IN preparing this vindication of the character and life of Calvin, I was not led to notice the question which has been raised by his enemies, the Roman his and Prelatisis, whether Calvin was ever ordained. This question did not fall under the general view of Calvin’s life and character, which it was my object to take. The question had been often met, and triumphantly answered; and appeared to me to possess little interest or importance at the present time. Circumstances, however, have changed. The baseless attempts to fasten upon Calvin an approval of diocesan episcopacy, having been completely foiled, and the calumnies against his general character having been repelled, his enemies have taken refuge in his forlorn hope, and are now heard on every side exclaiming, “All but Calvin, after all, was never ordained.” It is really amusing to see the baby-artifices which suffice these profound scholars! these inimitable logicians! these exclusive possessors of all grace! “Calvin was never ordained,” say our prelatic friends. “Calvin was never ordained,” shout the Romanists. “And it is not even attempted to prove this all-important fact,” they both proclaim in loudest chorus. We will now, then, meet these same confident boasters, and accept their challenge to discuss this question.

And, in the first place, we remark, that it is a matter of no practical importance whatever to Presbyterians, whether Calvin was or was not ordained. This whole outcry is mere noise, vox et proeterea nihil, got up in order to drown the voice of reason, and turn away attention from evident defeat.

Let it then be fully understood that the validity of Presbyterian ordination depends, IN NO MANNER OR DEGREE, upon the ordination of Calvin. He may have been ordained or not ordained, while of our ordination there can be no manner of doubt. Were the validity of our ordinations made to depend upon the personal succession of a line of single ordainers, were Calvin a link in that line, and were our present chain connected with him, then, indeed, there would be some sense and some force in the objections made against Calvin‘s ordination. It is on this ground we boldly deny that any valid prelatical ordination exists, or can be shown to exist, either in the Romish, Anglican, or American Episcopal churches. But we hold to no such doctrine. Our ordination depends not upon one prelate, but upon many presbyters. So that even if invalidity could be shown to attach to any one of the number of presbyters officiating in any given case, it does not affect the whole, and consequently does not injure that ordination which is given by the whole. Did Calvin ever ordain ALONE? Did Calvin ordain alone all those from whom our present ordinations spring?

Preposterous assumption! which all the boldness of reckless malignity has never dared to make.

Suppose, then, that Calvin, while unordained, had united with the Presbytery of Geneva, in conferring ordination upon others. Were not the others, Farel and Coraud, ordained, and ordained, too, by Romish prelates?

Were not Luther and Zuinglius, and many others, prelatically ordained?

And subtracting, therefore, the invalid co-operation of Calvin from the ceremony, was there not still validity enough to secure a valid result? On the ground of scripture, of reason, and of the theory of Presbyterian ordination, most assuredly there was. And whatever our opponents may choose to say of the validity of Presbyterian ordination generally, they cannot, without betraying absolute absurdity, affirm that it depends, in any degree, upon the fact of Calvin’s ordination. This whole question, therefore, is merely one of literary curiosity and historical research.

But we proceed a step further, and affirm that Calvin’s character and authority as a minister of Jesus Christ, did not depend upon his ordination. Ordination does not confer upon any man either the character or the authority of a minister of Christ. The qualifications which fit any man for this high office can be imparted only by God through Christ, and by the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit. Without these, no man is a fit subject for ordination, which presupposes their existence. The authority to preach the gospel arises also from that commission which Christ has given to all those whom he — as the only Head of the Church, to whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given — has qualified for the Work. It is a blasphemous assumption, in any church or body of men, to claim the power of imparting to others either the qualifications or the authority to preach the gospel. Ordination, therefore, is not in itself absolutely essential to a true ministry, since there may be the qualifications and the authority to use them, without it. Ordination is merely the appointed method whereby any given branch of the Church declares their belief that the individual ordained is qualified and authorized by God to preach the gospel, and whereby they commend him to all those for whom they act, as worthy of their confidence, and entitled to all the respect and consideration due to a minister of Christ. Ordination, therefore, is essential to the regularity but not to the validity of the ministry. And should any church have such unbounded confidence in the qualifications and call of any man for the office, as to allow him to minister among them without a special ordination, he would be no less certainly a minister, because admitted in an unusual way to the exercise of his gifts and calling. In ordinary circumstances, of course, no such case could occur.

We speak hypothetically. But is it true that Calvin was never ordained? — then do our remarks apply, in all their strength to him. Who ever doubted his qualifications for the ministry? Not, surely, the ministers and magistrates of Geneva, when they, almost by violence, compelled him to enter upon his duties. Having, then, as the whole reformed world believe, the qualifications and call which fitted him for the ministry, Calvin had also the authority of Christ for engaging in its work. And if the churches thought it unnecessary that he should be firmly set apart by ordination, Calvin’s authority as a minister of Christ is not the less, but even the more evident; since it was believed by all to be accredited by extraordinary gifts and calling. f58 But still further, we affirm, that Calvin was authorized to preach by the Romish Church itself. He received the tonsure at the hands of the Romish prelate, which is the first part of the ceremony of ordination, and qualifies for holding benefices and cures. The hair then cut from the crown of the head, shows, as is taught by Romanists, that the individual partakes of the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. In virtue of this office and authority, “it is certain” that John Calvin delivered some sermons at Pont L’Eveque, before he left France. He had ordination sufficient, therefore, in the judgment of the Romish Church, to warrant his preaching. And since the power this Church professes to give in ordination for the priesthood, is idolatrous and blasphemous, and is not attempted or believed in by the Reformed Churches, Calvin received from the Romish Church all that authority which is deemed sufficient, for those duties which are recognized by Protestants as proper and peculiar to the ministry.

But we advance still further in our argument, and assert that it is a matter of the most certain inference that Calvin was ordained in the Reformed Church, and by the Presbytery of Geneva.

That a Presbytery existed at Geneva, before Calvin reached that city, is beyond doubt. Beza expressly declares that, when Farel, by his denunciation, overcame the purpose of Calvin to pass by Geneva, “Calvin, aftrighted by this terrible denunciation, gave himself up to the will of the Presbytery and the magistrates.” (Presbyterii et magistratus voluntati.”) f62 That it was the established and uniform belief of the Reformers, that ordination in the ordinary circumstances of the Church was necessary and very important, and that their practice was consistent with this belief, is equally certain. Unless this is denied, it is unnecessary to produce the proofs which are at hand. f63 Nay more, it is beyond doubt that this was the judgment not only of all the other Reformers, but also of Calvin himself. He insists, in many parts of his Institutes, (his earliest theological work,) upon the importance and necessity of ordination by the imposition of hands. (See Book IV. chapter 3. § 16, and chapter 4. § 6, 10, 14.) These sentiments, which Calvin had published just before going to Geneva, he ever after held, as is manifest in all the subsequent editions of this work, and in the Confession of the French Churches, which he drew up, and in which ordination is declared to be essential to a regular ministry.

The inference, therefore, is unavoidable, that since there was a Presbytery at Geneva when Calvin went there since all the Reformers, and Calvin in particular, insisted on the necessity and scripturality of ordination; and since Calvin is expressly said to have given himself up to the Presbytery, he must have been, and he was, ordained. No particular record of the time and manner of his consecration is necessary. There is circumstantial evidence more than sufficient to establish the fact in any court of law.

But still further. Calvin himself bears witness that he was ordained. Thus in his preface to his Commentaries on the Psalms, he says: — “As David was raised from the sheepfold to the highest dignity of government, so God has dignified me, derived from an obscure and humble origin, with the high and honorable office of minister and preacher of the gospel.” But, since Calvin himself publicly and constantly taught the necessity of ordination to the ministry, in making this declaration he asserts also the fact of his ordination. Thus, also, when Cardinal Sadolct attacked the character of his ministry, he formally defended it in a long epistle addressed to that distinguished man. In this defense he says: “Sed quum ministerium meum quod Dei vocatione fundatum ac sancitum fuisse non dubito, per latus meum sauciari videam, perfidia erit, non patientia, si taceam hic atque dissimulem. Doctoris primum, deinde pastoris munere in ecclesia illa functus sum. Quod eam provinciam suscepi, legitimae fuisse vocationis jure meo contendo.” “Hoc ergo ministerium ubi a Domino esse constiterit,” etc. That is, “when I see my ministry, which I doubt not was founded and sanctioned by the vocation of God, wounded through my side, it would be perfidy and not patience, if I should remain silent and dissemble in such a ease. I filled (or enjoyed the honor of) the office, first of professor, and afterwards of pastor in that church, and I contend that I accepted of that charge, having the authority of a lawful vocation.” “Since then, ministry has been established by the Lord,” etc. If, then, the testimony of Calvin — published to the world, in the face of the Reformed Churches, and in full view of their sentiments and practice on the subject of ordination, in both which he concurred, can be relied on, then is his introduction to the ministry by a regular ordination, beyond all controversy certain.

But still further. We have the evidence of the Reformers and Reformed Churches themselves, that Calvin was ordained. No one stood higher among them as a minister and a leader, he was chosen Moderator of the Presbytery at Geneva, and continued to fill that office till his death. he sat in the Synods of the Swiss churches. When driven from Geneva he retired to Strasburg, where he was again constrained to enter upon the duties of a professor and a pastor, by the agency of those distinguished men, Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Niger, and Sturmius. Bucer also, in a letter addressed to him in 1536, expressly calls him “my brother and fellow minister.” Now all these Reformers, as we have seen, held that ordination was both scriptural and necessary; and since Calvin himself was of the same opinion, we must regard their testimony to his ministerial character and standing, as proof positive of their belief that he was regularly ordained.

Beza, in his life of Calvin, seems to declare that he was ordained as plainly as language could do it. He says: “Calvinus sese presbyterii et magistratus voluntati permisit; quorum suffragiis, accedente plebis consensu, delectus non concionator tantum (hoc autem primum recusarat) sed etiam sacrarum literarum doctor, quod unum admittebat, est designatus, A.D. MDXXXVI.”

That is, “Calvin surrendered himself to the disposal of the Presbytery and magistrates, by whose votes, (the people having previously expressed their willingness,) having been chosen not only preacher, (which office he had, however, at first declined,) but also professor of divinity, he was set apart [or inducted into office,] in the year 1536.” Now the very office and duty of a Presbytery is, among other things, to admit and ordain men to the ministry. But Calvin was admitted to the ministry by a Presbytery composed of Reformers, who strongly insisted upon the importance of the rite of ordination. Calvin, also, concurred in their views of this ordinance, as introductory to their ministry. And Beza says, that having been elected pastor by the people, and having been approved by the votes of the Presbytery, “he was set apart,” that is, in the regular way, by ordination.

Beza never dreamt that, in after times, a fact so necessarily implied in his statement, and in all the circumstances of the case, could or would be questioned.

This clear testimony of Beza is confirmed by that of Junius, the learned Professor of Divinity in Leyden. In opposition to Bellarmine, he affirms that the Reformers who preceded Calvin, held and practiced Presbyterian ordination, and that by some of these, his predecessors, Calvin was himself ordained. f66 Certain it is that neither Romanists nor prelatists at that day, ever questioned the fact that Calvin was ordained in the manner of the Reformed Church. The Romanists did not. Cardinal Bellarmine says that “neither Luther, nor Zuingle, nor Calvin, were bishops, (i.e. prelates,) but only presbyters; thus evidently assuming as undeniable that they were all presbyters, and therefore ordained as such. Cardinal Sadolet seems also, from the controversy between him and Calvin, fully to have admitted Calvin’s ordination according to the order of the Reformed Church, but to have denied the validity of such orders, because administered out of the Romish Church. And hence the object of Calvin, in his reply, is not to establish the fact of his ordination, but the validity and scripturality of the orders of the Reformed Church.

Neither did prelatists than question the ministerial character and standing, and the consequent ordination of Calvin. Dr. John Philpot, archdeacon of Winchester, martyr in 1555, in proving that the Reformed is the true Church, by the “spirit of wisdom, that the adversaries thereof could never be able to resist,” says, “Where is there one of you all that ever hath been able to answer any of the godly, learned ministers of Germany, who have disclosed your counterfeit religion. Which of you all, at this day, is able to answer Calvin’s Institutes, who is minister of Geneva?” To this his Popish inquisitor, Dr. Saverson, replied, not by denying the ordination or ministerial character of Calvin, but by blackening the character of the Reformers generally — “a godly minister, indeed, of receipt of cutpurses and runagate traitors,” etc. “I am sure,” replied Philpot, “you blaspheme that godly man, and that godly church where he is a minister, as it is your Church’s condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphemies and false reports.” This title he proceeds to give Calvin again in the very next sentence, Bishop Jewell, the authorized expounder of the sentiments of the English Church, replies to the Jesuit Harding, “touching Mr. Calvin, it is a great wrong untruly to represent so reverend a father and so worthy an ornament of the Church of God. If you have ever known the order of the church of Geneva, and had seen four thousand people or more, receiving the holy mysteries together at one communion, you could not, without your great shame and want of modesty, thus untruly have published to the world, that by Mr. Calvin’s doctrine the sacraments are superfluous.” — Defense of the Apology; see in Richmond’s Fathers of the English Church, volume 8. p. 680. Such also were the views entertained by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Hooper, Bishop Hall, and many others. Hooker implies the ordination and perfect ministerial standing of Calvin, in all that he says of him. He calls him “incomparably the wisest man (i. e. minister) the French Church did enjoy, since the hour it had him.” Speaking of the Genevan clergy, he calls them “pastors of their souls,” and then adds, “Calvin being admitted one of their preachers,” that is, one of these pastors, for they had no preachers, except their regularly ordained ministers, “wherefore taking to him two of the other ministers,” etc. f70 Bullinger also, the cotemporary of Calvin, of whom it is said that “all the fathers of the English reformation held him in great esteem,” and that “he did much service in the English Church;” to whom Bishops Grindal and Horn, in a joint letter to him, “attribute chiefly the favorable change which had taken place in the feelings of the people toward the Church;” and whose catechism was selected by the University of Oxford, as one of those books which the tutors were required to use; most explicitly sustains the ministerial character of Calvin. In a work published by order of the convocation of the English Church in 1586, cum gratia et privilegio regiae majestatis, and as a manual for preachers, he speaks of Calvin in these terms: “John Calvin, a godly and learned man, who with great commendation teacheth in the Church at this day, my fellow minister, and most well-beloved and dear brother.” f73 “Stancarus also, the Polish Reformer, wrote a work ‘Adversus Henricum Bullingerum, Petrum Martyrem et Joannem Calvinum, et reliquos Tigurinae ac Genevensis ecclesiae ministros, ecelesiae Dei perturbatores,” etc., Basle, 1547. This work was replied to by Semler, and is referred to by Bishop Jewell in a letter to this Swiss reformer. Now here we have Calvin expressly denominated a minister by a Romanist, in a controversial work written against him, and in the same sense in which Bullinger and Peter Martyr are called ministers. And it remains to be shown that Roman Catholic theologians are in the habit of applying the term ‘minister’ to persons whom they believe to be in no sense or manner ordained.” In “A Christian Letter of certain English Protestants, unfeigned favorers of the present state of religion authorized and professed in England, under that reverend and learned man, Mr.R. Hooker,” written in 1590, it is said: “The reverend fathers of our Church call Mr. Calvin one of the best writers (Whitgift Del. of Ans. p. 390;) a reverend father and a worthy ornament of the Church of God, (Jewel Apol. Del. of, pt. II. p. 149, and Fulke against Stapleton, p. 71;) not only defending the same doctrine, but also discharging him of slanderous reports wrongfully laid against him; knowing that by defaming the persons of ministers, the devil of old time labored to overthrow the gospel of Christ.” See quoted at length in Hanbury’s edition of Hooker’s Works, volume 1. p. 22, 23. The whole is very strong. See also Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biogr. volume 4 269, volume 5. p. 544, etc. Of the opinion of the English Church, as to the ordination of John Calvin in 1586, there can, therefore, be no longer any question.

Such, then, is the accumulated evidence in proof of the certain and necessary ordination of Calvin. It can only be denied by those who are willing, for sectarian purposes, to shut their eyes against the clearest light.

It is asserted by Calvin himself, by Beza, and by Junius. It is implied as necessary in the practice of the whole Reformed Church, of which Calvin approved, and which the Presbytery of Geneva must have carried out. It was allowed by Romanists and prelatists of his own age, and is implied in the estimation in which he was regarded by the whole Reformed church.

But even were the ordination of Calvin doubtful, we have shown that he was so far ordained by the Romish Church as to be authorized to preach; that his authority as a minister depends not on the ceremony of ordination; and that, inasmuch as our present orders are in no degree dependent upon his, their validity is in no way connected with the fact or certainty of Calvin’s ordination.