Introductory Letter

Introductory Letter

ohn Calvin to the Pastors of the City and Territory of Zurich, of Berne, Basel, Schaffhausen, Coire, and of all the lands of the

J

Grisons, of Saint-Gall, Bienne, Mulhouse, and Neuchâtel, his wellbeloved brethren and faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

It is now four years past, my dear and honoured brethren, since we caused to be printed a brief accord of our doctrine touching the Sacraments, which we thought well suited to extinguish the vexatious contentions that had for too long been debated among learned men and those fearing God. And indeed we had comprised enough in that little summary to appease and satisfy all good minds: as in fact many learned men and of good heart not only approved our counsel, but also declared that our doctrine, as it is there contained, pleased them very well. If some, either from being somewhat too obstinate in their own fancy, or, as it happens, after great troubles, from having some residue of suspicion rooted in their hearts, could not so quickly condescend to full accord with us, yet by their silence they showed that they found nothing better than to foster peace and friendship.

But meanwhile, certain ignorant and reckless persons give themselves such licence to disturb peaceable things that if one did not go forward to repress them, there would be cause to fear that they might kindle a new war. It is true, because they are few in number, and there is in them no virtue to give them authority or credit — and moreover by their foolish babble they expose themselves to the hatred and mockery of all the world — one might with good right despise them, were it not that by making a show of being advocates of the public cause, by such a cover, however vain it may be, they abuse the weak, who are not sufficiently shrewd. Wherefore, seeing that their audacity does great harm, and that the more patient we are, the more it grows and overflows, we can do no less than to resist it, since necessity constrains us thereto. I may well protest — though their books fly here and there, which serve to distress the good, to trouble the weak, and to arm the wicked to speak evil — that it is with great regret and as it were against my will that I have set myself to rebuff their folly. But because I would have thought it cruel had I not, by uncovering their deceits, delivered many good, simple people from error, I have not hesitated to oppose myself frankly to such rude fellows, who seek nothing but to put everything into confusion.

I have also wished to warn the men of authority and learning, whose name these scatter-brained persons pretend to, that it is a disgrace to them to give free rein to evil by their silence. For beyond the fact that all Christians ought to take pains to extinguish the fire that Satan endeavours to kindle by such bellows, the learned men whom these troublemakers wrap up in their quarrel have a greater interest therein than we, so that they ought to strive doubly to repress their importunity, which redounds to the common dishonour of many Churches. For these scatter-brained men of whom I speak, stirring up the contentions that have been held concerning the Sacraments, pretend to sustain the doctrine that is preached in the land of Saxony and in lower Germany. Now when this is heard and believed, some are troubled for the reverence they bear to such Churches; others mock all the doctors of that region, seeing that they make use of such beasts to plead their cause; many, knowing well that the sounder part does not consent thereto, are astonished at their too great patience. Meanwhile the manifest enemies of Jesus Christ rejoice to see us fighting among ourselves, as one would be amused to see cocks jousting.

Now, since it is a perverse and villainous dissimulation to give free rein to evil, the men of letters and of renown who are in those lands ought well to bethink themselves, so as to do their duty — if it be possible for them to repress the impetuous rage of those who trouble the Church without cause. And because I desire to bring back to the right way those who are in some measure tractable, or who have not yet cast themselves too far beyond the pale — even so that it may be lawful for all to reduce themselves peaceably — I will touch here only one single man, indeed without naming him. This madman, after having vaunted himself bravely of being a great zealot of the catholic faith, entreats learned and renowned men — whom I love and honour, and whom he names his masters — to join with him and help. Behold the fine honour he does them, to arm them against us: that is, that they, being excellent doctors, should follow the temerity of their disciple, as archers follow a man-at-arms. Now against whom does he wish war to be made? He replies in one word, that it is against the Sacramentarians. But when he wishes to define the matter, he protests that he battles against those who leave to the Sacrament of the Supper nothing but naked and empty signs. If so, he might well have rested, and left this office to more sufficient men.

There are notable Churches in the lands of Switzerland and of the Grisons, among which ours may well be reckoned: at the least one will find among us many better captains to maintain the dignity and virtue of the Sacraments than he is a good soldier. Moreover, there is an infinite number of persons who will supply better than he for the defence of this cause, and will acquit themselves faithfully enough in it. For who is there among us who does not labour to show that the Sacraments are conjoined with their truth and effect? But when this venerable doctor, after having set out so fine a preamble, not only puts in his roll many good personages who are as far removed from this crime as heaven from earth, but notably alleges our Accord, as if we had therein consented to the error of which he speaks —whereas it is therein so expressly reproved — is that not an impudence of contradiction too shameless, and an absurdity too gross? There is no need to seek arguments from far to defend ourselves, seeing that this calf recites a little after our own words, in which we confess openly that the body of Jesus Christ is truly communicated to the faithful in the Supper. I ask you, is it nothing to leave beyond bare and empty signs, when one affirms that what is figured is given at the same time, and that the effect is accomplished?

He, having reconsidered, escapes by a subterfuge so meagre and frivolous that nothing could be more so — it is that we speak of a spiritual manner of eating. How then? Would he have the flesh of Jesus Christ eaten as the oxen of his country? But he adds that he does not think we are speaking of the true body: as if we imagined that the body of Jesus Christ were a phantom. We leave this reverie to him and his like. For holding this point as resolved — that Jesus Christ has only one true and natural body — we say that as he was once sacrificed on the cross to reconcile us with God, so also he is daily offered to us in the Supper. For it is necessary that the Lord Jesus, in order to communicate to us the grace of the salvation he has acquired for us, should first be made ours, and that his flesh should be to us meat and nourishment, since it is from it that we draw life. Behold the words whereby we speak plainly in our Accord. Now this good controller alleges what seems good to him, and leaves, as a traitor and falsifier, this article, which was the principal one. But since he had protested to recite our sentences word for word, by what right, or under what title, was it permitted him to separate — indeed to tear apart — the members that were conjoined, so that our intention is not put forward? Is that not to act like a mad dog, that bites at random every stone it encounters?

Nevertheless he cannot refrain from producing shortly after our testimonies touching the truth of the Sacraments, which he falsely makes it believed that we deny. Thereupon this troublemaker charges us with finesse and cunning — to such a degree, as he says, that in treating amply of receiving Jesus Christ in a spiritual manner, we abuse the simple people. As if we could spiritually communicate with Jesus Christ without having him dwelling in us by the virtue of faith, and being united to his body to live in him. Which cannot be, unless Jesus Christ, insofar as he was once offered in sacrifice for us, gives himself to us, so that we may enjoy him. Whence it follows that his flesh vivifies us.

Now this good protector of the faith, having made so fine a prologue to specify the error against which he battles, endeavours to show that there is great diversity of opinions among us, in order to render us odious by this means. He propounds this maxim, that it is the property of heretics to be discordant. When I have granted him what he demands, I say that this does not touch us. He replies that we are different, inasmuch as according to some, the bread signifies the body; according to others, it is a mark or a token of the body of Christ; according to others, it is its sign; according to others, its figure; according to others, a memorial; according to others, a representation; according to others, a testimony or signature of the communion we have with Christ; according to others, a remembrance of the body that was given for us; according to others, an assurance to testify to us the spiritual grace; according to others, the communion that we have with the body of Christ. Who will not think, I ask you, that in speaking thus he is a downright prevaricator who is secretly in agreement with us? For one could not better praise and approve a good accord and full conformity than by amassing all these forms of speech which he opposes one to another as being very contrary, seeing that everyone perceives that they all tend to one end.

Moreover, to make himself appear the more subtle, he has not been content to make a simple recital, but has composed a table, to show the matter as in a picture. Meanwhile, because he saw well that Saint Matthew, as to the words, is less conformable to Saint Paul, and Saint Mark to Saint Luke, than are among themselves a dozen expositors whom he brings in as discordant — to escape from this difficulty he says that not only do we differ in words, but are also discordant in sense. Let us therefore make comparison of the whole to judge if it be so. What Saint Matthew and Saint Mark call blood, Saint Luke and Saint Paul name the Testament in his blood. Behold a great diversity. On our part, what will he find? Certainly the words Sign, Signification, Figure, Pledge, Memorial, Representation, are not a contrary sense, seeing that they are so well linked together that each one draws the rest after it.

You see by what reasons this scatter-brained man has been moved to forge in his cabinet darts of fire, to inflame all Europe if he could. But what will he reply for himself and his companions? In one place he affirms that the words of Christ are sufficiently clear of themselves and have no need of any gloss, when he says that the bread is his body. Presently after he does not deny that there is in it some figure. There is no further need for us to inquire against whom he wishes to strike, seeing that he breaks of himself in his frenzy. But at the least let him name this figure, which he says does not prevent the bread from being properly the body of Christ. For whatever the figure be, it already causes the sense to be neither simple nor literal. Here he is caught as in another trap. For wishing to advance his opinion — since he does not agree with those whom he calls heretics — it will follow according to his argument that he also is of their number, if by chance he does not show that his figure, which he conceals, is so holy and sacred that it is not lawful to think ill of it. In concealing it, he uses finesse, so that one cannot judge of it.

Furthermore, he confesses that some of us use the same words as those whom he holds for good Catholics, but that their intention is not such. If so, what will become of this great contrariety of words, which alone, according to what he says, makes people heretics — even though they are constrained to differ from others in order not to consent to errors? Certainly it is a great shame that an impetuosity so blind — which would not be pardoned in a young man — should so transport a poor old man, making himself the laughing stock of little children.

I will not dissemble that he also amasses some sentences of certain expositors, which have an appearance of not agreeing one with another, though in truth they can be reconciled. But the evil is that in the first place, he maliciously wrests what is touched upon in passing, by this one or that one, as if it were to determine fully all the matter. And then, it is too great a tyranny or barbarity in him to wish to impose a law on all, to speak in the same style and language without differing a single syllable, seeing that each one has his own proper way of speaking, and that such liberty ought to be permitted. One man will have said that the mystical body of Jesus Christ is here figured. What? Has not Saint Augustine said the like? Indeed, even Saint Paul in saying that we are all one bread. Another will have said that the Supper is a solemn remembrance of the redemption that has been acquired for us. What? Does that not respond very well to what we are taught both by Saint Paul and by the sovereign Master, that this Sacrament is ordained for us to the end that his death may be preached therein? There was no occasion at all to make such a great noise, nor to raise any trouble. Far from it that a man who calls himself a minister of peace, and who in fact bears the message of reconciliation between God and men, should be excused when he makes such alarms without cause.

But let us suppose that there may have been some discords heretofore, because the matter could not be fully liquidated and settled at the first stroke: yet what humanity is there in renewing a wound that had been closed and healed? To the end that the faithful might not be distracted by disputes which had reigned only too long, we have proposed to them our Accord, to which they might hold. This good zealot saw clearly that all those whom he entitles Sacramentarians have the one same faith, and confess it as with the one same mouth: and even if the two good doctors Zwingli and Oecolampadius, who have been recognised as faithful servants of Jesus Christ, were living today, they would not change a single word in our doctrine. For our good brother and of sainted memory, Martin Bucer, after having seen our Accord above-mentioned, wrote to me that it was an inestimable good for the whole Church. Wherefore it is so much the greater malice in this new controller to bear us envy for it.

On my part — not to render him the like coin, but to repulse this foolish calumny with which he has wished to charge us — I will reply in three words: that it is the property of the devil to calumniate, from which also he bears his name; that it is also his property to obscure clarity; thirdly, to be the father of quarrels and discords by troubling the peace; finally, to break and dissipate the unity of the faith. Since all these things are found in this blunderer, there is no further need for me to pronounce him son of the devil, since the matter shows to great and small what he is.

For the rest, my dear and honoured brethren, since we ought to take at least as much pains to maintain the truth and to foster concord as Satan endeavours to ruin the one and the other, I have wished to employ myself therein to the best of my power, and also to try whether by chance those who until now have been of too hard a brain may be tamed — if not, that those who are of sound judgment may be furnished with the defence of our cause, so as to know better how to rebuff them.

Now, the means I have here adopted of expressing our intention more fully has seemed to me the most proper. For the too great brevity of our first writing is subject to many cavillings, and does not remove the scruples that are too deeply rooted. I have therefore so expanded the Summary that was previously printed, that I have made a similar confession in more words, in order to render it more clear. This troublemaker, of whom it wearies me to speak so much, reproaches us that there is among us such a labyrinth of opinions that none understands what his companion means. Now it seems to me that I know so well what you believe and hold, that I am confident of having here set down in writing what each of you would write on his own part. For I have not usurped the office of dictating to you what you ought to confess by my authority, but rather I submit the whole to your discretion. Meanwhile, I have boldly advanced to compose this little treatise, because I have found by experience heretofore how much my labour was agreeable to you, and because you have also testified it sufficiently.

Farewell, my brethren, whom I pray God to govern by his Spirit and to bless the pains you take to edify his Church. My companions, the Ministers of the Word, salute you.

From Geneva, the 28th of November, 1554.