's doctrine of thecreationofthesoulisthrownupintocontrast,therefore,ontheonesidewith his view that all else which was brought into being during thecreative week, after the primal creation of the indigested mass of theworld-stuff on the first day, was proximately the product of secondcauses;andontheotherside,withhisbeliefintheproductionofthebodybyordinarygeneration in the caseof all thedescendantsofAdam.Thesoulofthefirstmanstandsoutasanexceptioninthemidstofmediatelyproducedeffects,astheoneproductofGod'sdirectcreativepowerintheprocess of the perfecting of the creative scheme. And the souls of thedescendants of this first man stand out in contrast with their bodilyforms,asineverycasealsoproductsofGod'sdirectcreativeactivity.Increating souls (in creandis animabus), he says, "God does not use theinstrumentalityofman(nonadhibethominumoperam)."159"Thereisnoneed,"hesaysagain,"toresorttothatoldfigmentofsome(figmentum),thatsoulscomeintobeing(oriantur)extraduce."160"WehavenotcomeoftheraceofAdam,"hesaysyetagain,"exceptasregardsthebody."161And not only does he thus over and over again through his writings

sharplyassertcreationismasoveragainsttraducianism,buthedevotesawholesectionofthe"Institutes"tothequestionandformallyrejectsthewholetraducianconception.162

In its nature, aswehave seen, this "immortal and yet created essence"which vitalizes and governs the human frame, is defined by Calvin aspercipient substance, whose very nature it is to move, feel, act,understand;which is, in aword, characteristically sensibility.163WhenweattendtoCalvin'sconceptionofthesoulfromthispointofviewwearein effect observing his psychology: and, of course, he develops hispsychologywithhiseyeprimarilyuponthenatureofmaninhisstateofintegrity - or rather, let us say, in his uncorrupted condition (I. xv. 1)."Whendefinitionsaretobegiven,"heremarksinanotherplace,164"thenature of the soul is accustomed to be considered in its integrity."Hedevelops it also, however, under the influence of a strong desire to beclear and simple. Subtleties in such matters he gladly leaves to thephilosophers,whosespeculationshehasnodesiretogainsayastoeithertheir truthor theirusefulness; forhispurposes,however,which look tobuildinguppiety,asimpledefinitionwillsuffice.165Itisnaturallyuponthe questions which cluster around the Will that Calvin's chiefpsychologicalinterestfocuses.Wemust,however,leavethewholematterofCalvin'spsychologyandhisdoctrineof theWill toanotheroccasion.WemustpostponealsoanexpositionofhisdoctrineoftheimageofGod.Asurveyofthesetwotopicsremainsinordertocompleteourexpositionofhisdoctrineofthecreature.

Endnotes:

1. From The Princeton Theologial Review, xiii. 1915, pp. 190-255,continuingtheseriesofarticlespublishedintheReviewduring1909(pp.27-284ofthisvolume).

2. Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,pp.50-51:"Althoughtheimportanceofthedoctrineofcreationisfeltbythetworeformers,yetweseekinvaininZwingliaswellasinCalvinforadefinitetheoryofcreation....Thereasonwhythedoctrineofcreationwasnotdevelopedbytheminthesamedegreeasthatofprovidence,mustnodoubtbesought in the fact that thisdogmadidnotat the

timegiveoccasiontoanypolemic."Also,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881, p. 51: "We cannot think it strange that Calvin, as a Biblicaltheologian,will knownothing of any other theory of creation thanthatwhichisgivenusintheScriptures."

3. I.xiv.20:HerefershisreaderstoMoses,asexpoundedparticularlybyBasilandAmbrose,"sinceit isnotmydesigntotreatat largeofthecreationoftheworld."

4. Cf. I. xiv. 3, where he inveighs against "Manichaeus and his sect,"who attributed toGod the origin of good things only, but referredevil natures to the devil. The sole foundation of this heresy, heremarks,isthatitisnefarioustoascribetothegoodGodthecreationofanyevil thing: but this is inoperative as "there isnothing in theuniversewhichhasanevilnature," - "sinceneither thepravity northe malice of either man or devil, or the sins that are born fromthem,areofnature,butratherofcorruptionofnature."

5. Cf. I. xv.5 : "Torend theessenceof theCreator so that everythingshouldpossessapart,istheextremityofmadness."

6. I. xv. 5, med.: creatio autem non transfusio est, sed essentiae exnihiloexordium.

7. I. xiv. 20: Deum verbi ac Spiritua sui potentia ex nihilo creassecoelumetterram.Cf.GenevanCatechism,1545,Opp.vi.15,16:Percoelum et terram an non quidquid praeterea creaturarum exatat,intelligis? Imovero; sedhisduobusnominibus continenturomnes,quodautcoelestessintomnesautterrenae.

8. Cf. P. J. Muller, "De Godsleer van Calvijn," 1881, p. 53: "Calvin'sdoctrine of creation is in brief, this: God created the world out ofnothinginsixdaysthroughHisWord,i.e.throughHisSon."

9. In his Commentary on Gen. i. 1, however, he does argue that theBibleteaches that creation is exnihilo, theweightof the argumentbeingmadetorestontheuseofarb,whichhesharplydiscriminatesfromrcy.Cf.Baumgartner,"CalvinHebraïsant,"1889,pp.50,51:"RichardSimonhaspointed,asaproofthatCalvinwasnotstronginHebrew,tothefact thatheunderstandsthear'B'ofGen. i. 1 in thesenseof'creationexnihilo.'ButhereagainR.Simonhasbeenmisledby his party-spirit, for the modern lexicographers are far frompronouncing Calvin's interpretation wrong (e.g. Gesenius,"Thesaurus,"i.p.236).Themostrecentviewwillscarcelyallowthat

the specific idea of creation ex nihilo is expressed inarb butrecognizesthattheideasofnovelty,extraordinariness,effortlessnessareexpressedinit,andthatthusitmaybesaidtolayabasisforthedoctrine in question: cf. Franz Bohl, "Alttestamentliche StudienRudolfKittelzum60.Geburtatagdargebracht,"1913,pp.42-60,andSkinner,"Genesis,"1910,pp.14,15.CalvindoesnotunderstandHeb.xi.3ofcreationexnihilo,butinterpretsitasthemanifestationoftheInvisibleGodinthevisibleworksofHishands,"thatwehaveinthisvisibleworldaconspicuous imageofGod"; "thus the same truth istaughthereasinRom.i.20,whereitissaidthattheinvisiblethingsofGodaremadeknowntousbythecreationoftheworld,theybeingseen by His works." This is the burden of the Argument to theCommentaryonGen.i.anditsechoesareheardin"Institutes,"I.xiv.1.

10. "Opera"(Schuleru.Schulthess),iv.pp.86sq.:Zwingliarguesthat,ifthe preëxisting stuff is the same in kind as the thing created,wehave an infinite series ofworlds: if of a different kind,we have aninfiniteseriesofmaterials.Hencetheworldisnotexmateria,butexcausa,whichisasmuchastosayexnihilo.

11. Ibid., iv.p.87:hedefines creationas "esse enihilo;vel: essequodpriusnonfuit;attamennonexaliotamquamexmateria."

12. I. xiii. 24; I. xiii. 7; cf. Commentary on Heb. i. 2: "By Him ... theworldwascreated,sinceHeistheeternalWisdomofGod,whichwasthedirectorofallHisworksfromthebeginning.HencetoowegatherthatChristiseternal,forHemustneedsbebeforetheworldhasbeenmadebyHim."Cf. alsoCommentaryonGen. i.3: "SinceHe is theWord of God, all things have been created by Him." And seeespeciallythepassageinthefirsteditionofthe"Institutes"(1536),atthe beginning of the comment on the "second part of the Symbol"(Opp.i.64),where,afterdeclaringonthebasisofHeb.i.that"sinceGodtheSonis thesameGodwiththeFather"Heis"thecreatoroftheheavensandtheearth,"heproceedstoexplainthatthehabitofalludingtotheFatherneverthelesspeculiarlyas the "creatorof theheavens and the earth" is due to "that distinction of properties,already stated, by which there is referred to the Father theprincipiumagendi,sothatHeHimselfisindeedproperlysaidtoact(agere), yet through His Word and Wisdom - yet in His Power."

"But," he adds, "that the action in the creation of the world wascommon to the threePersons ismadeclearby thatword (Gen. i.):'Letusmakeman inour imageand likeness'bywhich there isnotexpressed a deliberationwith angels, nor a colloquy with Himself,butasummoningofHisWisdomandPower."Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanCalvijn,"1881,pp.51-52;"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,"1883,p.53.

13. I. xiv. 3, med.: nefas esse adscribi bono Deo ullius rei malaecreationem.

14. Do.:aliquamesseinmundiuniversitatemalamnaturam.15. I.xiv.16andI.xv.1:Quidquiddamnabile...estaDeoalienissimum:

Cuius in contumeliam recideret, si quid vitii inesse naturaeprobaretur.

16. I.xiv.20,adfin.:creationemenarrare.17. I. xiv. 3, ad init.: vulgi ruditati se accommodans ... populariter

loquens.18. I.xiv.1:certequantumvis latepateatcoelorumcircuitus,est tamen

aliquaeiusdimensio.19. Cf.theArgt.totheCommentaryonGen.i.:"Thecircleoftheheavens

isfinite,andtheearth,likealittleglobe,isplacedinthecenter."20. I.xiv.22:omniasehominiscausacondere.Cf.CommentaryonGen.

iii.1:"thewholeworldwhichhadbeencreatedforthesakeofman."21. "CompendiumTheologiaeChrist.,"Oxford,1657,p.36(I.v.).22. This point is very fully elaborated in the Argument to the

CommentaryonGen.i.andinthecommentonHeb.xi.3.23. "CityofGod,"xi.5.24. "Confessions,"XI.xii.14:"Behold,Ianswertohimwhoasks 'What

wasGoddoingbeforeHemadeheavenandearth'-Ianswernot,asacertain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding thepressureofthequestion),'Hewaspreparinghell,'saithhe,'forthosewhopryintomysteries.'Itisonethingtoperceive,anothertolaugh-thesethingsIanswernot.FarmorewillinglywouldIhaveanswered,'I know not what I know not',than that I should make him alaughing-stock who asks deep things, and gain praise as one whoanswersfalsethings."TheArgumenttotheCommentaryonGenesisi. runs parallel to the opening paragraphs of this chapter in the"Institutes";andwearetheretoldthatCalvinborrowsthisanecdote

immediately,notfromAugustine,butfrom"TheTripartiteHistory,"- that is to say, the "Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome,"Cassiodorus' revisionof the translationmadeathis instanceof thehistories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret by EpiphaniusScholasticus (for whom see Smith and Wace, "Dict. of Christ.Biography," ii. 1880, p. 159). This book supplied the mediaevalChurchwithitsknowledgeofpost-Eusebianchurchhistory.

25. Ac scite pius ille senex quumprotervus quispiam ... per ludibriumquaeriret.

26. Seeabove,p.210.27. E.g.,xi.321(iocariquamserioconqueri).28. xii.578.29. In his youthful work as a humanist -the Commentary on Seneca's

"De clementia" - he betrays the readiness of his laughter by hiscomments on the amusing matters that come before him. In thecomment on I. vii. (Opp. v. 62) he expresses his sense of theridiculousness of the soothsayer's solemn mummery and quotesCato'sremark "that itwaswonderful that every soothsayer didnotlaughwhenever hemet a fellow soothsayer."On I. x. (Opp. v. 84),speakingof the apotheoses of theRoman emperors, he adds: "TheritesandceremoniesbywhichtheemperorswereconsecratedaresetforthbyHerodianus inhis iv.Book;andIamneverable torefrainfromlaughterwhenIreadthatpassage.ThereligionoftheRomanswas as ridiculous as this . . ." Calvin enjoyed his reading andrespondedtothematterhereadwithanemotionalmovement.

30. Doumergue, "JeanCalvin," iii. 1905,pp. 535-540,where thewholesubject is admirably illustrated. See also Doumergue, " L'art et lesentiment dans l'oeuvre de Calvin," Geneva, 1902, the thirdConference,pp.61-67.OnCalvin'suseofsatire,seeC.Lenient,"LaSatire en France, ou la Littérature militante au XVIe siècle,"1877, i.pp.107sq.,especiallypp.175sq.Cf.also the firstarticle inthisvolume,pp.11sqq.

31. xii.348:nonpossenegariomniaoblectamenta.32. Opp.xb.441.33. I. xiv. 2: Hic etiam obstrepit humana ratio, quasi a Dei potentia

alienifuerinttalesprogressus.34. I.xiv.2:aDeipotentiaalieni.

35. I. xiv. 22: quum nihilo difficilius esset, uno momento totum opussimul omnibus numeris complere, quam eiusmodi progressionesensimadcomplementumpervenire.

36. I. xvi. 1. Cf. the Genevan Catechism of 1545 (Opp. vi. 15-16, 1718)where the question is asked why God is called in the Creed onlyCreatorofheavenandearth,when"tuericonservarequeinsuostatucreaturas," is "multo praestantius" than just to have once createdthem.Theansweristhatbythisparticularizingofcreation,itisnotintendedtoimplythat"GodsocreatedHisworksatonetime(semel)that He afterwards rejects the care of them." On the contrary, HeupholdsandgovernsallHemade;andthisisincludedintheideaofHiscreationof themall.Cf.also the"ConfessiondesEscholiers"of1559(Opp. ix.721-722)whereweread: "Iconfess thatGodcreatedtheworldatonce (semel), in such amanner as to be its perpetualgovernor...."

37. ItisworthwhiletoobserveherehowCalvinbetrayshissensibilitytothegloryandbeautyofnature(cf.alsoI.v.6;Opp.xxix.300).SeetheremarksofE.Doumergue,"JeanCalvin,"iv.1910,p.105.

38. ThesephrasesoccurintheCommentaryonGenesisi.39. JoannesWollebius,op.cit.,p.35.40. Amand.Polanus,"Syntagmatheologiaechristianae,"Hanov.,1525,v.

2. Cf. Gisb. Voetius, "Disp.," i. 1648, p. 554: "Creation may bedistinguished...intofirstandsecond.Thefirstistheproductionofathingexnihilo,andinthismannerwereproducedtheheavens, theelements,light;andeverydaytherearesoproducedhumansouls,sofaras theyarespiritual inessence.Thesecond is theproductionofthe essential or accidental form, in praesubjecta sed indispositaplane materia, and that by the immediate operation of the divinepower;andinthismannerwereproducedtheworksofthefivedaysas also many miraculous works in the order of nature as nowconstituted."

41. Seeabove,note9.42. I.xvi.2;cf.alsotheCommentaryonGen.i.3.43. Cf. Köstlin, TSK, 1868, p. 427: "In the section of edition 2b (vol.

xxix. 510) on God as the Almighty Creator there should beparticularly noted the emphasis with which Calvin maintains, inspite of the mediation of the divine activity through creaturely

instruments, yet the dependence of these instruments, and theabsolute independence of God with respect to them. And in ed. 3(vol.xxx. 145sq.,150;Lib. I. c. xvi.§§2,7) therearegivenstillstronger expositions of this. God, says Calvin, bestows on theinstruments powers purely in accordance with His own will, andgoverns them; andGod couldworkwhatHe works through them,saythroughthesun,justaseasilywithoutthem,purelybyHimself.God,hesays,ined.3,letsusbenourishedordinarilybybread;andyetaccordingtoScripture,mandoesnotlivebybreadalone,foritisnot the abundanceof foodbut thedivineblessingwhichnourishesus; and on the other hand (Isaiah iii. 1)He threatens to break thestaffofbread.""Wehaveherealready,"addsKöstlin,"thegeneralpremisesforthespecialusewhichGod,accordingtoCalvin,makesof the Word and of the Sacraments for His saving work." WouldanybodybutaLutheranhaveeverthoughtofthe"meansofGrace"inthisconnection?Nevertheless it isnotbad tobereminded that theReformeddoctrineof the "meansofGrace"has its analogue in theReformeddoctrineofprovidence:itisacorollaryofthefundamentalnotionofGodastheIndependentOne.

44. CommentaryonMalachii.2-6(Opp.xliv.401).45. H. Bavinck in the first of his Stone Lectures ("The Philosophy of

Revelation," 1909, pp. 9-10) remarks: "The idea of development isnotaproductionofmodern times. Itwasalready familiar toGreekphilosophy.More particularly Aristotle raised it to the rank of theleading principle of his entire system by his significant distinctionbetweenpotentiaandactus....Thisideaofdevelopmentarousednoobjection whatever in Christian theology and philosophy. On thecontrary,itreceivedextensionandenrichmentbybeing linkedwiththe principle of theism." Calvin accordingly very naturally thoughtalongthelinesofatheisticevolutionism.

46. Commenting on Ps. cxlviii. 5 (Opp. xxxii. 434), he remarks: "ThepronounHeis thereforeemphatic,as if theprophetwouldsaythattheworld isnoteternalasprofanemendream,nor isproducedbysome concurring atoms, but this beautiful order which we seesuddenly stood forth (exstitisse) on the mandate of God." Cf. alsoOpp.xxxi.327.

47. I.xiv.3:diserteetexplicate...tradamusquae...docetscriptura.

48. I.xiv.4,end:exsimpliciscripturaedoctrina.49. I.xiv.8,adinit.:viderintqualehabeantfundamentum.50. I, xiv. 4: Theologo autemnon garriendo aurea oblectare, sed vera,

certa,utiliadocendo,conscientiasconfirmarepropositumest.51. I.xiv.3:Etcerte,quumutilitersempernosdoceatSpiritus,inquibus

veroparumestmomentiadaedificationem,velsubticeatprorsus,velleviter tantumet cursimattingat: nostri quoqueofficii est, libenterignorarequaenonconducunt.

52. I. xiv. 4: Ne longior sim, meminerimus hic, ut in tota religionisdoctrina,tenendamesseunammodestiaeetsobrietatisregulam,nederebusobscurisaliudvelloquamur,velsentiamus,velscireetiamappetamuaquamquodDeiverbofueritnobistraditum.Alterum,utin lectione acripturae, iis continenter quaerendis ac meditandisimmoremur quae ad aedificationem pertinent, non curiositati autreruminutiliumstudioindulgeamus.

53. Zwingli seems tohavebeenanexception,and tohave lookedupontheascriptionof all events to theactionof angels andespeciallytothat of devils as inconsistent with the doctrine of providence: hetwitsLutherwith ascribing everything to "the poor devil" andaskswhat then becomes of universal providence ("Opera," Schuler u.Schulthess,iib.p.27).Cf.P.J.Muller,"DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn,1883,p.77,note.ButLuther,remarksMuller,couldbelieveinthedeterminingprovidenceofGod,"undwenndieweltvollteufelwär."HowitstrikesamodernofthemodernsmaybelearnedfromWilliamWrede's remark("Paul,"E.T. 1907,p.95): "Angels, inourtime,belongtochildrenandtopoets;toPaulandhisagetheywerearealandseriousquantity."

54. I. xiv. 9: ex quibus [Scripturis] clarissime evincitur re vera essespiritus naturae subsistentis; . . . non qualitates aut inspirationessinesubstantiasedverosspiritus.Notealso§19:nonmotionesautaffectionesmentium, sedmagis revera, quod dicuntur,mentes, velspiritussensuetintelligentiapraeditos.Cf.Opp.xlv.271.

55. I.xiv,19:sensuetintelligentiapraeditos.56. I.xiv.8:formaspirituscarerecertumest.Cf.Opp.xl.659:quoniam

angelicarentcorporibus.57. I.xiv.5.Cf.Opp.xlii.455;Iii.86.58. I.xv.3,end:"NeitherisittobedeniedangelosadDeisimilitudinem

creatos esse, since our highest perfection, as Christ testifies (Mat.xxii.30),willbetobecomelikethem."

59. I.xiv.3;[Moses]angelosDeiministros inducit,colligerefacile liceteorumesseconditorem,cuisuamoperametofficiaimpendunt.Cf.4:angelos sane, quum Dei sint ministri ad iussa eius exsequendaordinati, esse quoque illius creaturas, extra controversiam essedebet.Again 16:quumaDeoconditus sit diabolus.Cf.Opp. xxxiii.206;lv.334.

60. I.xiv.3:eorumconditor.Cf.Opp.xxxv.466,tothesameeffect.61. Opp.Iii.85--86.TheassertionofPsalmcxlviii.5(Opp.xxxii.434)he

apparentlyconfinesto"creaturiasensucarentibus":butonthefirstversehe incidentally remarksof the angels that "theywere created(conditisunt)."Cf.theassertionsofthecreationoftheangels,goodandbad,Opp.xxx.316;xxxiii.206.IntheexpositionoftheSymbol,in the "Institutes," of 1543,he comments on thewords "Creator ofheavenandearth"thus(chap.vi.$§28and29):"Underthenamesof heaven and earth all celestial and terrestial things arecomprehended, as if Godwere said to be the Creator of all thingswithout exception. This is found more clearly expressed in theNiceneCreed,whereHeiscalledtheMakerofallthingsvisibleandinvisible.ThatwasdoneprobablyonaccountoftheManichees,whoimagined twoprinciples,Godand theDevil; andattributed toGodthecreationofgood things, indeed,but referredevilnatures to theDevilastheirauthor,"-andsoonasinthe"Institutes"of1559,I.xiv.3.Thenin§29:"Godthenisinthefirstplacesaidtohavecreatedthe heavens and all that is contained in the heavens. But in thatorder are the celestial spirits, as well those who have persisted byobedience in their integrity, as those who by defection have fallenintoruin,"etc.-explainingthatthefactthatMosesdoesnotmentionthisinthehistoryofcreationinnorespectthrowsitintodoubt.Cf.the"ConfessiondesEscholiers,"1559(Opp. ix. 721-722): "IconfessthatGod creatednotonly the visibleworld, that is theheavenandtheearth,andwhatever iscontained in them,butalso the invisiblespirits,someofwhomhavepersistedinobediencetoGod,andsomebytheirownsinhavebeenprecipitatedintodestruction."

62. I.xv.5:animasergo...creatasessenonminusquamangelos,certostatuendumest.Creatio autemnon transfusio eat, sed essentiae ex

nihiloexordium.63. I. xiv. 4: terram esse perfectam, et coelos perfectos cum omni

exercitu eorum, narrat Moses (Gen. ii. 1). Quid attinet anxieprecontari quoto die, praeter astra et planetas, alii quoque magisreconditicoelestesexercitusessecoeperint?

64. Aquinas,"Summa,"ParsI.qu.lxi.art.3,argues:"Angelsareapartoftheuniverse.Fortheydonotconstituteinthemselvesauniverse;butunite alongwith the corporeal creation in a universe.This appearsfromtherelationofonecreaturetoanother.Forthemutualrelationof things is the good of the universe. But no part is perfect, whenseparatedoffintoawholebyitself.ItisnotthereforeprobablethatGod, 'whoseworksareperfect,'asissaidinDeut.xxxii,createdtheangeliccreationoff to itselfbeforetheothercreatures."Jerome,ontheotherhand,followingtheGreeks,exclaimsonthemultitudinousageswhichintervenedbetweenthecreationoftheangelsandthatofman. It is interesting to observe Dante following Aquinas andmaking the creation of the angels simultaneous with that of theuniverseatlarge,thefalloftheevilangelsbeingdelayedbuttwentysecondsaftertheircreation(cf.MariaRossetti's"ShadowofDante,"1886, pp. 14, 15), and Milton following Jerome and putting thecreationofangelsaeonsbeforethatofman.

65. Soheseemstosayexplicitlyinthemiddleeditionsofthe"Institutes"(firstin1543),vi.§29(Opp.i.497):"FirstthenGodissaidtohavecreated the heavens and all that the heavens contain. But in thisorder are the celestial spirits, whether those who by obedienceremainedintheirintegrity,orthosewhobydefectionfellintoruin."

66. "Instit.Theolog.,"Geneva,1625,Loc.vi.4,p.61.67. "Compend.Theolog.Christ.,"ed.Oxford,1657,p.36.68. "Theoretico-practicatheol.,"Amstel.,1724,III.vii.4,p.340.69. Heppe, "Dog.d.ev.-ref.Kirche," 1861,p. 149, adds that this isalso

theteachingoftheLeidenSynopsis,Riissen,WendelinusandoftheReformedingeneral.Cocceius("SummaTheol.,"xvi.12)thoughtofthe day when the waters above and below the firmament wereseparated.

70. Cf. a similar rejection of the efforts to determine the numbers andordersofangelsinOpp.li.158.

71. Ascited,III.vii.30(p.348).

72. I.xiv.3:nefasesseadscribibonoDeoulliusreimalaecreationem.73. I.xiv.3:"Theorthodoxfaith ...doesnotadmitthatanyevilnature

exists in the universe of the world; since neither the pravity andmalicewhetherofmanordevilorthesinswhichproceedfromthem,came from nature but from the corruption of nature; nor hasanythingatallcomeintobeingfromthebeginninginwhichGodhasnotgivenaspecimenofHiswisdomandrighteousness."

74. I. xiv. 16: quum a Deo conditus sit diabolus, banemalitiam quameius naturae tribuimus, non ex creatione sed ex depravatione essememinerimus.

75. Do.:contentisimushocbreviterhaberedediabolorumnatura:fuisseprimacreationeangelosDei, seddegenerandoseperdidisse et aliisfactosesseinstrumentaperditionis.

76. I.xiv.16:quodestabeoalienissimum.77. Sermonxvi.onJobiv.(Opp.xxxiii.206).78. Sermoniv.onJobi.(Opp.xxxiii.60).79. CommentaryonIJno.iii.8(Opp.Iv.334).Cf.fartherOpp.xxx.316

("Hom. 71 on I Sam. xix."): "Just aswhenwe call the good angelsspiritsofGod,notbecausetheyhavethesameessencewithGod,butbecause they were formed and created (formati et creati sunt) byHim,soalsoitistobethoughtofdevilswhoseoriginwasthesamewiththegoodangels.Fortheywerenotcreatedevilasweseethemtoday,andwiththatevilwithwhichtheScripturesdepictthem,buttheywerecorruptedandalienatedfromGodbytheirdeparturefromtheir original state; just as, we know, man too fell away from hispurityintohispresentmisery."

80. Opp.xlviii.594:"Astheyhavenotalwaysexisted,sotheyarecapableofreachingtheirend."Cf.Opp.xxxiii.365,andxxxviii.152.

81. Opp.xxxiii. 206-207 (Sermonxvi. onJob iv.).Cf.Opp. xxxiii. 365,andliii.92.

82. I.xiv.10:thecultofangels intheChurchofRomeledCalvintobeparticularlyinsistentagainsttheirworship.Cf.Opp.vi.83,vii.653.

83. I.xiv.10:ineisfulgordivininuminisrefulgeat.84. I.xiv.12:sinonuteiusmanusanobisconsiderantur,quaenullum

adopusnisiipsodirigentesemoveant.85. I.xiv.4:Deiministriadiussaeiusexsequendaordinati.86. I.xiv.9:quorumobsequioutiturDeusadsuorumprotectionem, et

per quos turn sua beneficia inter homines dispensat, tum reliquaetiamoperaexsequitur.

87. I.xiv.5:imperiumsuuminmundo.88. I.xiv.5,adinit.:adexsequendaomniaquaedecrevit.Cf.Heidegger's

threefolddistributionofangelicfunctions:inpraeconiolaudumeius,necnon in regiminemundi, ecclesiae imprimisministrant (as citedbyHeppe:"Dogmat.d.ev.-ref.Kirche,"1861,p.146).

89. "Itdeservesremark,"saysP.J.Muller("DeGodsleervanZwinglienCalvijn," 1883, p. 77), "that Calvin answers the question why Godmakesuse of angels, after a fashionwhichmore or lessaffects theimmanenceofGod.Hepoints to themultiplicityofourdangers, toourweakness,andtoourliabilitytotrepidatioanddesperatio.NowGod not merely promises us His care; but He even appoints an'innumerablemultitude of protectors,whomHehas commissionedtokeepwatchoverus';sothatwemay'feelourselveswithoutdanger,nomatterwhatevilthreatens,solongasweareunderthisprotectionandcare' (I. xiv. 11), - amodeof conception towhichhe does not,however,hold,sincehelooksuponallthingsandmanaswellratheras immediatelydependentonGodHimselfandonHiscarealone."MullerquotesZwingli("Opera,"iib.p.27)ascomplainingofLuther'sattributionofallevils to thedevilas if therewerenosuch thingasthe providence of God. "How is it," asks Zwingli, "that to you thepoor devil must have done everything, as no man can do in myhouse?Ithoughtthedevilwasalreadyovercomeandjudged.If thedevilisnowapowerfullordintheworld,asyouhavejustsaid,howcan it be that all things shall be worked out through God'sprovidence?" In both Zwingli's andMuller's cases the antithesis isnotexact.AllthingscanbeworkedoutbyGod'sprovidenceandyettheDevilbe theauthorofall that isevil;because theDevilhimselfmaybe - and is - an instrument ofGod's providence.God's use ofangels in His providence is no injury to His immanent working,because they are the instruments of His immanent working; andCalvindoesnot depart from the one notionwhile emphasizing theother,becausetheyarenotmutuallyexclusivenotionsbuttwosidesofoneidea.

90. CommentaryonJno.v.4(Opp.xlvii.105-106).91. I. xiv. 11: illud quidem unum satis superque esse deberet, quod

Dominusasseritsenostrumesseprotectorem.92. Do.: perperam id quidem fieri a nobis fateor, quod post illam

simplicem promissionem de unius Dei protectione, adhuccircumspectamusundeveniatnobissuxilium.

93. Do.:imbecilitas,mollities,fragilitas,vitium.94. Do.:proimmensasuaclementiaetfacilitate.95. Cf.Voetius,"Disput.,"i.1648,p.900,whoremarksthatmostofthe

Reformed(includinghimself)denytheexistenceofguardianangels,adding: "We embrace the opinion of Calvin in Instit. I. xiv. 7, andCom. on Psalms (91) and on Matthew (18), and of the otherReformers,whorejectthisopinionasvainandcurious,andwethinkthatsomethinginthismatterhasadheredtotheancientfathersfromthePlatonictheologyandthemythologicaltheologyoftheGentiles."

96. Thislastsentenceisnewtothelatesteditionofthe"Institutes."Wemaynote in passing thatCalvin both in the "Institutes" and in hiscommentaryonthepassage,understandsMat.xviii.10of"theangelsoflittlechildren"(cf."Institutes,"I.xiv.7,9),whichseemscertainlywrong. Cf. art. "Little Ones" in Hastings' "Dict. of Christ and theGospels."

97. I.xiv.14,end:"ForjustastheChurchandtheSocietyof theSaintshaveChristashead,sothefactionoftheimpiousandimpietyitselfisdepictedtouswithitsprince,whoholdstheresupremedominion."Cf.Opp.xxxv.35;liii.339.

98. I. xiv. 15, beginning: Hoc quoque ad perpetuum cum diabolocertamen accendere nos debet, quod adversarius Dei et nosterubique dicitur. Cf. the whole paragraph and especially its closingwords.

99. Cf. the definition given of demons by Voetius, "Disp.," i. 1648, p.911,summingupwhatismorebroadlytaughtbyCalvininthebrevityofadefinition.Ademon,sayshe, "isanangel, created in integrity,who, subjectedonaccountofhisowndefection to endless evil andmisery,serves,eventhoughunwillingly,theprovidenceandgloryofGod."

100. I.xiv.17:discordiaetpugnacumDeo.101. nisivolenteetannuenteDeo,nihilfacereposse.102. nisiimpetratafacultate.103. aDominoamandatus.

104. spiritusDominimalus.105. perangelosmalos.106. opusDei-operatioSatanae.107. Opp.i.61.108. Opp.i,351;ii.225.109. Opp.vii.188-190.110. Opp.vi.17,18;cf.vii.188sq.111. Opp.xxxv.152(Sermoncxxx.onJobxxxiv.).112. Opp.xxxiii.60(Sermoniv.onJobi.).113. Cf.alsoOpp.xxx.178;xxxvi.338;xl.309;xlv.269;xlviii.594,where

it is theascendedChristwho isaffirmed (asGodofprovidence) toholdthedevilsinchecksothattheydonothingsavebyHiswill.Alsothe statement in the "Confession des Escholiers" of 1559 (Opp. ix.723-724):"AndalthoughSatanandthereprobateendeavortothroweverything into confusion to such an extent that the faithfulthemselves doubt the right order of their sins, I recognizeneverthelessthatGod;astheSupremePrinceandLordofAll,turnstheevilintogood,andgovernsallthingsbyacertainsecretcurb,andmoderates them in a wonderful way, which we ought with allsubmissionofmind toadore, sincewearenotable to comprehendit."

114. Fewofthem,however,havebeenabletosaysomuchsowellinsuchfewwords asVoetius, "Disp.," i. 1648, p. 922: "Final causes of thedevilassuchoughtnottobeassigned,becauseevilhasnoend.Butalthoughtheopus(aswesay)inandofitselfhasnoend,theopcransDeushas-whohasmadeeverythingforHimself(propterseipsum,Prov.xvi.4).FortoafixedendHebothcreatedhiminthestateofintegrity,andpermittedhisfall,andlefthiminhisfallenstate,andordainedhismalicetomultiplexgood.HisultimateendisthereforethegloryofGod;thesubordinateuseofthedevilisasaninstrumentofdivineprovidence,inthislifeforplaguingmen,thepiousfortheirdisciplineonly,theimpiousfortheirpunishmentandundoing;afterthislife,fortorturingtheimpious.ThusGodinbothraisesatrophytothehonorofHisblamelessglory."

115. AbriefstatementofhowCalvinhabituallythoughtofdevilsmaybefoundinhistractagainsttheLibertines(xii.:Opp.vii.181-182):"TheScriptures teach us that the devils are evil spirits who continually

makewaronus,todrawustoperdition.Andastheyaredestinedtoeternaldamnation,theycontinuallystrivetoinvolveusinthesameruin. Likewise that they are instruments of the wrath of God, andexecutioners for thepunishmentofunbelievers and rebels, blindingthemandtyrannizingoverthem,toincitethemtoevil(Jobi.6,12;ii.1,7;Zech.iii.1;Mat.iv.1;Lk.viii.29,xxii.31;Actsvii.51,xxvi.18;IICor.ii.11;IThes.ii.18;Jno.viii.44;xiii.2;IJno.iii.8)."

116. I. xv. 1, ad init.: inter omnia Dei opera nobilissimum ac maximespeotabileest iustitiaeeius,etsapientiae,etbonitatis specimen.Cf.Commentary onGen. i. 26: "If you rightlyweigh all circumstancesman is among other creatures a certain preëminent specimen ofdivinewisdom,justiceandgoodness,sothatheisdeservedlycalledbytheancientsmikro>kosmov,'aworldinminature."'Calvinseemstobespeakingwithregardonlytotheothervisiblecreatures.

117. I. xv. 2, ad init.: porro hominem constare anima et corpore, extracontroversiam esse debet. Cf. Opp. vii. 113-114 (1544): "We holdthen, in conformity with the whole teaching of God that man iscomposedandconsistsoftwoparts:thatistosayofbodyandsoul."

118. I.xv.1,end:exterraetlutosumptusfuit.119. I.xv.2:quaenobilioreiusparsest.120. I.xv.1,end:fictorissui.121. I.xv.6:quipluresvoluntesseanimasinhomine,hocestsensitivam

etrationalem,...repudiandinobissunt.122. FromOvid,"Metam.,"Lib.i.123. I,xv.3.Cf.CommentaryonGenesisii.7wherehefinds inthevery

wayinwhichmanwasformed,graduallyandnotbyasimplefiat,amarkofhisexcellenceabovethebrutes."Threestages,"hesays,"aretobenoted in thecreationofman: thathisdeadbodywasformedoutofthedustoftheearth;thatitwasenduedwithasoulwhenceitshouldreceivevitalmotion;andthatonthissoulGodengravedHisownimage,towhichimmortalityisannexed."

124. In accordance with Augustine's declaration ("De Trinitate," xii. 7[12]):NonsecundumformamcorporishomofactusestadimaginemDei,sedsecundumrationalemmentem.(Cf."DeGen.adlit.,"vi.27(38):imaginem[Dei]inspiritumentisimpressam....)

125. I. xv. 3: modo fixum illum maneat, imaginem Dei, quae in hisexternisnotisconspiciturvelemicat,spiritualemesse.

126. "Institutes," I. xv. 3. Cf. A. S. E. Talma, "De Anthropologie vanCalvijn,"1882,whothinksCalvinspeakssomewhatwaveringlyaboutthebody.

127. Promiscuetamadcorpusquamadanimam.128. Sohesaysinthe"Psychopannychia"(Opp.v.180)thatinthebody,

mirabile opus Dei, prae caeteris corporibus creatis, apparet, nullatamen eius imago (in eo) effulget, and reasons out the matter atlengthinOpp.vii.112(1544):"NowwherewillitbethatweshallfindthisimageofGod,ifthereisnospiritualessenceinmanonwhichitmaybeimpressed?Forastoman'sbodyitisnottherethattheimageofGodresides.ItistruethatMosesafterwardsadds(Gen.ii.7)thatman was made a living soul, - a thing said also of beasts. But todenotea specialexcellence,hesays thatGod inspired thepoweroflife into thebodyHehad formedofdust.Thus, though thehumansoulhassomequalitiescommontothoseofbeasts,neverthelessasitbearstheimageandlikenessofGoditiscertainlyofadifferentkind.Asithasanoriginapart,ithasalsoanotherpreeminenceandthisiswhatSolomonmeanswhenhesaysthatatdeaththebodyreturnstothedustfromwhichitistaken,andthesoulreturnstoGodwhogaveit (Eccl.xii.7).For thisreason it issaid intheBookofWisdom(ii.23)thatmanisimmortal,seeingthathewascreatedintheimageofGod. This is not an authentic book of Holy Scripture but it is notimpropertoavailourselvesofitstestimonyasofanancientteacher(Docteurancien)-althoughthesinglereasonoughttobeenoughforus that the imageofGod, as it hasbeenplaced inman, can resideonly in an immortal soul, if we understand its contents as Paulexpoundsit,thatistosay,thatwearelikeGodinrighteousnessandtrueholiness."

129. SermonsonDaniel,Opp.xli.459.130. I, xv. 2: ubi soluta est a carnis ergastulo anima; nisi animae

corporumergastulissolutaemanerentsuperstites. Inhisearlytract(1534) against soul-sleeping, he rings the changes on this idea: exhoccorporisergastulo ;corpusanimaeestcareer; terrenahabitatiocompedes sunt; post dissolutam compagem corporis; exuta hisvinculis,etc.(Opp.v.195-196).

131. This is clearly the case inhis early tract, "Psychopannychia," 1534,Opp. v. 195-196, where the body is "a lump of clay," "a weight of

earth,whichpressesusdownandsoseparatesusasbyawallfromGod":anditisonlywhentheloadofthebodyisputoffthat"thesoulset free from impurities is truly spiritual (vere spiritualis) so as toconsenttothewillofGodandnolongertoyieldtothetyrannyofthefleshrebellingagainstHim."

132. Opp. v. 195: tanta est vis animae, in massa terrae sustinenda,movenda, impellenda; the soul is on the contrary by nature agile(naturaagilis).

133. Opp.v.204:Isveropulvisest,quiformatusestdelimoterrae:illeinpulverem revertitur, non spiritus, quem aliunde quam e terraacceptumDeushominidedit.

134. Commentary on Gen. ii. 17: "He was wholly free from death; hisearthlylifenodoubtwouldhavebeenonlyforatime;yethewouldhavepassed intoheavenwithoutdeath."OnGen. iii. 19: "Whenhehad been raised to so great a dignity that the glory of the divineimage shone in him, the earthly origin of the body was almostobliterated. Now however, despoiled of his divine and heavenlyexcellence,whatremainsbutthatbyhisverydepartureoutoflife,heshould recognize himself to be earth? Hence it is that we dreaddeath, because dissolution, which is contrary to nature, cannotnaturallybedesired.Thefirstman,tobesure,wouldhavepassedtoabetterlifehadheremainedupright;buttherewouldhavebeennoseparation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind ofdestruction,inshort,noviolentchange."

135. SermonsonDeuteronomy,Opp.xxvii.19,20.136. Sermons on Deut., Opp. xxviii. 101; Sermons on I Tim., Opp. liii.

533-536. Cf. in general on Calvin's doctrine of the body, E.Doumergue, Princeton Theological Review, Jan., 1909 (vii. 1), pp.93-96, where he brings out the salient points in opposition to therepresentations of Martin Schulze's "Meditatio Futurae Vitae, ihrBegriffundihreherrschendeStellungimSystemCalvins,"1901,pp.7 sq. In his address on "Calvin le prédicateur de Genève,"delivered at the celebration at Geneva of the 400th anniversary ofCalvin's birth (July 2, 1909), Doumergue briefly sums up hiscontentions here: "Oh! no doubt the body is a tent, a prison andworsestillinthevehementlanguageofourpreacher.Butatthesametime,'thereisnopartofthebodyinwhichsomesparkleofthedivine

imageisnottobefoundshining.'Itisthe'templeoftheHolySpirit,''the altar' on which God would be adored.... And it is in a sort ofcanticle that Calvin celebrates its resurrection.... 'Whatmadness itwouldbetoreducethisbodytodustwithouthope.No,thebodyofSt. Paul, which has borne the marks of Jesus Christ, which hasmagnificentlyglorifiedHim,willnotbedeprivedoftherewardofthecrown.'-Accordinglywhatcareweshouldtakeofthisbody!Careforthehealthisareligiousduty:'Goddoesnotwishthatmenshouldkillthemselves,'andtoabstainfromtheremedieswhichareofferedisa'diabolical pride.' - Health and cleanliness: here is the whole ofmodern hygiene, which is to be nowhere more scrupulous orsplendidthanwiththepeopleswhichhavebeenmoststrictlytaughtintheschoolofthepreacherofGeneva,-theScotchandDutch"(p.21).

137. terrenaquidemvitaillifuissettempoialis;but,incoelumtamensineinterituetillaesusmigrasset.

138. Nunc mors ideo horrori nobis est: primum quia quaedam estexinanitio, quoad corpus: deinde quia Dei maledictionem sentitanima.

139. OnRom.v.12.140. Cf.Talma,ascited,pp.37-40.141. I.xv.2:nobiliorpars:praecipuapars.142. Anima...interdumspiritusvocatur(I.xv.2,adinit.).Herepeatedly

investigates inhis occasionalworks theBiblical usageof the terms"soul"and"spirit."E.g.inhisearlywork,"Psychopannychia,"adinit.(Opp. v. 178 sq.), and towards the end of the tract against theAnabaptists(Opp.vii.111).Cf.Talma,ascited,p.34.

143. "Psychopannychia,"Opp.v. 184: "Ifanyconfess that the soul lives,and deprive it at the same time of all sensation (sensu), they justimaginea soulwithnothingof soul about it; or they tear away thesoul from itself; quum eius natura, sine qua consistere ullomodonequit,sitmoveri,sentire,vigere,intelligere;and(asTertulliansays)animaeanima,sensussit."

144. I. xv. 2, ad init.: animae nomine essentiam immortalem, creatamtamenintelligo,quaenobilioreiusparsest.

145. I.xv.2.146. I.xv.6.

147. Cf."Psychopannychia,"Opp.v.180:essentiamimmortalem,quaeinhominevitaecausaest.

148. I.xv.2:etresipsaettotascripturaostendit.149. I. xv. 2: clare demonstrat latere in homine aliquid a corpore

separatum.150. I.xv.2:motussineessentia-theexpressionisjustinviewofmodern

phenomenalisticpsychology.151. Opp.v.177.152. Opp.vii.111-112:quelesamesontuneessensepropre.153. Opp. vii. 112: l'ame humaine a une essense propre qui luy soit

donnéedeDieu.154. Opp.v.184.155. Accordingly Calvin in his "Psychopannychia" (Opp. v. 222) says

plainly: "whenwesay that thespiritofman is immortalwedo notaffirm that it isable to standagainst thehandofGodor to subsistapart from His power." In his Commentary on I Tim. vi. 16 heexplainsthedeclarationthatGodalonehasimmortalitytorefernottoHishavingimmortalityaseipsobuttoHishavingitinpotestate:accordingly,he says, immortalitydoesnotbelong to creatures saveas it is planted in themby the inspiration ofGod: nam si vimDeiquae indita est hominis animae tollas, statim evanescet: naturaeimmortalitas does not belong to souls or angels. Similarly in his"Responsiocontra Pighium de Libero Arbitrio" (Opp. vi. 361) hedeniesthatthesoulofmanisinthissenseperseimmortal:nameteomodo neque animam per se immortalem esse concedimus. Theexception however proves the rule, and the use of this as anargumentagainstPighiusexconcessu,suggeststhatthereisasensein which otherwise than eo modo, the soul is per se immortal.Pighius had asserted that "mortality and corruption are exconditione,nonvitionaturae.""Whatishisproof?"asksCalvin,andsupplies it thus: "Since the body is thus from its principia out ofwhich it is compoundedand fromthenatureofcomposition." "Butbythatargument,"rejoinsCalvin,"itmightbeprovedthatthebodywouldbeobnoxioustodeathevenaftertheresurrection;andthatthesoul is nowmortal. For fromwhatprincipiumhas the soul sprungexcept nothing?" "No doubt," he adds, "if we should say that thatperfectionwhichGodconferredonmanfromthebeginningdidnot

so belong to nature that he had it per se and ex se, Iwould freelyacceptthisopinion.Fornotevendoweconcedethatthesoulisafterthatfashionperseimmortal.AndthisiswhatPaulteacheswhenheattributesimmortalitytoGodalone(ITim.vi.16).Neverthelesswedonotonthataccountconfessthesoultobemortal: forwedonotestimateitsnaturefromthefirstpower(virtute)oftheessence,butfrom the perpetual condition which God has imparted to Hiscreatures." Cf. the tract against the Libertines (Opp. vii. 180): "St.Paul,theysay,callsGodaloneimmortal(ITim.vi.16).Ifullyagreewith St. Paul. But he means that God alone has this privilege ofHimself and of His own nature, so that He is the source ofimmortality.ButwhatHehasofHimselfHe communicated tooursoulsbyHisgrace,whenHeformedtheminHisimage."

156. Cf.theremarksofTalma,ascited,p.35:"Butstillallmen,accordingto Calvin too, have a certain sense of their immortality. By theiralienationfromtheFatheroflights,thelightinmenisnotsowhollyextinguishedthat theyare incapableof thissense. . . "Talma sumsup:"ItisverycertainthatCalvinhasnotfullyandfinallyprovedtheexistence and immortality of the human soul. But this is not hispurpose.Hisobjectwasnotsomuchtorefutetheerrorofthosewhodenied these two things, as to strengthen his believing readers intheirfaith.Andforthisendthepopularpresentationofthegroundson which the two things rest was sufficient." On the differencebetween the human soul and the souls of animals according toCalvin,seeTalma,p.36.

157. Cf. e.g. Commentary on Mal. i. 2-6 (Opp. xliv. 401): "Mosesunderstandsthatman'ssoulwascreatedfromnothing.Wearebornbygeneration,andyetouroriginisclay,andthechiefthinginus,thesoul,iscreatedfromnothing."

158. Opp.vii.180.159. OnHeb.xii.9.160. OnGen.iii.6(Opp.xxiii.62).161. SermononJobxiv.4(Opp.xxxiii.660).162. II, i.7.Twosubordinatepoints inCalvin'sdoctrineofcreationmay

beworthnotinghere.Heremarks inpassingwhilecommenting onNumbersxvi.22(Opp.xxv.222) that itmaybecollected from thatpassage that each man has his separate soul: and that by this "is

refutedtheprodigiousdelusionoftheManichaeansthatallsoulsareso infusedextraduceby theSpiritofGod that thereshouldstillbeonespirit."Hereturnsoftentothis.CommentingonJobiii.16(Opp.xxxiii.162)heteachesthatGodbreathesthesoulintothecreatureatthemomentwhenitisconceivedinitsmother'swomb.

163. Opp.v,184:sensus.164. "ResponsiocontraPighiumdeLiberoArbitrio"(Opp.vi.285):"Itis

sufficiently clear that [inBasil's remarkshereunder consideration]the nature of the soul is considered in its integrity; as it isaccustomedtobeingivingdefinitions."

165. Talma,ascited,p.43,remarks:"ThewholemannerinwhichCalvindeals here (Inst., I. xv. 6) with the ... faculties of the soul isremarkable.Thestylelosestheliveliness,theprogressofthoughtitsregularity;andthewholemakesthe impressionthatCalvindid notfeelfullyathomeinthisfield...."Talmanotesthatthediscussionofthefacultiesofthesoulisnotfoundinthe"Institutes"of1536,butisalready very full inthe edition of 1539. (Cf. Doumergue, "JeanCalvin,"iv.1910,p.109,forCalvin'spsychology.)

Calvinism:

byBenjaminB.Warfield

TheMeaningandUsesoftheTerm

CALVINISMisanambiguousterminsofarasitiscurrentlyemployedintwo or three senses, closely related indeed, and passing insensibly intoone another, but of varying latitudes of connotation. Sometimes itdesignatesmerely the individual teaching of JohnCalvin. Sometimes itdesignates,morebroadly,thedoctrinalsystemconfessedbythatbodyofProtestantChurchesknownhistorically,indistinctionfromtheLutheranChurches, as ‘the Reformed Churches’; but also quite commonly called‘the Calvinistic Churches’ because the greatest scientific exposition oftheir faith in theReformation age, and perhaps themost influential ofany age, was given by John Calvin. Sometimes it designates, morebroadly still, the entire body of conceptions, theological, ethical,philosophical, social,political,which,under the influenceof themastermindofJohnCalvin,raiseditselftodominanceintheProtestantlandsofthepost-Reformationage,andhasleftapermanentmarknotonlyuponthethoughtofmankind,butuponthelife-historyofmen,thesocialorderofcivilizedpeoples,andeventhepoliticalorganizationofstates.

Inthepresentarticle,thetermwillbetaken,forobviousreasons,inthesecondofthesesenses.Fortunatelythisisalsoitscentralsense;andthereis little danger that its other connotations will fall out of mind whileattention is concentrated upon this. On the one hand, John Calvin,though always looked upon by the Reformed Churches as an exponentratherthanasthecreatoroftheirdoctrinalsystem,hasneverthelessbeenboth reverenced as one of their founders, and deferred to as thatparticular one of their founders to whose formative hand andsystematizing talent their doctrinal system has perhaps owed most. InanyexpositionoftheReformedtheology,therefore,theteachingofJohnCalvinmustalwaystakeahigh,and,indeed,determinativeplace.Ontheother hand, although Calvinism has dug a channel through which not

merelyflowsastreamoftheologicalthought,butalsosurgesagreatwaveofhuman life -filling theheartwith fresh ideals and conceptionswhichhaverevolutionizedtheconditionsofexistence—yetitsfountain-headlies in its theological system; or rather, to be perfectly exact, one stepbehind even that, in its religious consciousness. For the roots ofCalvinism are planted in a specific religious attitude, out of which isunfoldedfirstaparticulartheology,fromwhichspringsontheonehandaspecialchurchorganization,andontheotherasocialorder, involvingagivenpoliticalarrangement.ThewholeoutworkingofCalvinisminlifeisthus but the efflorescence of its fundamental religious consciousness,whichfindsitsscientificstatementinitstheologicalsystem.

2.FUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLE

The exact formulation of the fundamental principle of Calvinism hasindeedtaxedtheacumenofalongseriesofthinkersforthelasthundredyears (e.g., Ullmann, Semisch, Hagenbach, Ebrard, Herzog, Schweizer,Baur, Schneckenburger, Guder, Schenkel, Schoberlein, Stahl,Hundeshagen; for a discussion of the several views cf. H. Voigt,‘Fundamentaldogmatik,’ Gotha, 1874, pp. 397-480; W. Hastie, ‘TheTheology of the Reformed Church in its Fundamental Principles,’Edinburgh,1904,pp.129-177).Perhapsthesimpleststatementofitisthebest:thatitliesinaprofoundapprehensionofGodinHismajesty,withthe inevitablyaccompanyingpoignant realization of the exactnatureoftherelationsustainedtoHimbythecreatureassuch,andparticularlybythe sinful creature. He who believes in God without reserve, and isdetermined that God shall be God to him in all his thinking, feeling,willing—intheentirecompassofhis lifeactivities, intellectual,moral,spiritual,throughoutallhisindividual,social,religiousrelations–-is,by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over theoutworkingofprinciplesintothoughtandlife,bytheverynecessityofthecase,aCalvinist.InCalvinism,then,objectivelyspeaking, theismcomestoitsrights;subjectivelyspeaking,thereligiousrelationattainsitspurity;soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its fullexpressionand its secure stability.Theismcomes to its rightsonly inateleological conception of the universe, which perceives in the entirecourse of events the orderly outworking of the plan ofGod,who is the

author,preserver,andgovernorofallthings,whosewill isconsequentlythe ultimate cause of all. The religious relation attains its purity onlywhen an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merelytemporarilyassumedintheact, say,ofprayer,but is sustained throughalltheactivitiesoflife,intellectual,emotional,executive.Andevangelicalreligionreachesstabilityonlywhenthesinfulsoulrestsinhumble,self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and solesource of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. And thesethingsaretheformativeprinciplesofCalvinism.

3.RELATIONTOOTHERSYSTEMS

The difference between Calvinism and other forms of theistic thought,religiousexperience,evangelicaltheologyisadifferencenotofkindbutofdegree. Calvinism is not a specific variety of theism, religion,evangelicalism,setoveragainstotherspecificvarieties,whichalongwithit constitute these several genera, and which possess equal rights ofexistencewithitandmakesimilarclaimstoperfection,eachafteritsownkind. Itdiffers fromthemnotasonespeciesdiffers fromotherspecies;but as a perfectly developed representative differs from an imperfectlydevelopedrepresentativeof thesamespecies.Therearenotmanykindsof theism, religion, evangelicalism among which men are at liberty tochoosetosuitatwilltheirindividualtasteormeettheirspecialneed,allof whichmay be presumed to serve each its own specific uses equallyworthily. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism; andthe several constructions laying claim to these names differ from eachother not as correlative species of a broader class, but asmore or lessperfect,ormoreorlessdefective,exemplificationsofasinglespecies.

Calvinism conceives of itself as simply themore pure theism, religion,evangelicalism, superseding as such the less pure. It has no difficulty,therefore, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theisticthought,thereligiousnoteinallactualreligiousactivity, theevangelicalqualityofallreallyevangelical faith.Itrefuses tobesetantagonisticallyover against any of these things, wherever or in whatever degree ofimperfectiontheymaybemanifested;itclaimsthemineveryinstanceoftheiremergenceasitsown,andessaysonlytopointoutthewayinwhichtheymaybegiventheirjustplaceinthoughtandlife.Whoeverbelievesin

God;whoeverrecognizesintherecessesofhissoulhisutterdependenceon God; whoever in all his thought of salvation hears in his heart ofheartsthe, echo of the soliDeo gloria of the evangelical profession -bywhatevernamehemay call himself, orbywhatever intellectual puzzleshis logical understandingmaybe confused –Calvinism recognizes asimplicitlyaCalvinist,andasonlyrequiringtopermitthesefundamentalprinciples -which underlie and give its body to all true religion — toworkthemselvesfreelyandfullyoutinthoughtandfeelingandaction,tobecomeexplicitlyaCalvinist.

4.CALVINISMANDLUTHERANISM

Itisunfortunatethatagreatbodyofthescientificdiscussionwhich,sinceMaxGoebel (‘Die religiose Eigenthumlichkeit der lutherischen und derreformirtenKirchen,’Bonn, 1837) first clearlyposited theproblem,hasbeen carried on somewhat vigorously with a view to determining thefundamentalprincipleofCalvinism,hassoughtparticularlytobringoutits contrast with some other theological tendency, commonly with thesister Protestant tendency of Lutheranism. Undoubtedly somewhatdifferentspiritsinformCalvinismandLutheranism.Andundoubtedlythedistinguishing spirit of Calvinism is rooted not in some extraneouscircumstance of its antecedents or origin — as, for example, Zwingli’stendency to intellectualism, or the superior humanistic culture andpredilections of Zwingli and Calvin, or the democratic instincts of theSwiss,ortheradicalrationalismoftheReformedleadersasdistinguishedfromthemerelymodified traditionalismof theLutherans—but in itsformativeprinciple.Butitismisleadingtofindtheformativeprincipleofeither type of Protestantism in its difference from the other; they haveinfinitely more in common than in distinction. And certainly nothingcould bemoremisleading than to represent them (as is often done) asowing their differences to theirmore pure embodiment respectively oftheprincipleofpredestinationandthatofjustificationbyfaith.

ThedoctrineofpredestinationisnottheformativeprincipleofCalvinism,therootfromwhichitsprings.Itisoneofitslogicalconsequences,oneofthe branches which it has inevitably thrown out. It has been firmlyembraced and consistently proclaimed by Calvinists because it is animplicateoftheism,isdirectlygiveninthereligiousconsciousness,andis

anabsolutelyessentialelementinevangelicalreligion,withoutwhichitscentral truth of complete dependence upon the free mercy of a savingGod can not be maintained. And so little is it a peculiarity of theReformedtheology, that itunderlayandgave its formandpowerto thewholeReformationmovement;whichwas,asfromthespiritualpointofview, a great revival of religion, so, from the doctrinal point of view, agreat revival of Augustinianism. There was accordingly no differenceamong the Reformers on this point: Luther andMelanchthon and thecompromising Butzer were no less jealous for absolute predestinationthanZwingliandCalvin.EvenZwinglicouldnotsurpassLutherinsharpand unqualified assertion of it: and itwas not Calvin butMelanchthonwho gave it a formal place in his primary scientific statement of theelementsoftheProtestantfaith(cf.Schaff,‘Creeds,’i.1877,p.451;E.F.KarlMiller,‘Symbolik,’ErlangenandLeipzig,1896,p.75;C.J.Niemijer,‘DeStrijdoverdeLeerderPraedestinatie indeIXdeEeuw,’Groningen,1889,p.21;H.Voigt,‘Fundamentaldogmatik,’Gotha,1874,pp.469-470).Just as little can thedoctrineof justificationby faithbe represented asspecifically Lutheran. Not merely has it from the beginning been asubstantial element in the Reformed faith, but it is only among theReformed that it has retained or can retain its purity, free from thetendencytobecomeadoctrineof justificationonaccountof faith(cf.E.Bohl,‘VonderRechtfertigungdurchdenGlauben,’Leipzig,1890).Here,too, the difference between the two types of Protestantism is one ofdegree,notofkind(cf.C.P.Krauth,‘TheConservativeReformationanditsTheology,’Philadelphia,1872).Lutheranism,theproductofapoignantsenseofsin,bornfromthethroesofaguilt-burdenedsoulwhichcannotbestilleduntilitfindspeaceinGod’sdecreeofjustification,isapttorestinthispeace;whileCalvinism,theproductofanoverwhelmingvisionofGod,bornfromthereflectionintheheartofmanofthemajestyofaGodwhowillnotgiveHisglory toanother,cannotpauseuntil itplaces theschemeofsalvationitselfinrelationtoacompleteworld-view,inwhichitbecomessubsidiarytothegloryoftheLordGodAlmighty.

Calvinism asks with Lutheranism, indeed, that most poignant of allquestions,Whatshall Ido tobesaved?andanswers itasLutheranismanswers it.But the great question which presses upon it is, How shall God be

glorified?ItisthecontemplationofGodandzealforHishonorwhichinitdrawsouttheemotionsandabsorbsendeavor;andtheendofhumanasofallotherexistence,ofsalvationasofallotherattainment,istoittheglory of the Lord of all. Full justice is done in it to the scheme ofredemptionandtheexperienceofsalvation,becausefulljusticeisdoneinit to religion itself which underlies these elements of it. It begins, itcenters,itendswiththevisionofGodinHisglory:anditsetsitselfbeforeallthingstorendertoGodHisrightsineverysphereoflife-activity.

5.SOTERIOLOGYOFCALVINISM

One of the consequences flowing from this fundamental attitude ofCalvinisticfeelingandthoughtisthehighsupernaturalismwhichinformsalikeitsreligiousconsciousnessanditsdoctrinalconstruction.Calvinismwouldnotbebadlydefined,indeed,asthetendencywhichisdeterminedtodojusticetotheimmediatelysupernatural,asinthefirst,soalsointhesecondcreation.ThestrengthandpurityofitsbeliefinthesupernaturalFact (which isGod) saves it from all embarrassment in the face of thesupernaturalact (which ismiracle). Ineverythingwhichenters into theprocessofredemption it is impelledby the forceof its firstprinciple toplace the initiative in God. A supernatural revelation, in which GodmakesknowntomanHiswillandHispurposesofgrace;asupernaturalrecord of this revelation in a supernaturally given book, in which GodgivesHisrevelationpermanencyandextension–suchthingsaretotheCalvinistalmostmattersofcourse.And,aboveall,hecanbutinsistwiththe utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of theactualworkofredemptionitself,andthatnolessinitsapplicationthaninitsimpetration.

Thusitcomesaboutthatthedoctrineofmonergisticregeneration—oras it was phrased by the older theologians, of ‘irresistible grace’ or‘effectualcalling’ — is thehingeof theCalvinistic soteriology, and liesmuch more deeply embedded in the system than the doctrine ofpredestination itself which is popularly looked upon as its hall-mark.Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination to theCalvinistconsists in the safeguard it affords to monergistic regeneration — topurelysupernaturalsalvation.Whatliesattheheartofhissoteriologyistheabsolute exclusion of the creaturely element in the initiation of the

savingprocess,thatsothepuregraceofGodmaybemagnified.Onlysocouldhe expresshis sense ofman’s complete dependence as sinner onthefreemercyofasavingGod;or extrude theevil leavenofSynergism(q.v.)bywhich,asheclearlysees,GodisrobbedofHisgloryandmanisencouraged to think that he owes to some power, some act of choice,someinitiativeofhisown,hisparticipationinthatsalvationwhichis inrealityallofgrace.

There is accordingly nothing againstwhichCalvinism sets its facewithmore firmness than every form and degree of autosoterism. Aboveeverythingelse,itisdeterminedthatGod,inHisSonJesusChrist,actingthrough theHoly Spirit whomHe has sent, shall be recognized as ourveritableSaviour.Toitsinfulmanstandsinneednotofinducementsorassistance to save himself, but of actual saving; and Jesus Christ hascomenottoadvise,orurge,orinduce,oraidhimtosavehimself,buttosavehim.ThisistherootofCalvinisticsoteriology;anditisbecausethisdeep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness ofindebtednessforallthatentersintosalvationtothefreegraceofGodistherootof itssoteriologythat to it thedoctrineofelectionbecomesthecorcordisoftheGospel.HewhoknowsthatitisGodwhohaschosenhimandnothewhohaschosenGod,andthatheoweshisentiresalvationinallitsprocessesandineveryoneofitsstagestothischoiceofGod,wouldbeaningrateindeedifhegavenotthegloryofhissalvationsolelytotheinexplicableelectiveloveofGod.

6.CONSISTENTDEVELOPMENTOFCALVINISM

Historically the Reformed theology finds its origin in the reformingmovementbeguninSwitzerlandunder the leadershipofZwingli (1516).Its fundamental principles are already present in Zwingli’s teaching,though it was not until Calvin’s profound and penetrating genius wascalled to theirexposition that they took theirultimate formor receivedsystematicdevelopment.FromSwitzerlandCalvinismspreadoutwardtoFrance, andalong theRhine throughGermany toHolland, eastward toBohemia and Hungary, and westward, across the Channel, to GreatBritain. In this broad expansion through so many lands its voice wasraised in a multitude of confessions; and in the course of the fourhundredyearswhichhaveelapsedsinceitsfirstformulation,ithasbeen

expounded in a vast body of dogmatic treatises. Its development hasnaturally beenmuch richer and far more many-sided than that of thesister system of Lutheranism in its more confined and homogeneousenvironment; and yet it has retained its distinctive character andpreserved its fundamental features with marvelous consistencythroughoutitsentirehistory

It may be possible to distinguish among the Reformed confessions,betweenthosewhich bearmore and thosewhich bear less strongly thestamp of Calvin’s personal influence; and they part into two broadclasses, according as theywere composed before or after the Arminiandefection(ca. 1618) anddemanded sharperdefinitions on thepoints ofcontroversy raised by that movement (see ‘ Arminius, Jacobus, andArminianism’; ‘Remonstrants’). A few of them written on German soilalsobeartracesoftheinfluenceofLutheranconceptions.And,ofcourse,no more among the Reformed than elsewhere have all the professedexpoundersofthesystemofdoctrinebeentruetothefaiththeyprofessedtoexpound.Nevertheless,itispreciselythesamesystemoftruthwhichisembodiedin all the great historicReformed confessions; itmatters notwhetherthedocumentemanatesfromZurichorBernorBaselorGeneva,whether it sums up the Swiss development as in the second HelveticConfession,orpublishesthefaithoftheNationalReformedChurchesofFrance,orScotland,orHolland, or thePalatinate, orHungary,Poland,Bohemia,orEngland;orrepublishestheestablishedReformeddoctrineinoppositiontonewcontradictions,as in theCanonsofDort (inwhichtheentireReformedworldconcurred),ortheWestminsterConfession(towhichthewholeofPuritanBritaingaveitsassent),ortheSwissFormofConsent(whichrepresentsthematurejudgmentofSwitzerlandupontherecently proposed novelties of doctrine). And despite the inevitablevarietyofindividualpointsofview,aswellastheunavoidabledifferencesinability,learning,grasp,inthemultitudeofwriterswhohavesoughttoexpound the Reformed faith through these four centuries — and thegravedepartures from that faithmadehere and there among them—thegreatstreamofReformeddogmaticshasflowedessentiallyunsullied,straight from its origin inZwingli andCalvin to its debouchure, say, inChalmersandCunninghamandCrawford, inHodgeandThornwellandShedd.

7.VARIETIESOFCALVINISM

ItistrueanattempthasbeenmadetodistinguishtwotypesofReformedteaching from the beginning; amore radical type developed under theinfluence of the peculiar teachings of Calvin, and a (so-called) moremoderate type, chiefly propagating itself in Germany, which exhibitsrather the influence, as was at first said (Hofstede de Groot, Ebrard,Heppe),ofMelanchthon,or, in itsmore recent statement (Gooszen),ofBullinger. In all that concerns the essenceofCalvinism,however, therewasnodifferencebetweenBullingerandCalvin,GermanandSwiss:theHeidelbergCatechismisnodoubtacatechismandnotaconfession,butin its presuppositions and inculcations it is as purely Calvinistic as theGenevanCatechismorthecatechismsoftheWestminsterAssembly.Norwas the substance of doctrine touched by the peculiarities of methodwhich marked such schools as the so-called Scholastics (showingthemselvesalreadyinZanchius,d.1590,andculminatingintheologianslike Alsted, d. 1638, and Voetius, d. 1676); or by the special modes ofstatement which were developed by such schools as the so-calledFederalists(e.g.,Cocceius,d.1669,Burman,d.1679,Wittsius,d.1708;cf.Diestel, ‘Studien zur Foderaltheologie,’ in Jahrbucher fur deutscheTheologie, x. 1865, pp. 209-276; G. Vos, ‘De Verbondsleer in deGereformeerdeTheologie,’GrandRapids,1891;W.Hastie,‘TheTheologyoftheReformedChurch,’Edinburgh,1904,pp.189-210).

The first serious defection from the fundamental conceptions of theReformedsystemcamewiththeriseofArminianismintheearlyyearsoftheseventeenthcentury(Arminius,Uytenbogaert,Episcopius,Limborch,Curcellaeus);andtheArminianpartywasquicklysloughedoffunderthecondemnation of the whole Reformed world. The five points of its ‘Remonstrance’ against theCalvinistic system (see ‘Remonstrants’)weremet by the reassertion of the fundamental doctrines of absolutepredestination,particular redemption, totaldepravity, irresistiblegrace,and theperseverance. of the saints (Canons of the SynodofDort). ThefirstimportantmodificationoftheCalvinisticsystemwhichhasretaineda positionwithin its limits wasmade in themiddle of the seventeenthcenturyby theprofessorsof theFrenchschoolatSaumur,and ishencecalled Salmurianism; otherwise Amyraldism, or hypothetical

universalism (Cameron, d. 1625, Amyraut, d. 1664, Placaeus, d. 1655,Testardus, d. ca. 1650; see ‘Amyraut, Moise’). This modification alsoreceivedthecondemnationofthecontemporaryReformedworld,whichreasserted with emphasis the importance of the doctrine that Christactually saves byHis spirit all for whomHe offers the sacrifice of Hisblood(e.g.,WestminsterConfession,SwissFormofConsent).

8.SUPRALAPSARIANISMANDINFRALAPSARIANISM

If‘varietiesofCalvinism‘aretobespokenofwithreferencetoanythingmore than details, of importance in themselves no doubt, but of littlesignificanceforthesystematicdevelopmentofthetypeofdoctrine,thereseem not more than three which require mention: supralapsarianism,infralapsarianism, and what may perhaps be called in this reference,postredemptionism;allofwhich(asindeedtheirverynamesimport)taketheirstartfromafundamentalagreementintheprincipleswhichgovernthe system.Thedifferencebetween these various tendenciesof thoughtwithin the limits of the system turns on the place given by each to thedecreeofelection,inthelogicalorderingofthe‘decreesofGod.’

Thesupralapsarianssupposethatelectionunderliesthedecreeofthefallitself;andconceivethedecreeofthefallasameansforcarryingoutthedecreeofelection.Theinfralapsarians,ontheotherhand,considerthatelection presupposes the decree of the fall, and hold, therefore, that inelecting some to lifeGodhasmankind as amassaperditionis inmind.Theextentofthedifferencebetweenthesepartiesisoften,indeedusually,grosslyexaggerated:andevenhistoriansofreputearefoundrepresentinginfralapsarianismasinvolving,oratleastpermitting,denialthatthefallhasaplaceinthedecreeofGodatall:asifelectioncouldbepostpositedintheordodecretorumtothededecreeof thefall,while itwasdoubtedwhether therewereanydecreeof the fall; or as if indeedGod couldbeheld to conceivemen, inHis electing decree, as fallen,without by thatveryactfixingthepresupposedfallinHiseternaldecree.InpointoffactthereisandcanbenodifferenceamongCalvinistsastothe inclusionofthefallinthedecreeofGod:todoubtthisinclusionistoplaceoneselfatonce at variance with the fundamental Calvinistic principle whichconceives all that comes to pass teleologically and ascribes everythingthatactuallyoccursultimatelytothewillofGod.

9.POSTREDEMPTIONISM

Accordinglyeventhepostredemptionists(thatistosaytheSalmuriansorAmyraldians)findnodifficultyatthispoint.Theirpeculiarityconsists ininsisting that election succeeds, in theorderof thought,notmerely thedecree of the fall but that of redemption as well, taking the termredemptionhereinthenarrowersenseoftheimpetrationofredemptionbyChrist.They thus suppose that inHis electingdecreeGodconceivedman not merely as fallen but as already redeemed. This involves amodifieddoctrineoftheatonementfromwhichthepartyhasreceivedthenameofHypotheticalUniversalism,holdingasitdoesthatChristdiedtomakesatisfactionforthesinsofallmenwithoutexceptionif—if,thatis,theybelieve:butthat,foreseeingthatnonewouldbelieve,Godelectedsome to be granted faith through the effectual operation of the HolySpirit. The indifferent standing of the postredemptionists in historicalCalvinism is indicated by the treatment accorded it in the historicalconfessions.Italoneofthe‘varietiesofCalvinism‘herementionedhasbeen made the object of formal confessional condemnation; and itreceivedcondemnationinevery importantReformedconfessionwrittenafteritsdevelopment.

Thereare,itistrue,nosupralapsarianconfessions:many,however,leavethequestionswhichdivide supralapsarian and infralapsarianwholly to oneside and thus avoid pronouncing for either; and none is polemicallydirectedagainstsupralapsarianism.Ontheotherhand,notonlydoesnoconfession close the door to infralapsarianism, but a considerablenumber explicitly teach infralapsarianism which thus emerges as thetypical form of Calvinism. That, despite its confessional condemnation,postredemptionismhasremainedarecognizedformofCalvinismandhasworkedout ahistory for itself in theCalvinisticChurches (especially inAmerica)maybetakenasevidencethatitsadvocates,whiledeparting,insome important particulars, from typical Calvinism, have neverthelessremained,inthemain,truetothefundamentalpostulatesofthesystem.There is another variety of postredemptionism, however, of which thiscan scarcely be said. This variety, which became dominant among theNewEnglandCongregationalist churches about the second third of the

nineteenthcentury(e.g.,N.W.Taylor,d.1858;C.G.Finney,d.1875;E.A.Park,d.1900;see‘NewEnglandTheology’),attempted,muchafterthemanner of the ‘Congruists’ of the Church of Rome, to unite a Pelagiandoctrine of the will with the Calvinistic doctrine of absolutepredestination. The result was, of course, to destroy the Calvinisticdoctrine of ‘irresistible grace,’ and as the Calvinistic doctrine of the‘satisfaction of Christ’ was also set aside in favor of the Grotian orgovernmentaltheoryofatonement,littlewasleftofCalvinismexceptthebaredoctrineofpredestination.Perhapsitisnotstrange,therefore,thatthis ‘improvedCalvinism’has crumbled away and givenplace to newerand explicitly anti- Calvinistic constructions of doctrine (cf. WillistonWalker,inAJT,April,1906,pp.204sqq.).

ItisonlywithsuchauniversalconceptionofGod,establishedinalivingway, thatwe can face,withhopeof complete conquest, all the spiritualdangers and terrors of our time. . . . But it is deep enough and largeenoughanddivineenough,rightlyunderstood,toconfrontthemanddobattle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver, andGovernor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the DivinePersonality.’

----

ThisessayoriginallyappearedinTheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopediaof Religious Knowledge, edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson, D.D.,LL.D.,ii.pp.359-364(FunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1908).This edition, however,was derived from volume five of TheWorks ofBenjaminB.Warfield(GrandRapids,MI:BakerBookHouse,1991,pp.353-366).Theelectronic editionof thisarticlewas scannedandeditedbyShaneRosenthalforReformationInk.Itisinthepublicdomainandmaybefreelycopiedanddistributed.

OntheLiteraryHistoryofCalvin'sInstitutes

ByProfessorBenjaminB.Warfield,D.D.,LL.D.

JohnCalvinwas born on the tenth of July, 1509. The Institutes of theChristianReligionwas thrownoff in the firstdraft in 1534or 1535,butdid not finally leave its author's hands in its definitive edition until aquarter of a century afterwards, in the late summer of 1559. The fourhundredth anniversary of Calvin's birth is, therefore, also the threehundredandfiftiethofthecompletionoftheInstitutes,andmaybefitlymarkedbytheissueofaneweditionoftheInstitutesinEnglish.

Certainlythepublicationofthisgreatworkinitscompletedshapeiswellworth commemorating on its own account. It was the first seriousattempt to cast into systematic form that body of truth to which theReformedchurchesadheredastaughtintheHolyScriptures;andassuchitmetacrisisandcreatedanepoch inthehistoryof thosechurches.IntheimmenseupheavaloftheReformationmovement,thefoundationsofthe faith seemed to many to be broken up, and the most importantquestions tobesetadrift; extravagancesofall sorts spranguponeveryside;andwecanscarcelywonderthatafeelingofuneasinesswasabroad,andmen were asking with concern for some firm standing-ground fortheir feet. ItwasCalvin's Instituteswhich,with its calm, clear, positiveexposition of the evangelical faith on the irrefragable authority of theHoly Scriptures, gave stability to wavering minds, and confidence tosinkinghearts,andplacedupon the lipsofallabrilliant apology in thefaceofthecalumniesoftheenemiesoftheReformation.

As the fundamental treatise in the development of a truly evangelicaltheologyitsmissionhasstretched,however,farbeyondits"ownday.Allsubsequent attempts to state and defend that theology necessarily goback to it as their starting point, and its impress upon the history ofevangelicalthinkingisineffaceable.Evenfromthepointofviewofmereliterature, itholdsapositionsosupremein itsclassthateveryonewho

wouldfainknowtheworld'sbestbooks,mustmakehimselffamiliarwithit. What Thucydides is among Greek, or Gibbon among eighteenth-centuryEnglishhistorians,whatPlatoisamongphilosophers,ortheIliadamongepics,orShakespeareamongdramatists,thatCalvin'sInstitutesisamongtheological treatises. "TheInstitutesofCalvin," saysDr.WilliamCunningham,towhomwillbeconcededtherighttoanopiniononsuchamatter,"isthemostimportantworkinthehistoryoftheologicalscience,that which is more than any other creditable to its author, and hasexerted,directlyorindirectly,thegreatestandmostbeneficial influenceupon the opinions of intelligentmenon theological subjects. Itmay besaidtooccupyinthescienceoftheologytheplacewhichitrequiresboththeNovumOrganumofBaconandthePrincipiaofNewtonto fillup inphysical science, — at once conveying, though not in formal didacticprecepts and rules, the finest ideaof thewayandmanner inwhich thetruthsofGod'sWordoughttobeclassifiedandsystematized,andatthesametimeactuallyclassifyingandsystematizingthem,inawaythathasnotyetreceivedanyverymaterialoressentialimprovement."*WeshouldindeedbescarcelyflyingbeyondthemarkifwegaveenthusiasmitselfthereinsandadoptedassobercriticismthefamousdistichoftheHungarianreformer and poet, Paul Thuri, which — so the editors of the greatBrunswickeditiontellusf—manyof theoldownersandreadersof theInstituteshavewrittenlovinglyonitsfront:

Praeter apostolicas post Christi tempora chartas, Huic perperere librosseculanullaparem.

This famous distich was first mentioned by Thuri's countryman andfellow-studentat the feetofStephenSzegedin,MatthewSkaricza, inhisVitaetObitusStephaniSzegedini,prefixedtoSzegedin'sLociCommunesTheologice Sincerce, published at Basle, 1585, and at least four timessubsequently.Skaricza,whowasReformedpastoratKeri,visitedGenevaandwrotebefore 1571.He tellshow, athis request,Beza "showedhim,underthesimplesod,thegraveofthegreatCalvin,whohadcommandedthat he should be buried thus without any monument" — and, afterpraising Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the generaladamantine character of his reasoning, proceeds: "And especially whatworkwasevermorevigorous,moreacute,moreexactthantheInstitutes,

whetheritbethelanguageorthematterthatyouconsiderandweigh?SothatourPaulThurihasnotunjustlysaid,Prceter,"etc.Thenceprobablythe distichwas derived byGerdesius (SmmuwiAntiquarium, II, i, 451)and Du Buc (Institutiones TheoloQica, 1630, prsef.). Du Buc, inapologizing for writing, enumerates his predecessors in the field ofProtestant dogmatics: such as, he says, the works of those greattheologians,Melanchthon,Musculus and PeterMartyr, and "that trulygolden Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin's concerningwhichPaulThurisaid

It is this, ineffect,whichthegreatestscholarofCalvin'sownagedid—thatJosephScaliger(1520-1609)whosecausticcriticismshavemadesomanyscholarswrithe."Oh,whatagoodbookCalvin'sInstitutes is,"heexclaims; "Oh, what a great man! There is none of the ancients tocompare with him. . . Calvin stands alone among theologians."* And,indeed, it isnoneother than this that theStrassburgeditorsofCalvin'sworks have done. Certainly among the most widely learned and leastextravagantof the scholarsofourday, theyyetdonot scruple toadoptThuri'sexpressionintothewell-weighedlanguageoftheirprolegomena,and to repeat it as their deliberate judgment upon the merits of theInstitutes.AmongtheotherreasonswhichhaveledthemtodevotetheirtimeandlabortoaneditionofCalvin'sworks,theytellus,istheuniquepreeminence and high authority enjoyed by this Lycurgus of theReformedchurches.Theycontinue:

"For, though Luther was supremely great as a man and Zwingli was ,secondtononeasaChristiancitizen,andMelanchthonwelldeservestheappellationof themost learnedof teachers,Calvinmay justly be calledtheleaderandstandard-beareroftheologians.Forwhowillnotmarvelathiscommandoflanguageandletters,athiscontroloftheentiresphereoflearning?Theabundanceofhislearning,theadmirabledispositionofhismaterial, the force and validity of his reasoning in dogmatics, theacuteness and subtlety of hismind, and the alternating gay and bitingsaltnessofhispolemics, the felicitousperspicuity, sobrietyand sagacityofhis exegetics, thenervous eloquence and freedomof his paraenetics,his incomparable legislative prudence and wisdom in the constitution,ordering and governing of the churches — all this is fully recognized

among men of learning and candor. Even among Romishcontroversialists themselves, there is none to-day possessed of even amoderateknowledgeofthesemattersorendowedwiththeleastfairnessin judgment, who does not admire the richness of his reasoning andideas, the precision of his language, the weight and clearness of hisdiction, whether in Latin or French. All these qualities are, of course,present in his other writings, but they are especially striking in thatimmortal Institutes of the Christian Religion, which beyond allcontroversy farexcelsallexpositionsof thekind thathavebeenwrittenfromthedaysoftheapostlesdown, including,ofcourse,Melanchthon'sLoci Theologici; and which captivates most timely, Prater," etc. Theessential facts concerning Thuri (one of five of the namewho achievedfameinHungaryinthesixteenthcentury)aresummedupintheepitaphwritten by his son, the learned poet, George Thuri: even to-day thelearnedandcandidreader,eventhoughhemaybecommittedtodifferentopinions,andwrestsfromhimanunwillingadmiration."*

So estimating the Institutes, it is nowonder that these learned editorswished to begin their edition with this work. This is how they explaintheirprocedure:

"InundertakinganewcollectionoftheworksofJohnCalvin,ofimmortalmemory— a body of writings worthy of his great name — we havedetermined to beginwith the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Thatworkdoesnot,tobesure,holdthefirstplaceamonghiswritingsintheorderofcomposition, thoughvery fewof thempreceded it:butnoneofthemissuperiortoitinthefameitenjoys.Ithasoftenhappenedthatabook distinguished by the great applause ofmen has afterwards fallenintoneglectthroughtheharsherjudgmentorthecarelessindifferenceofa later time; often, too, that onewhich reached fewminds at first, andalmost escapednotice, has, as timeproceeded, emerged fromobscurityand is daily celebrated with increasing praise. But with regard to thisbook,seizeduponfromitsverycradlewithgreatandwidespreadavidity,andscrutinizedbyitsveryadversarieswithazealbornofenvy,itsgloryhas abided the same, intact now through three centuries, without theleastdiminutionorfading,despitethefrequentchangeswhichsuccessiveschools of theology have introduced into the treatment of Christian

doctrine.Ifitwerethecustomofourtime,asitwasformerly,tocollectatthebeginningofvolumeseulogiespronouncedontheirwritersbyvariousauthors,wecouldgatherhereagreatharvestoflaudations,andtimeandpaper would fail us before the material at our disposal would beexhausted,"

Oneofthemarvelsconnectedwiththisremarkablebookistheyouthofitsauthorwhen itwaswritten. It is truewedonotknowwithcertaintyprecisely when it was written. But, as the colophon of the first editiontells us, it was published 'at Basle in March, 1536, and the PrefatoryLettertotheKingofFrance,whichwaswritten,asweknow,sometimeafterthebookitself, isdatedonthe23doftheprecedingAugust.Intheopening words of this preface, Calvin explicitly declares that when theworkwaswrittenhehadnothoughtofpresentingittoFrancis.''WhenIfirstputhand to thiswork,"he says, "nothingwas less inmy thoughts,mostillustriousking,thantowriteabookwhichshouldbepresentedtoj^our Majesty. My intention was only to inculcate some elementarytruths,bywhichthoseinterestedinreligionmightbetrainedtotruepiety—andat this taskI toiledchiefly forourFrench,multitudesofwhomIsaw to be hungering and thirsting after Christ, but very few to bepossessedofevenaslightknowledgeofHim.Thatthiswasmypurpose,thebookitselfshowsbyitssimpleandelementarymannerofteaching."Itwouldseemnaturaltosuppose,therefore,thatthebookwascomposedsomeweeksorpossiblyevenmonthsbeforethemiddleof1535—perhapsevenin1534.

There are not lacking some further considerations which support thissupposition. A direct statement to this effect is made, indeed, by analmost contemporary author — Florimond de Raemond (1540-1602),counsellor of the Parlement of Bordeaux, who wrote from the Romishpoint of view a Histoire de la Naissance, Progrez et Decadence deVHeresiedeceSteele(Paris,1605,andagain1623).Hisstatementsare,tobesure,scarcelyworthyofcredencewhenunsupported;butwhen,asinthepresentcase,theyarecorroborativeofwhatisotherwiseprobable,theymaybeworthattention.He representsCalvinas,on leavingParis,sojourning three years at Angouleme — a manifest error* — andcontinuesasfollows:

"Angoulemewas the forgewhere this new Vulcan beat out the strangeopinionswhichheafterwardspublished;foritwastherethathewovetotheastonishmentofChristendomthefabricofhisInstitutes,whichmaybecalledtheKoranorrathertheTalmudofheresy,being,asitis,amassof all the errors that have ever existed in the past, or ever will exist, Iverilybelieve, inthefutureHewascommonlycalledtheGreekofClaix,from the name of his patron, the cure of Claix, because he made aconstantparadeofhisGreek,without,tobesure,knowingverymuchofitThisGreekofClaix,then,heldinhighesteemandreputation,andlovedby all who loved letters, would weave into his speech remarks aboutreligion and continually drop piquant words against the authority andtraditions of the church. He enjoyed the favor of many persons ofauthority, especially of Anthony Chaitoux, Prior of Bouteville, who hassincebeencalledthePopeoftheLutherans,andoftheAbbedeBassac,twomenofletters,eagertogathertogetherallthegoodbookstheycouldmeetwith,andoftheSieurdeTorsac,brotherofPresidentlaPlace,whoafterwardsbecamethehistorianofCalvinism.Calvinwasoftenwiththesetwo, in the companyofduTillet also.Their rendezvouswas in ahouseoutside the town of Angouleme, named Girac, where the Prior ofBoutevilleordinarilymadehisdwellingThereheentertained themwiththesketches forhisInstitutes, layingopento themall thesecretsofhistheology, and read to them the chapters of his book as he composedthem, laboring so assiduously on it that he often passed entire nightswithoutsleepingandwholedayswithouteating.Itisapleasuretometofollow step by step the course of this man fatal to our France, and totouchuponall thedetailsofhis training,becausenoonehaswritten itdown before. And as I have taken the trouble to informmyself of thetruth,Imakenocomplaintofthetroubleofwritingit."t

This picture of Calvin working out his treatise in his retirement atAngoulemeseemsratheroverdrawn.Itisquiteclear,moreover,notonlythat the author haswrongly given to Angouleme thewhole three yearsthat extended between Calvin's flight from Paris late in 1533 and hisarrival in Geneva late in July, 1536, but also that he has in mind theInstitutes, not as first published in the spring of 1536, but in theelaborated formwhich it tookonly later.That thebookmayhavebeenwrittenatAngouleme,whereCalvinseemstohavespentthegreaterpart

oftheyearfromtheautumnof1533totheautumnof1534,!inthehouseof his wealthy friend, Louis du Tillet, is in itself, however, certainlypossible.AndsuchasuppositionmayaccountforBeza'splacingit,inthechronologicallistofCalvin'sworkswhichhepublishedimmediatelyafterCalvin'sdeath,directlyafterhis firstwork, thecommentaryonSeneca'sde dementia, which was published in April, 1532, and before his nextbook,thePsychopannychia,whichwaswrittenin1534.*Itmay,indeed,besaid thatBezawascertainly laboringunderamisapprehensionas tothedateofthepublicationoftheInstitutes,andthatitisduetothiserrorthathesoplacesitinhiscatalogue,andnottotheinfluenceofknowledgeon his part that the book was written earlier than the date of itspublicationHecertainlysaysinthefirsteditionofhisLifeofCalvinthatCalvin"leftFrancein1534,andhadhisfirstInstitutesprintedthatsameyearatBasle,asanapologyaddressedtoKingFrancis,firstofthename,in behalf of the poor persecuted believers upon whom the name ofAnabaptistswasimposedinordertoexcusethepersecutionoftheGospelintheeyesof theProtestantprinces."Andhewascertainlywronginsosaying—as isevident,weretherenothingelsetoshowit, fromthefactthat the persecutions in question did not b6gin until early in 1535.Nevertheless, it is not clear that knowledge on Beza's part that theInstituteswaswritten in 1534maynot be rather the cause of his errorhere as to the date of its publication; an error of which he seemssubsequentlytohavebecomeaware,ashesuppressedthewholepassageinthesecondeditionofhisbook.

Whateversupportmaycomefromthesedoubtfulpassages,however,themain ground for supposing that the Institutes was composed at somepointearlierthanthemiddleof1535,whentheIntroductoryEpistlewaswritten,mustbedrawnfromthepointeddiscriminationthatismadebybothCalvinandBezabetweenthewritingandthepublishingofthebook— as determined by wholly different motives, arising out of changingcircumstances,and,therefore,arguingdifferenttimes.Aswehaveseen,this isplainlyasserted in theopeningwordsof theEpistle itself,wherehismotivesinwritinghisInstitutesaredeclaredbyCalvinhimself.Thisaccountissupplementedbythefullaccountofhismotivesinpublishingthe book, given in that precious autobiographical fragment which isincludedinthePrefacetohisCommentaryonthePsalms.Itwillbewise

tohavethisprettyfullybeforeus,asitwillbeofuseinthediscussionofmorethanonepointinthehistoryoftheInstitutes.

"Leavingmynative country,France," saysCalvin, "I in fact retired intoGermany,expresslyforthepurposeofbeingabletheretoenjoyinsomeobscure corner the repose which I had always desired, and which hadbeenso longdeniedme.But lo!whilstI layhiddenatBasleandknownonly toa fewpeople,many faithfulandholypeoplewereburntalive inFrance;andthereportoftheseburningshavingreachedforeignnations,they excited the strongest disapprobation among a great part of theGermans, whose indignation was kindled against the authors of suchtyranny. In order to allay this indignation, certain wicked and lyingpamphlets were circulated, stating that none were treated with suchcruelty but Anabaptists and seditious persons, who, by their perverserailingsandfalseopinions,wereoverthrowingnotonlyreligion,butalsoall civilorder.Observing that theobjectwhich these instrumentsof thecourt aimed at by their disguises was not only that the disgrace ofshedding somuch innocent bloodmight remain buried under the falsechargesandcalumnieswhichtheybroughtagainsttheholymartyrsaftertheirdeath,butalsothatafterwardstheymightbeabletoproceedtotheutmost extremity in murdering the poor saints without excitingcompassion toward them in thebreastsof any, it appeared tome, that,unless I opposed them to theuttermost ofmy ability,my silence couldnotbevindicated fromthechargeofcowardiceandtreachery.Thiswasthe consideration which induced me to publish my Institutes of theChristianReligion.Myobjectswere,first,toprovethatthesereportswerefalse and calumnious, and thus to vindicatemy brethren, whose deathwas so precious in the sight of the Lord; and next, that as the samecruelties might very soon after be exercised against many unhappyindividuals, foreign nations might be touched with at least somecompassion toward themand solicitude about them.When itwas thenpublished,itwasnotthatcopiousandlaboredworkwhichitnowis,butonlyasmalltreatise,containingasummaryoftheprincipaltruthsoftheChristian religion; and it was published with no other design but thatmenmightknowwhatwasthefaithheldbythosewhomIsawbaselyandwickedlydefamedby those flagitious andperfidious flatterers. Thatmyobject was not to acquire fame, appeared from this, that immediately

afterwards I leftBasle,andparticularly fromthe fact thatnobody thereknewthatIwastheauthor.WhereverelseIhavegone,IhavetakencaretoconcealthatIwastheauthorofthatperformance;andIhadresolvedto continue in the same privacy and obscurity, until at lengthWilliamFareldetainedmeatGeneva,notsomuchbycounselandexhortation,asbyadreadful imprecation,whichI felt tobeas ifGodhadfromheavenlaidHismightyhanduponmetoarrestme."*

TheplainimplicationofthispassageisthatCalvinhadthemanuscriptofhis Institutes by him, and was led to publish it as an apologeticaldocumentbythemalignantaspersionsonthecharacterofthesaintsslaininFranceasiftheywereabodyofmerefanatics;byreadingittheworldwouldknowthesortofdoctrineheldbytheFrenchmartyrs.Howlonghehad had it by him we have no means of certainly divining; but thepersecutionsinFrancehadbegunearlyin1535,anditdoesnotseemasifthebookcouldhavebeensospokenofifithadbeenwrittensubsequentlyto this.Whether, however, it was written in Angoul^me in 1534 or inBaslein1535makeslittledifference.CalvinwasbornJuly10,1509.Hisdedicator^" letter to Francis I is dated August 23, 1535 — twenty-sixyears afterwards. The Institutes was beyond question written,. then,before he had completed his twenty-sixth year, and possibly before hehad completed his twenty-fifth year. It was in the hands of the publicbeforehehadcompletedhistwenty-seventhyear.

II

In estimating the nature of this performance, there are two other factswhichweshouldtakeintoconsideration,oneofanenhancing,theotherofamoderatingcharacter.Wemustbearinmind,ontheonehand,thattheyoungCalvin'sbookhadpracticallynopredecessors,butbrokeoutanew path for itself; but also, on the other hand, that when it was firstgiventothepublicitwasfarfrombeingthecompletetreatiseindogmatictheology which we know, but was, as he himself describes it, in theextract already quoted from the Preface to his Commentary on thePsalms, doubtless with some exaggeration of its unimportance, not"densumhocet laboriosumopus,qualenuncexstat,sedbreveduntaxatenchiridion"— "seulement un petit livret contenant sommairement lesprincipalesmatieres"—"abriefhandbook,"a"littlebooklet."Fromthat

smallbeginningit^grewunderhishandfromeditiontoedition,andwastransformed from a short handbook on religion for the people into ascientifictreatiseindogmatictheologyforstudentsoftheology.

When we say it had "practically no predecessors," we do not mean toobscurethefactthatbeforeitcertainattemptshadbeenmadetosetforththe fundamental articles of the Christian religion as the Protestantsconceivedthem.Asamatterof fact,Calvin'sInstituteswaspreceded bythree such earlier attempts, two of which at least were of considerableimportance.TheverynatureoftheReformedmovementimposedontheProtestant party the necessity of giving a definite account of itself. AsReussadmirablyputsit,*suchadeclarationofprincipleswasnecessaryin the face of adversaries armed with an authority consecrated by tencenturies, and charging the new movement with blasphemy, with thedestruction of all order, human and divine, with the overthrow of thewholesocial fabric; itwasnecessary in the faceof troubled friendswhogave the reform their sympathy, but were frightened at the uproar itcaused and the very efforts which were required to sustain it; it wasnecessary, above all, in the face of the radical party which alwaysaccompanies the advance of the great movements which agitatehumanity, and is always ready to compromise the good cause and toalienate those who judge things according to their first results. It wasinevitable, therefore, that even the very first steps of the ReformationshouldproduceattemptstostateinsomemethodicalwaytherecoveredtruthsoftheGospel.

The first Protestant Dogmatics accordingly saw the light scarcely fouryearsafterLuthernaileduphisthesesonindulgences(1521).Itdidnot,indeed,comefromthehandofLutherhimself;butitcamefromthehandof his chief helper in theGospel, the saintly and learnedMelanchthon.Thus, as Reuss says, "the first attempt to formulate the evangelicaldoctrineaccordingtothemethodsoftheschoolswastheworkofayoungprofessorofthehumanitiesscarcelytwenty-threeyearsold,whobythispublicationlaidthefoundationsofLutherandogmaticsandimpressedonthem the direction which they did not cease to follow for a wholecentury." The Loci Theologici ofMelanchthon in its first form scarcelyexceeded insizeoneofourcatechisms,and,owing itscomposition toa

courseof lecturesontheEpistle to theRomansgiventoaprivateclass,followedinitsordertheemergenceofthetopicsinthatepistle,andthuslackedallsystematicarrangement.!Butitwaswritteninaclassicstyleofgreat simplicity,whichdeserved its greatpopularity, andwas graduallywroughtbyitsauthorintoanever-improvingarrangementoftopics.Fouryears after the publication of Melanchthon's Loci Theologici, the farbetter ordered andmore penetrating work of Zwingli appeared (1525),entitled Commentarius de vera et falsa relijione, written at thesolicitation of the Italian and French refugees, and, like Calvin'sInstitutes,introducedwithanoblededicatorylettertoFrancisI.OfmuchlessimportancethaneitheroftheseisthemanualofWilliamFarel—thefirst theological treatise written in the French language — entitledSummaire hriefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ungchascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder sonprochain,etc.,a treatisedistinguishedby simplicityof language,a trulyBiblical popularity and a pervasive application to the Christian life.*Whether Calvin was acquainted with these works or not, we have nodirect evidence to show. Itmaybeassumed.But inanyeventhewrotewithindependence,andwithanunexcelledcommandofthisspecialfieldwhichshoweditselfevergreaterwitheachnewedition.

Were indeed the comparisonwithhis predecessorsmade onlywith thefirsteditionofCalvin'sInstitutes,hissuperiority,thoughmarked,wouldbelessgreat.ButthefirsteditionoftheInstituteswas,aswehavesaid,onlythefirststageinadevelopment,!andwasalesssatisfactorystagetoits author than to any of his readers. He himself speaks almost withcontempt of his own production. In the Preface to the second edition,whichwaspublishedin1539,hesays:"Inthefirsteditionofthisworkofours,becauseIhadnottheleastexpectationofthatsuccesswhichGodinHisgoodnesshasgivenit,Ihad',forthegreaterpart,performedmyofficeperfunctorily, as is customary in trivial undertakings (in minutisoperibus)."Accordinglythetitleofthissecondedition,onwhichhehadbestowedmuchlaborandforthelateappearanceofwhichheapologizes,ismade to run: Institutio ChristianceReligionis nunc vers demum suotitulorespondens.Initthetextisswelledtosomethingmorethandoubleits original bulk; and its character is so changed that the reworkedvolume isput forthasa totallynewbookwithadifferentpurpose from

thathadinviewwhenitwasfirstcomposed.Thebookwaswritten,aswearetoldinthededicatorylettertoFrancisI,solelytosupplyrudimentaryinstructioninreligiontotheneglectedmultitudes,andwas, therefore,"composedina simpleandelementary form, suitable for instruction." Itwaspublished,aswearetold inthePrefacetothePsalms,toexhibit tothe world what the French Protestants really believed, and to renderincredible thecalumniesbywhich their judicialmurderwasexcused. Itwasnowrevisedorratherelaborated,inordertofitittobeatext-bookintheolog5^"Imayadd,"continuesCalvininhisPreface,"thatmyobjectinthislabor"ofre-workingtheInstitutes"wasthis:sotoprepareandtraincandidatesinsoundtheologyforthereadingofthedivineWordthattheymight both have an easy introduction to it and proceed in it withunfaltering step, seeing I have endeavored to give such a summary ofreligioninallitsparts,andhavedigesteditintosuchanorderastomakeitnotdifficultforanyonewhoisrightlyacquaintedwithit,toascertainwhatheoughtproperlytolookforinScripture,andalsotowhatheadheought to referwhatever is contained in it." In otherwords, Calvin nowdesignedhisInstitutestobeadoctrinal introductiontothestudyof theScriptures; and he goes on to explain that the fact that this book wasaccessible would enable him, when commenting on Scripture, to passoverdoctrinalpointswithoutlongdiscussion.Tothisconceptionhekept,throughout the laborof subsequent revision. For not even the enlargedInstitutes of 1539 satisfied him. Six additional revisions weremade byhimbeforewhatwemaycall thedefinitiveeditionof1559wasreached.In this the Institutes appears not only oncemore doubled in length—now about five times the size of the "booklet" of 1536*— but entirelyalteredinarrangement,andpresenting,atlast,thatexcellentdispositionofitsmaterialinwhichithascomedowntous,andbywhichithaswontheunalloyedadmirationofsubsequentages.

In the Preface to this edition, Calvin, speaking of the labor he hadexpendedinbringingthebookasfirstpublishedtoaworthierform,says:"ThisIattemptednotonlyinthesecondedition,butineverysubsequentonetheworkhasreceivedsomeimprovement.ButthoughIdonotregretthe labor previously expended, I never felt satisfied until theworkwasarranged in the order in which it now appears," On the title-page,accordingly,weread:"InstitutioChristianceReligionis,inlibrosquatuor

nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus ad aptissimammethodum: aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut propemodum opusnovumhaberipossit."Thefirsteditionwasdividedintosixchapters—onthe Law, Faith, Prayer, the Sacraments, Spurious Sacraments andChristianLiberty,thefirstthreechaptersbeingessentiallyexpositionsofthe Decalogue, the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer, while theconcludingthreetreatedthematterschieflyindisputeatthetime.Asthematerialgrew,thesesixchapterswereincreasedpartlybydivision,partlyby insertionofadditionaltopics, toseventeeninthesecondeditionandtwenty-one in subsequent editions, but remained somewhat artificiallyordered.With the edition of 1559, however, a totally new arrangementwasintroduced,whichreducedthewholetoasimpleandbeautifulorder— redacted into four books, each with its own chapter divisions (fromseventeen to twenty-five), subdivided into sections. These four bookstreat in turnof theFather, SonandHolyGhost, and theHolyCatholicChurch— "of the knowledge ofGod theCreator," "of the knowledge ofGod theRedeemer," "of themodeof receiving thegraceofChrist,"and"of the external means of salvation." The order was suggested by theconsecution of topics in theApostles' Creed, and followswhat is calledtheTrinitarianmethodofarrangement,ortheorderofGod'srevelationasFather,SonandHolyGhost.Thediscoveryofthissimpleprincipleofarrangement gave the final touch to the Institutes as aworkof art andpermitted it to make its due impression upon the mind of the reader.Whatkindofimpressionitmakesonaspiritsensitivetoformandartisticeffect,Mr.PeterBaynemay teachus. "The Institutes,^'hesays, "are inall,savematerialform,agreatreligiouspoem,asimaginativeingeneralscheme,'andassustainedinemotionalheat,asParadiseLost,though,ofcourse,nottobecompared,forbeautyoflanguageorpicturesquenessofdetail, with Milton's poem. Calvin treats, in four successive books, ofChrist theCreator,Christ theRedeemer,Christ the Inspirer,andChristtheKing; if he hadwritten in verse, avoided argumentative discussion,and called his work The Christiad, it would have been the mostsymmetricalepicinexistence."*

Itwas only, then, in 1559 that the Institutes aswe know the bookwasfinished. Throughout the whole quarter of a century from the stay inAngoulemein1534totheappearanceofthis,itseighthedition,itwasina

truesenseinthemaking,andnotuntilitsappearanceinthisformwasitcompleted. The changes it had undergone since its composition wereimmense — quintupling its size, revolutionizing its arrangement,changing its very purpose and proposed audience. And yet through allthesechangesitremainedinatruesensethesamebook,andboreinitsbosom precisely the same message. In the case of others of the greatwritersoftheReformationperiod,Reussstrikinglyremarks,theirseveralpublicationsmaymarkthestationsoftheirgradualgrowthinknowledgeorconviction;inCalvin'scasethesuccessiveeditionsmarkonlystagesintheperfectionofhisexpositionofprinciplesalreadyfirmlygraspedandclearlystated:!

"Themasterpiece of Calvin offers in this respect an interest altogetherpeculiar.Wehaveseenhowoftenitwasreworked,howineachrewritingitwasenrichedandtransformed,howfromthelittlesketchithadbeenatfirstitendedbybecomingathickvolume,howthesimplepopularoutlinewas changed into a learned system, andnevertheless, through all thesemetamorphoses, which left no single page unaffected, the idea, thetheological conception, remained the same, the principles never varied.Its adversaries, in whose eyes change was in itself the worst of errors,vainly strove to discover variations in the doctrine taught in this book.Calvin added, developed, defined — he did not retrench or retractanything.Anditwasbeforehehadfinishedhistwenty-sixthyearthathefound himself in full possession of all the productive truths of histheologyandneverafterwards,duringa lifeof thoughtandof incessantmental labor, did he find in his work either principles to abjure orelementsfundamentallytoalter."

III

IAnotherofthenotablefactsabouttheInstitutesisthatitwaspublishedbyitsauthorintwolanguages—LatinandFrench.Thehonorofpriorityhas been a matter of perennial dispute between the two. The earliestFrenchedition,copiesofwhichhaveasyetcometolight,however,isthatof1541;anditspeaksofitselfinsuchamannerasapparentlytoexcludeanearlierFrenchedition,andcertainly toexcludeaFrenchoriginal forthework. It bears on the title-page thedeclaration that thebookwas "composed in Latin by John Calvin and translated into French by the

same." And in the Preface the following explicit statement occurs : "Seeing,then,hownecessaryitwasinthismannertoaidthosewhodesiretobeinstructedinthedoctrineofsalvation,Ihaveendeavored,accordingtotheabilitywhichGodhasgivenme,toemploymyselfinsodoing,andwith this view have composed the present book. And first Iwrote it inLatin(etprimierementI'aymisen latin), that itmightbeserviceabletoallstudiouspersons,ofwhatnationsoevertheymightbe;andafterwards(puisapres),desiringtocommunicateanyfruitthatmightbeinittomyFrench countrymen, I translated it into our own tongue (I'ay aussitranslateennostrelangue)."It is,ofcourse,truethatthemerefactthatnocopyofanearlierFrencheditionhasasyetturnedupdoesnotinitselfexcludethepossibilitythatsuchaonemaybesomedaychancedupon;anditmayevenbeallowedthatthelanguagejustquotedmaypossiblybepressed to refer to the Latin edition of 1539 alone — which Calvinconsideredthefirsteditionworthyofthename,*andofwhichtheFrenchis certainly a translation. But in the absence of any trace of an earlierFrench edition,we submit, the natural implication of thewords is thatthe Latin Institutes is the fundamental and the French the derivedInstitutes.

Wearepointed,indeed,tocertainfactswhicharesaidtoimplyanearlierFrenchedition.Buttheseseemcapableofplausibleexplanationwithoutthis assumption. Themost important of them consist of passages fromCalvin's own writings, notably the autobiographical passage in thePreface tohisCommentaryon thePsalms,wherehe says thatwhenhepublishedhisInstitutesnobodyatBasleknewthathewastheauthorofthebook,andasentenceinalettertoFrancisDaniel,writtenonthe13thOctober,1536,inwhichhespeaksofcontemplating"aFrencheditionofour little book," It is arguedwith respect to the former passage that itmust mean that the first edition of the Institutes was publishedanonymously, and that this cannotbe saidof theLatineditionof 1536,since it bore Calvin's name conspicuously on its front; therefore thereferencemustbetoapreviousFrenchissue,publishedwithoutthenameof its author appearing.A careful reading of the passage, however,willconvinceusthatthisexplanationcannotstand.Theignoranceascribedtothe people of Basle as to Calvin's authorship of the book is evidentlyrepresentedascontinuinguntilCalvinhadleftthatcity,andassharedby

othersoutside thecityata laterdate; inanyevent, therefore, theLatineditionpublishedbeforeheleftBaslecomesintoaccount,anditisplainthatitisnotanonymouspublicationthatheisspeakingof,butcautiousconduct on the part of the author — perhaps with a reference to thefurther fact that he lived in Basle under an assumed name.* Thestatement inthe lettertoDaniel,ontheotherhand,doesseemtoshowthat already in the autumnof 1536Calvinwas contemplating a Frenchversion of "his little book;"t and this is a very interesting piece ofinformation;butitisclearenoughthat,forsomereason,theprojectwasabandoned or perhaps we should better say was fulfilled only in theedition of 1541. In any event, the reference cannot point to an originaleditionoftheInstitutesinFrench,asitdistinctlyspeaksoftheprojectasof a French edition of an already existent Latin . It would seem, then,prettycertainthattheFrencheditionsoftheInstitutesbeginwiththatof1541,whichisacloserenderingoftheLatinof1539.

The firstFrencheditionof theInstitutes, then, thatof 1541, isacarefultranslationbyCalvinhimself (as the title-pageandPrefacealike informus)of thesecondLatineditionof1539.Thesubsequentrevisionsof theLatintextrepeatthemselvesineditionsoftheFrench—theLatinof1543(repeated in1545) in theFrenchof1545; theLatinof1550(repeatedin1553and1554) in theFrenchof 1551 (repeated in1553and 1554); and,finally,thedefinitiveLatinof1559(repeatedtwicein1561)intheFrenchof 1560 (repeated twice in 1561, three times in 1562, andagain in 1563and 1564). There is a remarkable fact about the final, French edition,however,whichrequiresnotice.The formereditionshad repeated,withonly the necessary revisions, the original translation of 1541. But thedefinitiveeditionof theLatinof 1559evidently seemed toCalvinanewbeginning—•increasedasitwastonearlytwicethebulkofitsimmediatepredecessor;itannouncesitself,indeed,onitstitle-page,as"augmentedby such additions that it could almost be considered a newwork."* Solooking upon it, Calvin began an entirely new translation of it — atranslationcorrespondingtonothinginthepreviouseditionsevenintheparts and phrases where the Latin had not been changed. This newtranslationwas continued, however, only to the seventh chapter of thefirst book. The rest of the volume (except those portions of it merelytaken over from the earlier editions — about half of the whole) is by

another hand than Calvin's, as its frequent inexactitudes and evenoccasionalmisapprehensionsof theLatin textshow.ItwouldseemthatCalvindidnotevenoverseetheproofsofthisportion—nearlythewhole— of the volume. The French translation of the completed Institutescannot,therefore,betreated,asitoftenistreated,asasecondoriginal,!but, in largepart,musttake itssecondaryrankasamere translationoftheInstitutes.Itsprimaryvalueliesonly,likeotherversions,initsgivingthe great book which it represents a wider circulation and a greaterinfluencethanitcouldhavehadinitsLatinformalone.

TheFrenchInstitutesbeing,ofcourse,incontents,onlyareproductionofthe Latin Institutes, adds nothing to its significance for the history ofthought, or for the development of [theology. It must not be rashlyconcluded, however, that it, therefore, possesses in itself littleimportance. It holds a very great place, for instance, in the history ofFrenchliteratureandeveninthedevelopmentoftheFrenchlanguageasaliteraryvehicle.And,aboveall,itisthevisiblesymbolandevidenceofone of the greatest achievements of the Reformationmovement — thepopularization of religious thought. The Latin Institutes was for thelearned; the French Institutes was made for the unlearned, and themarvel ofmarvels is that it foundormade for itself apparently a greatconstituency.* Who could have believed that in the middle of thesixteenth century a body of vernacular readers could be created sonumerous and so avid of theological instruction as to take up in thetwenty five years between 1541, when the first French edition of theInstituteswaspublished, and 1566,no less than twenty-one editions ofthis theological treatise? During Calvin's lifetime. we perceive, thepublication of a new edition of the Institutes in French was almost anannualaffair.

Werequiretoadd,however,thatafterhisdeath,itspublicationstoppedabruptly.Threeeditionswerepublished,indeed,in1565,andanotherin1566; but then the series comes to an end. Only a single edition waspublished in the seventeenth century (1609), until as it drew near itsclose a French pastor at Bremen, Charles Icard by name, began thepublicationofanewFrenchversion,or,perhapsweshouldrathersay,arenewedFrenchversion.tThefirstBookofthisnewversionappearedin

16Q6,thesecondin1697,thewholenotuntil1713,inafinefolio;itwasreprintedatGenevainthreeoctavovolumesin1818.ThepublicationofIcard 's version in 1713 alone, however, breaks the barrenness of theeighteenth century. And the nineteenth has only a little better record.Icard's version was reissued, as we have seen, in 1818. The FrenchInstituteswas,ofcourse,givenaplace,andthatinthebestofformsforthestudent,inthegreatBrunswickeditionofCalvin'sOperapreparedbytheStrasburg theologians,Baiim,CunitzandReiiss(1865).Butofhandeditionsforpopularuse,thereseemtohavebeenonlythreeissuesinthenineteenth century. The earliest of these, in two handsome octavovolumes,wasprintedatParisbyCharlesMeyrueisandCompanyin1859,with an interesting Introduction,* It has especial claims upon ourattention,asitwasfranklypublishednotsomuchtomeetademandastofulfill a duty of love, and partly by the aid of an appropriation for thepurpose voted by "the Presbyterian Committee of Publication atPhiladelphia."! In 1888 a new edition in two octavo volumes waspublishedatGeneva,"revisedandcorrectedfromtheeditionof1560byFrank Baumgartner; " and later this has been placed on the marketcompactedintoasinglelargevolume.

Ofcourse,itispossible,orratheraltogetherlikely,thattheearlyeditionsof the French Institutes, which followed one another so rapidly, weresmalleditions,whilethemoderneditionshavebeenlargeeditions.Theremay be less disparity in the number of copies issued in the nineteenthcenturyascomparedwiththesixteenth,thaninthenumberofeditions.But, after all allowances of this sort aremade, the appearance remainsstrong that Calvin's theology has found fewer eager readers among hiscompatriots—whether inFranceorGeneva— in thenineteenth than itdid in the sixteenth century. Calvin's theology, we say, not Calvin'sFrench; forwemustbear inmind,aswehavealreadypointedout, thatthe French of the Institutes as it has been circulated since 1560 is notCalvin's. There can confidently be attributed to Calvin himself only theFrenchofthefirstFrencheditionof1541.

EvenonthebasisoftheFrenchInstitutesof1541alone,however,CalvintakeshisplaceinthefirstrankofFrenchprosewriters.tTheInstitutesofCalvin,saysM.FerdinandBrunetiere,is"oneofthegreatbooksofFrench

prose, and the first, in point of time, of which we can say that theproportions,thearrangement,andtheconstructionaremonumental;"ina word, it is" the first of our books which we can call classic." Thisposition it achieves, he suggests, by virtue of the greatness of itsconception, the dignity of its plan, the unity of its treatment, the closeconcatenationofitsthought,itsrhetoricalgrace,thesustainedgravityofitsstyle, risingeventomajesty,andthepurityof its language.Todwellonlyonthelast-mentionedquality,inthepurityofhisFrenchstyleCalvinwasfar inadvanceofhisage.ALatinistof theseverest taste, insteadofcarryingoverhisLatinintohisFrench,asdidmostofthewritersoftheday,hecarriedoverinsteadthepurityofhistaste.

"Intheschoolsofthattime,"writesA.Bossert,*"eitherabarbarousLatinwasspoken,oranunpolishedFrench,oramixtureofthetwo,thetypeofwhichisgivenbyRabelais inthespeechesofJanotusdemandinginthenameoftheParisianstherestorationof thebellsofNotreDame.Thosewhowished to speak themother-tongue correctly, affected to use onlyFrenchified Latin words, or as OUvetan puts it, 'obscure andunaccustomed barbarous terms, which are peeled off from the Latin.'Calvinwrites in turn andwith equal facility in Latin and in French, inLatin when he addresses himself to the learned, or the theologians, inFrenchwhenhewishestobereadbyalltheworld.Buthekeepsthetwolanguages rigorously apart; he does not permit one to encroach on theother The French prose of his day, when it was applied to serioussubjects,wasmodeledontheLatinperiod,andwasnaturallyfilledwithLatin words of which it only gradually freed itself. Calvin, so pure aLatinistwhenhewroteinLatin,isinhisFrenchstyletheleastLatinizingof the great prose writers of the Renaissance. Much more than hiscontemporaryRabelais,moreeventhanMontaigne,whocamefortyyearslater,heapproachestheproseoftheseventeenthcentury.Fromthepointof view of the development of the language, he rises out of thechronologicalsequenceandtakeshisplaceimmediatelybeforePascal.

IV

TheFrenchversion, althoughaddressed toapopularaudience,had thedisadvantageofappealingonly toasinglenationality.Afterall, therealextensionof the influenceof theInstitutes lay in thehandsof theLatin

original,whichmade its appeal to every educated circle in the civilizedworld.Wingsweregiventoitbythenobilityofitsformandtheunwontedelegance of its language. For Calvin's Latin is as fine in its way as hisFrench; and the Latin Institutes, too, deserves to be called a classic.Scaligerspeaksof itasalmost toogood in itsLatinity fora theologian;!and,indeed,itsLatinityisnotthatofatheologian,butthatofahumanist.Modeled, as all of the Latin of the day was, on Cicero, its basis is theCiceronianperiod;but theCiceronianperiodappears in it emancipatedfrom its too carefully calculated balance, and given a new rapidity ofmovement andan energetic brevity towhich all superfluity ofwords isalien. "Tosay that the languageofCalvin is clear, sharp,precise, isnotenough,"remarksBossert,* "it is striking and expressive; it abounds inoriginalturnsandhappyforms."Thedemandforthebookseemstohavebeenfromthefirstverylarge.PerhapseditiondidnotfolloweditionwithquitethesamerapidityaswasthecasewiththeFrenchversion,butthedifferenceisnotgreat,theeditionswerethemselves,nodoubt, larger—at leastmorecopiesof theLatineditionshavesurviveduntilourday—and they continued to be published after the publication of the Frenchversion had ceased. Ten or twelve editions were issued in Calvin'slifetime,! themostbeautifulofwhichwerethoseof1553and1559fromthe press of Robert Stevens; and although his death did not cause atemporarilyincreaseddemandforthemtospringupasitapparentlydidfor the French — of which there were published no less than threeeditions in1565andanother in1566—yettheywentsteadilyon:1568,1569,1576(twice),1577,1585,1586,1590,1592(twice),1602,1607,1609,1612, 1617, 1618, 1637, 1654, 1667 — quite to the middle of theseventeenth century. We are struck, as we look over the list, by thecompletenesswithwhichtheGenevanpressesmonopolizedthesupplyoftheworld.Thefirstedition(1536)was,ofcourse,printedatBasle,whereCalvinhadfoundrefugeinhisflightfromFrance;andthesecond,thirdand fourth(1539,1543,1545)wereprintedatStrasburg,whitherCalvinhadretiredwhendrivenfromGenevain1538.Butby1550theInstituteshad come back toGenevawith Calvin and they had come to stay.OnesubsequenteditionwasprintedatStrasburg(1561),butexceptthat,noneduringCalvin'slifewereprintedelsewherethanatGeneva(sixeditions).After his death,Geneva still remained the centerwhence the Institutesissued.Threeeditionsweresoon tobeprintedatLausanne(1576,1577,

1586);otherwisethewholeseriesupto1637,fifteeninall,wasprintedatGeneva — with one exception. This single exception interests us verymuch, for it is theonlyeditionof theInstitutes inLatinwhichhaseverbeenprintedonEnglish-speakingsoil.ItwasissuedatLondon'i^in1576fromtheprintinghouseofThomasVulturine, a learnedHuguenotwhohadcometoEnglandfromParisorRouen,andwithmanyvicissitudes,inLondonor inEdinburgh,nowbasking in the royal favor,now sufferingundertheinquisitionoftheStarChamber,carriedontheprinter'stradeuntil his death, somewhere about 1587.* The last edition printed inGenevacamefromthepressin1637.Fromthatdaytothis,noeditionoftheLatinInstituteshasbeenpublishedonthesceneoftheauthor'slife-work, where also the book was given its final form and sent outappropriately clothed in the splendid typography of Robert Stevens.Fromthatday,tobesure,theLatinInstituteshasbeenprintedanywherebut seldom. In 1654 the splendidElzevir editionappearedand thiswasreprintedintheninthvolumeof the fineAmsterdameditionofCalvin'sworks (1667). After that no further editions were issued until thenineteenthcentury,when (1834, reprinted 1846)Tholuckpublishedhisadmirablehand-editionwhichhassuppliedreaderseversince.Lastofall,in1863-4,thegreatcriticaleditionofBaum,CunitzandReuss, formingthe first two volumes of their splendid edition of Calvin's works, waspublishedatBrunswick,reprintedinaseparateissuein1869.

On the whole, Calvin's Institutes has been given a worthy externalpresentment. Even the first edition, though it was the work of anunknownman,isaveryprettylittlebook,—alittlebook,for,thoughitisan octavo in the folding of the sheets, the block of type (excludingheadlineandcatch-word)measuresonly2fby4^inches.ThetypeoftheEpistolaNuncupatoria(pp.5-41)isareallyfineRoman;whilethatoftheInstitutes itself (pp. 42-514) is a sufficiently good italic, f The two finefolioeditionspublishedbyRobertStevens(thesecondGenevanedition,1553,andthedefinitiveedition—thefourthGenevan—1559)areamongthe notable specimens of the printer's art. The former of these, Reusspraisesasthemostsplendidofall,withitsamplepage,eleganttypeandwonderfulaccuracyinprinting.Butthelatterissplendidenoughworthilytoclosethecareerofthedistinguishedprinterwhoselastworkitwas—forRobertStevensdiedonlyafewdaysafterthiseditionwasfinished.It

isabeautifulfolio,theblockoftype(exclusiveofheadline,therebeingnocatchword)measuring5fby10inches,printedinanelegant,boldRomancharacter,withthenotesintheouterside-margin.

AmongthesplendideditionsoftheInstitutesmustbementionedalsothegreatLeidenfolioof1654,whichgatheredintoitselfalltheadventitiousmatterthat—chieflyintheformofindicesandarguments—hadgrownupgraduallyaroundtheInstitutesasaidstoitsmorereadyuse,evidentlyintendingitselftostandasthefinaleditionofthebook.Thisindeedit,infact,remainedforahundredandsixty-sevenyears.TheInstitutesintheAmsterdamOperaof1667isaliteralreprintofit—reproducingevenits"admonitiontothereader,aboutthisedition"(butomittingBeza'slifeofCalvin which also is found in ed. 1654) — and no other edition waspublished until Tholuck's hand edition appeared in 1834. This greatLeiden edition was the work of the famous printers, John and DanielElzevir,butitoccursalsowithnolessthanfiveother imprints,onlythetitle page being changed and the dedication to Professor Heidanusomitted.Theexplanationofthisoddcircumstanceisthatitwasacustomof the times to issueportions of an edition in the names of the severalbooksellerswhohandledit.Thusthisnobleeditionwassentoutnotonlyin thenameof its real printers, but also severally in those of AdrianusWijngaerden, David Lopez de Haro, Franciscus Haack, Petrus Lefifen,and Franciscus Moyard.* There are few modern books which havereceivedthehonorofhavinghadexpendeduponthemalltheartoftwosuchprintersasStevensandElzevir,Andtheymerelystandattheheadofalistwhichincludeswiththemmanyanotherprinterofnote.

Calvin intended the Institutes (in its later form) as a text book intheology.Itquicklytookitsplaceassuch,notonlyamongthestudentsatGeneva, but throughout the Reformed world. Francis Junius, incommendingittohispupilsatLeiden,usedtotellthemthathehimselfhad devoted two entire years to its study. J Kaspar Olevianus atHeidelbergandHerbornbasedhistheologicallecturesuponit,goingoveronebookeachyearandthuscompleting thecourse in fouryears.WhatOlevianus was doing in Germany the professors at both Ojiford andCambridge were doing in England. A no doubt somewhat hystericalJesuit observer of the day, himself not altogether insensible to the

excellences of the book, complains 'that predilections on the Institutesconstituted the fundamental training in theology at both universities.*Even in far-away Hungary it was serving a similar purpose. It was byreading the first edition (1536) of the Institutes that Mathias Biro ofDevaf was brought to the acceptance of the Reformed faith, and hissummary of Christian doctrine — ''A Short Explanation of the TenCommandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Seals of theCreed,"—thefirstdoctrinaltreatise,writteninHungary(1538),seemstohavebeenat least inspiredbytheInstitutes;whiletheCatechismoftheprotagonistoftheReformedfaithofthenextgeneration,PeterJuhasz—orasheGraecisedhisname,PeterMelius,^—publishedin1562(ed.2,1569)asa textbook for theuseof schools,wasexpresslymodeleduponandevendrawnfromtheInstitutes.

IfwemaylookuponJuhasz 'sCatechismasasortofabridgmentoftheInstitutes, itprovidesuswiththeearliestexampleofatypeof literaturewhich, in the interests of sound instruction in the fundamentals ofreligion, soon became quite common. Unless, indeed, we prefer toconsider as the first abridgment of the Institutes Calvin's own earliestCatechism,so-called,whichwaspublishedinitsFrenchformin1537andinitsLatinformin1538,toserveasa"bookofinstruction"fortheinfantchurch of Geneva. The first professed abridgment of the Institutes,formally set forth as such, was probably, however, the InstitutionisChristiance Religionis a Jo. Calvino Conscriptce Compendium byEdmund Bunney,* published at London by the Huguenot printerVautrollier in1579andreprintedatAntwerpin1582,andinanEnglishtranslationin1580,asfollows:Edm.Bunnie,hisabridgtnentofCalvin'sInstitutes,translatedbyEdw.May:London,ForWilliamNorton,1580.fThisabridgmentwas,however,verysoonsupercededbyanother,alsoofEnglishorigin.ThiswastheInstitutionisChristianasReligionisaJoanneCalvino conscriptce Epitome, in qua adversariorum objectionibusresponsionesannotantur,perG.Launceum,London,Vautrollerius,1583,reprintedin1584.Theauthor,GuillaumeDelaune,wasalearnedpastoroftheFrenchchurchinLondon,andhisbookwasprintedbythelearnedHuguenot printer, Vautrollier. As Delaune's object was to make thecontentsoftheInstitutesaccessibletowidercirclesthanwouldorcouldapproachitinitsoriginalform,hewasveryeagertohavehisabridgment

putintoEnglish,ataskwhichhecouldnothimselfundertakeashewasnot "thoroughly acquainted with our language." It was, therefore,distributedintofourhandstodothetranslating;butintheendthewholewasrenderedintoEnglishbyChristopherFetherstone,andpublishedasAn Abridgment of the Institution of Christian Religion written by M.JohnCalvin.ByWilliamLawne,MinisteroftheWordofGod.Faithfullytranslated out of Latine into English by Christopher Fetherstone,MinisteroftheWordofGod.Edinburgh:ThomasVautrollier,1585(8vo.,pp. [32],398[30]).Neweditionsof thisEnglishversionwere issued in1686 and 1687 : it was even revived in the nineteenth century andrepublished by different printers in 1837, 1853, and in an undatededition. Delaune stood in close relations with Holland and had beenvainlysoughtasaprofessoratLeiden.Itisnotsurprising,therefore,thataDutchversionofhisbookwaspublishedin1594,§theworkofJoris{i.e.,George)deRaedt, pastor of theHoedekenskerke inSouthBeveland,which was reprinted in 1611, 1650, 1739, 1837. Almostcontemporaneously with Delaune's book (1586) Olevianus issued atHerborn his own Institutionis religionis Chr'istiance epitome exInstitutionesJohnCalvini excerpta to serve as a succinct handbook forhisstudents*;andthereappearedat thesameplace, thesameyear, theGerman Summa der wahren christlichen Religion. At about the sametime must have appeared also the first issue of Johannes Piscator'sAphorismi dodrinoe Christianioe maximam portem ex InstitutioneCalvini excerpti, the earliest edition of which listed by Steubing wasprinted atHerborn in 1589, and the earliest edition of which listed byErichson not until 1605.t Three editions of it at any rate had alreadyappearedwhenHenryHollandJin1596issuedhisEnglishversionofit,AphorismesofChristianreligionoraveriecompendiousabridgementofM.J.Calvin'sInstitutions,setforthinshortsentencesmethodicallybyM.J.Piscator, andnow engleshed according to the author's third and lastedition,(London,Field,1596).Aneweditionofthisversion,towhichwasadded Calvin's "letter to Francis I in defense of the Reformation" waspublishedatLondonaslateas1844.Possibly,thelittlebookinGermanwhich appeared at Herborn in 1600 may also be connected withPiscator'sAphorisms,KurtzerBerichtvondenfilrnembstenArtikelnderwahren Christlichen Religion, auss den vier Bilchern der Institution J.Calvini in ein Biichlein zusamen gezogen. It is a new book, however,

whichJoh.Jezler,RectorandPastoratSchafhausen,published in 1610under the title, Schediasmus succinctus lemmatibus universumcomplectensChristianismum,desumpta ex solidaJoh.CalvinideRelig.Chr.Instit.,quosublevaripotestnontarnmemoriaquamintellectuseamlegentium.

The abridgments of the Institutes reach their culmination in theadmirable Analysis Paraphrastica of Daniel Colonius, rector of theWalloonCollegeatLeiden,whichwaspublished,first,inquartoin1628,*and then in a beautiful duodecimo from the Elzevir press in 1636.ColoniuswasbornatMetz in 1566anddiedof theplague atLeiden in1635: his daughter Sara (Van Ceulen) was married in 1625 toBonaventuraElsevierwho,with his nephewAbraham,was head of theElzevir firmat the timeofColonius' death, fThe issueof this beautifuleditionofhisbookthefollowingyear(1636)wasthusapparentlyanactofpiouscommemorationofthedeadauthor.InanyeventitaffordsasfineaspecimenoftheminuteElzevirtypographyastheeditionoftheInstitutesof 1654 provides of the larger style. J The title-page • runs: AnalysisParaphrastica Institutionum Theologicarum. Joh. Calvini,DisputationibusXLIcontextaauctoreDanielsColonio.Lugd.Batavorum.ExOfficina Elzeveriana. AnnoMDCXXXVI. CumPrivilegio (12mo., pp.[8],950).The text is apparently exactly reproduced from theeditionof1628. The dedication to Daniel Heinsius is repeated, as also theapprobationoftheFacultyofTheologyatLeidensignedbyPolyanderasdeanpro-tempore,anddatedthe6July,1628.Thecharacteroftheworkitself is very well described by its title: it is an excellent paraphrasticanalysis of the Institutes, and well adapted to aid the student inmastering thecontentsof thegreatwork, to studywhichdayand nightColoniusadviseshiminsomeversesinscribed,InCalviniInstitutiones:

Aureus hie liber est, hunc tu studiosa juventus, Si cupis optatamstudiorumattingeremetam,Noctesatquediesinsuccumvertelegendo.

It was not for two hundred 5 years after the publication of Colonius'ParaphrasticAnalysisthatafreshattemptwasmadetosetforththegistof the Institutes in condensed form. H. P. Kalthoffs' ChristlicheUnteriveisung in einem kernhaften Auszug, however, was pubhshed atElberfeld in 1828, andwas reprinted in 1858 (Barmen) under the title:

CatichismusderChristlichenLehre. In 1837 thereappeared inLondon,Christian Theology, selected and systematically arranged by SamuelDunn; reprinted in 1843 and translated intoWelsh in 1840: DuwinyddiaethCristonogol,aysgrifenwydynureiddiolganJ.CalvinganS.Dunnac a gymreigiwyd gan Evan Meredith {levan Grygg). Crughywel,Williams.In1903thereappeared fromtheprintinghouseofJ.H.Kok,Kampen, Calvijn's Institutie of onderwijzing in den ChristlijkenGodsdienst. Ein uittreksel door G. Elzenga. These are the latestabridgmentsoftheInstituteswhichhavemetoureye.

VI

TheobjectoftheabridgmentsoftheInstituteswastobringthecontentsofthebookwithinthereachofwidercirclesofstudents;andthezealwithwhich vernacular versions of these abridgments were published — inGerman, Dutch, most numerously in English, even in Welsh — bearswitness to the eagerness with which the Institutes was sought by aconstituency to which Latin was, at best, a difficult medium. Theimportant task of diffusing the knowledge of the Institutes among thisclass of readers was not left, however, to versions of abridgments of italone.ThebookitselfwasfortunateinsecuringtranslationalmostatonceintomostofthelanguagesofEurope.*And,wemayadd,itwasfortunatein the translators it secured.Translationsarenotordinarilyundertakenbymenofhighpowersoforiginalexpression.Suchataskisusuallylefttoliterarytalentsofdistinctlythesecondrank.Onlywhensomeotheranddeeper impulse than a literary one is present do men of great gifts ofexpression turn to suchwork. This deeper impulsewas in operation inthe case of the Institutes. Its earlier translators were all men ofmark,seriouslyengagedinpropagatingthetruthstowhichtheInstitutesgavesuch uniquely attractive expression; and their versions were not meremechanicalpiecesofworkbutwere informedwithvitalityandgave thebook a place, therefore, in the literatures of the several tongues intowhichtheytransfusedit.

These translations,we have said, began very early. The Italian version,indeed, did not wait even for the definitive edition of the Institutes(1559),but(dependingmainlyontheFrench)appearedasearlyas1557.It was the work of Giulio Csesare Paschali, an excellent poet, who

subsequently(1592)publishedametricalItalianversionofthePsalms.*ItwasintroducedbyadedicatoryletteraddressedtoGaleazzoCaraccioli,MarquisofVico,oneofthebandofnobleswhoformedthenucleusoftheProtestant church at Naples, f So soon, however, as the Institutes wascompletedanditsdefinitiveedition(1559)published,therenderingofitintothevernacularsofEuropebeganapace.TheDutchversionwasfirstin the field. In less than eighteen months after the publication of thedefinitive Latin edition (August, 1559) the Dutch version left the press(December5, 1560, is thedate of thepreface), published in two forms,theonebearingnoindicationofplace,butknowntohavebeenpublishedatEmden, theother issuedatDort, byVerhaghen.The translator signshisprefacebytheinitials"I.D.,"andseemsotherwiseunknown.NextinturntotheDutchcomestheEnglishversion(1561andfivetimesrepeatedbefore 1600). It was the work of a very capable man, Thomas Norton(1532-1584),aripescholar,able jurist,wisestatesman,ardentreformerandnomieanpoet,mostgenerallyknown,doubtless,asco-authorwithhis friendThomasSackvilleofTheTragedyofGorbuduc,apiecewhichplaysapartinthehistoryoftheEnglishdrama.§ThetheologicalfacultyatHeidelberggaveitsunitedcaretothepreparationofaGermanversion,which was published at that place in 1572. In 1597 a Spanish versionappearedfromthepenofCiprianodeValera,oneofthemostnotableofthe Spanish literary reformers, and the translator of the Spanish BiblewhichisstillinusebySpanish-speakingProtestants.11

*Abriefaccountofhim(byEscher)maybefoundinErschandGruber,sub nom. (1840). The following is the notice in Bayle (English ed.,London, 1737 subnomine): "Paschali (GiulioCcesare)wasoneof thoseItalianswholefttheircountryinthesixteenthcenturyforthesakeoftheProtestant religion. He was a good poet in his mother-tongue, andpublishedthePsalmsinItalianverseatGenevaintheyear1592.Hewasthensixty-fiveyearsofage.HeaddedtoitacollectionofRimeSpirituali,and the first canto of an epic poem entitled Universo. This poem wasfinishedandcontained in thirty-twocantos thewholehistoryofMoses,fromthecreationoftheworldtotheentryoftheIsraelitesintothelandofCanaan. I donot thinkhe ought tobedistinguished from theGiulioCcesareP.whocausedtobeprintedatGenevain1557in4tohisItalianversion of Calvin's Institutes, and dedicated it to Galeas Carraciol,

MarqiiisdelVico.TheepistlededicatoryisdatedfromGeneva,the4thofAugust, 1558." Henry (Leben Calvins, Vol. iii, p. 185,) adds that histranslation of the Institutes depends largely on the French and that hetranslated several others of the works of the Reformers into Italian —Viret'sandothers.Forthesuspicionsofhisorthodoxyandotherdetails,seeF.Buisson,SebastienCastellion,1892,ii,125,not&thecenturyby the learned scholar andhymnologist Jirfk Strejc, orGeorgVetter intheGermanizedformofhisname(ordainedpriestintheUnitasFratrum1567, died 1599),* the manuscript of which is still preserved in the "MahrischesLandesarchiv"atBriinow.Itwasnotprinted,however,untilearly in the next century (1617, by Johann Opsimates) and thenapparently only partially, (the first two books only).t To these versionswasadded in1624aHungariantranslationmadebyAlbertMolnar"fortheedificationoftheHungariannationindivinetruth,"whichrecitesonits title-page that the book had already been translated into "French,English,Dutch,Italian,German,Bohemianandotherlanguages"—trulyenough,ifwemayunderstandbythe"otherlanguages"onlytheSpanish,whichseemstobetheonly"otherlanguage"intowhichtheInstituteshadbeenrendered.AGreekversionoftheInstitutes,printedatFrankfortin1618,has,indeed,beenspokenof,andevenanArabicone;butnocopiesofthemseemtobeaccessibletoattesttheirreality.§Later,in1626,therewaspublishedaPolishtranslation,notindeedoftheInstitutes,butofaportionof it,—theportionof itwhichdealswith theverycontrovertedsubject of the sacraments. This excerpt had been given separatepublicationinGermanatHeidelbergin1572,andagainatNeustadta.d.Hardt in 1592: it was now rendered into Polish by Blastus Kmita andpublishedatLubeck.11

II The titles of the Polish and German tracts alike may be seen inErichsonascited,undertheiryears.AmongtheportionsoftheInstitutespublished separately should be mentioned the chapters Depradestinatione et providentiaDei,De liberlate Christiana, andDe vitahominis christiani extracted by Crespin, the Genevan printer, in 1550fromtheeditionoftheInstitutespublishedthatyear,followedin1552byasimilarextract:Disputatiodecognitionehominis(Ch.iiofthatedition).In1594anEnglishtranslationbyJ.ShutteofthechapterontheChristianLife(Ch.xxi)waspublishedunderthetitle:"ATreatiseofChristianLife."

In1695thereappearedatAmsterdamtheversionsoftheInstitutesinthelanguages of southern Europe, which ultimately remained Catholic,naturallyhaveonlyabriefhistory.Itdoesnotappear,forexample,thattheItalianversionof1557waseverreissued.TheSpanishversionof1597alsohasapparentlybeenreprintedonlyin1858andthatas''anantiquity"—aspartof theReformistas antiguos espaiioles issuedbyB.B.WiffenandLuis deUsoz yRio (XIV, 2 parts,Madrid, 8vo).* Evil fortune alsofollowedtheBohemiantranslation.Wehaveseenthat,althoughfromthehand of one of the most influential scholars of the Unitas Fratrum, amemberoftheexecutivecouncil,andtheauthorofametricalversionofthePsalmsuponthemodelofMarot's,Strejc'sversionlayinmanuscriptforyearsandneverwasmorethanhalfprinted.ItwasnotuntiltheendofthenineteenthcenturythatarenewedattemptwasmadetoprovidetheBohemianswiththeInstitutesintheirowntongue;andthisattemptmetwith a similar fate. The maker of the new version was Lie. Theol.Frantisek Sebesta, an author of note,who at the time of his deathwaspastoratHustopecinMoravia,tOnlytwobooksofhisversion,however,werepublished(1890,1895),hisdeath(July22,1896)bringinghisworktoa suddencloseashewasengagedon the thirdbook.TheHungarianversion of 1624§ also has remained unreprinted until to-day. Itstransdam, theTraitsde la justificationparJ.Calvin, traduitdu latindesonInstitutionparJeandeLabrune,andaneweditionofthiswasissuedin1755.ThesignificanceoftheextractonPredestinationisadvertedtobyA.F.Mitchell,BairdLectureonTheWestminsterAssembly,ed.2,p.519;of that on the Christian Life may be gathered from the remarks of E.Doumergue,PrincetonTheologicalReview,January,1909,vii,i,p.97;ofthatonthesacramentsisobviousinviewofthecontroversiesofthetime.

VII

We naturally feel a special interest in the English translations. TheInstitutes has been thrice translated into English: by Thomas Norton(1561,andoftenafterwards:London,1562,1574,1578,1582,1587,1599,1611,1634;Glasgow,1762),byJohnAllen(London,1813,3vols.;2nded.,London, 1838, 2 vols.; 3d ed., London, 1844, 2 vols.; 1st Americanedition, 1816, 3 vols.; 6thAm. ed. n. d., but 1841-1842, 2 vols), andbyHenry Beveridge (Edinburgh, 1845-6, 3 vols.; 2d ed., 1863, 2 vols.).

Besides these versions of the complete Institutes, at least fourabridgmentsoftheInstituteshavebeenprintedinEnglish:EdwardMay'sversion of Edmund Bunney's Compendium (1580); C. Fetherstone'sversionof Laune'sEpitome (1585, 1586, 1587, 1600, 1837, 1853, n. d.);Henry Holland's version of Piscator's Aphorisms (1596, 1844); and S,Dunn'sSelection(1837).

Norton's translation of thewholework, early as it was,was yet almostprecededbyayetearlierone.Anotefrom"ThePrinterstotheReders,"printed on the reverse of the title-page of the edition of 1561, which isidentifiedasNorton'sonlybytheinitials"T.N."withwhichthelastpageof thebook is signed, tells us of a previous translationwhichhadbeenmade,butwasnotpublished.Hereisthenoteinfull:

"Whereas some men hare thought and reported it to be a fault andnegligence inus for thatwehave so longkeptback fromyou thisbookbeingsoprofitableaworkforyou,namelysithemasterJohnDaweshadtranslated itanddelivered it intoourhandsmore thana twelvemonethpast:youshallunderstandforourexcuseinthatbehalf,thatwecouldnotwell imprint it sooner. For we hare been by diverse necessary causesconstrainedwith our earnest entreatance to procure an other friend ofourstotranslateitwholeagain.Thistranslation,wetrust,youshallwellallow.Forithathnotonlybeenfaithfullydonebythetranslatorhimself,but also hath been wholly perused by such men, whose iugement andcredit al the godly learned in Englande well known and esteemed Butsitheitisnowcomeforth,weprayyouacceptit,anduseit.Ifanyfaulteshavepassedusbyoversight,webeseechyouletushaveyourpatience,asyouharehadourdiligence."

ThebareallusionwearegiventoitrousesourcuriosityastowhyMaisterDawes' translation was set aside; certainly the Preface is a modeldocument—itseemstotakethereaderintofullconfidence,andyetsaysnothingderogatorytoanyone.

No one better fitted for the task of retranslating the book could easilyhavebeenfoundatanyratethanThomasNorton.Hisnameappearsforthefirsttimeonthetitle-pageofthethirdedition,whiletothefourthheprefixesanoblywrittenPreface—"T[homas]N[orton,]theTranslatorto

the Reader" — in which is included an account of how he was led totranslatethebook,ofthecarehetooktodoaproperpieceofworkinthetranslating,andofthesubsequentmeansadoptedtoperfect theprintedtext.AfterabriefaccountofCalvinandhispurposeintheInstitutes,thePrefacecontinues:*

"So great a jewelwasmeete to bemademost beneficial, that is to say,applied to most common use. Therefore, in the very beginning of theQueenesMaiestiesmostblessedreigne,ItranslateditoutofLatineintoEnglish, for the commoditie of the Church of Christ, at the speciallrequest of my dear friends of worthy memory, Reginald Wolfe f andEdwardV>"hitchurch,%theoneherMaiestiesPrinterfortheHebrew,GreekeandLatin toongs, theotherherHighnesPrinterof thebooksofcommon prayer. I performedmywork in the house ofmy said friend,EdwardWhitchurch,amanwellknownofuprighthartanddealing, anancientzealousGospeller,asplainandtrueafriendaseverIknewliving,and as desirous to do any thing to common good, specially by theadvancementoftruereligion"

He then explains why he chose the method of literal rather than ofparaphrastictranslationandcontinues:

"In thedoinghereof , Ididnotonly trustmineownewitorabilitie,butexamined my whole doing from sentence to sentence throughout thewholebookewithconferenceandouerlookingofsuchlearnedmen,asmytranslationbeingallowedbytheirjudgement,Ididbothsatisfymineownconscience that Ihaddone truly, and their approouingof itmightbe agoodwarranttothereader,thatnothingshouldhereinbedeliveredhimbutsound,unmingled,anduncorrupteddoctrine,eveninsuchsortastheauthorhimselfhadfirstframedit.AilthatIwrote,thegraue,learnedandvertuous man M. David Whitehead § (whome I name with honorableremembrance) did among other, compare with the Latine, examiningeuerysentencethroughoutthewholebooke."

Thecaretakentobringthetextofthebookinitsneweditionstogreatercorrectnessintheprintingbeingnextnoted,thePrefaceconcludesthus:

"ThusonthePrintersbehalfeandmine,youreaseandcommoditie(good

Readers) is prouided for.Now resteth yourowndiligence for yourownprofitinstudyingit.Tospendmanywordsincommendingthew-orkeitselfewereneedelesse:yetthusmuchIthinkeImaybothnotvntrulyandnotvainlysay,thatthoughmanygreatlearnedmenhauewrittenbookesofcommonplacesofour religion,asMelanchton,Sarcerius*andother,whoseworksareverygoodandprofitabletotheChurchofGod:yetbythe consenting iudgement of those that vnderstande the same, there isnone tobe compared to thisworkeofCaluine,both forhis substantiallsufficiencieofdoctrine, thesounddeclarationof truth inarticlesofourreligion, the large and learned confirmation of the same, and themostdeepe and strong confutation of all olde andnewheresies: so that (theholyScripturesexcepted)thisisoneofthemostprofitablebookesforallstudentsofChristiandiuinitie.Wherein(goodReaders)asIamgladfortheglorieofGod,andforyourbenefite,thatyouhavethisprofiteofmytrauell,soIbeseechyouletmehauethisvseofyourgentlenesse,thatmydoingsmaybeconstruedtosuchgoodendeasIhauemeant them:andthat if anythingmislikeyouby reasonofhardnesse, or anyother causethatmay seem tobemydefault, youwill not foorthwith condemne theworke, but reade it ofter: inwhich doing youwill finde (asmany haueconfessed tome that theyhave foundebyexperience) that those thingswhichatthefirstreadingshalldispleaseyouforhardnesse,shallbefoundso easie as so hardematter would suffer, and for themost part,moreeasiethansomeotherphrasewhichshouldewithgreaterloosenesseandsmootherslidingawaydeceiueyourvnderstanding.Iconfesseindeedeitis not finely and pleasantly written, nor cariethwith it such delightfullgrace of speech as some great wise men have bestowed vppon somefoolisher things, yet it conteineth sound truth set foorth with faithfulplainnesse,withoutwrong done to the authorsmeaning: and so if youacceptandvseit,youshallnot failetohauegreatprofitethereby,andIshallthinlcemylabourverywellimployed."

We have quoted largely from this Preface, because it appears to us anadmirabledocument,altogetherworthyofitsplaceintheforefrontoftheInstitutesandofthehandofitsauthor,oneofthemostnotablefiguresinthe literary world of his day. Born in 1532, bred to the law, in whichprofessionhegainedhighdistinction,ThomasNorton livedontermsofintimacywith the leaders of the religiousReformation inEngland, and

didhis part to further it by voice andpen.A ripe scholar, he preparedtranslations of some of the best books in circulation expository ofChristiantruth,fandsentforthanumberofwritingsofhisown.A"wise,bold and eloquent" member of Parliament, he championed there themovementsthattendedtothereligioussettlementofthelandonthelinesofacompletereformation.Possessedofapoeticgift,hecontributedsometwenty-eight translations of Psalms to Sternhold and Hopkins'collection,! as well as wrought for the advancement of more secularspecies ofEnglish poetry. In everywayhe seemed glad to use his highpowers freely in the cause of religion. Assuredly, we will say Calvin'sInstitutes was introduced by fit hands to its English public; and theexcellence of the performance seems to be attested by the rapidlyrepeatedissueofeditionsofthetranslationduringthelatteryearsofthesixteenthcentury,anditslong-continuedholdonthereligiouspublic.

Itwasnot until the early years of thenineteenth century thatNorton'swas superseded by a modernized translation. This was made by JohnAllen,andappearedfirstin1813.JohnAllen*wasalaymanlikeThomasNorton—anonconformistschool-teacher,bornatTruro,inCornwall,in1771, and for thirty years master of a private school at Hackney, nearLondon, where he died in 1839. His principal work was a treatise onModern Judaism (1816), though he published also aMemoir ofMajorGeneral Burn (1815), and a translation of some sermons of D. deSaperville (1816) andWilliamDurham's TwoDissertations on Sacrifice(1817).HetellsusinthePrefacetohistranslationoftheInstitutes,thatone of the circumstances which led him to publish it was " the recentcontroversy respecting Calvinism, commenced by Dr. Tomline, thepresentBishopofLincoln."His interest in thatcontroversyhadalreadybeenshownbytheanonymouspublicationin1812ofareplytoTomline'sRefutation of the Charge of Calvinism against the Church of England,which appeared in 1811. Allen's book bore the title, The Fathers, theReformers, and the Public Formularies of England in Harmony vxithCalvinandagainsttheBishopofLincoln.

ItdoesnotpredisposethereaderfavorablytoAllen'sworkthathespeakswith scantappreciationofNorton's translation— though that,perhaps,wasnotunnaturalinthePrefaceofaworkdesignedtosupersedeit.This

Prefaceisplainlywritten,andgivesanappreciativeaccountof thebookbeingrendered,andastatementofthetranslator'smethodoftranslating—which,decliningboth "a servileadherence to the letter"and ''amereattention to the ideas and sentiments," " aimed at a.medium betweenservilityandloosenessandendeavoredtofollowthestyleoftheoriginalas far as the respective" idiomsof theLatin andEnglishwould admit."The translation is certainly so far successful that it conveys with plaindirectness themeaningof theoriginalauthor,andso far,at leastaswehaveobserved,nevereithermissesitorobscuresit.

If Allen is chargeable with underestimating the merits of hispredecessor's work, he certainly was called on to repay his fault ahundredfoldbythetreatmenthereceivedatthehandsofhissuccessor—HenryBeveridge.*BeveridgesimplypassesbyAllen'stranslationwithoutanymention at all. Allen's judgment on Norton's translation, however,Beveridgerepeatswithinterest—thegravamenofhischargeturningonits excessive literalness. " Instead of the pure English of the period atwhich he wrote," he remarks, "the utmost he could give was EnglishwordsinaLatinidiom.Inthiswaythetranslation,whichmustoftenhaveseemed rugged and harsh to his contemporaries, has become in greatmeasure unfit for modem use." Beveridge, for his part, avoiding"overstrainingaftersuchscrupulosityasNortonaimedat,"hopesthat,inhis own translation "the truemeaning of the author has been given inplain English, and so made accessible to every class of readers."Beveridge's translationwas issuedbytheCalvinTranslationSocietyf in1845,andhasprobablysupersededinBritaintheearlierworkofAllen.

Meanwhile, however, already in 1816, Allen's translation had beenreissued in America as the "First American from the last LondonEdition," bearing the imprint: "Philadelphia: Published by Philip H.Nicklin,andbyHezekiahHowe,NewHaven.WilliamFry,Printer,1816."And in 1841 and 1842,J the Presbyterian Board of Publication atPhiladelphia had stereotyped a somewhat revised edition of Allen'stranslation,issuingitasthesixthAmericanedition.ThishasaccordinglybecomethemostaccessibletranslationinAmerica.Theedition

*HenryBeveridgewasbornJune19,1799,atDunfermline;actedastutorinthefamilyofMr.Erskine(afterwardsEarlofBuchan)from1821;was

licensedasprobationeroftheChurchofScotland,1827,butnevertookacharge; served as an elder in the church at Tonyburn for a number ofyearsandsatasanelderintheAssemblyof1837;wascalledtothebarin1838, but never practiced the profession; died March 18, 1863. Thegreaterportionofhislifewasgiventoliterarylabor:asayoungadvocatehereportedthecasesdecidedinCourtofSessionfortheScottishJurist(1838 sq.); he contributed largely (1848 sq.) to the Imperial GazetteerandthePopularEncyclopaedia,publishedbyMessrs.Blaikie&Son,ofGlasgow(1848sq.)\andheservedaseditorofTheBannerofUlsterofBelfast (1855-57).His chieforiginalworkwasaComprehensiveHistoryof India, 3 vols. (1858-1862); and he made the translation of the firstthreevolumesofD'Aubigne'sHistoryof theReformation(1844sq.).Hepublished also a translation of Pascal's Provincial Letters (1857). Hebecame connected with the "C!alvin Translation Society" early in itshistory, and besides editing for it Fetherstone's translation of theCommentaryonActs(1844),andRosdell'stranslationofthatonRomans(1844),hetranslatedforitthefollowing:OntheNecessityofReformingtheChurch (1843), TractsRelating to the Reformation, (3 vols., 1844),Institutes(3vols.,1845),Foursermons.CommentaryonJoshua(1854).

Itwasfoundedin1842andissueditsfirst installmentoftranslationsin1843.

OfthePresbyterianBoardwasbroughtoutattheexpenseoftheFirstandSecondPresbyterian churchesofBaltimore, ofwhich theRevs. JohnC.Backus and Robert J. Breckinridge were then pastors, and wasintroducedbyaPrefacewrittenbyDr.WiUiamM.Engles,theneditoroftheBoard.How far the revision of the text extendedwehavenot beencareful to investigate. Dr. Engles says: "Under the direction of theExecutive Committee of the Board, the translation has been diligentlycompared throughout with the original Latin and French, and variouscorrectionshavebeenmade to convey themeaningof the authormoredistinctly and accurately. This laborious duty has been performed by amemberofthePubUshingCommittee."This"memberofthePublishingCommittee" was Mr. Joseph Patterson Engles (1793—1861), a man ofvariedandhighculture,masteroftheClassicalInstituteatPhiladelphiafrom 1817 to 1845, and from 1845 to his death publishing agent of the

Board.Hewas,perhaps,mostwidelyknownastheeditorofanAmericanreprint, with many corrections, of the so-called Polymicrion GreekTestament(1838,andoftenafterwards),andwasamanwho,byhabitsofexact accuracy and by thorough classical scholarship, was eminentlyfittedtocorrectatranslationfromtheLatin.*

ItshouldnotpasswithoutnoticethatallthreeofthelaterrehandiingsoftheEnglishInstitutesplumethemselvesontheiruseoftheFrenchtext—treating it asa secondoriginal, of equaloralmost equalauthority,asawitnesstoCalvin'smeaning,withtheLatin.Allensays:

' ' After the greater part of the work had been translated, he [thetranslator]hadthehappinesstomeetwithaneditioninFrench,ofwhichhehasavailedhimselfintranslatingtheremainder,andintherevisionofwhathehad translatedbefore.Everyperson,whounderstandsany twolanguages, will be aware that the ambiguity of one will sometimes beexplained by the precision of another; and notwithstanding theacknowledged superiority of the Latin to the French in most of thequalities which constitute the excellence of a language, the case of thearticleisnottheonlyoneinwhichCalvin'sFrenchelucidateshisLatin."

Beveridgesays:

"be a more legitimate and effectual mode of explaining them than tomaketheAuthorhisownexpositor,andholdthemeaningtobewhathehimself has made it, in his vernacular tongue. It has already beenobservedthatCalvin,inhistranslation,occasionallyavailshimselfofhisprivilegeasanAuthor.Dueattentionhasbeenpaidtothechangesthusmade in the original, anydifference ofmeaningor of expressionwhichseemeddeservingofnoticebeinggiveninfootnotes.Inthisrespect it ishopedthatthepresentTranslationpossessesaverydecidedadvantage."

Dr.Englessays:

"The translation has been diligently compared throughout with theoriginalLatinandFrench'etc.

ThisuseoftheFrench,exceptinthefirstfewpagesofthefirstbook(to

the seventh chapter), as ah-eady pointed out, is Uable to some dangerwhencarriedthroughuncritically.Fortherestofthebook,thatalone iscertainly Calvin's which has been preserved from the first Frenchtranslation(1541).Thetext iscomposed,asReussputs it,"of fragmentsof theold translation,where theLatin text remains the same (althoughthere,too,thechangesaresomewhatfrequent),andanewtranslationofthecomplementaryadditionswhichformnearlyhalfthetext....Here,"he adds, " we meet with not only a great number of inexactitudes,omissions,meaningless and embarrassing additions, but even passageswhereitisevidentthatthetranslatordidnotevenunderstandtheLatintext."Strikingexamplesof thisaregivenbyReuss.It isobviousthatanuncritical use of this French translation, as in all its parts of equalauthority for Calvin's meaning with the Latin original, is scarcely acommendationofaversion;andweneednofurtherevidencethat,sofaras itwasusedatall, itmusthavebeenuseduncriticallybyourEnglishtranslators,thanthefactthatthougheachofthemcomparedtheFrenchdiUgentlywiththeLatin,nooneofthemdiscoveredthoseglaringfaultsin theFrenchwhich render it impossible to attribute it toCalvin's ownhand.ItwouldbeinterestingtocomparethetextsoftheseveralEnglishtranslations,withaviewtodiscoveringhowfarthelatertranslationsarereally independentof theearlier,andwhichrepresent theoriginalmostfaithfully, clearlyandhappily.We cannot undertake that task now; butwe can at least give a specimen of their rendering of a typical passage,fromwhichwemay,perhaps,catchsomethingoftheflavorofeach.Hereis theopeningsectionof the treatise in its threeEnglish forms (Book i,chap,i,§1):

COMPARISONOFENGLISHVERSIONS

xlv

Norton,1599.Thewholesummeinamanerofallourwisedome,whichonelyoughttobeaccountedtrueandperfectwisedome,consistethintwopartes,thatistosay,theknowledgeofGod,andofourselves.Butwhereas these two knowledges be with many bondes linked togither: yetwhethergoethbeforeorengendreththeother,itishardtodiscerne.For,firstnomancanlookevponhimselfe,buthemustneedesbyandbyturneallhissensestothebeholdingofGod,inwhomheliuethandismooued:

bicauseitisplaine,thatthosegifteswherewithwebeindued,arenotofourselues,yea,euenthatwehauebeingisnothingelsbutanessenseinthe one God. Finally, by these good things that are as by dropmealepowredintousfromheauen,weareledasitwerebycertainestreamestothe springhead.And so by our owneneedinesse, better appeereth thatinfinite plentie of good things that abideth in God. Specially thatmiserable ruine, whereinto the fall of the first man hath throwne vs,compellethvstoliftvpoureies,notonelybeingfoodelesseandhungrie,tocrauefromthencethatwhichwelacke,butalsobeingawakenedwithfeare,tolearnehumilitie.Forasthereisfoundinmanacertaineworldeofallmiseries,andsincewehauebeenespoyledof thediuineapparell,our shameful! nakednesse discloseth an infinite heape of filthiedisgracements: it must needes be that euery man be pricked withknowledgeinconscienceofhisowneunhappinessetomakehimcome.

True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, theknowledgeofGodand theknowledgeofourselves.Butwhile these twobranches of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of themprecedesandproducestheother,isnoteasytodiscover.For,inthefirstplace,nomancantakeasurveyofhimself,buthemustimmediatelyturnto the contemplationofGod, inwhomhe "lives andmoves:" since it isevidentthatthetalentswhichwepossessarenotfromourselves,andthatour very existence is nothing but a subsistence in God alone. Thesebounties,distillingtousbydropsfromheaven,form,asitwere,somanystreamsconductingus to the fountain-head.Ourpoverty conduces toaclearer display of the infinite fulness of God. Especially, themiserableruin,intowhichwehavebeenplungedbythedefectionofthefirstman,compels us to raise our eyes towards heaven, not only as hungry andfamished,toseekthenceasupplyforourwants,but,arousedwithfear,tolearnhumility.Forsinceman issubject toaworldofmiseries,andhasbeen spoiledofhisdivine array, thismelancholy exposurediscovers animmensemass of deformity: every one thereforemust be so impressedwithaconsciousnessofhisowninfelicity,astoarriveBbvehidge,184.5.

Ourwisdom, in so faras itought tobedeemed trueandsolidwisdom,consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and ofourselves.Butastheseareconnectedtogetherbymanyties,itisnoteasy

todeterminewhichofthetwoprecedes,andgivesbirthtotheother.For,inthefirstplace,nomancansurveyhimselfwithoutforthwithturningihisthoughtstowardstheGodinwhomhelivesandmoves;becauseitisperfectlyobvious,thattheendowmentswhichwepossesscannotpossiblybe from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else thansubsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings whichunceasinglydistiltousfromheaven,arelikestreamsconductingustothefountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in Godbecomesmore apparent from our poverty. In particular, themiserableruinintowhichtherevoltofthefirstmanhathplungedus,compelsustoturnoureyesupwards;notonlythatwhilehungryandfamishingwemaythence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear we may learnhumility.Forasthereexistsinmansomethinglikeaworldofmisery,andeversincewewerestriptofthedivineattireournakedshamedisclosesanimmenseseriesofdisgracefulproperties,everyman,beingstungby theconsciousnessofhisownunhappiness, in thiswayNorton, 1599.at theleast unto some knowledge of God. So by the vnderstanding of ourignorance, vanitie, beggerie, weaknesse, peruersenesse, and corruption,welearnetoreknowledgethatnowhereelsebutintheLordabideththetruelightofwisdome,soundvertue,perfectabundanceofallgoodthings,andpuritieof righteousnes.Andsobyourowne euilsweare stirred toconeiderthegoodthingsofGod:andwecannotearnestlyaspiretowardhim, vntill we begin tomislike our selues. For of all men what one isthere,thatwouldnotwillinglyrestinhimselfe?yea,whodothnotrest,solongasheknowethnothimselfe,thatistosay,solongaaheiscontentedwith his owne giftes; and ignorant or vnmindfull of his ownemiserie?Thereforeeuerymanisbytheknowledgeofhimselfe,notonelyprickedforwardtoseekeGod,butalsoledasitwerebythehandtofindehim.

Allen, 1813. at some knowledge ofGod.Thus a sense of our ignorance,vanity,poverty,infirmity,depravity,andcorruption,leadsustoperceiveand acknowledge that in the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom,solidstrength,perfectgoodness,andunspottedrighteousness;andso,byourimperfections,weareexcitedtoaconsiderationoftheperfectionsofGod. Nor can we really asspire toward him, till we have begun to bedispleasedwith ourselves. Forwhowould not gladly rest satisfied withhimself? where is the man not actually absorbed in selfcomplacency,

while he remains unacquaintedwith his true situation, or contentwithhisownendowments, and ignorantor forgetfulofhisownmisery?Theknowledgeofourselves,therefore,isnotonlyanincitementtoseekafterGod,butUkewiseaconsiderableassistancetowardsfindinghim.

Bevebidge, 1845. necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God.Thus,ourfeelingofignorance,vanity,want,weakness,inshort,depravityandcorruption,remindsusthatintheLord,andnonebutHe,dwellthetrue light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We areaccordinglyurgedbyourownevil things toconsider thegood thingsofGod; and, indeed, we cannot sispire to Him in earnest until we havebeguntobedispleasedwithourselves.Forwhatman isnotdisposedtorestinhimself?Who,infact,doesnotthusrest,solongasheisunknowntohimself;thatis,solongasheiscontentedwithhisownendowments,andunconsciousorunmindfulofhismisery?Everyperson,therefore,oncomingtotheknowledgeofhimself,isnotonlyurgedtoseekGod,butisalsoledasbythebandtofindhim.

So far as one may judge from so brief an extract, it would seem thatAllen's version is entirely independent of Norton's, and that Beveridgeworked with his predecessors' versions before him, indeed, but with aconsciousefforttogiveafreshrenderingoftheoriginal.Anyoneofthethreewouldappear toprovideaplainandsufficientlyclearand faithfulrenderingoftheoriginal,whilethe"perfectversion,"ortheversionwhichconveys the sense of delight and satisfactionwith which Calvin's Latinaffectsthereader,isyettoseek.

CalvinasaTheologian

byBenjaminB.Warfield

THEsubjectofthisaddressis“JohnCalvintheTheologian,”andItakeitthatwhatwillbeexpectedofmeistoconveysomeideaofwhatmanneroftheologianJohnCalvinwas,andofhisqualityasatheologicalthinker.

IamafraidIshallhavetoaskyouattheoutsettodisabuseyourmindsofaverycommonimpression,namely,thatCalvin’schiefcharacteristicsasa theologianwereontheonehand,audacity—perhaps Imightevensayeffrontery—ofspeculation;andontheotherhand,pitilessnessof logicaldevelopment, cold and heartless scholasticism.We have been told, forexample, thathereasonsontheattributesofGodpreciselyashewouldreasononthepropertiesofa triangle.Nomisconceptioncouldbemoregross. The speculative theologian of the Reformation was Zwingli, notCalvin. The scholastic theologian among the earlyReformerswasPeterMartyr, not Calvin. This was thoroughly understood by theircontemporaries. “The two most excellent theologians of our times,”remarksJosephScaliger,“areJohnCalvinandPeterMartyr,theformerofwhomhasdealtwiththeHolyScripturesastheyoughttobedealtwith—withsincerity,Imean,andpurityandsimplicity,withoutanyscholasticsubtleties...PeterMartyr,becauseitseemedtofalltohimtoengagetheSophists, has overcome them sophistically, and struck themdownwiththeirownweapons.”

It isnot tobedenied,ofcourse, thatCalvinwasaspeculativegeniusofthe firstorder,and in thecogencyofhis logicalanalysishepossessedaweaponwhichmade him terrible to his adversaries. But it was not onthese gifts that he depended in forming and developing his theologicalideas. His theological method was persistently, rigorously, some mayeven say exaggeratedly,aposteriori.Allapriori reasoning here he notonly eschewed but vigorously repelled.His instrument of researchwasnot logical amplification, but exegetical investigation. In one word, hewas distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of

eminencetheBiblicaltheologianofhisage.WhithertheBibletookhim,thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there hestoppedshort.

ItisthiswhichimpartstoCalvin’stheologicalteachingthequalitywhichisitsprimecharacteristicanditsrealoffenceintheeyesofhiscritics—Imeanitspositiveness.Thereisnomistakingthenoteofconfidenceinhisteaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidenceirritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to hisdeclarations,notstayingtoconsiderthathegivesthemthisairoffinalitybecausehepresentsthem,notashisteachings,butastheteachingsoftheHolySpiritinHisinspiredWord.Calvin’spositivenessoftoneisthusthemarknotof extravagancebutof sobriety and restraint.He even speakswithimpatienceofspeculative,andwhatwemaycallinferentialtheology,and he is accordingly himself spoken of with impatience by modernhistoriansofthoughtasa“merelyBiblicaltheologian,”whois,therefore,withoutanyrealdoctrineofGod,suchasZwinglihas.Thereproach,ifitbe a reproach, is just. Calvin refused to go beyond “what is written”—written plainly in the book of nature or in the book of revelation. HeinsistedthatwecanknownothingofGod, forexample,exceptwhatHehaschosentomakeknowntousinHisworksandWord;allbeyondthisisbutemptyfancy,whichmerely“flutters” in thebrain.And itwas justbecauseherefusedtogoonestepbeyondwhat iswrittenthathefeltsosureofhissteps.HecouldnotpresentthedictatesoftheHolyGhostasaseriesofdebatablepropositions.

SuchanattitudetowardstheScripturesmightconceivablyconsistwithathoroughgoing intellectualism, and Calvin certainly is very widelythought of as an intellectualist àoutrance. But this again is an entiremisapprehension.ThepositivenessofCalvin’s teachinghasa fardeeperroot than merely the conviction of his understanding. When ErnestRenancharacterizedhimasthemostChristianmanofhisgenerationhedidnotmeanitforveryhighpraise,buthemadeatruerandmuchmoreprofound remark than he intended. The fundamental trait of Calvin’snature was precisely—religion. It is not merely that all his thinking iscolouredbyadeepreligioussentiment; it isthatthewholesubstanceofhis thinking isdeterminedbythereligiousmotive.Thushis theology, if

evertherewasatheologyoftheheart,wasdistinctivelyatheologyoftheheart, and in him the maxim that “It is the heart that makes thetheologian”findsperhapsitsmosteminentillustration.

Hisactiveandpowerful intelligence,ofcourse,penetratedtothedepthsofeverysubjectwhichhetouched,buthewasincapableofdealingwithany religious subject after a fashionwhichwouldministeronly towhatwould seem to him the idle curiosity of the mind. It was not that herestrained himself from such merely intellectual exercises upon thethemes of religion, the force of his religious interest itself instinctivelyinhibitedthem.

CalvinmarkedanepochinthehistoryofthedoctrineoftheTrinity,butofallgreat theologianswhohaveoccupied themselveswith this soaringtopic,nonehasbeenmoredeterminedthanhenottolosethemselvesinthe intellectualsubtleties towhich it invites the inquiringmind;andhemarkedanepochinthedevelopmentofthedoctrinepreciselybecausehisinterestinitwasvitalandnotmerelyormainlyspeculative.Ortakethegreat doctrine of predestination which has become identified with hisname, andwith respect to which he is perhaps,most commonly of allthings,supposedtohavegiventhereinstospeculativeconstructionandtohavepushed logical development to unwarrantable extremes.Calvin,of course, in the pellucid clearness and incorruptible honesty of histhoughtand in the faithfulnessofhis reflectionof thebiblical teaching,fully grasped and strongly held the doctrine of the will of God as theprimacausarerum,andthistoowasareligiousconceptionwithhimandwasconstantlyaffirmedjustbecauseitwasareligiousconception—yes,inahighandtruesense,themostfundamentalofallreligiousconceptions.But even so, it was not to this cosmical predestination that Calvin’sthought most persistently turned, but rather to that soteriologicalpredestinationonwhich,asahelplesssinnerneedingsalvationfromthefreegraceofGod,hemustrest.AndthereforeEbrardissofarquiterightwhenhe says that predestination appears inCalvin’s systemnot as thedecretumDeibutastheelectioDei.

It is not merely controversial skill which leads Calvin to passpredestination by when he is speaking of the doctrine of God andprovidence, and to reserve it for the point where he is speaking of

salvation.This iswherehisdeepest interest lay.Whatwassuffusing hisheart and flowing in full flood into all the chambers of his soul was aprofound senseof his indebtedness as a lost sinner to the free graceofGod his Saviour. His zeal in asserting the doctrine of two-foldpredestinationisgroundedintheclearnesswithwhichheperceived—aswasindeedperceivedwithhimbyalltheReformers—thatonlysocantheevil leaven of “synergism” be eliminated and the free grace of God bepreserved in its purity in the saving process. The roots of his zeal areplanted, in a word, in his consciousness of absolute dependence as asinneronthefreemercyofasavingGod.ThesovereigntyofGodingracewasanessentialconstituentofhisdeepestreligiousconsciousness.Likehisgreatmaster,Augustine—likeLuther,Zwingli,andBucer,andalltherestofthosehighspiritswhobroughtaboutthatgreatrevivalofreligionwhichwecalltheReformation—hecouldnotendurethatthegraceofGodshouldnotreceiveallthegloryofthegloryoftherescueofsinnersfromthedestructioninwhichtheyareinvolved,andfromwhich,justbecausetheyareinvolvedinit,theyareunabletodoanythingtowardstheirownrecovery.

Thefundamental interestofCalvinasatheologianlay, it isclear, intheregionbroadlydesignatedsoteriological.Perhapswemaygofurtherandadd that, within this broad field, his interest was most intense in theapplicationtothesinfulsoulofthesalvationwroughtoutbyChrist,—inaword,inwhatistechnicallyknownastheordosalutis.Thishasevenbeenmadehisreproachinsomequarters,andwehavebeentoldthatthemainfault of the Institutesas a treatise in theological science, lies in its toosubjectivecharacter.Itseffect,atallevents,hasbeentoconstituteCalvinpre-eminentlythetheologianoftheHolySpirit.

Calvin has made contributions of the first importance to otherdepartmentsoftheologicalthought.Ithasalreadybeenobservedthathemarks an epoch in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. He alsomarks an epoch in the mode of presenting the work of Christ. ThepresentationofChrist’sworkundertherubricsofthethree-foldofficeofProphet, Priest andKingwas introduced by him: and from him it wastakenover by the entirety ofChristendom,not always, it is true, in hisspirit or with his completeness of development, but yet with large

advantage. In Christian ethics, too, his impulse proved epoch-making,and this great science was for a generation cultivated only by hisfollowers.

Itisprobable,however,thatCalvin’sgreatestcontributiontotheologicalscience lies in the rich developmentwhichhe gives—andwhichhewasthefirsttogive—tothedoctrineoftheworkoftheHolySpirit.Nodoubt,from the origin of Christianity, everyone who has been even slightlyimbuedwith the Christian spirit has believed in theHoly Spirit as theauthorandgiverof life,andhasattributedall that isgoodintheworld,andparticularlyinhimself,toHisholyoffices.And,ofcourse,intreatingofgrace,Augustineworkedout thedoctrineof salvationasa subjectiveexperiencewithgreatvividnessandingreatdetail,andthewholecourseof this salvationwas fully understood, no doubt, to be the work of theHolySpirit.Butinthesamesenseinwhichwemaysaythatthedoctrineofsinandgracedates fromAugustine, thedoctrineofsatisfactionfromAnselm,thedoctrineof justificationbyfaithfromLuther,—wemustsaythatthedoctrineoftheworkoftheHolySpiritisagiftfromCalvintotheChurch. It was he who first related the whole experience of salvationspecificallytotheworkingoftheHolySpirit,workeditoutintoitsdetails,andcontemplateditsseveralstepsandstages inorderlyprogressastheproductoftheHolySpirit’sspecificworkinapplyingsalvationtothesoul.ThushegavesystematicandadequateexpressiontothewholedoctrineoftheHolySpiritandmadeittheassuredpossessionoftheChurchofGod.

IthasbeencommontosaythatCalvin’sentiretheologicalworkmaybesummed up in this—that he emancipated the soul from the tyranny ofhuman authority and delivered it from the uncertainties of humanintermediation in religious things: that he brought the soul into theimmediate presence ofGod and cast it for its spiritual health upon thefreegraceofGodalone.WheretheRomanistplacedtheChurch,itissaid,Calvin set the Deity. The saying is true, and perhaps, when rightlyunderstood and filled with its appropriate content, it may sufficientlycharacterizetheeffectofhistheologicalteaching.Butitisexpressedtoogenerallytobeadequate.WhatCalvindidwas,specifically,toreplacethedoctrineof theChurchas sole sourceofassuredknowledgeofGodandsoleinstituteofsalvation,bytheHolySpirit.Previously,menhadlooked

totheChurchforallthetrustworthyknowledgeofGodobtainable,andaswell forall the communicationsof grace accessible.Calvin taught themthat neither function has been committed to the Church, but God theHoly Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers bothknowledgeofGodandcommunionwithGodonwhomHewill.

TheInstitutesis,accordingly,justatreatiseontheworkofGodtheHolySpirit inmakingGodsavinglyknown tosinfulman,andbringingsinfulman intoholy communionwithGod. Therefore it openswith the greatdoctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti—another of the fruitfuldoctrineswhichtheChurchowestoCalvin—inwhichheteachesthattheonly vital andvitalizingknowledgeofGodwhicha sinnercanattain, iscommunicatedtohimthroughtheinnerworkingoftheSpiritofGodinhis heart, without which there is spread in vain before his eyes therevelationofGod’sgloryintheheavens,andtherevelationofHisgraceintheperspicuouspagesoftheWord.Andtherefore,itcentresinthegreatdoctrineofRegeneration,—the term is broad enough inCalvin to coverthewholeprocessofthesubjectiverecoveryofmantoGod—inwhichheteaches that the onlypowerwhich can ever awake in a sinful heart themotionsofalivingfaith,isthepowerofthissameSpiritofGodmovingwitha truly creativeoperationon thedeadened soul.When these greatideasaredevelopedintheirfullexpression—withexplicationofall theirpresuppositionsintheloveofGodandtheredemptionofChrist,andofalltheirrelationsandconsequents—wehaveCalvin’stheology.

Nowofcourse,atheologywhichcommitseverythingtotheoperationsofthatSpiritofGodwho“workethwhenandwhereandhowHepleases,”hangs everything on the sovereign good-pleasure of God. Calvin’stheologyistherefore,predestinationtothecore,andhedoesnotfail, infaithfulness to the teachings of Scripture and with clear-eyedsystematizinggenius, todevelop itspredestinarianismwith fullnessandwithemphasis; tosee inall thatcomes topass thewillofGod fulfillingitself,andtovindicate toGod theglory that isHisdueas theLordanddisposer of all things. But this is not the peculiarity of his theology.Augustine had taught all this a thousand years before him. Luther andZwingliandMartinBucer,hisownteacherinthesehighmysteries,wereteachingitallwhilehewaslearningit.Thewholebodyoftheleadersof

the Reformation movement were teaching it along with him. What isspecialtohimselfistheclearnessandemphasisofhisreferenceofallthatGodbringstopass,especiallyintheprocessesofthenewcreation,toGodtheHolySpirit,andthedevelopmentfromthispointofviewofarichandfulldoctrineoftheworkoftheHolySpirit.

Here then is probably Calvin’s greatest contribution to theologicaldevelopment.Inhishands,forthefirsttimeinthehistoryoftheChurch,thedoctrineoftheHolySpiritcomestoitsrights.Intotheheartofnonemore than intohisdid thevisionof thegloryofGodshine,andnoonehas been more determined than he not to give the glory of God toanother.Whohasbeenmoredevoted thanhe to theSaviour,bywhosebloodhehasbeenbought?But,aboveeverythingelse, it is thesenseofthe sovereign working of salvation by the almighty power of the HolySpirit which characterizes all Calvin’s thought of God. And aboveeverythingelsehedeserves,therefore,thegreatnameofthetheologianoftheHolySpirit.

TheTheologyofJohnCalvin

byRev.B.B.WARFIELD

[ThisessayappearedinabookletpublishedbythePresbyterianBoardofEducationin1909]

ThesubjectofthisaddressisthetheologyofJohnCalvinandIshallaskleavetotakethissubjectratherbroadly,thatistosay,toattemptnotsomuch to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as atheologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determiningcharacteristicsofthetheologywhichhetaught.Iwishtospeak,inotherwords, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought whichbearsJohnCalvin'sname,andwhichalso--althoughofcoursehewasnotitsauthor,butonlyoneofitschiefexponents--bearsindeliblyimpresseduponitthemarksofhisformativehandandofhissystematizinggenius.OfalltheteacherswhohavewroughtintoittheirmindsandheartssinceitsrevivalinthattremendousreligiousupheavalwecalltheReformation,this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and hasthereforejustlybornesincethenhisname.AndofalltheserviceswhichCalvinhasrenderedtohumanity--andtheyareneitherfewnorsmall--thegreatestwasundoubtedlyhisgift to it afreshof this systemof religiousthought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it isthereforejustthatheshouldbemostwidelyrememberedbyit.WhenweareseekingtoprobetotheheartofCalvinism,weareexploringalsomostthoroughlytheheartofJohnCalvin.Calvinism ishisgreatestandmostsignificantmonument, and he who adequately understands it will bestunderstandhim.

ItwasaboutahundredyearsagothatMaxGobelfirstsetthescholarsatwork upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle ofCalvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhaustedthemselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogetherconsistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and

distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men havebusiedthemselvesrather in indicatingthepointsofdifferencebywhichCalvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than inseekingoutthegerminalprincipleofwhichititselfistheunfolding.

The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has beencontrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system ofLutheranism,withwhichitdividedtheheritageoftheReformation.Nowundoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism andLutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the distinguishing spirit ofCalvinismisduetoitsformativeprincipleandisnottobeaccountedforby extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as forexample, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superiorhumanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency tointellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravelymisleading to identifytheformativeprincipleofeithertypeofProtestantismwithitsprominentpointsofdifference fromtheothers.Theyhavevastlymore in commonthanindistinction.Andnothingcouldbemoremisleadingthantotraceall theirdifferences,as to their roots, to the fundamentalplacegiveninthe two systems respectively to the principles of predestination andjustificationbyfaith.

In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formativeprincipleofCalvinism,it isonlyitslogicalimplication.It isnottherootfrom which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it hasinevitablythrownout.AndsolittleisitthepeculiarityofCalvinism,thatit underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformationmovement--whichwas,asfromthespiritualpointofviewagreatrevivalof religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival ofAugustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among theReformersonthispoint;LutherandMelanchthonandthecompromizingButzerwerenolesszealousforabsolutepredestinationthanZwingliandCalvin.EvenZwinglicouldnotsurpassLuther insharpandunqualifiedassertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin butMelanchthonwhopaused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of theProtestantfaith,togiveitformalassertionandelaboration.

Just as little can thedoctrineof justificationby faithbe represented as

specificallyLutheran.ItisascentraltotheReformedastotheLutheransystem.Nay,itisonlyintheReformedsystemthatitretainsthepurityofits conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine ofjustificationonaccountof;insteadofby,faith.ItistruethatLutheranismis prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinismpenetrates to itscauses,andplaces faith in itsduerelation to theotherproducts of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And thisdifferencemay,ondue consideration, conductusback to the formativeprincipleofeachtypeofthought.Butit,too,isratheranoutgrowthofthedivergent formative principles than the embodiment of them.Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seekingpeace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is soabsorbedinrejoicingintheblessingswhichflowfromfaiththatitrefusesorneglectstoinquirewhencefaithitselfflows.Itthuslosesitselfinasortof divine euthumia [greek: cheerfulness], and knows, and will knownothingbeyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism askswith thesameeagernessasLutheranismthegreatquestion,"WhatshallIdotobesaved?"andanswersitpreciselyasLutheranismanswersit.Butitcannotstop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith bywhichIamjustified?"Andthedeeperresponsesuffusesallthechambersofthesoulwithpraise,"FromthefreegiftofGodalone,tothepraiseofthegloryofHisgrace."ThusCalvinismwithdrawstheeyefromthesoulanditsdestinyandfixesitonGodandHisglory.Ithaszeal,nodoubt,forsalvationbutitshighestzealisforthehonourofGod,andit isthisthatquickensitsemotionsandvitalizesitsefforts.Itbegins, itcentresanditendswiththevisionofGodinHisgloryanditsetsitself;beforeallthings,torendertoGodHisrightsineverysphereoflife-activity.

IfthustheformativeprincipleofCalvinismisnottobeidentifiedwiththepoints of difference which it has developed with its sister type ofProtestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with thoseheadsofdoctrine--severallyorinsum--whichhavebeensingledoutbyitsownrebelliousdaughter,Arminianism,asitsspeciallyvunerablepoints.The "five points of Calvinism,"we have no doubt learned to call them,andnotwithoutjustice.Theyare,eachandeveryoneofthem,essentialelements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of theiressentialdetailsislogicallytherejectionoftheentiretyofCalvinism;and

in their sum they providewhat is far from being a bad epitome of theCalvinisticsystem.ThesovereigntyoftheelectionofGod,thesubstitutivedefinitenessoftheatonementofChrist,theinabilityofthesinfulwilltogood,thecreativeenergyofthesavinggraceoftheSpirit,thesafetyoftheredeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these thedistinctiveteachingsofCalvinism,asprecioustoeveryCalvinist'sheartastheyarenecessarytotheintegrityofthesystem?Selectedastheobjectsof the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed,therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the wholeCalvinisticworld.It iswellhowevertobear inmindthattheyowetheirprominenceinourmindstotheArminiandebate,andhoweverwellfittedtheymayprove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinisticdoctrine,theyarehistoricallyatleastonlytheCalvinisticobverseof"thefive points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim,either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle ofCalvinism,whoseoutworkingintheseveraldepartmentsofdoctrinetheyratherare--thoughofcoursetheymaysurelyanddirectlyconductusbacktothatformativeprinciple,astheonlyrootoutofwhichjustthisbodyofdoctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stockwhich bears thesebranchesmustlieamostprofoundsenseofGodandanequallyprofoundsense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whetherconceivedmerelyascreatureor,morespecificallyassinfulcreature.ItisthevisionofGodandHisMajesty,inaword,whichliesatthefoundationoftheentiretyofCalvinisticthinking.

Theexact formulationof theformativeprincipleofCalvinism,as Ihavesaid,hastaxedtheacumenofalonglineofdistinguishedthinkers.Manymodes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, itssimpleststatement is thebest. It lies then, letmerepeat, inaprofoundapprehensionofGodinHismajesty,withthepoignantrealizationwhichinevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained toGodbythecreatureassuch,andparticularlybythesinfulcreature.TheCalvinististhemanwhohasseenGod,andwho,havingseenGodinHisglory,isfilledontheonehand,withasenseofhisownunworthinesstostandinGod'ssightasacreature,andmuchmoreasasinner,andontheotherhand,withadoringwonderthatneverthelessthisGodisaGodwhoreceives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is

determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling,willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral,spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, bytheforceofthatstrictestofalllogicwhichpresidesovertheoutworkingof principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, aCalvinist.

Ifwewishtoreducethisstatementtoamoreformaltheoreticalform,wemay say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies threethings. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii)subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii)soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its fullexpressionand its secure stability.Theismcomes to its rightsonly in ateleologicalviewoftheuniverse,whichrecognizesinthewholecourseofevents the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will isconsequentlyconceivedastheultimatecauseofallthings.Thereligiousrelationattains itspurityonlywhenanattitudeofabsolutedependenceon God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but issustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional,executive.Andevangelical religionreaches its fullmanifestationand itsstableformonlywhenthesinfulsoulrestsinhumble,self-emptyingtrustpurely on theGodof grace as the immediate and sole source of all theefficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine outupon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is themanwhoseesGodbehindallphenomena,andinallthatoccursrecognizesthehandofGod,workingoutHiswill;whomakestheattitudeofthesoultoGod in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and whocasts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace ofdependenceonselffromthewholeworkofhissalvation.

IthinkitimportanttoinsistherethatCalvinismisnotaspecificvarietyoftheisticthought,religiousexperience,evangelicalfaith,buttheperfectexpressionofthesethings.Thedifferencebetweenitandotherformsoftheism,religion,evangelicalism,isadifferencenotofkindbutofdegree.Therearenotmanykindsof theism, religion,evangelicalism,eachwithitsownspecialcharacteristics,amongwhichmenareatlibertytochoose,as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism,

religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions layingclaim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlativespeciesofamore inclusivegenus,butonlyasmoreor lessgoodorbadspecimensofthesamethingdifferfromoneanother.

Calvinismcomesforwardsimplyaspuretheism,religion,evangelicalism,asoveragainstlesspuretheism,religion,evangelicalism.Itdoesnottakeits position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes itsplaceoverthem,aswhattheytoooughttobe.Ithasnodifficultythus,inrecognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, thereligiousnoteinallreallyreligiousmanifestations,theevangelicalqualityof all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically overagainst these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them ineveryinstanceoftheiremergenceasitsown,andseeksonlytogivethemtheir due place in thought and life.Whoever believes in God, whoeverrecognizeshisdependenceonGod,whoeverhearsinhishearttheechoofthe SoliDeo gloria of the evangelical profession--bywhatever name hemaycallhimself;bywhatever logicalpuzzleshisunderstandingmaybeconfused--Calvinismrecognizessuchasitsown,andasonlyrequiringtogivefullvaliditytothosefundamentalprincipleswhichunderlieandgiveitsbodytoalltruereligiontobecomeexplicitlyaCalvinist.

Calvinism isborn,weperceive,of thesenseofGod.God fills thewholehorizonof theCalvinist's feeling and thought.Oneof the consequenceswhichflowfromthis isthehighsupernaturalismwhichinformsatoncehis religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinismindeedwouldnotbebadlydefinedasthetendencywhichisdeterminedto do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in thesecond creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of thesupernaturalFact (which isGod)removesall embarrassment from it inthe presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everythingwhichentersintotheprocessoftherecoveryofsinfulmantogoodandtoGod,itisimpelledbytheforceofitsfirstprincipletoassigntheinitiativetoGod.AsupernaturalrevelationinwhichGodmakesknowntomanHiswillandHispurposesofgrace;asupernaturalrecordoftherevelationina supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelationpermanenceandextension ,--suchthingsare to theCalvinistmattersof

course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmoststrenuousnessonthe immediate supernaturalnessof theactualworkofredemption;thisofcourse,initsimpetration.ItisnostraintohisfaithtobelieveinasupernaturalRedeemer,breakingHiswaytoearththroughaVirgin'swomb,burstingthebondsofdeathandreturningtoHisFather'sside to share the glorywhichHe hadwith the Father before theworldwas.NorcanhedoubtthatthissupernaturallypurchasedredemptionisappliedtothesoulinanequallysupernaturalworkoftheHolySpirit.

Thus it comes about thatmonergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace,""effectualcalling,"ouroldertheologianscalledit,--becomesthehingeoftheCalvinistic soteriology, and liesmuchmoredeeply imbedded in thesystem than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in thepopular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestinationitself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to theimmediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of hissoteriologyisabsoluteexclusionofcreaturelyefficiencyintheinductionof the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may bemagnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's completedependenceassinnersonthefreemercyofasavingGod;orextrudetheevilleavenofsynergism,bywhichGodisrobbedofHisgloryandmanisencouraged toattribute to somepower, someact, some initiativeofhisown,hisparticipationinthatsalvationwhichinrealityhascometohimfrompuregrace.

There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face withmore firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Aboveeverything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son JesusChrist,actingthroughtheHolySpiritwhomHehassent,asourveritableSaviour.ToCalvinism,sinfulmanstandsinneed,notofinducementsorassistance tosavehimself;butpreciselyof saving;andJesusChristhascomenottoadvise,orurge,orwoo,orhelphimtosavehimself;buttosavehim;tosavehimthroughtheprevalentworkingonhimoftheHolySpirit.ThisistherootoftheCalvinisticsoteriology,anditisbecausethisdeep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness ofindebtednessforallthatentersintosalvationtothefreegraceofGodisthe root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor

cordisof theGospel.Hewhoknowsthat it isGodwhohaschosenhim,andnothewhohaschosenGod,andthatheoweseverystepandstageofhissalvationtotheworkingoutofthischoiceofGod,wouldbeaningrateindeedifhegavenotthewholegloryofhissalvationtotheinexplicableelectionoftheDivinelove.

Calvinismhowever,isnotmerelyasoteriology.Deepasitsinterestisinsalvation,itcannotescapethequestion--"WhyshouldGodthusinterveneinthelivesofsinnerstorescuethemfromtheconsequencesoftheirsin?"Anditcannotmisstheanswer--"BecauseitistothepraiseofthegloryofHisgrace."Thus it cannotpauseuntil it places the schemeof salvationitself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomessubsidiary to thegloryof theLordGodAlmighty. If all thingsare fromGod,sotoCalvinismallthingsarealsountoGod,andtoitGodwillbeallinall.ItisbornofthereflectionintheheartofmanofthegloryofaGodwhowillnotgiveHishonourtoanother,anddrawsitslifefromconstantgazeuponthisgreatimage.Andletusnotfailpunctuallytonote,that"itistheonlysysteminwhichthewholeorderoftheworldisthusbroughtinto a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which theglorificationofGodiscarriedoutwithabsolutecompleteness."ThereforethefutureofChristianity--asitspasthasdone--liesinitshands.For,itiscertainly.true, ashasbeen saidbyaprofound thinkerof our own time,that"itisonlywithsuchauniversalconceptionofGod,establishedinaliving way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all thespiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the samethinkercontinues,"isdeepenoughandlargeenoughanddivineenough,rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all invindicationof theCreator,PreserverandGovernorof theworld,andoftheJusticeandLoveofthedivinePersonality."

This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of whichJohnCalvingaveallhispowersnearlyfourhundredyearsago.Anditischieflybecausehegaveallhispowerstocommendingtousthissystemofdoctrine,thatweareheretodaytothankGodforgivingtotheworldthemanwhohasgiventotheworldthispreciousgift.

CalvinismToday

byBenjaminB.Warfield

THEsubjectofthisaddressinvolvesthedeterminationofamatteroffact,aboutwhich it isnoteasy to feel fullyassured.What is thepresent-dayattitude towards Calvinism? The answer to this question is apt to varywiththepointofsightoftheobserver,orratherwiththehorizonwhichhiseyesurveys.

Ourlearningtodayis“madeinGermany”,ourculturecomestouslargelyfrom England. And the German learning of the day has a sadlyrationalistic tendency;whichissuperimposed,moreover,onaLutheranfoundation thathasanoddwayof croppingupandprotruding itself inunexpectedplaces.Similarly,Englishcultureisnotmerelyshotthrough.but stained through and through with an Anglican colouring.LutheranismwaseverintolerantofCalvinism.Anglicanismwascertainlynever patient of it. Naturalism is its precise contradictory. He whobreathestheatmosphereofbooks,therefore—whetherbooksoferuditionorbooksofpureliterature—isapttofinditstiflingtohisCalvinism.

Thereis,ofcourse,anothersidetothematter.Theremayvery likelybemoreCalvinistsintheworldtodaythaneverbefore,andevenrelatively,the professedly Calvinistic churches are no doubt holding their own.There are important tendencies ofmodern thoughtwhichplay into thehands of this or that Calvinistic conception. Above all, there are to befoundeverywherehumble souls,who, in thequiet of retired lives,havecaughtavisionofGodinHisgloryandarecherishingintheirheartsthatvitalflameofcompletedependenceonHimwhichistheveryessenceofCalvinism.

On thewhole, however, I thinkwemust allow, especiallywhenwe arecontemplating the trend of current thought, that the fortunes ofCalvinism are certainly not at their flood. Thosewhose heritage itwas,have in large numbers drifted away from it. Those who still formally

professitdonotalwaysillustrateitinlifeorproclaimitinword.

There remains, however, undoubtedly a remnant according to theelectionofgrace.Buttheconditionofaremnant,whileitmaywellbeahealthfulone—bearinginit,asafruitfulseed,thepromiseandpotencyoffutureexpansion—islittleLikelytobeahappyone.Unfriendlyfacesmeetitoneveryside; ifdoubtandhesitationarenotengendered,as leastanapologetical attitude is fostered, and an apologetical attitude is notbecominginCalvinists,whosetrustisintheLordGodAlmighty.Insuchasituation,Calvinismseemsshornofitsstrengthandistemptedtostandfearfulandhalf-ashamedinthemartsofmen.Ihavenowishtopaintthesituation in too dark colours; I fully believe that Calvinism, as it hassupplied the sinew of evangelical Christianity in the past, so is it itsstrengthinthepresentanditshopeforthefuture.Meanwhile,doesitnotseem, in large circles at all events, to be thrown very much on thedefensive? In themeasure inwhichyou feel this tobe the case, in thatmeasure you will be prepared to ask with me for the causes andsignificanceofthisstateofthings.

Weshouldbegin,Ithink,byrecallingpreciselywhatCalvinismis.Itmaybefairlysummedupinthesethreepropositions.Calvinismis(1)Theismcome to its rights. Calvinism is (2) Religion at the height of itsconception.Calvinismis(3)Evangelicalisminitspurestandmoststableexpression.

(1) Calvinism, I say, is Theism come to its rights. For in what doesTheismcome to its rightsbut ina telelogicalviewof theuniverse?For,thoughtherebethatarecalledgods,whether inheavenoronearth—astherearegodsmanyandlordsconceivedbymen—yettotheTheisttherecanbebutoneGod,ofwhomareallthingsanduntowhomareallthings.Yousee,wehavealreadyslippedintotheCalvinisticformula,“ThewillofGod is thecauseof things.” I donot say, youwill observe, thatTheismandCalvinismhavepointsofaffinity,lieclosetooneanother;Isaytheyare identical. 1 say that the Theismwhich is truly Theism, consistentlyTheism, all that Theism to be really Theism must be, is already inprincipleCalvinism;thatCalvinisminitscosmologicalaspect isnothingmore than Theism in its purity. To fall away from Calvinism is to fallaway,byjustsomuch,fromatrulytheisticconceptionoftheuniverse.Of

course then, to fall away in any degree from a pure Theism in ourconception of things is just by thatmuch to fall away from Calvinism.Wherever in our view of the world an imperfect Theism has crept in,thereCalvinismhasbecomeimpossible.

(2)Calvinism,Ihavesaid,isreligionattheheightof itsconception,for,whatever elsemay enter into the conscious religious relation,—a vaguefeelingofmystery,astrugglingreachingouttowardstheinfinite,adeepsentimentofreverenceandawe,akeenrecognitionordullapprehensionof responsibility,—certainly its substance lies in a sense of absolutedependence upon a Supreme Being. I do not say, youwill observe, anabsolutefeelingofdependence,which,intheSchleiermacherianmeaningatleastofafeelingwithoutintellectualcontent,wereanabsurdity.WhatIsayis,thatreligioninitssubstanceisasenseofabsolutedependenceonGod and reaches the height of its conception only when this sense ofabsolute dependence is complete and all-pervasive, in the thought andfeelingandlife.ButwhenthisstageisreachedwehavejustCalvinism.

ForwhatisCalvinismbutthetheisticalexpressionofreligion,conceivedasabsolutedependenceonGod?Whereverwefindreligioninitspurity,therefore,thereCalvinismisimplicit.Idonotsay,observeagain,thatanapproachtoCalvinismistraceablethere,inlessorgreatermeasure.Isay,there Calvinism is—implicit indeed, but really present. Religion in itspurityisCalvinisminlife,andyoucanfallawayfromCalvinismonlybyjustinthatmeasurefallingawayfromreligion;andyoudofallawayfromCalvinismjustinproportionasyoufallawayfromreligioninitspurity.Itis,however,dreadfullyeasytofallawayfromreligionattheheightofitsconception.Wemayassumethetrulyreligiousattitudeofheartandmindforamoment;itishardtomaintainitandgiveitunbrokendominanceinourthought,feeling,andaction.Oursoul’sattitudeinprayer—thatisthereligiousattitudeatitsheight.ButdowepreservetheattitudeweassumeinprayertowardsGod,whenwerisefromourknees?OrdoesourAmen!cutitoffatonce,anddowegoonaboutouraffairsinanentirelydifferentmood?Now,Calvinismmeans just thepreservation, in all our thinkingandfeelingandaction,oftheattitudeofutterdependenceonGodwhichweassumeinprayer.Itisthemoodofreligionmadedeterminativeofallour thinking and feeling andwilling. It is therefore conterminous with

religionintheheightofitsconception.Whereverreligioninanymeasurelosesholdofthereinsoflifeandourimmanentthoughthasslippedawayfromitscontrol,—thereCalvinismhasbecomeimpossible.

(3)Ihavesaidtoo,thatCalvinismisevangelicalisminitspureandonlystableexpression.Whenwesayevangelicalismwesaysinandsalvation.Evangelicalismisasoteriologicalconception,itimpliessin,andsalvationfrom sin. There may be religion without evangelicalism. We may gofurther: religionmight conceivably exist at the height of its conceptionand evangelicalism be lacking. But not in sinners. Evangelicalism isreligionat theheightof its conceptionas it forms itself in thehearts ofsinners. It means utter dependence on God for salvation. It implies,therefore,needofsalvationandaprofoundsenseofthisneed,alongwithan equally profound sense of helplessness in thepresence of this need,andutterdependenceonGodforitssatisfaction.Itstypeisfoundinthepublican who smote his breast and cried, “God, be merciful to me asinner!”Noquestion thereof savinghimself, or ofhelpingGod to savehim,orofopeningthewaytoGodtosavehim.Noquestionofanythingbut,“Iamasinner,andallmyhopeis inGodmySaviour!”NowthisisCalvinism;not,noteoncemore,somethinglikeCalvinismoranapproachtoCalvinism,butjustCalvinisminitsvitalmanifestation.Whereverthisattitude of heart is found and is given expression in direct andunambiguous terms, there isCalvinism.Wherever thisattitudeofmindand heart is fallen away from, in however small a measure, thereCalvinismhasbecomeimpossible.

ForCalvinism,inthissoteriologicalaspectofit,isjusttheperceptionandexpression anddefence of the utter dependence of the soul on the freegraceofGodforsalvation.Allitsso-calledhardfeatures—itsdoctrineoforiginalsin,yes,speakitrightout,itsdoctrineoftotaldepravityandtheentireinabilityofthesinfulwilltogood;itsdoctrineofelection,or,toputitinthewordseverywherespokenagainst,itsdoctrineofpredestinationandpreterition,of reprobation itself—mean just thisandnothingmore.CalvinismwillnotplayfastandloosewiththefreegraceofGod.Itissetupon giving to God, and to God alone, the glory and all the glory ofsalvation. There are others than Calvinists, no doubt, who would fainmakethesamegreatconfession.Buttheymakeitwithreserves,orthey

painfullyjustifythemakingofitbysometenuoustheorywhichconfusesnatureandgrace.Theyleavelogicalpitfallsonthissideorthat,andthedifferencebetween logicalpitfallsandotherpitfalls is that thewayfarermay fall into theothers,but theplainman, justbecausehis isa simplemind,mustfallintothose.Calvinismwillleavenologicalpitfallsandwillmakenoreserves.Itwillhavenothingtodowiththeorieswhosefunctionit is to explain away facts. It confesses, with a heart full of adoringgratitude,thattoGod,andtoGodalone,belongssalvationandthewholeofsalvation;thatHeitis,andHealone,whoworkssalvationinitswholereach. Any falling away in the slightest measure from this greatconfession is to fall away fromCalvinism.Any intrusion of any humanmerit, or act, or disposition, or power, as ground or cause or occasion,into the process of divine salvation,—whether in the way of power toresist or of ability to improve grace, of the opening of the soul to thereceptionofgrace,orof theemploymentofgracealreadyreceived—isabreachwithCalvinism.

CalvinismisthecastingofthesoulwhollyonthefreegraceofGodalone,to whom alone belongs salvation. And, such being the nature ofCalvinism,itseemsscarcelynecessarytoinquirewhyitsfortunesappearfrom time to time, and now again in our own time, to suffer somedepression.Itcannomoreperishoutof theearththanthesenseofsincanpassoutoftheheartofsinfulhumanity—thanthesenseofGodcanfade out of the minds of dependent creatures—than God Himself canperishoutoftheheavens.ItsfortunesareboundupwiththefortunesofTheism, religion, evangelicalism; for it is just Theism, religion,evangelicalisminthepurityoftheirconceptionandmanifestation.Inthepurity of their conception and manifestation—there is the seat of thedifficulty. It is proverbially hard to retain, much more to maintain,perfection. And how can precisely these things be maintained at theirheight? Consider the currents of thought flowing up and down in theworld,tending—IdonotnowsaytoobliteratetheperceptionoftheGodofall;atheisticnaturalism,materialisticorpantheisticevolutionism—buttobluntorobscureourperceptionofthedivinehandinthesequenceofeventsandtheissuesofthings.Considertheprideofman,hisassertionof freedom, his boast of power, his refusal to acknowledge the sway ofanother’swill.Considertheingrainedconfidenceofthesinnerinhisown

fundamentallygoodnatureandhisfullabilitytoperformallthatcanbejustlydemandedofhim.

Is it strange that in this world, in this particular age of this world, itshouldprovedifficulttopreservenotonlyactive,butvividanddominant,theperceptionoftheeverywheredetermininghandofGod,thesenseofabsolutedependenceonHim,theconvictionofutterinabilitytodoeventhe least thing to rescue ourselves from sin—at the height of theirconceptions? Is it not enough to account for whatever depressionCalvinismmay be suffering in theworld today, to point to the naturaldifficulty—inthismaterialisticage,consciousofitsnewlyrealizedpowersoveragainsttheforcesofnatureandfilledwiththeprideofachievementandofmaterialwell-being—ofguardingourperceptionof thegoverninghandofGod inall things, in itsperfection;ofmaintainingour senseofdependenceonahigherpower in full force;ofpreservingour feelingofsin, unworthiness, and helplessness in its profundity? Is not thedepressionofCalvinism,sofarasitisreal,significantmerelyofthis,thattoouragethevisionofGodhasbecomesomewhatobscuredinthemidstofaboundingmaterial triumphs, thatthereligiousemotionhas insomemeasure ceased to be the determining force in life, and that theevangelical attitude of complete dependence onGod for salvation doesnot readily commend itself tomenwho are accustomed to lay forcefulhandsoneverythingelse theywish,andwhodonotquite seewhy theymaynottakeheavenalsobystorm?

Such suggestions may seem to you rather general, perhaps evensomewhatindefinite.Theyneverthelessappeartometoembodythetrue,andthewhole,accountofwhateverdepressionoffortunesCalvinismmaybe suffering today. In our current philosophies, whether monisticevolutionismorpluralisticpragmatism,Theismisfarfromcomingtoitsrights. In the strenuous activities of our materialized life, religion haslittleopportunitytoassertitselfinitspurity.Inourrestlessassertionofour personal power andworth, evangelicalism easily falls back into thebackground. In an atmosphere created by such a state of things, howcouldCalvinismthrive?

Wemay,ofcourse,presson toamorespecificaccountof itsdepressedfortunes.Butinattemptingtobemorespecific,whatcanwedobutsingle

out particular aspects of the general situation for special remark? It ispossible, indeed, that the singling out of one of these aspectsmay giveclearness and point to the general fact, and it may be worth-while,therefore,toattendtooneofthesespecialaspectsforamoment.

Letusobserve then, thatCalvinism isonlyanothernameforconsistentsupernaturalisminreligion.ThecentralfactofCalvinismisthevisionofGod.Itsdeterminingprincipleiszealforthedivinehonour.WhatitsetsitselftodoistorendertoGodHisrightsineverysphereoflife-activity.Inthisitbegins,andcentres,andends.Itisthisthatissaid,whenitissaidthat it is Theism come to its rights, since in that case everything thatcomestopassisviewedasthedirectoutworkingofthedivinepurpose—whenit issaidthat it isreligionat theheightof itsconception,since inthatcaseGodisconsciouslyfeltasHiminwhomweliveandmoveandhaveourbeing—whenitissaidthatitisevangelicalisminitspurity,sinceinthatcasewecastourselvesassinners,withoutreserve,whollyonthemercyof thedivine grace. It is this senseofGod, ofGod’spresence, ofGod’spower,ofGod’sall-pervadingactivity—mostofallintheprocessofsalvation—whichconstitutesCalvinism.WhentheCalvinistgazesintothemirroroftheworld,whethertheworldofnatureorthe,worldofevents,his attention is held not by the mirror itself (with. the cunningconstruction of which scientific investigations may no doubt veryproperlybusythemselves),butbytheFaceofGodwhichheseesreflectedtherein. When the Calvinist contemplates the religious life, he is lessconcerned with the psychological nature and relations of the emotionswhichsurgethroughthesoul(withwhichthevotariesofthenewscienceofthepsychologyofreligionareperhapsnotquiteunfruitfullyengagingthemselves), than with the divine Source from which they spring, thedivineObjectonwhichtheytakehold.WhentheCalvinistconsidersthestateofhis souland thepossibilityof its rescue fromdeathandsin,hemaynot indeedbeblind to the responseswhich itmayby the graceofGodbeenabledtomaketothedivinegrace,butheabsorbshimselfnotinthembutinit,andseesineverystepofhisrecoverytogoodandtoGodthealmightyworkingofGod’sgrace.

TheCalvinist,inaword,isthemanwhoseesGod.HehascaughtsightoftheineffableVision,andhewillnotletitfadeforamomentfromhiseyes

—Godinnature,Godinhistory,Godingrace.EverywhereheseesGodinHismightystepping,everywherehefeelstheworkingofHismightyarm,the throbbingofHismightyheart.TheCalvinist is therefore,bywayofeminence,thesupernaturalistintheworldofthought.Theworlditselfistohimasupernaturalproduct.notmerelyinthesensethatsomewhere,awaybackbeforeall time,Godmade it,but thatGod ismaking itnow,and in every event that falls out. In everymodification ofwhat is, thattakes place, His hand is visible, as through all occurrences His “oneincreasingpurposeruns”.ManhimselfisHis—createdforHisglory,andhavingastheonesupremeendofhisexistencetoglorifyhisMaker,andhaplyalsotoenjoyHimforever.Andsalvation,ineverystepandstageofit,isofGod.ConceivedinGod’slove,wroughtoutbyGod’sownSoninasupernatural life and death in this world of sin, and applied by God’sSpirit in a series of acts as supernatural as the virgin birth and theresurrection of the Son of God themselves—it is a supernatural workthrough and through. To the Calvinist, thus, the Church of God is asdirect a creation of God as the first creation itself. In thissupernaturalism,thewholethoughtandfeelingandlifeoftheCalvinistissteeped.Without it there canbe noCalvinism, for it is just this that isCalvinism.

Now the age in which we live is anything but supernaturalistic; it isdistinctly hostile to supernaturalism. Its most striking characteristic isprecisely itsdeeplyrootedandwidereachingrationalismofthoughtandsentiment.Weknowtheoriginof thismodernnaturalism;wecantraceitshistory.Whatitisofmoreimportancetoobserve,however,isthatwecannot escape its influence. On its rise in the latter part of theseventeenthcenturyanewerabegan,anerainwhichmenhavehadlittlethought for the rights of God in their absorption in the rights ofman.EnglishDeism, FrenchEncyclopaedism,German Illuminism—these aresomeof the fruits it has borne in the progress of its development.Andnowithasatlengthruntoseedinourowndayinwhatarrogatestoitselfthe name of the New Protestantism—that New Protestantism whichrepudiatesLutherandallhisfervidways,andturnsratherforitsspiritualparentagetothereligiousindifferentismofErasmus.Ithasinvadedwithitssolventeveryformofthoughtandeveryactivityoflife.Ithasgivenusa naturalistic philosophy (in which all “being” is evaporated into

“becoming”),anaturalisticscience(thesingle-mindedzealofwhichistoeliminate design from the universe); a naturalistic politics (whose firstfruitswastheFrenchRevolution,andwhoselastmaywellbeanatheisticsocialism);anaturalistichistory (whichcanscarcely findplace forevenhuman personality among the causes of events); and a naturalisticreligion,which says, “Hands off” toGod— if indeed it troubles itself toconsider whether there be a God, if there be a God, whether He be aperson,orifHebeaperson,whetherHecanorwillconcernHimselfwithmen.

You,whoareministersof thegospel,havebeengreatly cloggedby thisnaturalism of current thought in the prosecution of your calling. Howmanyofthosetowhomyouwouldcarrythemessageofgracedoyoufindpreoccupied with a naturalistic prejudice? Who of your acquaintancereallypositsGodasafactorinthedevelopmentoftheworld?Howoftenhave you been exhorted to seek a “natural” progress for the course ofeventsinhistory?Yes,evenforthehistoryofredemption.So,evenintheregionofyourowntheologicalscienceanewBiblehasbeengiventoyou—not offered to youmerely, but violently thrust upon you, as the onlyBible a rational man can receive—a new Bible reconstructed on theprinciple of natural development, torn to pieces and rearranged underthe overmastering impulse to find a “natural” order of sequence for itsbooks, and a “natural” course of development for the religion whoserecordsitpreserves.ButwhystopwiththeBible?YourdivineRedeemerHimself has been reconstructed, on the same naturalistic lines. For acenturyandahalfnow—fromReimarustoWrede—alloftheresolvesofanagepre-eminentforscholarshiphavebeenbent to the taskofgivingyoua“natural”Jesus.WhytalkhereofthemiraclesoftheOldTestamentor of theNew? It is theMiracle of the Old Testament and of theNewwhich is really brought into the question.Why dispute as to the virginbirthandtheresurrectionofJesus?ItistheeliminationofJesusHimself,as aught but a simple man of His day—in nothing, except perhaps anunusually vivid religious experience, differentiated from other GalileanpeasantsofHistime—thatthenaturalisticfrenzyofourageissetupon.Andsofuriouslyhas the taskbeendrivenon, that thechoice that issetbeforeusattheendofthedayis,practically,betweennoJesusatallorafanatic,nottosayaparanoiacJesus.

Inthisanti-supernaturalisticatmosphere,isitstrangethatmenfindthepure supernaturalism of the Calvinistic confession difficult—that theywaverintheirfirmconfidencethatitisGodwhoreignsinheavenandonearth,thatinHimweallliveandmoveandhaveourbeing—thatitisHe,andnotourselves,whocreatesinuseveryimpulsetogood—andthatitisHis almighty arm alone that can rescue us from sin and bring to ourhelplesssoulssalvation?Isitstrangethathere,too,mentravelthebroadroadbeatensmoothbymanyfeet—thattheCalvinisticgateseemsnarrowsothatfewtherebethatfindit,andtheCalvinisticwaysostraitenedthatfewtherebewhogointhereat?

But let us make no mistake here. For here, too, Calvinism is justChristianity.ThesupernaturalismforwhichCalvinismstandsistheverybreathofthenostrilsofChristianity;withoutitChristianitycannotexist.And letusnot imagine thatwecanpickandchoosewithrespect to theaspectsofthissupernaturalismwhichweacknowledge—thatwemay,forexample, retain supernaturalism in the origination of Christianity. andforego the supernaturalism with which Calvinism is more immediatelyconcerned, the supernaturalism of the application of Christianity. Menwillnotbelievethatareligion,theactualworkingofwhichintheworldisnatural,canhaverequiredtobeusheredintotheworldwithsupernaturalpompanddisplay.Thesesupernaturalsstandorfalltogether.

AsupernaturalRedeemerisnotneededforanaturalsalvation.Ifwecan,anddo,saveourselves;itweregrosslyincongruousthatGodshouldcomedown fromheaven`to saveus, trailing cloudsof glorywithHimasHecame.The logicof theSociniansystemgaveusatonceahumanChristandanauto-sotericreligion..Thesamelogicwillworktoday,and,`everydaytilltheendoftime.Itisonlyforatrulysupernaturalsalvationthatatruly supernatural redemption, or a truly supernatural Redeemer, isdemanded,—or canbebelieved in.And this reveals tous the real placewhichCalvinismholdsinthecontroversiesoftoday,andtheserviceitisto render in the preservation of Christianity for the future. Only theCalvinist is the consistent supernaturalist, and only consistentsupernaturalismcansavesupernaturalreligionfortheworld.

The supernatural fact, which is God; the supernatural act, which ismiracle; the supernatural work, which is the revealed will of God; the

supernatural redemption,which is thedivinedeedof thedivineChrist;thesupernaturalsalvationwhichisthedivineworkofthedivineSpirit,—these things forma system,andyoucannotdrawone itemoutwithoutshaking the whole. What Calvinism particularly asserts is thesupernaturalism of salvation, as the immediate work of God the HolySpiritinthesoul,byvirtueofwhichwearemadenewcreaturesinChristourRedeemer,andframedintothesonsofGodtheFather.Anditisonlyhewhoheartily believes in the supernaturalismof salvationwho is notfatallyhandicappedinmeetingtheassaultsofthatanti-supernaturalisticworldviewwhichflauntsitselfsotriumphantlyaboutus.Concealitfromourselvesaswemay,defeathereliesathwartthepathofallhalf-heartedschemesandcompromisingconstructions.Thisiswhatwasmeantbythelate Dr. H. Boynton Smith, when he declared roundly: “One thing iscertain,—that Infidel Science will rout everything exceptingthoroughgoingChristianorthodoxy. . . .Thefightwillbebetweenastiffthoroughgoingorthodoxyandastiff thoroughgoing infidelity. Itwillbe,for example, Augustine or Comte, Athanasius or Hegel, Luther orSchopenhauer,J.S.MillorJohnCalvin.”Thiswitnessistrue.

We cannot be supernaturalistic in patches of our thinking andnaturalistic insubstance.Wecannotbesupernaturalisticwith regard tothe remote facts ofhistory, andnaturalisticwith regard to the intimateeventsofexperience.Wecannotbesupernaturalisticwithregardtowhatoccurred two thousand years ago in Palestine, and simply naturalisticwith regard to what occurs today in our hearts. No form of Christiansupernaturalismcanbeultimatelymaintained inanydepartmentof lifeorthought,exceptitcarrywithitthesupernaturalismofsalvation.Andaconsistent supernaturalism of salvation is only another name forCalvinism.

Calvinism thus emerges to our sight as nothing more or less than thehopeoftheworld.