Calvin's Doctrine of The Church - B. C. Milner Jr.

BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.
CALVIN’S DOCTEIN] j
OF
THE CHURCH
THOMAS J. BATA LIBRARY
TRENT UNIVERSITY
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/calvinsdoctrineoOOOOmiln
CALVIN’S DOCTRINE
OF
THE CHURCH
STUDIES IN THE HISTORY
OF
CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
EDITED BY
HEIKO A. OBERMAN, Tubingen
IN COOPERATION WITH
HENRY CHADWICK, Oxford

EDWARD A. DOWEY, Princeton, N.J.
JAROSLAV PELIKAN, New Haven, Conn.
BRIAN TIERNEY, Ithaca, N.Y.
VOLUME V
CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1970
CALVIN’S DOCTRINE
OF
THE CHURCH
BY
LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1970
Copyright 1970 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
TO MARY JANE
£38026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface . ix
List of Abbreviations .xn
Introduction. 1
I. Calvins’s Conception of Order. 7
II. The Restoration of Order . 46
III. The Fulfillment of the Covenant. 71
IV. The Marks of the Church. 99
V. The Ministry and Worship of the Church.134
VI. The Church as the Kingdom and Body of Christ.164
VII. Conclusion.190
Appendix. The Secret Impulse of the Spirit.197
Bibliography.204
Index.208
PREFACE
The selection of Calvin’s doctrine of the church as the subject for

a doctoral dissertation at Harvard University originally grew out of
an ecumenical concern, and so out of a felt responsibility to do
within the Reformed tradition what seemed to me ought to be
done for all the branches of Christendom, vi\., to re-examine the
foundations. Further impetus was added by the apparent lag between
Calvin’s high regard for the church and the lack of concern for
it among his theological descendants, an indifference which — or
so it seemed to me—was surely related to the church’s tendancy
to define itself in terms of new construction, membership drives,
programs, budgets and the like. I felt the absence of a theological
understanding of the church in the most intense way, and so turned
to Calvin for instruction and guidance. Either way, it was my own
concern for the church which initially inspired the present study.
In the course of my investigations, however, I became increasingly
aware that in working with Calvin’s doctrine of the church I was not
laboring with an isolated aspect of his theology, but was, in fact,
being led straight into the center of his thought. The very same
discovery had been made some twenty-five years earlier in an article
by Peter Barth, „Calvins Verstandnis der Kirche;” in the interval,
however, no one came forward to develop the argument. The possi¬
bility, therefore, that this study might have some relevance for our
understanding of the total structure of Calvin’s theology (eventually
growing into a conviction) finally displaced the earlier interest as a
primary source of motivation.
It has been necessary to consult most of the works of Calvin in
the completion of this study, including besides the Institutes of the
Christian Religion his commentaries on the Scriptures and many
smaller treatises as well. The basic sources for these works are the
critically established text of the Institutes to be found in Johannis
Calvini Opera Selecta, edited by P. Barth and W. Niesel, and volumes
XXIX-LXXXVIII of the Corpus Reformatorum, edited by G. Baum,
E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, et. al., which includes all the extant works of
Calvin. Because the thought of Calvin has itself become the object
of much scholarly inquiry—especially since World War I—it has also
been helpful and necessary to consider a sizable body of interpretive
X PREFACE
material, as well as pertinent studies of a more general nature.

In working with the Institutes, commentaries on the Scriptures,
and theological treatises, I have freely used the translations of scholars,
whose proficiency in this regard is greater than my own. I have,
however, frequently altered these where the original Latin or French
seemed to require it, and have occasionally dispensed with them
altogether in favor of my own reading. While the actual basis for
all the citations from Calvin’s works, then, is the original text, the
reader should have no difficulty in locating them in the various
translations. To that end I have cited for most quotations the precise
location both in the source for the original text and in its correspond¬
ing translation.
I should like to record here my gratitude to Professor Dr. H. A.
Oberman, Direktor, Institut fur Reformationsgeschichte der Uni-
versitat Tubingen, for incorporating this text in the series of which
he is the editor, “Studies in the History of Christian Thought”.
I owe, besides, a special word of thanks to Professor Paul L.
Lehmann, Union Theological Seminary, for initial inspiration and
guidance; to Professors Richard R. Niebuhr, Harvard University,
and Herbert W. Richardson, St. Michael’s College, Toronto, for con¬
cluding impetus and sound criticism; and, above all, to my wife and
family for loving patience, assistance, and understanding.
St. John’s College Benjamin Milner
Annapolis, Maryland
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
(See Bibliography for complete information)
CO Ioannis Calvini Opera quae super sunt omnia

Comm. Calvin's Commentaries
Inst. Institutes of the Christian Religion
LCC The Library of Christian Classics
OS fohannis Calvini Opera Selecta
T & T Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises
INTRODUCTION
If we inquire after Calvin’s doctrine of the church, we are naturally-

led to look for it first in Book IV of the Institutes of the Christian
Religion, “The External Means or Aids by which God invites us into
the Society of Christ and holds us therein.” Certainly, much is to be
found there, including extensive discussions of the “marks” of the
church, the sacraments, ministerial orders and discipline. But Calvin’s
doctrine of the church, i.e., his theologically unified conception of
it, cannot be drawn alone, or even principally, from Book IV of the
Institutes. That is so, first of all, because certain especially cogent
topics are not touched upon there. For example, Calvin’s treatment of
worship (under the heading of prayer) and his discussion of the
Christian life (surely not to be thought of apart from the church)
are to be found in Book III, rather than Book IV. Secondly, at least
one-half of the Book (Chapters 4-11, 13, 18, and 19) is devoted to
historical analysis of, or polemic against, the claims and practice of
Rome, and of the remainder more than a little involves controversy
with Lutherans and sectarians. As valuable as all this may be for our
understanding of Calvin’s ecclesiology, it cannot replace direct and
positive teaching. For that we must consult not only the Institutes
as a whole, but various treatises and, above all, the commentaries on
Scripture.1 In this way, moreover, we shall avail ourselves of Calvin’s
more mature reflections, for the contents of Book IV were largely
composed by 1543, whereas Calvin had by that time only begun his
commentaries.2 As a matter of fact, the Institutes as a whole belongs
to the earlier period, the commentaries on Scripture to the la-
1 J- T. McNeill, “The Church in the 16th Century Reformed Theology,”

Journal of Religion, XXII (July, 1942), 259: “So greatly was he [Calvin] pre¬
occupied with this topic [the church] that if we are to know the range of his thought
upon it we must consult most of his works.” Cf. Joseph Haroutunian and Louise
P. Smith, “General Introduction,” Calvin: Commentaries, LCC XXIII, 15-27, on
the composition and reliability of the commentaries.
2 An analysis of the critically established text, OS V, discloses that the bulk of
Book IV was written for the 1543 edition of the Institutes, and that the remainder
largely comprises material from the 1536 and 1539 editions. Only in the chapters
on the sacraments—especially the Supper—and in the opening discussion of the
marks of the true church is there any substantial intrusion from subsequent years.
By 1543, on the other hand, Calvin had brought out only his commentary on
Romans.
Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V x

2 INTRODUCTION
ter,1 and this sequence is perhaps not unrelated to a shift in Calvin’s

intention between the 1536 and 1539 editions of the Institutes, vi
to provide not a “succinct exposition of Reformed doctrine, but a
properly dogmatic introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture.” 2
But now the question must be asked: what is the character of this
“dogmatic introduction,” or, more precisely, what is Calvin’s
“governing intention” 3 in the construction of his theology ? There
are, I think, two typical answers to this question, the one holding the
field prior to World War I, the other predominant after. If the earlier
answer was: the doctrine of God, and his sovereign predestinating
will,4 the response of the later has tended to be: the revelation of God
in Jesus Christ.5 Where the former was inclined to see in Calvin
both a rationalist and a legalist, the latter defines him as a Christ-
centered and confessional thinker. With regard to the church, the
“theological” type conceived it in the straight line between God and
the elect, laid the greatest stress on sanctification, and sharply dis¬
tinguished the visible and the invisible church; the “christological”
type has located the church rather in the communion of the faithful
with Christ, mutes the distinction between visible and invisible, and
emphasizes the role of justification. Although each of these types
holds something of the truth, neither of them provides a satisfactory
basis for our understanding of Calvin’s theology as a whole, chiefly
because neither can account for the truth of the other.
Having reached such an impasse as this, one is tempted by the
provocative argument of Hermann Bauke, that Calvin’s theology
has no “ ‘central teaching,’ or ‘basic doctrine’ out of which everything
else could be derived,” 6 but is characterized rather by its “form,” 7
1 Calvin did not complete his commentaries on the Pauline corpus until 1550,
and gave his lectures on the Old Testament, the four Gospels and Acts between
1551 and 1564 (cf. “Chronological Catalogue of the Works of Calvin,” CO LIX).
While the Institutes expanded continuously, the later additions are increasingly
polemical and editorial in nature (cf. Francois Wendel, Calvin, trans. Philip Mairet
London: Collins, 1963, pp. 119-20). This does not gainsay the importance of that
final ordering of the material (cf. ibid., p. 121, and E. A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge
of God in Calvin’s Theology New York: Columbia University Press, 1952, pp. 41-49).
2 Wendel, p. 146.
3 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 9.
4 Cf. Ernst Troeltsch, “Calvin and Calvinism,” Hibbert Journal, VIII (1909/10),
106.
5 Cf. Niesel, p. 17, who credits this to the influence of Karl Barth.
6 Hermann Bauke, Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs-
schen, 1922), pp. 11-12.
7 Ibid., p. 12.
INTRODUCTION 3
the distinguishing features of which are: (1) a formal rationalism,

i.e., a dialectical method which has no “influence” upon “the content
of theology,” 1 (2) a “complexio oppositorum,” i.e., a dialectical
binding together of logical or metaphysical opposites,1 2 deriving
from (3) a formal biblicism, i.e., the insistence that dogmatics should
be “an exposition of biblical themes.” 3
With much of this we can agree: certainly Calvin thinks of himself
as an expositor of Scripture, and the antinomies of his thought are
widely acknowledged,4 however they are brought together. About
the dialectical method, the purely formal rationalism, there is less
agreement, no doubt because it is difficult to see how this could fail
to influence the theological content. It is even more difficult to
believe that there is no theologically unifying principle in Calvin’s
thought, and the history of Calvin study since Bauke’s work bears
witness to the continuing search for it.5
The question must be raised, therefore, whether there is not a
unifying principle in Calvin’s thought which can, at the same time,
account for what Bauke has described as a “complexio oppositorum”?
The two most important attempts to move in this direction are to be
found, I believe, in the work of E. A. Dowey, Jr., 6 and Wilhelm
Niesel. With remarkable clarity and forcefulness, Niesel has tried to
show that “Jesus Christ controls not only the content but also the
form of Calvin’s thought,” 7 and that this unifying principle can
at once account for the “opposites” of Calvin’s theology because
it is construed in terms of the Chalcedonian definition, i.e., the
distinction but not the separation of the two natures in the Person of
the Mediator.8
Calvin does indeed make repeated use of the phrase, distinctio
sed non separatio, or variations thereon, and we may agree with
1 Ibid., p. 14.
2 Ibid., p. 18.
3 Ibid., p. 20.
4 Cf. E. A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 37-40; Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings
of the Christian Church, trans. Olive Wyon (2 vols.; New York: Harper Torch-
books, 1960), II, 622-24; Wendel, p. 358.
5 Cf. Niesel, pp. 15-20.
6 Because I am closer to it, I have had to carry on a continuing dialogue with
Dowey’s argument that the duplex cognitio Domini is “the principle for seeing the
unity in Calvin’s thought, stronger than the oppositions of the various themes he
derives from the Scriptures” (p. 40; cf. pp. 48-49).
7 Niesel, p. 247.
8 Ibid.
4 INTRODUCTION
Niesel that it is related to the controlling center of his thought;

but the argument that this unifying principle is Jesus Christ is not,
I believe, convincing. Even if the relationship between the divine
and the human word might seem to be elucidated on these grounds,
is it really so that the problematics of justification and sanctification,
the Old and the New Testaments, the law and the gospel, the visible
and the invisible church, etc.,1 will be similarly resolved ? And again,
what room will be left in this view for those prominent, inextinguish¬
able features of the older approach to Calvin—his severe doctrine
of God, the austere conception of the church, the rationalistic and
legalistic motifs ?
Receiving essentially negative answers to these questions, at least
as regards the doctrine of the church, I have been driven to seek
another key to Calvin’s theology. At first I thought that I had located
this in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but in the pursuit of this theme
it became apparent to me that he characteristically does not speak of
the Spirit apart from the order of the church—-or of the order of
the church apart from the work of the Spirit. Was it then the dialec¬
tical relationship between the Spirit and order which would serve as
the basis for an understanding of Calvin’s ecclesiology ? Might this
not, furthermore, overcome the deficiencies inherent in both the
“theological” and the “christological” approaches, enabling us to
appropriate the contributions of each and to discern the unity under¬
lying the “complexio oppositorum” ? I thought so, and began my
research with this in mind.
The conclusions of that study, I may say, have confirmed the general
outlines of that initial approach, but have also corrected it in a de¬
cisive way. The unifying principle in Calvin’s theology is not, as I
thought, the dialectical relation between the Spirit and order, but
the absolute correlation of the Spirit and the Word: it is the insepara¬
bility of the Spirit and the Son which is the criterion for all theological
statements. To the expressions of that Word, however (and we only
have the Word through such expressions), the Spirit is not bound,
although he ordinarily works through them. When the work of the
Spirit is correlated with those manifestations of the Word (ordina-
tiones Dei), order—above all the order which describes the church—
appears. Thus the church (order) can only be understood dialec¬
tically, as referring simultaneously to the Word and to the Spirit.
1 Ibid., pp. 248-49.

INTRODUCTION 5
It is to the full explication of this thesis that the following pages

are devoted. We shall be in a better position to say in conclusion how
the failure to discern this key has contributed to the one-sidedness
of other interpretations, and, more importantly, how its appropriation
provides us with the unifying ground for the polarities of Calvin’s
thought.
CHAPTER ONE
CALVIN’S CONCEPTION OF ORDER
A. The Church as Organism

One cannot long pursue the study of Calvin’s doctrine of the church
without being struck by his repeated usage of such metaphors as
assimilate the church to an organism,1 i.e., to a created, living, and
historically evolving reality. Aside from those well-known and im¬
portant metaphors which refer to the organic connection between
the church and its members,2 there is a series of figures in which the
church itself is depicted as a historically developing organism: it is
“conceived” and “born,” grows from “infancy” and “youth” to
“manhood,” 3 appears to die but is in fact “wonderfully preserved,” 4
and “rises” again to newness of life.5 The imagery frequently seems
to suggest that this organic pattern recurs in history: Calvin can
speak of a “first” and “second” birth of the church, 6 * 8 of a “maturing”
1 Cf. Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 188. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of the
Christian Church, trans. Olive Wyon (2 vols., Torchbook edition; New York:
Harper and Bros., 1960), II, 619, rejects the idea of “organism” as applied to the
thought of Calvin because it is a “vegetative” concept, implying lack of conscious¬
ness. Francois Wendel, Calvin, trans. Philip Mairet (London: Collins, 1963),
pp. 295-297, refers to Bucer’s emphasis on the church as an organism, and to
Bucer’s influence upon Calvin, but does not directly connect the two.
2 I have in mind especially the church as the “body of Christ” and as the
“mother” of all the faithful. Cf. infra.
3 Comm. Is. 54.2, CO XXXVII, 270: “The church therefore conceived when
the people returned to their native country; for the body of the people was
gathered together from which Christ should proceed. . . . And after birth the
church began to grow up (adolevit) from infancy (pueritia) until the gospel was
preached. This was the true adolescence of the church (vera ecclesiae adolescentid). Then
follows the age of manhood (virilis aetas).”
4 Comm. Rom. 11.2, CO XLIX, 213: “In the time of Elijah there was such a
desolation that there remained no appearance of a church (nullus iam superesset
ecclesiae conspectus), and yet, though no vestige of God’s grace appeared, the church
of God was, as it were, hid in the grave, and was wonderfully preserved.”
8 Comm. Dan. 12.2, CO XLI, 290: “The manner in which he will preserve it
must not be taken in the carnal sense, as the church will be like a dead body
(similis erit mortuo cadeveri) until it shall rise again.”
8 Comm. Is. 43.19, CO XXXVII, 94-95: “The redemption from Egypt may be
regarded as having been the first birth of the church (prima ecclesiae nativitas);. . .
W'e ought to take the same view rrspi T(XUT7]t; TraXiYYeveaiap, by which the
people were rescued from Babylon.” Cf. Comm. Dan. 8.1, CO XLI, 87.
8 calvin’s conception of order
of the church both before and after Christ,1 and, likewise, of repeated
resurrections from death.2 But that should not be taken as an ar¬
gument for a cyclical view of church history; on the contrary, these
very citations imply that the recurring phenomena are to be placed
within the context of the unified and continuous growth of the
organism. Confirmation of this, it seems to me, is discovered in
Calvin’s repeated references to Abraham, and to Abraham only, as
being “the father of the whole church.” 3 Calvin knows, to be sure,
of a church prior to Abraham: the priestly genealogies constitute
sufficient proof of this;4 * but it is, clearly, the church in embryo:
Adam and Eve, with a few other of their children, were themselves
true worshippers of God . . . We may rightly conclude that Seth
was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son,
like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the
church began distinctly to appear (exstare coepit distincta ecclesiae facies),
and that worship of God was set up which might continue to posterity.6
As the distinctiveness of the embryonic face represents an advance

which is yet continuous with previous growth, so the appearance
of the church here is not to be thought of, on the one hand, as ex-
1 Comm. Ps. 50.1, CO XXXI, 495: “That the Jews were subjected to the
rudiments of the world, which continued until the church matured (adolesceret),
and what the apostle calls ‘the fullness of times’ arrived (Gal. iv.4) admits of no
doubt.” Comm. Ps. 50.14, CO XXXI, 502: “He has extended a simpler form of
worship to us who have matured (adolevimus) since the coming of Christ (post
Christi adventum).”
2 Comm. Ps. 102.19, CO XXXII, 70: “Although the church had perished, he
was persuaded that God, by his wonderful power, would make her rise again from
death to renovated life. This is a remarkable passage, showing that the church
is not always so preserved as to continue to outward appearance to survive, but
that when she seems to be dead, she is suddenly created anew, whenever it so
pleases God. Let no desolation, therefore, which befalls the church, deprive us
of the hope, that as God once created the world out of nothing, so it is his proper
work to bring forth the church from the darkness of death (ecclesiam ex mortis
tenebris eruere).”
3 Comm. John 8.56, CO XLVII, 214: “Totius ecclesiae pater est.” Cf. Comm.
Is. 41.2, CO XXXVII, 34, Comm. Gen. 15.7, CO XXIII, 215, Comm. Gen. 12.10,
CO XXIII, 83. On these grounds, Sarah is thought of as “the mother of the
people of God” (Comm. Gen. 16.1, CO XXIII, 256).
4 Comm. Gen. 11.10, CO XXIII, 169: “And although we have said that the
father and grandfather of Abraham were apostates, and that,. . . probably, the
defection did not begin with them; yet, because the church, by the election of
God, was included in that race (inclusa erat ecclesiae) and because God had some
who worshipped him in purity, and who survived even to the time of Abraham,
Moses adduces a continuous line of descent {continuant lineam), and thus enrolls
them in the catalogue of saints.”
6 Comm. Gen. 4.25, CO XXIII, 103.
THE CHURCH AS ORGANISM 9
eluding Adam and Eve, or, on the other, as referring to a full-bodied

church.
Taken together, then, the metaphors suggest that the church is
conceived with Adam and Eve, foetally develops under the patriarchs,
is born at the Exodus, and—together with these—has Abraham for
its father! From infancy on—adolescence, maturity—it presses
toward a definite goal, although not without reversals and upheavals,
and, decisively, not without being “born again.” Clearly, it is not
just any organism, but the human organism, which Calvin has in
mind in this delineation of the church.
As will already have become apparent in the foregoing discussion,
the comparison to the growth of the organism entails a historical
understanding of the church.1 That growth, moreover, is not can¬
cerous, but harmonious and purposive; more subtly—but no less
significantly—implicit in the notion of organism, therefore, is the
conception of order.
How important these two themes—history and order—are for
Calvin’s doctrine of the church this and the following chapters will
show. We begin with the conception of order because it is in many
ways the presupposition for the history of the church; i.e., the history
of redemption presupposes the order of creation. That is so, for
Calvin, not only in the sense that it is the fall from his created state
which necessitates the redemption of man, but also in the fact that
redemption is essentially the restoration of the order established in
creation.
B. The Principle of Order
We meet Calvin’s conception of order, first of all, in his admiration
of the cosmos. His attitude toward, his feeling for, the created
world is almost ecstatic:
Wherever you turn your eyes, there is no place in the universe in
which you cannot discern at least some traces of his glory. You
cannot at one glance survey this most spacious and beautiful system
(amplissimam vero el pulcherrimam machinam) in all its vast extent,
without being completely overwhelmed by its infinite brilliance.2
1 According to Myron P. Gilmore, The World of Humanism (Torchbook edition;

“The Rise of Modem Europe Series”; New York: Harper and Row, 1962”).
p. 201, “the Middle Ages had singularly lacked a sense of the reality of time,”
and “at the beginning of the sixteenth century this sense of history, which was
subsequently to triumph, was only beginning to be manifest in thought.” Calvin,
it seems to me, certainly participates in this emerging “sense of history.” Cf.
Wendel, p. 359.
2 Inst. I.v.l, OS III, 45.
Christians are urged, accordingly, to “take a pious delight in the

works of God which are manifest and open in this most beautiful
theater.” 1 What animates Calvin so in his contemplation of the
universe—and it must be said that he is nowhere else so lyrical—is
the “divine skill,” the “innumerable yet distinct and ordered (dis-
tincta et disposita) variety of the heavenly host.” 2 Indeed, “the har¬
monious disposition of the universe (concinna mundi positio) is a mirror
(speculi) in which we may contemplate the otherwise invisible God.” 3
Not only the cosmos, as something external to us, is an order re¬
flective of God’s glory, but man, as microcosmos, is also figured as
such a “mirror.” 4
There is presented to us in the whole order of nature (toto natura

ordine),the most abundant matter for showing forth the glory of God,
. . . But David here, with great propriety, commends the special
grace toward the human race; for this, of all the subjects which come
under our contemplation, is the brightest mirror (illustre speculum)
in which we may perceive his glory.5
Finally, Calvin is stirred by yet a third speculum, zvy., political

order,6 the exercise of which distinguishes man, as man, from
“beasts.” 7
In deliberately describing these spheres—the cosmos, man, and
the state—as “mirrors,” reflecting the glory of God, and in giving
substance to the metaphor through the enumeration of such qualities
as betoken the harmonious, balanced, and orderly workings in and
through all three, Calvin aligns himself with one of the dominant
notes of 15th and 16th century humanism:
1 Inst. I.xiv.20, OS III, 170.

2 Inst. I.v.2, OS III, 46.
3 Inst. I.v.l, OS III, 45. Cf. Comm. Heb. 11.3, CO LV, 146: “This world is
correctly called the mirror of divinity (divinitatis speculum). Both T. H. L. Parker,
The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1952), p. 75,
and T. F. Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Alan (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952),
pp. 35-40, discuss the mirror imagery in some detail.
4 Inst. I.v.3, OS III, 46-47.
6 Comm. Ps. 8.1, CO XXXI, 88.
6 Comm. Ps. 82.1, CO XXXI, 768-69: “Political order (ordinem politicum) is
called the assembly of God, for although the divine glory shone forth in every part
of the world, yet when lawful government flourishes among men, it is reflected
therefrom with pre-eminent luster.”
7 Comm. Is. 34.12, CO XXXVI, 586: “Men will scarcely differ from beasts if
they are without government {politia)." Cf. Inst. I.iii.3, OS III, 40, and Inst.
Il.ii. 17, OS III, 259, where this distinction is grounded in religio and ratio res¬
pectively.
THE PRINCIPLE OF ORDER 11
The state was endlessly compared with the individual on the one
hand and with the universe on the other. The same principle of order
was to be discerned at all three levels, and disorganization in one was
followed or accompanied by disorganization in another. The planets
in their courses, the rulers in the state, and the passions in the individual
were clearly related.1
It would seem that not only humanistic, but Stoic conceptions as
well are involved here; and, certainly, Calvin was not free from that
influence.2 But what of the biblically oriented, Christian theologian ?
In order to understand Calvin more adequately, we shall have to
pursue his thoughts in each of these three areas. Only in this way
shall we gain a solid grasp upon his theological conception of order.3
1. The Order of Creation

About the divine act of creation itself, Calvin has remarkably
little to say, other than to affirm the traditional teaching of a creatio
1 Gilmore, p. 71. The “principle of order” constitutes one of the main features
of his interpretation of the period. Particularly, he selects Diirer’s Melancholia
and St. Jerome as expressing, on the one hand, the contemporary anxiety over the
confusion, disorder and frustration of man’s existence, and, on the other, the
contemporary ideals of peace, harmonious and ordered creativity (p. 269). Just
this anxiety, politically felt, gave rise to those characteristic admonitions to
youthful rulers written by the humanists, e.g., Erasmus and Machiavelli (pp. 127-
131). And the ideal, again, was translated into the symmetrical and, finally,
circular architecture of the Churches (pp. 239-40). On Calvin as a humanist,
cf. John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1954), pp. 98-105 and Wendel, pp. 27-37. Precisely those hu¬
manistic works referred to by Gilmore may have influenced Calvin in the selection
of the word Institutio for the title of his work. Cf. John T. McNeill, “Introduction,”
Calvin-. Institutes of the Christian Religion (26 vols.; “The Library of Christian
Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), XX, xxxi.
2 Quirinus Breen, John Calvin-. A Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931), pp. 67-72, 80-85, has shown
the influence of Stoicism upon the young humanist scholar, particularly as regards
the yearning for order.
3 Josef Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen in Westfalen: Buchdruckerei
u. Verlagsanstalt G.m.b.H., 1934), p. 4, writes that “Calvin distinguishes the
ius naturae (identical with the lex naturae) from the laws which govern and determine
the actual being of and occurrences in the universe (fabrica mundi, orbis machina,
universitas mundi). For this, as well as for the unchangable necessities of social and
political life, Calvin prefers to employ the designation ordo naturae (ordre commun
de nature).” Edward A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New
York: Oxford University Press 1952), p. 66, maintains that “the order of nature”
refers to the orderliness and regularity of events within creation and implies
proper relationships among all things, as well as the realization by every creature
of its appropriate purpose.” Torrance, p. 47, points to the connection between
order and rectitude, and defines the order of nature as “utter dependence upon the
mercy of God.” We shall be in a better position to evaluate these definitions at the
conlusion of our analysis.
exnihilo} to expound in a straightforward way the history provided

by Moses,1 2 and to refer his readers to the pious elaborations of
Basil and Ambrose.3 He is much more concerned, rather, to insist
that the creation is not a static, once-for-all event belonging to the
past, but a creatio continua, indissolubly joined to the providential
activity of God.
It would be absurd to circumscribe creation within such narrow limits,

as though it were witness to a momentary and vanishing power of
God; rather, it ought to be extended to a continuous administration.4
Otherwise, we shall have no clear understanding of what it means

to say that God is the creator.5
It is at just this nexus that the conception of the order of nature is
brought into the theological framework, for it can be identified with
the providence of God.
That men are rightly under the power of God, so that he should
everywhere be acknowledged as king, is confirmed by the order of
creation (creationis ordine) itself; for the providence of God is openly
reflected on the face of the whole earth.6
As a matter of fact, Calvin will even permit the identification of

the order of nature with God himself—provided that it be done
“piously”—but, he goes on to say, “it is a harsh and improper manner
of speaking, since Nature is rather an order prescribed by God
(potius natura sit ordo a Dei praescriptus).” 7 Precisely this is the dis¬
tinction which is to be made between the order of creation and
providence, as well. That is, the order of creation is dependent upon
the providential activity of God:
Nothing is more natural than the succession in turn of spring to winter,

summer to spring, autumn to summer. Yet in this series so much and
such unequal diversity may be perceived that every year, month and
day easily appears to be regulated by a new and particular providence
of God.8
1 Inst.I.xiv.20, OS III, 170.

2 Comm. Gen. passim, CO XXIII.
4 Comm. Is. 37.16, CO XXXVI, 626.
6 Inst. I.xvi.l, OS III, 187: “Unless we proceed to his providence, we will not
understand what it means that God is creator.”
6 Comm. Ps. 24.2, CO XXXI, 244.
8 Inst. I.xvi.2, OS III, 190.
What Calvin achieves by means of this distinction is, first of all,

a refutation of the idea “that now the order of nature stands by itself,
and that God sits idle in the heavens,” 1 secondly, that God not
only preserves the order of nature but actively governs it,2 and,
thirdly, that this governance extends as far as the destination, the
end, of each particular creature.3
Because “providence” is a term which has both a theocentric and
an anthropocentric referent, thereby making possible those ambiguous
identifications of God, or his providence, and the order of nature,
the conception characteristically made use of by Calvin to sharpen
the distinction is that of the ordination of God (Dei ordinatio).4 5
Systematically speaking, we may say that under the general heading
of Providence, or creatio continua, are embraced the conceptions of
the ordinatio Dei and the or do naturae which is dependent upon it.
Here, as in certain other respects, Calvin is willing to use a wide
variety of synonyms (imperium, decretum, mandatum) 5 in order to
convey precisely what he means by ordinatio. None of these, however,
is quite so revealing or ultimately significant as one less frequently
used, vi%., verbum.6
1 Comm. Ps. 148.5, CO XXXII, 434.

2 Inst. lxvi. 4, OS III, 194: “The world is governed by God, not only as
he supports the order of nature fixed by himself, but as he maintains a peculiar
care over each of his works.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 10.1, 2, CO XXXIV, 60: “Thus God
has given this property to both sun and moon, and all the stars, that he himself
rules and changes the seasons as he decides. . . . Therefore, this diversity in nature
itself shows that God has not resigned his power to the stars, but so operates by
the stars that he holds the helm.”
3 Inst. I.xvi.7, OS III, 198: “Whence we gather that not only does his general
providence flourish over the creatures, to extend the order of nature, but that by
his admirable counsel they are adapted to a certain and special end.” Cf. Comm.
Ps. 148.5, CO XXXII, 434.
4 Bohatec, p. 62, blurs this distinction when he says that “the conception of
order rules the thought of the Reformer so much that he understands by ‘ordinatio’
. . . not only political order (ordo politicus) but condition of order (in distinction
from <xTod;ia).” Dowey, pp. 66-67, more adequately speaks of order as the
“special field of God’s volitions,” but does not make use ofthe clarifying conception
of ordinatio.
5 Comm. Ps. 119.91, CO XXXII, 254: “The whole order of nature depends
solely upon the command (imperio) or decree (decreto) of God.” Cf. ibid., “The
hidden power of God so supports all things, that in order to remain in their state
they must obey his word (verbum) or mandate (mandatum).” Comm. Lam. 3.36-38,
CO XXXIX, 588: “nothing happens apart from the mandate (mandate) of God,
that is, apart from his decree (decreto) and ordination (ordinatione).”
6 Comm. Ps. 33.4, CO XXXI, 325: “The term word (verbum) is not to be taken
for doctrine, but for the method by which the world is governed.”
The importance of verbum, thought of as a synonym for ordinatio

rather than in its distinct but related usage as the vehicle of revelation,
lies in the distinction Calvin draws between the “eternal and essential
Word of the Father,” i.e., the Son, and the “order or mandate (nutu
vel mandato)” which proceeds from him.1 It is the Word, the Son of
God, then, who is the fons et origo of revelation (oracles, prophecies,
heavenly doctrine) and of those ordinations (mandates, decrees,
commands) by which the world was created and is continually go¬
verned. While the distinction is made thus, the intrinsic relationship
between the two is also established. Calvin’s understanding of the
order of nature, therefore, is finally grounded in his doctrine of the
Trinity,2 for the or do naturae (with reference, now, to the order of
creation) is dependent upon the ordinatio Dei, which, in turn, proceeds
from the essential Word, or Son, of God.
When Calvin asserts that nothing happens apart from the ordination
of God he means to be taken quite strictly. The order of nature is
in no way self-subsisting, and has no independence whatsoever with
respect to the divine decrees, so that even the most ordinary phe¬
nomena,3 do not occur apart from the divine foreknowledge and
decree. The remarkable extent to which Calvin presses this doctrine
is best disclosed in the idea that
man does not live by bread, but by the mandate of God, just as if the
power given to the bread flowed forth from his mouth. For certainly no
1 Inst. I. xiii.7, OS III, 117. That Calvin can speak in this connection of the
Son now as the source of revelation, now as the source of the decrees by which
the world is made and governed, without so much as drawing attention to the
fact, would seem to indicate a rather close relationship between the two of con¬
siderable importance. Will this mean that, for him, the created order is revelatory?
Will it mean, on the other hand, that revelation is conceived legally? These
questions must be answered in due course. Parker, pp. 63-64, makes the same
distinction between the Word and the word, although, by his own admission, the
attempt to ground this in Calvin’s usage of sermo and verbum cannot be sustained.
Even in the section of the Institutes just quoted—where both words appear—there
is no consistent employment of the terms.
2 A discussion of Calvin’s doctrine of the trinity is beyond the scope of this
study. The notable brevity with which interpreters treat Calvin at this point, and
Calvin’s own attitude toward trinitarian problematics (Inst. I.xiii.5, OS III,
113-116) suggest that our omission is not egregious. Cf. Niesel, pp. 5460, and
Wendel, pp. 165-69.
3 Comm. Jonah 1.4, CO XLIII, 210: “No storms, nor any changes in the air...
happen by chance, but. . .heaven and earth are regulated by a divine power, so
that nothing happens without being foreseen and decreed.” Comm. Acts 28.1,
CO XLVIU, 559: “The viper did not come out of the sticks by chance, but the
Lord directed her by his secret counsel (arcano suo consilio) to bite Paul.”
inanimate thing could quicken our senses, except by the hidden or¬
dination of God.1
That bread does have such a capacity, of course, is part of the order
of nature, just as are the succession of the seasons, changes in climate,
and the motions of heavenly bodies; but it has this capacity only
because God so ordains it. Furthermore, it is expressly not the case
that such a power to nourish, once ordained, may be counted upon
by man as a final and irrevocable fact, for we have already seen that
even such a derivative independence in the order of nature is denied
by Calvin, who, moreover, states that God from time to time reverses
the order of nature.2 This, we may say, is the final measure of the
dependence of the ordo naturae upon the ordinatio Dei, but it raises
certain questions as well.
First, does this signify contradiction or mutability in God ? For
Calvin, it goes without saying, there can be no question of inner
contradiction in the will of God; but he is disturbed by the biblical
conception of the “repentance” of God, and devotes three sections
of the Institutes to an explanation. Since the divine ordinances are
above repentance,3 and the plan and will of God eternal and unchang-
able,4 the “mutations” which “repentance” signifies when applied
to God must be understood as having reference to his “works”,5
the variations in which are ordered according to “aeternae suae
ordinatione.” 6
Even so, will not a reversal of the order of nature—something
different from a variation—entail a contradiction or mutation in the
divine ordination ? For behind each work, or action, of God there
surely stands the eternal decree, and a change in action would seem
necessarily to involve a change in ordination. Ultimately, then,
1 Comm. Lev. 26.26, CO XXV, 26. Cf. Inst. I.xvi.7, OS III, 197-98; Inst. III.
xx.44, OS IV, 357.
2 Comm. Num. 17.8, CO XXV, 231: “That in so short a space of time not only
flowers, but fruits also, were formed upon a dry bough. .. could not have
happened except by a reversal (conversio) of the order of nature.” Cf. Comm. Gen.
21.12, CO XXIII, 302.
3 Inst. I.xvii.12, OS III, 217: “It is certain that the ordination of God in the
administration of human affairs is both perpetual and superior to all repentance.”
4 Inst. I. xvii.13, OS III, 218: “Meanwhile, neither God’s counsel nor his will
is inverted, nor his disposition changed; but he pursues in uninterrupted course
what from eternity he had foreseen, approved, decreed, however unexpected the
variation might appear to the eyes of men.”
5 Inst. I.xvii.13, OS III, 218.
6 Inst. I.xvii.14, OS III, 219.
Calvin will have to say that the counsel of God is hidden from the
understanding of men,1 and is in no way to be subjected to a “common
norm.” 2
The second, and more far reaching, question posed by the possibil¬
ity of reversal in the order of nature is whether Calvin does not,
after all, live in a whimsical world, pervious to the caprice of a
tyrannical God whose “absolute power” is not bound to any law
and order ? Actually, Calvin specically repudiates this conception
of God,3 and lays it down as “the glory of faith that God, the maker
of the world, will by no means neglect the order which he has es¬
tablished.” 4 The fact that he is convinced, in spite of his inability
to demonstrate it, that there is a ratio to the ordinations of God,
coupled with the fact that he can speak so often and so strongly
of the order of nature, while simultaneously denying to it any in¬
dependent subsistence, indicates clearly his belief that man lives in an
ordered, non-arbitrary universe.
The consequence of the utter dependence of the order of nature
upon the ordinationem Dei, therefore, is not to leave man in a jumbled
and meaningless world: man is, rather, permitted to count upon the
ordo naturae, to rely upon it, and act upon it. But he is not permitted
to take it for granted, not permitted even for a moment to lose sight
of the fact that the order which forms the frame of his existence is
at every point contingent upon the command of God.
2. The Work of the Spirit in the Order of Creation

Thus far, however, we have only shown in part the contingent
character of the order of nature, for the creation and preservation
of the world derive not only from the ordination, the Word, of God,
1 Inst. I.xvi.7-9, OS III, 199-201.

2 Comm. Gen. 21.12, CO XXIII, 302: “His counsel ought not be submitted
to a common norm, especially where there is a question of the salvation of the
church. For he purposely inverts the usual order of nature, in order that he may
prove himself to be the author and perfector of Isaac’s vocation.”
3 Cf. Inst. III. xxiii.2, OS IV, 396; Comm. Ex. 11.2, CO XXIV, 131. Wendel,
pp. 127-29, argues against Doumergue, Lecerf, and others, that these repudiations
are not directed at Duns Scotus, but at the nominalists of the later middle ages,
and that Calvin clearly stands in the Scotist tradition. But Scotus, he continues,
was no more guilty than Calvin of ascribing to God an unbridled “absolute
power.” Rather he “excludes any decision of God that is contradictory to his
previous decrees,” and limits God’s power by his “goodness.” Wendel contends,
rightly I think, that Scotus’ distinction between the absolute and ordered power
of God must have seemed “a mere subtlety to Calvin.”
4 Comm. Ps. 11.4, CO XXXI, 123.
but also from his power (virtus), i.e., from the Holy Spirit: “the world
is no less the work of the holy Spirit than of the Son.” 1
And, according to the conception of the creatio continua, the Spirit
not only creates, but preserves that which has been made:
For the power of the Spirit is spread abroad through all parts of the
world that it may keep (the creatures) in their state; that he may supply
to heaven and earth that vigor we discern, and motion to all living
creatures . . . God, by the wonderful power and impulse (instinctu)
of his Spirit, preserves (conservat) that which he formed out of nothing.2
As this indicates, the work of the Spirit is not merely the duplicate
of that of the Son; rather, it is the Spirit who, proceeding from the
Father and the Son, 3 effects in power that which has been decreed
in the “eternal counsel and providence of God,” 4 5 and who “sustains,
quickens and vivifies all things in heaven and on earth .... in all
things transfusing his vigor, and inspiring them with being, life
and motion.” 6
This animating work of the Spirit, moreover, is not merely “uni¬
versal,” but has a particularistic aspect as well, corresponding, of
course, to general and special providence.6 It would be inappropriate,
however, to think of the work of the Spirit simply in terms of vitality,
as the Reformer’s diction might seem to require. This is, indeed, its
1 Inst. I.xiii.15, OS III, 129. Cf. Comm. Ps. 104.29, CO XXXII, 96: “God sends
forth the Spirit which abides with him wherever he pleases: and as soon as he
sends it forth, all things are created.”
2 Comm. Acts 17.28, CO XLVIII, 416-17.
3 Calvin stands emphatically within the western tradition, of course. Cf. Inst. I.
xiii. 18, OS III, 132. The position taken here is additional evidence of the trinitarian
basis for the conception of order.
4 Comm. Zech. 6.4-5, CO XLIV, 206: “Now although God’s Spirit is one,
yet all actions proceed from him, and whatever happens in the world may be
ascribed to his Spirit without absurdity. . . . Though the universe is designated
here, yet by the Spirit the prophet means those hidden movements which pro¬
ceed from the aeterno consilio Dei et providentia.” Cf. Comm. Acts 17.26, CO
XLVIII, 415: “And when he adds that God had fixed from the beginning those
things which he before ordained, the meaning is, that he accomplishes by the
power of his hand those things which he has decreed in his counsel.” Cf. Inst.
I.xiii.18, OS III, 132.
5 Inst. I.xiii.14, OS III, 127. Cf. Inst. I.xvi.l, OS III, 188: “All parts of the
world are quickened by the hidden inspiration of God.”
8 Comm. Rom. 8.14, CO XLIX, 147: “The action of the Spirit is multiple.
There is the universal, by which all creatures are sustained and moved, and there
is that which is peculiar to men, with whom it varies.” Cf. Comm. Lk. 1.35, CO
XLV, 31: “The Spirit is, as it were, the essential power of God, whose efficacy
is put forth and made known in the entire government of the world, as well as
in miracles.”
Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V 2

predominant effect, but the Spirit plays an equally decisive role in

the ordering of the cosmos:
Although the Spirit is not mentioned except in the history of the

creation of the world, he is introduced there not as a shadow, but as
the essential power of God (essentialis Dei virtus), when Moses narrates
that the yet unformed mass was supported by him. Thus, it appears,
the eternal Spirit was always in God while warmingly (fovendo) it
sustained the confused matter of heaven and earth, until beauty and
order (series) were added.1
The repeated use of the word foveo suggests that Calvin has in
mind the hen who, by nesting her eggs, not only gives life through
warmth, but bodily form as well. Just so, he seems to think, the
Spirit “broods over the waters,” and by inspiring with life also
brings forth pulchritudo et series.
Here, too, one may notice an opposition between order and con¬
fusion (confusio) which is characteristic of Calvin’s thought,2 and
it is the Spirit who reduces the primordial chaos to the order of
nature. But this determination of order we have already seen to be
the consequence of the ordinatio Dei. In fact, however, the order of
nature is doubly contingent—dependent upon both the ordination
of God and the work of the Spirit:
There is no strength placed in bread to nourish us which excludes the

hidden grace of God (occultam Dei gratiam). . . . we are sustained not
by bread and wine and other food, or by any kind of drink, but by the
secret power of God (arcana Dei virtute), while he inspires the bread
with energy to nourish us. Bread then is our nourishment, but not by
any characteristic or intrinsic power (non propria virtute neque intrinseca);
this it has from another source, namely, the grace and ordination of
God (gratia et ordinatione Dei).3
1 Inst. I.xiii.22, OS III, 138. Cf. Inst. I.xiii.14, OS III, 138: “In the history of
creation the testimony of Moses is not in the least obscure, that the Spirit of God
was expanded over the abyss, for it shows not only that the beauty of the world
which we now discern thrives by the power of the Spirit, but that before this
ornament was added the Spirit was already at work, warming (fovenda) that con¬
fused mass.”
2 Inst. I.xiv.21, OS III, 172. Cf. Bohatec, p. 4.
3 Comm. Ezek. 4.16-17, CO XL, 116. Although the Spirit is not specifically
mentioned in the passage, he is referred to throughout: Dei gratiam, Dei virtute,
inspirat. Cf. Comm. Gal. 5.22, CO L, 255: “All virtues, all proper and well regu¬
lated affections, proceed from the Spirit, that is, from the grace of God.” Comm.
Rom. 5.15, CO XLIX, 99: “How absurdly the schoolmen have defined grace, who have
taught that it is nothing else but a quality infused into the hearts of men: for
grace proprie in Deo est effectus gratiae in nobis.” Comm. Acts 14.26, CO
XLVIII, 334: “The word grace is referred to the power and efficacy of the
Bread nourishes us—the order of nature may be relied upon—■

only because God so ordains, and so accomplishes by the power of
his Spirit that which he ordains. But, it is clear, this work of the
Spirit is to be relied upon, not taken for granted, for he too is in¬
strumental in the reversal of the ordo naturae.* 1 Beyond this, moreover,
the entire cosmic structure would collapse if ever the Spirit were
withdrawn:
The creation of the world was completed in six days, but the ad¬
ministration of it is still continued, and God incessantly works in
maintaining and preserving its order; . . . And David informs us
that all things stand as long as the Spirit of God quickens (vegetat)
them, and they would immediately fall if they were deprived of his
vigor.2
No less than upon the divine ordination, then, is the order of
nature dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit, who gives to it
life, form and efficacy, and at whose disposal it stands. At every
point—creation, stability or reversal—the order of nature is equally
dependent upon the work of the Spirit and the ordination of God.
3. The Order of Man

Calvin’s approval of the conception of man as a microcosm3
indicates that, for him, man stands at the center—and so at the sum¬
mit—of the created order: “among all the works of God he is the
noblest and most notable specimen of his justice and wisdom and
goodness.” 4 In both his body and soul 5 may be found innumerable
Spirit. ’’These citations, together with those above, seem to be a sufficient warrant
for reading “Spirit” wherever “the power of God,” “the grace of God,” or
“inspiration” are found.
1 Comm. Ex. 14.21, CO XXIV, 154: “Not even the most violent wind would
have been able to dry the sea, unless it had been effected by the secret power
of his Spirit beyond the limits of nature.”
2 Comm. John 5.17, CO XLVII, 111. Cf. Comm. Amos 9.6, CO XLIII, 162.
“He is Jehovah, whose being is in himself alone; you, however, exist only through
his power, and whenever he pleases he can withdraw his Spirit (subducet spintum
suum), and the whole world will disappear.
3 Inst. I.v.3, OS III, 46-47.
4 Inst. I.xv. 1, OS III, 173. Cf. Inst. I.v.3, OS III, 46-47.
5 Inst. I.xv.2, OS III, 174-75. In a full discussion of Calvin’s thought at this
point, Heinrich Quistorp, Calvin's Doctrine of the Last Things, trans. Harold
Knight (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), pp. 55-107, elucidates some of its
contradictory aspects, e.g., the incongruity between Calvin’s teaching about the
resurrection and his doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and makes interesting
observations on the, to him, far reaching implications, e.g., that it provides the
clue to an understanding of the arguments between Calvin and Lutherans con¬
cerning the Lord’s Supper.
traces of God, i.e., semen divinitatis} but it is in the latter, above all,
that Calvin finds these signa divinitatis.1 2
The lofty position of man is further designated by the order of
creation itself, for God has revealed in it that “all things were made
for the sake of man.” 3 If anything fails to serve this end, the order of
nature disintegrates: “The whole order of the world is arranged to
serve the felicity of man. . . Certainly, if anything in heaven or on
earth opposes man, that integrity of order collapses.” 4
If man is the keystone in the order of nature, that around which
all is built and upon which everything depends, it is no less the case
that he transcends it—transcends it precisely in the knowledge of
God which would have been won through it “si integer stetisset
Adam.” 5 There is, then, an “integrity” of man corresponding to the
“integrity” (or, order) of the world, the proper functioning of which
would have “led to eternal life and perfect felicity.” Calvin identifies
this capacity for self-transcendence with the soul,6 and it is primarily
the soul, as distinct from the body, to which this “integrity” is as¬
cribed.
Therefore God has provided the soul of man with a mind (mente)
by which he might distinguish good from evil, just from unjust, and
that, by the guiding light of reason (rationis) he might see what ought
to be followed and what avoided; whence the philosophers have
called this directing part, to 7]y£[jLovix6v. To this he added the will
(yoluntatem), in the possession of which is choice (electio). By these
excellent gifts he distinguished the first condition of man, so that
reason, understanding, wisdom and judgment {ratio, intelligent^,
prudentia, indicium), might suffice not only for the government of
earthly life, but also might transcend (transcenderent) even to God and
eternal felicity. Then he added choice, which directs the appetite

2 Inst. I. v. 5, OS III, 49. Cf. Inst. I. xv-2, OS III, 174
3 Inst. I. xiv. 22, OS III, 172.
4 Comm. Ps. 8.6, CO XXXI, 94: “Totum mundi ordinem ita esse compositum,
ut hominum felicitate serviat. . . . Certe si quid adversam est hominibus in caelo
vel terra, iam collapsa est ilia ordinis integritas.”
8 Inst. I.ii.l, OS III, 34: “I speak of that first and simple knowledge to which
the genuine order of nature would have led us, if Adam had remained whole.”
Cf. Inst. Il.vi.l, OS III, 320: “This was indeed the genuine order of nature, that
the fabric of the world should be our school for learning piety, whence we might
be led to eternal life and perfect felicity.” Comm. Is. 40.26, CO XXXVII, 24:
“God’s wonderful power and wisdom may be known from the excellent order of
the world.”
6 Inst. I.xv.2, OS, III, 175: “Now the knowledge of God itself sufficiently argues
that souls, which transcend the world, are immortal.” Cf. Inst. I.xv.6, OS III, 182.
(appetitus) and controls all organic movements: and thus will should
agree altogether with the government of reason. In this integrity
(integritate) man was empowered with free will (libero arbitrio), by
which, if he wished, he could have obtained eternal life.1
As this indicates, Calvin knows of and appreciates the more intricate

and subtle analyses of “the philosophers,” 2 but for the sake of clarity
and simplicity—and also, we may suspect, because the humanist is
impatient with hair-splitting and sometimes merely verbal distinc¬
tions—he prefers to speak of the soul as comprising reason and will.3
To be included within the category of reason (mind, understan¬
ding)—although not, it seems to me, as separate faculties—are both
conscientia, conscience, and the sensits divinitatis, the sense of divinity,
for the former is the word employed by Calvin to describe precisely
that activity of the mind which distinguishes “between good and
evil,” 4 “between just and unjust,” 5 while the latter, even if it is
“already notitia, knowledge,” 6 yet remains a “seed” which must be
“nourished” 7 if it is to “progress” 8 to a sure knowledge of God.
The fact that Calvin can at times use the two terms interchangably,9
together with the fact that he will now and then speak of conscience
as a “sensum,”10 would seem to confirm the contention that he does
not think of various compartments in the mind, but rather intends
to describe some of its more important functions, understandably
involving some overlapping in terminology.
1 Inst. I.xv.8, OS III, 185-86.

2 Inst. I.xv.6, OS III, 182-84.
3 Calvin himself is quite indiscriminate in his diction. Reason and understanding
are sometimes paired off with will as synonyms (Inst. I.xv.6, OS III, 184-85;
Inst. II.ii.4, OS III, 246), sometimes used as complementary terms (Inst. I.xv.6,
OS III, 183; Inst. II.ii.2, OS III, 243).
4 Inst. I.xv.2, OS III, 175.
6 Inst. II.ii.22, OS III, 265.
* Dowey, p. 51. The sensus divinitatis, “impressed” upon the “mind” or “under¬
standing” of man (Inst. I.iii.l, OS III, 37, and Inst. I.iff.3, OS III, 39) is knowl¬
edge of God, but scarcely passes beyond the vague conviction that “there is a
God,” (Inst. I.iii.l, 38).
7 Inst. I. iv. 1, OS III, 40-41.
8 Inst. I.iii.l, OS III, 40. Apart from this expected exercise of the mind, men
“degenerate from the law of their creation.”
9 Inst. I.iff.2-3, OS III, 38-40.
10 Inst. III.xix.15, OS IV, 295: “sensum habent divini iudicii,... sensus ille
vocatur conscientia.” Cf. Dowey, pp. 245-46, who identifies the sensus naturae, but
not the sensus divinitatis, pp. 54-56, with conscience. His argument for the former
seems to weaken his argument against the latter which, mistakenly I think, urges
upon Calvin’s conception of ratio a compartmentalization which obscures its
fundamental unicity.
Even more decisive in this regard, however, is the way in which

Calvin relates ratio, religio and politia, each of which, as we have already
seen, may be said to distinguish man from “beasts,” i.e., distinguishes
man as man. Religio and politia have associations, respectively, with
the sensus divinitatis 1 2 3 and conscientiap and may even be said to be
grounded in them, but that is only because in the exercise of both,
man demonstrates his rationality:
Just as man was made for meditation upon the heavenly life, so it
is certain that knowledge of it was impressed on the soul. And cer¬
tainly man would be destitute of the principal use of his understanding
('intelligence) if his felicity, the perfection of which is to be united with
God, were hidden from him; whence the principal action of the
soul is to aspire thither. Therefore, the more anyone seeks to approach
to God, the more he proves himself to be endowed with reason
(rationef
It remains nevertheless that some seed of political order (ordinis

politici) is universally sown. And this is sufficient proof, that in the
constitution of this life, no man is destitute of the light of reason.4
Ratio “proves” itself in the exercise of religio and politia, has for
its end and aim the “understanding of heavenly things” on the one
hand, and the “understanding of earthly things,” on the other,5
and so is fulfilled in the movement of the soul toward God and in the
orderly disposition of earthly fife.
The “integrity” of man, then, is just that right ordering of the
soul, characterized by the hegemony of reason, which is directed
towards and consummated in “the pure knowledge of God, the
true nature of righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly
Kingdom,” 6 and “government (politia), household management, all
the mechanical skills and the liberal arts.” 7 The theological concept
covering this “integrity” is, of course, imago Dei:
The likeness of God {Dei effigiem) extends to all the excellence which
distinguishes the nature of man among all the species of animals.
This term, then, denotes the integrity (integritas) with which Adam
1 Inst. I.iii.3, OS III, 40.

2 Inst. II.ii.24, OS III, 266-67. One may note in this passage the synonymous
usage of “iudicium universale,” “intelligere,” “conscientia,” “rationem,” and
“intelligentiae.”
« Ibid.
7 Ibid.
was provided when he had the power of right understanding (recta

intelligentia), passions disposed to reason, all senses governed in right
order (recto ordine), and truly reflected excellence in the exceptional
gifts of his maker. And though the primary seat of the Divine image
(Divinae imaginis) was in the mind and heart (mente et corde), or in the
soul and its powers: yet there was no part, even of the body, in which
some sparks did not shine.1
Calvin’s assertion that the body, also, displays some “sparks”

of the Divine image is of a piece with his willingness to find it in the
creation,2 and simply points up once more the interrelatedness of
the three spheres of order. But it is the soul, man’s inner life, which
is the “primary seat” of the imago Dei—a fact which Calvin never
ceases to emphasize: the image of God is “engraved” (insculpta)
on the soul in creation,3 can be conceived as an “inner good of the
soul,” 4 identified with the “faculties in which man excels,” 5 and
described as “the perfect excellence of human nature.” 6 But these
encomiums do not have as their intention the exaltation of the soul
at the expense of the body; rather, it is the exaltation of man, or more
precisely, of man’s original condition:
As God in the beginning formed us according to his image, that he

might excite our minds to a desire for virtue and to meditation upon
the heavenly life, so, lest the great nobility of our race, which disting¬
uishes us from brute beasts, be buried by our indolence, it behooves
us to recognize that we were provided with reason and understanding,
so that by leading a holy and honest life, we may press on to the
appointed end of a blessed immortality.7
What becomes increasingly clear in these repeated references to

the “nobility,” “integrity,” and “excellence” of human nature—i.e.,
of the soul and its power, especially reason—and by the identifi¬
cation of these with the “image of God,” is the predominantly

2 Inst. I.v.l, OS III, 45; Inst. I.xv.3, OS III, 178. Cf. Parker, p. 18, and
Torrance, p. 40.
6 Inst. I.xv.4, OS III, 180: “Dei imago sit integra naturae humanae praestantia.”
Cf. Inst. Il.i.l, OS III, 228: “Sciamus quanta sit naturae nostrae excellentia,
siquidem integra maneret.” Integer, translated whole, perfect, pure, and integritas,
translated integrity, obviously have the same denotations.
7 Inst. Il.i.l, OS III, 228-29. Cf. Inst. II.i.3, OS III, 230: “Yet neither would
God have us forget the original nobility which he bestowed upon our father Adam.”
humanistic note in Calvin’s anthropology. In his efforts to describe

the condition, the nature, of prefallen man, Calvin lays himself under
obligation not to the biblical tradition, as some have argued,1 but to
the “the philosophers.” 2 His general agreement with them, in fact,
is broken at only one (admittedly decisive) point—the fall. They
have erred, not in their description of the nature of man, but in their
supposition that this character has remained unimpaired.3 It is not
the case, then, that Calvin has filled a humanistic framework with
specifically Christian substance—just the reverse: he has rather given
to the biblical term a humanistic, philosophical content.4 * 6
This does not mean, of course, that there are no biblical con¬
notations, nor does it mean that the imago Dei is an inalienable en¬
dowment, fully and finally in man’s possession; for precisely as the
image of God, i.e., as the order of man which reflects the divine glory,
it is contingent upon the ordinatio Dei.h It does mean, however, that
the image of God is natural to man, that as a quality (excellence,
1 Calvin does state that the imago Dei is best recognized “from the reparation
of corrupt nature,” and that it is Christ “the most perfect image of God,” who
“restores us to a true and solid integrity,” thereby implicitly suggesting that we
must turn to him for our knowledge of it. But the argument is purely formal,
even when Paul is adduced as an authority for that which has been established
on other grounds, viz-, that the image of God comprises “knowledge, then
sincere righteousness, and holiness” (Inst. I.xv.4, OS III, 179-80). Nowhere is
the proper content of the imago Dei deduced either from the humanity of Christ,
or from regenerate man. The real cogency of Calvin’s argument lies in its de¬
finition of regeneration as the restoration of the original order of man. Cf. Niesel,
p. 69, who seizes upon this “decisive” text as a disclosure of the “essense of
Calvin’s theology,” and makes him argue that “the true being of man is dis¬
closed in Him [Christ] alone,” and therefore not in “our own nature,” and not in
“the biblical story of creation.” He apparently fails to discern the formal character
of the argument, and does not explore other possibilities, least of all the one
offered here. Torrance, pp. 116-20, does not so much as raise the question whether
Calvin’s anthropology has philosophical roots.
2 Cf. Inst. I.xv.6-8, OS III, 182-87; Inst. II.ii.2, OS III, 243.
3 Inst. I.xv.8, OS III, 186: “Hence the great darkness which confronted the
philosophers, who sought smooth joints in a ruined edifice and in dissipation.
They held this priciple, that man would not be a rational animal unless he had
free choice of good and evil; for it occurred to them that unless man arranged his
life by his own counsel, the distinction between vices and virtues would be des¬
troyed. Good enough, thus far, if no change had occurred in man.”
4 At this point, anyway, exception must be taken to the assertion of Wendel,
p. 44, that Calvin breaks completely with humanism at his conversion, retaining
afterwards only its “method” and “intellectual outlook.”
6 Calvin does not ordinarily use the term in this connection. That the concept
is operative here may be assumed from the created nature of man. Cf. Inst. II.i.7,
OS III, 236.
nobility, integrity) of the soul it belongs to man as an order prescribed

by God.1
4. The Work of the Spirit in Man
But, like the order of creation, the image of God in man is also
dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit, for he not only sustains
man with life-giving power,2 but is the source of particular “gifts”
as well:
Paul plainly testifies that judgment and knowledge and gentleness,

and all other gifts, proceed from one source. For it is the office of the
Spirit to put forth and exercise the power of God (exsere Dei potentiam
et exercere) by conferring these gifts upon men, and distributing them
among them.3
Concerning these gifts, Calvin permits himself to follow the

tradition 4 in distinguishing between the “natural” and the “super¬
natural” or “spiritual” gifts.5 Constitutive of the former, basically,
are reason and will,6 although pains are taken to enumerate the powers
of the understanding as they are displayed in the arts and sciences.7
1 Cf. Torrance, pp. 35, 44, who also describes the imago Dei as an “order,”
and who, furthermore, emphasizes the dependence of this order upon the Word
and Spirit of God (pp. 52, 56). The difference between his presentation and the
one given here lies in the conception of order itself and in the precise nature of the
relationship between order and the Word and Spirit upon which it is dependent.
Torrance minimizes the fact that the soul is the seat of the imago Dei (p. 53),
virtually reduces the image to the “communicated word” (p. 58), and thus to
man’s “total relation with God” as that is effected by Christ (p. 86). Consequently,
the image is said to be “above nature” (pp. 71, 73, 75): it does not belong to man
in any way, but is thought to “hang over” him (p. 110). According to this inter¬
pretation, the imago Dei is not so much a human order dependent upon the Word
and Spirit as it is the communication of the Word by the Spirit.
2 Comm. Ps. 104.29, CO XXXII, 95: “We continue to live, as long as he
sustains us by his power, but as soon as he withdraws his vivifying Spirit, we die.
Even Plato knew this, who so often teaches that, properly speaking, there is but
one God, and that all things subsist in him alone.”
3 Comm. I Cor. 12.5, CO XLIX, 498. According to Calvin, the term spirit can
be applied by metonymy to the gifts themselves (ibid.; Cf. Comm. I Cor. 14.12, 14,
CO XLIX, 521, Comm. Is. 40.13, CO XXXVII, 16-17). Man himself can be
designated as spirit, so long as the Manichean error—“that our souls are so in¬
fused by the transmission (traduce) of the Spirit of God that there should be only
one Spirit”—is avoided (Comm. Num. 16.22, CO XXV, 222; cf. Inst. I.xv.5,
OS III, 181-82).
4 Inst. II.ii.4, OS III, 245-46.
6 Inst. Il.ii. 12, OS III, 254-55.
8 Ibid.
7 Inst. II.ii.13-17, OS III, 256-60.
Among the latter, he counts “faith, love of God, charity toward the
neighbor, and zeal for holiness and righteousness.” 1
The distinction is misleading, however, first of all because it tends
to obscure the fact that both the “natural” and the “supernatural”
gifts derive from the Spirit of God.2 Thus: “all mortals receive from
God’s Spirit whatever understanding and light they enjoy,” 3 “no
one excels in even the meanest work except insofar as the Spirit of
God works in him,” 4 and “from the creation of the world, all who
have invented arts (artes) useful to the human race have been imbued
with the Spirit of God.” 5 By “arts” Calvin means inventions and
developments of a technological sort, but he discerns a similar
“inspiration” in the fine arts as well.6 In sum, there is for Calvin but
one “fountain of truth”—the Holy Spirit—and wherever that truth
is found, whether in the jurists of antiquity, the philosophers, the
rhetoricians, physicians or scientists, there the work of the Holy
Spirit is to be acknowledged and honored.7
Secondly, the distinction is misleading because the dichotomy
between natural and supernatural suggests a static way of thinking
which is actually alien to the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching. For
“faith,” “love,” and “righteousness” are not merely superadded to
“reason” and “will,” but are intrinsic to and elicited from them.
True knowledge of God is a singular gift of his, and faith, by which
alone he is rightly known, proceeds only from the illumination of the
Spirit.... Our minds are not able to pierce so far, with nature alone
as guide.8

2 Comm. Mt. 25.15, CO XLV, 568: “By this term Christ does not distinguish
the natural from the spiritual gifts; for there is no power or skill which ought not
to be acknowledged as having been received from God.” Cf. Comm. Ex. 35.31,
CO XXV, 62: “The gifts of nature (naturae bond) proceed from the Spirit of God,
who gives understanding no less than life to all.”
3 Comm. Dan. 2.22, CO XL, 580.
4 Comm. Ex. 31.2, CO XXV, 58.
6 Comm. Ex. 28.2, CO XXIV, 429.
6 Comm. Num. 11.24, CO XXV, 175: “We know that poets were calledpro-
phets by profane writers, because poetry itself savors of inspiration (ev0uai.aap.6v ),
I Sam. 10.10. In the same way, that rare ability in which the inspiration (afflatus)
of the Spirit shone obtained the name of prophecy.. . . The Spirit of p rophecy
flourished in them for a short time.”
7 Inst. II.ii.15, OS III, 258: “If we think that the only fountain of truth is the
Spirit of God, then we must neither reject nor contemn the truth itself, wherever
it appears, unless we wish to be insulting with the Spirit of God; for no gifts of
the Spirit are cheaply regarded, without heaping contempt and opprobrium
upon him.”
8 Comm. Acts 17.27, CO XLIV, 416: “Veru Dei cognitio •.. sola rite cog
By “nature” * 1 Calvin means just that endowment of reason for

which the Spirit is also responsible,2 so that even in those contexts
where the distinction is specifically mentioned,3 it is clear that the
true knowledge of God which is faith represents a deeper penetra¬
tion,4 5 owing to the greater stimulation of the mind by the Holy
Spirit. But this implies, and Calvin actually affirms, a knowledge of
God which is not yet faith:
There is no need of any Law, there is no need of any Scriptures, in

short there is no need of any teaching (doctrina), in order for man to
know that his life is in the hand of God, that deliverance is to be
sought from him alone, and that nothing . . . ought to be looked for
from any other quarter: for invocation testifies that men have this
persuasion concerning God. Invocation, then, comes from nothing
other than some hidden instinct (arcano quodam instinctu) and from the
leading and teaching of nature (duce ac magistra natura).h
This is, to be sure, natural knowledge of God inasmuch as it

occurs apart from any historical revelation; 6 but it is not “natural,”
noscitur, non nisi ex spiritus illuminatione procedat. . . sola natura duce non
posse illuc penetrare mentes nostras.”
1 Dowey, pp. 65-66, surveys Calvin’s ambiguous usage of the word “nature,”
concluding—rightly, I think—that it may denote either of two diametrically
opposed concepts, w'^., the created order or the fallen state. Cf. Inst. Il.i.ll,
OS III, 240: “We say, therefore, that man is corrupted by a natural wickedness
which, however, did not flow from nature.”
2 Comm. Dan. 2.30, CO XL, 588: “For although we are naturally endowed with
the greatest acuteness, since this is his gift, yet it is, as it were, a limited gift, as it
does not reach to heaven.”
3 E.g., Comm. Eph. 1.17, CO LI, 156: “But let it be observed that the gifts of
the Spirit are not the gifts of nature. The eyes of the heart are blind until they
are opened by the Lord. Until the Spirit has become our instructor, all that we
know is ignorance and folly .... The knowledge of our divine calling exceeds the
capacity of our mental powers.”
4 Comm. Ps. 40.4, CO XXXI, 407: “Since, then, so many are blind regarding
the works of God, let us learn that only those are considered to see clearly to
whom the Spirit of understanding has been given, that they may not occupy their
minds in dwelling upon the mere events which take place, but may discern in them
by faith the secret hand of God.”
5 Comm. Jon. 1.5, CO XLIII, 213. Cf. Comm. Dan. 6.20, CO XLI, 22: “A
certain secret impulse (arcanus quidem instinctus) naturally drives (naturaliter im-
pellit) man to fly to God, for although scarcely one in twenty leans upon God’s
word, yet all men occasionally invoke God (Deum invocent).” Comm. Ex. 27.1,
CO XXIV, 418: “It is clear that from the very beginning of the human race there
were burnt sacrifices, evidently dictated by the hidden impulse of God’s Spirit
(arcano spiritus Dei instinctu) because there was no written law.”
6 Cf. Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel
(London: The Centenary Press, 1946), pp. 35-50, 99-109. Concerning the inter¬
pretation of Calvin, it seems to me that Brunner is to be followed rather than Barth.
if by that is meant a knowledge of God which is won by unaided

reason, because arcano instinctu is, for Calvin, a terminus technicus for
the work—a special work—of the Holy Spirit.* 1 Here again, the
distinction between natural and supernatural gifts beclouds the
dynamic aspect of Calvin’s epistemology, in which the gift of reason
itself, and all the knowledge through which it is fulfilled, culmi¬
nating in “true knowledge of God,” are directly attributable to the
guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit, as well as to the duce
ac magistra natura, and, therefore, to the ordinatio Dei behind it.
The order of man, then, the imago Dei, depends not only upon the
ordinatio Dei, but also upon the activity of the Holy Spirit.2 And
here we may say that a useful purpose is served, after all, by
Calvin’s distinction between natural and supernatural gifts: it enables
him to state succinctly the effects of the fall upon man. Since imago Dei
is a term embracing the dynamic reality of the order, or integrity, of
man, and since this includes both the natural gift of reason and its
fulfillment, Calvin cannot say that the image of God has been lost or
Although he does not adequately reckon with the work of the Holy Spirit, he does
emphasize the “partial” knowledge of God “gained from nature” (p. 38), the
relationship between the imago Dei and order (p. 40), and the humanistic cast to
Calvin’s thought (pp. 41-43). Barth, on the other hand, forces upon Calvin his
own inability to distinguish between an imperfect and a saving knowledge of
God (p. 82), when he twists Calvin’s assertion that such knowledge is the source
of idolatry to mean an equation of such knowledge with idolatry (p. 107), and
when he apparently forgets that only real knowledge—-and no mere possibility—•
“justifies the wrath of God and his judgment upon man.” (p. 108). It is the natural
and consistent consequence of the position taken up by Torrance, following
Barth, that he will find in Calvin “no knowledge of God apart from atonement . . .
the death of Christ” (p. 169). Dowey, pp. 247-49, defends Brunner against Barth,
and makes the duplex cognitio Domini (knowledge of God the Creator and knowl¬
edge of God the Redeemer) the central issue in his interpretation of Calvin
(pp. 41-49). But the knowledge of God the Creator turns out to be, in conclusion,
merely a “logical or conceptual presupposition” for the knowledge of God in
Christ, which in turn is the “epistemological presupposition” of the knowledge
of the Creator” (p. 239). That is, we know God the Creator only through the
revelation of Christ in Scripture (p. 147). Whatever one may think of this as a
defense of Brunner, it is not adequate to the plain statements of Calvin himself.
1 Cf. Appendix.
2 Comm. Ps. 51.7, CO XXXI, 514: “Since God did not endow Adam with the
gifts of his Spirit as a private person, but bestowed upon him what he wished to
be common to the whole human race, we all fell from our original integrity in
him.” The same point may be made—and here is the real significance of the
formal argument of Inst. I.xv.4 (cf. supra )—from regeneration by the Spirit:
“ •. . that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so reformed and purged of
wickedness that the image of God shines forth in it” (Comm. Rom. 7.18, CO
XLIX, 132).
destroyed, or even simply that it is defaced. But borrowing the dis¬

tinction he can say with the tradition: “the natural gifts in man were
corrupted, but the supernatural really removed,” 1 thereby indicating
the continued, although somewhat crippled, functioning of mind, as
well as its inability to attain “true knowledge of God.”
Of course, the “true knowledge of God” involves knowledge of
his will, knowledge of good and evil, and so refers directly to the
conscience and indirectly to the efficacy of the human will. This
entire complex of themes is pertinent to Calvin’s conception of the
imago Dei, and we shall begin to unravel them in our analysis of the
third and final sphere of order, vi%., the or do politicus.
5. The Political Order

Ratio, as we have already seen, fulfills itself in the exercise of
politia, government, and so in the establishment of the ordinem
politicum.2 It is not surprising, therefore, to find Calvin relating the
“political order” directly to the “image of God.” 3 This bears out,
moreover, the suggestion that the three spheres of order are inter¬
related, the order of man being the connecting link between the
other two.
The term ordo politicus is for Calvin both a concept covering the
actually obtaining conditions in a given society,4 and a norm by
which those conditions are judged, i.e., it has both descriptive and
normative connotations.5 In the latter case, political order will be
identified with iustitia, justice, which Calvin defines as the “best
constituted state of public affairs, in which everything is administered
rightly and in order.” 6 Such tension as may exist between the two
2 Politia, ordo politicus and societas are used interchangeably by Calvin, although
the specific connotations of each refer respectively to the act of governing, the
conditions resulting from such action, and the community of the governed.
3 Inst. I.xv.4, OS III, 180: “When man alone is called by Paul the image and
glory of God, and woman excluded from this place of honor [I Cor. 11.7], it is
clear from the context that this ought to be restricted to the political order.”
Cf. Inst. IV.xx.24, OS V, 495.
4 Comm. Zech. 11.10, 11, CO XLIV, 309-10: “The dispersion did not immedi¬
ately take place, so that there was no societas among the Jews; but the ordo
politicus was so far gone that it was sufficiently evident that they were not divinely
ruled.”
6 What Brunner, p. 37, says of “nature,” i.e., that it is “both a concept of being
and a concept of a norm,” is equally applicable here. The same, of course, might
be said of the concept imago Dei.
6 Comm. Is. 48.18, CO XXXVII, 186. Cf. Comm. Is. 45.8, CO XXXVII, 135:
“The Lord drops justice down from heaven, that is, righly composed order.”
connotations, however, is considerably mitigated by the fact that

Calvin places all his weight behind the possibility and necessity of
approximating the norm. He can say, consequently, that “it is the
prevalence of justice which holds human society together.” 1
Like the order of creation and the order of man, the ordo politicus
is also understood as deriving from and dependent upon the or-
dinatio Dei\ “for although even the beasts of the field profit by po¬
litical order, yet we know government to have been ordained by
God for the benefit of men.”2 3 It shares the quality of being in favorem
hominum with the order of creation, but it differs from that, and from
the order of man, inasmuch as it does not stand in direct relation
to the creative activity of God. For, in spite of the language used, e.g.,
“dropped from heaven,” to indicate the “appointed,” “ordained”
character of politia, God is rather to be thought of as its remota
causa? The more immediate agent is man himself, whose instrumen¬
tality in this regard is of two kinds.
First of all, just the divine establishment of rulers in itself is pro¬
ductive of order; the “peace and decency of society” flows as in¬
eluctably from the appointment of magistrates as food from the earth.4
This is true, moreover, of all government:
God appointed the existence of governments (imperia) in the world

for this purpose—to be like trees, on whose fruits mortals feed and
under whose shadow they rest. Hence this ordination of God ('or-
dinatio Dei) flourishes, because tyrants, however they are removed
from the exercise of just and moderate dominion, whether they wish
it or not are compelled to be like trees; for it is better to live under the
crudest tyranny than without any government at all.5
The notions of tyranny and compulsion, of course, must be re¬

ferred to the fall and its consequences, but government itself, the
state, is not made necessary by the fall.6 Tyranny, therefore, is “better
1 Comm. Ps. 82.5, CO XXXI, 770. Cf. Comm. Is. 24.12, CO XXXVI, 400:
“How much God is pleased with government and the well constituted order of
all things; and also how great a privilege it is to have it preserved among us . . ..
When these fall, civilization itself falls along with them.”
2 Comm. Dan. 4.10-15 CO XL 657. Cf. Comm. I Pet. 2.14, CO LV, 245: “It
behooves us reverently to regard and respect the political order, because it has
been appointed by God for the common benefit of mankind.”
3 Cf. Troeltsch, II, 897, and Bohatec, pp. 55-56.
4 Comm. I Tim. 2.2, CO LII, 266: “Magistrates were appointed by God for
the protection of religion as well as of the peace and decency of society, in exactly
the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food.”
5 Comm. Dan. 4.10-16, CO XL, 657.
6 Cf. Troeltsch, II, 895, 898, Bohatec, pp. 53-59, and Dowey, p. 63.
THE PRINCIPLE ORDER 31
and more useful than avap^ta” because “there never has been a
tyranny, nor can one be imagined, in which some species of equity
(aequitatis) has not appeared.1 That is so, not only because govern¬
ment is grounded in the ordinatio Dei, but also because, and insofar as,
it is dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit:
Kings can keep themselves within the bounds of justice and equity
only by the grace of God; for when they are not governed by the
Spirit of righteousness proceeding from heaven, their government
is converted into a system of tyranny and robbery.2
If Calvin appears to think in fixed categories here, that is only

because he has in mind the normative rather than the descriptive
connotations of order.3 He knows very well that there are degrees
of order in governments, just as there are degrees in the knowledge
of God; in both cases, he is concerned to emphasize not what is,
but what ought to be.
With the use of “equity” as a synonym for “order” there emerges
the second aspect of man’s agency in the establishment of the political
order, vi%., the making of laws. The two are interdependent inasmuch
as God “has established kingdoms and principalities” for no other
reason than that men may be “governed by laws and polity.” 4
Government must be government by law. Thus,
next to the magistracy in the civil state come the laws, stoutest sinews
of the commonwealth; or, (as they are called by Cicero after Plato)
souls, without which the magistracy cannot stand, even as they have
no strength without the magistracy. Accordingly, nothing truer could
be said than that the law is a silent magistrate, the magistrate a living
law.5
Calvin scorns those who would restrict politia to an enforcement of

the politicis of Moses.6 “Surely,” he argues,
1 Comm. I Pet. 2.14, CO LV, 245.

2 Comm. Ps. 72.4, CO XXXI, 665-66, Cl. Comm. Mt. 12.18, CO LXV, 332:
“None of the kings of earth can frame or defend good order, except so far as he
shall be assisted by the same Spirit.” Cf. Comm. Mic. 2.1-3, CO XLIV, 319-20,
Comm. Ps. 72.1, CO XXXI, 664.
3 Cf. pp. 39-40.
4 Brief Form of a Confession of Faith, T&T II, 135, CO IX, 720 (Hereafter, this
work shall be cited in the following manner: Brief Confession, T&T II, 135, CO
IX, 720): “Dieu veult que le monde soit gouverne par loix et pollicis afin . . .
quil a establis les royaulmes et principaultez.”
6 Inst. IV.xx.14, OS V, 486.
6 Ibid.
every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees will be pro¬
fitable to itself, so long as they are measured by that perpetual rule of
love (perpetuam illam caritatis regulam), so that the purpose remains
the same, though the form may vary.1
Man, in short, has the responsibility for making laws (iudiciariis)2

which are to be conformed to and measured by that “precept
of love.” 3 Here Calvin—clearly guided by the teaching of Jesus—
reaches back to the second table of the decalogue for this criterion
of all law.4 But in the immediate context he directly implies the
identification of the “precept of love” with the “natural” principle of
equity which is “the same for all.” 5
Man is able to make law, therefore, because God has “engraved
on human nature a law of equity (aequitatis indicium)” on the basis
of which “men rarely err in general principles,” and unanimously
confess that “each man ought to receive his right.” 6 Or, as he ex¬
presses it more fully:
Since man is by nature a social animal, he tends by natural instinct

to nourish and conserve that society; and therefore we perceive in
the minds of all men universal impressions of a certain civic honesty
and order. Hence no one is to be found who does not understand
that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws,
and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence,
that perpetual consent of all nations as well as individuals to the laws,
for their seeds have been universally implanted, without teacher or
legislator.7
Political order is dependent upon the agency of man, then, because

it grows out of the rational structure of humanity, which structure—
in this regard—takes the form of “impressions” of “order,” and
“comprehension” of the “principles” of “laws.” The seeds of law are
given with human reason, and with the exercise thereof political
1 Inst. IV.xx.15, OS V, 487.

2 Inst. IV.xx.15, OS V, 487. Calvin uses a variety of terms (iudicialis, iudiciorum
forma, iudiciariis) to refer to those laws for which men have responsibility.
3 Inst. IV.xx.15, OS V, 487.
4 Ibid.
6 Inst. IV.xx.16, OS V, 488. Cf. Inst. II.viii.53, OS III, 392: “But the Lord
intends that the law only prescribe for us the observance of right and equity among
men.” Bohatec, pp. 39-40, sees in this Calvin’s synthesis of the divine and the
natural law: “Calvin makes the attempt, precisely at the point of the command to
love the neighbor, to bring both laws closer to one another.”
6 Comm. Gen. 29.14, CO XXIII, 401: “Fatentur uno ore ius suum cuique
reddendum.”
7 Inst. II.ii.13, OS III, 256-57.
order emerges.1 Involved here, of course, is Calvin’s entire doctrine

of natural law—an important aspect of his thought to which we cannot
do justice, although it will be necessary to seek some clarification of
those points which are especially pertinent to our subject.
First, Calvin identifies—roughly, anyway—the natural law and
the divine moral law,2 drawing conscience into the closest possible
relationship to the former, and positing equity as its essential content:
Now as it is well known that the law of God, which we call moral,
is nothing else than a testimony of the natural law (naturalis legis
testimonium') and of that conscience which God has engraved on the
soul of man, the whole scheme of this equity of which we are now
speaking is prescribed in it. Hence this equity alone must be the scope
and rule and limit of all laws.3
While Calvin here places conscience directly in the political arena,

it must be observed that he does not always do so, that in three
decisive texts 4 the term has reference to an inner, or private, morality:
or, as Calvin puts it, “solum Deum respicit.” 5 In two of these texts,
moreover, Calvin deliberately restricts conscientia to the “spiritual”
as opposed to the “temporal” or “earthly” spheres of human fife,6
and in all of them the discussion turns upon the problem of guilt—an
issue quite alien to our present treatment.
Further complications seem to arise when we ask for the relation¬
ship between conscience and the natural law, and when we consider
the meaning of the terms sensus naturae and communis sensus, which
1 Like the semen divinitatis, these “seeds” chiefly represent a capacity and function
of ratio which is fulfilled in knowledge, in this case, knowledge of law. Cf. Bohatec,
p. 7.
2 Comm. Ps. 119.52, CO XXXII, 236: “Nihil aliud est lex scripta quam testi-
moniam legis naturae, quo Deus reducit nobis in memoriam quae iam cordibus
nostris sunt infixa.” Cf. Dowey, pp. 61-62; Bohatec, pp. 12, 32; and Troeltsch, II,
580-81.
3 Inst. IV.xx.16, OS V, 488.
4 Inst. II.ii.22, OS III, 264-65; Inst. Ill.xix. 14-16, OS IV, 293-96; Inst. IV.x.3-5,
OS V, 165-68. The second and third are almost identical.
5 Inst. III.xix.16, OS IV, 296. This is meant quite literally, for “huius legis
observationi, etiam nullus in mundo homo viveret, conscientia mea subiicitur”
(Inst. IV.x.4, OS V, 167).
6 Inst. III.xix.15, OS IV, 294: Speaking of the “iurisdictio spiritualis et
temporalis,” Calvin observes, “Alterum vocare nobis liceat, regnum spirituale;
alterum, regnum politicum.” Similarly, he repeatedly urges the necessity of
distinguishing “inter externum (ut vocant) et conscientia forum” (Inst. IV.x.3,
5, OS V, 165, 167).

appear to have connotations remarkably similar to those of con-

scientia.1 2
The way out of this ambiguity—and we shall not fully attain it
until we take up the question of law in the Old Testament—lies in
the following direction. We must first of all allow to Calvin a certain
linguistic freedom: his ideas may be legalistic, but his style is that
of the humanist. Secondly, we must recall that each of these terms
has its roots in ratio? and that their different connotations were
evidently of insufficient importance to force Calvin into a rigid
schematization.
While conscientia, in strictest speech, solum Deum respicit, and
while the sensus naturae, or communis sensus, may well be described as
“the sense for justice and the sense for order,” 3 the fundamental
distinction to be made is that between ratio as it directly perceives
the will of God and ratio as it conceives and organizes society. Calvin’s
willingness to employ the word conscientia in both respects, together
with his free use of synonyms, simply afford further evidence of the
functional character of these terms with regard to ratio.
The general question of the relationship between conscientia and
the lex naturae, therefore, must be specifically formulated in terms of
Calvin’s distinction between the “spiritual” and the “political”
spheres, vi£., what is the relationship between the lex naturae and
conscientia as it respects God alone, and what is the relationship
between the lex naturae and conscientia as it has regard to the political
ordering of society ? 4 An answer to the former is what must be
1 Comm. Gen. 29.13, CO XXIII, 401: “Now the sense of nature (naturae
sensus) dictates that they who are united by ties of blood should endeavor to assist
each other.” Comm. Gen. 1.28, CO XXIII, 29: “This is that law of nature which
common sense {communis sensus) declares to be inviolable.” Cf. the appendix
provided by Dowey, pp. 245-46, in which he contends against Bohatec, pp. 8-10,
that the sensus naturae ought not be separated from conscience.
2 Bohatec, pp. 5, 7.
3 Bohatec, p. 9.
4 Wendel, p. 208, notes the distinction together with the decisive fact that the
“application of the natural law” is different in each.” He does not pursue it
further, however, Dowey, p. 62, correctly outlines the issue, but his tendency to
restrict conscience to the spiritual sphere once again betrays a compartmentaliza-
tion of ratio. Bohatec seems to be making the same distinction, although in a more
circuitous way, when he distinguishes the lex naturae from the ordo naturae on the
one hand (p. 4), and conscientia from the sensus naturae on the other (p. 8); for he
defines conscientia as the seat of God’s judgment and the exposer of sin (p. 7) and
identifies it with the natural law (p. 5), while his conception of order {supra) is
obviously correlated with the sensus naturae, i.e., “the sense of right, in which the
postponed; as for the latter, we may say that the lex naturae is that
ordinatio Dei upon which the or do politicus depends, inasmuch as its
essential content—equity (brotherly love)— is the rule by which
political order is measured.* 1 Conscience, in this case, is ratio as it
perceives the lex naturae and makes law accordingly.
Since the lex naturae is ordinatio Dei, however—and here we touch
upon Calvin’s unification of the two spheres—conscience is not only
a function of ratio in the establishment of political order, but ulti¬
mately has a spiritual significance as well. This appears implicitly
in the repeated demand that subjects obey their magistrates—even
tyrants—because they have been “constituted by God’s ordination.” 2
Consequently,
even though individual laws may not apply to the conscience, we are
still held by God’s general command (generali praecepto) which com¬
mends us to the authority of magistrates. And Paul’s discussion turns
on this point: the magistrates, since they have been ordained by God,
ought to be held in honor.3 4
Such obedience is required “for conscience’ sake (conscientiae

causa)”; 4 conscience (in the spiritual sense) is at this point politically
bound. The two spheres, then, are finally related through the ground-
sense of justice and the sense for order, and therefore the sense for moral and
aesthetic worth, are bound, and out of which a corresponding moral judgment
flows.” (p. 9). Dowey, pp. 66, 68, has pointed out some of the flaws in Bohatec’s
analysis; to these I would only add that Bohatec makes even more rigid the
compartmentalization of ratio, and is driven by his distinctions to see in Calvin’s
identification of “love” and “equity” the results of a forceful and conscious
“synthesis” (pp. 39-48).
1 The identification of lex naturae and ordinatio Dei permits Calvin to speak
of “God and nature” as equally authoritative. Cf. Comm. Acts 18.26, CO XIV iii,
437-38: “She performed the function of a teacher at home and in private lest she
overthrow the order prescribed by God and nature.” Comm. Lev. 18.6, CO
XXIV, 662: “The prohibition of incests. . .flows from the fountain of nature
itself, and is founded on’ the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and
inviolable. Certainly God declares that the custom which had prevailed among
the heathen was displeasing to him, and why is this but because nature herself
repudiates and abhors filthiness.”
2 Comm. Rom. 13.1, CO XLIX, 249: “The reason why we ought to be subject
to magistrates is, because they are constituted by God’s ordination. For since it
pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempts to invert the order of
God, and thus to resist God himself, despises his power; since to despise the pro¬
vidence of him who is the author of political law is to carry on war with him.”
Cf. Comm. I Tim. 2.2, CO LII, 266; Comm. I Pet. 2.13, CO LV, 244.
3 Inst. IV.x.5, OS V, 168.
4 Ibid. Cf. Comm. Gen. 16, 8, CO XXIII, 227: “Lawful authorities are to be
obeyed, for conscience’ sake.”
ing of the political order in the will of God and in man’s direct per¬
ception of this (ratio as conscientia).1 2 3 4
Because the two spheres are intrinsically related, and because
the precepts of love and equity are identified, Calvin’s conception of
political order is most fully expressed in his teaching about the
“neighbor.” “The word neighbor,” he writes, “extends indiscrim¬
inately to every man, because the whole human race is united by a
sacred bond of society.” 2 It is a “sacred bond” because we are bound
by God “for the purpose of assisting each other.” 3 Not only is it
the will of God that man should not be alone, but it is also the divine
intention that human society should be regarded as a neighborhood,
distinguished above all by mutuality:
No man is born for himself, but mankind is knit together with a holy
knot. Therefore, unless we are disposed to overthrow the laws of
nature, let us remember that we must live not for ourselves, but for
our neighbors.4
It is in living for each other, it is through the exchange of “kind¬

nesses,” that the “community of life” is “properly cultivated.” 5
This is the concretion of order, and any refusal to participate in such
harmonious existence, any insistence upon living for one’s self alone,
is accordingly judged to be “disorderly.” 6 * 8
Unlike our treatment of the other spheres of order, we have not
here brought under systematic consideration the work of the Holy
Spirit. We have also left unanswered the question of the relationship
between the lex naturae and conscientia as it has respect to God alone.
1 Just the spiritual character of this binding, of course, provides Calvin with
the basis for his well known exceptions to the demand for obedience (Inst. IV.
xx. 31, 32, OS V, 501-02).
2 Comm. Lk. 10.29, CO XLV, 613: “Quia totum humanum genus sancto
quodam societatis vinculo coniunctum sit.” Cf. Comm. Lev. 19.13, CO XXIV, 674.
3 Comm. Lk. 10.30, CO XLV, 613.
4 Comm. Acts 13.37, CO XLVIII, 303. Cf. Comm. Deut. 10.12, CO XXIV,
724: “The whole human race forms one body of which all are members, and
consequently should be bound together by mutual ties. Comm. Lk. 10.30, CO
XLV, 613: “The guidance and teaching of nature demonstrate that man was
created for the sake of man (hominem hominis causa esse creatum).”
5 Comm. Ex. 22.1, CO XXIV, 679: “Heathen authors also saw this, although
not with sufficient clarity, that since all men are born for the sake of each other,
the community of life is not properly cultivated unless they exchange kindnesses
among themselves.”
8 Comm. II Thess. 3.5, CO LII, 211: “He therefore , who lives to himself alone,
so as to be profitable in no way to the human race ... is on good grounds reckoned
to be axa^ta.”
THE FALL 37
The omissions are not merely coincidental, for Calvin cannot discuss
the latter without reference to the work of the Spirit, nor can he
relate the work of the Spirit to the political order without taking up
the problem of conscience, solum Deum respicit. Since Calvin’s answers
to these questions are provided in the context of his treatment of
biblical law, we are obliged to defer our resolution of these issues also.
C. The Fall
According to Calvin, “the whole order of nature” which we have

just described is “perverted” 1 by the original rebellion of Adam, a
rebellion which may be characterized as “pride” and as “disobedience,”
but which finds its deepest “root” in “infidelity.” 2 This self-willed
“estrangement” from God brings on—indeed, constitutes—the
“destruction of the soul,” i.e., the “obliteration” of the image of
God.3 And by his defection, Adam involves the whole of mankind in
that “hereditary corruption which is called original sin by the fathers.” 4
When Calvin says that the soul has been destroyed, or that the
image of God in man has been obliterated, he is not to be taken
literally: such language more nearly conveys his own feeling for the
drastic nature of the occurrence than it provides a precise analysis.5
That, as we have already seen, has been given us in the Augustinian
distinction between the corruption of the natural and the loss of the
supernatural gifts. Or, to put this in language more appropriate to the
dynamics of Calvin’s thought: the natural gifts of reason and will
are so weakened and darkened that they cannot find fulfillment in
“faith, love of God, charity toward the neighbor, zeal for holiness
and righteousness.” 6 The excellence, the nobility, of the soul has
been stained; the order, the integrity, which distinguishes humanity
has been disrupted. Man is still man, still has the imago Dei, but
“the whole man is overwhelmed—as by a deluge—from head to
foot, so that no part is immune from sin.” 7
1 Inst. II.i.5, OS III, 232.

2 Inst. II.i.4, OS III, 231-32: “Proinde infidelitas radix defectionis fuit.”
3 Inst. II.i.5, OS III, 232-33: “Ita alienato ab eo fuit animae interims.” “In eo
oblitera fuit caelestis imago.”
4 Inst. II.i.5, OS III, 233.
6 Elsewhere, Calvin states that the imago Dei was “not totally annihilated and
destroyed,” but “vitiated and almost blotted out.” Inst. I.xv.4, OS III, 179-80.
Cf. Niesel, p. 81.
7 Inst. II.i.9, OS III, 239. Corresponding, of course, to the “traces” of the
imago Dei which are to be found in the body. Cf. supra, p. 23.
Because the three spheres of order are interrelated, the rupture

in human integrity will necessarily have consequences in the order of
creation and in the political order. Calvin makes the connection
explicit:
The image of God, in which he had been formed, was annihilated. He

then declares, that the whole world, which had been created for his
sake, fell together with him from its primary original, and that in this
way, much of its native excellence was lost.1
The world falls with man; but it also falls because of man: “we
ourselves have reversed the order of nature which was constituted
by God; otherwise the earth would never deceive us, but would per¬
form her duty.” 2 Man is a responsible agent in collapse of the created
order, but it would be a mistake to think that his determination is
decisive against the ordinatio Dei. Thus will Calvin also speak of the
“wrath of God” as responsible for the “subversion of order.”3
It is nonetheless true that “if we were rightly composed in obedience
to God, all the elements would certainly sing to us, and we should
observe in the world, as it were, an angelic melody.” 4
When Calvin speaks of the “subversion,” the “disturbance,” the
“confusion” of the order of nature, he does not mean that it is sunk
in chaos. Just as the imago Dei in man is not annihilated, but corrupted,
so too the order of nature is perspicuous in spite of irregularities.5
Similarly, the fall entails the perversion, but not the abolition of
political order. We have already suggested that tyranny is one of the
consequences of the fall. It is so, however, not only in the sense that
the wickedness of the tyrant is itself a perversion of order, but also

2 Comm. Is. 24.5, CO XXXVI, 401. Cf. Comm. Jer. 5.25, CO XXXVII, 636:
Heaven and earth are often confused and confounded . . . many things happen
unreasonably, as though God had no care for us, because we raise a tumult against
him by our sins, and thus confound and subvert the order of nature .. . because
we do not allow God to govern the world in a regular and consistent order, but
as far as we can, disturb and confound his providence.”
3 Comm. Is. 34.13, CO XXXVI, 586: “Conversio ordinis triste signum est irae
Dei.”
4 Comm. Jer. 5.25, CO XXXVII, 635.
6 Comm. Gen. 8.22, CO XXIII, 141: “The order of the world is indeed disturbed
by our vices, so that many of its movements are irregular: often the sun withholds
its proper heat, snow or hail follow in the place of dew, the air is agitated by
various tempests; but although the world is not so tempered as to produce
perpetual uniformity of seasons, yet we perceive the order of nature so far to
prevail that winter and summer annually recur, that there is a constant succession
of days and nights, and that the earth brings forth its fruits in summer and autumn.’
THE FALL 39
in the sense that the tyrant is the instrument of divine wrath 1 against
the wickedness of the people.2 But tyranny is not, and cannot be,
totally destructive of order.
Tyrants endeavor to extinguish the whole light of equity and justice,

and to mingle all things; but the Lord meanwhile restrains them in a
secret and wonderful manner, and thus they are compelled to act
usefully to the human race, whether they will or not.3
Of course, the attempt to extinguish equity is disorderly, but

some equity will always be discernible, even in tyrannies, because of
this secret restraint.4
Inasmuch as Calvin can refer the perversion of these two orders
now to the sin of man, now to the wrath of God, the question con¬
cerning final responsibility will clearly have to be resolved in terms
of the still more basic issue, whether man or God is responsible for
the fall ? Actually, Calvin’s answer to this question—although neither
simple nor straightforward—is reasonably clear and comprehensible.
But the way in which he answers it is of crucial importance to our
understanding of him.
Consistently, Calvin does not shrink from the assertion that God
ordains the fall of man.5 He is equally adamant, however, in his
insistence that God is not thereby the author of sin,6 and that Adam
“voluntarily gave himself to the service of sin and Satan, and vo¬
luntarily precipitated himself into destruction.” 7 Both the priority
of divine providence and the reality of human responsibility must be
maintained: “man falls, therefore, the providence of God so ordain¬
ing; but he falls by his own fault.” 8 No final, or completely rational
1 Comm. Is. 22.21, CO XXXVI, 382: “Wicked magistrates are indeed appointed
by God, but it is in his anger, and because we do not deserve to be placed under
his government.”
2 Inst. IV.xx.25, OS V, 496: “They who rule unjustly and incompetently
have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people.”
3 Comm. Dan. 4.10-11, CO XL, 657.
4 I take this to be a reference to the work of the Spirit, distinguished from, but
correlated with, the “secret counsel of God (arcano Dei consilio),” a term which is
also used by Calvin in connection with God’s sway over heathen kings. Comm.
Ex. 9.16, CO XXIV, 112, and Comm. Jer. 39.13, CO XXXIX, 189. Cf. infra.
5 Inst. III.xxiii.7, OS IV, 401-02. Cf. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal
Predestination of God, trans., J. K. S. Reid (London: James Clarke & Co., 1961),
pp. 100-101, 121-23, CO VIII, 269-97, 313-15. (Hereafter, this work will be cited
in the following manner: Predestination, pp. 100-101, CO VIII, 296-97).
8 Predestination, p. 122-123, CO VIII, 314-15.
7 Predestination, p. 122, CO VIII, 314. Cf. Inst. III.xxiii.8, OS IV, 402.
8 Inst. III.xxxii.8, OS IV, 402-03.
40 Calvin’s conception of order
comprehension is to be won from this, and we should be pleased to

settle for an “instructed ignorance.” 1 But any correct assessment of
the matter must balance these seemingly contradictory truths: God’s
ordination of the fall, and man’s responsibility—not God’s—for sin.
1. The Withdrawal of the Spirit

Now the question arises, is the work of the Holy Spirit correlated
with this ordinatio Dei also ? Does the Holy Spirit work in the fall,
as well as in the creation, of man ? Unmistakably, Calvin answers the
question affirmatively, but the negative character of the fall presup¬
poses a negative, rather than a positive work, of the Spirit, vi%., the
withdrawal of the Spirit.
This finds expression, first of all, in the loss of the “supernatural”
gifts: “in short, we are despoiled of the excellent gifts of the Holy
Spirit, of the light of reason, justice and rectitude, and are prone to
every evil.” 2 Secondly, the withdrawal of the Spirit signals, for
Calvin, a consequent deliverance to Satan: “for those whom the Lord
does not deem worthy to be guided by his Spirit, he abandons,
with just judgment, to Satan’s action.” 3 It is not to be inferred from
this, however, that the work of Satan, rather than the work of the
Spirit, is now to be correlated with the ordinatio Dei in the disposition
of human affairs.
Satan himself has no real power: he is “clearly under God’s power,
and is so ruled by his bidding as to be compelled to render him
service.” 4 And even with respect to man, he functions as a seducer,
or tempter, and not as an overlord.5 This “leading” of Satan, to be
sure, replaces the “guidance” of the Spirit, but we shall have to ask
what this means in view of the fact that the power to follow these
beguilings cannot derive from Satan himself ? Here, we must advert
1 Predestination, p. 123, CO VIII, 315.

2 Comm. Gen. 3.6, CO XXIII, 62. Cf. Inst. II.i.7, OS III, 236.
3 Inst. Il.iv.l, OS III, 291. Comm. Ps. 109.13, CO XXXII, 152: “That venge¬
ance commences when God, in withdrawing his Spirit from the children and the
fathers, delivers both up to Satan.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 26.72, CO XLV, 743.
5 Inst. Il.iv.l, OS III, 291: “This does not mean that, like unwilling slaves
rightly compelled by their masters to obey, our will, although reluctant and
resisting, is constrained to take orders from the devil. It means rather that the will,
captivated by Satan’s wiles, of necessity obediently submits to all his leading.”
Cf. Comm. Gen. 50.20, CO XXIII, 619: “For they are not led to sin, as the faithful
are to act aright, by the impulse of the Spirit, but they are the authors of their own
evil, and follow Satan as their leader.”
THE FALL 41
to a threefold distinction which Calvin employs with respect to

God’s action upon man:
There are three ways in which God acts upon men. First, all of us
move and exist by him. Hence it follows that all actions proceed from
his power. Secondly, he moves and turns the wicked in a peculiar
manner according as he thinks fit; and although nothing is further from
their thoughts, still he makes use of their agency . . . Thirdly, when
he governs by his spirit of sanctification, which is peculiar to the
elect.1
In each of these “ways,” it seems to me, Calvin has in mind—
although he specifies it only of the third—the work of the Holy
Spirit. As to the first, we have already had occasion to note Calvin’s
use of the word “power” as a synonym for “Spirit.” 2 The work
described here does not differ from the Spirit’s enlivening and ani¬
mating of the whole creation, even though the reference is to man
alone. The first as well as the third way, then, is evidently a work of
the Spirit; but what of the second ?
At times, Calvin sets side by side, in order to relate and distinguish,
references to the work of the Spirit in the elect, and to a “general
power,” or “presence” which is pertinent to the reprobate.3 The
latter operation, especially in view of its apparently neutral character,
may seem to embrace the first way. At other times, however, this
neutral quality gives way to sharper contrast:
Although he does not govern them (wicked men and devils) by his
Spirit, yet he checks them by his power (potestate) as if with a bridle,
so that they are unable to move unless he permits them to do so.
Further, he even makes them ministers of his will.4
Clearly, this describes the difference between the third and the
first ways; and if the reference to God’s power is—here as elsewhere—
1 Comm. Is. 10.5, CO XXXVI, 215. Cf. Comm. Rom. 8.14, CO.
2 Supra. This holds true, whether Calvin uses virtue, potentia, or potestas.
3 The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the
Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, LCC XXII, 285; CO IX, 484-85.
(Hereafter, this work will be cited in the following manner: Partaking, p. 285,
CO IX, 484-85); “When he later says that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must
send him back to his rudiments, that he may learn how to discriminate between
the sanctification proper to the elect, and the children of God, and the general
power (potentia) which is proper even to the reprobate.” Cf. Comm. Gen. 21.20,
CO XXIII, 305: “He is present with his elect, whom he governs by the peculiar
grace of his Spirit; he is also present at times, as regards external life, not only
with his elect, but also with strangers (extraneis).”
4 The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, LCC XXII, 94; OS II, 78. (Hereafter,
this work will be cited in the following manner: Catechism, p. 94, OS II, 78).
42 Calvin’s conception of order
a circumlocution for “Spirit,” then we must conclude that Calvin

contrasts two operations of the Spirit—a governing of the elect
and a bridling of the reprobate. That Calvin thinks systematically
of such a work by the Spirit, moreover, is corroborated by his teaching
concerning the “secret impulse.” 1 In both cases, his reticence to
pronounce the Spirit’s name in connection with this work derives,
first from his intention to make it clear that this is not a sanctifying
work of the Spirit, and secondly from his refusal to acknowledge,
or appear to acknowledge, God as the author of evil.
It is in just this way, also, that we are to understand Calvin when he
says that “Satan himself is held bound and constrained by the bridle
of his power.” 2 3 God is no more responsible for satanic than human
evil, but that evil, like every other, is brought forcibly under the
control of God’s ordination and Spirit. Satan, hence, is nothing more
than the “means” by which the ungodly are compelled to be the
“ministers” of God’s will:
Although the impious rush on intemperately, yet they are restrained
by a secret bridle, and are prevented from executing whatever their
lusts dictate .... But God acts among angels and demons just as
among the inhabitants of the earth. He governs others by his Spirit,
namely, his elect, who are afterwards regenerated by his Spirit....
He also acts upon the reprobate, but in another manner, for he draws
them headlong by means of the devil; he impels them by his secret
power (arcana sua virtute), and strikes them with a spirit of dizziness
(jpiritu vertiginis).z
The “leading of Satan,” therefore, cannot indicate a replacement
of the Spirit’s power by some other; it can only mean that the power
of the Spirit is not complemented by his “government,” i.e., by his
“enlightenment.” Thus the “darkness” in which the reprobate dwell
is contrasted with the “light” appropriate to those whose minds are
illumined by the Spirit.4 The reprobate—fallen man as such—dwells
in satanic darkness, i.e., he does not know that he is “governed by
God’s hand,” 5 does not know that in pressing his own rebellious
cause he is nonetheless the instrument of God’s will.
1 Cf. Appendix.
3 Comm. Dan. 4.35, CO XL, 689. Cf. Comm. Ex. 35.20, CO XXV, 61.
4 Comm. Eph. 5.8, CO LI, 217: “Light, again, is the name given to those who
are enlightened by the Spirit of God; for immediately afterwards in the same
sense he calls them children of light, and draws the inference, that they ought to
walk in the light . . . for out of Christ all is under the dominion of Satan, whom
we know to be the prince of darkness.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 58.5, CO XXXI, 561.
5 Comm. Heb. 12.6, Cl LV, 174.
THE FALL 43
Not all of this “hidden” work of the Spirit in the reprobate is

reflected in the machinations of Satan, of course. There is a happier
work of the Spirit in the ungodly, vithe impartation of gifts:
We ought not to forget those most excellent gifts of the divine Spirit,
which, for the public good of the human race, he dispenses to whom¬
ever he wishes ... It is no wonder then, that the knowledge of all that
is most excellent in human life is said to be communicated to us by
the Spirit of God. Nor is there reason for anyone to ask, what have the
impious to do with the Spirit, since they are utterly alienated from
God? For when it is said that the Spirit of God dwells only in the
faithful, that is to be understood of the Spirit of sanctification.1
Again, Calvin is careful to distinguish the sanctifying from the

non-sanctifying work of the Spirit; he can more comfortably ascribe
both directly to the Spirit, however, because here there is no question
of evil, only of good.2
So once more we may say that the work of the Spirit is correlated
with the ordinatio Dei, this time in a manner appropriate to the fall
of man.
D. Conclusion
We have seen that the work of the Spirit and the ordinatio Dei
conspire in the creation of the natural order, in establishing the
integrity of man, and in the achievement through man of political
order. So decisive is their determination of order, in fact, that it is
subject to reversal, to change, at their instance. Yet order remains,
because order is what God wills (ordinatio) and through his Holy
Spirit effects.3
Man, in defecting from obedience to God, disrupts the orderly
pattern established by God, but does not thereby destroy it in any
1 Inst. II.ii.16, OS III, 258-59. Comm. John 13.18, CO XLVII, 311: “The
reprobate are sometimes endowed by God with the gifts of the Spirit, to execute
the offices with which he invests them. . .. But this is widely different from the
sanctification of the Holy Spirit, which the Lord bestows on none but his own
children.” Cf. Comm. Is. 48.15, CO XXXVII, 183.
2 This parallels, and confirms, our understanding of the work of the Holy
Spirit in the imago Dei. Cf. supra.
3 Of the three definitions of order presented earlier, that of Dowey is to be
preferred to those of Torrance and Bohatec, although none of them is entirely
correct. Neither Dowey nor Bohatec takes into account the work of the Spirit
in the establishment of order, and both are prone—partly for that reason—to
compartmentalize Calvin’s thought and to obscure its unity. Torrance’s definition
has some merit if one presupposes both sin and redemption, and suffers, therefore,
chiefly from his persistent refusal to see in Calvin’s thought anything but Christol-
ogy-
respect. Creation, the political order, and man himself, are now
marked by confusion and ataxia, but not by chaos. But even this
confusion of order, we have seen, is to be understood in terms of the
correlation of the ordinatio Dei and the work of the Spirit, for it is
the withdrawal of the Spirit which describes the fall of man, and it
is the yet remaining (though hidden) work of the Spirit which
accounts for the preservation of order in spite of man’s disobedience.
Calvin’s conception of order, therefore, is guided at every point
by his understanding of the correlation between the work of the
Spirit and the ordinatio Dei. But the question remains: what is the
precise nature of the relationship between them ?
The ordinatio Dei, we have seen, is grounded in that “essential
Word” of God of which it is the expression. Insofar, the question is
one of the relationship between the second and third persons of the
Trinity. There, obviously, the correlation is absolute: one cannot speak
of the Son apart from the Spirit, or of the Spirit apart from the Son.
As the expression of that essential Word, however, as revelation,
that ordinatio (verbum, mandatum, decretum) cannot be correlated ab¬
solutely with the work of the Spirit. This is clear, on the one hand, in
Calvin’s teaching of the’ withdrawal of the Spirit in the fall, and, on
the other hand, in his doctrine of the “secret impulse of the Spirit.”
There is, to be sure, a positive correlation between God’s ordination
of the fall and the withdrawal of the Spirit, but—by the same token—
an absence of correlation between the Spirit and God’s ordination of
the integrity of man.1 Here then is an instance of ordinatio apart from
the work of the Spirit, whereas the “secret impulse of the Spirit”
is a work which takes place apart from the ordinatio Dei, i.e., apart
from the objective revelation of God to man.
We are now in a position to draw the following conclusions:
wherever the ordinatio and spiritus Dei are correlated, there is order;
where the Spirit works apart from the ordinatio Dei, there is the
extraordinary;2 insofar as the ordination of the fall is correlated with
the withdrawal of the Spirit, there is confusion and disorder; but
since this ordination is paradoxically related to the original ordination
of God in the creation of the world, such disorder can never amount
to chaos or destruction and man (naturally) perceives this ordination,
1 While these two ordinations are no doubt reconcilable in the “hidden counsl”
of God, they must remain paradoxical to man. The important thing is, the Spirit
cannot be correlated to both at the same time and in the same man.
2 See Appendix.
CONCLUSION 45
through the mists of confusion and disorder, as the lex naturae4

The Spirit is, indeed, operative in this perception, but not as the
“Spirit of sanctification.” To say more than this is to speak of the
Church, and that is what we must now do.
1 Troeltsch, p. 615, is basically correct when he asserts that “Calvin regards

the absolute Law of Nature so little as the real standard, and takes for granted
that the relative Natural Law is a Divine institution, that he lays all the emphasis
on that which is practical, possible, and suitable.” While it is possible to lay one’s
hands on scattered references to the Natural Law as it makes concessions to the
fact of sin, as Troeltsch does, (p. 895), the absence of any clear teaching on Cal¬
vin’s part suggests that the distinction may not be necessary. Troeltsch’s own
understanding of Calvin’s view of the State, (pp. 613, 898), is a case in point.
The State, he contends, “is never regarded as a mere antidote to the fallen State
and a penalty for evil, but is always chiefly regarded as a good and holy institution,
appointed by God himself.”
CHAPTER TWO
THE RESTORATION OF ORDER
A. The Creation of the Church
Even though the originally established order of God has not been
totally destroyed, there is a “contradiction” between the intention
of the Creator and the fallen condition of man—a contradiction which
is removed, for Calvin, only by God’s salvation of the church:
The prophet concludes that the whole order of nature would be sub¬
verted, unless God preserved the church. For the creation of the world
would serve no purpose if there were no people to call upon God.1
Since the world was created for the sake of man, and together
with him glorified God, and since it fell with man in his defection
from original righteousness, so now its restoration is contingent
upon the salvation of man, i.e., the church.2 This contingency, how¬
ever, does not alter the fact that “the whole world is governed by
God for our salvation. All things are directed to this end, that those
whom he has elected may be saved.” 3
As soon as Calvin speaks of the fall, then he must begin to speak
of the church; that is why he places Adam and Eve among its mem¬
bers,4 and that is why he can refer to the church, also, as a creation of
God.5 That is no more to be conceived statically than the original
act of creation: here, too, we must think of a creatio continua, of a
1 Comm. Ps. 115.17, CO XXXII, 192.

2 Comm. Ps. 96.10, CO XXXII, 41: “So long as ungodliness has possession of
the minds of men, the world, plunged as it is darkness, must be considered as
thrown into a state of confusion and horrible axaîav and misrule; for there can
be no stability apart from God. . . . Though all the creatures of the world should
be discharging their various offices, nothing is orderly in the world until God
erects his throne and reigns among men.” Cf. Comm. Is. 40.5, CO XLVII, 37:
“The deliverance of the Church from its beginning down to the advent of Christ
was indeed an unparalleled renovation of the world.”
3 Comm. Is. 14.1, CO XXXVI, 272. Cf. Comm. Is. 44.7, CO XXXVII, 110:
“As all things were created for the sake of man, so all men were destined to be of
use to the church.”
4 Supra, p. 8.
6 Comm. Mai. 2.10, CO XL1V, 445: “Creavit Deus totum genus humanum:
sed creavit genus Abrahae.”
THE CREATION OF THE CHURCH 47
creation which extends to providence.1 Consequently, the creation

of the church, also a creatio ex nihilo, is represented by Calvin as recur¬
ring resurrections from death.2 When he describes the “restoration”
as “perpetual,” 3 then, he points not so much to eternity as he does
to the perpetual need of a disordered and confused world for “God’s
gathering together of his Church.” 4 The church is not so much an
institution in history in which the restoration of order has been
accomplished, as it is itself the history of that restoration.
B. The Covenant
The beginning of that history, in the sense that a self-conscious

community is the presupposition of history, is to be located in the
covenant made between God and Abraham:
In the beginning, antecedently to this covenant, the condition of the

whole world was one and the same. But as soon as it was said, ‘I will
be a God to you, and to your seed after you,’ the church was separated
from other nations. . . . Then the people of Israel was received, as
the flock of God, into their own fold.5
By this covenantal promise God separates from the “other nations”

a peculiar people, a church. Calvin refers to this act of God variously
as “the general election of the people (_generalis populi electio),’’’’ 6 the
“common adoption (communis adoptio),” 7 8 9 and as the “adoption (totum
populum adoptio)” 8 or “election {totius gentis electione)'’ 9 of the “whole
nation.” These two words—election and adoption—Calvin uses inter-
1 Comm. Gen. 42.1, CO XXIII, 529: “Scarcely any more illustrious represen¬
tation of Divine providence is to be found than this history furnishes.”
2 Comm. Gen. 15.10, CO XXIII, 217: “The general condition of the church
is represented to us, as it is the peculiar province of God to create it out of nothing,
and to raise it from death.” Cf. Comm. Gen. 37.6, CO XXIII, 482: “A most
beautiful example of divine providence . . . that the Lord . . . brings forth the
salvation of his church, not from magnificent splendor, but from death and the
grave.”
3 Comm. Is. 66.72, CO XXXVII, 453: “The restoration (instaurationem) of the
church shall be of such a nature as to be perpetual (perpetuitatem).”
4 Comm. Ps 75.2, CO XXXI, 701: “It being his object, then, to convey in
these words a promise that he would remedy such a confused state of affairs, he
very properly commences with the gathering together of a church (ecclesiae collec¬
tions). ”
6 Comm. Gen. 25.23, CO XXIII, 351. Cf. Comm. Hos. 12.3-5, CO XLII, 454.
7 Comm. Gen. 25.23, CO XXIII, 350. Cf. Comm. Rom. 11.29, CO XLIX,
228-29.
8 Comm. Mt. 10.6, CO XLV, 275.
9 Inst. III.xxi.6, OS IV, 377. Cf. Comm. Acts 13.33, CO XLVIII, 299.
48 THE RESTORATION OF ORDER
changeably, although the one seems to connote more the eternal

decree whereby God separates Israel from the other nations,1 while
the other more readily suggests the historical act by which God
unites the people to himself.2 Both motifs, at any rate, are integral to
Calvin’s conception of the covenant: it occurs in time, in history—but
it is not, thereby, an afterthought in the mind of God.
This draws attention to the fact, furthermore, that the word
covenant is also used interchangeably with the other two.3 It would
be a mistake, therefore, to think of the covenant as being founded
upon the general election of God: rather, it is the general election.
And this equivalence derives straight from the fact that the covenant
is nothing more or less than God’s word. Wherever the word is
proclaimed, there is the covenant,4 and in this regard, the covenant
has the character of an ordinatio Dei, offering to “the whole people . . .
the promise of salvation.” 5
1. The Mutuality of the Covenant
In speaking of the covenant as an ordinatio Dei, we have necessarily

described it in a one-sided manner. But the covenant has two sides,
God’s and the people’s:
The relation between God and his people as to the covenant is mutual
(mutua est). It is God’s covenant, because it flows from him; it is the
covenant of the church because it is struck for the sake of the church,
and, as it were, laid up in its bosom.6
It is with good biblical precedent that Calvin thinks of the covenant

as a legal bond between two parties, but it is distinguished from or-
1 Comm. Gen. 25.23, CO XXIII, 351: “The general election of the people
had reference to this end, that God might have a church separated from the rest
of the world.” Cf. Inst. III.xxi.6, OS IV, 376-77.
2 Comm. Is. 43.15, CO XXXVII, 92: “He reminds them of the adoption by
which he joined them to himself in a peculiar manner.”
3 Comm. Hos. 12.3-5, CO XL1I, 454: “There was ... a general election, for he
received all his seed into his faith, and offered to all his covenant.” Comm. Mt.
1.22, CO XLV, 67: “A covenant of adoption was given to the Jews. . . . There
was then a general promise, because God chose the children of Abraham as a
people for himself.” Cf. Comm. Eze. 16.8, CO XL, 342.
4 Comm. Gen. 25.23, CO XXIII, 350: “But when an entire people is the subject
of discourse, reference is made ... to the common adoption which spreads as
widely as the external preaching of the word.. .. God embraced, by the grace of
his adoption, all the sons of Abraham, because he made a covenant with all.”
Cf. Comm. Mai. 2.10, CO XLIV, 445-46.
5 Comm. Rom. 9.6, CO XL1X, 175.
6 Comm. Zech. 9.11, CO XLIV, 275.
THE COVENANT 49
dinary contracts—again, with good biblical grounds—by the fact

that on God’s side it is characterized as ordinatio. That means, first
of all, that the covenant originates in the mercy of God, the grace of
God, and notin human initiative.1 Secondly, it means that the co¬
venant is, on God’s side, “inviolable.” 2 He will, accordingly, defend
and protect this people, will be their God,3 however they meet, or
fail to meet, their responsibilities. The mutuality of the covenant
consists in the fact that they do have responsibilities, that they, too,
are laid under obligation:
It is the will of God that in this world he should be magnified and

exalted in the assembly of the just, whom he has adopted into his
family for this end, that they might live with one accord (unanimis)
under his authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.4
This is, quite simply, the end and aim of the covenant, that there
should be in the world a harmonious community—its unanimity
growing out of obedience to the will of God through the leading of
the Spirit. The human side of the covenant, then, is an order,5 an
order dependent upon the ordinatio Dei and the work of the Spirit.
The covenant is mutual because there are rights and responsibilities
on both sides; but this mutuality is strictly governed by the relation¬
ship of ordinatio to ordo, so that the covenanted community is alto¬
gether dependent upon God’s covenantal word.
2. The Hereditary Character of the Covenant
We have thus far spoken of the covenant as it pertains to Israel,

simply considered. And Calvin thinks of it in this way also, of course.
1 Comm. Dan. 9.4, CO XLI, 133: “The covenant flows from the mercy of
God. That is, the covenant is not founded on human dignity or born in human
merit, but has its cause, stability, effect and completion in the grace of God alone.”
Cf. Comm. Gen. 25.19, CO XXIII, 347.
2 Comm. Jer. 50.5, CO XXXIX, 396: “God’s covenant was indeed, ever
inviolable.. . . The adoption, as Paul testified, remains fixed, and can never be
changed. On God’s part, therefore, the covenant was eternal (fosdus erat aeternum).''’
Cf. Comm. Rom. 11.29, CO XLIX, 228-29, Comm. Zech. 1.17, CO XLIV, 148.
3 Comm. Is. 10.17, CO XXXVI, 223: “He determines to protect that people
which he has chosen, and which he has separated from the rest of the nations to be
a peculiar people to himself.” Cf. Comm. Is. 14.32, CO XXXVI, 293.
4 Comm. Ps. 16.1, CO XXXI, 150.
5 Comm. Zech. 11.10-11, CO XLIV, 310: “When order was trodden under
foot, the covenant was made void. Why indeed was the covenant continued, and
what was its design, if not that all things should aptly and rightly be joined to¬
gether among themselves? Thus in the church, we see that God is concerned for
order (ordinem)....”
Studies in the History of Christian. Thought, V 4

It is, for him, the “bond of holy alliance” between all generations of
Israelites.1 But it is that “bond” not because there is a periodic re¬
giving, or renewal, of the covenant, but because the people participate
in the covenant made with Abraham: “God made a covenant with
Abraham, and the adoption of the people was founded upon it.” 2
When Calvin refers to Abraham as the “father of the church,” then,
he intends to suggest far more than would be conveyed by an honor¬
ific title: he is the “father of the church” inasmuch as he is “the father
of many nations,” 3 because the calling of Israel flows from him,4
and because in him “there was exhibited a mirror and example of
righteousness which belongs in common to the whole church.” 5
All of which suggests that Abraham sustains more than the character
of an individual member of the church, even its most eminent:
For he was not called as a private individual, but the demonstration

of God’s eternal justice which was given in his calling is common to
all believers; as if he had said, that in his person the community of
all the pious had been brought forth. . . . And indeed, in a single
individual we behold the calling of believers, and a sort of model of
the church, and the beginning and end of our salvation.6
To participate in the covenant, then, requires that one be “in

Abraham,” and that means to be descended from him.7 This strongly
suggests that the covenant is a biologically transmitted reality, and
some support for this view may be found in Calvin’s reflections on
the destiny of the patriarchs, whose premature death or unfruitful
marriage would have foreclosed the covenant, because “Christ” was
“enclosed” in their “loins.” 8 To the same effect, it would seem, are
1 Comm. Ps. 44.2, CO XXXI, 438. Cf. Comm. Ps. 44.5, CO XXXI, 439-40.
2 Comm. Eze. 16.8. CO XL, 342.
3 Comm. Gen. 17.6, CO XXIII, 327: Not “because his seed was to be divided
into many nations, but, rather, because many nations were to be gathered unto
him.”
4 Comm. Gen. 15.7, CO XXIII, 215: “This indeed is said . . . that all the pious
may learn to regard the beginning of their calling as flowing perpetually from
Abram, their common father.”
6 Comm. Rom. 4.1, CO XLIX, 68.
6 Comm. Is. 41.2, CO XXXVII, 34. Cf. Comm. Gen. 12.10, CO XXIII, 183:
“Abram is not to be regarded as an individual member of the body of the faithful,
but as the common father of them all.”
7 Comm. Gen. 17.7, CO XX11I, 237: “Scripture declares that the race of
Abraham, by descent from him, had been peculiary accepted by God. . . . Where¬
fore nothing is more certain, than that God made his covenant with those sons of
Abraham who were naturally to be born of him.”
8 Comm. Gen. 12.11, CO XXIII, 184: “While he [Abraham] reflected that the
hope of salvation was enclosed in himself, that he was the fountain of the church
THE COVENANT 51
his affirmations of the racial purity of Israel,* 1 and of certain sexual taboos.2
And yet a different line of thought seems to be operative in Calvin’s
estimate of the place of the “stranger” within Israel:
But there were others who were not sprung up from the holy fathers,
and were not indigenous to the land, but yet they had been circum-
cized, and as far as religion was concerned, had become members of the
church; and God wishes them to be counted in the same class and
rank as the sons of Abraham.3
While those “naturally” born sons of Abraham are, ipso facto,

included in the covenant, other modes of participation are not
thereby excluded. It would seem to be rather the “family of Abra¬
ham,” then—a social as much as a biological phenomenon—to
whom the covenant is confined, and for whom it is hereditary.
Moreover, we have earlier seen 4 that Calvin thinks of the church
as existing prior to Abraham in a “continuous line of descent” from
Adam and Eve. It is, in fact, the chief purpose of the priestly geneal¬
ogies to indicate who does, and who does not, belong to that lineage.5
of God, and that unless he lived, the benediction promised to him, and to his
seed, was vain.” Cf. Comm. Heb. 11.18, CO LV, 158: “The death of Isaac . . . must
have been the death, as it were, of all the promises; for Isaac is not to be considered
as a common man, but as one who had Christ enclosed in himself.” Comm. Gen.
28.14, CO XXIII, 393: “. . . Jacob, in whose loins Christ then was.”
1 Comm. Lev. 20.21, CO XXIV, 667: “It is just that those should be exter¬
minated in barrenness from the world, who have endeavored to corrupt the holy
race of Abraham with their adulterous seed.” Cf. Comm. Gen. 47.3, CO XXIII,
566: “The Lord directed their tongues, so as to prevent the noxious admixture,
and to keep the body of the church pure and distinct.”
2 Comm. Deut. 23.1, CO XXIV, 331: “For God intended nothing else than to
exclude from the congregation of his people, wherever holy assemblies were held,
those who were mutilated or defective in the genital organs.”
3 Comm. Eze. 14.7, CO XL, 305. Cf. Comm. Num. 19.7, CO XXIV, 335:
“Such strangers are not adverted to as were altogether aliens from the people,
but those who, although born of heathen parentage, had embraced the law. These
God equalizes with the children of Abraham . . . for if their condition were
different, the church, into the body of which they were ingrafted, would be rent
asunder.”
4 Supra, pp. 8.9
5 Comm. Gen. 5.1, CO XXIII, 105: “The design with which this catalogue was
made, was, to inform us, that in the great, or rather . . . prodigious multitude of
men, there was always a number, though small, who worshipped God; and that
this number was wonderfully preserved by heavenly protection, lest the name of
God should be entirely obliterated, and the seed of the church (ecclesiae semen)
should fail.” Comm. Gen. 4.24, CO XXIII, 102: “Where he will say, that ‘Adam
begat sons and daughters,’ he undoubtedly includes a great number who had
been born before Seth; to whom, however, but little regard is paid, since they
were separated from that family which worshipped God in purity and which
might truly be counted the church of God.”
But how is it that the church exists prior to the appearance of her
father ? While the hereditary conception of the covenant would
permit us to allot a certain preparatory role to the ancestors of
Abraham, it will not altogether resolve the dilemma. For that re¬
solution, it seems to me, we must take recourse in the notion which is
the presupposition for the hereditary conception of the covenant,
vi^., the church as an organism. There is a church prior to Abraham,
but it exists only in “seed.” With his calling, i.e., with the cutting of
the covenant, the seed is fertilized, and sprouts:
And although hitherto he [Abraham] was ignorant of his own future
vocation, yet God designed in his person, as in a mirror, to make it
evident whence and in what manner his church should come up
(emergat); for at that time it lay hidden under the earth, as in a dry root
(arido trunco).1
The Church first sees the light of day in the election and calling
of Abraham, and receives the covenant as its birthright. It is this
inheritance, in turn, which defines and gives shape to the organism
throughout its life history.
This brings us to a final consideration of the covenant in its hered¬
itary aspect. For Calvin, the covenant promises the salvation of the
world through a redeemer, to be born of the family of Abraham.
The hereditary character of the covenant stipulates, therefore, that
“the promise of salvation had been, in a way, enclosed (inclusa erat)
in that family until the coming of Christ.” 2 But this must signify
that the covenant will be nullified unless the redeemer appears—and
Calvin affirms just this.3 The hereditary character of the covenant
therefore means above all that the relationship between the cov-
enantal community and the redeemer is interdependent. The promise
of salvation made to Israel is, to be sure, fulfilled only in Christ;
but the Christ will come only through a preserved Israel.
3. The Second Degree of Election

When Calvin writes, “the covenant was in such a way hereditary,
that the Jews ought nevertheless to have reckoned it as an adventi-

2 Comm. Mt. 1.1, CO XLVIII, 56: “God committed to himself the family of
Abraham (genus Abrabae) from whence the redeemer of the world would be born,
and the promise of salvation had been, in a way, enclosed in that family until the
coming of Christ.” Cf. Supra.
3 Comm. Lk. 24.27, CO XLV, 802: “Unless there be in the family of Abraham
one eminent head, under whom the people may coalesce in one body, the covenant
which God made with the holy fathers will be dissipated and void.”
THE COVENANT 53
tious good,” 1 he combines the two aspects of the covenant heretofore

considered. Simply by right of birth, the Jew participates in the cov¬
enant, but it ought not to be taken for granted. God’s faithfulness to
the covenant is not to be presumed upon; the gift comes as a demand.
To be a child of God and to be an Israelite, are two things closely con¬

nected, for God determines that the church shall be the mother of
all his children. Yet it ought to be noted, that none are lawful citizens
of the church but those who submit to the government of God. 2
The full implication of Calvin’s distinction of “lawful citizens”

we shall shortly see, but we must first observe that the history of
Israel is scarely one of obedience to the will of God. They are, con¬
sequently, thought of as “covenant breakers,” 3 and the covenant is
nullified—but only on their side.
A contrast must be understood between the people’s covenant and

God’s. . . . He would be mindful of his own agreement, and yet it
had been dissipated, broken and abolished. He shows that it was
fixed on his own side (firmum ex parte sua), as they say, but void on
the side of the people ('irritum ex parti populi).4
That is to say, the covenant as ordinatio Dei remains intact, for it

is unchangeable. But as the ordo intended by that ordinatio it has been
broken—once more—by human sin. On this account, Israel loses,
as far as she is concerned, the covenantal protection of God, and is
given up to destruction.5 At the same time, God’s faithfulness to the
covenant manifests itself in the preservation of a “remnant” out of
the total destruction of Israel.6 The “perpetual and inviolable”
1 Comm. Jer. 18.1-6, CO XXXVIII, 296: “Haereditarium esse illud foedus, ut

tamen debeant illud imputare Iudaii quasi adventitum bonum.”
2 Comm. Is. 44.5, CO XXXVII, 108.
3 Comm. Jer. 50.5, CO XXXIX, 396: “The Jews had become covenant
breakers (foedi fragi).”
4 Comm. Eze. 16.61. CO XL, 395. Cf. Comm. Jer. 13.11, CO XXXVIII, 157:
“Their defection rendered void God’s covenant as far as they were concerned:
for though God never suffered his faithfulness to fail, however mendacious and
perfidious they were, yet the adoption from which they had departed availed them
nothing.”
5 I have here “telescoped” the history of Israel. Of course, Calvin also knows
of God’s patience with his people. Cf. Comm. Hos. 11.9, CO XLII, 446: “The
Lord, however, spared his people for a time, for among them was included his
church.” Com.. Is. 54.5, CO XXXVII, 271: “The memory of the covenant
remained, and hence God also created them anew.”
6 Comm. Jer. 8.13, CO XXXVIII, 14: “Destruction was nigh them all, so
that none would remain, that is, with regard to the people as a body; for God
always saved some remnant.” Cf. Comm. Is. 1.9, CO XXXVI, 36.
character of the covenant requires this,1 for “there must always be a

church in the world,” 2 even though this be “as in a grave,” 3 or,
more likely, “among common and despised men.” 4
The constitution of this remnant, however, is by no means left to
chance, nor is it dependent, finally, upon the will of man. There
is rather a second, and secret, election of God:
There was a twofold election of God: since speaking generally he

chose the whole family of Abraham .... But the other was secret,
because God took to himself out of that multitude those whom he
wished: and these are the sons of promise, these are the remnants
('reliquiae) of gratuituous favor.5
Not only in the various remnants does Calvin discern the outwork¬
ing of God’s secret election, but the preference for Judah over Israel
also has behind it this “second degree of election.” 6 Above all,
however, this “secret election” pertains to individuals:
His gratuitous election is only half displayed, however, until we come

to individual persons (singulas personas) to whom God not only offers
salvation, but assigns it in such a way that the certainty of the effect
is not in suspense or doubt.7
“Particular” election is distinguished from “general” election,

therefore, in at least three ways: first, it has to do with individuals,
rather than groups or nations; second, it is not only offered, but assign¬
ed; and third, it carries with it a certainty which does not admit of
any doubt.
1 Comm. Eze. 6.9, CO XL, 145: “They [the remnant] should be preserved,
because God was unwilling to extinguish the whole church, lest he destroy the
covenant, which ought to be perpetual and inviolable.”
2 Comm. Eze. 16.53, CO XL, 387: “Semper ecclesiae esse in mundo.”
3 Ibid.
4 Comm. Eze. 11.14-16, CO XL, 236: “The remnant must not be sought in
that order which then appeared, but rather among common and despised men.”
6 Comm. Eze. 16.3, CO XL, 355: Cf. Inst. III.xxi.6, OS IV, 376: “We must
now add a second, more restricted degree of election, or one in which God’s more
special grace was evident, that is, when from the same race of Abraham God
rejected some, but showed that he kept others among his sons by nourishing them
in his church.”
6 Comm. Gen. 49.8, CO XXIII, 597: “The glory of the divine election . ..
was engraved upon the tribe of Judah. . .. whereas defection carried away ten
tribes.” Cf. Comm. Gen. 38.1, CO XXIII, 493. Comm. Jer. 50.4, CO XXXIX, 394.
7 Inst, lll.xxi.7, OS IV, 377: Cf. Inst. III.xxi.5, OS IV, 374: “Predestination
we call the eternal decree of God by which he determined in himself what he
wishes to become of each individual man. . . . some are foreordained to eternal
life, and others to eternal damnation.”
THE COVENANT 55
But the “offer” of salvation, as we have seen, is just what the cov¬
enant provides: and the covenant is the general election. It is possible
then, for an individual to live within the scope of the covenant, and
yet not be among the elect.1 Within Israel herself, accordingly, there
is a separation between the elect and the reprobate which is analogous
to the separation of Israel from the nations.2 The analogy breaks
down, however—and here is still another difference between the
general and the particular elections—inasmuch as Israel’s election is
“public,” whereas that of the individual is “secret.” Where Israel’s
election can be pointed to and proclaimed, it is impossible “to
distinguish the elect and the reprobate,” 3 and no one should attempt
to do so.
Our enumeration of the differences between the general and par¬
ticular elections should not be permitted to obscure their similarities,
the first of which is that they are identical in content: both offer
(promise) salvation. Secondly, although the secret election is “free”
(i.e., God elects whom he wills) in consideration of the covenant
(/.<?., general election) he gathers his church from the “children of
Abraham.” 4
Reflection upon the differences and similarities between the general
and particular elections, however, intensifies the question of their
relationship to each other. Are they, in spite of Calvin’s distinctions,
somewhat at odds ? Or, are we to think of them as operating at
different levels of human experience ? Or, finally, should they be
related to each other as “inner” and “outer” aspects of the same
1 Comm. Rom. 10.16, CO XLIX, 206: “The generality of the promises does
not alone and by itself make salvation common to all. On the contrary, the peculiar
revelation, mentioned by the prophet, confines it to the elect.” Cf. Comm. Deut.
32.6, CO XXV, 361: “The covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and the
faithful.”
2 Comm. Rom. 9.11, CO XLIX, 177: “As the blessing of the covenant sep¬
arates the Israelitic nation from all other people, so the election of God makes a
distinction between men in that nation, 'while he predestines some to salvation and
others to eternal condemnation.”
3 Comm. Jer. 17.17-18, CO XXXVIII, 284. Cf. Common. Jer. 20.12, CO
XXXVIII, 351. Comm. Mt. 7.6, CO XLV, 216.
4 Comm. Deut. 5.9, CO XXIV, 380: “Many who are children after the flesh
are not counted for the seed—but God in his free election (libera electione) adopts
whom he will, yet so moderates his judgments that his paternal favor should al¬
ways reside in the lineage of the pious (sobole pionirn).” Cf. Inst. III. xxi.7, OS
IV, 378: “For God gathers a church for himself, from time to time, from the
children of Abraham rather than from profane nations on account of his covenant,
which, being violated by the multitude, he restricted to a few, to prevent its total
failure.”
reality ? The answer to these questions is not immediately apparent,

but the following section will be a step toward clarification.
4. Calling
Calvin consistently characterizes the particular election as “hidden

and secret.” It is grounded in the secret counsel of God, and hence is
unknowable in itself. But it is “manifested” in and through God’s
“calling” of man.1
Let this, therefore, be the way of our inquiry, that we take our be¬
ginning in the calling of God (Dei vocatione) and conclude with it. . . .
For by it, as by a token (tessera) God wishes to confirm in us as much
of his counsel as it is proper to know.2
There is a “knowledge of election,” then, but it is an indirect

rather than a direct knowledge, and it is mediated through “calling.”
We are not to think, however, of any doubtful hiatus between election
and calling, for they are related to each other as cause to effect.3
Whoever has been elected will be called, and the notion is “vain”
that “the sheep of God’s flock are allowed to wander perpetually,
and not gathered into the fold.” 4
The decisiveness of the call, then, consists not only in the fact that
it is the vehicle for the disclosure of God’s secret election, but also
in this, that
according to the secret election of God we are already sheep in his

heart, before we are born; but we begin to be sheep in ourselves by
the calling, by which he gathers us into his fold.5
The calling which reveals our election is, at the same time, a “call”
into the church, into the covenantal community.6 But men are
1 Comm. John 6.40, CO XLVII,147: “The election of God is in itself hidden

and secret; the Lord manifests (patefacit) it by calling, that is, when he bestows on
us this blessing of calling us.” Cf. Comm. I Thess. 1.4, CO LII, 142: “The election
of God, which is in itself hidden, is manifested to us by its marks.. . . Hence knowl¬
edge of election ought to be sought there.” Comm. I Thess. 52.24: “Our calling
ought to be held by us as a witness of everlasting grace.”
2 Inst. III.xxiv.4, OS IV, 415.
3 Comm. I Thess. 1.4, CO LII, 142: “Gratuituous election must be joined with
calling, as with its effect.” Cf. Comm. Jude 1.1; CO LV, 487: “Calling is nothing
else but the effect of eternal election.” Comm. Gal.1.15, CO L, 178. Comm. I Pet.
1.2, CO LV, 209.
4 Comm. Ps. 65.5, CO XXXI, 606.
5 Comm. John 10.8, CO XLVII, 239.
6 Inst. III.xxiv.1, OS IV, 411: “God designates as his children, therefore’
those whom he has chosen and determines himself to be their father. By calling,
he receives them into his family, and unites them to himself, that they may be one.’,
THE COVENANT 57
brought into the church, we know, through the proclamation of the

covenant, i.e., through preaching. And this too, is identified by Calvin
as a calling; 1 he can, in fact, speak of three “callings:”
There is no doubt but that the prophet understands by the word, call,
gratuitous election. The Lord is indeed said to call men when he
addresses them by the voice of the gospel; but there is what precedes
that, a secret call, when God determines in himself those whom he
wishes to save. There is then an interior call, which dwells in the
secret counsel of God; and then follows the call by which he makes
us true partakers of his adoption . . . But that the election of God is
not to be separated from the outward call, I confess; and yet this order
ought to be maintained, that God, before he testifies his election to
men, first adopts them to himself in his secret counsel.2
In addition to the call which discloses election, and the “outward

call” by which God addresses men, Calvin here distinguishes a call
which is evidently synonymous with secret election. It is possible
to use the same word of all three because they are “not to be sepa¬
rated,” because they are intrinsically related: it is through the outward
call (preaching) that the secret call (election) is revealed to and ap¬
propriated by the individual (calling).
Now we may answer the question regarding the relationship
between the general and particular elections. If the covenant and its
proclamation are coterminous with the general election, then calling
(in its most common usage) must designate that moment in the fife
history of an individual when, in and through the general election
of a people, he perceives his own particular election—when he under¬
stands that the covenantal promise of salvation is pro me. That is
what Calvin means when he says that the particular election is not
only offered—that would be the general election—but also assigned.
Then it must be that the “secret election” is not an ordinatio Dei
along side of, or in opposition to, the “general election,” but a
hidden, or concealed, ordinatio within the objectively revealed or¬
dinatio of the covenant which is subjectively appropriated in “calling.”
But if the church is, as we have shown, an order dependent upon
the ordinatio of God’s covenant, what is the nature of the order de¬
pendent upon the ordinatio of God’s secret election ? As is well
1 Comm. Amos 5.4-6, CO XLI, 71: “As far as the end and aim of public
teaching is concerned, it is that all men should be called in common.” But God’s
purpose is different, for he intends, according to his own secret counsel, to draw
to himself the elect, and he wishes to take away excuse from the reprobate.”
2 Comm. Joel 2.32, CO XLII, 579.
known, Calvin can speak of this as the church, too.1 Are there then
two churches, or perhaps a church within the church ? Answers to
these questions must be postponed until we have examined more
thoroughly that which underlies the “subjective appropriation” of
“Calling,” vi^., the work of the Holy Spirit in the creation of the
Church.
C. The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Creation of the Church
According to Calvin, God is to be thought of as the creator of the

church “in a different sense from that in which he is commonly
called the creator of heaven and earth,” for he is the “former of the
church (_formator ecclesiae),” not as he originally fashioned the world,
but as men are “reformed by his Spirit (eius spiritus ref or matt).” 2
As it was through the Spirit that the world was first formed, so it
is through the activity of the Spirit in fallen man that the church is
created.
We earlier pointed out that the Church, for Calvin, is the history
of the restoration of order in the world; now we may say that the
deepest ground for this lies in his conception of the church as the
sphere of the regenerating activity of the Spirit.3 For it is here that
the Spirit renews the image of God in man,4 and here that his “judg¬
ments” bring about “right order,” 5 but only as a continuous work,
1 Inst. III.xxi.1; OS IV, 370: “How is it that the Church appears to us, which
otherwise, as Bernard rightly teaches, cannot be found or recognized among the
creatures, for it is wonderfully concealed both in the bosom of a blessed predesti¬
nation and in the mass of miserable damnation?”
2 Comm. Is. 37.2, CO XXXVI, 633. Cf. Comm. Is. 27.11, CO XXXVI, 458:
“He calls God the maker and creator (fictorem et creatorem) of Israel, not in the
same manner that he is called the creator of heaven and earth, but inasmuch as he
has formed (formavit) his church by the Spirit of regeneration.”
3 Comm. Eze. 20.12, CO XL, 485: “God’s church was separated from the
profane nations that he might regenerate it by his Spirit.” Cf. Comm. Acts 10.43,
CO XLVIII, 250: “We are adopted by God to be his children on this condition,
that he may govern us by his Spirit.”
4 Comm. Is. 44.4, CO XXXVII, 107: “He speaks of the restoration of the
church, the chief part of which is the new creature by which God restores his
image in the elect.” Cf. Inst. I.xv.5, OS 111,182.
5 Comm. Is. 4.4, CO XXXVI, 98-99: “The purification of the church is
accomplished by the Spirit; and, . . . from the effects which he produces the
Spirit receives the name, sometimes of judgment and sometimes of burning; . . .
The word judgment explains what is of chief importance in the restoration of the
church; that is, when those things which were confused or decayed are restored
to right order (legitimum ordinem).
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE CREATION OF THE CHURCH 59
only as a continual overcoming of internal decadence and external

fragmentation.1
The Spirit is also decisive in the act by and through which God
created the church, for it is “owing to him that the covenant of God
is ratified on both sides, which would, but for this, have hung in
suspense.” 2 And it is this work of the Spirit on man’s “side” that we
shall now examine.
1. Effectual Calling
The particular election of an individual, we have already seen, is
appropriated in and through the general election, the external calling
of the people as a whole. But all the people do not hear the call in
such a way as to perceive in it their particular election; and the reason
for this is that all do not receive the Spirit:
The election of God as to that people was two-fold (duplicem), for the
one was general, the other a special election. The election of holy
Jacob was special, for he was really one of the children of God . . .
There was another, a general election, for he received his whole seed
into his faith, and offered to all his covenant. At the same time, not
all were regenerated, not all were given the Spirit of adoption. There¬
fore, that general election was not efficacious in all.3
The general election becomes efficacious only through the re¬
generating work of the Spirit, i.e., only “in the Spirit” is one able to
see that the general election conceals his special election. “Calling,”
effectual calling, “consists not only in the preaching of the word,
but also in the illumination of the Spirit.” 4 It is not that the covenan-
1 Comm. Is. 44.5, CO XXXVII, 108: “The church, so long as she is destitute
of the blessing of God, withers and gradually falls into decay; but . .. when the
Spirit of God has been poured out,she is quickened, and at length gathers strength.”
Comm. Is. 18.7; CO XXXVI, 326: “To whatever extent the body may be torn,
shivered into fragments and scattered, still by his Spirit he will easily unite the
members, and will never allow the remembering and the calling on his name to
perish.”
2 Comm. II Cor. 1.21, CO L, 24.
3 Comm. Hos. 12.3-5, CO XLII, 454. Cf. Inst. III.xxi.7, OS IV, 378: “A
reason may promptly be offered why it is that the general election of a people is
not always firm and established; for to those with whom God covenants he does
not immediately give the Spirit of regeneration, in whose strength they would
persevere in the covenant even to the end. Rather, the external change, without
the internal efficacy of grace, which would be sufficient for retaining them, is a
sort of medium between the rejection of the human race, and the election of a
small number of the pious.”
4 Inst. III. xxiv.2, OS IV, 412. Cf. Comm. Mt. 23.37, XLV, 644: “Whomsoever
he wills to gather efficaciously, he draws inwardly by his Spirit, and does not in¬
vite by the external voice of man alone.”
tal promises are “weak” or lacking in clarity—they are sufficient

to remove the “pretence of ignorance” 1—“but until we are supported
by the testimony of the Spirit, we never rest upon them securely.” 2
So, also with regard to the hereditary aspect of the covenant,
Calvin can say:
Carnal descent from Abraham was not indeed useless, and of no value,
provided that the truth were added to it. For election dwells in the
seed of Abraham but it is free, so that all whom God sanctifies by his
Spirit are accounted heirs of life.3
Here, too, it is the work of the Spirit which distinguishes the elect
within the “seed” of Abraham. The covenantal blessing which is
“enclosed” in this family is “useless” unless the Spirit be added.
Against the possibility of misunderstanding, Calvin at this point
must add a restriction: the Spirit sanctifies only the elect: “he does
not effectually call by his Spirit any but those whom he has deter¬
mined to save.”4 Election does not follow effectual calling, but effectual
calling election.
2. Faith and Election
If we ask the question of the nature of this experience of effectual

calling, we must above all understand that for Calvin there can be no
“experience” of the Holy Spirit, i.e., no sensibility of his inner work¬
ings, no consciousness of an alien presence within. “He is known,”
rather, “only by the experience of faith (fidei experientia).’’'’5 Which is
not to say that faith itself is an experience of the Spirit,6 but that we
know faith to be grounded in the “illumination of the Spirit” 7 and
his reign in the human heart.8
For Calvin, faith is a moment—no doubt the decisive moment—
1 Comm. Is. 5.3, CO XXXVI, 105: “Every pretence of ignorance is fully and
abundantly taken away by the external call.”
2 Comm. Eph. 1.14, CO LI, 154.
4 Comm. Acts. 13.48, CO XLVIII, 314. Cf. Comm. Is. 53.1, CO XXXVII, 256:
“Though it is sufficiently evident that all men are called to salvation, yet the prophet
expressly states that the external voice is of no avail, unless the special gift of the
Spirit is added. And whence proceeds this difference, but from the secret election
of God, the cause of which is hidden in himself?”
6 Comm. John 1.13, CO XLVII, 13: “When the Lord breathes faith (fidem
inspirat) into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and secret.”
7 Comm. Acts. 5.32, CO XLVIII, 112.
within effectual calling.1 It is that noetic moment when “the secret

counsel of God, by which men were ordained to life, is at length
manifested.” 2 In the terms of Calvin’s famous definition:
Now we shall have a right definition of faith if we say that it is a
firm and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence toward us,
which, founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ,
is revealed in our minds and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.3
That is to say, it is faith, under the aegis of the Spirit, which ap¬
prehends the “divine benevolence” in and through the gratuitous
promise. Inasmuch as this divine benevolence is identified with the
electing love of God,4 Calvin’s definition of faith corresponds exactly
to the phenomenon which we have described, vi^., the appropriation
of one’s own election in and through the general election, the real¬
ization that the covenantal promise is pro me.
It is in faith that our election is known, then, and not otherwise.5
But faith does not know of election directly or immediately.
As it is not for us to penetrate into God’s secret counsel, to seek there

assurance of our salvation, he specifies signs or tokens of our election
which should suffice us for the assurance of it. . . . We find in our¬
selves a satisfactory proof if he has sanctified us by his Spirit—if he
has enlightened us in the faith of his gospel.6
It is simply by believing in the gospel, then, that election is known,

because faith itself (or, by metonymy, effectual calling, sanctification),
as the work of the Holy Spirit, is the only sign of election.7 Whereas
1 Comm. I Pet. 1.1, CO LV, 208: “That effect is sanctification, even effectual
calling, when faith is added to the outward preaching of the gospel, which faith
is begotten by the inward movement of the Spirit.”
3 Inst. III.ii.7, OS IV, 16.
4 Comm. Lk. 10.20, CO XLV, 316: “Eternal election . .. shows . . . that our
salvation rests on the pure goodness of God.” Cf. Inst. III.xxi.1, OS IV, 369:
“We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows
from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal elec¬
tion.” Comm. Ps. 48.1, CO XXXI, 472; “God selects from the whole human race
a small number to be embraced with his fatherly love (paterno favore).”
6 Predestination, p. 113, CO VIII, 307: “Whoever does not walk in the plain
path of faith can make nothing of the election of God.”
6 Comm. II Thess. 2.13, CO LII, 206: Cf. Comm. I Pet. 1.2., CO LV, 207:
“He does not fetch their election from the hidden counsel of God, but gathers it
from the effect .. . for afterwards he connects it with the sanctification of the Spirit.”
7 Comm. Heb. 6.5, CO LV, 71: “He teaches us that it is a certain pledge of
adoption when Christ makes us partakers of his Spirit.” Cf. Comm. Rom. 10.17,
CO XLIX, 206: “Wherever faith is, God has there already given a sign of his
election.” Comm. Phil. 1.6, CO LII, 9: “It is a sign to us of our election that the
Lord has called us effectually to himself by his Spirit.”
it was necessary to say earlier: only the elect are effectually called;
now it is necessary to say: election is known only through effectual
calling (faith).
Faith and effectual calling, then, can only be grasped dialectically,
can only be understood as an order dependent upon the correlation
of the divinely ordained election and the efficacious work of the Holy
Spirit. Consequently, we find Calvin insisting, on the one hand, that
we cannot speak of election without pointing to the Spirit,1 and,
on the other, that we cannot think of this work of the Spirit without
reference to God’s secret election.2
3. Perseverance
Man has no direct knowledge of his election, but only the “signs
and tokens” of faith, only an indirect knowledge, based upon the
conviction that the Spirit is the author of faith. This position has two
ramifications of some importance, the first having to do with the
“certainty” which is a distinguishing feature of special election, and
which is a theme much emphasized by Calvin.3 For if we know
election only through faith, however certain we may be of our own,
we cannot be certain of others.
The certainty (certitudinem) which one has respecting his own sal¬
vation is very different from what he has as to that of another. For
the Spirit of God is witness to me of my calling, as to each of the elect.
Of others, we have no testimony, except from the outward efficacy
of the Spirit, that is, in so far as the grace of God shows itself in them.4
1 Comm. Ps. 87.6 CO XXXI, 804: “God, it is true, wrote the names of his
children in the Book of Life before the creation of the world; but he enrolls them
in the catalogue of his saints, only when, having regenerated them by the
Spirit of adoption, he impresses his own mark upon them.” Cf. Inst. III.xvii.6,
OS IV, 259.
2 Comm. II. Tim.1.10; CO LII, 353: “Observe how appropriately he connects
the faith which we have from the gospel with God’s secret election.. . . God has
now called us by the gospel, not because he has suddenly taken counsel about our
salvation, but because he had determined so from all eternity.” Cf. Inst. III.
xxiv.3, OS IV, 413: “Others .. . suspend election on that which is subsequent to
it, as though it were doubtful and ineffectual until it is confirmed by faith. That
this is its confirmation to us is very clear . . . but it is falsely said that election has
no efficacy until after we have embraced the gospel.”
3 Inst. III.xxiv.4, 7 et passim, OS IV, 414, 415, 418.
4 Comm. Phil. 1.6, CO LII, 59. Cf. Comm. I Pet. 1.2, CO LV, 207: “The
election of God is secret and cannot be known without the special revelation of
the spirit; and as everyone is made certain of his own election by the testimony of
the Spirit, so he can hold nothing certain of others.”
Since we do not have access to the inner life of others, we must be

content to “judge” on the basis of the extent to which the Spirit
shines forth in “outward efficacy,” i.e., on the basis of the exercise of
the gifts of the Spirit. But the judgment is to be one of “charity”
rather than “Faith,” which, in effect, means that all who profess the
faith, who are admitted into and remain in the church, are to be
“counted as the elect.” 1 Of course, not all who “profess the gospel”
have “the living root of faith,” for there are some who “feign piety”
and others who are deceived, “so that they seem to themselves to
worship God aright.” 2
In addition to those who have a genuine faith, then, there are in the
church not only hypocrites, but also those who sincerely, if mistaken¬
ly, think of themselves as believers. As a matter of fact, they are
believers. Their faith, too, stems from the work of the Spirit, the
only difference from a genuine faith being this: it is temporary.3
Because it vanishes, because it is temporary, Calvin rather prefers
to associate the “Spirit of regeneration” with that “true faith” which
can never be finally lost,4 although he knows very well of doubt and
unbelief among the children of God.5
1 Ibid., “All who are admitted by faith into the church, are to be counted as the
elect, for God thus separates them from the world, which is a sign of election . . .
for it is the judgment of charity and not of faith when we deem all those elect in
whom appear the marks of God’s adoption.” Cf. Comm. Phil. 4.3, CO LII, 59:
“In all those, therefore, in whom we see the marks of adoption shine forth, let us
in the meantime reckon those to be the sons of God until the books are opened. ... It
belongs, it is true, to God alone now to know those who are his,. . . but it is our
part to reckon in charity all to be lambs, who, in a spirit of obedience, submit
themselves to Christ . . . who betake themselves to his fold, and remain there con¬
stantly”; Inst. IV. i. 7, 8, OS V, 12, 13.
2 Comm. I John 2.19, CO LV, 322.
3 Inst. III.xxiv.8; OS IV, 419: “The other kind of call is special, which he
deigns for the most part to give to believers alone, while by the inward illumina¬
tion of his Spirit he causes the preached word to sink into their hearts. Sometimes,
however, he also makes participants of it those whom he illumines only for a time
{ad tempus dun tax at). ’ ’ Cf. Comm. Ps. 106.12, CO XXXII, 120: “There is a temporary
faith {temporalis fides), as Mark calls it, which is not so much a fruit of the Spirit of
regeneration, as of a certain mutable affection, and so it vanishes.”
4 Comm. Mt. 13.20, CO XLV, 365: “None are partakers of true faith, except
those who are sealed with the Spirit of adoption, and who sincerely call, on God
as their father; and as that Spirit is never extinguished, so it is impossible that the
faith, which he has once engraven on the hearts of the godly, shall pass away or be
destroyed.”
5 A. Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, LCC XXII, 152; OS I, 514 (hereafter,
this work will be cited in the follow-manner: Short Treatise, p. 152, OS I, 514):
“The children of God have only such faith, that they always have a need to pray
that the Lord help their unbelief.”
The deeper question with Calvin, however, is not the issue be¬
tween faith and doubt, but whether faith is “true” or “temporal.”
And how is one to know the difference ? Only in this way: true faith
perseveres. While “apostates may revolt from the church of God,”
then, “among all the elect, who truly belong to the flock, the faith
of the gospel will always remain uninjured.” 1 For however much
“piety” may seem to be “extinct” in the saints,2 God “always nour¬
ishes miraculously in their hearts some sparks of faith (fidei scintillas),
which he afterwards, at the proper time, kindles anew by the breath
of his Spirit.” 3 Just as the Spirit gives rise to faith in the elect, so
he also enables them to persevere in it.4
While we may be assured—abstractly—that the elect will persevere,
we have no guarantee—apart from the persistence of faith right up
to the present—that we shall persevere. This, understandably, is
the cause for some anxiety.
There is the greater reason to fear that the sparks of faith which glim¬
mer in us may be extinguished; for although lively faith (viva /ides)
never dies, having its roots deeply fixed in the Spirit of regeneration,
yet we have seen a temporal faith (temporalem /idem) to be conceived by
many, which quickly vanishes.5
This is not to say, with Rome, “that we ought to doubt our final
perseverance,” 6 but it does indicate that faith—and, more especially,
the certainty of faith—cannot be taken for granted; faith is not a
static, but a dynamic reality. And with this we are brought to the
second—and, we may say, decisive—implication of Calvin’s con¬
finement of the knowledge of election to the “sign” of faith: not only
can we have no certainty of the election of others, but the certainty
which we have of our own is anything but a “dead certainty.” It is,
1 Comm. Lk. 7.35, CO XLV, 309.

2 Comm. I John 3.9, CO LV, 337: “The seed, communicated when God
regenerates his elect, as it is incorruptible, retains its virtue perpetually. I indeed
grant that it may sometimes be stifled, as in the case of David; but still, when all
piety seemed to be extinct in him, a live coal was hid under the ashes.” Cf. Comm.
John 20.2, CO XLVII, 428.
4 Comm. Ps. 63.8, CO XXXI, 597: “David here speaks of the grace of per¬
severance, which would be bestowed upon him by the Spirit. Cf. Comm. Josh.
22.30, CO XXV, 558: “We persevere in piety only in so far as God is present to
sustain us by his hand, and confirm us in perseverance by the agency of his Spirit.”
Comm. Zech. 10.9, CO XLIV, 297.
5 Comm. Lk. 17.13, CO XLV, 422.
6 Comm. I Pet. 1.5, CO LV, 211, as quoted by H. J. Forstman, Word and Spirit
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962,) p. 129.
rather, a certainty which exists only in the moment of faith, and so is

subject to all the vagaries and dynamics of faith itself.
Election, consequently, must be “proved” throughout the “whole
course of life,” 1 must be regarded eschatologically.2 Thus it behoves
the believer to pray for the “continuance of the grace of adoption,” 3
for although “effectual calling ought to be a testimony to the faithful
of divine adoption, yet in the meantime we must all walk with fear
and uneasiness.” 4
While on God’s side the certainty of election is not open to doubt,
on man’s side it is “an active, existential, struggling certainty,” 5
owing to the dynamic character of the faith wrought by the Holy
Spirit. The elect will persevere, but only those who persevere know—-
only in their persevering—that they are of the elect.
It is Calvin’s teaching about the work of the Spirit in faith and
perseverance, then, which makes him think of the church as the his¬
tory of the restoration of order, rather than as an institution in which
order has already been restored. He does not think of struggling,
persevering individuals together with a church securely and com¬
fortably at rest. Rather, the church is, like its members, always a
pilgrim.
D. Conclusion
An earlier analysis disclosed the fact that Calvin thinks of both

the general and the special elections as ordinationes Dei, even though
the one seemed to conceal the other within it. Our analysis of the
work of the Spirit, however, indicated again and again that the
correlation between the work of the Spirit and the special election is
absolute, that it stands, in short, at the level of the correlation between
the second and third persons of the trinity. Nor is the reason remote,
for Calvin thinks of election as exposing the father’s heart of God,
1 Comm. Dan. 12.1, CO XLI, 289: “He declares his election when he regene¬
rates his elect by his Holy Spirit, and thus inscribes them with a certain mark,while
they prove the reality of this sonship in the whole course of life, and confirm their
adoption.”
2 Inst. Ill.xxi. 7; OS IV, 379: “Now we regard the calling as a testimony of
election, and justification as another sign of its manifestation, until they arrive in
glory, in which its completion lies.”
3 Comm. Ps. 51.10, CO XXXI, 519: “He prays that he might remain in the
possession of the Spirit for the continuance of the grace of adoption.”
4 Comm. I Cor.1.9, CO XLIX, 313.
6 This apt phrase is Dowey’s (p. 197). He has in mind, however, the believer’s
struggle with doubt.

his redeeming love, and by the label “secret” he marks this off from
human inquiry as much as the inner nature of God himself.
General election, on the other hand, has the character of the
objectively revealed ordinatio, which at once conceals and is grounded
in the special election of God. This is, of course, analogous—and
intentionally so—to the relationship between the “word” and the
“Word,” and to the relationship between the creating ordinances of
God and that same “Word.” In all these cases—but we speak now
primarily of the first—the Spirit leads us through the “outer” to the
“inner,” through the “general election” to the “special election,”
and—ordinarily—not otherwise. The Spirit is not annexed to that
revealed ordinatio, but freely chooses to work with it and through it.
The order resulting from the correlation of the work of the Spirit
and the special election—whether we think of faith, effectual calling,
or perseverance—must, accordingly, have reference to that ordinatio,
whether this be thought of as the general election, the covenant, or
the outward calling.
But the general election, aside from its concealment of the special
election, is an ordinatio Dei in its own right, having to do with the
people as a whole, and there is a work of the Spirit appropriate to
this also, as we have seen, e.g., in the notion of “temporary faith.”
In similar vein, Calvin can speak of a preservation of the church as
a whole, distinguished from the preservation of individuals, by the
“hidden and incomprehensible power of God.” 1 There is, then,
a non-sanctifying work of the Spirit which is correlated with the
general election of the people.
The elect alone are planted by God, for they have their roots in the
hidden life of God (in abscondita vita Dei radices suas habeanf). But this
is extended much further, even to the external state of the church
(externum ecclesiae statum). ... As God then plants his own elect,
so also in gathering an external church to himself he is said to plant it;
but they who are thus planted may be again rooted up . . . while
secret election cannot be changed.2
1 Comm. Dan. 2.44-45, CO XL, 608: “For though the church is often dispersed
and hidden from the eyes of men, yet it never entirely perishes; but God preserves
it by his hidden and incomprehensible power, so that it shall survive to the end of
the world. Then there is a second perpetuity in each believer since each is born of
incorruptible seed, and renewed by the Spirit of God.” We should recognize in
this phrase—occulta et incomprehensibili sua virtute—Calvin’s wonted circum¬
locution for the “nonsanctifying” work of the Spirit. Cf. supra, pp. 40-43.
2 Comm. Jer. 11.16-17, CO XXXVIII, 120. Cf. Comm. Deut. 32.5, CO XXV,
359: “The Spirit, for different reasons, now attributes the name of God’s children
to hypocrites, now takes it away.”
CONCLUSION 67
Devolving from the correlation of the general election and the

non-sanctifying work of the Spirit is an “external” order—an ex¬
ternal state of the church—which corresponds to the internal state
of the church (if we may so infer it) 1 deriving from the correlation
of the sanctifying work of the Spirit and the special election. But
these two faces of the church are intrinsically related, for the work
of the Spirit is common to both—frequently being differentiated only
by duration—and it is with the ordinatio of general election that the
Spirit is correlated in both.
And here we have the basis for a satisfactory answer to the question
raised earlier, vi^., whether there are two churches, corresponding to
the two ordinationes Dei ? We have seen already that Calvin relates the
church to the general election, to its establishment in the calling of
Abraham and the covenant. It is just as true that Calvin speaks of
the church as, simply, the elect,2 and it is this which gives rise to the
question. In a celebrated passage, Calvin seems to supply the answer.
The word church is used in the sacred Scriptures in two senses.
Sometimes, when they mention the church, they understand that
which is really such in the sight of God (coram Deo) into which none are
received but those who are children of God by the grace of adoption,
and by the sanctification of the Spirit are the true members of Christ.
And then it comprehends not only the saints who dwell on earth, but
all who were elect from the beginning of the world. Often, however,
the name ‘church’ designates the whole multitude of men dispersed
all over the world who profess to worship one God and Christ, who
are initiated into his faith by baptism, who testify their unity in true
doctrine and charity by participation in the Supper, consent to the
word of the Lord and preserve the ministry instituted by Christ for
the preaching of it. Many hypocrites are mixed in this church, who
have nothing of Christ but the name and appearance, many ambitious
avaricious, envious, slanderous and others impure in life, who are
tolerated for a time, either because they cannot be convicted by a
legitimate process, or because discipline is not always maintained with
sufficient vigor. As it is necessary, therefore, to believe that church,
which is invisible to us, and conspicuous to the eyes of God alone, so
we are commanded to honour and maintain communion with that
which is called church with respect to man.3
1 Comm. Zech. 12.10, CO XLIV, 335: “Not only an external grace was
promised to the Jews, but an internal sense of faith (interiorem sensum fidei), the
author of which is the Spirit.” Cf. Ibid., p. 334: “He speaks not here of God’s
external aid, by which he defends them, but of inward grace.”
2 Comm. II Tim. 2.19, CO LII, 370: “The church of God, or ... the elect.”
Cf. Comm. Is. 6.13, CO XXXVI, 142: “The holy seed [the elect] is the substance
of the church.”
3 Inst. IV.i.7, OS V, 12.
Prima facie, does it not appear as though there are two churches, a
visible one comprising all who profess the faith—and so including
many hypocrites—and an invisible one, comprising all the elect; or,
if not two churches, at least an “invisible community of the elect”
contained within the “visible church ?” 1 And ought we not further
agree with Troeltsch that the impossibility “in dealing with one’s
fellow men, at least,” of distinguishing the elect from the reprobate 2
does not alter the fact that there is, in principle, a “double roll of
church membership,” 3 and a “separation of the pure body of com¬
municants from the impure ?” 4 and that all of this is grounded in a
doctrine of election which isolates the individual,5 and makes him
work out the certainty of his salvation independently of the church,6
even if “the same fact of predestination places the soul once more, in
principle, in the fellowship” 7 of the church ?
Certainly Troeltsch is right up to a point, and his assessment
remains an enormously important one. But we must ask, in view of
our own analysis, whether Calvin’s doctrine of the church is really
so individualistic, so severely legalistic and cold as Troeltsch por¬
trays it ? It seems to me, moreover, that certain crucial elements in the
picture are at least questionable. For one, Troeltsch’s emphasis upon
the individual’s certainty of salvation 8 ignores altogether the limits
which the nature of faith and perseverance require. For another,
it is hardly correct to speak of election as first isolating the individual,
and then—only in principle—placing him back within the fellowship
of the church. We have seen, rather, that knowledge of election occurs
only within the framework of the “general election” of the people.
And, finally, we must ask whether Troeltsch has remembered that
the “invisible church” is known to God alone ?
There are, to be sure, both an “inner” and an “outer circle in the
church, an internal and an external state corresponding to Troeltsch’s
distinction between the “invisible community of the elect, and the
1 Troeltsch, II, 598. Cf. Comm. Phil. 4.3, CO LII, 59: “The elect of God, whom
he receives within the limits of his church and kingdom. Comm. Gen. 25.23,
CO XXIII, 351: “Not all who occupy a place in the church are to be accounted as
true members of the church.”
2 Troeltsch, II, 598.
3 Ibid., p. 596.
4 Ibid., pp. 596-97.
6 Ibid., pp. 587-90.
9 Ibid., p. 590.
7 Ibid., pp. 590, 618.
8 Ibid., p. 589.
CONCLUSION 69
“visible church” which contains it.1 That the church does contain
within it the elect, however, is known only to God, and is so complete¬
ly unknown to man that it—like his own election—must be be¬
lieved, and that, moreover, only in and through believing the visible
church. That is to say, as one is made certain of his election only
through believing the gospel, so one is made certain of the (invisible)
church only through believing the (visible) church.2 For Calvin,
therefore, to “believe the church” 3 means to believe that this society
with all its wrinkles and stains,4 mixed with “hypocrites and despisers
of God,” 5 and “burdened with the reprobate to the end of the
world,” 6 is nevertheless the church.7 And it is so because it conceals
within it the electing activity of God. In short, “visible” and “in¬
visible” stand to each other precisely as do the general and the special
elections.
The unity of Calvin’s doctrine of the church, therefore, is not a
simple unity, and must be understood dialectically, or not at all, i.e.,
must be conceived as growing out of the correlation of the sanctifying
1 Against those who loosen the connection between the doctrines of “election”
and the “invisible church,” and argue that the latter provides us chiefly with a
standard of judgment for the visible church. Cf. Niesel, pp. 191-92: ‘ He takes over
the ideas of Augustine, not in order to develop a doctrine of two churches, but
rather in order to confront the empirical church which we know with the concept
of the invisible church,... to show clearly that God is really the Lord of the
church,” and Wendel, p. 297, “This unity of the Church authorizes one to pass a
judgment upon the visible Church using the criteria of the Church invisible.
Ironically, these interpretations also assume that the “invisible church is some¬
how known to man, as, e.g., Wendel, p. 297, in the marks. Calvin, however,
nowhere derives the “marks” of the church from his concept of the invisible
church.”
2 Inst. IV.i.2, OS V, 2: “The article in the creed in which we profess to
‘believe the church,’ refers not only to the visible church, of which we now speak,
but to all the elect of God, in whose number are also included the dead. The word
‘believe’ is used because often no other distinction can be made between God s
children and the ungodly, between his own flock and wild beasts.”
3 Cf. Inst. IV.1.2, OS V, 2-3, for Calvin’s argument in favor of this usage rather
than “believe in,” which is more appropriate to faith in God.
4 Comm. I Cor. 1.2, CO XLIX, 307.
6 Comm. Is. 35.8, CO XXXVI, 595-96.
6 Comm. Mt. 13.39, CO XLV, 369.
7 Comm. Eze. 11.14-16, CO XL, 237: “For it will so happen that we think we
have found the church where there is none, and we despair if it does not offer
itself to our eyes. . . . On the other hand, many who cannot discern the church
with their eyes and point to it with the finger, accuse God of deceiving them, as
if all the faithful in the world were extinct. We must hold, therefore, that the church
is often wonderfully preserved in hiding places; for its members are not superb
men . .. but rather ordinary men, of no estimation in the world.”
work of the Spirit and the special election which takes place within
the correlation between the work of the Spirit and the general election
of the people.
In the terms of this formulation, Troeltsch’s interpretation of Cal¬
vin’s doctrine of the church suffers from an exaggerated emphasis on
the special election, a neglect of the general election which conceals
it, and a failure to treat the work of the Holy Spirit—to which he
often refers—in a systematic way. All of this leads him into a too
legalistic reading of the church. The greatness of his presentation,
on the other hand, consists in his refusal to blink at the contrasts of
Calvin’s thought, and to see their balance, even where the basis for
this is not understood.1
1 Troeltsch, II, 621-22. The point of view maintained by Niesel, p. 188, and
Wendel, pp. 291-311, does not sufficiently take into account the work of the
Spirit, with the result that the sharp distinction between the general and the
special election is dissolved, and a too simple unity achieved—as we have al¬
ready seen in our discussion of the visible and invisible church. Emile Doumergue,
Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps, (7 vols; Lausanne: Georges Bridel &
Cie, 1899-1917), IV, 12-13, approaches the reality which we seek to describe, but
somewhat vaguely: “The fact is that there are not limits between the two churches
(visible and invisible) because there are not two churches. There is only one church,
considered from two points of view. . . . One is almost able to say, that there is
always something ‘carnal’ in the ‘mystical’ church, and that there is always some¬
thing ‘mystical’ in the ‘carnal’ church.” Noticeable here, too, is that tendency
to smoothe out too easily the angularities of Calvin’s thought.
CHAPTER THREE
THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COVENANT
Up until this point we have not included in our study of Calvin’s

ecclesiology any systematic exposition of his doctrine of Christ. From
the point of view of many interpreters—especially any for whom
“Calvin’s theology is Christology” 1—such an omission may be taken
as a serious, if not a fatal, weakness. The pattern so far observed,
however, in the order resulting from the correlation of the ordinatio
Dei and the work of the Holy Spirit, would seem to justify such a
procedure as we have followed. Moreover, although the present
study should be understood as pursuing a different line of thought
from that of such “christocentric” interpretations, it should not be
received as a derogation of the high place reserved for Christology
within Calvin’s theology as a whole. This and subsequent chapters
should make that unmistakably clear.
A. Christ in the Old Testament
In our discussion of the “hereditary covenant,” we noted the fact

that the covenant would be revoked unless there appeared a redeemer
to the Jews, himself of the family of Abraham. The covenant, then, is
genuinely founded upon this promise, or, as Calvin puts it, “founded
on Christ alone.” 2 And because it is “grounded in him,” God never
permits the covenant to perish.3
1 Quistorp, p. 22. Cf. Niesel, p. 247: “Jesus Christ controls not only the
content but also the form of Calvinistic thought.” And Wendel, p. 98: “Servetus’s
theses were diametrically opposed to what was most fundamental in Calvinist
theology and piety, namely the exaltation of the divinity of Christ.” And Paul
van Buren, Christ in Our Place, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1957) p. vii, “Christology is the determining centre of all theology.”
One might also refer in this connection to the works of Torrance and Parker
(supra), and with particular reference to the doctrine of the church, Wilhelm
Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin (Neukirchen: Kr. Moers, 1939)
and Karlfried Froelich, Gottesreich, Welt und Kirche bei Calvin (Munich: Ernst
Reinhardt, 1930).
2 Comm. Jer. 33.15, CO XXXIX, 64: “The covenant was founded on Christ
alone; for God had not only promised to Abraham that he would be a Father to
his seed, but had also added an earnest or pledge, that a redeemer would come.”
3 Comm. Acts. 13.20, CO XLVIII, 291: “For how is it that God never tired,
but kept faith with those covenant breakers a hundred times, except by turning
his eyes toward his Christ, he has not suffered his covenant, grounded in him, to
decay.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 1.22, CO XLV, 67.
72 THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COVENANT
We have also seen however, that the hereditary character of the

covenant is qualified by Calvin’s concept of a two-fold election, and
that while the “seed of election” dwells in the family of Abraham,
yet it is free. And this “second degree” of election, like the first, also
occurs in Christ:
For if we are elected in him, we shall not find certainty of salvation in

ourselves, and not in God the Father, considered alone, apart from the
Son. Christ is the mirror, therefore, in which it behoves us to contem¬
plate our election. . . . For as the Father has determined to insert
into his body those whom he wished from eternity to be his own . . .
we have a testimony sufficiently clear and firm, that if we have com¬
munion with Christ, we are written in the book of life.1
To be elected, then, means to be “elected” into the body of Christ,2

in whose person “God the father embraces in his love the whole
church.” 3 Thus, Christ is the “channel” 4 through which the sal¬
vation of God flows into the world—and that not only to those who
come after him, but to the “holy fathers” as well.5 The church before
the coming of Christ also exists “in Christ,” even if “only in hope” 6
and even though “only sparks of God’s blessing shone forth” 7
prior to that revelation. The church exists in the strength of a re¬
velation which is completed only in the incarnation of the Son of
God. The emphasis on the idea of completion is important, because
Calvin does not think of the “fathers” as having access to Christ only
in the hope of a future revelation. He is, as it were, “presented”
1 Inst. III.xxiv.5, OS IV, 415-16.

2 Comm. Rom. 5.10, CO XLIX, 94: “In his secret counsel he elects (cooptat)
us into the body of Christ.”
3 Comm. Mt. 12.18, CO XLV, 331.
4 Comm. Mt. 11.27, CO XLV, 319: “Though our salvation was always hidden
with God, yet Christ is the channel through which it flows to us, and we receive it
by faith.”
5 Comm. Gen. Arg. 65, CO XXIII, 11: “Therefore the perpetual succession of
the church has flowed from this fountain, that the holy fathers, one after another,
having by faith embraced the offered promise, were gathered together into the
family of God, in order that they might have a common life in Christ.”
6 Comm. Is. 28.16, CO XXXVI, 475: “Did not the church always rest on this
foundation? Certainly, I confess, but only in hope (sed spe tantuni) for Christ was
not yet manifested, neither had he completed the office of a redeemer.
7 Comm. Numb. 24.17, CO XXV, 293: “Now since the adoption of the
family of Abraham was founded on Christ (in Christo jundata est adoptio) only
sparks of God’s blessing shone forth until its completed brightness was made
conspicuous in Christ.”
CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 73
in the person of key Old Testament figures, e.g., David 1 and Melchi-
zedek, 2 and appears in the form of an “angel” to the patriarchs.3 But
he is chiefly present with the “fathers” in a far more intimate and
impressive way, vi%., in the law.
1. Covenant and Law

With the biblical writers, Calvin thinks of the exodus of the
Hebrews from Egypt as being one of the decisive moments in the
history of God’s people. In describing these moments, as we have
seen, he turns to the language of organism:
The redemption from Egypt may be regarded as having been the
first birth of the church; because the people were gathered into a body,
and the church was established, of which formerly there was not a
semblance; but that deliverance is not limited to the time when the
people went out of Egypt, but is continued down to the possession
of the land of Canaan.4
Just as there is, for Calvin, no inconsistency in referring to the
church before Abraham, so he can think of the Exodus event as
comprising the “first birth of the church” because now the chosen
people are formed into a “body” for the first time. It is important
to extend the “deliverance” down to the occupation of the land,
because what forms them into one body is not merely their common
delivery from the Egyptian oppressors, but the giving of the Law.
The prophet calls the attention of the Jews to the first condition
of the church; for though God had made his covenant with Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, yet he then only formed or framed for himself a
church when the law was promulgated.5
But the Law is not given in order to “abolish” 6 or replace the
1 Comm. Ps. 41.9, CO XXXI, 422: “Yet he speaks not as a common and private
person, but as one who sustained the person of Christ, for he is the common
example to which the whole church should be conformed.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 41.11,
CO XXXI, 423, Comm. Ps. 89.31, CO XXXI, 822.
2 Comm. Gen. 14.18, CO XXIII, 201: “As no one has arisen except Christ,
who equalled Melchizedek in dignity, still less who excelled him, we hence infer
that the image of Christ was presented to the fathers in his person.”
3 Comm. Gen. 18.9, CO XXIII, 253: “Christ, who is the living image of the
Father, often appeared to the fathers under the form of an angel.” Cf. Comm.
Josh. 5.14, CO XXV, 464.
4 Comm. Is. 43.19, CO XXXVII, 94-95.
6 Comm. Jer. 7.21-24, CO XXXVII, 691.
6 Inst. Il.vii.l, OS III, 326: “For Moses was not given as the legislator who
might abolish the blessing promised to the seed of Abraham; on the contrary, we
see him on every occasion reminding the Jews of that gracious covenant struck
with their fathers, of which they were heirs, as though the object of his mission
had been to renew it.”
covenant; on the contrary, it is a “monument” 1 to, and a “renewal” 2

of, the covenant. “The rule of living aright,” is itself “a pledge of his
adoption.” 3 Law and Covenant are not, therefore, antithetical to
each other; we should rather think of the Law as a later expression
of the covenant, a public and permanent record 4 of God’s will to
bind the people to himself, and to reign over them.
Though the word Law is equivalent to the edict (edictum) which God
commands to be promulgated when he shall be pleased to gather his
church, yet at the same time he describes his manner of reigning,
namely, by his Law and by his doctrine.5
In principle, the Law adds nothing to the demand already imposed

upon Israel by the covenant, although it is clearer, and more specific.
Since the Law is a newer formulation of the covenant, it, too, has the
character of an ordinatio Dei. Thus Moses rightfully claims “to be the
divinely appointed teacher of the people,” not just for his own
generation, “but for all times.” 6 Accordingly, the prophets have no
other function than to “make more and more manifest the law,” for
it is “an inviolable decree.” 7
The intention of this ordinatio is, of course, not different from the
design of the covenant. Yet while God willed “that certain remnants
of order should be preserved” 8 previously, it is really only after the
publication of the Law that Calvin is able to find among the Is¬
raelites an order of incomparable beauty, peace and harmony.9 To
1 Comm. Ex. 24.12, CO XXV, 78: “He would give the tables, which were to
be a divine monument of his covenant.”
2 Comm. Rom. 9.4, CO XLIX, 173: “The law was nothing more than a
renewal of the covenant.”
3 Comm. Penta., p. 196-97, CO XXIV, 725.
4 Comm. Deut. 31.10, CO XXIV, 230: “Moses says that he wrote the law.
Before this, the doctrine of religion had only been expressed by word of mouth.
. . . Thus the religion and faith of the people in Egypt was only founded on ancient
revelations and the traditions of the fathers. But forasmuch as nothing is more
easy than for men’s minds, in their vanity, speedily to forget true doctrine, and
to involve themselves in manifold errors, God, willing to provide against this
evil, consigned the rule of piety (pietatis regulam) to public records.”
6 Comm. Deut. 33.4, CO XXV, 385.
7 Comm. Jer. 26.4-6, CO XXXVIII, 517.
8 Comm. Ex. 12.21, CO XXIV, 135.
8 Comm. Zech. 11.7, CO XLIV, 307: “Nothing could have been more perfect
in beauty than the government which God exercised over the Israelites. .. . The
order of things was so arranged that nothing could be imagined better. He then
mentions unity or concord, and it was the highest favor that God gathered again
the scattered Israelites so as to make them one body.”
be sure, Calvin does not romanticize the history of Israel: she falls
again and again. But when she is chastised, her punishment does not
consist so much in the exile from the land as it does in the dissolution
of that order.1
Obviously, the achievement of this order is contingent upon the
obedience of the people to the Law.2 This obedience, moreover,
constitutes their true worship, i.e., God is primarily worshipped in
their obedience to the Law, and only secondarily in the observance
of “outward ceremony.” 3 For this point of view there is ample
prophetic testimony, and Calvin makes use of it;4 but its deeper
basis, I believe, lies in his conviction that the exercise of religio and
politia are inseparable. Thus, where there is no vital religion, the
political order suffers,5 and vice versa:
The evidence on which the psalmist comes to the conclusion that they
have cast off all sense of piety ... is this: that they have perverted all
order, so that they no longer make any distinction between right
and wrong, and have no care for honesty, or love of humanity.6
According to Calvin, then, the Law is at once the ordinatio governing

the or do politicus and the ordinatio which is efficacious in the gathering
of a church. Of the problematic thus created, an earlier analysis has
provided us some hints,7 and we may now begin to take steps towards
its resolution.
1 Comm. Ps. 44.10, CO XXXI, 441: “The whole glory and felicity of that
people consisted in this, that being united under one God and one King, they
formed one body; and that such being the case, it was a sign that the curse of
God lay heavy upon them to be mingled with the heathen, and scattered hither
and thither like broken members.”
2 Comm. Jer. 31.6, CO XXXVIII, 649: “No unity pleases God unless men
obey his word from the least to the greatest, and . . . embrace what he teaches and
prescribes in his Law.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 47.9, CO XXXI, 471.
3 Comm. Ps. 45.10, CO XXXI, 457: “By the word worship we must under¬
stand not only the outward ceremony, but also, according to the figure synec¬
doche, a holy desire to yield reverence and obedience.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 8.4,
CO XLV, 232.
4 Comm. Jer. 7.21-24, CO XXXVII, 693: “The main part of true and right
worship is to hear God speaking, and to regard obedience of more account than
offerings and sacrifices.”
6 Comm. Ps. 14.4, CO XXXI, 139: “Religion is the best mistress for teaching
the mutual practice of equity among us, and where a concern for religion is
extinguished, then all regard for justice falls together with it.”
8 Comm. Ps. 14.1, CO XXXI, 136. Cf. Comm. Acts 17.26, CO XLVI, 414:
“He meant to teach that the order of nature was violated, when religion was torn
up and dissipated among them.”
7 Supra, Chap. I.
2. Christ in the Laiv
The covenant, as we have seen, is founded upon Christ, and the

Law is a more complete expression of that covenantal word of God.
Christ, therefore, bears a peculiar relation to the Law also:
From the Law, therefore, we may properly learn Christ, if we consider

that the covenant which God made with the fathers was founded on
the Mediator.1
Calvin insists that the fathers “tasted the goodness of God” not
otherwise than by “looking at Christ,” 2 i.e., they knew God in Christ
through the Law, for he is “the soul of the Law.” 3 By this Calvin
means, on the one hand, that Christ is the Word—that essential Word
of God—which is the ultimate source of all revelation, and so the
Word which stands behind and is concealed within the revealed
word.4 On the other hand, he wishes to point to the “grace,” to the
“free favor of God,” which is “exhibited” in the Law.5 In either
case, it seems to me, Calvin has in mind the inner mercy and love of
God which is “concealed” within the Law—within that which on
its face is simply demand.
Yet it would be a mistake to dissociate Christ from the element of
demand, for God “governs the world in the person of the Son,” 6
and conforms men to righteousness only through subjection to him.7
“Christ’s kingdom is described, or rather depicted, under the image of
that government which God formerly held under the Law.” 8
In short, Christ permeates the Law, and nothing more fully sub¬
stantiates or makes it clearer than this, that Calvin equates the sub¬
stance of Jesus’ teaching with that of Moses.
1 Comm. Lk. 24.27, CO XLV, 807.

2 Comm. Tit. 3.4, CO LII, 428.
3 Comm. Is. 29.11, CO XXXVI, 492.
4 Comm. 1 Pet. 1.25, CO LV, 230: “What then is this word of the Lord, which
gives us life? Even the law, the prophets, the Gospel.. . . No mention is made
here of the Word which lies hidden in the bosom of God, but of that which has
proceeded from his mouth, and has come to us.” Cf. Inst. I.xiii.7, OS III, 116-118.
5 Comm. Ps. 111.9, CO XXXII, 170: “In the promulgation of the law, he also
established his grace.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 119.168, CO XXXII, 291: “The doctrine
of the law could not be so sweet and lovely when it commands what is right, if it
did not at the same time exhibit the free favor of God.”
7 Comm. Ps. 96.10, CO XXXII, 42: “If God’s method of governing men be
to form and regulate their lives to righeousness, we may infer, that however
easily men may be satisfied with themselves, all is necessarily wrong with them,
till they have been made subject to Christ.”
8 Comm. Eze. 13.17-18, CO XL, 288.
And certainly Christ prescribed no other rule of a pious and just life
than that which had been laid down by the law of Moses, for the per¬
fect love of God and our neighbor comprehends the utmost perfection
of righteousness.1
That is how far Calvin is willing to carry the notion of the perpe¬
tuity of Moses’ teaching: Jesus is simply its faithful interpreter.2
Even the incarnate Word adds nothing to the Law, because it is
already perfect, having that Word as its source. It is through Christ,
then, and not in spite of him, that the Law remains forever in force.3
And those are in error who think that the Law has been set aside by
the advent of Christ: that is true only of the ceremonial legislation,4
and of the “curse” of the Law,5 vi%., the curse which hangs over the
failure to be as righteous as the Law requires.
In sum, there seems to be a two-fold inclination on Calvin’s part:
first, to associate Christ and the Law up to the point of identity, and
secondly, to think of Christ as the inner, and hidden, essence of the
Law. The reason for this shifting pattern is surely to be found in
Calvin’s distinction between the Word and word of God,6 for while
the Word is incarnate in Jesus, he is also a preacher of the word,
together with Moses, the prophets and apostles. This word, moreover,
this doctrine, possessed of a distinctly legal character, and all of it
standing on the same level because all of it has been dictated by the
Holy Spirit, is contained, i.e., recorded, in the Scriptures.7 Dictation—
1 Comm. Lk. 10.26, CO XLV, 610. Cf. Comm. Mt. 5.21, CO XLV, 174-75.
2 Comm. Mt. 5.21, CO XLV, 175: “Away, then, with that error that the defects
of the law are here corrected by Christ: for it must not be imagined that Christ is a
new legislator who adds anything to the eternal righteousness of his Father, but
rather he is to be heard as a faithful interpreter, that we may know what is the
nature of the law, what is its end, and how far it extends.” It is in his work as a
teacher of the law that Christ fulfills, according to Calvin, the first of his three
offices: prophet, priest and king (Inst. II.xv.l, 2, OS III, 471-74). In this con¬
nection, Troeltsch justly emphasizes Calvin’s conception of Christ as “Lawgiver,”
although somewhat onesidedly (II, 595-96).
3 Inst. II.x.l, OS III, 403: “All men adopted by God into the company of his
people since the beginning of the world were convenanted (foederatos) to him by
the same law and the same doctrine which are in force among us.”
4 Inst. ILvii.16, OS III, 341.
5 Comm. Rom. 6.15, CO XLIX, 114: “We are much deceived if we think, that
the righteousness which God approves of in his law is abolished, when the law is
abrogated; for the abrogation is by no means to be applied to the precepts which
teach the right way of living,. . . but the right view is that nothing is taken away
but the curse.”
6 Inst. I.xiii.7, OS III, 159-60.
7 Inst. IV.viii.8, OS V, 139: “Nothing ought to be admitted in the church as
the word of God but what is contained first in the law and the prophets, and
and this is not to be underestimated in Calvin * 1—occurs in such a

way as to be accommodated to the language of men,2 so that while it
is not simply identical with the Word, yet God ought to be recognized
in it,3 the Word ought to be perceived in the word.
In other words, we ought to see that Jesus is the Christ, that he
is the incarnate Word, and we ought to see this in his teaching:
pari passu, we ought also to see Christ in the Law.
3. The Work of the Spirit in the Taw
If the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Moses are to be ident¬

ified, and if the latter roughly corresponds to the precepts of the
natural law,4 then we must ask, is Christ also “in” the natural law ?
Calvin never explicitly says so, but neither does he deny it; and how
could he, since he knows of a natural revelation,5 and since “God
never manifested himself to man in any other way than by his son”?6
It is not, therefore, because he rejects the possibility in principle
that he never speaks of a connection between Christ and the law of
nature, but, rather, because the natural law, by definition, conduces
secondly in the writings of the apostles,” Cf. Inst. IV.viii.14, OS V, 148: “But
if they had already been led by the Spirit into all truth when they published their
writings, what hindered them from comprising and leaving on record a perfect
and closely connected knowledge of evangelical doctrine?” Comm. Acts 7.38;
CO XLVIII, 152: “As the prophets and apostles spoke to the men of their time,
so did they write to us, and the force of their doctrine is perpetual because God
is its author.”
1 Comm. Jer. 36.7-8, CO XXXIX, 118: “The words which God dictated to
his servant were called the words of Jeremiah; yet, properly speaking, they were
not the words of man.” Cf. Comm. Hag. 1.12, CO XLIV, 94: “For the word of
God is not distinguished from the words of the prophet, as though the prophet
had anything of his own.”
2 Comm. Ps. 136.7, CO XXXII, 365: “The Holy Spirit would rather speak
childishly than to preclude the way to understanding.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 10.12-13,
CO XXXVIII, 76: “The Spirit has not spoken in the law and the prophets with
rigorous exactness, but in a style suited to the common capacities of men.”
Cf. Inst. II.xi.13, OS III, 435-36; II.xvi.2, OS III, 483.
3 Comm. Is. 66.3, CO XXXVIII, 439: “All the reverence that we owe to God
must be paid to his word, in which he wishes to be fully recognized as in a lively
image.” Comm. Deut. 4.12, CO XXIV, 385: “When God collected to himself a
church, and handed down a certain and inviolable rule of holy living, he had not
invested himself in a bodily shape, but had exhibited the living image of his glory
in the doctrine itself.”
4 Cf. Dowey, p. 228-29, and supra, Chap. 1.
5 Supra, Chap. 1.
6 Inst. IV.viii.5, OS V, 137. Cf. Comm. Acts 14.17, CO XLVIII, 328: “God
has, indeed, revealed himself to all mankind by his word since the beginning.
There was no age in which God did not bestow benefits which would testify
that the world is ruled by his government.”
to a merely external obedience.1 The natural law provides man with

a “right standard of conduct,” 2 but it does not touch “those corrupt
desires which more secretly titillate the mind.” 3 In the deepest sense,
then, “the literal doctrine of the law,” which “belongs to all men in
common,” of itself is “dead, and only beats the air.” 4 And that is so
because it is an “external word,” unattended by the “power of the
Spirit.” 5
He sets the spirit in opposition to the letter, for before our will is
formed according to the will of God by the Holy Spirit, we have in the
law nothing but the outward letter, which indeed bridles our external
actions, but does not in the least restrain the fury of our lusts.6
It is one thing to be conformed externally to the requirements of

the Law—whether “divine” or “natural”—and quite another to
obey with “integrity of heart,” 7 and that inward obedience is just
what the Holy Spirit provides, when he “engraves the law of God
on our hearts,” 8 which are “iron and stone until they are softened
by him.” 9
But the operation of the Spirit here, while it is one, has a two-fold
effect, for not only are we opened up to one Law, but the Law is
also opened up to us.
The letter, therefore, is dead, and the law of the Lord slays its readers
where it both is cut off from Christ’s grace and only sounds in the
ears, without affecting the heart. But if it is efficaciously impressed on
our hearts by the Spirit, if it exhibit Christ, it is the word of life.10
1 Inst. II.ii.24, OS III, 267: “But in the universal observation of the law, the
censure of concupiscence wholly escapes our notice. For the natural man cannot
be brought to acknowledge the disorders of his inward affections.”
4 Comm. Ps. 40.7, CO XXXI, 412.
5 Comm. Eze. 2.2, CO XL, 62.
7 Comm. Ps. 119.80, CO XXXII, 249: “A great part of mankind, after having
carelessly framed their life according to the Divine Law, by outward obedience
(externo obsequid), think that they want nothing. But the Holy Spirit here declares
that no service is acceptable to God, except that which proceeds from integrity of
heart (ex cordis integriiate).”
8 Comm. John 1.17, CO XLVII, 19: “He has engraved his Law in our hearts,
and inwardly renews men by his Spirit to obedience.”
9 Comm. Heb. 8.10, CO LV, 102: “The word of God never penetrates into
our hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him.... In vain
does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he inscribes it by his
Spirit on our hearts.”
10 Inst. I.ix.3, OS III, 84.
The impression of the Law on the heart, the exhibition of Christ

in the Law—the effects are simultaneous, and intrinsically related
to each other. The Spirit reveals Christ in the Law, i.e., the grace of
Christ, and in this way—not otherwise—our hearts are made receptive
to the Law by the Spirit, for
if the Spirit of Christ does not quicken the Law, the Law is not only
useless, but also deadly to its disciples. For without Christ there is
nothing in the Law but inexorable rigour.1
The Law is truly obeyed, then, only when it is obeyed inwardly,

in the power of the Spirit, and that happens only when the Spirit,
at the same time, discloses the presence of Christ in the Law. Other¬
wise, it is both “dead” and “deadly.”
Owing to Calvin’s approximation of the Law to the word of God,
we should expect to find a similar operation of the Spirit in this
connection: and, indeed, we do. Apart from the effectual work of the
Spirit in our minds and hearts, the external preaching of the word is
of no avail.2 The Scriptures are nothing but a “dead letter” when
Christ, who gives life to them, is not perceived in them.3 Here,
too, the effect of the Spirit’s work is twofold, the illumination of our
minds enabling us to discern the Word within the word: “when God
shines into us by his Spirit, he at the same time causes to shine forth
in the mirror of his word that sacred truth which endures forever.” 4
The Scriptures contain the objective revelation of God—they are
ordinatio Dei—but that revelation is completed in us only through
the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
1 Comm. Ps. 19.8, CO XXXI, 201.

2 Comm. Hos. 2.19-20, CO XLII, 252: “This [knowledge of God] he conveys
not only by outward teaching, but also by the illumination of our minds by his
Spirit and by the renewing of our hearts.” Cf. Comm. I Cor. 16.9, CO XLIX,
569: “He calls it effectual, inasmuch as the Lord blessed his labor, and rendered
his doctrine effectual by the power of his Spirit.”
3 Comm. John 5.39, CO XLVII, 125: “While they acknowledged that they had
life in the Scriptures, they perceived nothing in them but the dead letter. For he
does not absolutely blame them for seeking life in the Scriptures since they were
given to us for that end and use, but because the Jews thought that the Scriptures
gave them life . . . while they quelched the light of life which was contained
(continetur) within them; for how can the Law bestow life without Christ, who
alone gives life to it?”
4 Comm. Ps. 119.152, CO XXXII, 283. Cf. Comm. Ps. 119.17, CO XXXII,
222: “We do not receive the illumination of the Spirit of God to make us con¬
demn the external word. . . . The prophet’s aim ... is to inform us that our
illumination is to enable us to discern the light of life that God manifests by his
Word.”
The pattern of Calvin’s thought in this regard therefore, is pre¬

cisely analogous to that which we have already observed. These
ordinatio Dei (Law and Scriptures) also, when correlated with the
work of the Spirit, disclose the Christ who is concealed within them,
paralleling the disclosure of election in the general election, of the
invisible church in the visible church, and the order thereby effected
is, of course, faith, or obedience.
It is important to note, further continuing the parallel, that to
see Christ in the Law, the Word in the word, is not to see something
in addition to, or different from the Law, the word, but, rather, to
see the word as the Word, the Law as Christ.1
4. The Office and Use of the Law
We are now in a position to finally resolve the ambiguities attached

to Calvin’s conceptions of Law and the conscience as they pertain
to God and the ordo politicus. The Law has, according to Calvin,
three uses: first, it discloses to us the righteousness of God, and,
consequently, our own unrighteousness,2 the final purpose of which
is not to make us “sink in despair,” but rather that we should
flee to his mercy, repose entirely in it, hide deep within it, and seize
upon it alone for righteousness and merit. For God’s mercy is revealed
in Christ to all who seek and wait upon it with true faith.3
Secondly, the Law “restrains” the ungodly and the wicked, con¬
straining them to a “forced righteousness” which is “necessary for
1 This, I believe, is the proper construction to be placed upon Calvin’s doctrine

of the testimonium internum Spiritus sancti, which enables the word to “obtain faith”
in the hearts of men (Inst. I. vii. 4-5, OS III, 68-71). The confirmation of the
Scriptures “by the Spirit in our hearts,” therefore, cannot be a “mechanical” and
“objective” work of the Spirit (Forstman, pp. 71-72), establishing the “authority
of the Bible en bloc” independently of, and unrelated to, “faith as directed exclusive¬
ly toward Christ” (Dowey, pp. 150-162). Calvin’s repeated references in this
context to the heart, to faith, and to the elect, together with his identification of
Christ with the teaching (doctrina) of Scripture, should make it clear that we do
not have Christ apart from the Scriptures, that it is by believing the Scriptures
that we “know” him. Cf. Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach
Calvin (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), p. 217: “The testimonium
assures us not only and not first of the divinity, but also and at the same time of
the contents of Scripture. . . . The testimonium spiritus sancti witnesses therefore
as well to Scripture authority as to the content of Scripture. There are not two
distinctive witnesses, but one witness. . . . Calvin has not—as it occurred in later
orthodoxy—ripped apart the certainty of Scripture and the certainty of salvation.”
2 Inst. II.vii.6, OS III, 332.

the public community of men.” 1 And thirdly, the Law is employed

by the faithful, who are already made obedient by the Holy Spirit,
and who find in the Law both a clearer understanding of the will of
God, and an exhortation, an excitement, to obedience.2
If we distinguish between the two moments of the first use, as
Calvin himself does in relating it to both the reprobate and the pious,3
it may be observed that the second use of the law, together with the
first moment of the first use, are identical with the functions of the
lex naturae, which we have already seen to be instrumental in the
establishment of the ordo politicus, and which Calvin describes as a
“knowledge of conscience sufficiently discerning between right and
wrong to deprive men of the pretext of ignorance,” thus rendering
them “inexcusable.” 4
For the pious, on the other hand, that first moment of despair has
given way to a good conscience,5 and the second use of the Law—an
external restraint—has given way to an inward obedience in the Spirit.
This would seem to confirm what has already been suggested, vit^.,
that the work of the Spirit is the decisive factor with regard to the
distinction between the ungodly and the pious in relation to the Law.
But the Spirit, we know, performs an “external” (non-sanctifying)
work even in the reprobate, and is, furthermore, indispensable to the
ordo politicus. It must be said, then, that this gamut of human condi¬
tions derives from the correlation of the law—a fixed entity, however
diverse its expressions—and the dynamic and various works of the
Lloly Spirit.
Basically, Calvin thinks of a non-sanctifying work of the Spirit in
correlation with the Law which brings about the ordo politicus (the
second use). Almost as universally, there is a more inward penetration

2 Inst. II.vii.12, 13, OS III, 337-39.
3 Inst. II.vii.9, OS III, 335: “Yet this first function of the Law is also exercised
in the reprobate, for although they do not proceed so far with the children of God
as to be renewed and bloom again in the inner man after the mortification of the
flesh, but confounded with the first horrors of conscience remain in despair, never¬
theless the fact that their consciences are buffeted by such waves serves to show
forth the equity of divine judgment.”
4 Inst. II. ii. 22, OS III, 265. Cf. Inst. III. xix. 15, OS IV, 295.
6 Comm. Ps. 51.7, CO XXXI, 516: “It is the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit
to sprinkle our consciences inwardly with the blood of Christ, and by removing
the sense of guilt, to secure our access into the presence of God.” Comm. I Cor.
2.12, CO XLIX, 342: “Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that
conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good will of God
toward it.”
of the ratio by the Spirit which produces a deeper reading of the Law,
and, consequently, the guilty conscience of the ungodly man, and,
with ultimately different results, of the pious man as well (the first
moment of the first use). Whether the work of the Spirit here is to
be regarded as sanctifying depends, first of all, upon whether the
second moment is attained, in which the Spirit so opens the Law
as to disclose Christ in it, and thus makes us receptive to the Law (the
second moment of the first use). This verges upon, and leads to, that
final, and deepest, work of the Spirit, in which all order has its roots,
vi%., inward obedience to the Law, the obedience of faith.
B. Christ in the New Testament
In the advent of Christ, the covenantal promise of God to Abraham

is fulfilled, but between the “first birth” of the church and that coming
stands the Exile, which Calvin thinks of as an “interruption” of the
covenant.1 At that time, there was “no species of a church,” but as
later events testify, “it was not dead, but was, as it were, buried.” 2
The coming of Christ, therefore, not only constitutes the completion
of the covenant, but also a “second redemption,” a “second birth
of the church.” 3
Partly owing to exegetical difficulties, vi%., the overlap between
Old Testament and New Testament fulfillment of prophecy, but
also because of his organic conception of the church—and, in that
connection, because of his understanding of the church as the history
of God’s restoration of order in the world—Calvin sees in the appear¬
ance of Christ the apex of the process of restoration which began
with the return from exile.
When the prophets promise restoration to the church. . . they do not

restrict their discourse to the person of Christ, but begin with the
return of the people: for that was the beginning of the full and solid
liberty which was at length manifested in Christ. And Christian writers
1 Comm. Eze. 11.17, CO XL, 241: “God, therefore, to show his covenant
remaining entire and secure, which he had interrupted for a short time, here
speaks concerning this restitution.”
3 Comm. Dan. 8.1, CO XLI, 87: “The second redemption was the beginning
of a new life, since God then not only restored afresh his own church, but as it
were created a new people; and hence the departure from Babylon and the return
to their country are called the second birth of the church. . . . Wherever the
prophets treat of that deliverance, they extend their thoughts and their pro¬
phecies as far as the coming of Christ.”
have erred in urging so precisely that anything said about the resti¬
tution of the church must be understood of the person of Christ, thus
making themselves ridiculous to the Jews.1
Just how much Calvin is dominated by the conception of the church

as the history of the restoration of order is further indicated by his
extension of it down to the end of time.2 That is, we are not to think
of the fulfillment of the covenant apart from the return from exile
or the last judgment. Christ is, nevertheless, the decisive moment
in this “second birth” of the church—just as he was in the first.
From the historical point of view, that moment can be located “at
the coming of Christ,”3 in his public preaching,4 or even in
the preaching of the apostles.5 Calvin knows, moreover, of a “Jewish”
church which continues well into the apostolic age 6—all of which
underlines the historical and organic cast to his thinking about the
church. Because it is a living organism, with a historical develop¬
ment, Calvin avoids unnecessary “precision.”
Theologically considered, however, there is only one historical
event to which Calvin consistently relates the restoration of the
church, vi%., the resurrection of Christ. Its importance for the life
of the church would be difficult to exaggerate. First of all, the re¬
surrection means the preservation of that “body” which will be the
very source of the church’s life. Secondly, the resurrection—which
Calvin relates, in biblical fashion, to the ascension—means that
1 Comm. Eze. 17.22, CO XL, 417. Cf. Comm. Jer. 3.17-18, CO XXXVII,
566; Comm. Joel 3.1-3, CO XLII, 581.
2 Comm. Is. 65.17, CO XXXVII, 429: “That restoration is imperfect, if it be
not extended as far as to Christ; and even now we are in the progress and accom¬
plishment of it, and those things will not be fulfilled until the final resurrection.”
Cf. Comm. Is. 60.15, CO XXXVII, 365.
3 Comm. Jude 1.17, CO LV, 497: “By the last time he means that in which the
renewed condition of the church received a fixed form until the end of the world;
and it began at the first coming of Christ.”
4 Comm. Lk. 4.21, CO XLV, 142.
6 Comm. Acts. Arg., CO XLVIII, viii: “For although the Son of God had
gathered together, by his preaching, a certain church, . .. yet nevertheless, the
legitimate form of the Christian church appeared when the apostles, instructed
with new power, began to preach.”
6 Comm. Acts 7.2, CO XLVIII, 129: “Although Stephen saw that those who
sat in the council were, for the most part, the sworn enemies of Christ, yet be¬
cause the ordinary government of the people did belong to them, and they
had oversight of the church, which God had not as yet cast off, . . .” Cf. Comm.
Mt. xiv. 14, CO XLV, 437: “He was therefore bound to look upon all the Jews,
for the time being, as belonging to the flock of God and to the church, till they
withdrew from it.”
CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 85
Christ has begun his reign over the church. Thirdly—and directly
related to both the foregoing—the resurrection makes possible the
outpouring of the Spirit,1 through which God “created a new people
for himself.” 2 For Christ, who had received the fulness of the gifts
of the Spirit in behalf of his people,3 in his resurrection and ascension
bestows this abundance upon them.4 As man he receives the Spirit—it
is necessary to the fulfillment of his role as Mediator 5—and as God
he confers the Spirit.6
This “new people,” these “members of Christ” are distinguished as
such precisely by their receiving of the Spirit. But now it happens that
the gentiles also receive the Spirit, and this can mean only one thing:
they are adopted into the covenant.7 That is to say, where God’s
covenant with Abraham excluded the gentiles, now Christ “desires
to enter into a holy alliance of marriage with the whole world.” 8
Whereas Israel was formerly the subject of God’s general election,
now it is the entire world. Calvin can say, accordingly, that “the
1 Comm. Acts 2.25, CO XLVIII, 41: “Because the gift of the Spirit was a
fruit of the resurrection...” Comm. Acts 2.32, CO XLVIII, 47: “He did not
rise for his own sake alone, but that he might make the whole church partaker of
his life, having poured out the Spirit.” Cf. Inst. III.xxv.3, OS IV, 435-436.
3 Comm. John 1.32, CO XLVII, 28: “At that time, therefore, he received the
Spirit not only for himself, but for his people.” Comm. Phil. 1.19, CO LII, 16:
“He was poured upon him with all fulness, that, according to the measure of his
grace, he might give out, so far as is expedient, to each of his members.” Cf.
Inst. II.xv.2, OS III, 473.
4 Comm. I Cor. 15.45, CO XLIX, 558: “The Spirit of the Lord was also poured
out upon him, that by his power he might rise again from the dead, and raise up
others. Comm. Is. 11.2, CO XXXVI, 235-36: “As he came down to us, so he
received the gifts of the Spirit, that he might bestow them upon us.” Cf. Inst.
III.xxv.3, OS IV, 435-36.
6 Comm. Is. 42.1, CO XXXVII, 59: “Now it was necessary that Christ should
be endowed with the Spirit of God, in order to execute that divine office, and be
Mediator between God and men; for so great a work could not be performed by
human power.” Comm. Lev. 1.5, CO XXIV, 508: “By the fire the efficacy of the
Spirit is represented, on which all the profit of the sacrifices depends; for unless
Christ had suffered in the Spirit, he would not have been a propiatory sacrifice.”
Cf. Inst. II.xiii.4, OS III, 457. Comm. Lev. 8.10, CO XXIV, 134.
6 Comm. Acts 2.33, CO XLVIII, 47: “Christ sent the Spirit from himself and
from the Father. He sent him from himself because he is eternal God; from the
Father, because as a man he receives from the Father what he gives to us.”
Cf. Comm. Acts 11.16, CO XLVIII, 257, Comm. John 20.22, CO XLVII, 440.
7 Comm. Acts. 10.44, CO XLVIII, 250: “The Lord would never have deigned
to bestow upon the Gentiles the graces of his Spirit, unless it had been to declare
that even they were adopted together into the society of the covenant.”
8 Comm. Ps. 45.11, CO XXXI, 456. Cf. Comm. Gen. 48.3, CO XXIII, 581.
peculiar covenant with the Jews lasted until the resurrection of

Christ.” 1
That does not betoken, however, an annulment of the covenant
between God and Israel, for that is fulfilled in the coming of Christ.2
The implication is, rather, that a decisive change has occurred with
regard to participation in the covenant:
The covenant is called perpetual, as lasting until the renovation

of the world, which took place at the advent of Christ. I grant, indeed,
that the covenant was without end, and may with propriety be called
eternal, as far as the whole church is concerned; it must, however,
always remain a settled point, that the regular succession of ages was
partly broken, and partly changed, by the coming of Christ, because
the middle wall being broken down, and the sons by nature being,
at length, disinherited, Abraham began to have a race associated with
himself, from all the races of the world.3
Since the covenant with Abraham is “eternal,” its fulfillment can

only mean the attainment of final form, and that involves, chiefly,
removing the barrier to the gentiles. The covenant remains the same,
only now the Jews and the gentiles have been “equalized,” 4 now it
is possible for the gentiles to participate in the covenant with the
“natural descendants of Abraham.” 5 And only so, only through the
Abrahamic covenant, do they have access to Christ.6
When the doctrine of the gospel was manifested and shone forth,
it did not remove the Jews from the covenant, which God had long
before made with them. On the contrary, it has rather joined us to
them.7
1 Comm. Lk. 2.10, CO XLV, 75. Cf. Comm. Ex. 12.42, CO XXIV, 142.
Comm. Mr. 10.5, CO XLV, 274.
2 Comm. Rom. 15.8, CO XLIX, 273: “The salvation which Christ has brought,
belonged by covenant to the Jews; for by his coming he fulfilled what the Father
had formerly promised to Abraham.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 1.2, CO XLV, 59-60.
3 Comm. Gen. 17.17, CO XXIII, 238-39.
4 Comm. Rom. 9.25, CO XLIX, 190: “God declares, that after having equal¬
ized the Jews and the Gentiles, he would gather a church for himself from aliens.”
Cf. Comm. Mt. 28.19, CO XLV, 822.
8 Comm. Gen. 49.10, CO XXIII, 602-3.
6 Comm. John 10.16, CO XLVII, 244: “The gentiles could not assent to the
faith of Christ in any other way than by embracing that everlasting covenant on
which the salvation of the world was founded.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 47.10, CO XXXI,
471. Comm. Rom. 11.18, CO XLIX, 221.
7 Comm. Ps. 47.10, CO XXXI, 471. Calvin does think, following Paul, that
the Jews, by “their rebellion” lose their “place” in the church, i.e., lose the “right
of primogeniture,” (Comm. Ex. 23.31, CO XXIV, 255), and that God gives
“their place to the Gentiles,” while, at the same time, “they remain and will
remain beloved, that is, with regard to the first adoption” (Comm. Jer. 11.15,
That is what makes the calling of the gentiles “like an ingrafting,”

for they are “grafted in the stock of Abraham.” * 1 For Calvin, it is not
necessary first to become a Jew in order to be a Christian; but that
is only because in becoming a Christian one ipso facto becomes a Jew,
i.e., a child of Abraham.
1. The New Covenant

Our exposition of the way in which the advent of Christ fulfills
the covenant which God made with Abraham naturally raises ques¬
tions regarding the “new covenant,” specifically—and in Calvin’s
own words—“will no difference remain between the Old and New
Testaments ?” 2
In reply to his own question, Calvin enumerates five such dif¬
ferences: (1) in the old covenant, the “celestial inheritance” is ex¬
hibited to the people “under the figures of terrestrial blessings,”
whereas the “gospel more clearly and explicitly revealed the grace
of the future life;”3 (2) the old covenant is confirmed by “ceremonies
and sacrifices” which have been abolished in the sacrifice of Christ; 4
(3) the old is a “literal,” the new a “spiritual doctrine,” the one
“engraved on tables of stone,” the other “inscribed on the heart;” 5
(4) the old is a “covenant of bondage,” the new a “covenant of li¬
berty,” the one producing fear, the other “confidence and security;” 6
and (5) the old is restricted to one nation, Israel, while the new pro¬
claims the mercy of God to the whole world.7
The fifth difference, which we have already discussed, is not held
by Calvin to be of the same order as the rest, and whether it is added
CO XXXVIII, 116). Thus “the name of a church” remains among them “ac¬
cording to their hereditary right,” through the preservation of a remnant (Comm.
Rom. 9.4, CO XLIX, 172). Moreover, “they still hold the highest rank, not by
their own merit, but by the firmness of the promises” (Comm. Is. 19.25, CO
XXXVI, 349-50), the ultimate ramification of which is that “God will again
reconcile to himself the first people whom he has divorced” (Comm. Rom. 11.21,
CO XLIX, 223).
1 Comm. Rom. 11.18, CO XLIX, 221: “After Christ by his coming has pulled
down the partition wall, the whole world partook of the favor which God had
previously conferred on the chosen people. It hence follows, that the calling of
the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not otherwise grow up as
God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham.
2 Inst. Il.xi.l, OS III, 423.
3 Inst. Il.xi.l, OS III, 423-24.
4 Inst. II.xi.4, OS III, 426-27.
5 Inst. II.xi.7-8, OS III, 429-30.
8 Inst. II.xi.9-10, OS III, 431-33.
7 Inst. Il.xi.l 1, OS III, 433-34.
or not is almost a matter of indifference.1 With regard to the first

difference, Calvin vigorously denies that the fathers were held under
the figures, and asserts that they, like us, “contemplated, as in a
mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be prepared for
them in heaven.” 2 The contrast between the two covenants at this
point is further diminished in Calvin’s agreement with Augustine
that the inclusion of the promises under this comparison suggests a
greater affinity for the New Testament than for the Old.3
In the three remaining comparisons, however, we have some dif¬
ficulty in discerning our earlier description of the law, or “old co¬
venant,” which is now depicted as “literal,” “engraved on stone,”
“shadow rather than substance,” and as evocative of fear rather than
confidence. Since Calvin states that these three comparisons “are
between the law and the gospel,” and that in them “the law is signified
by the name ‘Old Testament,’ the gospel by ‘New Testament,’ ” 4
we may attempt to resolve the contradiction through a treatment of
the law-gospel problematic.
2. Gospel and Law

Calvin does, indeed, make comparisons between the gospel and
the law which parallel those between the old and new covenants.
The law may be described as a “temporary covenant,” in contrast
to the “perpetual covenant” of the gospel, the former being that of
the “letter,” the latter being “inscribed on the heart.” 5 Where the
calling of the gospel is “full of love,” that of the law contained
“nothing but the greatest terrors.” 6 It is hardly surprising, therefore,
1 Inst. Il.xi.l, OS III, 423: “The principal differences, as far as my observation

or memory extends, are four in number, to which if anyone choose to add a
fifth I shall not make the least objection.” Cf. Inst. Il.xi.l 1, OS III, 433: “The
fifth difference, which we may add. . . ’ This seemingly curious position is not
without special significance, as the following analysis will show.
3 Inst. II.xi.10, 432: “The first comparison extends further, for it compre¬
hends also the promises, which were given before the law. When Augustine
denied that they ought to be considered as part of the Old Testament, he gave a
very proper opinion, and intended the same that we now teach; for he had in
view those passages of Jeremiah and Paul, in which the Old Testament is dis¬
tinguished from the word of grace and mercy. He very judiciously adds also in
the same place, that the children of the promise, from the beginning of the world,
who have been regenerated by God, and, under the influence of faith working by
love, have obeyed his commands, belong to the New Testament.”
4 Inst. II.xi.10, 432.
5 Comm. Jer. 32.40, CO XXXIX, 42.
6 Comm. Heb. 12.18, CO LV, 182.
to hear that “the power to penetrate into the heart was not inherent in
the law, but it was a benefit transferred to the law from the gospel.” 1
The differences seem now to be even sharper, but there are miti¬
gating factors. In some of these contexts one frequently gets the im¬
pression that the law and the gospel are coterminous, that the gospel
does not succeed, but parallels the law: “the prophet speaks of the
law in itself, as apart from the gospel, for the law then is dead and
destitute of the “Spirit of regeneration.” 2 Even more important, how¬
ever, is the fact that one can find in Calvin’s teaching a fully developed,
diametrically opposed, train of thought.
At the beginning of his chapter on the differences between the
two covenants, Calvin asserts that they are “such as pertain to the
mode of administration (modum administrationis) rather than to the
substance (substantiam),” and that the promises of both are the same,
having in Christ the same foundation.3 The meaning of this dis¬
tinction is clarified for us by his commentary on Jeremiah’s prophecy
of the new covenant:
Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It

being new, no doubt, refers to what they call the form; and the form,
or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of
the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the sub¬
stance remains the same. By substance (substantiam) I understand the
doctrine (doctrinam), for God puts forth nothing in the gospel but what
the law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the be¬
ginning that he has not changed a syllable as far as the sum total of
doctrine is concerned. For he has included in the law the rule of a
perfect life . . . and by types and figures led the people to
Christ.4
1 Comm. Jer. 21.33. CO XXXVIII, 691.

2 Ibid. Cf. Comm. Rom. 10.6: “The word of the law by itself is never in our
heart, no, not the least syllable of it, until it is implanted in us by the faith of the
gospel.” Comm. Deut. 30.11, CO XXIV, 258: “But if God, by the Spirit of
regeneration, corrects the depravity of the heart and softens its hardness, this is not
the property of the law, but of the gospel.”
4 Comm. Jer. 31.31-32, CO XXXVIII, 688. Cf. Comm. Is. 2.3, CO XXXVI,
64: “The doctrine of the gospel came forth out of Zion; because we thence
conclude that it is not new, or lately sprung up, but that it is the eternal truth of
God (aeternam esse Dei veritatem) of which a testimony had been given in all
ages before it was brought to light. We also infer that it was necessary that all the
ancient ceremonies should be abolished, and that a new form of teaching should
be introduced, though the substance of the doctrine continue to be the same; for
the law formerly proceeded out of Mt. Sinai, but now it proceeded out of Mt.
Zion, and therefore it assumed a new form.”
The substance, clearly, is nothing less than the doctrine of the law,
i.e., the teaching of the law, and this teaching forms the content of
the gospel as well. The rule of a perfect life is the content of both the
law and the gospel. As to the form—“Christ, then the grace of
the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching”—it would
seem that Calvin has in mind the completed revelation of God in
Christ—culminating in the resurrection—the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit consequent to that, and the necessary changes that would
ensue in the “manner of teaching.” Rather than through the shadows
and figures of the ancient ceremonies, Christ is now openly proclaimed.
In this respect, then, the difference in form would be merely the
different ways in which both the prophets and apostles cast the same
truth. The same Word stands behind the words of Moses and the
words of Paul (or Jesus), and it is on this ground that there can be no
ultimate contradiction between them.
Here we may also that note the law and the gospel are explicitly
identified: not only is the law brought forward, so that it comes
out of Zion with a new garment,1 i.e., as the gospel, but, by the
same token, the gospel is extended backwards—it is the “eternal
truth of God” which has been proclaimed in all ages. Thus Calvin
is able to think of Moses as “a preacher of the gospel (evangelii prae-
conem),”2 and to assert that the gospel “proceeded from the
Jews.” 3
With respect to the Holy Spirit, the newness of form can only
refer to the contrast between the outpouring of the Spirit on all
flesh after the resurrection, and the relatively limited gift of the Spirit
to the fathers.4 But the Spirit dwelt in the fathers just as he dwells in us,5 6
1 Ibid., “And though the law of the Lord be now the same . . . yet it came out
of Zion with a new garment.”
2 Comm. Rom. 10.5, CO XLIX, 197: Cf. Comm. Is. 62.2, CO XXXVII, 383.
3 Comm. Is. 27.6, CO XXXVI, 453: “Now we know that the gospel and all
the fruit that sprung from it, proceeded from the Jews.” Cf. Comm. Is. 25.6,
Cl XXXVI, 418. The identity of the law and the gospel corresponds, of course,
to the identity between the teaching of Jesus and Moses. Cf. Krusche pp. 185-
189.
4 Comm. Heb. 8.10; CO LV, 103: “As then the Father has exerted more fully
the power of his Spirit under the Kingdom of Christ . . . this eminence renders
insignificant the small portion of grace which he had deigned to bestow on the
fathers under the law.” Cf. Comm. Joel 2.28, CO XLII, 566: “God did not pour
out so abundantly and so largely his Spirit under the law, as after the manifesta¬
tion of Christ.”
6 Inst. II.x.23, OS III, 422: “The same Spirit, which is as it were a spark of
immortality in us ... dwelled in a similar manner in them.”
regenerated and illumined them, as he does us.1 Besides, whatever

obscurities prevailed under the “former dispensation”—Calvin
thinks, e.g., of the remission of sins as being “more obscure,” 2
although he is frank to say that the “covenant included a gratuitous
remission of sins” 3—were clarified by “the secret illumination of his
Spirit.” 4 * The “smaller portion of grace,” then, must be conceived
quantitatively and not qualitatively.
All godly men since the beginning of the world were endowed with
the same Spirit of understanding, of righteousness and sanctification,
with which the Lord illumines and regenerates us today; but there
were only a few . . . compared with the great multitude . . . which
Christ did suddenly gather by his coming.0
Where the Spirit formerly worked within the limits of the general
election of Israel (the few), now he works within the scope of the
general election of the gentiles (the multitude.)
Since the substance of the law and the gospel is the same, vi%.,
the doctrine of the law, and since the mode of administration, or the
form, varies only in the quantitatively greater abundance of the Spirit,
and in the completeness, or clarity 6 of the revelation in Christ, the
“differences” between the law and the gospel would seem to be
relativized—and Calvin says as much:
by the term letter he means the Old Testament, as by the term spirit
he means the gospel; for having called himself a minister of the New
Testament, he immediately adds, . . . that he is a minister of the spirit,
and contrasts the letter with the spirit. ... By the term letter he means
outward preaching, of such a kind as does not reach the heart; by
spirit he means living doctrine which works effectively in the souls of
1 Comm. Jer. 31.34, CO XXXVIII, 697: “God promised salvation to his an¬
cient people, andalso regenerated his own, and illumined them by his Spirit.
This he did not do as liberally as now.”
2 Comm. Eze. 16.61, CO XL, 396: “The faithful under the ancient covenant
were given and endowed with the Spirit of regeneration ... as to the remission
of sins, it was till more obscure.”
3 Comm. Rom. 11.27, CO XLIX, 228: “The covenant included a gratuitous re¬
mission of sins.”
4 Comm. Gen. 3.1, CO XXIII, 53: “The Holy Spirit then purposely used
obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light should be reserved
for the kingdom of Christ. .. . The Lord, by the secret illumination of his Spirit,
supplied whatever was wanting of clearness in outward expressions.
6 Comm. Acts 2.17, CO XLVIII, 32.
6 Niesel, p. 107, thinks that all the “differences” are “reducible to one—that
between the clarity of the gospel and the obscurity of the word which was preached
before the gospel.” This is, I believe, quite close to the truth of the matter, but it
requires further exposition.
men by the grace of the Spirit. . . . The gospel he calls spirit because
the ministry of the gospel is living, indeed, life giving. . . . these
things are not affirmed simply (simpliciter) of either the law or the gos¬
pel, but as one is opposed to the other, for even the gospel is not always
spirit.1
When they are juxtaposed—not otherwise—the gospel is spirit

and the law is letter, but simply considered, in and of themselves,
this contrast is not to be affirmed. Just how relativized the differences
are may be seen in the following discussion.
3. The Gospel and the Spirit
In the gospel, man encounters Christ: “We do not see Christ, and
yet we see him, we do not hear Christ, and yet we hear him; for in the
gospel we behold him, as Paul says, face to face.” 2 And that is so
because Christ is, in the strictest sense, the “author of the gospel.” 3
Yet this gospel, without the Spirit, is merely “external”:
The kingdom of heaven is indeed set open to us by the external

preaching of the gospel; but no man enters in except he to whom God
extends his hand; no one comes in, unless he is inwardly drawn by
the Spirit.4
We should recognize here the pattern already made familiar to us

in connection with the law: the Spirit simultaneously opens the gospel
to man, and man to the gospel. Apart from the effectual work of the
Spirit, man cannot even understand the gospel,5 nor will it lead him
to repentance.6 Of course, we ought to think of the preaching of the
gospel and the efficacy of the Spirit as being united,7 i.e., correlated.
1 Comm. II Cor. 3.6, CO L, 40.

2 Comm. Mt. 13.16, CO XLV, 362.
3 Com. Heb. 2.11, CO LV, 29: “Christ is the author of the gospel. . . . We
ought not to consider men as speaking to us, so much as Christ, by his own mouth.”
4 Comm. Acts. 14.27, CO XLVIII, 335.
5 Comm. Acts 16.14, CO XLVIII, 377: “She could not comprehend the
doctrine of the gospel, save only through the illumination of the Spirit.” Cf.
Comm. I Cor. 2.11, CO XLIX, 341: “The doctrine of the gospel cannot be under¬
stood otherwise than by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.”
6 Comm. Is. 2.4, CO XXXVI, 65: “How little effect is produced by the gospel,
except when the power of the Spirit is exercised ■which leads men to repentance.”
7 Comm. Is. 49.22, CO XXXVII, 210: “The preaching of the gospel .. . and
the power of the Spirit . . . ought to be united, and the efficacy of the Spirit ought
not to be separated from the preaching of the gospel, as Paul clearly shows.
Cf. Comm. Is. 59.21, CO XXXVII, 352.
but this is no more necessary with respect to the gospel than it is with
respect to the law.1
The analogy with the law extends even further, for Calvin seems
to think of the gospel as also having three uses. The gospel, accord¬
ingly, can become a “spiritual sword with which Christ kills (mactat),
that he might subject us to obedience,” 2 and its “threatenings”
which “terrify us” are meant, finally, to “humble us.” 3 This is, of
course, its “first use,” in which the gospel appears as rigorous de¬
mand, but as a demand which is designed to discover the grace of
God.
The “second use” of the gospel, like that of the law, comprises
both its power to “bind” the reprobate,4 and its capacity for making
them “inexcusable.” 5 Of course, these first two uses are “accidental,”
ought to be “imputed to the depravity of mankind,” and are to be
distinguished from “the proper office of the Gospel,” which is the
proclamation of salvation to believers who participate in that sal¬
vation.6
So the Gospel, like the Law, also has the character of an ordinatio
Dei. That the three uses of the same gospel derive from the various
operations of the Spirit in the hearts of men, just as we tound it to be
the case with the law, should be self-evident.
4. Faith and the Gospel
The foregoing analyses seem to place it beyond doubt that Calvin

employs the pairing, “gospel and law,” in two utterly different ways,
on the one hand contrasting them sharply, and on the other hand so
1 Comm. Acts 10.44, CO XLVIII, 251: “The Spirit of understanding and

regeneration . . . the Lord joins with the external preaching of the gospel.. . .
But it does not always happen that all those men who hear the word with the ear
at the same time receive the Spirit.”
3 Comm. Acts 5.5, CO XLVIII, 99: “Let the threatenings of the gospel terrify
us, and humble us in time. . .”
4 Comm. Mt. 16.19, CO XLV, 475: “The power and authority to bind is
likewise granted to ministers of the gospel. It must be observed, however, that
this does not belong to the nature of the gospel, but is accidental....”
5 Comm. Acts 28.26, CO XLVIII, 571: “The word of God is not set before
all men that they return to soundness of mind; but the external voice sounds in the
ears of many, without the effectual working of the Spirit, only that they may be
made inexcusable.”
6 Comm. II Cor. 2.15, CO L, 34. Cf. Comm. II Cor. 10.8, CO L, 119: “The
doctrine of the gospel has in its own nature a tendency to edification—not to
destruction. As for its destroying, that comes from something else—from the
fault of men.” Cf. Inst. II.vii.12, OS III, 337.
minimizing the distinctions as to dissolve them. The discrepancy

between these two lines of thought may be made intelligible, however,
through a consideration of Calvin’s “correlation of faith and gospel.” 1
In his treatment of the subject of faith, Calvin stipulates first
that “there is a permanent relationship between faith and the word,”
vig., the word is “the basis whereby faith is supported and sustained.” 2
“But,” Calvin adds, “as man’s heart is not excited to faith by every
word of God, we must inquire what it is that faith properly respects
in the word.” 3 It is not simply God’s will, for this might occasion
sadness or fear. “Accordingly, we need the promise of grace, which
can testify to us that the Father is merciful: for not otherwise are we
able to approach him, and in this alone the heart of man can rest.” 4
On this basis,
we make the freely given promise of God the foundation of faith

because upon it faith properly rests. Faith is certain that God is true
in all things, whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or
threaten, and it also obediently receives his commandments, observes
his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faith properly begins
with the promise, rests in it, ends in it.5 *
At this point, Calvin was accused of “denying . . . that faith has

regard to all parts of the word of God,” 6 i.e., of so confining faith
to the promises that the remainder of God’s word must be accepted
in some ancillary fashion.7 8 Calvin expressly denies the charge. He
only wishes to make it clear that faith does not consist merely in
believing that God “justly commands all that he commands, and
truly threatens,” 8 i.e., in a simple acknowledgement of the right-

2 Inst. III.ii.6, OS IV, 14-15.
6 Inst. III.ii.29, OS IV, 39. Cf. Comm. Heb. 11.11, CO LV, 154: “But as faith
is founded chiefly ... on the benevolence or kindness of God, it is not every
word, though coming from his mouth, that is sufficient, but a promise is necessary
as a testimony of his grace.”
8 Inst. III.ii.30, OS IV, 40: The charge was made by Albert Pighius, arch¬
deacon of Utrecht.
7 Dowey, p. 159, in commenting upon this text, interprets Calvin as saying
that “the man of faith accepts all of Scripture, but faith cannot be identified with
the acceptance of Scripture.” This seems to me, rather, to be a subtle restatement
of Pighius’ original argument against Calvin, and betrays the inadequacy of
Dowey’s (and Forstman’s) sharp distinction between faith in Christ and the
acceptance of Scripture.
eousness of God’s demand. No, faith must penetrate beyond that,

for it will not “stand firm until a man attains (pervenerit) to the gra¬
tuitous promise,” will not “reconcile us to God at all unless it couples
(copulat) us to Christ.” 1
Calvin himself, however, is largely responsible for Pighius’ mis¬
reading, the groundwork for it having been laid in his static distinction
between the word of promise and other words. His only intention,
I am convinced, is to make it unmistakably clear that faith does not
consist in external acquiescence to the word of God; but if this
static distinction is pressed, Pighius’ conclusion—or something like
it—is only logical.
That it should not be so pressed is best indicated, I believe, in
Calvin’s inconsistent identification of the word of promise with the
gospel. The introductory sentence to the subject 2 certainly encourages
such an assimilation, and he occasionally makes the identification
explicit.3 But even in the context of the faith-promise discussion he
approves of the fact that Paul “distinguishes the gospel both from the
precepts of the law and from the promises, since there is nothing
which can establish faith except that generous embassy by which God
reconciles the world to himself.” 4 Our entire treatment of the law-
gospel problematic, moreover, confirms a broader meaning for the
word gospel, than “the word of promise.” And that broader meaning
is, simply, the whole body of New Testament teaching.
There is, then, a two-fold view of the gospel just as there is a
two-fold view of the law. Simply stated, Christ is the gospel, but,
corresponding to the two natures of Christ, the gospel has an inner and
an outer aspect, and for the sake of clarity and emphasis, Calvin
occasionally denominates the former as the word of promise or
mercy.
The resolution of the discrepancy in Calvin’s thought, therefore,
is this: when gospel and law are juxtaposed Calvin thinks of “the
promise of mercy” as opposed to the “just demand” of God, of the
spirit as opposed to the letter, of the Word as opposed to the word.
Otherwise, law and gospel signify Old and New Testament doctrine,
which—clarity aside—are one and the same.
1 Ibid.
2 Inst. III.ii.6, OS IV, 13: “This, therefore, is true knowledge of Christ, if
we receive him as he is offered by the Father, namely, clothed with his gospel.”
3 Comm. Rom. 10.8, CO XLIX, 201: “The word of faith is to be taken for
the word of promise, that is, for the gospel itself, because it has a relation to faith.”
4 Inst. IILii., OS IV, 39.
C. Conclusion
Does this identification of gospel and law entail “a legalistic under¬

standing of the Christian faith” ? 1 Calvin, it is true, repeatedly de¬
fines faith as obedience,2 and consistently maintains that “the plain
doctrine of good life,” i.e., “the yoke of the law,” is not to be refused
by Christians.3
To be Christians under the law of grace (sub lege gratiae), is not to
wander unrestrainedly without the law, but is to be ingrafted in Christ,
by whose grace they are liberated from the curse of the law, and by
whose Spirit they have the law written upon the heart.4
Christians are saved, not from the law, but from the curse of the
law: to be in Christ, in fact, means to have the law inscribed on the
heart, for the reconciling work of Christ and the inscription of the
law on the heart belong together.5
To be “under the law of grace” is altogether different from being
“under the law,” for “those who are under the law attain nothing
else but this—that their ears are struck by its external sound without
any fruit or effect, while they are inwardly destitute of the Spirit of
God.” 6 It is this inward work of the Spirit, I believe, which finally
saves Calvin from legalism,7 not simply his emphasis on freely
willed obedience to the commandments,8 or the fulfillment of the
law in Christ,9 or even a counterbalancing affirmation of God’s
1 Forstman, p. 136.
2 Ibid., pp. 135-36.
4 Inst. II.viii.57, OS III, 396.
6 Comm. Dan. 9.27, CO XLI, 187: “Thus God’s covenant is established with
us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same
time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon
our hearts, and thus his covenant is not engraved on stones, but in hearts of flesh.”
6 Com. Rom. 7.5, CO XLIX, 122.
7 Troeltsch, who ascribes a “legal spirit” and “severe Scriptural legalism ”to
Calvin, yet sees this more clearly than other commentators. He knows that for
Calvin the law is realized only through the activity of the Spirit (II, 594), and that,
more especially, “the value of moral achievement does not consist in particular
actions, but in the spirit generated by faith in the whole personality, in the total
change of heart effected by conversion” (II, 603).
8 Bohatec, p. 39: “Nomism occurs when one makes an impersonal law the
basis of moral life, and values obedience as merit. The divine law is, however,
according to Calvin, a living expression of the highest personal, spiritual will of
God. If one follows this will, it is done not out of coercion, but out of love for
God and thereby free will.” This is quite true, as far as it goes, but it ought to be
extended as far as the work of the Spirit, which is its ground.
9 Niesel, pp. 92-103. This excellent discussion of Calvin’s doctrine of the law
suffers only from complete neglect of the work of the Spirit.
CONCLUSION 97
gratuitous mercy.1 For man freely wills obedience only through the
inward operation of the Spirit, and it is only through the same work
of the Spirit that man has access to Christ, to the mercy of God.
Calvin certainly is a legalist, however, if by that it is meant that
the conception of Law (i.e., the ordinatio Dei, operative and published
in diverse forms) provides the basic unity to his thought. For it is
precisely in the Law that the doctrines of God the Creator and God
the Redeemer are brought together—not simply, to be sure, but
dialectically, through the work of the Holy Spirit. We might say,
epigrammatically, that the Spirit reveals the Redeemer in the ordinatio
of the Creator. This is the “rational unity” 2 of Calvin’s thought, and
it comes to expression in his doctrine of the church. For if the dif¬
ferences between the law and the gospel are to be understood within
the framework of their fundamental identity, then so must it be with
the old and new covenants.
God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ,

but had, at the same time, showed that it would not be different from
the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was to give a perpetual
sanction to the covenant which he had made, from the beginning,
with his own people.3
We ought not think of two covenants, then, an old and a new, but
of one covenant which has been “renewed.” 4 From the beginning
1 Dowey, p. 238.
2 Against Dowey, p. 238: “Alan owes his creation and his redemption to the
gratuitous love of God. Yet he owes his need for redemption to his sinful rebellion
against God’s orderly rule in creation, and he discovers that salvation consists
in Christ’s obedience, justification and sanctification, which accomplish the
removal of guilt and the re-establishment of that orderly rule. The two sides are
inseparable: the special, gratuitous quality of God’s mercy and the orderly uni¬
versal inclusiveness of law. Dropping the first produces a legal or rational ortho¬
doxy. Dropping the second produces a radical kind of sola gratia that Calvin never
envisioned. Calvin held both—for the Creator and the Redeemer are one. Because
of sin, however, this remains a statement of faith, not a relation describable by
either rational or moral-legal systems of unity. The believer can never build a
continuous thought structure relating the creating and redeeming work of God.”
This nicely discloses the similarities and the differences between the interpretation
of Dowey and the one being developed here. Dowey also understands Calvin s
position to be dialectical (ibid.), but only on grounds which we have already
discovered to be inadequate, vi%., that the knowledge of God the Creator and the
knowledge of God the Redeemer “presuppose each other” (ibid.).
3 Comm. Mt. 5.17, CO XLV, 171.
4 Comm. Eze. 16.60, CO XL, 393: “God here gives the hope of a new covenant,
and yet teaches us that it originates in the old one already abolished through the
people’s fault. Thus we see that the New Testament flows from that covenant

to the end, God has made but one covenant with his people, founded,
fulfilled and completed in Christ. Thus,
it is one and the same faith that has been held by us and by the fathers,
for they and we have acknowledged the same God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ. The same word, the same promises, and the same
goal {finis) have been exhibited to all believers.* 1
One covenant, one faith, one God—these can have only this con¬
sequence: “the church of God is one, and that which now is has
nothing different from that which was before.” 2
The only real difference then between the “two covenants,” is the
one about which Calvin is so casual, vi%., the “fifth difference.” But
now it should also be clear why he is indifferent to it—because it is
really not so much a change in the covenant as it is a change in the
people affected by it. The breaking down of the middle wall of par¬
tition, the inclusion of the gentiles, does not constitute a change in the
terms of the covenant, but simply opens the way for the “ingrafting”
of the gentiles into Abraham’s stock.
If this does not constitute a difference in the covenant, but a change
which is, as it were, external to it, it is nonetheless the crucial moment
in the life of the church—so much so that we shall now have to think
in new categories.
which God made with Abraham.. . . That which is promulgated for us in the
gospel is called the new covenant, not because it had no beginning previously,
but because it was renewed.”
CHAPTER FOUR
THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH
After the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy

Spirit upon all flesh—and because of that—the inclusion of the
gentiles in the church commences. They are ingrafted into Abraham’s
stock, i.e., they are admitted into the covenant. To put it somewhat
differently, God now makes his covenant with all nations,1 not
merely with one of them. Before, Israel alone; now all nations are
generally elected. That is to say, the covenant, the gospel, is now
proclaimed to all nations,2 and proclaimed in such a way as to be
“deposited” with them.
In the case of Israel, it was this very proclamation which made
her the church, and we could, accordingly, think interchangeably
of “Israel” and the “church.” This is true of the Christian church,
too, i.e., it is also a national church,3 but only within the same set of
limitations imposed upon the equation of Israel and the church—
limitations deriving chiefly from the concept of individual election
as it is correlated with the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus requiring a
more dialectical understanding of the church. This, as we have seen
necessitates a two-fold judgment of the church—on the one hand a
judgment of love which reckons all professing Christians to be mem¬
bers of the church, and, on the other hand, a judgment of faith, i.e.,
we believe this church to be the church.4 “Accordingly,” Calvin con¬
cludes, “the Lord has designated for us what we should know about
1 Inst. IV.ii.ll, OS V, 41: “Thus ... he deposited (deposuerit) his covenant

with France, Italy, Germany, Spain, England” Cf. Troeltsch, II. 618.
2 Cf. Krusche, p. 234: “By the concept of the electio generalis is meant not only
the election of the people Israel in distinction to the isolated election of individuals
—as Jacob affirms—so that it would no longer be relevant for the time of the
church (what for Calvin’s concept of the church was naturally of the highest
importance!), but the general election designates the realm of the preached word
of God, the sphere of hearing the gospel, or . . . the covenant.”
3 Troeltsch, II, 622-23. It is the combination of this idea with its “sect-ideal”
which, for him, gives Calvinism its “peculiar essence,” and makes it ‘ one of the
great types of sociological thought in general” (H> 621).
4 Inst. IV.i.7-8, OS V, 11-12. Cf. Inst. IV.ii.5, OS V, 36. The marks are
necessary because of the invisibility of the church, but it is not from the in¬
visible church” that Calvin deduces them. Cf. supra, p. 69 n.
100 THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH
it by certain marks and symbols”.1 Ordinarily, Calvin speaks of two

such notae\
Whereever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and
the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there,
it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.2
I say “ordinarily” because Calvin can also speak of the preaching

of the gospel as though it alone sufficed to distinguish the church,3
while in at least one place he refers to “four marks whereby the
true and natural face of the church may be judged,” 4 adding “fellow¬
ship” and “prayer” to the preaching and hearing of the gospel and
“the Supper.” Occasional remarks such as these do not throw into
question the clear and fixed position taken up by Calvin in the In¬
stitutes, but they do suggest that he is more concerned with the marks
as realities than as abstract criteria.
The reality is this: that in the moment (pro eo tempore) in which
the marks appear, there “the church comes forth and becomes visible
to our eyes.” 5 The invisible, as it were, becomes visible in that mo¬
ment because in the preaching of the word and the administration
of the sacraments God is present to the church:
We who have not as yet reached the great height of angels, behold
the image of God as it is mirrored before us in the word, in sacraments,
and, in fine, in the whole service of the church. . . . Our faith, therefore,
at present beholds God as absent . . . because it sees not his face, but
rests satisfied with the image in the mirror.6
Thus, “a departure from the church is a renunciation of God and

Christ,” 7 and Calvin can affirm the traditional idea that there is no
1 Inst. IV.i.8, OS V, 12.

2 Inst. IV.i.9, OS V, 13. Cf. Inst. IV.ilO, OS V, 14: “Where the preaching
of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there, for
the time being, (pro eo tempore) no deceitful or ambiguous form of the church
is seen.”
3 Comm. I Tim. 3.15, CO LII, 289: “Paul does not wish that any society, in
which the truth of God does not hold a lofty and conspicuous place, shall be
acknowledged to be a church. . . . The truth of God is sustained by the pure
preaching of the gospel.”
4 Comm. Acts 2.42, CO XLVIII, 57-8.
5 Inst. IV.i.9, OS, V, 13.
6 Comm. I Cor. 13.12, CO XLIX, 514. Cf. Comm. Is. 40.20, CO XXXVII, 20:
“God is not present with us by an idol, but by his word and by the power of his
Spirit; and although he holds out to us in the sacraments an image of his grace
and of spiritual blessings, yet this is done with no other intention than to lead
us upwards to himself.”
7 Inst. IV.i.10, OS V, 15.
THE FIRST MARK OF THE CHURCH 101
salvation outside of the church.1 Because of the decisive role they

play in the life of the church, we must examine these marks more
closely.
A. The First Mark of the Church
It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of preaching

as far as Calvin is concerned. The church is founded on Christ alone,
“but the church is founded on Christ by the preaching of doctrine.” 2
It is by the preaching of the word that “God begets and multiplies
his church,” 3 and by preaching that “the church maintains the truth”
and “transmits it to posterity.” 4 If, on the other hand, “the living
preaching of doctrine should cease, religion would soon decay.” 5
In these encomiums, we ought to notice, Calvin has in mind the
communication of the word of God not through the Scriptures but
through the “living voice” of the preacher:
The Scripture has not been committed to us in order to silence the

voice of pastors, and ... we ought not be fastidious when the same ex¬
hortations often sound in our ears; for the Holy Spirit has so regulated
the writings which he has dictated to the prophets and apostles that
he detracts nothing from the order instituted by himself; and the order
is, that constant exhortation should be heard in the church from the
mouth of pastors.6
Preaching, as an order prescribed by God,7 cannot contradict, or

detract from, the Scriptures, for it is precisely the Scriptures, as
ordinatio Dei, which require that there be preaching in the church.
Moreover, the word of God preached corresponds to the word of
1 Inst. IV.i.4, OS V, 7. Cf. Comm. Acts 2.47, CO XLVIII, 61: “For he teaches
that this is the means of attaining salvation—if we be admitted into the church.
For as there is no remission of sins outside of it, so neither is there any hope of
salvation.”
2 Comm. Eph. 2.20, CO LI, 175. For Calvin, “word and doctrine signify the
same thing, namely, the preaching of the word,” Comm. I Tim. 5.17, CO LII, 315.
3 Comm. Ps. 22.30, CO XXXI, 236.
4 Comm. I Tim. 3.15, CO LII, 288-89.
6 Comm. Deut. 31.9, CO XXIV, 450.
9 Comm. Heb. 13.22, CO LV, 198. Cf. Comm. Lev. 10.9, CO XXIV, 453:
“Though the law was written, yet God would have the living voice always to
resound in his church, just as today the Scripture is conjoined with preaching,
as by an indivisible bond.”
7 Comm. Dan. 7.16, CO XLI, 65: “We are daily commanded to approach those
who have been intrusted with the gift of interpretation . . . [to] fly to that order
which he has prescribed for us, and seek from faithful ministers and teachers the
interpretation of those things which are difficult or obscure.
God which is identified with the Scriptures—in precisely what way

we shall soon see.
1. The Preaching of the Word
To say that God has ordained preaching is, of course, to say that
he has appointed “prophets and teachers” to be the “depositaries” of
his word.” 1 He has set them over us because “if he himself should
thunder from heaven his majesty would be intolerable to us.” 2
“Duly ordained” ministers, accordingly, function as “ambassadors”
of God.3 Having “resigned his office to them,” 4 he does not wish
to be heard but by their voice.5
For this particular post, clearly, no man is qualified unless he is
endowed with the Spirit,6 7 and that means to have “the interior power
of the Spirit conjoined with his external voice,” and so to become
“the instrument (organum) of God.” 7
Although it may seem that the preached word of God is hereby
accorded an authority identical with that of the Scriptures themselves,
such is not at all the case. Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead
the church into all truth is not to be taken as a promise of “new
revelations.” 8 It is not the case that “Christ taught only so as to lay
down the first lessons,” 9 so that the apostles—and their successors
after them—would be free “to contrive a new theology that would
consist of revelations.” 10 On the contrary,
1 Comm. Joel 1.1-4, CO XLII, 517.

2 Comm. Deut. 5.24, CO XXIV, 206.
3 Comm. II Cor. 5.18, CO L, 71: “When therefore, a duly ordained minister
proclaims in the gospel that God has been made propitious to us, he is to be listened
to just as an ambassador of God (Dei legatus).” Cf. Comm. Lk. 10.16, CO XLV, 314.
4 Comm. Acts 13.47, CO XLVIII, 312. “Inasmuch as he works by his ministers,
by resigning to him his office, he imparts to them his titles .. . Pastors and minis¬
ters are supplied by him, who speak, as it were, out of his mouth.”
6 Comm. Is. 50.10, CO XXXVII, 224: “God does not wish to be heard but
by the voice of his ministers, whom he employs to instruct us.”
6 Comm. Lk. 24.49, CO XLV, 819: “No mortal is of himself qualified for
preaching the gospel, except so far as God clothes him with his Spirit.”
7 Comm. Ps. 105.31, CO XXXII, 111. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 3.5, CO XLIX, 349:
“The efficacy of external doctrine receives here special commendation, when it
is spoken of as an instrument (organum) of the Holy Spirit.”
8 Comm. John 16.12, CO XLVII, 361: “The papists, for the purpose of putting
forth their inventions as the oracles of God, wickedly abused this passage. ‘Christ,’
they tell us, ‘promised to the apostles new revelations; and, therefore, we must
not abide solely by the Scripture, for something beyond Scripture is here promised
by him to his followers.’ ”
10 Ibid.
the Holy Spirit, certainly, did not teach the apostles anything else
than what they had heard from the mouth of Christ himself, but by
enlightening their hearts, he drove away their darkness, so that they
heard Christ speak, as it were, in a new and different manner.1
Between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the apostles

there is no discontinuity. Neither should there be any discontinuity
between the intention of the New Testament and that of Christian
preaching; yet there is a functional distinction to be made.
Between the apostles and their successors, however, there is, as I

have said, this difference: the apostles were the certain and authentic
amanuenses of the Holy Spirit, and therefore their writings are to be
received as the oracles of God; but others have only the office of
teaching what is provided and sealed in sacred Scripture.2
To be the organum of the Holy Spirit is not, therefore, to be the

vehicle of new revelations. The canon is closed, the time of objective
revelation is past. The preacher has been clothed with the Spirit
for no other reason than that he might conform his teaching to the
biblical word,3 i.e., interpret it. The entire sphere of theology and
church proclamation boils down to this: interpretation. For Calvin
that means not simply patching biblical texts together,4 but “ex¬
pressing in plainer words those things which are perplexing and dif¬
ficult for us in the Scriptures,” making sure, all the while, that “the
truth of Scripture is religiously and faithfully served.” 5 Nor is this
merely an academic exercise but an attempt at existential commu¬
nication, and so involves both “accommodation” 6 and the most

2 Inst. IV.viii.9, OS V, 141. Cf. Inst. IV.iii.5-8, OS V, 46-50.
3 Inst. I. xiii. 21, OS III, 137: “Let us not be led to investigate God anywhere
but in his sacred word, or to think anything of him except as his word precedes,
or to speak anything concerning him but what is taken from the same word.” Cf.
Comm. Acts 17.2, CO XLVIII, 393: “If the maxim holds among us, that Scrip¬
ture comes from God, the rule either of teaching or learning ought to be taken no¬
where else.”
4 Inst. I.xiii.3, OS III, 111: “How wicked it is to condemn words which
express nothing but what is testified and recorded in the Scriptures! ... If they
call every word exotic, which cannot be found in the Scriptures in so many
syllables, they impose on us a law which is very unreasonable, and which damns
all interpretation but what is a piecing together of Scripture texts.”
6 Inst. I.xiii.3, OS III, 112. Cf. Inst. IV.viii.16, OS V, 149-50.
8 Comm. Jude 1.4, CO LV, 490: “A good and faithful pastor ought to consider
wisely what the present state of the church requires, so as to accommodate his
doctrine to its wants.”
profound homiletical skill.1 With all the more reason, then, the
preacher must be certain of his doctrine, assured in conscience that
his interpretation is in strictest conformity with the intention of the
biblical authors.2
The demand for certainty in the minister, however, does not entail
uncritical acquiescence on the part of the congregation, for they have
“the spirit of judgment conferred upon them by God.” 3 As the
Spirit has bestowed the gift of interpretation upon the church—to
be exercised by ministers—so the congregation has been given the
right of “examination or discrimination,” according to which they
accept or reject any given interpretation.4 Such an examination may
take place withoug “any dishonour to the Holy Spirit,” because its
very intention is to discern whether a particular interpretation “has
proceeded from the Spirit of God.” 5 It is not the word of God,
therefore, which is “subjected to the scrutiny of men;” rather, the
church has the task of judging “whether it is his word that is set
before them, or . . . human inventions.” 6 Neither should ministers
themselves take offence at the examination of their teaching, for no
one has been given the Spirit in such measure that nothing is wanting.7
Calvin recognizes “a twofold examination of doctrine, private
and public,” the former being that by which “everyone settles his
own faith.” 8 Whether private or public, the method of examining is
1 Comm. Gal. 3.1, CO L, 202-03: “Let those who would discharge aright the
ministry of the gospel learn, not merely to speak and disclaim, but to penetrate to
the consciences of men, to make them see Christ crucified, and feel the shedding
of his blood.”
2 Comm. ]er. 20.7, CO XXXVIII, 342: “Even the best servants of God may
be mistaken in some things, or be doubtful in their judgment; but as to their
calling and doctrine there ought to be ... certainty.” Cf. Comm. II Cor. 1.18,
CO L, 21: “With such assurance of good conscience does it become ministers to
be endowed who mount the pulpit to speak the word of God...”
3 Comm. I Thess. 5.21, CO LII, 177.
4 Ibid.
7 Comm. I Cor. 14.32, CO XLIX, 531. Cf. Comm. Acts 11.3, XLVIII, 255.
8 Comm. I John 4.1, CO LV, 348. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 3.22, CO XLIX, 361:
“All who discharge the office of the ministry are ours, from the highest to the
lowest, so that we are at liberty to withhold our assent to their doctrine, until they
show that it is from Christ.” Comm. Acts 17.11, CO XLVIII, 401: “Nevertheless,
I will weigh with myself what kind of doctrine it is which he expounds, and will
not embrace any thing but certain truth, and by me known to be the truth.”
Together with this, however, Calvin counsels moderation: Comm. I Thess.
5.21, CO LII, 178: “As, however, so great diligence can never be exercised as that
there should not sometimes be persons prophesying who are not so well in-
the same, vi%., by the word and Spirit of God.* 1 Such a procedure will
necessarily be dialectical.
But it may be asked, whence have we this discernment ? They who

answer, that the word of God is the rule by which everything that men
bring forward ought to be tried, say something, but not the whole.
I grant that doctrines ought to be tested by God’s word; but unless
the Spirit of wisdom (spiritus prudentiae) is present, to have God’s
word in our hands will avail little or nothing, for its meaning will
not appear to us. . . . That we may be fit judges, we must necessarily
be guided by the Spirit of discernment ('discretions). . . . But the Spirit
will only so guide us to a right discrimination, when we render all our
thoughts subject to God’s word.2
Since “examination” seeks to ascertain whether the preached

word conforms to the biblical word, it must take recourse in the
Scriptures themselves. Having avoided legalism elsewhere, Calvin
does not fall into it here: the Bible is of little help as a standard unless
we are also given the Spirit of discernment. But now he must point
back in the other direction: the Spirit only guides those who submit
themselves to biblical teaching.
Now it should be clear, moreover, that interpretation and exam¬
ination have precisely the same methodological basis. They differ
in perspective and immediate intention, but from the point of view
of both the minister and the congregation, the preached word is the
word of God only insofar as it conforms to the biblical word of
God.3
structed as they ought to be, and that sometimes good and pious teachers fail to
hit the mark, he requires such moderation on the part of believers, as nevertheless
not to refuse to hear.”
1 Comm. I Cor. 14.32, CO XLIX, 531: “What rule is to be made use of in
examining?. . . As to the passing of judgment, however, there is no doubt, that
it ought to be regulated by the word and Spirit of God.” Cf. Inst. III.v.9, OS
IV, 142.
2 Comm. I John 4.1, CO LV, 347-48. Cf. Comm. Acts 17.11, CO XLVIII, 401:
“The Scripture is the true touchstone whereby all doctrines must be tried. If any
man says that this kind of trial is doubtful, inasmuch as Scripture is often doubt¬
ful, and is interpreted in different ways, I say that we must also add the judgment
of the Spirit, who is not without cause called the Spirit of discernment. But the
faithful must judge of every doctrine not otherwise than out of, and according to,
the Scriptures, having the Spirit for their leader and guide.”
3 Cf. Krusche, p. 226, “The reality of the wordly words as the word of God is
not pneumatologically grounded by Calvin—neither is the church proclaimed
word in virtue of its power of divine ordinance a word of God’s Spirit imparted
for all times, nor is it made more and more God’s word through the Holy Spirit
but it is God’s word in virtue of its continuity with the prophetic and apostolic
witness.”
In view of the fact that interpretation consists of something more

than a patchwork of texts, vi%., clarification, accommodation, and
communication, and in the light of the highly dialectical process of
examination, we must ask whether “conformity to the biblical word”
does not mean conformity to the deepest thrust of the biblical word,
to the Word which is concealed in the word ? Does not the whole
play of ideas here—the vivid presentation of Christ in preaching,
the identification of private examination with the settlement of faith,
etc.—argue that in the correlation of word and Spirit we have Calvin’s
analogue to Luther’s principle of interpretation, “Christ the Lord of
Scripture”?1 For Calvin, however, the principle must be stated in
terms of the correlation of the word and the Spirit because we truly
have Christ only in this way.
2. The Hearing of the Word
Strictly speaking, it is not just the “preaching of the word” that

marks the church, but the preaching and hearing of the word. “Sound
doctrine,” therefore, is measured not only by the procedures outlined
above, but also by its “effect.” 2
He makes sound doctrine to consist of two parts. The first is that which
magnifies the grace of God in Christ . . . and the second that by which
life is formed to the fear of God and blamelessness. . . . The former,
which includes faith, is far more excellent.3
Faith and obedience—or good works—are the fruit of Christian

preaching. Preaching is the “mother” of faith,4 and has for its “goal”
“that believers should exercise themselves in good works.” 5 6 The
former is “more excellent” because without it “the gospel appears as
1 Against both Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, trans. Olive Wyon
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950), pp. 110-11, who approvingly cites
the Lutheran formula, and finds Calvin “moving away from Luther,” and back
to “the traditional line of the formal authority of the Bible;” and Dowey, pp.
104, 160. A more fruitful appraisal has been provided by Paul Lehmann, “The
Reformer’s Use of the Bible,” Theology Today, III (October, 1946), 341. He main¬
tains that the principle of interpretation for both Luther and Calvin is the “inter¬
relation between content [Christ] and authority” which is grounded in the “double
function” of the Holy Spirit, vi%., the preparation of witnesses to, and faith in, the
revelation in Christ.
2 Comm. Tit. 2.1, CO LII, 418.
3 Ibid.
4 Comm. II Cor. 13.5, CO L, 151: “The relation which subsists between the
faith of the people and the preaching of the minister is this—that the one is the
mother, . . . and the other is the daughter. Cf. Comm. John 4.42, CO XLVII, 98.
6 Comm. Tit. 3.8, CO LII, 433: Cf. Comm. Tit. 2.7, CO LII, 421.
nothing to us,” 1 and remains merely “outward preaching.” 2 In¬

asmuch as it is the organum of the Spirit, preaching “can do nothing
without the Spirit” who creates faith, “yet through his inward oper¬
ation it produces the most powerful effects.” 3 The work of the Spirit
is necessary in the preacher and in the hearer.
What God pronounces through men, he seals on our hearts by his

Spirit. Thus faith is built on no other foundation than God himself;
and yet the preaching of men is not wanting in its authority and re¬
verence.4
Obedience, too, is effected in precisely the same manner.5 Preaching

of this kind, preaching which is really heard in faith and obedience
through the efficacy of the Spirit, constitutes the true and only
priesthood of the reformed pastor.
It is not therefore a legal priesthood, and does not resemble that of

the papists, who say that they sacrifice Christ; but it is the priesthood
of the gospel, by which men are slain (,mactantur), in order that, being
renewed by the Spirit, they may be offered (offerantur) to the Lord.6
By the promise of Christ, the preacher is encouraged to expect

that his labors will bear such fruit—that the work of the Spirit will
be conjoined with his preaching. He has, after all, been made the
organum of the Spirit to that end. So strongly do Calvin’s thoughts
run in this vein that he can refer to the gospel as the bearer of the
Spirit,7 or to the “infusion” of the preacher’s doctrine—rather than
1 Comm. Phil. 1.5, CO LII, 8.

2 Comm. Is. 29.11, CO XXXVI, 492: “We must not boast, therefore, of the
outward preaching of the word; for it will be of no avail unless it produce its
fruit by enlightening our minds.”
3 Comm. Rom. 11.14, CO XLIX, 219: Cf. Comm. John 15.3, CO XLVIL 340:
“Not that the word proceeding from the mouth of a man has such great efficacy,
but as far as it works in the heart by the Spirit; the word itself is the instrument
{organum) of cleansing.”
* Comm. Gen. 50.24, CO XXIII, 622.
8 Comm. Mt. 21.21, CO XLV, 585: “The Spirit must of necessity hold all our
affections by the bridle of the word of God, and bring them into obedience.
8 Comm. Is. 66.20, CO XXXVII, 452. Cf. Comm. Rom. 15.16, CO XLIX, 276:
“This is the priesthood of the Christian pastor, that is, to sacrifice men, as it were,
to God, by bringing them under obedience to the gospel.” Cf. Comm. Acts 13.2,
CO XLVIII, 249.
7 Comm. Gal. 3.5, CO L, 204: “The gifts of the Spirit, in which they excelled,
are the fruits of the gospel, of that gospel which had been preached among them
by his own lips.” Cf. Comm. Gal. 3.3, CO L, 203: “As the doctrine of the gospel
brought to you the Holy Spirit. . .” Comm. Lk. 24.32, CO XLV, 810.
the human heart—with the power of the Spirit.1 And yet the preacher
is definitely not encouraged to take for granted the work of the Spirit.
According to Calvin the Holy Spirit was not bound either to the
preaching of Paul 2 or to that of Jesus.3 How much less then ought
their “successors” to presume upon the accompaniment of the
Holy Spirit.
Since, therefore, the Lord assigns this office to the word, let
us know that he also gives this power to it, that it may not be offered
in vain, but may inwardly move the heart. Not always, indeed, or
promiscuously, but when it pleases God by the secret power of his
Spirit to work in this manner.4
Ordinarily, of course, the Spirit does accompany the preaching

of men, and that is why the pastor is permitted to expect it and count
upon it. But he may not take it for granted because the Spirit is free
with respect to his own organum and may be withheld from it, in
which case preaching is merely another “dead letter.” 5
Calvin ascribes more than this negative freedom to the Spirit,
moreover, in that he also knows of a work of the Spirit apart from
the preaching of the church.
Though he withheld at that time the words of his mouth, yet he spoke
within to the mind of the woman, and so this secret instinct (arcanum
hunc instinctum') was a substitute for the outward preaching.6
Although not ordinary, such moments are common enough, as,
1 Comm. Mt. 11.12, CO XLV, 303: “The Spirit infused (indiderat) such efficacy
into this doctrine, that it entered deeply into the hearts of men.” Cf. Comm. Lk.
7.14, CO XLV, 239: “Christ quickens us spiritually by faith . . . when he instills
into his word a secret power, so that it enters into dead souls.” Cf. Comm. I
Thess. 1.9, CO LII, 144. These and the above expressions are surely to be taken
metonymically, and thus suggest the regularity of the Spirit’s accompaniment.
Literally, they distort Calvin’s doctrine of preaching by depersonalizing it.
2 Comm. II. Cor. 3.6, CO L, 40: “He does not mean by this, that the grace and
influence of the Holy Spirit were bound (alligatum) to his preaching. . .”
3 Comm. Lk. 24.45, CO XLV, 816: “As the Lord has formerly discharged the
office of teacher, with little or no improvement on the part of the disciples, he
now begins to teach them inwardly by his Spirit; for words are idly wasted on the
air until the minds are enlightened by the gift of understanding.”
4 Comm. Is. 35.4, CO XXXVI, 592.
6 Comm. I Cor. 1.17, CO XLIX, 320: “Farther, as men’s minds were turned
aside to neatness and elegance of expression, to ingenuous speculation and to an
empty show of more sublime doctrine, the efficacy of the Spirit vanished, and
nothing remained but the dead letter.”
6 Comm. Mt. 15.23, CO XLV, 457. Cf. Comm. Amos 4.12, CO XLIII, 68:
“He also convinced them without the word, for we know how powerful are the
secret instincts of the Spirit (arcani spirutus ins/Indus).” Cf. Appendix.
e.g., when “we are touched with some desire for strong doctrine, it
evidently appears that there is some piety in us; we are not destitute
of the Spirit of God, although destitute of the outward means.” 1
We have already seen that such moments as these are not to be thought
of as disorderly, but as extraordinary. The work of the Spirit is still
correlated with the Word, even if the ordo of preaching and the
ordinatio of Scripture are bypassed.
But Calvin is no enthusiast. There can be no question here of new
revelations. 2 The objective, rational content of these moments,
because of that higher correlation, is not to be distinguished from
that of the ordinary moment of faith. Hence, the believer is given
no grounds upon which he might forsake the ordinary life of the
church:
Thus the external administration of the word is necessary if we wish
to be disciples. ... In vain will they boast of secret revelations, for
the Spirit does not teach any but those who submit to the ministry of
the church, and consequently, they are disciples of the devil and not
of God, who reject the order which he has appointed.3
There is room for the extraordinary within the life of the church,
but the attempt to make it regulative for the doctrine of the church
is disruptive. For the good order of the church is neither constituted
nor sustained by the extraordinary, but, rather, flows from the preach¬
ing and hearing of the word. It is no less disruptive of order, of course,
if the church thinks of the Spirit as being bound to its deliverances.
Having registered his protest against the exaggerations of enthusiasm,
Calvin must also use the word (the word preached in conformity to
1 Comm. Amos 8.11-12, CO XLIII, 153. Cf. Comm. Acts 17.11, CO XLVIII,
402: Such are the proceedings of faith, that they sometimes seek for that in
Scripture of which they are already divinely persuaded, and have the inward
testimony of the Holy Spirit.”
2 Comm. John 15.27, CO XLVII, 354: “There are many fanatics who disdain
the outward preaching and talk in lofty terms about secret revelations and
ev0uCTi.aap.oui;. But we see how Christ joined these two things together; and,
therefore, though there is no faith until the Spirit of God seal our minds and hearts,
still we must not go to seek visions or oracles in the clouds; but the word . . . must
keep all our senses bound and fixed on itself.” Cf. Comm. Thess. 5.20, CO LII,
176, Comm. Lk. 24.45. CO XLV, 816.
3 Comm. Is. 54.13, CO XXXVII, 276. Cf. Comm. Eph. 4.12, CO LI, 199:
“Those who neglect or despise this order [the ordinary ministry of the church],
choose to be wiser than Christ.” Cf. Krusche, p. 301: “Insofar as the work of the
Holy Spirit is indissolubly bound to the preaching of the gospel according to
God’s ordinatio, it is at the same time bound to the church as the divine order to
which God has given (deponere) the preaching of the gospel as a treasure in con¬
firmation.”
the biblical word) as a wedge against institutional claims of the same

kind. He asks Sadolet:
What becomes of the word of the Lord, that clearest of all marks, which
the Lord himself in designating the church so often commends to us ?
For seeing how dangerous it would be to boast of the Spirit without
the word, he declared that the church is indeed governed by the Holy
Spirit; but in order that his government might not be vague and un¬
stable, he bound it to the word.1
In summary: the preaching of the word of God is an order which

emerges only in the correlation of the Spirit and the biblical word of
God in the work of the preacher. The order of the church appears
only when this order, in turn, is also correlated with the work of the
Spirit in the hearts of men.
B. The Second Mark of the Church
The two sacraments which together constitute the second mark

of the church are, of course, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Because
Calvin’s understanding of the two overlaps at so many points, we
shall treat them as one for the most part, and reserve for separate
discussion the idiosyncrasies of each. Prior to undertaking that
analysis, however, we must take brief notice of Calvin’s conception
of symbols, 2 for he defines a sacrament as
an external symbol (externum symbolum) by which the Lord seals on

our consciences the promises of his good will toward us, in
order to sustain the feebleness of our faith; and we in turn attest our
piety toward him in the presence of the Lord and of his Angels and
before men.3
In due course we shall attend to the other elements of this definition

as well.
1. Symbols
“External symbol” is in a sense redundant, for symbols are by
nature external according to Calvin.
1 Reply by John Calvin to the letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and People of
Geneva, LCC XXII, 229 OS I, 465. (Hereafter this text will be cited in the fol¬
lowing manner: Reply, p. 229, OS I, 465).
2 Calvin uses interchangeably, and with about equal frequency, the terms
symbolum and signum. Occasionally, as synonyms for these he employs effigies or
figura. The diction in this section will reflect that of Calvin.
3 Inst. IV.xiv.l, OS V, 259.
THE SECOND MARK OF THE CHURCH 111
As it pleases the Lord to employ earthly elements (terrenis . . . elementis)

as vehicles for raising the minds of men on high, so I think the celestial
arch which had before existed naturally ('naturaliter), is here conse¬
crated into a sign and pledge (signum et pi gnus).1
A symbol, then, is a natural element which has been consecrated

by God to a different and higher usage, vi%., as an attestation of the
grace of God,2 and, therefore, as a confirmation of faith.
The faith of Abraham was increased by the sight of the stars. For
the Lord, in order to more deeply affect his people, and more effi¬
caciously penetrate into their minds, after he has reached their ears by
his word, also excites their eyes by external symbols, that ears and
eyes may consent together.3
Faith, initially aroused by the word of God, now finds support in

the symbol. Whereas God revealed himself through human words to
the ears, now he discloses himself through earthly elements to the
eyes. And Calvin, for reasons which will become clear later, thinks
of the latter as a deeper penetration of the human mind than the for¬
mer.
Calvin does not lay down restrictions as to which elements can
become signs; in addition to the stars, the rainbow, and Eden’s
tree of fife, all the cultic paraphernalia and ceremonies of Israel 4
are so designated—but always with the warning that we are not to
dwell on the signs, but by means of them are to ascend to God.5 The
symbol does not point to, but beyond, itself; it is, or should be,
transparent to the divine.6
But this revelatory quality does not inhere in the earthly elements
themselves; only as they are consecrated, only as they are ordained

2 Comm. Gen. 2.9, CO XXIII, 38: “For we know it to be by no means unusual
that God should give to us the attestation of his grace by external symbols.”
3 Comm. Gen. 15.4, CO XXIII, 210. Cf. Comm. Ps. 26.6, CO XXXI, 267.
4 Comm. Gen. 3.23, CO XXIII, 80: “The ladders and vehicles, then, were the
sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, the altar, the table and its furniture. Moreover,
I call them vehicles and ladders because symbols of this kind were by no means
ordained that the faithful might shut up God in a tabernacle as in a person, or
might attach him to earthly elements; but that, being assisted by congruous and
apt means, they might themselves rise to heaven.”
8 Ibid., Cf. Comm. Acts 17.24, CO XLVIII, 412: “As he was not tied to any
place, so he meant nothing less than to tie his people to earthly symbols, but he
descends to them that he might take them up to himself.” Comm. Gen. 2.9,
CO XXIII, 38.
6 Cf. Paul Tillich, The Recovery of the Prophetic Tradition in the Reformation.
(Washington: Organizing Committee, Christianity and Modem Man, 1950) p. 3.
by God, do they become the vehicles for the self-disclosure of God.

Thus, the “signs” which were given “under the law” 1 differ from the
“ceremonies of the Gentiles” only in this: they have “the command
and promise of God.” 2 As this suggests, signs have a direct reference
to the covenant; they have value, in fact, only as seals of the covenant,
outside the bounds of which they are “a mockery.” 3
This limitation does not arise from any arbitrary will of God, but
from the fact that the earthly elements would be nothing more than
“mute visions” and “empty spectres” 4 apart from the word of God
which “gives them light,” 5 i.e., makes them intelligible. Signs, then,
are not to be separated from the clarifying word.
Since no living image (effigies) of God can exist without the word,
whenever God has appeared to his servants, he has also spoken to them.
Wherefore, in all external signs, let us be attentive to his voice. . . .
They who obtrude signs, invented at the will of men, upon the church,
exhibit nothing else than the empty pomps of a profane theatre. . . .
The vision which gives greater value {plus dignitatis') to the word
precedes it, and the word follows it immediately as the soul of the
vision {visionis anima).6 * 8
1 Comm. Acts 7.40, CO XLVIII, 153: “There were many signs under the law
to testify his presence.”
2 Comm. Eze. 4.1-3, CO XL, 104-5: “The whole worship under the law had
nothing very different from the ceremonies of the Gentiles.. . . We must therefore
hold, that sacraments at first sight appear trifling and of no moment, but their
efficacy consists in the command and promise of God.”
3 Comm. Ps. 50.4, CO XXXI, 497-8: “Sacrifices were of no value whatever,
except as seals or promissory notes, or other means for ratifying the covenant of
God.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 9.25-26, CO XXXVIII, 55: “It is indeed true that the
Idumeans were circumcized,. . . but their circumcision was altogether a mockery,
as Esau had revolted from the church of God.”
4 Comm. Gen. 28.13, CO XXIII, 392: “Whenever God manifested himself to
the fathers, he also spoke, lest a mute vision should have held them in suspence.”
Comm. Gen. 35.7, CO XXIII, 469: “When the living voice of God does not
sound, whatever pomps may be introduced will be like empty spectres.”
5 Comm. Acts 8.28, CO XLVIII, 191: “And certainly the form of worshipping
prescribed in the law differs from the inventions of men only in that God gives
them light by his word.”
8 Comm. Gen. 46.2, CO XXIII, 559. It is worth noting that Calvin thinks of
miracles, and their relation to the word, in exactly the same way. Cf. Comm.
Mt. 10.1, CO XLV, 274: “Miracles are nothing else than seals of doctrine, and
therefore we are not at liberty to dissolve this close connection.” Comm. Mt.
24.23, CO XLV, 663: “The manner in which the miracles seal the doctrine is
such, that the doctrine itself gives them light in turn.... In short, if we wish to
guard against impostures, let us preserve unbroken the connection between
miracles and doctrine.” Comm. Lk. 16.30, CO XLV, 413: “Faith does not de¬
pend on miracles, or any extraordinary sign (portentis), but is the peculiar gift
of the Spirit, and is born of the word.” Comm. Dan. 3.28, CO XL, 643: “Miracles
The sequence: word-vision, vision-word, is actually of little

importance; in either case the sign is dependent upon the word for
its meaning, its life. The “greater value” which Calvin ascribes to the
sign, therefore, can only refer to that more eflficacicous penetration of
the mind mentioned above, the reason for which should now be
clear: the sign is an even greater accommodation to our finitude than
the word.
God, indeed, accommodates (accomodat) himself to our rudeness
(ruditati) as far as this, that he renders himself visible, in a way, under
figures (figuris ).* 1
Calvin seems to think, then, of a descending scale of accommo¬

dation—the word of God in the Scriptures, then preaching, then the
symbols—with increasingly greater efficacy at each step, but with an
inverse ratio of normative value. So the biblical word is decisive
for doctrine, and doctrine for symbols; but, owing to the degree of
accommodation, the symbols penetrate more deeply than doctrine,
and doctrine more deeply than the Scriptures.
Strictly speaking, the sign is not so much the revelation of God as
it is the confirmation, pledge, or seal of that revelation in the word.
Faith, accordingly, depends on the word, not upon the sign, but the
sign strengthens faith as nothing else can.
2. Temporary Sacraments
Consistently with his understanding of the covenant, Calvin holds
that virtually all the aforementioned signs, «£., those enjoined by the
law, were sacraments.2
The sacraments themselves were also diverse, in keeping with the

times, by reason of the dispensation according to which the Lord was
pleased to reveal himself in various ways to men. To Abraham and his
posterity circumcision was commanded (Gen. 17.10). To it were
afterward added purifications, sacrifices, and other rites from the law
of Moses (in Leviticus). These were the sacraments of the Jews until
the coming of Christ, at which time these were abrogated, and two
prepare men to believe, but if they are naked, and not joined with knowledge
from the word of God itself, faith will vanish.. . . But faith cannot be conceived
by any miracle, or any perception of divine power; it requires doctrine also.”
2 Comm. Lev. 4.22, CO XXIV, 519: “Those who do not acknowledge that
the legal ceremonies were sacraments, are not acquainted with the very rudiments
of faith_They truly testified of the grace of God, of which they were figures.”

sacraments were instituted which the Christian church now uses.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28.19, 26.26).1
The abolition of these sacraments, so far from constituting any
derogation of them, rather indicates that “the power of Christ’s
death and resurrection” was “displayed” in them.2 The “Jews” also
partook of the “flesh and blood of Christ.” 3
The change from the ancient ceremonies to Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper, accordingly, is a change in form, not in content.
“There is only one difference: the former foreshadowed Christ
promised while he was yet awaited; the latter attest him as already
come and manifested.”4 The old sacraments, Calvin insists, are
abrogated only in their use, not in their effect,5 i e., they were formerly
efficacious, but are not so now. They were “temporary sacraments,” 6
ordained of God under the law, but not enjoined by the gospel.7
Calvin applies the distinction between temporary and permanent
sacraments, moreover, to certain New Testament symbols, vi%., to
those acts of anointing 8 and the imposition of hands 9 which were
1 Inst. IV.xiv.20, OS V, 278. Cf. Comm. Jer. 3.16, CO XXXVII, 564, Comm.
John 12.20, CO XLVII, 287.
3 Comm. I Cor. 10.4, CO XLIX, 455: “How could the Jews be partakers?
I answer that though his flesh did not as yet exist, it was, nevertheless, food for
them_for their salvation depended on the benefit of his death and resurrection.
. . .Hence they required to receive the flesh and blood of Christ, that they might
participate in the benefit of redemption. This reception of it was the secret work
of the Holy Spirit, who wrought in them in such a manner, that Christ’s flesh,
though not yet created, was made efficacious in them.” Cf. Inst. IV.xiv.25, OS V,
282-83.
4 Inst. IV.xiv.20, OS V, 278.
6 Comm. Jer. 51-60-64, CO XXXIX, 501: “These signs [the symbols by
which God sealed the prophecies in former times] were only temporary sacraments
(temporalia sacramenta); for ordinary sacraments are permanent, as the holy Supper
and Baptism.”
7 Comm. John 4.20, CO XLVII, 86: “We ought, therefore, to consider what
he prescribes for us in the gospel, that we may not follow at random what the
fathers observed under the law, for what was at that time a holy observation
of the worship of God would not be a shocking sacrilege.”
8 Comm. James 5.14, CO LV, 431: “I indeed allow that [anointing] was used
as a sacrament by the disciples of Christ,. . . but as the reality of this sign continued
only for a time in the church, the symbol also must have been temporal. And it is
quite evident that nothing is more absurd than to call that a sacrament which is void
and does not really present to us the thing signified. That the gift of healing was
temporary, all are constrained to allow, and events clearly demonstrate: then the
sign of it ought not be deemed perpetual.” Cf. Inst. IV.xix.18-21, OS V, 452-55.
9 Comm. Acts 19.5, CO XLVIII, 442: “As I confess that this laying on of
hands was a sacrament, so I say that those fell through ignorance who did conti-
transformed in the history of the church into sacraments of con¬

firmation and unction. In this case, however, there is no ordinatio
Dei stipulating their limited duration. Consequently, and in perfect
keeping with his doctrine of correlation, Calvin appeals directly
to the withdrawal of the Spirit as the basis for the distinction.
Let us remember that the laying on of hands was the instrument of

God at such time as he gave the visible graces of the Spirit to his
people, and that since the church was deprived of such riches it is
only an empty spectre without any substance.* 1
The fact that we no longer experience these “visible graces,” so

fully poured out upon the early church, sufficiently justifies our
designation of them as “temporary.” 2
3. Permanent Sacraments
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper alone constitute the ordinary and
permanent sacraments of the church, because, first of all, they have
the command and promise of God.3 That is to say, they are signs, or
ceremonies, appointed for continuous use in the church as seals of
God’s grace and as confirmations of faith. As with other symbols,
Calvin makes a fundamental distinction here between the sign itself
and the thing signified:
The sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things; the corporeal
signs, which, thrust before our eyes, represent to us invisible things
according to the feebleness of our capacity; and the spiritual truth,
which is at the same time figured and exhibited by the symbols them¬
selves.4
Again, just because the sacrament is a greater accommodation to
nually imitate the same.... It was a temporary grace.” Cf. Comm. Mk. 7.32,
CO XLV, 461; Inst. IV.xix.6 OS V, 440-41.
1 Comm. Acts 8.17, CO XLVIII, 184; Cf. Comm. Acts 2.17, CO XLVIII, 34:
“Although those visible graces have ceased, yet God has not withdrawn his
Spirit from his church.”
2 Cf. supra.
3 Inst. I.xix.l, 2, 5, 17; OS V, 436, 437, 440, 451.
4 Inst. IV.xvii.il, OS V, 352-54. Cf. Inst. IV.xiv.15, OS V, 272: ’’Hence
that distinction, if it be well understood, which is frequently stated by Augustine,
between a sacrament and the matter of a sacrament (rem sacramenti). For his
meaning is, not only that a sacrament contains a figure, and the truth, but that
their connection is not such as to render them inseparable from each other; and
even when they are united, the thing signified ought always to be distinguished
from the sign, that what belongs to the one may not be transferred to the other.”
“the defect of our flesh,” 1 just because the sacraments—especially

the Lord’s Supper—stand at the furthest reach of God’s ac¬
commodation to man, and so make possible the richest and most
complete communion,2 special precautions must be taken against
the natural temptation to locate the “spiritual truth” in the concrete
symbols at hand.
That spiritual truth, of course, is Christ. He is the “peculiar object
(.scopum)” 3 of both the sacraments, and all that they possess is “laid
up” in him.4 The symbols, moreover, do not merely point to Christ,
but to our union with him. Through the sacraments, we “put on
Christ,” 5 and “grow into one body” with him.6 But that means his
crucified and risen body; our participation is in his death and re¬
surrection,7 and consequently a participation in the salvation effected
by that once-for-all-event.8 The sacraments themselves do not save,
but they are the seals and pledges of a salvation already achieved.9
In this limited sense they are revelatory, vi%., insofar as they confirm
our faith.10
All that may be discerned in the sacraments, however, is utterly
1 Comm. Is. 7.12, CO XXXVI, 152: “What then is the use of Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper? Must they be regarded as superfluous? Not at all, ... we ought
indeed to grieve and lament that the sacred truth of God needs assistance on
account of the defect of our flesh; but since we cannot all at one remove this
defect...” Cf. Comm. Ps. 132.7, CO XXXII, 345: “It is thus that the Holy
Spirit, on account of the weakness of our capacity, helpfully stammers (utiliter
balbutiat) that he might raise us to heaven by means of the earthly elements.”
2 Catechism, p. 136, OS, II, 139, Q. 346: “What more do we obtain from the
sacrament [i.e., the Supper], or what benefit besides does it confer on us? This,
that the communion of which I have spoken is confirmed and increased in us. For
though both in baptism and in the gospel Christ is exhibited to us, yet we do not
receive him wholly but only in part.” Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.5, OS V, 346.
4 Comm. Gal. 5.3, CO L, 245.
8 Inst. IV.xv.6, OS V, 289: “Christum in Baptismo induimus.”
6 Inst. IV.xvii.2, OS V, 343: “In unum corpus nos cum Christo caoluisse.”
7 Inst. IV.xv.5, OS V, 288: “Through baptism Christ makes us sharers in his
death, so that we may be engrafted in it.” Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.4, OS V, 345: “We do not
eat Christ duly and unto salvation unless he is crucified, when in living experience
we grasp the efficacy of his death.”
8 Inst. IV.xvii.il, OS V, 354: “And indeed, I do not see how anyone can trust
that he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his
death, unless he relies chiefly upon a true participation (communione) in Christ
himself.” Cf. Inst. IV.xv.6, OS V, 289, Inst. IV.xvii.20, OS V, 370.
9 Comm. Tit. 3.5, CO LII, 430: “Baptism seals to us the salvation obtained by
Christ.” Cf. Comm. Eph. 5.26, CO LI, 224.
10 Comm. Tit. 3.5, CO LII, 430: “Therefore, a part of revelation consists in
baptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith.”
dependent upon their connection with the word of God. It is per¬

fectly clear to Calvin that ceremonies apart from the intelligible
explanation provided by the word are merely “childish charms.” 1
Ceremonies and rites ought to refer to that which those who use them
mutually agree upon. Which rule also ought to be applied to the sac¬
raments ; because if the word by which God enters into covenant with
us be taken away, useless and dead figures will alone remain.2
The word alone, then, distinguishes “between the sacraments of

the godly and the contrivances of unbelievers.” 3
It is not, however, just for purposes of clarification and explanation
that the word must be annexed to the sacrament, but also, and more
importantly, because the word gives life to otherwise dead images,4
because the faith which is strengthened by sacraments is principally
dependent upon the word,5 and because the word which ordains the
sacrament at the same time gives it character and power.6 The sum
of the matter, hence, is this:
a sacrament is nothing else than a visible word (verbum visibile) or

sculpture and image of that grace of God, which the word more fully
illustrates. ... As soon as the sign itself meets our eyes, the word
ought to sound in our ears.7
The descending scale of accommodation entails a twofold require¬

ment: the sacraments must be added to preaching because they
are necessary to the confirmation of faith; but preaching must be
annexed to the sacraments because faith is born only of the word.
As the sacraments presuppose the very word which they vivify, so
1 Comm. Ex. 24.5, CO XXV, 75: “Nothing can be more preposterous than
the invention of dumb sacraments: such as those childish charms which the papists
hawk about as sacraments, without the word of God.” Cf. Comm. Lk. 3.3,
CO XLV, 112: “He explained, in his preaching, the advantage of baptism, that
the sign, through the word preached, might produce its effect.”
3 Comm. Eph. 5.26, CO LI, 224.
4 Comm. Eze. 2.3, CO XL, 63: “If signs only are presented to our eyes, they
will be, as it were, dead images. The word of God, then, throws life into the sac¬
raments.”
6 Comm. Mt. 8.11, CO XLV, 237: “Though it was the will of God that our
salvation should be accomplished in the flesh of Christ, and though he seals it
daily by the sacraments,, yet the certainty of it must be obtained from the word.”
Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.39, OS V, 403.
6 Inst. IV.xix.7, OS V, 442: “In divinely given sacraments, two things are to be
regarded: the substance of the corporeal symbol which is proposed to us, and the
form inpressed upon it by the word of God, in which all its power consists.
they also presuppose the faith which they confirm. The divinely
instituted order, therefore, is that the preaching of the word and the
administration of the sacraments are not to be separated.1 When this
order is observed—and only then—it is possible for Calvin to say:
The sacraments are to be ranked in the same place as the word, so

while the gospel is called the power of God for salvation to everyone
who believes, we do not hesitate to transfer the same title to the
sacraments.2
4. The Efficacy of the Sacraments

The distinction between the sign and the thing signified prepares
the way for an even more decisive one, vi%., that between the offering
and the receiving of the “spiritual truth” or “reality” of the sacrament.
“The reality is given to us along with the sign,” 3 is in fact “offered
both to good and bad men,” 4 but “all are not capable of receiving
it.” 5 The reason, of course, is that all do not have faith, in which
case the sacrament is “merely in the letter,” and the symbol is taken
without the reality, whereas “believers receive (percipiunt) the reality
with the sacrament.” 6 This is not to say that a “perfection of faith
ffidei perfectionem)” is required of the participant,7 but a “mere
historical faith (fidem historicam),” receiving nothing but the
1 Comm. Is. 20.2, CO XXXVI, 351: “Papists act wickedly when they lay
aside doctrine, and give the name of sacrament to empty ceremonies; for the
Lord has connected them in such a manner that no man can separate them with¬
out infringing that order which he has instituted.”
2 Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal, T&T II, 400, CO IX, 182. (Hereafter,
this work will be cited in the following manner: Admonition, T&T II, 400,
CO IX, 182.) Cf. Comm. Gen. 28.17, CO XXIII, 394: Inst. IV.xiv.17, OS V, 274.
3 Comm. Is. 6.7, CO XXXVI, 133. “In the sacraments the reality is given to us
along with the sign; for when the Lords holds out a sacrament, he does not feed
our eyes with empty and unmeaning figures, but joins the truth with it.”
4 Comm. Gal. 3.27, CO L, 222.
5 Comm. I Cor. 10.5, CO XLIX, 456: “The Lord offers, it is true, to the worthy
and the unworthy what he represents, but all are not capable of receiving it.”
8 Comm. I Cor. 12.13, CO XLIX, 501. Cf. Comm. Jer. 25.26, CO XXXVIII,
56: “Literal baptism avails hypocrites nothing, for they receive only the naked
sign.” Comm. Rom. 6.4, CO XLIX, 106: “The institution of the Lord and the
faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols
except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine
beneficence.” Inst. IV. xvii. 33, OS V, 393.
7 Inst. IV.xvii.42, OS V, 408: “Others . . . requiring a perfection of faith . . .
and a charity equal to that which Christ declared toward us . . . exclude all men
from access to the sacred supper.” Comm. Lev. 16.16, CO XXIV, 504: “Such is
our corruption that we never cease from profaning, as far as in us lies, these
instruments of the Spirit whereby God sanctifies us.”
sign,1 converts the sacrament into “a most noxious poison” and

secures its own “condemnation.” 2
These varieties of faith, we know, derive from the diverse workings
of the Spirit in the hearts of men; the efficacy of the sacraments,
then, ultimately depends upon him.
But the sacraments properly fulfill their office only when the Spirit,
that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone hearts are
penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened for the sacra¬
ments to enter in. If the Spirit be lacking, the sacraments can accom¬
plish nothing more in our minds than the splendor of the sun shining
upon blind eyes, or a voice sounding in deaf ears. Therefore, I make
such a division between the Spirit and sacraments that the power to
act rests with the former, and the ministry (ministerium) alone is left
to the latter—a ministry empty and frivolous apart from the action of
the Spirit, but charged with great effect when the Spirit works within
and manifests his power.3
The analogy of the sun and blind eyes is apt, for the sacraments are
not in themselves empty—it is only our blindness, or the absence
of the Spirit, that makes them so. Like the preaching of the word, they
are instruments, but—again, like preaching—with a character and
import of their own.
And though by themselves they profit nothing, yet God has designed
them to be instruments of his grace, and he effects by the secret grace
of his Spirit that they should not be without benefit in the elect.
And though they are dead and unprofitable figures to the reprobate,
yet they always retain their force and nature, for though our unbelief
may deprive us of their effect yet it cannot weaken or extinguish the
truth of God.4
1 Comm. I Cor. 11.27, CO XLIX, 492: “I do not admit that those who come
forward with a mere historical faith, without a lively feeling of repentance and
faith, receive any thing but the sign.”
2 Inst. IV.xvii.40, OS V, 404-5: “Though they have no faith fixed on Christ,
yet in their reception of the sacrament they profess that there is no salvation for
them anywhere except in him, and renounce every other dependence. Wherefore
they are their own accusers . . . they deal their own condemnation.”
3 Inst. IV.xiv.9, OS V, 266. Cf. Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments
between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, T&T II, 216, OS II,
249-50. (Hereafter, this work will be cited in the following manner: Consent,
T&T II, 216, OS II, 249-50): “If any good is conferred upon us by the sacra¬
ments, it does not lie in their own power, even if the promise by which they are
distinguished is included. For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit.” Wendel, p.
330, thinks that concessions on both sides make this document an unsafe basis
for interpreting Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments. I have used the text advisedly.
4 Comm. Rom. 4.11, CO XLIX, 74; Cf. Comm. Eze. 20.20, CO XL, 492:
“Sacraments are never destitute of the virtue of the Spirit except as men render
It is not the case, then, that faith, through the energy of the Spirit,
projects onto the sacraments a value or meaning which they do not
of themselves possess; but it is only through the illumination of the
Spirit that we are enabled to discern what is really there. Thus,
the efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by

him who shall connect the sign and the thing (rem et signum connected)
in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and efficacious,
and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign,
take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.* 1
The rubric according to which the sacraments must be understood,

therefore, is this: “the truth must never be separated from the signs,
though it ought to be distinguished from them.” 2 Not separated,
because as an order instituted by God they infallibly conceal the
truth, but distinguished because the Holy Spirit does not always
reveal that truth.
Here, as elsewhere, the Spirit is free; nor is this freedom confined
to his withdrawal from the reprobate—although that is one of its
more important aspects—but involves as well the attitude of the
pious toward, and their use of, the sacraments. The man of faith,
in short, is not permitted to think of the efficacy of the sacrament as
growing out of “the mere performance of the outward act, . . . the
opus operatum,” 3 because this entails a binding of the Spirit to the
elements and/or the sacramental action.4 It is just as wrong to “tie
the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign” as it is “to tear away
the thing signified from the sign.” 5 Rather, a more dialectical course
must be pursued:
If there are any who deny that the sacraments contain the grace which
they figure, we disapprove of them. But when the horned fathers add
themselves unworthy of the grace offered them.. . . Baptism is the laver of re¬
generation although the whole world should be incredulous: the Supper of
Christ is the communication of his body and blood, although there were not a
spark of faith in the world.” Consent, T&T II, 216, OS II, 249-50.
1 Comm. Tit. 3.5, CO LII, 431. Cf. Comm. Eph. 5. 5.26, CO LI, 223.
2 Comm. Is. 6.7, CO XXXVI, 133: “Veritatem a signis separandum non esse,
tametsi distingui debeat.”
3 Comm. Is. 1.11, CO XXXVI, 39.
4 Inst. IV.xiv.17: OS V, 275: “Meanwhile that figment which includes the
cause of justification and the power of the Spirit in the sacramental elements is
destroyed.” Comm. Gen. 17.14, CO XXIII, 244: “The common opinion, by
which baptism is supposed to be necessary for salvation, ought to be so moderated
that it should not bind the grace of God or the power of the Spirit to external
symbols.”
' 5 Comm. I Pet. 3.21, CO LV, 268.
that they confer grace upon us if we put no objects in the way, they
pervert the whole force of the sacraments.1
The sacraments “contain” but do not “confer” the grace which

they promise; that comes about only through the efficacious work of
the Holy Spirit, whose freedom requires that we distinguish the
sign and the reality, and whose faithfulness forbids that they be
separated, even though Calvin reckons with the possibility that
grace may be conferred apart from the “visible sacraments.” 2 That
possibility, of course, is “extraordinary,” and he more customarily
articulates the freedom of the Spirit in temporal categories.
The nature of baptism or the Supper must not be tied down to an

instant of time. God, whenever he sees fit, fulfills and exhibits in
immediate effect that which he figures in the sacrament. But no ne¬
cessity must be imagined so as to prevent his grace from sometimes
preceding, sometimes following, the use of the sign.3
Since faith is born of the word, it is not only natural that the grace
of regeneration should precede the administration of the sacraments,
but that is also the “lawful order.” 4 Since this “preceding” grace
does not come by means of the sacraments, however, it does not
constitute a clear illustration of the Spirit’s temporal freedom. That
is best displayed when the work of the Spirit is correlated with the
administration of the symbols only after a long interval of time.
The grace which is figured in baptism is not conferred indifferently

upon all men. . . . The Lord offers to us in the sacraments whatever the
annexed promises sound, and they are not offered emptily or in vain.
1 The Acts of the Council of Trent-, with the Antidote, T&T III, 174-75, CO VII,
494. (Hereafter, this work will be cited in the following manner: Trent Antidote,
T&T III, 174-75, CO VII, 494).
2 Comm. Ex. 40.12, CO XXV, 125: “Invisible grace has profited some without
visble sacraments, while visible sanctification may be imparted, but cannot profit,
without invisible.”
3 A Second defense of the pious and orthodox Faith concerning the Sacraments against
the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, T&T II, 342, CO IX, 118. (Hereafter, this work
will be cited in the following manner: Defense, T&T II, 342, CO IX, 118).
Cf. Consent, T&T II, 218, OS II, 251: “The advantage which we receive from
the sacraments ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which they were
administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at the moment when it is brought
forward, brought the grace of God along with it.”
4 Comm. Acts 10.47, CO XLVIII, 252: “He who has received the Spirit is also
capable of receiving baptism; and this is the lawful order, that those whom God
has testified to be his own by the mark and pledge of his Spirit...” Cf. Comm.
Acts 10.47, CO XLVIII, 252: “As Luke says that those had the Holy Spirit given
to them who were not as yet baptized, he shows that the Spirit is not included in
baptism.” Consent, T&T II, 218 OS II, 251.
. . . For often it happens that the Spirit of God, after a long time, at
last works, by whom the sacraments begin to produce their efficacy.1
The emphasis which Calvin lays upon this possibility constitutes
the only difference between his treatment of the correlation of the
Spirit and the sacrament and that of the Spirit and the word. And it
is only a matter of emphasis, for the efficacious work of the Spirit, as
we have seen, sometimes precedes the actual proclamation of the word.
Otherwise, and not withstanding the dependence of the sacraments
upon the word, the patterns are congruent. The sacraments are cere¬
monies ordained of God, containing and concealing the Word of
God which is revealed only when they are correlated with the inward
work of the Holy Spirit. As that occurs, they are an order effective
in the regeneration of men and “marks” of the church. Apart from
the agency of the Spirit, they too are literal, and poisonous in their
effect. And, finally, the rule, “distinctio sed non separatio,” applies
as well to the relationship between the Word and the word as it does
to that between the “reality” (Christ and his benefits) and the “sign.” 2 3
The full meaning of the sacraments, then, can only be grasped
dialectically in the absolute correlation of the Word and the Spirit
upon which the free correlation of the Spirit and the “instruments”
is founded. Strictly speaking, we can never refer the efficacy of the
sacraments to Christ except we refer them simultaneously to the
Spirit, and vice versa.
Why did not John equally say, that it is Christ alone who washes souls
with his blood ? The reason is, that this very washing is performed by
the power of the Spirit, and John reckoned it enough to express the
whole effect of baptism by the single word spirit?
1 Comm. Acts 8.12, CO XLVIII 180. Cf. Comm. Rom. 4.11, CO XLIX, 75:
“But the fact as to Abraham himself that righteousness preceded circumcision,
is not always the case in sacraments, as appears in the case of Isaac and his posterity.”
This reasoning is specifically not applied to those cases in the life of the early
church in which baptism was administered without regard to the Holy Spirit.
Cf. Comm. Acts 19.3, CO XLVIII, 440: “Paul does not speak in this place of the
Spirit of regeneration, but of the special gifts which God gave to various people
at the beginning of the gospel for the common edifying of the church. Therefore
there is in the word spirit a metonymy. And this sense confirms that if they had
altogether denied that they knew anything of the Spirit of God, Paul would not
have passed over such a crass error in silence; yes, an error altogether monstrous.
Comm. Acts. 8.16, CO XLVIII, 182.
2 It is not possible to agree with Krusche, p. 231, that “sed distinctio is truly
typical for Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments, but not for his doctrine of word
and Spirit.”
3 Comm. Mt. 3.11, CO XLV, 123.
It is Christ alone who in truth baptizes inwardly, who in the supper makes
us partakers of himself, who, in short, fulfills what the sacraments
figure, and uses their aid in such manner that the whole effect resides
in his Spirit.1
5. Infant Baptism
Whereas we have spoken of the sacraments previously as a unity,
it now becomes necessary to view separately some of their more
important peculiarities. We begin with that of infant baptism, which,
of course, has no parallel in the doctrine of the Supper.
From the foregoing analysis, we would deduce that the sacrament
of baptism ought to be administered only after the appearance of
faith. This is, in fact, the case with adults—but not with infants.2
Calvin reaffirms the traditional church practice of paedobaptism, but
he is clearly at pains to justify it in view of his doctrine of the sacra¬
ments generally.
He does so, first of all, by identifying baptism as the replacement
for the ancient rite of circumcision,3 holding both to be the ceremony
of initiation into the church.4 But children are incorporated into the
church in this way only because they are already members of it.
The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while
yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted
into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church
by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the
body of the church before they were born.5
They are born members of the church not because they were be¬
gotten of regenerated parents, but on account of the nature of the
1 Consent, T&T II, 216, OS II, 250. Cf. Comm. Acts, 11.16, CO XLVIII,
256, Inst. IV.xvii.12, OS V, 355-56.
2 Comm. Acts 8.37; CO XLVIII, 196-7; “Baptism is, as it were, an appurtenance
of faith, and therefore is later in order.... I say that the children of the godly
are born the children of the church, and that they are accounted members of
Christ from the womb.. . . Therefore, though faith be requisite in adults, this is
wrongly transferred to infants, whose estate is far different.” Wendel, pp. 324-38,
points out Calvin’s early (1536 edition of the Institutes) identification with Luther s
teaching—ascribing faith to infants—and his subsequent departure from this
position. Cf. OS I, 136.
3 Inst. IV.xvi.4, OS V, 308. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 7.19, CO XLIX, 415: “For
baptism has come in the place of the symbol used under the law on this footing,
that it is enough that we be circumsized by the Spirit of Christ.”
4 Inst. IV.xv.13, OS V, 294; Inst. IV.xv.12, 294.
5 Appendix to the Tract on the True Method of Reforming the Church, T&cT III,
345, CO VII, 676. (Hereafter, this work will be cited in the following manner:
Appendix, T&T III, 345, CO VII, 676). Cf. Defense, T&T II, 338-9, CO IX,
116.
124 THE MARK OF THE CHURCH
covenant itself1: it is the hereditary character of the covenant which

makes room for the baptism of infants. “They have by covenant the
right of adoption, by which they pass over (transeunt) into com¬
munion with Christ.” 2 That is to say, they are expected to grow
into that which the sacrament represents:
For to this end Christ admits infants to baptism, that as soon as the
capacity of their age permit, they may become his disciples, and that
being baptized with the Holy Spirit, they may comprehend, with the
understanding of faith, the power which baptism figures.3
Evidently, Calvin has in mind here the temporal freedom of the

Spirit with respect to the sign: the sacrament is administered to the
infant, and is made efficacious “after a long time” through the work
of the Spirit. Generally, Calvin understands this work to be a process
of education or illumination by the Spirit over a period of time,
rather than a momentary conversion. The “seeds” of “faith and
repentance” are “implanted in their hearts,” 4 and they are
renewed by the Spirit of God according to the measure of their age,

until that power which is hidden in them grows by degrees, and openly
shines forth.5
This coincides perfectly with Calvin’s understanding of the way

in which the Spirit works upon the human ratio-, the natural capacity
for knowledge of God is steadily excited by the Spirit to the point
of true and complete knowledge, i.e., faith.
Baptism itself does not plant these “seeds,” any more than it
occasions the faith of adults, and on these grounds cannot be regarded
as necessary to salvation.6 Infants are not baptized in order that they
may be saved; rather, it is because they may be regenerated—as
infants 7—that they ought to receive the sacrament which proclaims it.
1 Comm. I Cor. 7.14, CO XL1X, 412: “It is not as regenerated by the Spirit
that believers beget children after the flesh.. . . The peculiar privilege to the
children of believers . . . flows from the blessings of the covenant.”
4 Inst. IV.xvi.20, OS V, 324: “Infants are baptized into future repentance and
faith; and even though these have not yet been formed in them, yet the seeds of
both are implanted in their hearts by the secret operation of the Spirit.”
6 Comm. Mt. 19.14, CO XLV, 535.
6 Inst. IV.xvi.26, OS V, 331.
7 Inst. IV.xvi.18, OS V, 322-3: “We deny the inference from this that infants
cannot be regenerated by God’s power.. . . Besides, it would be an unsafe ar¬
gument that would take from the Lord the power to make himself known to them
in any way he pleases.” Cf. Inst. IV.xvi.17, OS V, 321.
When Calvin thus elucidates the meaning of infant baptism, he

is both consistent and clear. Unfortunately, he is neither consistent
nor clear in establishing the basis for such a practice. Lacking any
ordinatio Dei which might be construed as requiring paedobaptism,1
and unable to affirm that baptism is necessary to salvation, he at¬
tempts to justify the practice by grounding it in another ordinatio
Dei, vi%., the covenant. Prima facie, there seems to be nothing wrong
with this; the difficulty is, however, that he falls back upon the
hereditary character of the covenant to make his case, ascribing to
the children of believers a “right of covenant,” when, according to
his own teaching, it is precisely the racial-biological restrictions
concerning the covenant’s object which have been removed by the
advent of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. How in¬
congruous this equation of the position of believers’ children with
that of Israelite children becomes may be seen from the following:
They [baptized, circumcized infants] in some respect are ingrafted

into the church, though in a different respect they were previously
ingrafted. ... I hold that those whom God has already set apart for
himself are rightly brought for baptism. We are not now speaking of
secret election, but of an adoption manifested by the word, which
sanctifies infants not yet born.2
The decisive point to be observed here is that baptism is regarded

as being coextensive with the “adoption manifested by the word,”
i.e., the general election as distinguished from the “secret election.”
With Israel, it is true, the proclamation of the covenant and the
practice of circumcision have the same boundaries, vi%., the people
Israel. Matters are far different, however, with the Christian Church,
for the covenant is deposited with all nations and the gospel is preached
throughout the world. Yet baptism is restricted to those who
believe—and their children !
To be perfectly consistent, Calvin should have argued either for a
baptism as universal in its scope as preaching, or for a baptism con¬
fined to adult, i.e., self-conscious, believers. His own doctrine of the
sacraments, even when allowance is made for the temporal freedom
of the Spirit, theoretically destroys the basis for paedobaptism.
1 Calvin essays, now and then, a tour de force in this direction, but never openly
claims it, nor seeks to build upon it. Cf. Inst. IV.xvi.20, OS V, 324: ‘ Since God
communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, it
does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism—unless men
choose to rage openly at God’s institution.”
2 Defense, T&T II, 338-9, CO IX, 116.
This contradiction clearly stems from Calvin’s efforts at combining

the church and sect ideals—to use Troeltsch’s 1 categories—and so
ironically confirms how dialectically we must conceive Calvin’s
doctrine of the church. On the one hand, he has maintained traditional
Christian teaching, allowing both adult and infant baptism, and, to
that extent, emphasizing the institutional character of the church.
On the other hand, his interpretation of the sacraments has more in
common with the teaching of the sects, assumes a church of professing
believers,2 and radically undermines the theological grounds for
infant baptism.
6. The Real Presence of Christ
The application of Augustine’s distinction between the sign and

the thing signified to the sacrament of baptism is one thing, but
quite another to the sacrament of the supper, for here one has to do
with the words, “This is my body.”
According to Calvin, it is sophistry to suggest that “this” can refer
to anything other than the bread itself, /.<?., it cannot refer merely to
the “form” of the bread.3 Neither, pursuing the consequence of this,
can the verb, “is,” be construed to mean “converted into,” if on no
other than the purely formal grounds that in no language is it known
to have this synonymous usage.4 Nor will Calvin countenance any
sort of literalism, as though the bread were “properly speaking,”
the body of Christ.5 Rather, the words of Christ must be understood
metonymically, as transferring the “name of the thing signified to the
sign.” 6
Not only is this metonymical exegesis of the words of Christ more
agreeable to the customary usage of those words, but this must also
be the way in which the disciples understood Jesus at the last supper.
1 Troeltsch, II, 622-3.

2 Troeltsch, II, 593-4. It is nonetheless true, as Joachim Beckmann asserts,
Vom Sakrament bei Calvin, (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1926), p. 97, that “one has
the impression with Calvin, that he would maintain infant baptism in every
possible and impossible way against the enthusiast.”
3 Inst. IV.xvii.20, OS V, 367.
4 Ibid.
6 Defense, T&T II, 301, CO IX, 87: “Christ performs in the supper what he
figures, . . . The words contain a metonymy which occurs often in all the passages
of Scripture where a word is spoken about the sacraments. We say that the
sacramental mode of expression is to transfer the name of the thing signified to
the sign.. .. From the uniform usage of Scripture, . . .all who moderately versed
in it must reagrd this as a common axiom.”
On any other view, Christ must be understood as at once visibly

before them and invisibly in, or under, the bread they eat—to Calvin, a
“monstrous thing.” 1
Controlling Calvin’s thought in this regard is a very strong sense
for the finitude of Christ’s body—a finitude which is not mitigated
by his resurrection and ascension, but, rather, established by them
once and for all.2 Were it otherwise, then Christ did not take upon
himself human flesh, and we shall not be joined with him in like
resurrection.3 If the body of Christ be regarded as invisible, or as
being in many places at once, then it is clear that we must search for
a new definition of the word, “body,” 4 and equally manifest that
the distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ has been
lost.5
Consequently, Calvin insists that we discard all erroneous notions
about a “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament, i.e., any idea of a
“local presence” 6 which ignores or detracts from the diversity of

2 Inst. IV.xvii.25, OS V, 378: “Not Aristotle, but the Holy Spirit teaches us
that the body of Christ from the time of his resurrection was finite, and is con¬
tained in heaven even to the last day.” Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.12, OS V, 355. Calvin is
considerably agitated by the problems involved in the ascension of a finite body
into heaven, chiefly because he knows that “the right hand of God” cannot
be confined to a particular place: “Now the right hand is transferred to God by
similitude, though he is not confined to any place {loco), and has not a right side
nor a left. The session there of Christ means nothing else but the kingdom given
to him by the Father” (Comm. Heb. 1.3, CO LV, 13; cf. Inst. IV.xvii.27, OS V,
380). Moreover, Calvin acknowledges that there is no “place higher than all the
spheres” which we might call heaven (Comm. Eph. 4.10, CO LI, 195), and that
all such language is metaphorical: “For where shall we erect him a throne, that
he may sit at the right hand of God the father since God fills all things, so that
we ought not imagine any place for his right hand? The whole text, therefore,
is a metaphor” (Comm. Acts 7.56, CO XLVIII, 168-69). In the face of these diffi¬
culties, Calvin nonetheless insists that Christ’s body is separated from us by
“distance of place,” even though, “philosophically speaking, there is no place
above the heavens” (Consent, T&T II, 220, OS II, 253).
3 Inst. IV.xvii.29, OS V, 385-6: “Let them not, then, ascribe this property to
Christ’s glorious body—that it is in many places at one and not held in any space.
In short, let them either deny the resurrection of the flesh, or grant that Christ,
clad in heavenly glory, did not put off the flesh, but that since we are to have a
common resurrection with him, he will make us partners and companions of that
same glory in our own flesh. For that does Scripture more clearly teach than that
Christ, as he took our true flesh ... so also received the same flesh in his resur¬
rection, and bore it up to heaven?”
5 Ibid., 384.
6 Inst. IV.xvii.12, 355: “We must not dream of such a presence of Christ in
the sacrament as the craftsmen of the Roman curia have fashioned—as if the body
place established by the ascension of Christ’s finite body into heaven.

Specifically, this entails the rejection of two similar, though distinct,
notions of “real presence.”
We must establish such a presence of Christ in the supper as may

neither fasten him to the element of bread, nor enclose him in bread,
nor circumscribe him in any way (all of which clearly derogate from
his heavenly glory); finally, such as may not take from his own stature,
or parcel him out to many places at once, or invest him with boundless
magnitude to be spread through heaven and earth. For these things
are plainly in conflict with a nature truly human.* 1
Whereas the first conception of a “real presence” obscures the

finality of Christ’s ascension by pulling him down from heaven, the
second makes nonsense of his finitude by its doctrine of the ubiquity
of his body.2 Calvin resists the one in the name of Christ’s deity, the
other in the name of his humanity.3
At the same time, he does not think of the supper as a “simple
figure or remembrance,” 4 but as the symbol “by which the reality
is presented to us.” 5 “The true eating of the flesh of Christ is not
only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited (exhibetur)
in reality.” 6 Thus, “we feed faith just as sumptuously and elegantly as
those who draw Christ down from heaven.” 7 But if Christ does not
descend from heaven, and if his body does not lie invisibly in or
under the elements, how is the flesh of Christ truly eaten ? The actual
participation in the body of Christ, Calvin confesses, “I rather ex¬
perience than understand,” 8 but he is quite clear concerning the
basis for that experience.
of Christ, by a local presence (locali presentia) were put there to be touched by the
hands, to be chewed by the teeth, and to be swallowed by the mouth.” Cf. Comm.
I Cor. 10.4, CO XL1X, 455: “Christ was connected with them not locally, nor by
a natural or substantial union, but sacramentally.”
1 Inst. IV.xvu.19, OS V, 365. Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.32, OS V, 390.
2 Inst. IV.xvii.16, OS V, 362: “Locating the body itself in the bread, they
assign to it a ubiquity contrary to its nature.” Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.30, OS V, 387.
3 The two rejected views, of course, are those of The Roman Catholics and the
Lutherans. Calvin’s detailed treatment of these positions—we cannot go into them
here—is to be found in Inst. IV.xvii.l 1-17, OS V, 352-64.
4 Confession of Faith in the Name of the Reformed Churches of France, T&T II,
157, CO IX, 768. (Hereafter, this work will be cited in the following manner:
Confession, T&T II, 157, CO IX, 768).
6 Comm. Mt. 26.26, CO XLV, 708. Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.21, OS V, 371.
8 Ibid.,p. 390.
That participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented

to us in the supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent
of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything of that nature, for as
the supper is a heavenly action (coena coelestis sit actio), there is no
absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received
by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected
through the secret power of his Holy Spirit, who does not merely
bring together, but joins in one, things that are separated by distance
of place and far remote.1
The Spirit joins us to Christ, and makes possible a true partici¬

pation in his flesh and blood, but not by bringing Christ down to us;
rather, the Spirit raises us up to him, brings us into the presence of
Christ. The most profound action of the sacrament, therefore, takes
place in heaven, not on earth.
They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence

of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the bread.
For on this principle they leave nothing to the work of the Spirit
which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be present unless
he descends to us, as though we cannot equally enjoy his presence, if
he elevates us to himself.2
Calvin opposes the Roman and Lutheran views of the real presence,
then, not only from the standpoint of Christology, but from that of
Pneumatology as well.3 The antithesis—and we may say, the corre¬
lation—between the “coming of the Spirit and the ascent of Christ” 4 5
is the best rule for framing a true doctrine of the sacraments.
Because the supper is a heavenly action, because we are elevated
by the Spirit to be united with Christ, “it was established of old that
before consecration the people should be told in a loud voice to lift
up their hearts (sursum cor da)” 5 Likewise, we ought not think of this
1 Comm. I Cor. 11.24, CO XLIX, 488. Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.10, OS V, 351.

2 Inst. IV.xvii.31, OS V, 389. Cf. Admonition, T & T II, 387, CO IX, 172:
“If it is evidently owing to the secret agency of the Spirit that our souls are fed
by the flesh of Christ, the inference is certain, that in no other way can his flesh
descend to us than by a heavenly mode of presence.”
3 Beckmann, p. 107, has failed to see the unity in Calvin’s basis for objecting to
both Roman and Lutheran doctrines of the real presence: “Indeed, he proceeds
against transubstantiation especially from his general conception of the sacra¬
ments, against ‘consubstantiation’ (in every form) from his Christology.”
4 Inst. IV.xvii.26, OS V, 378: “Adventus Spiritus et ascensus Christi anti¬
theta sunt.” Consistently, Calvin applies the same reasoning to the descensus ad
infernum. Comm. I Pet. 3.19, CO LV, 265: “These are very different things, that
Christ’s soul went, and that Christ preached by the power of the Spirit. Then
Peter expressly mentioned the spirit, that he might take away the notion of what
might be called a real presence.”
5 Inst. IV.xvii.36, OS V, 399-400.

eating in a materialistic manner. To begin with, the body of Christ

“lives by an immortality not its own,” and “is endued with a plenti-
tude of life to communicate to us.” 1 It is not so much the flesh of
Christ, then, as the life given from that flesh, which is promised to us
in the supper. Accordingly, “it is sufficient for us that Christ inspire
life into our souls from the substance of his flesh, and even infuse
his own life into us, though his flesh never actually enters into us.” 2
Once again, it is the Holy Spirit who is the effective agent of this
action. Having elevated us to be with Christ, he “pours” into us the
“lifegiving strength from the flesh of Christ.” 3 This does not mean,
as some of Calvin’s opponents apparently thought, that in the sacra¬
ments we are, ultimately, “partakers of the Spirit only,” without
reference to the “flesh and blood” of Christ.4 Nor does it mean
that his body is held forth to be eaten only in a figurative, symbolical

and allegorical sense. . . . The spiritual mode we oppose to the carnal,
because the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of our union with Christ,
infuses life into us from the substance of his flesh and blood.5
Calvin will not speak of the Spirit apart from Christ any more than
he will speak of Christ without the Spirit. Nevertheless, his inter¬
pretation of the sacramental action, his “spiritualizing” of it, raises
the question whether his position is not essentially Zwinglian. He
pointedly denies this—denies that “to believe in Christ is the same
thing as to eat Christ” 6 —and affirms that the “act of eating the flesh
of Christ is different from believing on him.” 7 And the difference is
this: that “eating is the fruit and effect of faith,” 8 and “something

2 Inst. IV.xvii.32, OS V, 391. Cf. Defense, T&T II, 293, CO IX, 81: “It
is one thing to say that the substance of Christ is present in the bread to give life
to us, and another to say that the flesh of Christ gives us life, because life flows
from its substance into our souls.”
3 Comm. I Cor. 11.24, CO XLIX, 487. Cf. Comm. Acts 1.11, CO XLVIII,
13-14: “We do not eat his flesh grossly, that we may live thereby, but he pours his
force and strength into us by the secret power of his Spirit.” Comm. Mt. 26.26,
CO XLV, 708.
6 Admonition, T&T II, 445, CO IX, 215.
6 Comm. John 6.47, CO XLVII, 151. Cf. Admonition, T&T II, 377, CO
IX, 165: “Those who simply explain, that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink
his blood, when we believe that our sins have been expiated by his death, speak
too narrowly and stringently.”
7 Comm. Mt. 26.26, CO XLV, 708.
8 Comm. John 6.35, CO XLVII, 145. Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.5, OS V, 347: “I say,
that in believing we eat the flesh of Christ, because he is made ours by faith, and
that this eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to express it more plainly, they
greater (rnaius) and more excellent (praestantia) than to believe.” * 1

But in what does this rnaius consist ? Clearly, in nothing else than
what we have already seen to be the difference between the word
and the sacrament, i.e., the greater accommodation of the latter
to our finitude. Thus, while eating is a richer, “more excellent”
participation in Christ, it is also a dependent participation—dependent
upon the establishment of faith in the word, and so a fruit and effect
of faith.
Thus Calvin, from the viewpoint of his own doctrine of the real
presence, rooted in the correlation of Word and Spirit, opposes
those interpretations which exalt the reality of Christ in the supper at
the expense of the Spirit, and, equally, those which denigrate the real
presence of Christ in their excessive emphasis on faith and the Spirit.
If the former have forgotten the antithesis between the advent of the
Spirit and the ascent of Christ, the latter have forgotten that the Spirit
is not to be separated from the Son. Neither interpretation is suffi¬
ciently dialectical, because neither is adequately grounded in the corre¬
lation of the Word and Spirit.
Finally, from this view of the “real presence” follows the all
important consequence that we are united in one body with Christ:
By the power of his Spirit and his own divine essence, he not only
fills heaven and earth, but also miraculously connects (coagmentare)
us with himself in one body, so that the flesh, although it remain in
heaven, is our food. . . . For seeing he penetrates to us by the secret
grace of his Spirit, it is not necessary, as we have said elsewhere, that
he should descend bodily.2
Calvin’s point, that we are raised into the presence of Christ, lays
the greatest possible emphasis upon the corporate character of the
sacrament, for the movement flows from the many toward the one,
rather than from the one to the many. So the supper is a symbol
not only of our unity with Christ, but also of our unity with each
other.3 Therefore, “private masses are diametrically opposed to the
consider the eating to be faith itself; but I apprehend it rather to be a consequence

of faith.”
1 Partaking, p. 307, CO IX, 504.
2 Defense, T&T II, 285, CO IX, 76. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 11.24, CO XLIX, 487.
3 Inst. IV.xvii.38, OS V, 402: Now, as he has only one body, of which he
makes us all partakers, it follows of necessity, that by such participation, we also
are all made one body; and this union is represented by the bread which is in the
sacrament.” Cf. Comm. I Cor. 10.17, CO XLIX, 465: “We must, even by external
profession, maintain that unity which is between us and Christ, inasmuch as we
all come together at the same time for the sacred symbol of that unity.”
institution of Christ,” because they “divide the people from one

another, who ought to have united in one assembly (coetum) to know
again (recognesceret) the mystery of their unity.” 1 To thus divide the
people is destructive of the church:
Those act amiss who, having no concern for fellowship {communi-

cationis), break asunder that holy harmony, which is fitly adjusted in all
its parts only when, under the guidance of the same Spirit, all conspire
toward one and the same object.2
The invisible becomes visible when, through the administration

of the sacrament, we are gathered together and led into the presence of
Christ by the Spirit.3
C. Conclusion
The foregoing analysis corroborates our understanding of the

total structure of Calvin’s thought: God has ordained both the preach¬
ing of the word and the administration of the sacraments, and when
coupled with the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit they constitute
the order which marks the reality of the Church.
With respect to both marks, the order is two-fold: there is, on the
one hand, an order of true preaching of the word of God and right
administration of the sacraments, and, on the other hand, the order
which appears when the word is truly heard and the sacraments
faithfully received. It is in their coalescence, of course, that the
existence of the church is “marked.”
The Spirit, as we have seen, is the dynamic factor in the correlation,
and he can, in his freedom, bring men to a saving knowledge of
God independently of the order (the “extraordinary”) just as he is
1 Inst. IV.xviii.8, OS V, 424. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 11.30, CO XLIX, 494: “By
its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately,
communication being done away. . .”
3 A similar interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of the real presence may be
found in Beckmann, p. 150: “The sacramental reality is the Spirit. The gift of the
supper in the fullest sense is not the body and blood of the Lord, but realization of
a living communion with the flesh and blood of the Lord, which takes place in the
Spirit.” On the whole, however, he has pushed Calvin so far to the left as to
jeopardize the reality of the communion with Christ: “The true sacramental
reality ... is not the substantially present caro Christi, but nothing other than the
Spit it us Christ i, which to be sure, stands in immediate connection with the caro
Cbristi, and realizes this also for the receiver of the sacrament” (p. 113). Ronald
Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1953), pp. 202-3, confusingly—and mistakenly, I believe—argues to the contrary
that we do feed on the “ ‘substance’ of the flesh” but in an immaterial way!
CONCLUSION 133
free to withdraw from the “external” preaching of the word or the

administration of the sacraments, thus leaving the church with nothing
more than the letter of the law (hence, disorder). But the efficacious
work of the Spirit “ordinarily” accompanies the sacraments and
preaching, and we are enjoined against elevating either lex or the
extraordinary to the level of a general operating principle, and are
constrained to work out our salvation within the boundaries of the
appointed order. In the language of the sacraments, we ought to dis¬
tinguish between the sign and the thing signified, but must not se¬
parate them.
This is of the greatest significance for our understanding of Calvin’s
doctrine of the church, for preaching and the sacraments are not sim¬
ply evidences of a reality existing independently of them: they are,
from the human point of view, constitutive of that reality. According
to Calvin, then, we cannot think of the church as a legally defined
institution, where the word is truly preached and the sacraments
rightly administered, nor can we conceive it mystically, as simply
being in the presence of Christ, leaving behind us the objective order.
Rather, the church must be defined dialectically as union with Christ
in, through, and together with the means by which the Spirit brings
us to him. We may be led to Christ by the Spirit apart from the means,
and we may have the means without the Spirit, and, hence, without
Christ; but in neither of these cases do we have the church.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE MINISTRY AND WORSHIP

OF THE CHURCH
To be placed in the closest possible connection with the marks is

Calvin’s teaching on the ministry and worship of the church. The
reasons for doing so are different in each case. Worship bears an
intrinsic relation to the marks whether broadly or narrowly defined,
for in the former case it includes both preaching and the celebration
of the sacraments, and in the latter it flows from them. The ministry,
on the other hand, is the presupposition for the preaching of the
word and the administration of the sacraments, not because it is in
any way determinative of them, but because God has willed thus to
make use of the agency of men.
A. The Ministry
Here we must speak, as Calvin says, “of the order by which God
willed his church to be governed.” 1 2 That is to say, the government
of the church is not a matter of human contrivance but is altogether
dependent upon the “command of God (Dei iussum)” 2 This does
not mean that every detail of church polity has been divinely pres¬
cribed 3 but that its essential structure is a matter of ordinatio Dei.
Quite simply, that essential structure consists in the divine appointment
of pastors, or ministers,4 in whose hands the government of the
church is placed. By their agency the church is held together: they
are “the principal sinew by which the faithful cohere in one body,” 5
1 Inst. IV.iii.l, OS V, 42.

2 Comm. Heb. 5.4, CO LV, 59: “No government is to be set up in the church
by the will of men, but ... we are to wait for the command of God.” Cf. Comm.
Num. 17.4, CO XXV, 230: “The whole government of the church depends so
entirely upon his decree, that men are not permitted to interfere with it.”
3 Cf. infra, Chapter VI.
4 Comm. Is. 62.7, CO XXXVII, 387: “It belongs to God alone, therefore,
to ordain pastors.” Cf. Comm. John 20.23, CO XLVII, 441: “Pastors are divinely
ordained to be sureties for our eternal salvation.”
5 Inst. IV.iii.2, OS V, 44: “Praecipuum esse nervum quo fideles in uno
corpore cohaerant.” Cf. Inst. IV.iii.l, OS V, 43: “The Lord therefore has con¬
nected his church together by that which he foresaw would be the strongest bond
for the preservation of their unity, when he committed the doctrine of eternal
life and salvation to men, that by their hands it might be communicated to others.”
THE MINISTRY 135
and without them—indeed, without good pastors 1—the church soon

falls into ruin.2 And since the church is the history of the restoration
of the original order of creation, we may ascribe to ministers the
salvation of the world:
Now this work is the edification of the church, the eternal salvation
of souls, the restoration of the world, and, in fine, the Kingdom of God
and Christ. The excellence and dignity of this work are inestimable.3
Because he does the work of God himself, the minister may be

regarded as “a father to the church,” 4 for “the church of God is not
only begotten by means of holy and pious pastors, but... its life
is also cherished, nourished and confirmed by them to the end.” 5
1. The Minister as Servant
Such great authority, Calvin knows, may degenerate into lord¬

liness and tyrannizing; 6 but this is a perversion and not a natural
consequence, because all the authority and power is invested in the
office rather than the man—indeed, may more properly be said to
belong to the word of which they are but the ministers:
whatever authority and dignity is attributed by the Spirit in the Scrip¬

ture, either to the priests and the prophets, or to the Apostles and their
successors, it is all given not properly to the persons themselves, but
1 Comm. Jer. 3.15, CO XXXVII, 563: “The state of the church cannot be
lasting, except there be faithful pastors to show the way of salvation.. . . when
the church is deprived of sound teachers, all things soon fall into ruin.” Calvin
thinks that “God often punishes our ingratitude and proud disdain by depriving
us of good pastors,” Comm. Phil. 2.29, CO LII, 42.
2 Comm. Tit. 1.5, CO LII, 409: “Churches cannot exist safely without the
ministry of pastors.” Cf. Comm. Josh. 24.29, CO XXV, 570.
3 Comm. I Thess. 5.12, CO LII, 172. Cf. Comm. I Tim. 3.15, CO LII, 288:
“Is anything more venerable, or more holy, than that everlasting truth which
embraces both the glory of God and the salvation of men?. . . Now it is preserved
on earth by the ministry of the church alone. What a weight, therefore, rests on
the pastors, who have been entrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treaure!”
Cf. Comm. I Tim. 4.16, CO LII, 304: “Nor ought they to think it strange that he
ascribes to Timothy the work of saving the church; for certainly, all that is
gained to God is saved, and it is by the preaching of the gospel that we are gathered
to Christ.”
6 Comm. Jer. 3.15, CO XXXVII, 563.
6 Comm. II Cor. 10.8, CO L, 118: “Those, then, who exercise power in the
way of destroying the church, prove themselves to be tyrants and robbers—not
pastors.” Cf. Comm. Acts 21.22, CO XLVIII, 483.
136 THE MINISTRY AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH
to the ministry to which they were appointed; or (to speak more

correctly), to the word which is committed to their ministry.1
To be the minister of the word means, as the word minister itself

denotes, not to be the lordly dispenser of it, but its obedient servant.2
To be the minister of truth means to be in subjection to the truth.
He is truly the servant of God, then, who faithfully and obediently
fulfills the office which has been entrusted to him,3 and does not
merely seek self-aggrandizement through nominal assumption of
office. Nor does Calvin permit subjection to the word to be used as a
disguise for a more subtle arrogance: if ministers are the servants of
Christ, they are also servants of the church:
all pastors of the church ... by whatever title of honor they may
be distinguished . . . are nothing more than servants of the faithful, and
unquestionably they cannot serve Christ without serving his church at
the same time.4
Not that they are the factotums of the congregation: they are the
servants of the church only because they are first the servants of
Christ, and under the limitations of that prior servitude. Because
they are servants of the word, they are the servants of the church,
and not otherwise. Their work as servants, therefore, does not miti-
1 Inst. IV.viii.2, OS V, 134. Cf. Comm. II Cor. 13.8, CO L, 152: “This passage
must be carefully observed, because it limits the power which pastors of the
Church should have, and fixes its proper bounds: namely, that they be ministers
of the truth ... in subjection to the truth.” Cf. Comm. II Cor. 10.8, CO L, 118:
“The whole power of ministers is included in the word {tota ministorum potestas
in verbo est inclusa), but in such a way, nevertheless, that Christ may always remain
Lord and Master.”
2 Comm. Ps. 45.16, CO XXXI, 459: “Those who occupy eminent places in
the church, and govern it, do not domineer in the name of Christ, but rather act
as servants.” Cf. Comm. Is. 42.1, CO XXXVII, 58: “Godly teachers, and those
who hold a public office in the church, are in a peculiar manner denominated the
servants of God (Dei servos).”
3 Comm. Jude 1.1, CO LV, 487: “He who declares himself to be the servant
of God, includes both these things, that God is the bestower of the office which
he exercises, and that he faithfully performs what has been committed to him.”
Cf. Comm. Hos. 4.6, CO XLII, 774: “It was then an extreme wickedness of the
priests, as though they wished to subvert God’s sacred order, when they sought
the honour and dignity of the office without the office itself.”
4 Comm. II Cor. 4.5, CO L, 52: cf. Comm. Mt. 23.11, CO XLV, 626: “He
therefore declares that the highest honor in the church is not government but
service (non imperium sed ministerium). Whoever keeps himself within this limit,
whatever may be the title which he bears, takes nothing away from either God
or Christ.”
THE MINISTRY 137
gate the congregational responsibility to esteem them—and to esteem

them as servants.1
When the minister fulfills his role as servant, he makes it clear that
Christ is the only “pastor,” 2 “bishop,” 3 and “teacher” 4 in the
church. His authority becomes transparent to the Lordship of
Christ:
For although he alone ought to rule and reign in the church, and to
have all preeminence in it, and this government ought to be exer¬
cised and administered solely by his word—yet, as he does not dwell
among us by a visible presence, so as to make an audible declaration
of his will to us, we have stated that for this purpose he uses the
ministry of men, as a sort of delegated work, not to transfer his right
and honor to them, but only that he may do his work by their lips.5
If Christ’s work is done by ministers, and yet in such a way that

none of his “right and honor” are transferred to them, that they
possess none of the authority of the word which they proclaim, that
they are, in truth, the servants of that which they do, and in subjection
to it, then it is understandable that Calvin should think of them as
“instruments” and “vessels.”6 Clearly, this is no denigration of
their work; 7 on the contrary, it becomes evident that Calvin places
the ministry beside baptism and the supper as God’s gracious ac¬
commodation to our finitude: i.e., he has a sacramental view of the
ministry:
[Paul] is accustomed to speak in two different ways of ministers, as

well as of sacraments. For in some cases he considers a minister as
one who has been ordained by the Lord for . . . regenerating souls,
1 Comm. II Cor. 4.5, CO L, 52: “It is the duty of the people ... to esteem the
servants of Christ first of all on the ground of the dignity of their master, and then
further on account of the dignity and excellence of their office.” Cf. Comm. I
Thess. 5.12, CO LII, 171.
2 Comm. Mt. 23.6, CO XLV, 625: “He is the only pastor, but nevertheless
admits many pastors under him.” Cf. Comm. I Pet. 5.4, CO LV, 286.
3 Trent Antidote, T&T III, 49, CO VII, 395.
4 Comm. John 8.28, CO XLVII, 200: “The Father . . . appoints him to be
the only teacher of the church.” Cf. Comm. John 20.21, CO XLVII, 438.
5 Inst. IV.iii.l, OS V, 42. Cf. Comm. Lk. 10.16, CO XLV, 314; Comm. John
20.21, CO XLVII, 438.
6 Comm. Is. 7.13, CO XXXVI, 153: “Prophets and holy teachers ... are
nothing else than God’s instruments.” Cf. Comm. Acts 9.15, CO XLVIII, 207:
“A minister of the gospel serves instead of a vessel to publish the name of Christ.”
7 Comm. I Cor. 3.9, CO XLIX, 352: “Here we have an admirable commen¬
dation of the ministry—that while God could accomplish the work entirely him¬
self, he calls us, puny mortals, to be as it were his assistants, and makes use of us
as his instruments.”
. . . for remitting sins. . . . Viewed in that aspect, he . . . endows him ...

with the power of the Spirit. ... In other cases, he considers a minister
as one who is a servant, not a master, an instrument, not the hand; and,
in short, as man, not God.1
The two different ways which Calvin distinguishes here are not
to be separated; rather, he wishes to have us think of the ministry,
after the analogy of the sacraments, as an instrument with which the
efficacy and power of the Spirit may or may not be connected,2 so
that we may expect much but take nothing for granted. Only when
the work of the Spirit is so joined to them will the labors of ministers
bear fruit:
The ministers of the word, I acknowledge, are called assistants (coadiu-

tores) of God (I Cor.3.9), because he makes use of their agency; but we
ought to understand that they have no power beyond what he bestows,
and that by planting and watering they do no good, unless the in¬
crease come from the secret efficacy of the Spirit.3
Thus the authority of the ministry is not only dependent upon the
ordinatio Dei to which it is transparent, but also upon the accompa¬
nying work of the Holy Spirit.4
We say that this is a sacramental view of the ministry, but what
actually appears here is the scheme which we have discovered every¬
where in Calvin’s theology, vi%., that when the efficacious work of
the Spirit is correlated with the ordinatio Dei in the ministry of a
given man, there occurs the restoration of order, the salvation of the
church.
1 Comm. I Cor. 3.7, CO XLIX, 350. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 4.1, CO XLIX, 362.
2 Comm. Mai. 4.6, CO XLIV, 497: “When God thus speaks highly of his
ministers, the power of his Spirit is not excluded; and he shows how great is the
power of truth when he works through it by the secret grace of his Spirit. God
sometimes connects himself with his servants, and sometimes separates himself
from them: when he connects himself with them, he transfers to them what
never ceases to reside in him; for he never resigns his office, but communicates
it only.” Cf. Comm. Josh. 19.1, CO XXV, 541: “And though they were guided
by the Spirit, there is nothing strange in their having been partly deceived,
because God sometimes leaves his servants destitute of the Spirit of judgment.”
3 Comm. Mk. 16.20, CO XLV, 829. Cf. Comm. Phil. 1.11, CO LII, 445;
Comm. Ex. 7.1, CO XXIV, 85.
4 Comm. Acts 5.9, CO XLVIII, 102: “For when Christ says, ‘when the Spirit
comes he shall judge the world,’ he notes no other kind of authority than that
which he exercises by the ministry of the church.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 10.1, CO XLV,
273: “That there may be no want of authority, they [the apostles] are endowed
with the power of the Holy Spirit.”
THE MINISTRY 139
2. The Election of Ministers
We have spoken of the ministry as an order instituted by God

and made effectual through the work of the Holy Spirit; now we
must ask how it is that this order is concretely realized in the church,
i.e., how does a particular man come to be the minister of a particular
church ?
The general maxim to be observed here is that “all things should
be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14.40).1 Thus, “wherever
there is a church of God” with “its own laws” and a “certain rule of
discipline, no one should thrust himself in, so as to exercise the pro-
pheitc or pastoral office, though he equalled all the angels in sanctity.” 2
On the contrary, “no one shall assume a public office in the church
without a call.” 3
Here Calvin has in mind the “external or political” call of the church
rather than the “internal” and “secret” call which takes place in the
consciousness of the prospective minister; yet the former is “le¬
gitimate” only if it is “preceded” by the latter.4 The call of the church,
then, ought to correspond to the internal calling of the Spirit, but the
church cannot guarantee this because it does not have firsthand
evidence of the minister’s interior life.5 Moreover, since “almost all
men boast of the Spirit of God,” how “shall we judge that any man
has been sent by God, and is ruled by his Spirit ? ” 6 Calvin answers:
from anointing, that is, if he is endowed with the gifts which are
required for that function. If, therefore, having been appointed
(institutus) by the Lord he abound in the graces of the Spirit, and the
ability which the calling demands, he truly has the Spirit.7
1 Inst. IV.iii.10 OS V, 51.

2 Comm. Jer. 23.21, CO XXXVIII, 432.
3 Inst. IV.ii.10, OS V, 52.
4 Comm. Jer. 23.21, CO XXXVIII, 432: “There is a twofold call; one is in¬
ternal and the other belongs to order, and may therefore be called external or
political. But the external call is never legitimate unless it is preceded by the in¬
ternal.” Cf. Comm. I Tim. 4.14, CO LII, 302: “The Holy Spirit marked out
Timothy by revelation, that he might be admitted into the order of pastors; for
he had not only been chosen by the judgment of men, in the ordinary way, but the
Spirit had preceded in the appointing.”
6 Comm. Jer. 23.21, CO XXXVIII, 433: “The internal call of God cannot be
surely discerned by us.” Cf. Inst. IV.iii.ll, OS V, 52: “I pass over that secret
call, of which each minister is conscious before God, and which does not have the
church as witness.” Calvin, of course, no more attempts to get inside that con¬
sciousness than he does the individual’s certainty of salvation, or the inspired
mind of the prophet.
7 Ibid.
Only if he has the gifts are we to assume that he has been ordained
to the office, “for the Lord did not appoint ministers without first
endowing them with the requisite gifts.” 1 Although we may find
scattered throughout his writings references to those virtues which
would count as gifts of the Spirit,2 Calvin lays down only two as
being necessary to the ministry, vi%., “sound doctrine” and “integrity
of life.” 3 The judgment of the church in this regard, accordingly,
will bear a strong resemblance to the earlier described procedure
of examination. Here, as there, Calvin ascribes to the already esta¬
blished pastors the function of judging, or examining,4 but in this
case he emphasizes that the consent of the people is necessary to the
actual election of their pastors.5 The call, therefore, comes from the
church as a body, even though the “college of pastors” will have
played a decisive role in the election.6 * 8
It is not beside the point to inquire, at this juncture, how men are
to be called on those occasions when there are no established pastors ?
Calvin knows very well of such moments in the history of the church,
and contends that at these times the “internal call” of the Spirit
suffices:
1 Comm. I Cor. 12.28, CO XLIX, 505-6. Cf. Comm. Lk. 4.18, CO XLV, 141:
“Those who are sent by God to preach the gospel are previously furnished with
the necessary gifts.” What Calvin seeks to avoid is the possibility that men will be
ordained on the pretext of receiving the gifts afterwards. Cf. Comm. Lk. 5.10, CO
XLV, 150: “Christ selected rough mechanics, persons not only destitute of learn¬
ing, but inferior in capacity, that he might train, or rather renew them by the
power of his Spirit.. . . What he did ought not be held by us as an example, as if
we were now to ordain pastors who were afterwards to be trained to the dis¬
charge of their office.”
2 E.g., Comm. Jer. 34.21, CO XXXIX, 98: “constancy”; Comm. II Cor. 10.4,
CO L, 114: “courage and bravery”; Comm. Mt. 23.14, CO XLV, 628: “devoted
to prayer”; Comm. Tit. 1.9, CO LII, 411-12; “the gift of . . . teaching.”
3 Comm. Ex. 28.4, CO XXIV, 430: “Pastors of the church . . . ought to shine
both in sound doctrine and in integrity of life. Cf. Inst. IV. iii. 12, OS, V, 53:
“Only those are to be chosen who are of sound doctrine and of holy life.”
4 Comm. Tit. 1.5, CO LII, 409: “Besides, this method takes away from each
church the right of choosing (jus elegendi) and from the college of pastors the
power of judging (judicium).”
5 Comm. Acts 6.3, CO XLVIII, 121: “And this is the mean between tyranny
and confused liberty, that nothing be done without the consent and approval of
the people, being moderated, however, by the pastors, that authority may be like
a bridle to inhibit the impulse of the mass, lest they exceed their limits.” Cf. Inst'
IV. iii. 15, OS V, 56.
8 Comm. II Cor. 8.18, CO L, 103-4: “The leaders took precedence by authority
and counsel, and regulated the whole proceeding, while the common people
intimated their approval.”
THE MINISTRY 141
The inward call was principal when the state of the church was in
disorder, that is, when the priests neglected the duty of teaching, and
wholly departed from what their office required. When . . . the church
became disordered (incomposita), God applied an extraordinary (ex-
traordinarium) remedy by raising up prophets. But when the church
is rightly constituted, no one can boast that he is a pastor or minister,
unless he is also called by the election (suffragiis) of men.1
The prophetic office was not in itself “extraordinary,” but only

when the regular order was so corrupted that “God took other mi¬
nisters of his word besides the priests,” 2 as, e.g., in the case of Je¬
remiah.3 The apostolic office, on the other hand, whether it was re¬
quired by the transition “from Moses to Christ,” or “to lead the
church back from the rebellion of the Antichrist,” i.e., from the Ro¬
man priesthood to the Reformed ministry, is consistently held to be
extraordinary.4 In short, whenever the church and its ministry sink
into disorder, the Spirit works internally and apart from any order
toward their renewal.
Of course, the Spirit is also free in his work with rightly constituted
and well ordered churches. The prayerful and orderly proceedings
of the church are not binding upon the Spirit,5 so that it is possible
for a man who is not led by the Spirit in seeking the call6 to be none¬
theless “regularly called.” 7 On this account, Calvin feels obliged
to make a distinction.

2 Comm. Zech. 7.1-3, CO XLIV, 220: “The prophetic was, as it were, an
extraordinary office, when God took others as the ministers of his word besides
the priests.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 1.1-3, CO XXXVII, 473: “Though all the prophets
were not priests, yet they ought to have been taken from that order, for the
priestly order was as it were the seminary of the prophets.”
3 Comm. Jer. 14.14, CO XXXVIII, 192-3: “The call of Jeremiah was extra¬
ordinary; for when the state of the church was rightly formed, the chief priest
was the teacher of religion and true doctrine.. . . There was then sometimes an
interior call only; but when the church was duly formed, a regular outward call
was necessary.”
4 Inst. IV.iff.4, OS V, 46.
6 Comm. Acts 6.5, CO XLVIII, 122: “Events themselves show that the
election was not wholly governed by the Spirit of God.. . . The Spirit directed
their judgment in choosing six men; in that he suffered the church to go astray
in the seventh ought not to seem absurd.”
8 Comm. Zech. 11.15-16, CO XLIV, 317: “When anything of a right and good
government appears in the external form, we ought not conclude, on that account,
that God rules.. . . Let us then take heed, that those who rule be rightly called by
God . . . for no one is a true pastor whom the Lord does not govern by his Spirit.”
7 Comm. Gal. 1.1, CO L, 167: “So far as the church is concerned, a man who
has been led to the ministry not by a good conscience but by perverse desire may
happen to be rightly called.” Cf. Inst. IV.iff.11, OS V, 52.
Even if we allow them to be lawful ministers (legitimos ministros),

and their calling to be approved according to God’s word, it does not
follow that they are true ministers of God (veros Dei ministros') simply
because they hold an ordinary station and jurisdiction in the church.1
But the distinction does not entail separation ! Calvin certainly
expects that the lawfully-called minister will also be a true minister,
i.e., led by the Spirit, and that the order appointed by God will really
appear in the correlation of the work of the Holy Spirit and the or¬
dination of men. The freedom of the Spirit with respect to the church’s
election, however, includes both the possibility—not to be exag¬
gerated and certainly not to be made into an operating principle—that
a true ministry may not be a lawful one (the extraordinary), and the
possibility that a lawful ministry may not be a true one (in which case
it is surely on the way to disorder).
3. Ordination
The calling of a minister, then, is an act of the church, and is

properly symbolized by the rite of ordination in which the congre¬
gation declares its discernment of the gifts of the Spirit in the or-
dinand.2 Calvin, however, does not let the matter rest here; he finds
it possible, rather, to speak of ordination also as a sacrament. While
he systematically exposes the falsity of Rome’s other sacraments,3 4
he only wishes to strip from the rite of ordination those ceremonial
accretions which have no divine ordinatio 4 and the shameless pre¬
tense to “confer the Holy Spirit.” 5 Otherwise, “the laying on of
hands, by which ministers are consecrated to their office, I do not
quarrel with them for calling a sacrament.” 6
1 Comm. Jer. 18.18, CO XXXVIII, 310.

2 Comm. Acts 13.3, CO XLVIII, 281-82: “This is why they laid their hands
upon Barnabas and Paul, that the church might offer them to God, and that they
might with their consent declare that this office was enjoined upon them by God.
For the calling was properly God’s alone, but the external ordaining belonged to
the Church, and that according to the heavenly oracle.” Cf. Inst. IV.iii. 14,
OS V, 54-55.
3 Unction and confirmation fail to qualify as sacraments under Calvin’s rubric
that a sacrament must be ordained of God and contain a promise (Inst. IV.xix.
2-12, OS V, 436-47). Penance has no command from God, and is merely an ancient
church practice which has been unduly elevated by the Romanists (Inst. IV. xix.
15, OS V, 449). Marriage, on the other hand, is instituted of God, but contains
no promise (Inst. IV.xix.34, OS V, 467-68; cf. Confession, T&T II, 153, CO
IX, 764).
4 Principally, “insufflation” and “anointing” (Inst. IV.xix.29-30, OS V, 463-65).
6 Inst. IV.xix. 29, OS V, 464.
6 The Adultero-German Interim-, to which is added the True Christian Method of
THE MINISTRY 143
This affirmation is qualified, however, by Calvin’s refusal to

“number it among the ordinary sacraments (ordinaria sacramenta),* 1
on the grounds that it does not pertain to all the faithful but only to
the relatively few who are taken into the office.2 It is a sacrament,
but not a sacrament that is common to the church as a body.
Like baptism and the supper, the practice of ordination has the
command of God behind it—although this has to be inferred from
the practice of the early church3—and, like them, it contains a
promise.4 Moreover, we may discern here the familiar sacramental
pattern of distinguishing between the sign and the thing signified, 5
efficaciously joined only in the freedom and power of the Spirit,6 but
without taking anything away from the sign itself:
Timothy, having been called to the ministry by the voice of the pro¬
phets, and having afterwards been solemnly ordained, was at the same
time prepared by the grace of the Holy Spirit for the discharge of his
office. Hence, we infer that it was not a useless ceremony, because God,
by his Spirit, accomplished that consecration which men expressed
symbolically by the laying on of hands.7
giving Peace and reforming the Church, T & T III, 291, CO VII, 632. (Hereafter this
work will be cited in the following manner: True Method, T & T III, 291, CO
VII, 632). Cf. Inst. IV.xix.31, OS V, 465.
1 Inst. IV.xiv.20, OS V, 278.
2 Inst. IV.xix.28, OS V, 463: “The imposition of hands which is used at the
introduction of true presbyters into their office, I have no objection to consider as
a sacrament.... I have not enumerated it as third among the sacraments because
it is not ordinary or common (non ordinarium nec commune) to all believers, but a
special rite for a particular office.”
3 Lacking the specific ordinatio, Calvin adduces as evidence for it the actual
practice of the church: “For if the Spirit of God institutes nothing in the church in
vain, we shall perceive that this ceremony which proceeded from him, is not with¬
out its use, provided it be not perverted.” (Inst. IV.iii.16, OS V, 57).
4 Inst. IV.xix.28, OS V, 463: “He has promised them the grace of the Holy
Spirit, not in order to effect an expiation for sins, but rightly to sustain and conduct
the government of the church.”
6 Comm. I Tim. 5.22, CO LII, 319: “First the laying on of hands means ordina¬
tion; that is, the sign is put for the thing signified.”
6 Comm. Acts 6.6, CO XLVIII, 122: “The laying on of hands is a rite agreeable
to decorum and order, and yet it has of itself no power or efficacy, but its strength
and effect depend upon the Holy Spirit alone.”
7 Comm. I Tim. 4.14, CO LII, 303. Cf. Comm. II Tim. 1.6 CO LII, 349-50:
“Whenever ministers were ordained, they were commended to God by the prayers
of the whole church, and in this manner grace from God was obtained for them
by prayer, and was not given to them by virtue of the sign, although the sign was
not uselessly or unprofitably employed, but it was a sure pledge of that grace which
they received from God’s own hand. That ceremony was not a profane act . . . but
a lawful consecration before God, which is not performed but by the power of
the Holy Spirit.”
Just here, however, our attention is called to the fact that it is not
salvation—Christ and all his benefits—which ordination promises,
but the gifts of the Spirit which are requisite to the exercise of the
office of the ministry. And if we recall that the imposition of hands has
no clear ordinatio, then we must say that Calvin’s designation of or¬
dination as a sacrament is highly questionable. This is, of course,
the deep-lying reason for his vacillation: he does not demand that
we think of ordination as a sacrament, but neither does he object to
it; it is a sacrament, but not an ordinary sacrament. But why must he
equivocate at all ? Why is he not content to think of the ceremony
simply as an act of the church ?
The answer to these questions is at least partly given in the sacra¬
mental conception of the ministry itself. In this regard, Calvin’s
irresolution would be accounted for by the understanding that or¬
dination is not the sign of the reality (and thus a sacrament), but the
sign of the sign, i.e., the witness in the act of the church to the divine
activity. Because this is only a partly successful solution, we must ask
whether it is only accidental that Calvin has contradicted his own
theology of the sacraments—once more—at one of those junctures
where the institutional character of the church is acutely involved ?
Must we not say that by permitting us to think of ordination as a
sacrament he has enhanced the authority of the ministry and shored
up the institutional aspect of the church ? Whereas in his sacramental
view of the ministry Calvin allocates all their authority to the word of
which they are the servants, in the sacrament of ordination something
of that authority is restored to their person.
4. The Offices of the Ministry

Up to this point we have spoken of the ministry as one, and, of
course, Calvin himself so speaks of it. With him, that is not simply a
convenience, but derives from the alone rule of Christ in the church
in which the minister participates. Accordingly, the necessary dis¬
tinction of various offices within the ministry ought not obscure their
unity.1
1 A Paternal Admonition by the Roman Pontiff Paul III to the Most Invincible
Emperor Charles V: with Remarks, T&T I, 265-66, CO VII, 266 (hereafter, this
work will be cited in the following manner: Remarks, T&T I, 265-66, CO VII,
266): “This much all concede, that order in the church ought not be disturbed.
The whole question [of the reformation] depends on the definition of order. Order
requires that there be distinct functions, and this we concede: true conjunction
is not repugnant to distinction. There is nothing to prevent those who hold
THE MINISTRY 145
Calvin acknowledges, as having been scripturally ordained and

faithfully preserved in the early church, three such offices:
As we have handed down (tradidimus), the Scripture commends three

kinds of ministers to us, and the ministry which the ancient church
had it also divided into three orders. For from the order of presbyters
part were chosen pastors and teachers (Pastores ac Doctores); the
remaining part were in charge of the censure and correction of morals.
To the Deacons were committed the care of the poor and the dis¬
pensation of alms.* 1
Actually, there seem to be only two orders here, deacons and pres¬
byters, but certain distinctions with respect to the latter bring the
number of orders up to three, and the number of functions to four.
Pastors and teachers are linked together as ministries of the word,
and on this basis are distinguished from both deacons and “gover¬
nors.” 2 With these governors, or elders, they share the title of pres¬
byter, making it, therefore, a “twofold order.” 3
The three orders, however, entail four functions, or offices, for
while pastors must teach,4 “teachers are not put in charge of disci¬
pline, or administering the sacraments, or warnings and exhorta¬
tions, but only of scriptural interpretation to keep doctrine whole
and pure among believers.” 5 Since the pastor must qualify as a
teacher, he encroaches upon—and to some extent occupies—the
different offices from accomplishing many things by common exertions . . . nothing

to prevent one, in any urgent necessity, from sometimes taking the place of an¬
other.”
1 Inst. IV.iv.l, OS V, 58. Cf. Wendel, pp. 303-05; McNeill, pp. 161-65.
2 Inst. IV.iii.8, OS V, 50. Cf. Comm. Mt. 18.18, CO XLV, 516: “It is evident
that the lawful government of the church is committed to presbyters, not only
to ministers of the word, but also to those who were added to them from the
people as censors of morals.”
3 Inst. IV.iii.8, OS V, 50. Cf. Comm. James 5.14, CO LV, 431: “I include here
generally those who presided over the church; for pastors were not alone called
presbyters, but also those who were chosen from the people to be as it were cen¬
sors to protect discipline.” Comm. I Cor. 12.18, CO XLIX, 507: “By govern¬
ments I understand elders (seniores), who had the charge of discipline, for the
primitive church had its senate for the purpose of maintaining good morals
among the people, as Paul indicates elsewhere when he sets up a twofold order
of presbyters (duplicem ordinem presbyterorum).”
4 Comm. Mt. 28.19, CO XLV, 822: “All are but pretended and spurious
priests who are not intent upon the office of teaching.” Cf. Comm. I Thess. 5.11,
CO LII, 171: “It is to no purpose, therefore, if anyone who does not discharge the
office of a teacher glories in the name of pastor.”
5 Inst. IV.iii.4, OS V, 46.
Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V io

office of the teacher; 1 the teacher, on the contrary, need not qualify
as a pastor.2
Although the order of presbyter may be subdivided according to
its functions, the essential unity of the order is manifested in the
office of the p'Rstor, which overlaps the other two. The pastor func¬
tions together with the governor in the discipline of the church, and
together with the teacher in the education of the church. Nor is this
unity of the ministry much threatened by the separate order of dea¬
cons, for the deacon serves under the pastor,3 and—the requirements
for both orders being the same 4 *—the order of deacons may be con¬
sidered as the “seminary out of which presbyters were taken.” 6
In the preceding section we had occasion to refer to certain “ex¬
traordinary” offices; here, it is only necessary to observe that in terms
of their function they correspond to the “ordinary” offices of pastor
and teacher. That is, pastors have succeeded the apostles and evan¬
gelists—who may be grouped together, being distinguished not as to
function but as to rank—and teachers have taken the place of pro¬
phets.6 Although the apostles and evangelists are to be honored as
“the first builders of the church,” 7 and, unlike pastors, had the world
for a parish,8 yet their function is essentially the same, vi\., to preach
the gospel and to administer the sacraments.9
1 Comm. Eph. 4.11, CO L, 199: “It may sometimes happen, that the same
person is both a pastor and a teacher, but the duties to be performed are entirely
different.”
2 Comm. Eph. 4.11, CO L, 199: “Teaching is, no doubt, the duty of all pastors,
but to maintain sound doctrine requires a talent for interpreting Scripture, and a
man may be a teacher who is not qualified to preach.”
3 Inst. IV.iv.5, OS V, 62: “The deacons were, under the bishop, the stewards
of the poor.”
4 Inst. IV.iii. 12, OS V, 53: “The very same requirements apply to deacons
and presbyters.”
6 Comm. I Tim. 3.13, CO LII, 286.
6 Inst. IV.iii.5, OS V, 47: “But if we group evangelists and apostles together,
we shall then have two pairs that somehow correspond to each other. For as our
teachers correspond to the ancient prophets, so do our pastors to the apostles.”
Cf. Inst. IV.iii.4, OS V, 45-46.
7 Inst. IV.iii.4, OS V, 46. Cf. Comm. Rom. 15.20, CO XLIX, 279: “The
Apostles then were the founders of the church (fundatores ecclesiae) as it were. The
pastors who succeeded them had to strengthen and amplify the building raised
up by them.”
B Inst. IV.iii.4, OS V, 46: “No set limits are allotted to them, but the whole
earth is assigned to them to bring into obedience to Christ.” Cf. Inst. IV.iii.6,
OS V, 48-9: “Finally, what the apostles performed for the whole world, each
pastor ought to perform for his own flock, to which he is assigned.”
9 Inst. IV.iii.6, OS V, 47-8: “The Lord, when he sent out the Apostles, gave
THE MINISTRY 147
It now remains only to say something about the office of “bishop.”

According to Calvin’s reading of Scripture, “bishop” is synonymous
with “presbyter” * 1 and, indeed, with “elder,” “pastor,” and “mi¬
nister” as well.2 The office of bishop, therefore, cannot be different
from that of the pastor. Because it is scriptural Calvin approves the
word, but its corruption in the tradition requires that he use it with
restraint, and then only with added clarification:
The language of the Holy Spirit has been set aside, and the custom
introduced by the arbitrary will of man has prevailed. For my own part,
I do not find fault with the custom which has existed from the very
beginning of the church, that each assembly of bishops shall have one
moderator (moderatorem)\ but that the name of office which God has
given to all shall be conveyed to one alone, and that all the rest shall
be deprived of it, is both unreasonable and absurd.3
That there should be a moderator, primus inter pares, that there

should be, for the sake of order, “political distinctions” 4 and
delegated authority 5 in every assembly of bishops, meets altogether
with Calvin’s approval.6 * * 9 Nor does his deepest objection lie in man’s
presumptuous tampering with the dictated words of Scripture, but
rather in the evil which has ensued from it:
the . .. command to preach the gospel and to baptize.. . . But he had previously
commanded that they distribute the sacred symbols of his body and blood after
his example (Lk. 22.19). Here is the holy, inviolable and perpetual law imposed
upon those who took the place of the apostles.” Cf. ibid., “In the office of the
pastor also there are these two particular functions: to proclaim the gospel and
to administer the sacraments.”
1 Comm. I Pet. 5.2, CO LV, 285.
2 Inst. IV.iii.8, OS V, 50. Cf. Comm. I Tim. 3.11, CO LII, 281.
3 Comm. Tit. 1.7, CO LII, 411. Cf. Comm. Acts 20.28, CO XLVIII, 468.
4 Comm. Num. 3.5, CO XXIV, 445: “Political distinction (poliiica distinctio) is
not to be repudiated, for nature itself dictates this in order to take away confusion;
but whatever looks to this end will be so arranged that it will neither obscure
Christ’s glory nor serve ambition or tyranny, nor prevent all ministers from culti¬
vating mutual fraternity with each other, with equal rights and liberties.”Cf. Inst.
IV.vi.8, OS V, 96.
6 Comm. Acts 6.2, CO XLVIII, 119: “From this assembly it appears that the
church was governed by order and reason, so that the apostles had possession of
authority.” Cf. Comm. Tit. 1.5, CO LII, 409: “There was not at that time such
equality among the ministers of Christ but that someone had authority and counsel
above others.”
9 Cf. Inst. IV.iv.4-5, OS V, 60-62, where, consistently with this, Calvin enters
no demurrers to the proliferations of office in the church insofar as they are
simply human, political divisions accommodated to its growing complexity.
“Arch-bishops,” “patriarchs,” “archdeacons,” “subdeacons”—all are acceptable
to Calvin so long as there is no question of “principality or lordship,” and so
long as the divinely ordained ministry of the word is not debilitated.
Now although we must not contend for words . . . from the corrupted
signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all presbyters
were not colleagues (omnes presbyteri collegae), called to the same office
(eandem vocatio functionem), one of them, under the pretext of a new
appellation, usurped dominion over the others.1
The way for tyranny was opened, Calvin believes, when the church
began to confine the title to those who presided over the college of
presbyters, and, consequently, when what was originally a political
distinction came to be invested with divine sanction. Thus was
“Christ’s glory” diminished and the “equality” and “fraternity”
of the ministry infringed. To summarize: all presbyters are bishops,
and all bishops stand on the same footing with respect to the ordinatio
Dei and share equally in the authority of Christ; whatever dis¬
tinctions in rank may prove necessary in the ordering of the church,
accordingly, have their ground in the joint authority of all presbyters.2
5. Church Councils
The essential equality of presbyters does not imply that the author¬
ity of each is isolated and individual. That would be the way to chaos
and confusion. Rather, “the power of the church is to be considered
as residing partly in the individual bishops, partly in councils, and
those either provincial or general.” 3 The council, of course, has no
authority apart from that of the bishops, but it has greater author-

2 I do not find adequate grounds in Calvin, then, for the contention of Jaques
Pannier, Calvin et I'episcopat (Strasbourg, 1927), pp. 5-6, that “in authentic Cal¬
vinist doctrine, not only is there nothing contrary to the institution of the epis¬
copacy, but everything is favorable to it; it is a necessary machinery, an organic
element of the system boldly applied in its integrity.” Nor is it quite accurate to
say that Calvin finds no fault in “the office in itself, but the evil usage which
certain dignitaries make of it” (p. 19). Calvin does endorse the need of a moder¬
ator,” i.e., a presbyter-bishop with delegated authority, whether set over churches,
synods or provinces; but he just as clearly rejects the notion of an independent
order of bishops, possessing a divinely ordained authority over presbyters. John
T. McNeill, “The Doctrine of the Ministry in Reformed Theology,” Church
History, XII (June, 1943), 77-97, takes exception to Pannier’s view, yet maintains
that Calvin affirms a “functional episcopacy”—emphasizing “the responsibilities,
not the authority, of the office”—as “a wise, if merely human, adjustment to
conditions.” This is much closer to the truth of the matter, but it is still not as
clear as it might be that the episcopacy, for Calvin, cannot constitute a different
order of the ministry, especially when McNeill, as Pannier, asserts that “it is not,
then, episcopacy as such, but its abuses, tyranny, and secularity that Calvin
condemns.” If “episcopacy” means another —and slighly more authoritative—
order of the ministry, then Calvin does condemn it, as McNeill himself seems to
acknowledge in his later work (The History and Character of Calvinism, p. 217).
3 Inst. IV.viii.l, OS V, 133.
THE MINISTRY 149
ity than any single bishop.1 A “council of true bishops,” accordingly,

remains the best means for resolving controversy within the church.2
If the principle of equal authority does not conduce to individual¬
ism, neither does it lead Calvin to accept the Roman idea that councils
possess an infallible authority,3 for this presupposes not only the transfer
of authority from the church to the council, but also—and more
importantly—“that such councils are under the immediate rule of
the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err.” 4 5 More precisely, it is the
assumption that the Holy Spirit is bound to conciliar decisions to
which exception must be taken. 6 The church is, indeed, rich with the
gifts of the Spirit, but she has not yet attained that “supreme per¬
fection of which our adversaries boast.” 6 Here, as elsewhere, Calvin
insists upon the freedom of the Spirit—a freedom which not only
has regard to the councils as a whole, but extends as well to their sev¬
eral decisions.7
It is in the light of this freedom of the Spirit, then, that the deli¬
verances of every council must be examined, and that means, as we
have learned, examination according to the principle of conformity
1 Inst. IV.xi.6, OS V, 202: “But as the bishop is superior to other persons in

honor, so the college possesses more authority than one individual.” Cf. Inst.
IV.xi.5, OS V, 200: “In the use of it, two things are to be considered: first, that
this spiritual power be entirely separated from the right of the sword; secondly,
that it be administered not at the discretion of one man, but by a legitimate
assembly.”
2 Inst. IV.ix.13, OS V, 161: “We freely concede, that if a controversy arise
concerning any dogma, there is no better or more certain remedy, than to
convene a synod of true bisops, in which the disputed dogma may be examined.”
3 Comm. Lk. 1.16, CO XLV, 15. Cf. Comm. Is. 28.8, CO XXXVI, 466-67.
4 Inst. IV.viii.10, OS V, 142. Cf. Inst. IV.x.17, OS V, 178: “I hear the answer
which they give, that their traditions are not from themselves but from God.
For the church, guided by the Spirit, is not able to err, and they are in possession
of his authority.”
5 Trent Antidote, T&T III, 35, CO VII, 383: “Your axiom is that whatever
be the meeting to which you give the name of universal council, there the Holy
Spirit presides, and nothing can proceed from it that is not heavenly and divine.”
Cf. Comm. Is. 28.8, CO XXXVI, 466: “They think that they have the Holy
Spirit confined within their brains, and that they represent the church which
God never forsakes.”
8 Inst. IV.viii.12, OS V, 145.
7 Articles Agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris with the Antidote,
T&T I, 108, CO VII, 35 (hereafter, this work will be cited in the following
manner: Paris Antidote, T&T I, 108, CO VII, 35). “A council that has been
assembled in the name of Christ, is governed by the Holy Spirit, and is under
his guidance into truth. ... In some councils, though guided at the outset by
the Spirit of God, the will of the flesh creeps in and turns them aside from the
truth.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 48.8, CO XXXI, 477.
to the word of God. The claim to have the Spirit can only be measured
by the word,1 for the church has no authority “to decree anything
contrary to the word of God.” 2 But we have seen that the process
of examination is conceived dialectically,3 so that our final reference
cannot be the word alone, but the word and Spirit in correlation.4
Although it is greater, the authority of councils does not rest on an
essentially different footing from that of the bishops themselves, for
it will always be the authority of the servant, and not that of the Lord.
6. Roman Orders
Calvin’s critical estimate of Roman orders begins with the conces¬

sion that the “ordinary” government of the church belongs to them,5
just as it belonged to the scribes and priests at the time of Christ.6
The comparison is not meant to be odious—Calvin thinks too highly
of the ordinary ministry for that—but he does charge both with a
tyranny which betrays a total corruption of order. The parallel
which we have seen him draw between the “extraordinary” ministry
of Luther (and other reformers) and that of the Apostles, therefore,
is not adventitious, for they were equally confronted with the neces-
1 Comm. II Pet. 1.19, CO LV, 457: “The papists have ever and anon in their
mouth that the church cannot err. Though the word is neglected, they yet imagine
that it is guided by the Spirit.. . . But the church cannot follow God as its guide,
except it observes what the word prescribes,” Cf. Comm. Eze. 3.16-17, CO XL,
90-91.
2 Comm. Acts 15.28, CO XLVIII, 363. Cf. Comm. Mt. 21.42, CO XLV, 597:
“.. . diabolical wickedness of the Papists, who do not scruple to prefer to the
word of God a decision of their pretended church.”
3 Cf. Ch. IV.
4 Comm. Mt. 18.18, CO XLV, 515: “When Christ asserts the authority of his
church, he does not diminish his own right or that of his Father, but, on the
contrary, supports the majesty of his word.. .. Neither does he say that every
kind of decision will be approved and ratified, but only that in which he presides,
and that too not only by his Spirit, but by his word.” Cf. Trent Antidote, T&T
III, 59, CO VII, 403-404.
8 Comm. Eze. 13.9, CO XL, 280: “We see how the papists claim to themselves
the name of the church, since they pretend to the perpetual succession; and truly
we are compelled to confess that the ordinary ministry (ordinarium mimsterium) is
with them. But because they have tyrannically abused their power, and have al¬
together overthrown that method of governing the church which the Lord
instituted, we may safely laugh at their boasting.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 21.42, CO
XLV, 596.
6 Comm. John 16.2, CO XLVII, 356: “The scribes and priests ... boasted
that they were the divinely constituted judges of the church; and, indeed, the
ordinary government of the church was in their hands... . But by their tyranny
they had corrupted the whole of that order which had been instituted by God.”
Cf. Comm. Mt. 16.12, CO XLV, 469.
THE MINISTRY 151
sity of breaking away from, or denying, the lawfully constituted order

by which the church was to be governed, and equally justified in
taking that course of action by the abuse of ministerial authority.
The Roman bishops, furthermore, appear to him to be altogether
destitute of the gifts of the Spirit which are requisite to the exercise
of their office,1 and—what is more susceptible of verification and
therefore harder pressed—to have forsaken its duties, especially that
of teaching.2 In the absence of any genuine manifestation of calling,
even the vaunted claim to apostolic succession proves worthless,3
although it does corroborate the lawfulness of the Roman ministry.
The point is, of course, that the “ordinary” character of the Roman
ministry does not guarantee that those in office will always be “God’s
true and faithful ministers,” 4 i.e., that they will have been called and
led by the Holy Spirit. As a whole, then, the Roman bishops fail
to meet the criteria governing the calling, office and authority of
pastors.
As for the papacy, Calvin is certainly not prepared to admit that
it is “the principal and almost only bond of the unity of the church.” 5
On the contrary, it is not even a legitimate office—-it is “diametrically
opposed to the order (ratione) of the church” 6—inasmuch as it re¬
presents an attempt to “bind Christ and the Holy Spirit and the
1 Comm. Is. 48.16, CO XXXVII, 184: “In vain do they boast of having been
sent or authorized by God, when they are not adorned with the gifts of the Spirit
which are necessary for the execution of such an office. To pretend to have the
inspiration of the Spirit while they are entirely destitute of faith is excessively
disgusting.” Cf. Comm. John 20.22, CO XLVII, 439.
2 Comm. Acts 20.28, CO XLVIII, 469: “If bishops are made by the Holy
Spirit to the end that they may feed the church, the hierarchy of papistry is ridicu¬
lous, in which bishops ... do not so much as meddle with the function of teaching.”
Cf. Inst. IV.v.ll, OS V, 83.
3 Comm. Mai. 2.5, CO XLIV, 433: “So these dishonest men, to show that
they are to be regarded as apostles, only allege a continuous order of succession;
. . . but we must first see whether they have been called, and then whether they
answer to their calling.” Cf. Comm. John 8.41, CO XLVII, 207: “Their arrogant
boasting is, ‘we have succeeded the holy fathers, therefore we are the church.’
And if the reply of Christ was sufficient for refuting the Jews, it is not less suffi¬
cient today for reproving the papists.” Cf. Comm. Acts 20.30, CO XLVIII,
471.
4 Comm. I Pet. 2.7, CO LV, 238: “Those in office are not always God’s true
and faithful ministers. It is therefore extremely ridiculous of the Pope and his
followers to arrogate to themselves supreme and indubitable authority on this
sole pretense, that they are the ordinary governers of the church (ordinarii sunt
ecclesiae praesides).”
6 Inst. IV.vi.l, OS V, 90.
6 Inst. IV.vii.26, OS V, 129.
church to a particular place.” 1 The offices of the church cannot be so

defined as to place restrictions upon the freedom of the Spirit.
But what if the Spirit has restricted himself in this way ? What
if the traditional claims for the primacy of Rome were true ? “I
reply in one word that they are worthless unless there be at Rome a
church and a bishop.” 2 That the Pope does not answer to the calling
of a bishop and that he does not fulfill the responsibilities of the
office are facts plain enough to Calvin, and he rehearses them fully.3
But he singles out for special vehemence the papacy’s egregious
usurpation of authority. If an independent order of bishops—Roman
or otherwise—infringes upon the equality and fraternity of the mi¬
nistry, then the elevation of the Pope above the bishops-—already
the servant-ambassadors of God—amounts to nothing less than an
assault against heaven itself. It is an arrogance which hurls “Christ
down from his heavenly throne,” 4 “robs God of his honor,” 5 and
“disorders the whole symmetry of the church.” 6
The ordinary ministry which has been conceded to Rome, then,
proves to be only a masquerade; her “order” is no longer to be re¬
garded as a “lawful order.” 7 In her degeneration, we are once again 8
presented with the “horrible and fearful spectacle” of a church in
1 Inst. IV.vii.29, OS V, 131. Cf. Comm. Ps. 78.61, CO XXXI, 741: “Dis¬
gusting, then, is the boasting of the Pope and his adherents, who support the
claims of Rome as the special dwelling place of God from the fact that the church
in former times flourished in that city. It is to be remembered—what they seem
to forget—that Christ, who is the true temple of the Godhead, was born in Bethle¬
hem, preached in Capernaum and Jerusalem; and yet the miserable desolation of
all these cities affords a dreadful testimony of the wrath of God.”
2 Inst. IV.vii.23, OS V, 127.
3 Inst. IV.vii.23, OS V, 126-27.
4 Comm. John 12.42, CO XLVII, 300. Cf. Comm. Ps. 45.10, CO XXXI, 457.
5 Comm. II Thess. 2.4, CO LII, 199: “What is it, I pray you, for one to lift up
himself above everything that is reckoned divine, if the Pope does not do so?
When he thus robs God of his honor, he leaves him nothing remaining but an
empty title of deity, while he transfers to himself the whole of his power.”
6 Comm. Eph. 4.15, CO LI, 202: “Is not the whole symmetry of the church
disordered, when one man, acting in opposition to the head, refuses to be reckon¬
ed one of the members? . .. The tyranny of their idol must be acknowledged to
be altogehter inconsistent with that order which Paul here recommends.
7 Comm. Jer. 27.9, CO XXVIII, 549: “We call those priests, bishops and pres¬
byters who cover themselves with these masks {larvis), and yet show that there is
nothing episcopal in them, nothing ecclesiastical, and, in short, nothing that
belongs to the doctrine of Christ, or to any lawful order {legitmum ordinem).”
8 Comm. Jer. 27.16, CO XXXVIII, 558: “All things under the papacy are at
this day in great confusion, and yet this dissipation differs nothing from that of
old.”
THE MINISTRY 153
“filthy waste and lamentable dissipation.” 1 The decadence of Rome,

no less than that of Jerusalem, induces in Calvin a revulsion which is
very nearly physical.
7. The Rejection of Roman Orders

As badly corrupted as the Roman order is, Calvin cautions us not
to think of the church as having been altogether destroyed.2 It is
still “the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the
same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.” 3 With Rome, as with
the Jews, God’s faithfulness to the covenant means that there will
always be “a church among them, but hidden and wonderfully
preserved.” 4 But—again, like the Jews—Rome has failed to re¬
ciprocate the faithfulness of God.
The papists magnificently extol the faithfulness of Christ, that they
may bind him to themselves: but at the same time, they consider not
that they are covenant breakers; they consider not that they are mani¬
festly the enemies of God; they consider not that they have divorced
themselves from him.5 6
The covenant is two-sided; and if we are obliged to acknowledge
a remnant because of the faithfulness of God, we are equally bound
1 Comm. Mt. 26.57, CO XLV, 736: “And here a fearful and horrible spectacle
is placed before our eyes; for nowhere else than at Jerusalem was there at that
time either a temple of God, or lawful worship, or the face of a church.” Comm.
John 7.11, CO XLVII, 167: “This church, which was at that time the only church
on earth, is here presented to us as a confused and shapeless chaos. They who rule,
instead of pastors, hold the people oppressed by fear and terror, and throughout
the whole body there is filthy waste and lamentable dissipation.” Comm. Acts 22.3,
CO XLVIII, 491: “Then the government of the church was so decayed, that
religion was not only poisoned by sects, but miserably lacerated.” Comm. Acts
23.2, CO XLVIII, 503: “We see what horrible and filthy dissipation there was at
that day in the church.. .. And no wonder, for they had estranged themselves
from God; they had most reproachfully rejected Christ.”
2 Comm. Zech. 11.17, CO XLIV, 320: “Some are found in that labyrinth for
whom God has a care. Although, therefore, they who at this day possess power
under the papacy think themselves innocent . . . they shall yet find that God is a
righteous judge . . . for the disorder (confusio) of the church is not its destruction,
as God ever preserves some remnant.”
3 Comm. II Thess. 2.4, CO LII, 199.
4 Comm. Eze. 16.21, CO XL, 354. Cf. ibid., “It is certain that a portion of God’s
covenant remains among them, because although they have cut themselves off
from God and altogether abandoned him by their perfidy, yet God remains faith¬
ful. Paul, when he speaks of the Jews, shows that God’s covenant with them is
not abolished, although the greater part of the people had utterly abandoned God.
So it must also be said of the papists, since it was not in their power to blot out
God’s covenant entirely, although with regard to themselves . . . they are with¬
out it.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 50.4, CO XXXI, 497.
6 Comm. Hos. 1.10, CO XLII, 216.
to see that Rome’s faithlessness has rendered the covenant void on

her side. She has divorced herself from God, and on that account
Calvin is able to say that she is “not a church of God,” 1 that God is
“alienated” from that “false mask of a church.” 2 As the invisibility
of the church requires a judgment of charity in honor of the remnant
which is preserved,3 so the visibility of the church requires a judgment
of faith, a discrimination of the conscience between the true and the
false, i.e., “masked,” church.4
This distinction is not different in principle from—is, in fact,
grounded in—the distinction between true and false pastors, 5 6 be-
1 Comm. Is. 33.6, CO XXXVI, 563: “Neque est ecclesia Dei papistae.” Like¬
wise, Calvin finds among the Jews a church which is not a church: “For if there
had been no church at Jerusalem, Christ would never have united in their sacrifices
and other ceremonies . . . yet there was Christ condemned, and his doctrine
rejected. This act proves that the church was not included in that council.” (Inst.
IV.ix.7, OS V, 155).
2 Comm. Zech. 5.16, CO XLIV, 318: “Under the papacy . . . there is a certain
form of government, but God is wholly alientated from such a mask (larva).”
Comm. John 9.22, CO XLVII, 227: “The pope and his followers . . . foolishly
glory in the false mask of a church (mendaci ecclesiae larva)."
3 Comm. Ps. 50.4, CO XXXI, 497: “I see no reason why a church, however
universally corrupted, provided it contain a few godly members, should not be
denominated, in honor of this remmant, the holy people of God.”
4 Comm. Gen. 21.12, CO XXIII, 303: “The Spirit furnishes the consciences of
the godly with strong and effective weapons against the ferociousness of those
who boast that they are the church under false pretext.... It is necessary there¬
fore to discriminate (discernere) between the true and the masked (larvatum) church.”
Cf. Comm. Jer. 24.7, CO XXXVIII, 462. This is, of course, a distinction between
visible churches—or within the visible church—and is not to be confused with
the distinction between true and hypocritical members of the (true) church. Cf.
Comm. Jer. 15.16, CO XXXVIII, 228: “Yet many hypocrites are mixed with the
elect of God, so that in a true and well ordered church, the reprobate are called by
the name of God; but the elect are alone truly called by his name.” Calvin will at
times refer to the invisible church as the “true church,” e.g.. Comm. Dan. 12.1,
CO XLI, 289, but neither should this be permitted to obscure the importance of
the distinction made here. Cf. Krusche, p. 315: “When Calvin defines the ‘true’
(visible) church, he proceeds on the basis of the notae—from the preaching of the
Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. . .. When Calvin speaks of the
‘true’ (invisible) church, then he thinks of the numerus electorum, of the totality of
individuals born again of the Holy Spirit. This concept of the ‘true’ church there¬
fore can by no means be critically employed upon that of the ‘true’ church in the
first sense, but only upon the concept of the visible church, which is oriented
toward the totality of those who hear the preaching and receive the sacraments.”
6 Comm. Jer. 1.9-10, CO XXXVII, 479: “None ought to be acknowledged as
God’s servants,... no prophets or teachers ought to be counted true and faithful
(iustos et fidos) except those through whom God speaks, who invent nothing of
themselves, who teach not according to their own fancies, but faithfully deliver
what God has commanded.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 27.15, CO XXXVIII, 556. Comm.
John 10.5, CO XLVII, 237. Such a discrimination rests, in turn, upon the formal
THE MINISTRY 155
tween those who are truly the servants of God and those who usurp
his authority. The very obligation to obey pastors calls for a judg¬
ment of conscience * 1 which is not only liberating, but carries with it
as well the responsibility to overthrow tyrannical ministers 2—specifi¬
cally the papists. Only so do we obey God rather than men.3
Calvin, then, locates the decisive break with Rome at the point
of ministerial orders; but defiance of Roman orders is not defiance
of, much less separation from, the (true) church. On the contrary,
When we resist the papal priests, we do not violate God’s covenant,

that is, it is no departure from the order of the church, which ought
ever to remain sacred and inviolable. We do not then, on account of
men’s vices, subvert the pastoral office and the preaching of the word;
but we assail the men themselves, so that true order (verus ordo) may
be restored. . . . We therefore boldly attempt to subvert the whole
of the papacy, with the full confidence that we minimize nothing of
true doctrine . . . indeed, the order of the church, the preaching of
the truth, and the very dignity of pastors, cannot stand unless the
church is purged of its defilements and its filth removed.4
Undergirding this—both as its presupposition and as its source of

inspiration—is the conception of the church as the restoration of
order in the world rather than as an institution in which such order
has been secured. Calvin evidently understands his work to be a
part of that restorative process—thus, he is the upholder of true order,
not its detractor. His attack is launched against spurious offices and
officeholders, not the order of the church itself, and aims at preserving
the (true visible) church, defending and protecting her against abuse
and degradation. He intends a purification of the church which is
there before him, a restoration of the true order of the visible church,
and not a retreat into some ideal church above and beyond this world.
How deeply this commitment to protest and reform within the
distinction between true and lawful ministers, the merely lawful minister being,
in actuality, a false pastor.
1 Comm. Heb. 13.17, CO LV, 194: “When we are bidden to obey our pastors,
we ought carefully to find out those who are true and faithful (veri ac fidi) rulers.”
2 Comm. Acts 23.5, CO XLVIII, 506: “But when the spiritual government
degenerates, the consciences of the godly are set free from obeying unjust authority.
... So it is not only lawful for the faithful at this day to shake off the Pope’s yoke
from their shoulders, but they must do it of necessity, seeing they cannot obey
his laws unless they defect from God.”
3 Comm. Ps. 118.25, CO XXXII, 211: “If, therefore, all who are clothed with
ordinary authority must be listened to without exception, as legally appointed
pastors, then must Christ not speak.” Cf. Comm. Acts 4.19, CO XLVIII, 88.
4 Comm. Mai. 2.4, CO XLIV, 433.
visibility of the church runs is illustrated in two ways. First, the

resistance to “papal priests” never acquires the dimensions of a
sectarian renunciation of the ministry itself.1 That men should be
freed from the authority of pastors is, for Calvin, a prospect more
grim than the continued tyranny of Rome.2 As in all other respects,
Calvin condemns equally the binding of the Spirit to the order, and
the claim to have the Spirit without regard to any order. Secondly,
and perhaps more importantly, the “attempt to subvert the whole
order of the papacy” should not be taken as an a priori judgment
against all Roman churches. The visibility—the concreteness and
the particularity—of the church and its marks precludes the possibility
of anything other than decisions with respect to individual cases. In
this way, Calvin is free to acknowledge that certain Roman commu¬
nions are, indeed, “churches of Christ.” 3
The charge, finally, that this rejection of Roman orders is schis-
matical does not really disturb Calvin, for it is better to be separated
for the sake of union with Christ than to be united in apostasy; 4
besides, the real cause of schism lies not in the adherence to true
doctrine, but in that corrupted order which cannot bear its light.5
1 Comm. I John 2.27, CO LV, 327: “Absurdly, then, do fanatical men lay hold
on this passage, in order to exclude from the church the use of the outward
ministry.”
2 Comm. Jer. 30.9, CO XXXVIII, 618: “If God were now only to break down
the tyranny of the Pope and deliver his own people, and suffer them to wander
here and there, so as to allow everyone to follow his own will as his law, how
dreadful would be the confusion. It is better that the devil should rule men under
any sort of government, than that they should be set free without any law, with¬
out any order (ratione).”
3 Reply, p. 241, OS I, 476. “We indeed, Sadolet, do not deny that those over
which you preside are churches of Christ; but we maintain that the Roman
pontiff, with all his host of pseudo-bishops who occupy this same pastor’s office,
are savage wolves whose only interest has hitherto been to scatter and trample
upon the Kingdom of Christ, filling it with devastation and ruin.”
4 Comm. John 10.19, CO XLVII, 247: “The principal charge which the papists
bring against us is, that our doctrine has shaken the tranquillity of the church . ..
but it is better that there are some who separate themselves from the wicked to
be united with Christ their head, than that all should be of one mind in despising
God.” Cf. Comm. John 9.16, CO XLVII, 225: “A schism is highly pernicious and
destructive evil in the church of God.. . . Yet it is better that men should differ
among themselves, than that they should all, with one accord, revolt from piety.”
5 Comm. John 7.40, CO XLVII, 183: “We learn that Christ’s sermon produced
a schism, and that not among Gentiles who were strangers to the faith, but in the
midst of the church of Christ, and even in the chief seat of the church. Shall the
doctrine of Christ be blamed on that account, as if it were the cause of disturb¬
ances?” Cf. John T. McNeill, “Calvin’s Efforts Toward the Consolidation of
Protestantism,” Jouranal of Religion, VIII (July, 1928), 412: “The charge was laid
THE MINISTRY 157
It is worth saying once more, in conclusion, that Calvin’s concep¬

tion of the ministry permits only a reformation which is carried out
within the boundaries of the visible church. For reform—tantamount
to a rejection of Roman orders—appeals not to an invisible church
but to a ministry which is both lawful and true, to a ministry which,
because it is ordinary, can point to the ordinatio Dei, and which, be
cause it fulfills that office, can speak of the Holy Spirit.
B. Worship
We have already dealt with two of the most important facets of

the worship of the church, vi%., the preaching of the word and the
celebration of the sacraments, and need to say nothing more of them
here. In addition to these, however, there are still other “aids”
{adminicula) which have been divinely instituted as accommodations
to our finitude.* 1 While these “aids” are in a certain sense manifold,
they are finally reducible to “prayer” and “praise,” and it is even
possible to think of worship as consisting in them alone.2
Inasmuch as he places them beside the word and the sacraments,
it is not surprising to find Calvin saying that it is by these “aids”
that God “holds us together in his house, and shows us to be a part
of his church.” 3 4 On that account, it were better to be deprived of
food—-to the point of death—than of the exercitia pietatisp and a
against the Protestants by their Papal opponents that they had broken Catholic
unity and cast themselves out of visible church. With one voice they repelled the
charge. Their uniform argument was that schism had been caused by Roman
apostasy and that it was Rome that had departed from the Catholic faith and
fellowship.”
1 Comm. Ps. 52.8, CO XXXI, 529: “We should avail ourselves of the inestim¬
able privilege of the stated assemblies of the church, which are necessary aids
(adminicula) to our infirmity, and means of mutual excitement and encouragement.
By these, and our common sacraments, the Lord, who is one God and who
designed that we should be one in him, is training us up together.” Cf. Comm.
Ps. 9.12, CO XXXI, 102: “From the beginning, the design of God in the appoint¬
ment of sacraments and all the outward exercises of religion (ptetatatis exercitia)
was to consult the weakness of his people.”
2 Comm. Ps. 26.7, CO XXXI, 268: “The sacrifice of praise (laudis sacrificium)
is preferred to all external ceremonies, as if the whole of religion consisted in it
alone.” Comm. Mt. 21.13, CO XLV, 582: “By the word prayer (praecationes) the
prophet expresses the whole worship of God (totum Dei cultum).” Comm. Jer.
7.21-24, CO XXXVII, 692: “Prayer and praise,. . . hold the first place in true
and legitimate worship.”
3 Comm. Hos. 9.5, CO XLII, 389.
4 Ibid.: “It would be better for us to be deprived of meat and drink, and to go
naked, and to perish at last through want, than that the exercises of religion by
which the Lord holds us, as it were, in his own bosom, should be taken away
from us.”
willful neglect of them betrays “a wicked contempt of God.” 1

What are the “exercises of religion ?” We can easily discover what
was uppermost in Calvin’s mind by referring to his liturgies, 2 but it
must be added that they are neither exhaustive nor definitive. In
fact, Calvin nowhere specifies what would and would not fall under
this rubric, although the guiding principle is unmistakably clear:
As the Lord wishes to be the only lawgiver for governing souls, the
rule for worshipping him must not be sought from any other source
than from his own word, and that we ought to abide by the only and
pure worship which is there enjoined.3
The word then, i.e., the Bible, serves as a legal code, obedience
to the commandments and prohibitions of which constitutes the only
acceptable worship, bearing in mind, of course, the changes which
have been introduced by the coming of Christ. Devising new modes
of worship—an arrow for the papists—is forbidden,4 and the pu¬
rification of the church’s service should proceed according to the
divine law.5
While specific prohibitions and commandments are to be strictly
enforced, Calvin is generally flexible with regard to those matters
not covered by particular injunction. That, e.g., there should be
“fixed hours” for worship is divinely ordained,6 * 8 and necessary to the
order of the church, but the selection of those hours and days is,
1 Comm. Ps. 27.4, CO XXXI, 274: “The word, sacraments, public prayers, and
other aids of the same kind, cannot be neglected without a wicked contempt of
God, who manifests himself to us in these exercises, as in a mirrot or image.”
Cf. Comm. Ps. 26.8, CO XXXI, 268.
2 Cf. Inst. IV.xvii.43, OS V, 409; Form of Prayers, CO VI, 161-210. Cf. also
Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1953), pp. 242-47, and the exceptionally thorough study by
Bard Thompson, “Reformed Liturgies in Translation: III. John Calvin,” Bulle¬
tin'. Theological Seminary of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, XXVIII (July, 1957),
42-62.
3 Comm. Mt. 22.21, CO XLV, 602. Cf. Comm. Is. 57.6, CO XXXVII, 310.
4 Comm. Mt. 15.2, CO XLV, 448: “We see here the extraordinary insolence
that is displayed by men as to the form and manner of worshipping God; for
they are perpetually contriving new modes of worship.” Cf. Comm. Is. 19.21,
CO XXXVI, 346. '
5 Comm. Zech. 13.2, CO XLIV, 344: “God cannot be rightly worshipped,
except all corruptions, inconsistent with his sincere and pure worship, be taken
away.... This effect is ascribed to God’s word.” Cf. Comm. John 4.20, CO
XLVII, 84.
8 Comm. Ps. 55.16, CO XXXI, 542: “In appointing certain hours to be observed
for his worship, there can be no doubt that God had respect to our infirmity, and
the same principle should be applied to the secret as to the public services of
devotion.”
WORSHIP 159
otherwise, a matter of convenience. 1 The posture and habits as¬

sociated with prayer are also handled with considerable freedom:
lifting up of the hands, genuflecting and fasting are deemed to be
appropriate aids to the worship of God,2 not on the grounds of
biblical law, but for natural, or inspired, reasons.3 In fact, the only
notable exception to this general leniency is the well-known ba¬
nishment of musical instruments from the service of the church.4
It is not, however, the variations in the forms of worship which are
allowed for, and even required by, the ordinatio Dei that overcome the
legal character of worship, but, rather, the work of the Holy Spirit.
Here, too, Calvin makes his wonted distinction:
He calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter, and the spiritual
end of this rite, the spirit; for the whole importance of signs and rites
depends upon the end; when the end in view is not regarded, the
letter alone remains, which, in itself, is useless. . . . When the voice
of God sounds, all that he commands, except it be received by men in
1 Inst. II.viii.33, OS III, 374-5: “We celebrate it (the sabbath) not with scrupu¬
lous rigour, as a ceremony which we conceive to be a figure of some spiritual
mystery, but only use it as a remedy necessary to the preservation of order in
the church (in Ecclesia ordini neccessarium).”
2 Comm. Ps. 28.2, CO XXXI, 281: “The very lifting up of the hands, when
there is no hypocrisy and deceit, is a help (appendix) to pious and true prayer.”
Comm. Ex. 3.4, CO XXIV, 37: “In our prayers, the bending of the knees, and the
uncovering of the head, excite us to the worship of God.” Comm. Dan. 10.2-3,
CO XLI, 195: “Ordinary daily prayers do not require fasting, but when any great
necessity presses upon us, that is added as a help (adminiculi), to increase the alert¬
ness and fervor of our minds in the pouring forth of prayer.”
3 Comm. Is. 1.15, CO XXXVI, 41: “The ancient custom of spreading forth
the hands in prayer did not arise from superstition; nor . . . through foolish and
idle ambition, but because nature herself moves men to declare, even by outward
signs, that they betake themselves to God.. . . No injunction, certainly, respecting
this sign was given to the fathers, but they used it as men divinely inspired.”
Cf. Comm. Dan. 6.10, CO XLI, 11: “Not that bending the knee is necessary in
prayer, but while we need stimulants, as we have said, that posture is of impor¬
tance. First of all, it reminds us of our inability to stand before God, except with
humility and reverence; then our minds are better prepared for serious entreaty,
and this symbol of worship is pleasing to God.”
4 Calvin does argue at times that “musical instruments were among the legal
ceremonies which Christ at his coming abolished” (Comm. Ex. 15.20, CO XXIV,
162; cf. Comm. Ps. 81.1, CO XXXI, 760). How tenuous he knows this argument
to be is betrayed by his contorted effort to win the prohibition from Paul’s strictures
against speaking in tongues (Comm. Ps. 71.22, CO XXXI, 662). The argument
that “knowledge of what is sung is required in order to engage in a proper manner
in the singing of psalms, that the name of God may not be profaned” (Comm. Ps.
47.7, CO XXXI, 470), although it does not necessarily entail the prohibition of
musical instruments, nonetheless provides us with Calvin’s deepest reason for
doing so, viz-, his anxiety that “our ears be not more attentive to the melody than
our minds to the spiritual meaning of the words” (Inst. III.xx.32, OS IV, 342).
sincerity of heart, will remain in the letter, that is, in the dead writing;
but when it penetrates into the heart, it is in a manner transformed into
spirit.1
The order of worship is truly established, then, when the lawfully
appointed forms are opened in the power of the Spirit to their “end,”
i.e., when God is worshipped “spiritually” and not in a merely legal
or external way. Of course, the outward forms are not to be despised,2
but hypocrites only, not true worshippers, fail to go beyond them.3
As with the sacraments, so with worship, the regulating principle
is “non separatio sed distinctio,” and in this connection also that
principle is grounded in the correlation of the ordinatio Dei and the
work of the Holy Spirit.4
Precisely what Calvin means by the “spiritual worship” which is
the end and aim of all external observances he somewhat obscures
by his intermittent identification of it with “prayer” and “praise,” 5
and by a concomitant contrast between those and the external ob¬
servances.6 In these instances, however, he evidently has in mind
the greater simplicity of the new forms of worship compared to the
old,7 for “the worship of God under the Law was spiritual,” although
1 Comm. Rom. 2.29, CO XLIX, 45. Cf. Comm. Phil. 3.13, CO LII, 44.
2 Comm. Ps. 69.31, CO XXXI, 651: “David neither omitted nor despised the
outward sacrifices which the law enjoined; but he very justly preferred the
spiritual service which was the end of all the ceremonies.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 138.1,
CO XXXII, 373.
3 Comm. Jon. 1.16, CO XLIII, 230: “When the Scripture speaks of the fear
of God, it sometimes designates the external worship, and sometimes true
piety. When it designates the outward worship, it is no great thing, for hypo¬
crites ususally perform their ceremonies and thus testify that they worship the true
God.. . . But the fear of God is often taken for piety itself.” Cf. Comm. Gen.
12.7, CO XXIII, 181.
4 Comm. Mt. 18.20, CO XLV, 517: “Those who are assembled together,
laying aside everything that hinders them from approaching to Christ, shall
sincerely raise their desires to him, shall yield obedience to his word, and allow
themselves to be governed by the Spirit.” Comm. Mt. 12.9, CO XLV, 327:
“Whatever is enjoined respecting the worship of God is, in the first place, spiritual,
and, secondly, ought to be regulated by the rule which Christ has laid down to us in
this passage.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 15.7, CO XLV, 450.
6 Comm. I Cor. 14.15, CO XLIX, 522: “Prayer is the spiritual worship of
God.” Cf. Comm. Mt. 21.13, CO XLV, 582: Comm. Ps. 50.23, CO XXXI, 507:
“The whole of spiritual worship is comprehended under what is either presupposed
in the exercise of praise, or flows from it.”
6 Comm. Ps. 50.14, CO XXXI, 501: “Praise and prayer are set in opposition
to ceremonies and mere external observances of religion to teach us that the
worship of God is spiritual.”
7 Comm. Ps. 81.2, CO XXXI, 760: “The clear light of the gospel has dissipated
the shadows of the Law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler
WORSHIP 161
encumbered by “many outward ceremonies.” * 1 External obser¬

vances and spiritual worship are no more to be divided along histori¬
cal lines than Law and Gospel, and our earlier resolution of that
particular problem 2 3 has its analogue here. That is, prayer stands to
the external observances as gospel stands to law.
When they are juxtaposed, prayer is conceived as “spiritual wor¬
ship” in contrast to external observance; considered alone, however,
prayer is understood as having an external aspect also. In that case,
it is seen to be governed by ordinatio Dei, vi%., by that “rule for prayer
(orandi regula) handed down by our best master, Christ. 3 The
“Lord’s Prayer,” moreover, is a rule “in all respects so perfect that
any extraneous or alien thing added to it is impious and unworthy to
be approved by God.” 4 * Of course we are not bound to the words
of the Lord’s Prayer any more than we are confined to the biblical
words in the formulation of doctrine, but its specifications provide
us with the law of all prayer.6
Such prayers as may be lawfully composed, however, are nothing
without the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit, for “except
one is guided by the Spirit of God, he cannot pray from the heart.” 6
It is the Spirit who moves us to pray,7 who illumines the mind and
moderates the affections;8 indeed, he “dictates not only our words
{non tantum verba dictat) but also forms the groanings in our hearts.” 9 *
Like worship generally, therefore, prayer and praise are finally de¬
pendent upon the correlation of the ordinatio Dei and the work of the
manner.” Comm. Is. 36.10, CO XXXVI, 606: “We retain no ceremonies but
those which are plain and simple.” Comm. Ex. 15.20, CO XXIV, 162: We,
under the gospel, must maintain a greater simplicity.”
1 Comm. John 4.23, CO XLVII, 88-89.
2 Supra, Chap. III.
3 Inst. III.xx.48, OS IV, 365. Cf. Comm. Mt. 21.9, CO XLV, 524.
4 Inst. III.xx.48, OS IV, 365.
6 Inst. III.xx.49, OS IV 365-66.
6 Comm. Mic. 3.4, CO XLIII, 322. Cf. Comm. Is. 42.10, CO XXXVIII,
67-68: “This song cannot be sung but by renewed men; for it ought to proceed
from the deepest feeling of the heart, and therefore we need the direction and
influence of the Spirit, that we may sing these praises in a proper manner.
7 Comm. Jude 1.20, CO LV, 498. Cf. Comm. Ps. 138.3, CO XXXII, 373.
8 Comm. Ps. 79.10, CO XXXI, 752: “If we would, therefore, offer up to God
a prayer like this in a right manner, in the first place, our minds must be illuminated
by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit; and, secondly, our zeal must be pure and
composed.” Cf. Inst. III. xx. 5, OS IV, 302: “God gives us the Holy Spirit, to be
the director of our prayers, to suggest what is right, and to moderate our affec¬
tions.” , T , .,
9 Comm. Jer. 29.12, CO XXXVIII, 595. Cf. Comm. Ex. 30. 23, CO XXIV, 446.

Holy Spirit.1 Apart from the leading of the Holy Spirit they are
simply one more set of external observances: they are unequivocally
“spiritual worship” only when permeated by the influence of the
Holy Spirit.
If we are not to identify spiritual worship with prayer and praise—
with any external form, however purified—then we must ask once
more for its concrete meaning. For Calvin, finally, it is the genuine
external expression (e.g., prayer and praise) of an inner condition: the
heart governed by the Spirit:
The worship of God is said to consist in the Spirit, because it is nothing

else than that inward faith of the heart which produces prayer, and,
next, purity of conscience, and self-denial, that we may be dedicated
to obedience to God as holy sacrifices.2
Spiritual worship, then, is an offering of the self to God, an offering

which takes shape in the service of the church.3 It may be defined as
obedience because the offering of the self is what the law demands;
by the same token, obedience to the law constitutes our true worship.
But when we turn to God, the true proof is, when we amend our life
according to his law, and begin worshipping him spiritually, the main
part of which worship is faith, from which proceeds prayer; and when,
in addition to this, we act kindly and justly toward our neighbors.4
Clearly, the law which governs worship and the law which governs
behavior ultimately converge. But law—whether we think of the
one or the other—is fulfilled only in the Spirit, only freely. “The
1 Comm. I John 5.14, CO LV, 370: “He teaches us by his word what he would
have us to ask, and he has also set over us his Spirit as our guide.” Cf. Comm.
Gen. 19.21, CO XXIII, 277: “Since God so kindly and gently bears with the
evil wishes of his own people, what will he do for us if our prayers are regulated
according to the pure direction of his Spirit, and are drawm from his word?” For
examples of prayer in the Spirit, apart from the word, see Appendix.
2 Comm. John 4.23, CO XLVII, 88. Cf. Comm. Phil. 3.13, CO LII, 44: “By
spiritual worship he means that which is recommended in the gospel, and con¬
sists in confidence in God, and invocation of him, self-renunciation, and a pure
conscience.”
3 Comm. Dan. 3.2-7, CO XL, 624: “For God wishes first of all for inward
worship, and afterwards for outward profession. The principal altar for the
worship of God ought to be situated in our minds, for God is worshipped spiri¬
tually by faith, prayer and other acts of piety. It is also necessary to add outward
profession, not only that we may exercise ourselves in God’s worship, but offer
ourselves wholly to him, and bend before him both bodily and mentally.” Having
distinguished the spiritual from the external, Calvin here makes it clear that the
latter is the ordained means for the expression of the former.
4 Comm. Hos. 12.6-7, CO XLII, 463. Cf. Chap. Ill, pp. 7-8.
WORSHIP 163
commencement of godliness is the love of God, because God disdains

the forced services of men, and chooses to be worshipped spontane¬
ously and freely (sponte et liberaliter).” 1 The correlation of the ordinatio
Dei and the work of the Holy Spirit forces upon us a dialectical
grasp of worship (and obedience), most aptly expressed perhaps in
the paradoxical form, “God must be freely worshipped.” 2
We stated at the outset that preaching and the sacraments form an
important part of the worship of the church; now we must say that
the remainder is essentially the congregation’s response to the good
news proclaimed in them—a response of inward and external obe¬
dience. If the ministry of the church is the presupposition for the
marks, the worship of the church is their ineluctable consequence.
1 Comm. Mt. 22.37, CO XLV, 611. Cf. Chap. III.

2 Cf. Bohatec, p. 37: “The love of the entirely free, joyous will . . . flowing
out of the inner communion with God—this is the love of God which the law
demands.”
CHAPTER SIX
THE CHURCH AS THE KINGDOM

AND BODY OF CHRIST
A. The Kingdom and Priesthood of Christ
Calvin, we have maintained, thinks of the church as the order

emerging out of the correlation of the ordinatio Dei and the effectual
work of the Holy Spirit, and, accordingly, that this order can only
be apprehended dialectically. This conception, moreover, finds its
richest and most concrete expression in the reformer’s consistent and
frequent use of two metaphors: the church as the Kingdom of Christ
and the church as the Body of Christ. The figures are both biblical
and traditional, of course, but Calvin’s use of them is distinctive,
being grounded, to begin with, in the twofold office of Christ as
King and Priest.1
These are the marks of a true church. . . . For where the kingdom
and priesthood of Christ (regnum et sacerdotium Christi) are found, there
certainly is the church; but where Christ is not owned as a king and a
priest there is nothing but chaos, as under the papacy; ... as they
do not submit to his government and laws, nor are satisfied with his
priesthood, but have devised for themselves numberless patrons.
. . . Let us then learn to begin with the kingdom and priesthood
when we speak of the state and government of the church.2
But these two offices of Christ—his reconciling death and his

heavenly rule 3—mark the true church because they are completed
in the church through the agency of the Spirit.
Christ fives in us in two ways. The one fife consists in governing

us by his Spirit, and directing all our actions; the other, in making
1 Systematically, Calvin speaks of a threefold office: prophet, priest and king

(Inst. II.xv.1-6, OS III, 471-81). J. F. Jansen, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Work of
Christ (London: James Clarke and Co., 1956), pp. 39-44, has shown that Calvin’s
discussion originally embraces only the latter offices, and that the prophetic is a
later addition. This leads Jansen, mistakenly I believe, to minimize the importance
of the prophetic (teaching) office for Calvin: it would seem to justify, however,
our discussion of that office in another connection. Cf. supra. Chap. III.
2 Comm. Jer. 33.17-18, CO XXXIX, 69-70. Cf. Comm. Ps. 132.13, CO
XXXII, 349.
3 Cf. Inst. II.xv.5-6, OS III, 477-81.
THE KINGDOM AND PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST 165
us partakers of his righteousness, so that, while we can do nothing

of ourselves, we are accepted in the sight of God. The first relates
to regeneration, the second to justification by free grace.1
The kingly and priestly offices of Christ correspond then to the

sanctification (regeneration) and justification (reconciliation, for¬
giveness) of man; for Calvin, one might say, Christ died for our
justification and rose for our sanctification. It is necessary to add,
however, that the “saving work” of Christ is made efficacious in us
only through the work of the Holy Spirit; only through him are the
kingly and priestly offices made into our sanctification and justifica¬
tion.2 Here, above all, it is clear that we do not have Christ apart from
the Spirit, or the Spirit apart from Christ.3 Just as we had to say that
the blessings of Christ are made ours only through the Spirit, so
now we must say that it is Christ “alone through whom we are made
partakers of his Spirit.” 4
1. Sanctification and Justification
From the inseparability of Christ’s offices,5 6 it follows that justi¬

fication and sanctification also fall under the rubric, non separatio
sed distinction Certainly Calvin wishes to emphasize against his de-
1 Comm. Gal. 2.20, CO L, 199. Cf. Comm. Deut. 30.19, CO XXV, 56-57:
“When, therefore, he speaks of keeping the commandments, he does not ex¬
clude the twofold grace of Christ, that believers being regenerated by the Spirit,
should aspire to the obedience of righteousness, and at the same time should be
reconciled freely to God through the forgiveness of their sins.”
2 Comm. I Cor. 6.11, CO XLIX, 395: “But as the cleansing effected by Christ
and the acquisition of righteousness are of no avail except to those who have been
made partakers of those blessings by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is with merit
that he joins the Spirit with Christ. Christ, then, is the source of all blessings to
us: from him we obtain all things; but Christ himself, with all his blessings, is
communicated to us by his Spirit.” Cf. Inst. I.xiii.14, OS III, 128: “Our justifi¬
cation is his work. From him proceed power, sanctification, truth, grace, and
every other blessing we can conceive.”
3 Comm. Eph. 3.17, CO LI, 186: “It is a mistake to imagine that the Spirit can
be obtained without obtaining Christ; and it is equally foolish and absurd to dream
that we can receive Christ without the Spirit.. . . We are partakers of the Holy
Spirit in proportion to the intercourse which we maintain with Christ; for the
Spirit will be found nowhere but in Christ.. . . But neither can Christ be separated
from his Spirit, for then he would be said to be dead, and to have lost all his power.”
i Comm. Tit. 3.6, CO LII, 431-2. Cf. Comm. I John 2.20, CO LV, 323-4:
“We are not otherwise made partakers of the Spirit than through Christ.”
6 Comm. Ps. 132.13, CO XXXII, 349: “Christ’s kingdom is inseparable from
his priesthood.”
6 Comm I. Cor. 1.30, CO XLIX, 331: “These two offices of Christ [justification
and sanctification] are conjoined in such a manner as to be, notwithstanding,
distinguished from each other.”
166 THE CHURCH AS THE KINGDOM AND BODY OF CHRIST
tractors that faith is not without good works; 1 this desire, in fact,
at least partly motivated his arrangement of the Institutes, in which
he treats sanctification prior to justification.2
There is, however, another and deeper reason for this priority,
vi%., the nature of the relationship between justification and sanctifi¬
cation. Of course, both justification and sanctification are “attained
by us through faith,” 3 but they are to be distinguished from each
other as the reconciliation brought about by the free imputation of
righteousness,4 and the lifelong struggle of man,5 under the leading of
the Holy Spirit, for “obedience to God’s righteousness,”6 i.e.,
toward the restoration of the image of God.7 This distinction is
misunderstood, however, if we think that justification simply des¬
cribes the initial moment in the life of faith which, over and done
with, will be followed by the process of renewal.8 On the contrary,
Calvin thinks of justification too as proceeding throughout the whole
course of life, as a continual—indeed daily—requirement of the
Christian life.9
Therefore it is necessary for us to have this blessing not just once

(seme/), but to hold it throughout life (tota vita). . . . The faithful,
then, have no other righteousness, even to the end of life (ad finem
usque vitae), than that which is here described.10
Ôn the one hand, Calvin understands the Christian life as progress
1 Comm. Acts 20.21, CO XLVIII, 462: “God illuminates no man with the
Spirit of faith whom he does not also regenerate into newness of life.” Cf. Comm.
John 8.36, CO XLVII, 204, Inst. III.ii.8, OS IV, 18.
2 Calvin tells the reader that “it will better appear how man is justified by faith
alone” if we first “rightly understand” the matter of repentance, i.e., sanctification
(Inst. III. iii. 1, OS IV, 55). Why this is so he makes clear later: “The theme of
justification was therefore more lightly touched upon because it was more to the
point to understand first how little devoid of good works is the faith, through
which alone we obtain free righteousness by the mercy of God” (Inst. III.xi.1,
OS IV, 182). Cf. Niesel, p. 130.
3 Inst. III.iii.1, OS IV, 55.
4 Inst. III.xi.2, OS IV, 182-83.
6 Inst. III.iii.9, OS IV, 63-65.
8 Inst. III.iii.14, OS IV, 69-71.
7 Inst. III.iii.9, OS IV, 63.
8 Inst. III.xiv.10-11, OS IV, 229-31. It is at this point, Calvin acknowledges,
that the real “quarrel between us and the sounder schoolmen” begins.
9 Comm. I John 1.7, CO LV, 305: “The gratuitous pardon of sins is given to
us not only once (semel), but is a benefit perpetually residing in the church, that it
may be daily offered to the faithful.. . . Thus it is, that all the saints have need of
the daily forgiveness of sins, for this alone leeps us in the family of God.”
10 Inst. III.xiv.ll, OS IV, 230-31.
THE KINGDOM AND PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST 167
in the formation of righteousness 1—real progress, and not merely

the deepening awareness of our unrighteousness ;2 on the other hand,
such progress never amounts to perfection,3 is in fact “always spotted
and corrupted with some impurity of the flesh,” 4 so that we always
stand in need of forgiveness of sins,5 of the free imputation of the
righteousness of Christ.
In speaking of our salvation, then, Calvin systematically refers to
its two parts,6 and never to the one without the other. But the re¬
lationship between them cannot be that of “ground and sequel,” 7
nor can it be the case that “sanctification is the continual unfolding
and maintaining of our justification.” 8 Each of these interpretations
too easily resolves the tension of Calvin’s thought. Against the one it
must be asserted that sanctification is “logically prior” 9 to justifi¬
cation;10 against the other we must reiterate that assertion, and
further point to the real progress which marks the Christian life;
against both, finally, the simultaneity of justification and sanctification
must be affirmed:
1 Inst. III.vi.5, OS IV, 150: “No one shall set out so inauspiciously as not
daily to make some headway, though it be slight. Therefore, let us not cease so to
act that we may make some continual progress in the way of the Lord.” Cf. Inst.
III.iii.14, OS IV, 70.
2 Cf. Niesel, p. 129.
3 Inst. Ill.iii. 14, OS IV, 70.
4 Inst. III.xiv.9, OS IV, 228.
6 Inst. III.xiv.10, OS IV, 229.
9 Comm. Mai. 3.17, CO XLIV, 484: “Our salvation consists of these two
parts, that God rules us by his Spirit and reforms us to his image through the
whole course of life, and also that he buries our sins.” Cf. Comm. Rom. 6.14,
CO XLIX, 113.
7 Krusche, p. 278.
8 T. F. Torrance, Kingdom and Church (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1956),
p. 101: “Sanctification is not a response of man that must be added to justification,
but the continual renewing and re-enacting in the believer of a justification that
is made once for all.” This dissolution of sanctification in justification—mistaken
in itself—is not easily reconciled with the notion of a “kingdom that is continually
growing and advancing to the end of the world” (p. 105).
9 Krusche, p. 278: “Justification stands to sanctification—in spite of the
arrangement of the Institutio\—in the relation of logical priority (as indeed also
Christ’s priestly office precedes his kingly office).” Krusche has apparently failed
to consider the fact that Calvin arranges his discussion of Christ’s kingship and
priesthood in precisely the same fashion, Inst. II.xv.3-6, OS III, 474-81. On the
whole, moreover, he speaks more often of sanctification and kingship first, of
justification and priesthood second. Cf the quotations supra.
10 Comm. John 1.13, CO XLVII, 13: “Faith is not a bare and cold knowledge,
since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.. . . The
illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus
faith flows from regeneration as from its source.” Cf. Appendix.
The Spirit of Christ, while it abolished the law of sin in us by des¬

troying the prevailing desires of the flesh, at the same time (simul) deli¬
vers us from the condemnation of death. If anyone objects and says
that then . . . pardon depends upon regeneration, to this it may
easily be answered, that the cause is not here assigned by Paul, but
that the manner only is specified, in which we are delivered from guilt
(reatu) . . . when we are renewed by a gratuitous pardon. . . . The
grace of regeneration is never disjoined from the imputation of
righteousness.1
Simultaneity means, then, that sanctification and justification begin

together in faith and end together in salvation. But this must be said
in such a way as to indicate—and here is the deeper reason for the
arrangement of the Institutes—that sanctification has the first word,
for faith comes only by the Spirit of sanctification, and the end of
salvation is the restoration of the imago Dei in man. Logically, justifi¬
cation comes second; but that only means that it has the last word,
the word of forgiveness to the unrighteous man, whether he be
profligate sinner or struggling saint.
From all this it follows that we must consider the kingdom of
Christ and the body of Christ in a dialectical way also: we shall
distinguish them, and discuss them in order, but just this procedure
will disclose their inseparability.
B. The Kingdom of Christ
According to Calvin, the prophetic proclamation of the Kingdom

of God takes its rise in the dissolution of the united kingdom of
Israel,2 and must be understood as “the renovation promised in
Christ,” 3 i.e., the “renovation of the church.” 4 Inasmuch as the
1 Comm. Rom. 8.2, CO XLIX, 137. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 1.30, CO XLIX 331:
“Let, therefore, the man who seeks to be justified through Christ by God’s
unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him
at the same time {simul) for sanctification, or, in other words, being renewed to
innocence and purity of life.”
2 Comm. Ps. 89.1, CO XXXI, 811: “The people, it is true, after being divided
into two kingdoms, continued to exist safe as before; but as that rupture dissolved
the unity established by God, what ground of hope could any longer remain?
Comm. Ps. 47.2, CO XXXI, 467: “We know that there was a long interruption
of the splendor of the kingdom of God’s ancient people, which continued from
the death of Solomon to the coming of Christ.’
3 Comm. Mk. 15.43, CO XLV, 788: “By the Kingdom of God we must under¬
stand the renovation promised in Christ, for the perfection of order which, the
prophets had everywhere promised, would exist at the coming of Christ, cannot
exist unless God assembles under his government those men who had gone
astray.”
4 Comm. Mt. 5.18, CO XLV, 172: “The Kingdom of Heaven means the reno-
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST 169
church (Israel) is already conceived as the restoration of order in

the world, we have in the coming of Christ both a renewal* 1 and a
perfection 2 of that restorative process. More particularly, that res¬
torative process is linked with Christ’s ascension to heaven and his
consequent reign over the church 3 in the “place of the Father,” 4
and Calvin will characteristically refer henceforth to “the kingdom of
Christ.” The order which distinguishes the church5 is altogether
dependent upon her obedience to “his commands,” 6 and, indeed, we
may expect to find a church only “where Christ reigns.” 7
Evidently, then, Calvin thinks of the kingdom of Christ as the
church,8 but not simply so, for it is the manifest intention of God
“to reduce the whole world to order and subject it to his govern¬
ment,” 9 and to this end he has conferred on Christ “the sovereignty
vation of the church, or, the prosperous condition of the church.” Cf. Comm.
Mt. 11.11, CO XLV, 303.
1 Comm. Is. 11.6, CO XXXVI, 242: “Christ came to gather together out of a
state of disorder those things which are in heaven and which are on earth,'1'’ Cf. Comm.
Eph. 1.10, CO LI, 151: “Such a gathering together as might bring us back to a
regular order, the apostle tells us, has been made in Christ.”
2 Comm. Is. 2.4, CO XXXVI, 64: “How much more excellent is the condition
of the new church than that of the ancient church, since God has revealed him¬
self as King in his Son.” Cf. Comm. Is. 2.2, CO XXXVI, 60: “Under Christ the
condition of the church would be more perfect (perfectiorem).” Cf. Comm. Col.
1.26.
3 Comm. Eph. 4.8, CO LI, 193: “The noblest triumph which God ever gained
was when Christ, after subduing sin, conquering death, and putting Satan to
flight, rose majestically to heaven, that he might exercise his glorious reign over
the church.”
4 Comm. Heb. 1.3, CO LV, 13-14. Cf. Comm. Mt. 22.44, CO XLV, 619: “And
therefore it [sit at my right hand] signifies, to hold the highest government and
power in the name of God, as we know that God has committed his authority
to his Son, so as to govern the church by his agency.”
5 Comm. Is. 32.1, CO XXXVI, 542: “God will still be gracious to his church,
so as to restore her entirely; and the best method of restoring her is when good
government (recta politia) is maintained, and when all things are administered
rightly and with order (recte et ordine).” Cf. Comm. Is. 33.5, CO XXXVI, 562.
Comm. Heb. 10.30, CO LV, 137.
8 Comm. John 10.16, CO XLVII, 245: “When the church submits to Christ
alone, and obeys his commands, and hears his voice and his teaching, then only
is it rightly composed.”
8 Comm. Amos 9.13, CO XLIII, 172: “The Kingdom of Christ shall in every
way be happy and blessed, or that the church of God, which means the same thing,
shall be blessed, when Christ begins to reign.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 18.43, CO XXXI,
190: “his kingdom, which is the church.” Cf. Comm. Is. 65.20, CO XXXVII,
430: “in the kingdom of Christ, that is, in the church.”
9 Comm. Ps. 145.10, CO XXXII, 416.
of the whole world.” 1 Whereas the kingdom of God was previously

“confined as it were within narrow limits,” 2 now it has been extended
to “the ends of the earth.” 3 In short, the kingdom of Christ must be
thought of as pertaining to all men, as well as to the church.
The imagery used by Calvin to describe the kingdom of Christ
suggests that we may understand the relationship between the two
magnitudes after the analogy of a king whose sovereignty has been
challenged and whose kingdom, consequently, has become a bat¬
tlefield, leaving him in undisputed possession of his castle alone.
For Christ’s kingdom, too, is “encompassed with many enemies,”
and “in a state of constant warfare,” 4 so that he has “no tranquil
possession of his kingdom.” 5 Outside the “seat of his kingdom”
(the church) 6 the pretender (Satan) seems to hold sway,7 and there is
nothing but “darkness” and “confusion.” 8 This rebellion, moreover,
will continue throughout time,9 although we are assured that the
kingdom will never fall,10 and will, in fact, “be completed at the last
day.” 11
Here, perhaps, the analogy begins to fail us; certainly it succumbs
entirely when we are told that the rebels are, unbeknownst to them¬
selves, nevertheless ruled by God:
1 Comm. Heb. 2.5, CO LV, 23.

2 Comm. Heb. 2.11, CO LV, 28-29. Comm. Mt. 12.18, CO XLV, 332, “It was
the office of Christ to spread throughout the whole world the kingdom of God,
which was at that time confined to the corner of Judea.”
3 Comm. Mt. 24.26, CO XLV, 665, Cf. Comm. Ps. 67. Arg., CO XXXI, 617.
4 Comm. Ps. 110.2, CO XXXII, 162.
6 Comm. Heb. 2.8, CO LV, 26.
6 Comm. I Tim. 1.20, CO LII, 264: “For since in the church Christ holds the
seat of his kingdom, out of the church there is nothing but the dominion of Satan.”
7 Ibid.
8 Comm. Col. 1.13, CO LII, 84: “The whole world ... is regarded as nothing
but darkness in the sight of God, because apart from the kingdom of Christ, there
is no light.” Comm. John 12.31, CO XLVII, 293: “Out of Christ there is nothing
but confusion in the world.”
8 Comm. Heb. 1.13, CO LV, 19: “The kingdom of Christ shall never in this
world be at rest . . . whatever his enemies may do, they shall never prevail . .. his
kingdom shall be perpetual . . . Christ will never cease to be the head of men and
angels.”
10 Ibid. Cf. Comm. Is. 16.5, CO XXXVI, 305: “The kingdom of Christ,
though it frequently totter, will be supported by the hand of God, and therefore
will last forever.”
11 Comm. Is. 35.1, CO XXXVI, 590. Cf. Comm. Mt. 25.31, CO XLV, 686:
“Christ now sits on his heavenly throne, as far as it is necessary that he shall
reign for restraining his enemies and protecting the church, but then he will
appear openly, to establish perfect order in heaven and earth.”
The Scripture speaks of God’s kingdom in two respects. God does

indeed govern the devil and all the wicked, but not by his word,
nor by the sanctifying power of his Spirit: it is so done, that they
obey God, not willingly, but aginst their will. The peculiar govern¬
ment of God is that of his church only, where by his word and Spirit
he bends the hearts of men to obedience, so that they follow him
voluntarily and willingly, being taught inwardly and outwardly—
inwardly by the influence of the Spirit, outwardly by the preaching of
the word.1
The failure of the analogy, however, leaves no doubt regarding the

way in which the two magnitudes are to be related: “the kingdom
of Christ extends, no doubt, to all men, but it brings salvation to
none but the elect.” 2 In the first sense, then, the kingdom of Christ
is coextensive with the general election: both are universal, and both
are made effectual in the same way, vi^., through the work of the
Spirit. As for the second sense, the example just cited refers to the
reign of Christ in the elect, but we have elsewhere seen that Calvin
identifies the Kingdom of Christ with the church. What this dis¬
closes to us, however, is not a contradiction in thought, but the
utility of a metaphor which brings together three distinct ideas—the
world, the church, and the elect—in such a way as to make the
church the point of intersection between the world and the elect.
We should not permit the analogy, therefore, to leave us with
nothing more than the impression of two externally divided and
recognizable spheres. It is true that Christ governs “outwardly”
in the word—significantly referred to as either gospel or law 3—and
that just this preaching of the word demarcates the boundaries of the
visible church; but the ascension of Christ to heaven is correlated
with the universal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the outward
reign of Christ with the inward government of the Spirit:
For it is the highest ornament of the kingdom of Christ, that he go¬

verns his church by his Spirit; but he entered into the lawful and as
it were solemn possession of his kingdom when he was exalted to
1 Comm. Mic. 4.3, CO XLIII, 345. Cf. Comm. Jer. 49.38, CO XXXIX, 389.
3 Comm. Is. 11.4, CO XXXVI, 240: “Wherever, therefore, the doctrine of the
gospel is preached in purity, there we are certain that Christ reigns; and when it is
rejected, his government is also set aside.” Cf. Comm. Is. 11.9, CO XXXVI, 244.
Comm. Ps. 67.3, CO XXXI, 618: “The reference is ... to that spiritual juris¬
diction which he exercises over his church, in which he cannot properly be said
to govern any but such as he has gathered under his sway by the doctrine of his
law.” Cf. Comm. Is. 2.5, CO XXXVI, 66.
the right hand of his Father; so that we need not wonder if he delayed
until that time the full manifestation of the Spirit.1
How seriously we are to take this encomium of the Spirit’s gov¬

ernment may be judged from the fact that the kingdom of Christ
is “spiritual” and “not external,” 2 referring as it does to the “inner
man.” Commenting on the locus classicus (Lk. 17.20), he writes:
He means, that they are greatly mistaken who seek with the eyes of
the flesh the kingdom of God, which is in no respect carnal or earthly,
for it is nothing else than the inward and spiritual renewal of the soul.
From the nature of the kingdom itself he shows that they are altogether
in the wrong who look around here or there, in order to observe visible
marks. “That restoration of the church,” he tells us, “which God
has promised, must be looked for within,” for by quickening his elect
into a heavenly newness of life, he establishes his kingdom within
them. . . . Christ only speaks of the beginnings of the kingdom of God;
for we now begin to be formed anew by the Spirit after the image of
God, in order that our entire renovation, and that of the whole world,
may afterwards follow in due time.3 4
The assimilation of the kingdom of Christ to sanctification is here

made explicit, for it is nothing else than the kingship of Christ,
and rule of Christ in the heart through the Holy Spirit and, thus,
the restoration of the imago DeiP Of course, this is only the beginning
and not the “completion” of Christ’s reign,5 for though “God could
easily make his people perfect in a single moment, yet it was not his
will that they should grow to maturity except by the education of
the church.” 6 This is no unbroken process—the soul is the battle¬
ground of the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit7—but
1 Comm. John 7.39, CO XLVII, 182. Cf. Comm. John 20. 17, CO XLVII, 435.
2 Comm. Is. 9.7, CO XXXVI, 200: “The kingdom of Christ . . . being spirit¬
ual ... is established by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Comm. Is. 42. 1, CO
XXXVII, 60: “The nature of his kingdom ... is not external . . . but belongs to
the inner man.”
3 Comm. Lk. 17.20, CO XLV, 424-25.
4 Comm. Lk. 19.12, CO XLV, 568: “He now reigns, while he regenerates his
people to the heavenly life, forms them anew to the image of God, and associates
them with angels.” Cf. Comm. Jer. 33.15, CO XXXIX, 67. Comm. John 8.44,
CO XLVII, 208.
6 Comm. Mt. 19.28, CO XLV, 545.
6 InstV.I. i.5, OS V, 8.
7 Comm. Rom. 7.15, CO XLIX, 130: “Regeneration only begins in this life;
the relics of the flesh which remain, always . . . carry on a contest against the
Spirit.” Cf. Comm. John 5.24, CO XLVII, 116: “Believers are now in life in such
a manner that they always carry about with them the cause of death, but the
Spirit, who dwells in us, is life, which will at length destroy the remains of death. ”
Comm. Jer. 31.18, CO XXXVIII, 672.
through “fresh additions of the Spirit” 1 we are “gradually” brought

to “the heavenly kingdom,” i.e., to “perfection.” 2 Thus,
the kingdom of Christ is on such a footing, that it is every day growing

and making improvement, while at the same time perfection is not
attained, nor will be until the final day of reckoning.3
The growth and improvement of which Calvin thinks, then, is

not primarily the greater and greater advance of the kingdom of
Christ into the world, but the extension of Christ’s reign in the hearts
of men. This spiritualizing tendency, however, is not left unbalanced;
the establishment of internal order—the restoration of the imago Dei—
is served by an external order,4 defined as “agreement, no less than
duly regulated morals, and entire discipline.” 5 6
1. Church Constitutions
By “agreement (consensum)” Calvin means that “common consent
(com muni consensu)’’'’ among the members of a church to its “govern¬
ment (politia),” 6 the possibility and necessity of which arise from the
absence of specific ordinationes Dei\
For we know that every church has the freedom to frame for itself a
form of government (politiae formam) that is apt and useful for it,
because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite.7
Unlike that “order and form of government (politiae formam)

which he [Christ] has prescribed” 8 with respect to ministerial orders,
1 Comm. John 7.38, CO XLVII, 181: “Believers, while they make progress in
the faith, continually aspire to fresh additions of the Spirit.”
2 Comm. Ps. 65.5, CO XXXI, 606: “We are not to understand that believers
are fully replenished with the goodness of God at any one moment; it is con¬
veyed to them gradually; but while the influences of the Spirit are thus imparted in
successive measures, each of them is enriched with a present sufficiency, till all be
in due time advanced to perfection.” Cf. Inst. III.ii.33, OS IV, 44: “The Holy
Spirit not only originates faith, but increases it by degrees (per gradus), until he
conducts us by it all the way to the heavenly kingdom.” Cf. Comm. John 12.16,
CO XLVII, 286.
4 Comm. Acts 16.5, CO XLVIII, 372: “Therefore Paul did so order external
things that he was principally careful for the kingdom of God, which consists in
the doctrine of the gospel and does far surpass and excel external order (externo
ordine).”
6 Comm. Col. 2.5, CO LII, 101: “By the term order he signifies agreement
(consensum) no less than duly regulated morals, and entire discipline.”
9 Inst. III.xx.29, OS IV, 338: “The public prayers of the church cannot be
unceasing, nor ought they to be conducted otherwise, than according to the
government (ex politia) which is appointed by the common consent of all.”
8 Inst. IV.vi.9, OS V, 97. Cf. Chap. V, pp. 134. 145.
the responsibility for this politiae formam devolves upon the churches
themselves. Just as “some form of government is necessary in every
society of men to preserve the common peace and maintain concord,”
and as “no government is sufficiently established unless it be con¬
stituted by certain laws,” 1 so “all churches and each one in particular
have powers to make laws and statutes for the common guidance.” 2
In this regard, the constitutions of churches stand on the ground
common to all social organizations, and to society as a whole. Lest
this be misconstrued by churches, or bishops, as a license to set up
“impious or tyrannous laws,” Calvin declares,
I approve of no human constitutions, except such as are founded on

the authority of God, and deduced from the Scripture, so that they
may be considered as altogether divine.3
Calvin does not contradict himself here, does not mean that the
Bible furnishes us with detailed prescriptions for church polity,4
but only that all ecclesiastical laws must conform to the general
principle that “all things be done decently and in order” 5 (I Cor.
14.40). Where no question of conformity exists such laws ought to
be obeyed for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of the church;
but owing to their diversity of time and place,6 they may not be
regarded as binding upon the conscience.7
Church constitutions, then, are “of God” only insofar as they have
1 Inst. IV.x.27, OS V, 189-90.

2 Confession, T&T II, 150, CO IX, 762.
3 Inst. IV.x.30, OS V, 192.
4 Against the misconception that Calvin finds church organization to be “pre¬
scribed, even to certain details, by the Word of God” (Wendel, p. 302). There is
no basis whatever for the contention of R. E. Davies, The Problem of Authority in
the Continenal Reformers (London: The Epworth Press, 1946), p. 128, that “Calvin
organized his Church exactly according to the Word of God, and in fact tried to
reconstitute the Apostolic Church.”
5 Inst. IV.x.27, OS V, 190. Cf. Comm. I Cor. 14.40, CO XLIX, 535: “All
things decently and in order ... it is a rule by which we must regulate everything that
has to do with external government (externam pohtiam).”
6 Inst. IV.x.30, 31, OS V, 192-94.
7 Comm. Jer. 35.1-7, CO XXXIX, 105: “We ought to obey the fathers and
the whole church: nor have we any controversy with them [Rome] on this sub¬
ject; for we do not simply say, that everything which men have delivered to us
ought to be rejected; but we deny that we ought to obey the laws of men, when
they bind the conscience without any necessity.” Cf. Comm. Deut. 17.12, CO
XXIX, 358: “For neither did God dethrone himself when he appointed them,
nor did he bind men’s consciences to obey their ordinances without distinction, but
only would put reins on the audacity of those who have no scruple in under¬
valuing the legitimate government (regimen) of the church.”
regard to “that decorum whose care and observance the apostle

has commended to us,” 1 and such “outward discipline and cere¬
monies” 2 are only meant to provide the orderly context in which
the disciplining of morals takes place.
2. Discipline
The most important part of ecclesiastical power, Calvin writes,

“consists in jurisdiction. But the whole jurisdiction of the church
pertains to the discipline of morals (morum disciplinary).” 3 Generally
speaking, Calvin means by discipline the structuring and training—
indeed, the education 4—of any social organism, through which it
achieves its “proper state.”
If no society, and even no house, though containing only a small

family, can be preserved in a proper state without discipline, this is
far more necessary in the church, whose state ought to be the most
orderly (ordinatissimum) of all.5
Despite this necessity, Calvin does not reckon discipline among

the “marks” of the church; he thinks of it, rather, as “an appendage
to doctrine,” 6 as “adorning the doctrine of the gospel,” 7 i.e., as
flowing from the word upon which it depends.8 Its importance,
however, is more clearly underlined when Calvin compares it to
doctrine as the sinews of the body to the soul.9
Therefore, discipline is like a bridle to restrain and tame those who

rage against the doctrine of Christ; or like a spur to arouse those of
little inclination; and also sometimes like a father’s rod, to chastise
mildly and with the gentleness of Christ’s Spirit those who have more
seriously lapsed.10
1 Inst. IV.x.30, OS V, 192.

2 Inst. IV.x.30, 31, OS V, 192, 194.
3 Inst. IV.xi.l, OS V, 195.
4 Cf. Inst. IV.i.5, OS V, 8.
6 Inst. IV.xii.l, OS V, 212.
6 Comm. Mt. 18.18, CO XLV, 515: “Here he appoints discipline, which is an
appendage to doctrine.”
7 Comm. Col. 1.24, CO LII, 94: “Afflictions must be endured cheerfully,
inasmuch as they are profitable to all the pious, and promote the welfare of the
whole church by adorning the doctrine of the Gospel.”
8 Inst. IV.viii.4, OS V, 136: “The power of the church, therefore, is not
unlimited, but subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.”
9 Inst. IV.xii.l, OS V, 212: “As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of
the church, so does discipline serve as its sinews, through which the members of
the body hold together.”
10 Inst. IV.xii.l, OS V, 212-13.
It is not hard to see that what discipline involves is law enforce¬

ment; consequently, it pertains only to external acts of impiety, not
to “secret” ones,1 and even then a distinction ought to be made
between minor and egregious violations of the law.2 Depending upon
which is the case, the church has the power—vested in her pastors
and governors 3— and is under the necessity of correcting or remov¬
ing the fault.4 The procedural steps by which this is to be accomplished
are carefully outlined by Calvin,5 beginning with “private admon¬
ition”—“the foundation of discipline”—and moving, if necessary,
to “public” judgment, and, as a last resort, to excommunication.
Calvin is of the opinion that “private sins” 6 are generally of such a
nature that gentle admonition 7 by the pastor will be sufficient for
correction, although the obstinacy of the offender may require the
judgment of the church.8 “Public sins,” i.e., those by which the church
has been openly scandalized, deserve nothing less than excommuni¬
cation.9
According to Calvin, excommunication requires not only exclusion
from the Supper but from the society of believers as well.10 “It is
proper to consider them as strangers to the church,” 11 but it is by no
means permissible to think of them as irretrievably lost, for this
would presume upon the power of God himself.12 On the contrary,
we are to think of excommunication as a temporary punishment,
1 Comm. I Cor. 5.11, CO XLIX, 385: “Inward impiety, and anything that is
secret, does not fall within the judgment of the church.”
2 Inst. IV.xii.4, OS V, 214.
3 Inst. IV. xi.l, OS V, 195-97. Their power, of course, is that of the word,
according to which they make their judgments, Inst. IV.xi.2,OS V, 197-98.
4 Comm. I Cor. 5.2, CO XLIX, 379: “Hence, too, it appears that churches are
furnished with this power—that whatever fault there is within them, they can
correct or remove it by strictness of discipline, and that those are inexcusable
that are not on the alert to have filth cleared away.”
8 Inst. IV.xii.6, OS V, 217: “not unwitnessed, yet not public.”
7 Comm. II Cor. 10.2, CO L, 113: “It is the duty of a good pastor to allure his
sheep peacefully and humanely, that they may allow themselves to be governed.”
Cf. Comm. Gal. 6.1, CO L, 257, Comm. II Cor. 12.20, CO L, 146; Inst. IV.xii.6,
OS V, 217.
9 Ibid., cf. Comm. Tit. 1.11, CO LII, 414.
10 Comm. I Cor. 5.11, CO XLIX, 386: “When, therefore, the church has ex¬
communicated anyone, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with
him; otherwise the authority of the church would be brought into contempt.”
12 Ibid., “It is not for us, therefore, to expunge from the number of the elect those
who are expelled from the church, or to despair of them as already lost.”
whose ultimate intention is nothing else than the restoration of the

offender.
If we wish to do good, gentleness and mildness are necessary, that

those who are reproved may know that they are nevertheless loved.
In short, excommunication does not tend to drive men from the Lord’s
flock, but rather to bring them back when wandering and going as¬
tray.1
Taking exception to the harsh practice of the “ancient bishops,”

Calvin desires that the church receive the excommunicated into
fellowship once satisfied of his penitence;2 in fact, it ought to be
exceptionally quick in this regard, lest he be alienated by the appear¬
ance of rejection,3 all the more so in view of the fact that repentance,
“the creation of the new man,” is the work of the Holy Spirit.4
The end of discipline, then—repentance, restoration and reconcilia¬
tion—cannot be achieved through external reproof alone, but only
as this is correlated with the inward work of the Holy Spirit.
No chastisements, however severe, will drive us to repentance, if

the Lord does not persuade us by his Spirit; for the consequence will
be to render us more rebellious and hard-hearted.5
Thus, external disciplinary action corresponds exactly to the

“aids” of worship, to the “signs” of sacraments, and above all, to
the external proclamation of the word, i.e., the law. For the intention
of discipline, as well as law, is to drive us to repentance, to lead us
to recumb on the mercy of God; but without the inner working of
the Spirit discipline, like law, only hardens us. Where this end is
1 Comm. II Thess. 3.15, CO LII, 216.

2 Comm. II Cor. 2.6, CO L, 29: “Moderation must be used. . . so that the
church shall be prepared to extend forgiveness as soon as she is fully satisfied of
his penitence.... In this department, I find lack of wisdom on the part of the
ancient bishops . . . they excluded poor unhappy men from the fellowship of the
church.”
3 Comm. Mt. 18.23, CO XLV, 520: “Repentance is a sacred thing, and there¬
fore needs mature examination; but as soon as the sinner gives probable evidence
of conversion, Christ desires that he shall be admitted to reconciliation, lest, on
being repulsed, he lose courage and fall back.”
4 Ibid.: “We ought, by our gentleness, to assist those who have fallen to rise
again. And certainly we ought to imitate the goodness of our heavenly father,
who meets sinners at a distance.. . . Besides, as repentance is a wonderful work
of the Spirit, and is the creation of the new man, if we despise it, we offer and
insult to God.”
5 Comm. Is. 57.18, CO XXXVII, 319. Cf. Comm. Dan. 4.34, CO XL, 684:
“God’s chastisements do not profit us unless they work inwardly by his Spirit.

lost sight of—as Calvin believes to be the case with the papacy 1
—excommunication degenerates into tyranny and may be ignored,2
for then it is not the “true church,” dependent upon the word and
Spirit of God which exercises judgment, but only that which has the
“external form of the church.” 3
What is formally true with respect to excommunication, of course,
is also true for lesser acts of discipline, and it is important to note
that Calvin thinks of discipline as having a daily use in the life of the
church, as being applicable not only to the flagrant offender but to
the ordinary church member as well.
The same thing we do also daily in ourselves. He reproves us by his

word; he threatens and terrifies us; he adds light correction, and leads
us in various ways to subjection. But all these helps shall never cause
any man to bring forth good fuit unless the Spirit of God mollifies the
heart within.4
It is by this daily discipline that God renders us teachable,5 brings us

into a “state of submissive meekness,” 6 and, thus, “creates a new
people for himself.” 7 In the conception of discipline, then, we have
the heart of Calvin’s doctrine of the kingdom of Christ (and thus of
1 Comm. John 9.22, CO XLVII, 228: “Thus, though at the present day there
prevails in popery a base profanation of this holy discipline, yet instead of abolish¬
ing it, we ought rather to give the utmost diligence to restore it to its former
completeness.”
2 Ibid., CO XLVII, 227: “Excommunication, when it is violently applied to a
different purpose by the passions of men, may safely be treated with contempt.
For when God committed to his church the power of excommunicating, he did
not arm tyrants or executioners to strangle souls, but laid down a rule for govern¬
ing his people; and that on the condition that he should hold the supreme govern¬
ment, and that he should have men for his ministers.”
3 Paris Antidote, T&T I, 106-107, CO VII, 33-34: “As the power of ex¬
communicating has been given to the church, so the due mode of using it has
been prescribed. First, let judgment be given only from the mouth of the Lord
(Mt. 2.7). Secondly, let edification be studied, not distinction (II Cor. 10.8). If it is
done otherwise, the well-known sentiment of Gregory applies, “He who abuses
the power committed to him deserves to lose his privilege.” But we speak of the
external form of the church. For the true church (vera ecclesia), as it is governed by
the Spirit of Christ, will never, in judging, recede from the rule of his word.”
6 Comm. Jer. 31.18, CO XXXVIII, 670: “Punishment is peculiarly useful to
the faithful; for God not only scourges them, but also by his Spirit, bends their
minds to docility, so that they willingly suffer themselves to be corrected by him.”
6 Comm. Gen. 16.14, CO XXIII, 232: “God, while chastening us with his
hand,. . . brings us also into a state of submissive meekness by his Spirit.”
7 Comm. Hos. 2.17, CO XLII, 246: “The church cannot be rightly reformed
except it be trained to obedience by the frequent scourges of God; for the Lord
thereby creates a new people for himself.”
his doctrine of sanctification). In the correlation of discipline (law

enforcement) and the effectual work of the Spirit, the restoration of
the image of God takes place. Just this daily discipline, however,
reveals that the goal has not been reached,1 and points once again
to the need of forgiveness. As discipline is the heart of Calvin’s
doctrine of the Kingdom of Christ, so it drives us to see even more
deeply that the last word belongs to justification, that the church
conceived as the kingdom of Christ must also be understood as the
body of Christ.
C. The Body of Christ
We have already pointed to the connection which Calvin establishes

between the priestly work of Christ and our justification, between
the forgiveness of sins effected by his sacrificial death and our ap¬
propriation of it in faith. We also suggested what may now be made
explicit, that to be justified means to be in the body of Christ: “Christ,
when he illumines us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the
same time so engrafts us into his body that we become partakers of
every good.” 2 Why this should be so becomes clear when we reflect
on the fact that to be justified means to be clothed with the right¬
eousness of Christ^to have God see us only in Christ. Thus it is
possible to say that “the church is the body of Christ because of the
fact that Christ exists for us and in our place,” 3 but it will be even
more accurate to ground the metaphor in that “close union subsisting
between the head and the members,” 4 a unity so strong that the name
1 Inst. IV.viii.12, OS V, 145: For if he daily sanctifies all his people, cleanses
and polishes them, and wipes away all their stains, it is obvious that they are still
sprinkled with some defects and spots, and that something is lacking to their
sanctification.
2 Inst. III.ii.35, OS IV, 46. Cf. Comm. Mt. 12.48, CO XLV, 350: “Everyone
who is regenerated by the Spirit, and gives himself up entirely to God for true
justification, is thus admitted into the closest union (maxime coniunctum) with Christ,
and become one with him.”
3 van Buren, p. 127. van Buren, however, so reduces Calvin’s understanding
of the church as the body of Christ to the dimensions of the atonement as to make
it “neither Christ’s own body in Heaven, nor a second body independent of Christ”
{ibid.). Rather, “the church, acknowledging that she lives by virtue of her Sub¬
stitute, should confess herself as the body of Christ, not as a confession of her own
character, but as a confession of the reality of the substitutionary character
of Christ. When Calvin calls us the body of Christ, he is saying more about
Christ than he is about ourselves” (p. 129). The inadequacy of this point of
view should become clear in the following pages.
4 Comm. Ps. 68.19, CO XXXI, 628.
of Christ may be applied to the church,1 and so complete that it

embraces the body as well as the soul.2
As we have seen, this union is most fully realized in the celebration
of the sacraments, and it is Calvin’s doctrine of the real presence
which provides us with the key for understanding it, vi%., that it is
not a substantial identity but a spiritual union.3 That is to say, it is the
Spirit who “grafts us into the body of Christ,” 4 and makes us “partak¬
ers of the life of the Son of God.” 5 Of course, we cannot “know by
detached speculation” precisely what that “sacred and mystical union”
is—any more than we can know the secret counsel of God, or the
manner in which we feed upon the flesh of Christ. Rather, we only
know it in the moment of faith, only “when he diffuses his life in us
by the secret efficacy of his Spirit.” 6 “Where the Spiritus Christi is,
there is the corpus Christi.” 7
Participation in the body of Christ then cannot be equated with
external membership in the church; on the contrary, the nature
of faith suggests that this is something which happens again and
1 Comm. Col. 1.24, CO LII, 93: “There is so great a unity between Christ and
his members, that the name of Christ sometimes includes the whole body.”
Cf. Comm. I Cor. 12.12, CO XLIX, 501.
2 Comm. I Cor. 6.15, CO XLIX, 398: “Observe, that the spiritual unity (uni-
tatem) which we have with Christ belongs not merely to the soul, but also to the
body, so that we are flesh of his flesh, etc. Otherwise, the hope of a resurrection were
weak, if our connection (coniunctio) were not of that nature, full and
complete.
3 Comm. John 17.21, CO XLV1I, 390: “We are one with the Son, of God;
not because he conveys his substance to us, but because, by the power of his
Spirit, he imparts his life to us and all the blessings which he has received from
the Father.’ Cf. Inst. III.xi.5, 10, OS IV, 186, 192. Kolfhaus, p. 27, correctly
insists that “the unio cum Christo never means identity,” but he obscures the role
of the Spirit when he attributes this to “an act of Christ on believers,” and states
that “it is a question about a spiritual communion—always coming down from the
Head.” It is, to be sure, a spiritual communion, but rather one in which the
Spirit elevates us to be with Christ, a “coming up”-—sursum corda—rather than a
“coming down.”
4 Comm. Heb. 10.29, CO LV, 136: Cf. Inst. III.i.3, OS IV, 5: “It is only by
his Spirit that he unites himself with us; and by the grace and power of the same
Spirit we are made his members.”
6 Comm. Eph. 2.4, CO LI, 163. Cf. Comm. Eph. 5.31, CO LI, 226: "We are
bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but
because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we
derive our life.”
6 Comm. John 14.20, CO XLVII, 331: “Non posse otiosa speculatione cog-
nosci, qualis sit sacra et mystica inter nos et ipsum unio . . . quum vitam suum
arcana spiritus efficacia in nos diffundit.” Cf. Comm. Eph. 5.32, CO LI, 227.
7 Beckmann, p. 160.
THE BODY OF CHRIST 181
again.1 At the same time, it is obviously the church which is thought

of as the body of Christ: manifestly, we are once again in the presence
of a metaphor which embraces Calvin’s dialectical understanding
of the church. Accordingly, it will feature both a static and a dynamic
aspect.
1. Christ the Head of the Body
Concerning the former, whenever Calvin thinks of the stability,

unity and continuity of the body of Christ, he customarily directs
our attention to the Head, for it is the Head, Christ, who determines
the character of the body. It is from the identity of Christ, first of all,
that Calvin derives the persistent identity of the body.2 The unity
of the body, likewise—and here we reach a point of contact with the
kingship of Christ—is rooted in the authority of Christ,3 the sub¬
mission of the body to which is the best provision against schism.4
In contrast to the “miserable dispersion” in the world, in Christ
there is a gathering together,5 a benefit, moreover, which extends
throughout history and to eternity,6 i.e., to the “day” when the
“whole body of the church” will be “gathered to its Head.” 7
1 Comm. John 11.51, CO XLVII, 275: “We are daily gathered by the gospel
into the fold of Christ.”
2 Comm. Is. 37.26, CO XXXVI, 634: “Although there are not always in the
world the same members of the church, yet it is the same body, joined to the
same head, namely, Christ.”
3 Comm. Col. 1.18, CO LII, 86-87: “It is Christ who alone has authority to
govern the church,... it is he ... on whom alone the unity of the body depends.”
4 Comm. Mt. 24.28, CO XLV, 665: “Here then is a method laid down for
promoting a holy union, that the separations produced by errors may not tear
in pieces the body of the church; and that method is, when we remain united to
Christ.”
6 Comm. Is. 49.5, CO XXXVII, 195: “Under Christ we may all be united in
the same body. In the world there is a miserable dispersion, but in Christ there is
avaxecpaXalcotr i?.”
8 Comm. Is. 9.6, CO XXXVI, 197: “Christ preserves the existence of his
church through all ages, and bestows immortality on the body and on the indi¬
vidual members.”
7 Comm. Mt. 27.52, CO XLV, 783. Cf. Comm. Gen. 5.24, CO XXIII, 108:
“It was necessary that he [Enoch] should wait until they shall all go forth to¬
gether to meet Christ, that the whole body may be united to its head.” Quistorp,
pp. 180-81, is wide of the mark, therefore, when he asserts that Calvin “is less
interested in the fulfillment of the church as a society than in the salvation of its
individual members.. . . For this reason in speaking of the consummation in
general he refers not to the church but mostly to the elect believers, children of
God, etc. At the same time he always implies thereby the church as a totality. But
these terms are characteristic of the individualizing tendency in the eschatology
of Calvin which necessarily coheres with his spiritualizing tendency.” By “spirit-
It is Calvin’s particular conception of the headship of Christ,

therefore, which furnishes the static element in his notion of the body
of Christ, and yields the impression of a permanent, unchanging, and
highly structured organism.
2. The Gifts of the Spirit and the Body
The unity of the body of Christ, however, may be derived not only
from the Head to whom it is bound, but also from the Spirit by whom
it is bound:
By the Spirit of sanctification God spreads himself through all the

members of the church, embraces all in his government, and dwells
in all; but God is not inconsistent with himself, and therefore we
cannot but be united with him in one body.* 1
Here we may detect a slightly different emphasis, vi%., a unity

which moves horizontally among the members rather than vertically
toward the Head; and that is owing to the fact that Calvin has in
mind something other than our ingrafting by the Spirit into the body
of Christ. Now he thinks, rather, of the “variety” and “perfection”
of “gifts” 2 which have been “poured forth in full abundance” upon
the church.3 For these gifts, while they are conferred upon the in¬
dividual members of the church, aim at “the edification of all,” and
so ought to be reckoned as “gifts common to the whole church”; 4
indeed, they are the strongest bond among Christians.
ualizing tendency” Quistorp means “the spiritual rule of Christ over individual
souls” (p. 161), and with this we have no argument. But any “individualizing
tendency” which might seem to “necessarily cohere” with this is precisely denied
by Calvin’s emphasis on the body of Christ. In combatting this interpretation,
however, it would be a mistake to go so far as to identify election with participation
in the body of Christ: cf. Krusche, p. 317: “Election therefore concerns not an
isolated individual, but the member of a body.” Cf. also Kolfhaus, p. 30.
1 Comm. Eph. 4.6, CO LI, 192. Cf. Comm. Eph. 2.21, CO LI, 176: “Individual
believers are at other times called temples, but here all are said to constitute one
temple.. . . When God dwells in each of us, it is his will that we should embrace
all in holy unity, and that thus he should form one temple out of many. Each
person . . . viewed separately,. . . is a temple, but when joined to others, becomes
a stone of a temple.”
2 Comm. Ex. 25.31, CO XXIV, 410: “Since a variety of gifts is distributed by
the Spirit, there were seven lamps.... I suppose rather that perfection is denoted
by the seven lamps.”
3 Comm. Joel 2.28, CO XLII, 566: “God would not only endow a few with
his Spirit, but the whole mass of the people, and ... he would enrich his faithful
with all kinds of gifts, so that the Spirit would seem to be poured forth in full
abundance.”
There is nothing that should more incline us favorably to men, than

when the Lord manifests himself in them by the gifts of the Spirit.
This is the highest commendation of all among the pious, this is the
most sacred bond of connection (sanctissimum necessitudinis vinculum)
by which they are most especially (maxime) bound to each other.1
The diversity of these gifts,2 and the different degrees in which

they are bestowed,3 so far from being the occasion of invidious
distinctions, rather knit us more tightly together, for “there is no one
so void of gifts in the church of Christ who is not able to contribute
something to our benefit.” 4 All the more is this true in view of the
fact that gifts of the Spirit are not to be regarded as talents placed
once and for all at our disposal, but must be renewed by the Spirit
“daily” and “for every act.” 5
Just this work of the Holy Spirit, then, provides the dynamic
element in Calvin’s conception of the church as the body of Christ.
From this perspective, he can speak in a somewhat different manner
of its unity:
The symmetry (symmetria) of the church consists, so to speak, of a
manifold unity (multiplici unitate), that is, when the variety of gifts
is directed to the same object. . . . Hence it is befitting that there
should be a distinction of gifts as well as of offices, and yet all are
brought together in one. . . . Hence he orders everyone to be contented
with his own gifts. . . . [Yet] on the other hand, he orders everyone to
bring what he has to the common heap, and not suppress the gifts of
God in the way of everyone enjoying his own apart from the others,
but aim unitedly at the edification of all in common. ... In the dis¬
tinction there is unity, inasmuch as the one Spirit is the source of all
those gifts.6

2 Comm. Acts 21.4, CO XLVIII, 476: “There are diverse gifts of the Spirit, so
that it is no surprise if those who excel in the gift of prophecy are sometimes
destitute of judgment or strength.”
3 Comm. Tit. 3.6, CO LII, 431: “No one has received so small a measure that
he may not be accounted justly rich; for the smallest drop of the Spirit, so to
speak, resembles an overflowing fountain, which never dries up.”
4 Comm. Rom. 1.12, CO XLIX 17.
6 Comm. Eze. 11.5, CO XL, 229: “For although he had been previously
endowed with the gift of prophecy, yet as often as he exercised it this grace ought
to be renewed, because it is not sufficient for us to be imbued once with the
illumination of the Holy Spirit, unless God works in us daily. Since, therefore, he
follows up his gifts in his servants while he uses their assistance, it is not in vain
that Ezekiel says, the Spirit was still given to him, because this gift was necessary for
every act.”
6 Comm. I Cor. 12.4, CO XLIX, 498. Cf. Comm. II Cor. 8. 14, CO L, 101:
“For the system of proportional right in the church is this, that while they com¬
municate to each other mutually according to the measures of gifts and necessity,
The inequality and variety of the gifts together with their continual
dependence upon the activity of the Spirit makes it more appropriate
to speak of the “symmetry” or “manifold unity” than of the simple
“unity” of the body. We may well discern at this point, however,
the introduction of a note from the other side: when, having pressed
the diversity and inequality of the work of the Spirit, Calvin wishes to
orient us once more toward the unity of the body, he must have
recourse to the notion of authority, of law, i.e., ordinatio Dei\
The gifts of God are so distributed that each has a limited portion,
and . . . each ought to be so attentive in imparting his own gifts to the
edification of the church, that no one, by leaving his own function,
may trespass on that of another. By this most beautiful order (pnl-
cherrimo ordine), and, as it were, symmetry, is the safety of the church
preserved. . . . He who inverts this order fights with God, by whose
ordination (ordinatione) it is instituted.* 1
When Calvin refers to the church as the body of Christ, then, he

not only holds together in thought these static and dynamic elements,
but sees them fused in a symmetrical organism, i.e., he has in mind
just that order which emerges out of the correlation of the ordinatio
Dei and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. That is why we are not
to equate the body of Christ with either the visible or the invisible
church, the generally or the specially elect; rather, it is to be thought
of as that moment, occurring “again and again,” 2 when the invisibil¬
ity of the church becomes visible. What confirms this, as the followdng
section will show, is Calvin’s willingness to describe life in the body
of Christ in terms that are at once concrete and idealistic.
3. Life in the Body of Christ

The binding of the Christian with Christ through the efficacy of
the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as that is simultaneously a binding of the
this mutual contribution produces a befitting symmetry {symmetrid) though some

have more and some have less, and gifts are distributed unequally (distributei sint
inequaliter dona).”
1 Comm. Rom. 12.6, CO XLIX, 238. Cf. Comm. Rom. 12.4, CO XLIX, 237:
“As members of the same body have distinct offices, and all of them are distinct,
for no member possesses all powers, nor does it appropriate to itself the offices of
others; so God has distributed various gifts to us, by which diversity he has
determined the order which he would have to be observed among us.”
2 Beckmann, p. 160: “The community of believers is and becomes more and
more and again and again the corpus Cbristi, through the Spiritus, who nourishes
them from the fons, from the caro Christi, especially in the reception of the sacra¬
ment of the Supper.” Cf. Wendel, p. 301.
members with each other, means that “we cannot be Christians with¬
out being brothers.” That is, in a word, the substance of our life to¬
gether in Christ, and it directly implies, first of all, that we ought to
love one another.1 But it is not the case that we are exhorted to love
once having been incorporated in the body of Christ, as if there were
an even higher goal to be reached; rather, “the love of the Spirit is
that by which Christ joins (coniungit) us together,” 2 so that to be in
the body of Christ is to be already in that fellowship of love. By
loving, then, the members of the body simply show forth the reality
in whose strength they exist:
God shows himself as present, when by his Spirit he forms our hearts
so that they entertain brotherly love (amorem). . . . Since love (caritas)
is from the Spirit of God, we cannot truly love (diligere) the brothers,
unless the Spirit exerts his power. . . . But God by his Spirit dwells
in us; then by love (caritate) we prove (probabimus) that we have God
abiding in us.3
As love is the word best suited to describe the feeling and attitude
of the members of the body toward each other, so Calvin employs
the term, crupTraBeia,4 to characterize the feeling and attitude of the
member toward the body as a whole. By auptaOeia, he means an
identification of the member with the body so complete 5 that what¬
ever happens to the church will have the same effect as if it had
happened to him alone.6 * * * * II
1 Comm. Heb. 13.1, CO LI, 186: “We cannot be Christians without being
brothers; for he speaks of the love which the household of faith ought to cultivate
one towards another, inasmuch as the Lord has bound them closer together by
the common bond of adoption.”
2 Comm. Rom. 15.30, CO XLIX, 282.
4 Comm. II Cor. 11.29, CO L, 134-35: “For concern, undoubtedly, produces
aup.7id0ei.av, which leads the minister of Christ to participate in the feeling of all,
and put himself in the place of all, that he may suit himself to all.” Although
especially appropriate for the minister, aop.Trd0eia is nonetheless expected of the
ordinary church member.
6 Comm. Is. 22.4, CO XXXVI, 368: “We are altogether unworthy of being
reckoned in the number of children of God, and added to the holy church, if we
do not dedicate ourselves, and all that we have, to the church, in such a manner
that we are not separate from it in any respect.”
6 Comm. Is. 22.4, CO XXXVI, 367: “What has befallen the church ought to
affect us in the same manner as if it had befallen each of us individually.” Cf. Comm.
II Cor. 12.21, CO L, 147: “Everyone shall have his church enclosed within his
heart, and be affected with its maladies, as if they were his own sympathize with
its sorrows and bewail its sins.” Cf. Comm. I Cor. 12.26, CO XLIX, 505: Noth¬
ing is better fitted to promote harmony than this community of interest, when
It is not difficult to see that these two gifts—for love and crufi.7rd0eia
are gifts, common to all the members of the body of Christ—bear
an intrinsic relation to Calvin’s conception of the church as an or¬
ganism, and that he expects the church to function not only with the
cohesion of a family—the analogy to which makes it plain that even
more is expected of the church * 1—but with the natural harmony of the
human body. The body of Christ, accordingly, will be distinguished
by such an inclination to mutual ministry 2 as will enable us to forsake
all desire for “separate growth” 3 and to do everything “for the com¬
mon good.” 4 So much will our thoughts and energies be concerned
with the other members of the body, and with the body as a whole,
that neither the benefits conferred” upon others, 5 nor “our own par¬
ticular sorrows,”6 will prove distracting. On the contrary, they
should direct our attention even more forcibly to the body.
Finally, the mutuality of life in the body of Christ is expressed in
prayer. That means, on the one hand, that Christians will “pray for
everyone feels that, by the prosperity of others, he is proportionally enriched,

and by their penury, impoverished.”
1 Comm. Col. 4.15, CO LII, 132: “A rule is laid down as to what it becomes
all Christian households to be—that they be so many little churches. Let every¬
one know, therefore, that this charge is laid upon him—that he is to train up his
house in the fear of the Lord, to keep it under holy discipline, and, in fine, to
form it in the likeness of a church.” Cf. Comm. I Cor. 16.19, CO XLIX, 571;
Comm. Gen. 17.12, CO XXIII, 242; Comm. Gen. 21.12; CO XXIII, 302; Comm.
Phile. 1.2, CO LII, 442.
2 Comm. II Cor. 9.4, CO L, 106: “For the members of Christ ought mutually
to minister to each other. In this way, when we relieve the brothers, we do nothing
more than discharge a ministry that is due them. On the other hand, to neglect
the saints, when they stand in need of our aid, is worse than inhuman.” Cf.
Comm. I Cor. 4.7, CO XLIX, 367.
3 Comm. Eph. 4.16, CO LI, 203: “No increase is advantageous which does
not bear a just proportion to the whole body. That man is mistaken who desires
his own separate growth.”
4 Comm. I Cor. 14.4, CO XLIX, 518: “But whatever is done in the church,
ought to be done for the common good (in commune).”
5 Comm. II Thess. 1.3, CO LII, 188: “If we consider the nature and sacred¬
ness of the unity of Christ’s body, such a mutual fellowship will have place among
us, that we shall reckon the benefits conferred upon an individual member as
gain to the whole church.”
6 Comm. Ps. 14.7, CO XXXI, 142: “We are taught that he was chiefly anxious
about the welfare of the whole body of the church, and that his thoughts were more
occupied about this than about himself individually. This is worthy of being the
more carefully marked when we consider that, while our attention is engrossed
with our own particular sorrows, we are in danger of almost entirely neglecting
the welfare of our brothers. And yet the particular afflictions with which God
visits each of us are intended to admonish us to direct our attention and care to
the whole body of the church, and to think of its necessities.”
each other,” 1 and “give thanks to God for each other.”2
Paul . . . exhorts all the members of the body of Christ mutually to

pray for one another; since the members have a mutual solicitude for
each other, and if one member suffers, the rest sympathize with it.
And so should the mutual prayers of all the members, who are still
engaged in the labors of the present state, ascend on each other’s
behalf to the Head.3
On the other hand, because we are members of the same body

prayer cannot consist simply in the mutual intercession of individuals,
but must be “common,” including all those who are “in Christ.” 4
For this reason, “the prayers of Christians ought to be public and to
look to the public edification of the church and the advancement of
the fellowship of believers.” 5 Praying for ourselves and for certain
others is not excluded, “provided, however, our minds do not with¬
draw their attention from this community or turn aside from it, but
refer all things to it.” 6
Life in the body of Christ, then, is life together, i.e., a life so con¬
trolled by love and <Tup.TOx0£ia that the member of the body virtually
ceases to have any identity separate from his place and function in
the organism itself, for all action and prayer are finally oriented to the
welfare of the community. Within this scheme there is room for
individuality according to the diversity of gifts, but not for indi¬
vidualism.7
1 Comm. Col. 4.2, CO LII, 127-28: “It is not in vain that the Lord has ap¬
pointed this exercise of love (caritatis exercitium) between us—that we pray for
each other. Not only, therefore, ought each of us to pray for his brothers, but we
ought also, on our part, diligently to seek help from the prayers of others, as
often as occasion requires.”
2 Comm. Ps. 118.15, CO XXXII, 206: “Mutual fellowship among believers
does, indeed, bind them alternately to give thanks to God for each other.”
4 Inst. III.xx.38, OS IV, 348-49: “Let the Christian man, then, conform his
prayers to this rule, that they may be common, and comprehend all who are his
brothers in Christ... . In a word, all our prayers ought to be such, as to respect
that community which our Lord has established in his kingdom and in his family.”
s Inst. III.xx.47, OS IV, 364. Cf. Comm. Ps. 102.1, CO XXXII, 61-62: “We
are thus stirred up by the Holy Spirit to the duty of prayer in behalf of the com¬
mon welfare of the church.” Cf. Comm. Ps. 122.6, CO XXXII, 306.
7 Cf. Troeltsch, II, 619: “This fellowship is a common union in an objective
Divine relation of interest and purpose; to this end the particular individual must
dedicate his highest and freest personal energies, in which, however, all are most
closely united to each other through something which transcends all individual¬
ism.”
By now it will have become apparent that Calvin’s description of

life in the body of Christ is not materially different from his nor¬
mative conception of the ordo politicus. The ideal for the church and
the ideal for society are the same.1 Thus they are inseparable but
distinguished,2 and that according to the different operations of the
Spirit in each. This is the consistent consequence of his identification
of the natural and the revealed law, and a striking confirmation
of the unity of his thought.
4. Conclusion
As we have seen, for Calvin to speak of the Church as the body of

Christ is to speak of justification, i.e., the forgiveness of sins. The
Body of Christ is that community whose sins have been covered by
the righteousness of Christ, and who now live in the strength of
that righteousness through their incorporation in him. But this does
not mean that we are permitted to think of the church—any more than
we are permitted to think of men individually—as being sinless;
here too it is a case of simul iustus et peccator.
Insofar as sinremains, even though it be forgiven daily, it becomes
necessary for Calvin to direct our attention once more to God’s
demand for righteousness and to our obedience, i.e., to sanctification.
Just as his consideration of the church as the kingdom of Christ
compelled him to find its last word in the body of Christ,3 so now his
elucidation of the church as the body of Christ drives him back to his
conception of the kingdom of Christ:
He does not speak of Christ personally, but of his whole body. Wher¬
ever Christ diffuses his life, he denies that there is any more room for
sin. . . . They sin not who remain in Christ. . . . Christ by his Spirit
does not perfectly renew us in a day or a moment. ... It cannot then
be but that the faithful are exposed to sin as long as they live in the
world; but as far as the kingdom of Christ prevails in them, sin is
abolished.4
Only those are in the body of Christ who are—in the kingdom of
Christ! We have already said that each of these metaphors embraces
within itself Calvin’s dialectical understanding of the church, but
that is only because neither can stand independently of the other.
1 Cf. Inst. IV.xx.9. OS V, 479-80.

2 Inst. IV.xx.i-2, OS V, 471-73.
Calvin’s doctrine of the church, then, is most fully expressed in the

dialectic of these two concepts, grounded as they are in the correlation
of the twofold work of the Holy Spirit.
We have, by entering through faith into the kingdom of Christ,

passed from death to life. . . . Christ himself, into whose body we are
ingrafted, quickens us by his power, and the Spirit that dwells in us
is life.1
1 Comm. I Thess. 5.10, CO LII, 171. Cf. Comm. James 2.14, CO LV, 403:
“Salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God, and
this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so
that living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him.”
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION
Since we have in Calvin’s conception of the Kingdom and Body

of Christ his deepest and most concrete understanding of the church,
we are now in a position to draw our conclusions. First of all we
must provide a statement of the basic pattern of his thought as it
has emerged in our study, and then relate that to the final arrangement
of doctrines in the Institutes. Lastly, we shall want to set forth the
general meaning and significance of this ecclesiology.
A. The Unity of Calvin’s Thought
Our analysis has made it clear, I believe, that the unifying principle
of Calvin’s thought is the absolute correlation of the Spirit and the
Word and the contingent correlation of the Spirit and the diverse
manifestations of that Word—whether they are the ordinationes Dei
establishing the original order of creation of the ordinationes Dei
governing the restoration of that order subsequent to the fall. In
either case, the ordinationes Dei are, from the point of view of human
knowledge, accommodations of the essential Word of God to our
finitude. These are, quite simply, the natural law on the one hand and
biblical doctrine on the other, although with the latter we may think
of derivative accommodations in the “external means” which are
to be found in the ministry, preaching, sacraments, discipline, and
worship of the church.
When the work of the Holy Spirit is correlated with these ordina¬
tiones Dei, order appears; but here we must distinguish the external
order characteristically effected by the Spirit in connection with the
natural law from the internal order which is appropriate to the cor¬
relation of the work of the Spirit and those “external means.” With
the latter, the inward work of the Spirit is twofold, vi%., he discloses
the Word (the grace and mercy of God) in the word (or other means)
and simultaneously opens the believer to the word. That is why Calvin
speaks of faith and obedience together, why justification and sancti¬
fication are simultaneous, why the internal testimony of the Holy
Spirit not only confirms the divine provenance of the biblical text,
but is also and at the same time the author of faith in Christ.
THE UNITY OF CALVIN’S THOUGHT 191
Because the means are ordained of God, the work of the Spirit
is ordinarily correlated with them, but not absolutely so. On the one
hand, the Spirit may be withdrawn from them—in which case the
ordinatio appears as lex, and the human condition is one of disorder
(sin); on the other hand, the Spirit may work efficaciously apart from
the objectively revealed will or appointed means of God—in which
case we have what Calvin calls the extraordinary. Here there is no
question of disorder, for the work of the Spirit is still correlated with
the Word; the historical form of the ordained means, however,
may be called into question by the extraordinary, in which event
some kind of examination will be necessary in order to resolve con¬
troversy. The extraordinary, then, may be only an isolated pheno¬
menon, or it may point to the order of the future. In both these ways—
the withdrawal of the Spirit and his extraordinary work—Calvin
clearly and firmly articulates the sovereign freedom of the Spirit
over the ordained means.
The foregoing, I have tried to show, is the consistent pattern of
Calvin’s thought, and it is this—not the two natures of Christ—
which stands behind his frequent recourse to the formula, distinctio,
sed non separatio, whether that refers to the word and the Word, the
law and the gospel, the general and special elections, the external and
the internal calling, the preaching and the hearing of the word, the
sign and the reality of the sacraments, the lawful and true ministry,
discipline and repentance, the external aids and spiritual worship,
or the visible and invisible church. To this catalogue we may also
add: the relationship between the soul and the imago Dei, the natural
and the supernatural gifts, the spiritual and the civil governments,
and the knowledge of God the Creator and Redeemer. In each of
these pairs it holds true: non separatio because the Spirit is inseparable
from the Word which we have (ordinarily) only in the ordained
means; sed distinctio because the Spirit is not bound to the means, but
exercises a sovereign freedom over them. Precisely here is Calvin’s
basis for rejecting both Roman and Anabaptist ecclesiologies, each
of which claims to possess the Spirit in a particular way. Against
Rome’s binding of the Spirit to the means Calvin must point to the
distinctio; against Anabaptist denigration of the means he must point
to the non separatio.
The reason for the failure of the “theological” and the “christ-
ological” interpretations of Calvin may now be made clear, bearing in
mind that we are dealing with them as types, and that the issues at
192 CONCLUSION
many points are a matter of emphasis. It is the basic weakness of both

that the work of the Holy Spirit is neither fully nor accurately gauged;
for both slight the freedom of the Spirit over the ordained means,
and each discerns only one side of the Spirit’s twofold work. The
inevitable consequence in both is a blurring of the distinctio, e.g.,
between the word and the Word, but with different results in each
according to which aspect of the twofold work is emphasized. For
the “theological” type, the function of the Spirit is largely reduced
to that of confirming the word; Calvin is accordingly depicted as a
legalist, and, consistently, the philosophical and humanistic elements
in his thought are brought into prominence. For the “christological”
type, on the contrary, the work of the Spirit is confined to uniting us
with Christ, the humanistic and philosophical notes are suppressed,
and Calvin appears as a christocentric theologian.1
B. The Arrangement of the “Institutes”
I have already alluded to the importance of the 1559 edition of the

Institutes for the arrangement of its materials, and we must now take
up the question whether Calvin—in spite of his profession to be
following the outline of the Apostles’ Creed 2—does not have in
mind a more systematic principle of organization. Dowey, after
Julius Kostlin,3 argues that this is in fact the case, and offers the fol¬
lowing outline for the Institutes'.
1. The doctrines of God the Father, Son, and Spirit, and his creation and
world government in general, apart from sin and the redemptive revel¬
ation and redemptive activity that sin makes necessary—and similarly
of mankind, apart from sin and the necessity of salvation (Book I).
2. The historical revelation and activity of God for the salvation of the
sinner, as follows:
a. The establishing of salvation through the incarnate Son, for which
preparation had alrady been made under the Old Covenant (Book II).
b. The application through the Holy Spirit of the salvation given in
Christ, as follows:
1 It is the peculiar merit of the work of Bauke and Dowey to have given full
play to the distinctio, and so to both sides of Calvin’s thought. Their error, how¬
ever, lies in a disregard of the non separatio, for neither sees the final unity of
Calvin’s thought in the correlation of the Spirit and the Word.
2 Inst. II.xvi.18, OS III, 506; IV.i.2-3, OS V, 2-3.
3 Julius Kostlin, “Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geschicht-
lichen Entwicklung,” Tbeologiscbe Studien und Kritiken (Gotha, 1868), pp. 57-58.
Cf. Wendel, p. 121, who agrees to the outline, but does not draw from it the same
conclusions.
THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE “INSTITUTES” 193
(1) The process of salvation which is realized inwardly by the Spirit

in individuals, extending until the perfection of these pers ons in
the resurrection (Book III).
(2) The outer means which God uses in this activity of the Spirit
(Book IV). 1
Here, Dowey maintains, we ought to see that the ordering principle

of the Institutes is not the Apostles’ Creed, but the duplex cognitio
Domini.2 3 Thus, the Institutes falls into “two great divisions,” 3 i.e..
Book I and Books II.viTV (for “Book II really begins only in chapter
vi, after Calvin has completed his analysis of sin” 4).
Certainly this description of the contents of the Institutes is un¬
exceptionable, and Dowey has just as certainly shown that the duplex
cognitio Domini defines the relationship between Books I and II; he
has not shown, however, that the duplex cognitio Domini is the ordering
principle of Books III and IV, and so of the Institutes as a whole. The
outline is, therefore, somewhat misleading; it elevates Books I and II
into prominence at the expense of Books III and IV. A slight modi¬
fication of the outline seems to be called for then—one which will
make it even clearer that Il.vi-IV comprise a unity, counterbalancing
Book I, with Il.i-v constituting the great divide.
Now I would like to suggest that it is not the duplex cognitio Domini
which underlies the final organization of the Institutes, but Calvin’s
conception of order as that is structured in the correlation of the
Spirit and the Word. Thus, Book I describes the original order of
creation, i.e., the doctrines of God and man apart from sin; Book
Il.i-v the disruption of that order in the fall; and Books Il.vi-IV the
restoration of order, i.e., the Word (Book II) brought to us by the
Spirit (Book III) through the external means (Book IV).
That is why we find—in addition to those of Book IV—important
ecclesiological discussions throughout this second division of the
Institutes, e.g., the treatment of the ancient church (the law and the
covenant) in Il.vi-xi, of the Christian life in IILiii, vi-viii, of prayer
and worship in III.xx, and of election and calling in IILxxi, xxiv.
Not only does this understanding account more fully for the unity
of the Institutes, but it confirms, as well, the centrality of Calvin’s
doctrine of the church for his theology as a whole: since the church
1 Dowey, p. 42.
2 Ibid., pp. 41-42.
3 Ibid., p. 45.
4 Ibid.

194 CONCLUSION
is the restoration of order in the world, not only Book IV, but Books
ILvi-IV must be understood as its exposition, with Book I (the
conception of order), and Book Il.i-v (the disruption of order),
serving as its presuppositions.
C. The Significance of Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church
The unity of Calvin’s thought becomes apparent in his doctrine

of the Church, because the church is just that order which appears
in the correlation of the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit and the
diverse manifestations of the Word. That unity, as we have seen,
can only be expressed dialectically, i.e., as deriving on the one hand
from the ordinationes Dei which proceed from the essential Word of
God, and as deriving on the other from the twofold work of the
Spirit which opens us to the ordinatio Dei and simultaneously discloses
the Word in which it is grounded. The church (order) must always be
understood, therefore, as existing in the movement from the believer
to the Word which occurs in the leading of the Spirit through the
ordained means.
While it is important to note that this dialectical conception of
the church provides the theological basis for the sociological obser¬
vation that Calvin has combined “the main ideas of Church and
Sect,” 1 it is still more important to see that it requires us to think of
the church historically, i.e., to think of it as the history of the res¬
toration of order in the world. This, I believe, constitutes the special
significance of Calvin’s doctrine of the church, and we must point
out, in conclusion, its decisive implications.
We have already indicated that the conception of the church as the
history of the restoration of order precludes our thinking of it as an
institution in history in which order has already been restored. Now
we must proceed one step further and say that if the church is con¬
ceived as a history, as a movement, then the ascription to it of any
institutional character must be highly qualified. As a movement of the
Spirit, the church cannot be regarded as a static, fixed entity, even
if it has a certain stability and continuity as a movement of the Spirit
through the ordained means. Calvin does, it is true, retreat from the
clear implications of his own thought in the retention of infant
baptism and in his willingness to consider ordination as a sacrament,
but these lapses should not be permitted to obscure the essential
thrust of his teaching. The church really is, for him, a historical
1 Troeltsch, II, 623.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 195
movement; it is always on the way, a pilgrim, and never at rest.

That is, of course—and we have been taught as much by his me¬
taphorical assimilation of the church to an organism—precisely
analogous to his understanding of the Christian life as one of per¬
petual repentance, i.e., regeneration. And this brings us to the second
implication of Calvin’s conception of the church as the history of the
restoration of order, vi%., that it is not doctrine, creed, tradition, ritual
practice or polity which defines the church, but ethics, i.e., sanctifi¬
cation. As important as all the rest are, they finally serve the restoration
of the imago Dei in man; whatever does not have this for its end is
expendable. That is why the two marks of the true church are not
merely preaching and the sacraments, but the preaching and the
hearing of the word, the administration and faithful reception of the
sacraments. Calvin is not interested in them as arbitrary, divinely
imposed signs, but as realities, the final test of which is regeneration.
The overarching importance of law—God’s demand for right¬
eousness—is therefore not to be minimized in Calvin. It could, and
did, degenerate into a fierce legalism, a wooden moralism. It does not
with Calvin because sanctification is simultaneous with justification,
the law is fulfilled only in freely willed obedience: the church is both
the Kingdom and the Body of Christ.
Finally, the conception of the church as the restoration of order
in the world means that the church cannot be thought of apart from
the world, or as a secure corner of redemption in it. That is so,
because the order which is being restored in the church is nothing
else than the restoration of the imago Dei in man, and the three spheres
of order are interrelated. The restoration of man will thus entail the
restoration of order in the world. Calvin’s political activism, then,
may be traced directly to his conception of the church as that move¬
ment which stands at the frontier of history, beckoning the world
toward its appointed destiny.
That is, however, but half of Calvin’s refusal to consider the church
apart from the world; the other half lies in his awareness that what
passes for the church will not always pass for the restoration of order,
that the church sometimes fails to stand at the vanguard of history.
In such event, it may be that God is working outside the church
(which is no church) for the restoration of order, vi^., in the extraor¬
dinary which will be the ordinary of the future, as, e.g., in the prophets,
apostles and the reformers themselves. Because the church is the
history of the restoration of order in the world, it must always keep
13*
196 CONCLUSION
at least one eye on the world for clues to its failings and for possibil¬
ities of renewal as well. Christ is for Calvin, to be sure, the “trans¬
former of culture,” 1 but that is the criterion for church and world
alike, and it may sometimes be that the world has a surer grasp of
what this means than the church.
In all this, we have a doctrine of the church which is remarkable
for the way in which it holds together, and balances, polarities which
might be—and subsequently were—sundered. As it is conceived
historically, it sustains both an appreciation of the tradition (including
both its Roman Catholic and its Jewish heritage) and an openness to
the future. As it is conceived ethically, it prizes both the law and in¬
dividual freedom as indispensable to the restoration of the imago
Dei in man. And as it is oriented toward the renewal of man, finally,
it esteems not only the “oneness” of the church, but also the unity
of mankind, and so affirms the vital point of contact between the
church and the world.
1 H. R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (Torchlight edition; New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1956), pp. 217-18.
APPENDIX
THE SECRET IMPULSE OF THE SPIRIT
On numerous occasions—most frequently in the commentaries on

Scripture, rarely in the Institutes—Calvin employs a phrase, or varia¬
tions thereon, which seems to have the character of a terminus technicus:
he speaks, e.g., of wars as being “stirred up” by a “secret impulse of
God” (arcano Dei instinctu),” 1 of the events leading to the preservation
of Moses as being disposed by “the secret impulse of the Spirit
(arcano spiritus instinctu),” 2 and of men’s hearts as being “turned here
and there” by the “arcano Dei instinctu.” 1 2 3 This can be either a
collective or an individual phenomenon: the crowds do honor to
Christ “by a sudden impulse of the Spirit (subito instinctu spiritus),’' 4
and Joseph of Arimathea is emboldened by an “arcano spiritus in¬
stinctu.” 5 6 Sometimes, men who are not converted by “the Spirit
of regeneration” are yet temporarily “softened” by a “hidden impulse
(occulto instinctu).” 6 Conversely, a “hidden influence of God (arcano Dei
impulsu)” is said to be responsible for the disturbance of those men
whom the poets thought to be “agitated and terrified by the furies.” 7
Nor is it men only who are so moved.8
In addition to these general deployments of the term, Calvin uses
it—predominantly, we may say—in two clearly distinguished con¬
texts, vi\., in connection with the pious and in connection with the
1 Comm. Oba. 1.2-4, CO XLIII, 179. As we shall see, the reference to the deity
is dispensable; the key words are arcanus and instinctus. With his usual stylistic
flexibility, Calvin sometimes substitutes for the first occultus and for the second
either impulsus or motus. The nouns are clearly synonymous, but for the sake of
clarity I have consistently translated instinctus as “impulse,” impulsus as “influence,”
and motus as movement.” The distinction between arcanus and occultus is obviously
less important, and Calvin occasionally employs a modifier with slightly different
connotations, e.g., subitus, peculiar is, singularis, insolitus.
2 Comm. Ex. 2.10, CO XXIV, 24.
3 Comm. Ex. 3.21, CO XXIV, 49. Cf. Comm. Gen. 43.11, CO XXIII, 541.
4 Comm. Mt. 21.8, CO XLV, 574.
5 Comm. Mt. 27.57, CO XLV, 788.
6 Comm. Ex. 11.3, CO XXIV, 132. Calvin makes the point here that those so
moved were unknowing (nescientes).
7 Comm. Deut. 28.28, CO XXV, 34.
8 Comm. Jer. 28.14, CO XXXVIII, 578: “Through the secret impulse of God
the wild beasts submitted to the authority of King Nebuchadnezzar.”
198 APPENDIX
ungodly. An examination of the term in these contexts should provide

further clarification of its meaning.
Perhaps the most important references to the “secret impulse” are
those instances in which it seems to take the place of, or to obviate
the need for, objective revelation: “thus often are the prophets,
although no spoken revelation (praeceptum) intervene, directed
nevertheless by the secret impulse of the Spirit.” 1 By this expedient,
Calvin also accounts for the rhetorical flourish in prophetic writing.2
In similar vein, he acknowledges a secret impulse of the Spirit in
prayers, for the general rule is that prayer ought to be guided by the
testimony of the word.3 Wherever he finds an apparent disregard for this
stipulation—e.g., Moses’ prayer for Pharaoh,4 the prayer of Abraham’s
servant,5 Lot’s prayer that he be permitted to seek refuge in Zoar 6—
Calvin adduces the secret impulse of the Spirit as an explanation. Of
a slightly different order, but no less important, is his understanding
that those “sighs too deep for words” (Rom. 8.26, RSV), to which
Paul refers, are to be ascribed to “the impulse of the Spirit.” 7.
Calvin also uses the term to describe the “obedient” character of
1 Comm. Ex. 8.10, CO XXIV, 100. Cf. Comm. Gen. 40.12, CO XXIII, 513:
“By a peculiar impulse above nature (peculiar! instinctu supra naturam) therefore,
Joseph proceeds to expound the dream.” Comm. E2e. 3.12, CO XL, 84: “The
prophet again affirms .. . that God worked upon his mind by the secret impulse of
his Spirit.”
2 Comm. Jer. 31.15-16, CO XXXVIII, 670: “The prophet, then, though not
taught in the school of rhetoric, by a secret impulse of the Spirit of God adorned
this discourse.”
3 Comm. Gen. 24.12, CO XXIII, 334, “There ought to be nothing ambiguous
in our prayers; and certainty is to be sought for only in the word.” Cf. Comm.
Ex. 8.29, CO XXIV, 107; Comm. Gen. 19.18, CO XXIII, 276.
4 Comm. Ex. 10.18, CO XXIV, 126: “He prayed under the special impulse of
the Spirit.”
5 Comm. Gen. 24.12, CO XXIII, 334: “Now, since the servant prescribes to
God what answer shall be given,. . . yet the servant was not praying rashly, nor
according to the lust of the flesh, but by the secret impulse of the Spirit.” Cal¬
vin characteristically warns: “for though we read that certain persons prayed
without any condition, we ought to believe that they were guided by special
movements (singulares motus) of the Spirit, which must not be taken for a general
rule,” Comm. Mt. 7.2, CO XLV, 231.
6 Comm. Gen. 19.18, CO XXIII, 276: “I am not however ignorant, that
sometimes they are constrained, by a singular movement of the Spirit (spiritus
motu), to depart in appearance from the word, yet without really transgressing its
limits.”
7 Comm. Rom. 8.26, CO XLIX, 158: “Hence, the manner of praying aright
must be suggested by the Spirit, and he calls those groanings unutterable, into
which we break forth by the influence of the Spirit, for this reason—because they
far exceed the capacity of our minds.”
THE SECRET IMPULSE OF THE SPIRIT 199
certain extraordinary and apparently unwarranted actions of the

pious,1 e.g., Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim,2 Mary’s anointing of Jesus,3
the use of lots in divination,4 and, strikingly, Sarah’s diatribes,5
Moses’ anger at Pharaoh,6 and his murder of the Egyptian.7
Finally, the secret impulse of the Spirit is for the apostles—and for
the rest of the saints—the “only guide and teacher to work miracles.” 8
What this means for Calvin is not that the disciples are empowered
to work miracles, but that they are assured that the miracle will take
place. It is a matter, once more, of revelation, or inspiration: the
apostle knows, inwardly, apart from any “objective revelation,”
what is to take place. It is God who will perform the miracle; the
secret impulse of the Spirit simply provides the apostle with assurance
of this, and hence with the clue to his own role in the action.9
In general, then, Calvin adduces this “secret impulse of the Spirit”
1 Comm. Eze. 3.14, CO XL, 87: “He was constrained by the secret instinct of
the Spirit, so that he did not act from human motives, nor obey the wishes of
his own mind, nor follow his own individual will, but was only intent on rendering
obedience to God.”
2 Comm. Gen. 48.17, CO XXIII, 585: “His father followed the Spirit of God
as his secret guide, in order that he might transfer the title of honor, which nature
had conferred upon the elder to the younger.”
3 Comm. Mt. 26.10, CO XLV, 694: “Mary was led by a hidden impulse of the
Spirit to anoint Christ; as it is certain that, whenever the saints were called to
any extraordinary performance, they were led by an usual movement (insolito
motu fuisse impulsos).”
4 Comm. Jon. 1.7, CO XLIII, 220: “There were some peculiar impulses (pecu-
liares instinctus) when God’s servants used the lot in doubtful and extreme cases.”
6 Comm. Ex. 11.8, CO XXIV, 134: “Moses was thus excited to wrath by the
influence of the Spirit.” Cf. Comm. Ex. 32.19, CO XXV, 90.
7 Comm. Ps. 116.31, CO XXXII, 128: “When Moses slew the Egyptian,. . .
he was moved by the secret impulse of God.”
8 Comm. Act 14.9 CO XLVIII, 321.
9 Comm. Acts 3.5, CO XLVIII, 64: “Therefore, before Peter commanded the
man to arise, he cast and fixed his eyes upon him; this looking upon him was not
without some peculiar movement of the Spirit. Hereby he speaks so surely of the
miracle.” Cf. Comm. Hab. 3.11, CO XLIII, 579: “There is no doubt but that
having been answered as to his prayer, when he expressed this, he [Joshua] com¬
manded the sun as he did through the secret influence of the Holy Spirit.” Comm.
Acts 14.9, CO XLVIII, 321: “This was a singular and extraordinary movement
of the Spirit in the cripple, as it was on the other side in Paul, when, by looking
at him only, he knew his faith.” At this juncture, also, Calvin enters his wonted
caveat: “Believers never rushed forward at random to ask signs, but were guided
by a secret and peculiar impulse of the Spirit. The same thing might be said
about miracles.... It does not follow that others are at liberty to do the same.
We must, therefore, see what God permits us to do, lest, by disregarding his
word, we bargain with him according to the foolish desires of the flesh” (Comm.
Is. 38.7, CO XXXVI, 652).
200 APPENDIX
to authenticate any thought, speech or action of the godly which

lacks objective warrant, i.e., objective expression of the divine will—
ordinatio Dei. In all of the foregoing cases there is no such, and in
some of them ordinatio to the contrary. Such instances would ordi¬
narily be reckoned disorderly by Calvin, for order depends jointly upon
the ordinatio Dei and the work of the Spirit. The “secret impulse of
the Spirit,” however, seems to be proof against this, assuring us that
such speech, thought or action is not disorderly but extraordinary, that
it is correlated with the secret counsel, if not the revealed will, of God.1
Since for us the secret counsel of God is unknowable, the question
arises regarding the noetic content of the “secret impulse.” 2 Our
survey of the texts would seem to suggest the answer that even if
knowledge in the strictest sense is excluded, the person involved
experiences, nonetheless, an inner certainty of the will of God. This
would appear to be confirmed, moreover, in Calvin’s commentary
on a text in which Paul specifically refers both to his being in the
Spirit and to his lack of knowledge.
Hereby is meant the inward force and influence of the Holy Spirit;
not as if he were so seized by evfluaiaCTpouc; that he was out of his
mind (mentis compos non esset); but because made certain of the will
of God, he spontaneously and calmly followed the secret leading and
teaching of the Spirit.3
With the ungodly, however, it is not so. Their hearts are, indeed,
guided by God’s “secret impulse,” 4 and in this manner he “executes
whatever he has decreed,” 5 but they are not the conscious and obe¬
dient servants of his will, for he “directs them by a secret impulse
to that which they least want.” 6 * 8 Whereas the godly seek to do the
1 Cf. Chap. I.
2 Especially in view of his comments on the Pauline “sighs too deep for words,”
supra.
3 Comm. Acts 20.22, CO XLVIII, 464-65. Cf. Comm. Lk. 24.32, CO XLV, 809:
“Their recognition of Christ led the disciples to a lively perception (vivo sensu) of
the secret and hidden grace of the Spirit which he had formerly bestowed upon
them. For God sometimes works upon his people in such a manner that for a time
they are not aware of the power of the Spirit (of which, however, they are not
destitute), or at least that they do not recognize (agnoscant) it distinctly, but only
perceive (sentiant) it by a secret impulse.
4 Comm. Acts 23.19, CO XLVIII, 514: “God guides the heart of a profane
man by a secret impulse.” Cf. Inst. I.xvii.2, OS III, 221-23.
6 Comm. Deut. 2.24, CO XXV, 259: “God moves, forms, yokes and draws
men’s hearts by a secret impulse, so that even by the impious he executes whatever
he has decreed.”
8 Comm. Mt. 26.56, CO XLV, 734. Cf. Comm. Jer. 50.21, CO XXXIX, 415.
will of God and by the secret impulse of the Spirit are made certain
of it, the ungodly are, by a “secret impulse,” “led beyond the purpose
of their own minds {trahmtur praeter animi sui propositum).” 1 So it is
with Cyrus and Darius,1 2 with Abimelech,3 and with the Egyptians
who “cast themselves into the midst of the sea.” 4 The prime example,
however, is that of Pontius Pilate, whose mocking inscription on the
cross is an unwitting testimony to the gospel:
God dictated to him this commendation of the Gospel, though he

knew not the meaning of what the wrote. It was the same secret
influence of the Spirit that caused the title to be published in three
languages.5
Pilate—from the point of view of his own self-understanding—

knows what he is doing, but he does not know that he acts under the
impulse of the Spirit, and so is being “led beyond the purpose of his
own mind.”
It is this particular ignorance of the person acted upon which
distinguishes the “secret impulse” in the ungodly from the “secret
impulse” in the pious, for here, too, it is correlated with the secret
counsel of God which is thus effected. Whereas the godly person
“perceives” that he acts under the influence of the Spirit, the ungodly
person is ignorant of the impulse—and, thus, the compulsion—under
which he acts.6 The one is, for this reason, “extraordinary,” the other
“disorderly.”
Once more it must be said, however, that Calvin knows of a boun¬
dary situation between these two categories, and that he discerns

2 Comm. Jer. 50.21, CO XXXIX, 415.
3 Comm. Gen. 20.2, CO XXIII, 287: “Abimelech, being a minister to exe¬
cute the divine punishment, was impelled by a secret movement (arcano motu).”
4 Comm. Ex. 14.17, CO XXIV, 152: “God once more affirms that he will
harden the Egyptians, so that, as if devoted to destruction, they may cast them¬
selves into the midst of the sea; which they certainly would never have done, un¬
less he had governed their hearts by a secret movement (arcano motu).”
8 Calvin’s understanding of Nebuchadnezzar is a particularly good illustration
of this. On the one hand, Comm. Dan. 4.26, CO XL, 671: “And, doubtless,
Nebuchadnezzar had been like Pharaoh, unless God had humbled him, not only
with outward penalties, but had added also the inward (interiorem) impulse of his
Spirit, in order that he might allow himself to be instructed, and to submit him¬
self to the power and judgment of heaven” On the other hand, this does not refer
to the king’s self-consciousness, Comm. Jer. 27.6-7, CO XXXVIII, 549: “Nebu¬
chadnezzar was God’s servant, because he was a divinely endowed ruler. This he
did not know, nor was this said for his sake, nor was it said to his glory, as though
God counted him as one of his own people.”
202 APPENDIX
here also a secret impulse of the Spirit.1 We have already seen that the
natural knowledge of God which is not yet faith derives from “some
secret impulse,” 2 and that it is the “secret operation of the Spirit”
upon infants which sets them forth on the road to faith.3 Nor are
these entirely disparate phenomena—they are linked together by the
special role which Calvin assigns to the secret impulse of the Spirit
in conversion, the best example of which, perhaps, is that of Zacch-
aeus, “who was already drawn to him [Jesus] by a secret movement of
the Spirit (occulto spiritus motu).” 4
Before revealing himself to men, the Lord frequently inspires them

with a desire (affectum inspirat), by which they are led to him, while he
is still hidden and unknown (latentem et incognitem).5
Of course, the moment of conversion itself, i.e., the initial moment

of faith, ordinarily entails the proclamation of the word, although
God could “bring each person to himself by a secret impulse.” 6
So much does Calvin think of the secret impulse of the Spirit as
preparing and directing man toward this moment, however, that
here—and here alone—he correlates the secret impulse of the Spirit
and the preaching of the word. Of the conversion of the gentiles, he
writes:
God worked by his ministers, and made their doctrine effectual by his
hand, that is, by the secret inspiration (afflatus) of the Spirit.7
1 Cf. Inst. II.ii.17, OS III, 260, where Calvin, in pointing out the vestiges of
the imago Dei in all men, speaks of singulares motus, specialis instinctus and particulares
motus as works of the Spirit.
2 Cf. Chap. I, pp. 27-28
3 Cf. Chap. IV, p. 124
4 Comm. Lk. 19.5, CO XLV, 563.
8 Comm. Lk. 19.1, CO XLV, 563.
6 Comm. Is. 2.3, CO XXXVI, 62: “The ordinary method of collecting a
church ... is by the outward voice of men; for though God might bring each
person to himself by a secret impulse, yet he employs the agency of men, that he
may awaken in them an anxiety about the salvation of each other.” Cf. Comm.
Ps. 106. 31, CO XXXII, 128: “The common mode and order of calling which
God adopts does not prevent him, whenever it seems proper, to direct his elect
by a secret movement of the Spirit.” Cf. supra. Chap. IV, p. 108
7 Comm. Acts 11.21, CO XLVIII, 260: Cf. Comm. Deut. 5.29, CO XXIV, 208:
“While by his word he invites all promiscuously to life, he only quickens by his
secret inspiration (arcana inspiration) those whom he had elected.” Comm. Is.
8.18, CO XXXVI, 181: “For Isaiah taught publicly, admonished every person,
and invited all without exception to come to God; but his doctrine is of advantage
to those only who have been given to him by God. By given he means those whom
God drew by an inward and secret impulse of his Spirit, when the sound of the
external voice fell on the ears of the multitude without producing any good effect.”
This is an exception, but it is the exception that proves the rule

because it is intelligible in the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching.
Everywhere else the secret impulse of the Spirit refers to an operation
of the Spirit apart from the revealed ordinatio Dei—that, of course,
is its special significance—and even here it implies the prevening
work of the Spirit which opens the way for proclamation of the word.
The variation in the phrasing of this terminus technicus is manifestly
unimportant, with the single exception that among its three principal
uses Calvin generally avoids designating the “Spirit” in the second,
i.e., as the source of the “secret impulse” in the ungodly. That is
consistent, however, with a general reluctance which we have else¬
where observed.* 1
Cf. Comm. Hag. 1.13-14, CO XLIV, 96. The repeated references to the universality
of the invitation suggest that it is “conversion” which Calvin has in mind in these
passages also.
1 Cf. Chap. I, p. 42.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Primary Sources
A. Original Works of Calvin.
Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Baum, G., Cunitz, E., Reuss,
E., et al. 59 vols., “Corpus Reformatorum”; Brunswigae: Schwetschke et
Filium, 1863-1900.
Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Edited by Barth, P. and Niesel, W. 5 vols., Monachii
in Aedibus: Chr. Kaiser, 1926-1936.
B. Translations
Calvin-. Commentaries. Translated and edited by Joseph Haroutunian and Louise
P. Smith. “Library of Christian Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1958. Vol. XXIII.
Calvin's Commentaries. Various translators. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1948.
Calvin-. Theological Treatises. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. “Library of Christian
Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954. Vol. XXII.
Calvin's Tracts and Treatises. Translated by Henry Beveridge. 3 vols.; Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London:
James Clarke &c Co. Limited, 1961.
Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols.,
“Library of Christian Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Vols. XX-XXI.
Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by John Allen. 2 vols., 8th ed. rev.;
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.
Instruction in Faith. Translated by Paul Fuhrmann. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1949.
C. Other
Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise of Folly. Translated by John Wilson. “Ann
Arbor Paperbacks”; The University of Michigan Press, 1958.
——. Ten Colloquies of Erasmus. Translated by Craig R. Thompson. New York:
The Liberal Arts Press, 1957.
Luther, Martin. A Commentary of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Edited by
Philip S. Watson. Westwood, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.
-. Alartin Luther-. Selections from his Writings. Edited by John Dillenberger.
New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1961.
Spiritualist and Anabaptist Writers. Edited by Williams, G. H. and Mergal, Angel.
“Library of Christian Classics”; Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1957.
Vol. XXV
II. Secondary Sources

A. General
Baillie, D. M. The Theology of the Sacraments. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1957, pp. 39-124.
Baillie, John. Our Knowledge of God. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959,
pp. 3-43.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205
Bainton, Roland. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Boston: The Beacon
Press, 1956.
Barth, Karl. The Faith of the Church. Translated by Gabriel Vahanian. New York:
Meridan Books Inc., 1958.
-. “The Living Congregation of the Living Lord Jesus Christ.” Man's
Disorder and God's Design. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948.
Barth, Karl and Brunner, Emil. Natural Theology. Translated by Peter Fraenkel.
London: The Centenary Press, 1946.
Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of God. Translated by Olive Wyon. Phila¬
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1950.
Cassirer, Ernst. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy. Translated
by Mario Domandi. New York: Harper & Row, Torchbook edition, 1964.
Gilmore, Myron, P. The World of Humanism. Torchbook edition, “The Rise of
Modern Europe Series”; New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Harbison, E. Harris. The Age of Reformation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Uni¬
versity Press, 1955.
Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. Translated by Neil Buchanan. 7 vols., 3rd
German ed.; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1961. Vols. VI-VII.
Huizinga, Johan. Erasmus and the Age of Reformation. Torchbook edition. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Renaissance Thought. New York: Harper & Row, Torchbook
edition, 1961.
-. Renaissance Thought II. New York: Harper & Row, Torchbook edition,
1965.
MacGregor, Geddes. Corpus Christi: The Nature of the Church According to the
Reformed Tradition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958.
McNeill, John T., Van Dusen, H. P., and Baillie, John, (eds.). The Library of
of Christian Classics. 26 vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. Torchlight edition; New York: Harper
& Brothers. 1951.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man. One Volume edition; New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953, pp. 184-212.
Prenter, Regin. Spiritus Creator. Translated by John M. Jensen. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1953.
Seeberg, Reinhold. Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Translated by Charles
E. Hay. 2 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956, II, 221-426.
Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: The New American
Library of World Literature, Inc., 1954.
Tillich, Paul. The Recovery of the Prophetic Tradition in the Reformation. Washington,
D.C.: Published by the Organizing Committee, Christianity and Modern
Man, 1950.
Troeltsch, Ernst. Protestantism and Progress. Translated by W. Montgomery.
Boston: The Beacon Press, 1958.
•-. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Translated by Olive Wyon.
2 vols., Torchbook edition; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960. Vol II.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Tal-
cott Parsons. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.
Zweig, Stefan. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. New
York: The Viking Press, 1956.
B. Calvin Studies
Bauke, Hermann. Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’schen
Buchhandlung, 1922.
206 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beckmann, Joachim. 1Zorn Sakrament bei Calvin. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1926.

Bohatec, Josef. Calvin und das Recht. Feudingen: Buchdruckerei i. Verlagsanstalt
G.m.b.H., 1934.
Breen, Quirinus. John Calvin-. A Study in French Humanism. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931.
van Buren, Paul. Christ in our Place. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1957.
Davies, Rupert E. The Problem of Authority in the Continental Reformers. London:
The Epworth Press, 1946.
Doumergue, E. Jean Calvin-. Fes hommes et les choses de son temps. 7 vol.; Lausanne:
Georges Bridel & Cie. 1910. Vols. IV-V.
Dowey, E. A., Jr. The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1952.
Forstmann, H. Jackson. Word and Spirit. Stanford, California: Stanford Uni¬
versity Press, 1962.
Frohlich, Karlfried. Gottesreich, Welt und Kirche bei Calvin. Miinchen: Ernst
Reinhardt, 1930.
Jansen, J. F. Calvin's Doctrine of the Work of Christ. London: James Clarke & Co.,
Ltd., 1956.
Kolfhaus, W. Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin. Neukirchen: Kr. Moers, 1939.
Krusche, Werner. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin. Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1957.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1954.
Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by Harold Knight. Phila¬
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.
Pannier, Jaques. Calvin et l'Fpiscopat. Strasbourg, 1927.
-. Le Temoignage du Saint-Esprit. Paris: Librarie Fischbacher, 1893.
Parker, T. H. L. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
1952.
-. Portrait of Calvin. London: SCM Press LTD., 1954.
Quistorp, Heinrich. Calvin's Doctrine of the Fast Things. Translated by Harold
Knight. London: Lutterworth Press, 1955.
Schmidt, Albert-Marie. Calvin and the Calvinistic Tradition. Translated by Ronald
Wallace. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960.
Stickelberger, Emanuel. Calvin-, a Fife. Translated by David G. Glezer. Rich¬
mond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1954.
Torrance, T. H. Calvin's Doctrine of Man. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949.
-. Kingdom and Church. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd. 1956.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin's Doctrine of the Christian Fife. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1959.
-. Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
1953.
Wendel, Fransois. Calvin: The Origins and Development of his Religious Thought.
Translated by Philip Mairet. London: Collins, 1963.
C. Articles
Barth, Peter. “Calvins Verstandnis der Kirche,” Zwischen den Zeiten, 8. Jahrgang
(1930), 216-33.
Carew-Hunt, R. N. “Calvin’s Theory of Church and State,” The Church Quarterly
Review, CVIII (April, 1929).
Lehmann, Paul. “The Reformer’s Use of the Bible,” Theology Today, III (October,
1946), 328-44.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
McNeill, John T. “Calvin’s Efforts toward the Consolidation of Protestantism,”

Journal of Religion, VIII (July, 1928), 411-33.
-. “The Church in the 16th Century Reformed Theology ''Journal of Religion,
XXII (July, 1942). 251-69.
Petry, Ray. “Calvin’s Conception of the ‘Communio Sanctorum,’ ” Church History,
V (1936), 227-38.
Thompson, Bard. “Reformed Liturgies in Translation. III. John Calvin,” Bulletin:
Theological Seminary of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, XXVIII (July, 1957),
42-62.
Troeltsch, Ernst. “Calvin and Calvinism,” Hibbert Journal, VIII (1909/10), 102-21.
Niesel, Wilhelm. “Wesen und Gestalt der Kirche nach Calvin,” Evangelische
Theologie, 3. Jahrgang (1936), 308-30.
INDEX
Ambrose, St., 12; of Christ, 168- 79; and gifts of the

Aristotle, 127n. Spirit, 182.
Augustine, St., 37, 115n, 126; Cicero, 31.
Complexio oppositorum, 3, 4.
Conscience, 21, 33, 45, 78-9.
Barth, Karl, 27n.
Covenant, 47; as general election, 48;
Basil, St., 12.
mutuality of, 48, 153-54; as ordinatio
Bauke, Hermann, 2n, 192n.
Dei, 49; as order, 49; hereditary
Beckmann, Joachim, 126n, 129n, 132n,
character of, 49-52; fulfilled in
180n.
Christ, 52, 71; and Law, 73-75; in¬
Bernard, St., 58n.
clusion of Gentiles in, 85-87; New,
Body of Christ, 179-189.
87-88; difference between Old and
Bohatec, Josef, lln, 13n, 18n, 30n, 32n,
New, 87-98.
33n, 34n, 43n, 96n, 163n.
Creation, ex nihilo, 12, 17; and Spirit,
Breen, Quirinius, lln.
16-17.
Brunner, Emil, 27n, 29n, 106n.
Bucer, Martin,7n. Davies, R. E., 174n.
Buren, Paul van, 71n, 179n. Decalogue, 32; see also, Law (Biblical).
Discipline, 175-79; as law enforcement,
176; excommunication, 176-78; and
Calvin, John, as Christ-centered theolo¬
inward work of the Spirit, 177; daily
gian, 2, 71; as philosophical and
use in the church, 178.
biblical theologian, 24; unity of his
Doumergue, Emil, 16n, 70n.
thought, 3, 69, 190-92.
Dowey, Edward H. Jr., 2, 3n, lln, 13n,
Chalcedonian definition, 3.
21 n, 27n, 30n, 33n, 34n, 43n, 65n,
Christ, 2; inseparability from Spirit, 4;
78n, 81n, 94n, 106n, 192, 192n, 193.
verbum, 13-14; in the Old Testament,
Duns Scotus, 16n.
72; in the Law, 76-78; three offices of,
lln, 164-65; and the Natural Law, Election, and adoption 47; general, 48;
78; in the New Testament, 83; second degree of (particular) 52, 54;
resurrection of, 84,127; real presence and calling, 56-58; effectual calling,
of, 126-32; ascension of, 127. 59; and faith, 60; and sanctification,
Christian life, the, 184-189. 61; and perseverance, 62; of gentiles,
Church, and elect, 2; and Christ, 2; 91, 99; and kingdom of Christ, 171.
visible and invisible, 2, 4, 68-69, Enthusiasm, 109, 126n.
132, 154n, 155-56; as order, 4; as Erasmus, Disiderius, lln.
organism, 7; as Body of Christ, 7, Examination of doctrine, 104-5.
179-89; as mother of the faithful, 7;
Abraham as father of, 8, 50; historical Faith, and election 60; defined, 61;
understanding of, 9; creation of, 46; true and temporary, 63-64; and the
as history of the restoration of Gospel, 93-95.
order, 47, 84, 155; and covenant, 47; Fall, the, 37-40; and providence, 39;
remnant, 53; and perseverance of faith, and salvation of the church, 46.
65; and exodus, 73; second birth of, Forstman, H. J., 64n, 81n, 94n.
83; national, 99; marks of, 99-100; Frolich, Karlfried, 71n.
unity of, 131-32, 157, 181, 186-87;
Gilmore, Myron P., 9n, lln.
ministry of, 134; polity, 134, 173-74;
Gospel, see Law (Biblical).
councils, 148-50, true and false, 154-
56; schism in, 156-57; as kingdom Haroutunian, Joseph, In.
INDEX 209
Holy Spirit, doctrine of, 4; inseparabil¬ 32; fall of, 37-40; restoration of the
ity from Word, 4; and Creation, 17; imago Dei in, 168, 172; individuality
indirect references to, 18-19; gifts of, of, 187.
25, 182; as source of all truth, 26; McNeill John T., In, lln, 145n, 148n,
and Fall, 40; two-fold operation, 42; 156n.
in creation of Church, 58; and ex¬ Ministry, divinely ordained, 34; minis¬
perience of faith, 60; non-sanctifying ter as servant, 135-37; sacramental
work of, 66; and Law, 78-80, 82-83; view of, 137-38; election of minis¬
resurrection and outpouring of, 85; ters, 139-42; offices of, 144-46;
and preaching, 106-110; and sacra¬ bishops, 147-48; Roman orders,
ments, 118-123; not bound to con¬ 150-58; true and false pastors, 154.
ciliar decisions, 149; and worship,
159-63; and government of church, Natural Knowledge of God, see Man.
171; and discipline, 177. Natural Law, lln, 33-36; and Christ,
78.
Infant Baptism, 123-126. Niebuhr, H.R.,196n.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, com¬ Niesel, Wilhelm, 2, 3n, 7n, 14n, 24n,
position of Book IV, 1; date of, 1; 69n, 70n, 71n, 91n, 96n, 167n.
intention of, 2; arrangement of, 165,
Order, and the Spirit, 4; implicit in
168, 192-94.
the notion of organism, 9; restora¬
tion of, as redemption, 9; cosmos,
Jansen, J. F., 164n.
10; political, 10, 29-37; theological
Justification, 4, 165; daily need for,
conception of, 11; ordo naturae, 13,
166; relation to sanctification, 167-
15; equity as synonym for, 31; and
68; and Body of Christ, 179.
the Fall, 38; as symmetry, 184;
political, and the church, 174, 188.
Kingdom of Christ, see Church.
Ordination, 142-44.
Kolfhaus, Wilhelm, 71n, 180n, 182n.
Kostlin, Julius, 192, 192n. Pannier, Jaques, 148n.
Krusche, Werner, 81n, 90n, 99n, 105n, Papacy, the, 151-58.
109n, 122n, 167n, 182n. Parker, T. H. L., lOn, 14n, 23n.
Law (Biblical), 73-75; Gospel and, 4, Pighius, Albert, 94n, 95.
88-98, 171; curse of, 77; and teaching Plato, 25n, 31.
of Christ, 77; and Spirit, 79-81; Preaching, as first mark of the church,
three uses of, 81-83; worship as 101; ordained by God, 102; and
obedience to, 162; and discipline, Scriptures, 102-06; and interpreta¬
176. tion, 103; and the work of the
Law (Political), making of, 31; and Spirit, 106-110; doctrine and sym¬
reason, 32. bols, 112-113; and the visible church,
Lecerf, A., 16n. 171.
Lehmann, Paul, 106n. Providence, as creatio continua, 12; and
Luther, Martin, 106. order of nature, 12; as ordinatio Dei,
13; and the fall, 39; and the church,
Machiavelli, Niccolo, lln. 47.
Man, as microcosmos, 10; distinguis¬
hed by political order, 10, 30; at Quistorp, Heinrich, 19n, 71n, 181n,
summit of created order, 19; integrity 182n.
of, 20; free will, 21; reason, 20, 22;
conscience, 21, 33; sensus divinitatis, Resurrection, see Christ.
21; will, 21; as religious, 22; imago
Dei, 22-25; natural knowledge of Sacraments, as second mark of the
God, 27; natural and supernatural church, 110; as symbols, 110-113;
gifts, 25; law of equity engraved on- temporary, 113; and word, 117-18;
210 INDEX
and the Spirit, 118-132; Roman Tillich, Paul, 11 In.

doctrine of, 128n, 129; Lutheran Torrance, Thomas F., lOn, lln, 23n,
doctrine of, 128n, 129; Zwinglian 24n 25n, 28n, 43n, 167n.
doctrine of, 130; ministry as a Trinity, the, 14, 17.
sacrament, 137, 142-43; Roman, 142. Troeltsch, Ernst, 2n, 3n, 7n, 30n, 33n,
Sadolet, Jacques, 110, 156n. 45n, 68-70, 77n, 96n, 99n, 126, 126n,
Sanctification, 4, 43; and election, 61, 194.
165-68; relation to justification, Tyranny, 30-31, 38-39.
167-68; and the Kingdom of Christ,
172, 178-79; as definitive of the Visible and invisible church, see Church.
church, 195.
Satan, 40-42; 170-71. Wallace, Ronald, 132n, 158n.
Scriptures, the, see Covenant, Law, Wendel, Francois, 2n, 14n, 16n, 24n,
Preaching. 69n, 70n, 71n, 119n, 123n, 145n,
Smith, Louise, P., In. 174n.
Stoicism, 11. Worship, as prayer and praise, 157,
186-87; order of, 158-60; as obedi¬
Thompson, Bard, 158n. ence to the Law, 75, 162.
Date Due
—
4 197!!
A
. //// j\ /
//v 1
t
f Â# * X
r £r t
>7.J
JUN TfcP^
A Sj} \a *
1
v,* '
_f£.r: • Of - - .
FED1 2 Ifei'j-
BX 9418 M53
Mi ner, Benjamin Charles.
010101 000
t'iiv ^ Si ioc.tr n.e of ,he churc
0 1163 02152 2 2
TRENT UNIVERSITY
BX9U18 .M53
Milner, Benjamin Charles
Calvin's doctrine of the
church.
DATE ISSUED TO
23^02
166111
238026

Calvin's Doctrine of The Church - B. C. Milner Jr.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calvin's Doctrine of The Church - B. C. Milner Jr.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.

HENRY CHADWICK, Oxford

CALVIN’S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

BENJAMIN CHARLES MILNER, Jr.

List of Abbreviations .xn

I. Calvins’s Conception of Order. 7

II. The Restoration of Order . 46

III. The Fulfillment of the Covenant. 71

IV. The Marks of the Church. 99

V. The Ministry and Worship of the Church.134

VI. The Church as the Kingdom and Body of Christ.164

Appendix. The Secret Impulse of the Spirit.197

The selection of Calvin’s doctrine of the church as the subject for

material, as well as pertinent studies of a more general nature.

St. John’s College Benjamin Milner

CO Ioannis Calvini Opera quae super sunt omnia

If we inquire after Calvin’s doctrine of the church, we are naturally-

1 J- T. McNeill, “The Church in the 16th Century Reformed Theology,”

Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V x

ter,1 and this sequence is perhaps not unrelated to a shift in Calvin’s

the distinguishing features of which are: (1) a formal rationalism,

Niesel that it is related to the controlling center of his thought;

1 Ibid., pp. 248-49.

It is to the full explication of this thesis that the following pages

CALVIN’S CONCEPTION OF ORDER

A. The Church as Organism

As the distinctiveness of the embryonic face represents an advance

eluding Adam and Eve, or, on the other, as referring to a full-bodied

1 According to Myron P. Gilmore, The World of Humanism (Torchbook edition;

Christians are urged, accordingly, to “take a pious delight in the

There is presented to us in the whole order of nature (toto natura

Finally, Calvin is stirred by yet a third speculum, zvy., political

1 Inst. I.xiv.20, OS III, 170.

1. The Order of Creation

exnihilo} to expound in a straightforward way the history provided

It would be absurd to circumscribe creation within such narrow limits,

Otherwise, we shall have no clear understanding of what it means

As a matter of fact, Calvin will even permit the identification of

Nothing is more natural than the succession in turn of spring to winter,

1 Inst.I.xiv.20, OS III, 170.

What Calvin achieves by means of this distinction is, first of all,

1 Comm. Ps. 148.5, CO XXXII, 434.

The importance of verbum, thought of as a synonym for ordinatio

2. The Work of the Spirit in the Order of Creation

1 Inst. I.xvi.7-9, OS III, 199-201.

Studies in the History of Christian Thought, V 2

predominant effect, but the Spirit plays an equally decisive role in

Although the Spirit is not mentioned except in the history of the

There is no strength placed in bread to nourish us which excludes the

Bread nourishes us—the order of nature may be relied upon—■

3. The Order of Man

1 Inst. I.v.4, OS III, 47.

As this indicates, Calvin knows of and appreciates the more intricate

1 Inst. I.xv.8, OS III, 185-86.

Even more decisive in this regard, however, is the way in which

It remains nevertheless that some seed of political order (ordinis

1 Inst. I.iii.3, OS III, 40.

was provided when he had the power of right understanding (recta

Calvin’s assertion that the body, also, displays some “sparks”

As God in the beginning formed us according to his image, that he

What becomes increasingly clear in these repeated references to

1 Inst. I.xv.3, OS III, 178.

humanistic note in Calvin’s anthropology. In his efforts to describe