CALVIN’S VIEWS OF PRELACY.

On this subject we will present to our readers the letters of the Revelation Dr. Miller in reply to Bishop Ives, which appeared in the Presbyterian in January, 1842.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN.

REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER — The following letter, and another which you will receive in a few days, were written a number of weeks ago, and sent to Lincolnton, in North Carolina, for insertion in the “Lincoln Republican,” a weekly journal printed in that town. Very unexpectedly to me, the editor of that paper, after publishing Bishop Ives’s letter, refused to give admission to my reply. On learning this, I requested the friend to whose care my communications had been sent, to transmit them to the “Watchman of the South,” in whose pages they would be likely to be seen by a large number of those who had been readers of the “Lincoln Republican.” But as Bishop’s Ives’s letter has been republished in at least one paper in your city, and as in my reply to an attack in that paper, which you were so good as to publish, I referred to the letters which had been sent to North Carolina for further light on the same subject, I hope you will do me the favor to give insertion in the Presbyterian to the first letter, which you will receive herewith; and also to the second, which, with the permission of Providence, will reach you next week.

I make no apology, Mr. Editor, for the trouble which I have given you, for several weeks past, in consequence of these ecclesiastical polemics. I regret them as much as any one can do. They were not of my seeking. I am not conscious on this, or on any other occasion, of having ever gone into the field of denominational controversy, excepting when forced into it by fidelity to my beloved Church, and to her Head, my Master in heaven. To that high responsibility, however irksome controversy may be, especially at my time of life, I hope I shall never be suffered to be recreant. It would be much more agreeable to me to have no warfare but with the open enemies of our “common salvation,” but surely complaints of “attack” come with rather an ill grace from those who scarcely ever issue a paper without loading it with offensive missiles against all who are out of their pale. It has often amused me to see what a morbid sensibility to what they called “attacks,” was manifested by those who were constantly dealing around them “firebrands and arrows,” and professing at the same time, in words, to be “fierce for moderation,” and “furious for peace.” I am, my dear sir, very respectfully yours, Samuel Miller.

Princeton, January 24, 1842.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LINCOLN REPUBLICAN.

SIR — It was not until this day that I saw, in your paper of the 10th instant, a letter from Bishop Ives, in reply to a letter from me, directed to a clerical friend in your neighborhood, and published in your paper a few weeks before.

My letter was a private one, and published altogether without my consent. I kept no copy of it, and while I distinctly remember its general substance, I have not the east recollection of its language. The Bishop complains of the language as strongly characterized by asperity and positiveness. As I have never seen even the printed copy, as it appeared in your paper, I am wholly unable to make any other reply to this charge, than to say that, as I felt strongly on the subject, and was perfectly confident that the allegations which I opposed were altogether unfounded, I think it probable, that in a private letter to a friend, I expressed myself in terms which would have been modified if I had felt myself to be writing for the public eye. I had an interview with Bishop Ives, in this place, since the date of his letter; but as I had not the least knowledge, at that time, of the publication of my own letter, or of his reply to it, nothing, of course, respecting the matter passed at that interview.

More than two months ago, a correspondent in North Carolina informed me that Bishop Ives, in a public discourse delivered a short time before, alleged that the celebrated Reformer, Calvin, had avowed a belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and had requested to receive Episcopal ordination from the bishops of England. My correspondent requested me to inform him whether there was any foundation for this statement. I ventured, without hesitation, to assure him that there was not, and that no well informed person could possibly make it. I have no recollection of having impeached the honesty or the veracity of the reverend preacher; for I had no doubt that he made the statement on evidence which he deemed sufficient; and I have still no doubt that he verily believed what he stated to be strictly true. But I meant to express, and presume I did express, strong confidence that the representation which he made was entirely incorrect. Bishop Ives is equally confident that his representation was well founded; and, in his reply to my published letter, has made statements which he seems to think perfectly decisive, and which, I dare say, many others will deem equally decisive, in support of his representation. And yet I will again assert, and hope I shall make it appear to the satisfaction of every candid reader, that that representation is destitute of all solid support in historical verity.

The first testimony which Bishop Ives adduces in support of his former statement, is in the following words: “In his commentary upon Timothy 4:14, a passage so much relied upon by Presbyterians, he gives an interpretation which makes it perfectly consistent with the Episcopal character of Timothy.”

The passage, in our common translation, reads thus: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”

Calvin’s commentary is as follows: “He admonishes him that he should employ the grace with which he was endowed for the edification of the Church. For it is not the will of the Lord that those talents should perish, or be uselessly buried in the earth, which he has deposited with any one to be profitably used. To neglect a gift, is, through sloth and negligence to leave it unemployed; so that, given up, as it were, to rust, it is worn out in no useful service. Therefore let each of us consider what abilities he has, that he may sedulously apply them to some use. He says that the grace was given to him by prophecy. How? Doubtless (as we said before) because the Holy Spirit, by revelation, had appointed Timothy to be set apart to the office of a pastor; for he had not been chosen only by man’s judgment, as is customary, but by the previous declaration of the Spirit.

He says that it was conferred with. the laying on of hands ; by which is meant that, in addition to the ministerial office, he was furnished also with the necessary gifts. It was a settled custom of the Apostles to ordain ministers with the imposition of hands; and, indeed, concerning this rite, its origin and meaning, I have treated at some length before, and a full account may be found in the Institutes. Presbytery — Those who think that this is a collective name put for the college of Presbyters, in my opinion judge correctly. Although, all things considered, I confess there is another sense not unsuitable, viz. that it is the name of an office. The ceremony he has put for the act of ordination itself. Therefore the sense is, that Timothy, when called to the ministry by the voice of the prophets, and afterwards ordained by the customary rite, was, at the same time, furnished for the performance of his duties by the grace of the Holy Spirit — whence we infer that it was not an empty rite, for to that consecration which men represented figuratively by the imposition of hands, God imparted reality, (or ratification) by his Spirit.”

This is Calvin’s commentary on the passage in question, and it is the whole of it. He who can find anything favorable to the Episcopal character of Timothy here, will be at no loss to find it in any document on earth.

The only thing noticeable in its bearing on that point is the suggestion, that while in the opinion of Calvin the term Presbytery means the bench or body of Presbyters, it may mean the name of an office. But surely this makes nothing in favor of the prelatical character of Timothy; for if this sense be admitted, then the statement will be that Timothy was ordained to the office of the Presbyterate, or was made a Presbyter.

The Bishop next produces a fragment from Cavin’s commentary on Titus 1:5, which he thus translates: “We learn also from this place that there was not then such an equality among the ministers of the Church, but that some one had the pre-eminence in authority and counsel.”

The candid reader will doubtless feel astonished when he reads this passage in connection with the context in which it stands — It is as follows: “Presbyters or Elders, it is well known, are not so denominated on account of their age, since young men are sometimes chosen to this office, as, for instance, Timothy ; but it has always been customary, in all ages, to apply this title, as a term of honor, to all rulers — and as we gather, from the first Epistle to Timothy, that there were two kinds of Elders, so here the context shows that no other than teaching Elders are to be understood; that is, those who were ordained to teach, because the same persons are immediately afterwards called Bishops. It may be objected that too much power seems to be given to Titus, when the Apostle commands him to appoint ministers over all the churches. This, it may be said, is little less than kingly power; for on this plan, the right of choice is taken away from the particular churches, and the right of judging in the case from the college of pastors, and this would be to profane the whole of the sacred discipline of the Church. But the answer is easy. Everything was not entrusted to Titus as an individual, nor was he allowed to impose such Bishops on the churches as he pleased; but he was commanded to preside in the elections as a Moderator, as it is necessary for some one to do. This is a mode of speaking exceedingly common. Thus a Consul or Regent or Dictator is said to create Consuls, because he convenes assemblies for the purpose of making choice of them. So also, Luke uses the same mode of speaking concerning Paul and Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles; not that they alone authoritatively appointed pastors over the churches without their being tried or approved; but they ordained suitable men, who had been elected or chosen by the people. We learn also from this place, that there was not, then, such an equality among the ministers of the Church as was inconsistent with some one of them presiding in authority and counsel. This, however, is nothing like the tyrannical and profane Prelacy which reigns in the Papacy: the plan of the Apostles was altogether different.”

Is the reader prepared to find Bishop Ives separating the last sentence but one in this paragraph from what preceded and what follows, and calling it a declaration in favor of Episcopacy, when its whole tenor is directly the other way? If the Bishop had read one page further on, he would have found in Calvin’s commentary on verse 7th of the same chapter, the following still more explicit declarations: “Moreover, this place abundantly teaches us that there is no difference between Presbyters and Bishops, because the Apostle now calls promiscuously by the second of these names those whom he had before called Presbyters — and indeed the argument which follows employs both names indifferently in the same sense, which Jerome hath observed, as well in his commentary on this passage, as in his Epistle to Evagrius. And once we may see how more has been yielded to the opinions of men than was decent, because the style of the Holy Spirit being abrogated, a custom introduced by the will of man prevailed. I do not, indeed, disapprove of the opinion that, soon after the commencement of the Church, every college of Bishops had some one to act as Moderator. But that a name of office which God had given in common to all, should be transferred to an individual alone, the rest being robbed of it, was both injurious and absurd. Wherefore, so to pervert the language of the Holy Spirit as that the same expressions should convey a meaning to us different from that which he intended, partakes too much of profane audacity. ” It is worthy of remark that the work which contains this passage was published in 1549, in the reign of Edward VI; and when Calvin was carrying on a friendly correspondence with Archbishop Cranmer — yet he did not hesitate then to avow his Presbyterian sentiments.

Again: in his commentary on 1 Peter 5:1, written in 1551, and dedicated to Edward VI of England, Calvin thus speaks: “Presbyters. — By this title he designates pastors, and whoever were appointed to the government of the Church. And since Peter calls himself a Presbyter, like the rest, it is hence apparent that this name was common, which, indeed, from many other passages, appears still more dearly. Moreover, by this title he claimed to himself authority, as if he had said that he admonished pastors in his own right, because he was one of their number, for among colleagues there ought to be this mutual privilege: whereas if he had enjoyed any pre-eminenee of authority among them, he might have urged that, and it would lave been more pertinent to the occasion. But although he was an Apostle, yet he knew this gave him no authority over his colleagues, but that he was rather joined with the rest in a social office.”

Bishop Ives, as a further proof that Calvin was persuaded of the Divine right of Prelacy, tells us that in his commentary on Galatians 2:9, he represents it as “highly probable that St. James was prefect of the Church of Jerusalem.” “Now,” says he, “a prefect is a chief and permanent ruler of others.” Here again the slightest inspection of what Calvin does really and truly say, will sufficiently refute this construction of his language. It is this: “When the question is here concerning dignity, it may seem wonderful that James should be preferred to Peter. Perhaps that might have have been done because he was the president, (praefectus) of the Church of Jerusalem. In regard to what may be included in the title of “Pillars, ” we know that it is so ordered in the nature of things, that those who excel others in talents, in prudence, or in other gifts, are also superior in authority. So in the Church of God, by how much any one excels in grace by so much ought he to be preferred in honor. For it is ingratitude, nay it is impiety, not to do homage to the Spirit of God wherever he appears in his gifts. Hence it is, that as a people cannot do without a pastor, so every assembly of pastors needs some one to act as moderator. But it ought ever to be so ordered that he who is first of all should be a servant, according to Matthew 23:12.”

In his commentary on Acts 20:28, written in 1560, a few years before his death, Calvin expresses himself thus: “Concerning the word bishop, it is observable that Paul gives this title to all the Elders of Ephesus; from which we may infer, that, according to Scripture, Presbyters differed, in no respect, from Bishops ; but that it arose from corruption and a departure from primitive purity, that those who held the first seats in particular cities began to be called Bishops. I say that it arose from corruption, not that it is an evil for some one in each college of pastors to be distinguished above the rest; but because it is an intolerable presumption, that men, in perverting the titles of Scripture to their own humor, do not hesitate to alter the meaning of the Holy Spirit.”

The Bishop’s extract from Calvin’s work De Necessitate Reformandae Ecclesiae, will also prove, when examined, quite as little to his purpose as any of the preceding. The passage, as given by him, is in the following words: “If they will give us such an hierarchy in which the bishops have such a pre-eminence as that they do not refuse to be subject to Christ, then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience.”

The passage, as really found in Calvin’s work, is as follows: — After speaking of the hierarchy of the Romish Church; of its claims of uninterrupted succession from the apostles, which he turns into ridicule; and of the gross departure of the bishops from the spirit and rules of the gospel, he says: “If the Papists would exhibit to us such an hierarchy, as that the bishops should be so distinguished as not to refuse to be subject to Christ; to rely on Him as their only Head; to cherish fraternal union among themselves; and to be bound together by no other tie than his truth, then I should confess that there is no anathema of which they are not worthy, who should not regard such an hierarchy with reverence and obedience, But what likeness to such an one is borne by that spurious hierarchy, in which they (the Romanisis) boast?” He then goes on inveighing against the arrogance and tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, by name, and showing how entirely different that system is from that to which Christ and his apostles gave their sanction, and even that which prevailed in the time of Cyprian.

It is well known that Calvin, in all his writings maintained that there were bishops in the primitive Church; that every pastor of a congregation was a scriptural bishop; of course, he might well say, that if there were any who would not obey such bishops as were conformed to the will of Christ, they were worthy of all condemnation. Some have alleged, indeed, that his use of the word hierarchy, (hierarchiam ) in this passage, proves that he could have had reference to no other than a prelatical government; that the term is never applied to any other. This is an entire mistake. The word hierarchy simply implies sacred or ecclesiastical government. It may be applied with as much propriety to Presbyterianism or Independency, as to Prelacy. Calvin himself in his Institutes, Book 4, chapter 5, speaks of that hierarchy, or spiritual government, which was left in the Church by the apostles, and which he expressly declares, in the same chapter, to be Presbyterian in its form.

Further, we are told, it seems, by Durell, in his “View of the Foreign Reformed Churches,” that Calvin, in writing to an “old friend,” speaks of the office of Bishop as of “divine institution or appointment.” It is true that language of this kind is found in that letter, but, the most cursory perusal of the whole letter, will banish from any candid mind the idea that Calvin is here speaking of diocesan or prelatical Episcopacy. Does not every intelligent reader know that that great Reformer believed and uniformly taught that the office of Bishop, (that is, of the primitive, parochial bishop,)was a divine institution? It is evidently of this parochial Episcopacy that he speaks, when writing to his “old friend” in the language above quoted. The duties which he urges upon him, and the passages of Scripture which he quotes to enforce his counsel, all show that it is that Episcopacy alone which he maintains to be of divine appointment. A Prelatist might as well quote the fourth chapter of the Presbyterian Form of Government, in which it speaks of Bishops, as proof positive that it maintains the divine right of Prelacy, as adduce the language cited by Bishop Ives, to prove that Calvin was an advocate for the divine institution of Prelatical Episcopacy.

Such is the clear, undubitable testimony that the illustrious Reformer of Geneva was guiltless of the charge which has been brought against him. It is manifest that, with perfect uniformity during the greater part of his public life, from 1535 to 1560, he steadfastly maintained the doctrine that the apostolic form of Church government was Presbyterian and not Prelatica; that even in works which he dedicated to the king of England and to the Lord Protector, the highest nobleman in the realm, he still firmly contended for the scriptural doctrine of ministerial parity. The more closely I examine his writings, the more confirmed is my persuasion, that nothing which wears a contrary aspect can be fairly produced from them.

II. The second allegation of Bishop Ives, is, that this eminent man wished to introduce Prelacy into the Church of Geneva ; and that he united with others in requesting the English Bishops to impart it to them.

If I do not greatly mistake, this allegation also is capable of being completely refuted. But as I have already trespassed so far on the columns of your paper, I shall postpone to another week the remarks and the testimony which I have to adduce in regard to that point. In the mean time, I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, SAMUEL MILLER.

PRINCETON, November 20, 1841.

LETTER 2.

THE second allegation of Bishop Ives is, that Calvin was desirous of introducing diocesan Episcopacy into the Church of Geneva ; and that he, with others, requested the bishops of England to impart it to them.

I have expressed a strong confidence that this statement is utterly unfounded; and that it admits of satisfactory refutation. To attempt this refutation I now proceed.

And, in proceeding to the execution of this task, my first remark is, that, anterior to all search after testimony, the allegation is, in itself, utterly incredible. The character which the friends of Prelacy are fond of imputing to John Calvin, is that of an austere, fierce, tyrannical man, fond of power, and impatient of all opposition. His character, indeed, in this respect, has been much misunderstood, and shamefully misrepresented. A degree of magisterial intolerance has been ascribed to him, which he never manifested. Still it is true that he possessed great decision of character, and that in following his convictions, and laboring to attain his favourite objects, he was hardly ever exceeded by any man. In this, it is believed, all are agreed. Now, if this man, who had such controlling influence in Geneva, had been desirous of introducing Prelacy into his own pastoral charge, and the neighboring churches, who was there to prevent it? Surely not the civil government. The secular rulers had been accustomed to Prelacy all their lives, and would, no doubt, have regarded it with more favor than any other form of ecclesiastical regimen that could be proposed to them. Not his ministerial colleagues, for though they were by no means timid or pliant men, yet his influence over them seems to have been of the highest kind; and if Prelacy had been introduced, who can doubt that Calvin himself would have been the Prelate? Who else would have been thought of? To him all eyes would have been instantly directed. No one acquainted with the history of Luther, Calvin, and several of the leading reformers, who acted with them, can hesitate a moment to believe, that a bishop’s chair was within the reach of every one of them, if he had only signified his wish to the effect, or even intimated his belief that such an office was warranted by the word of God.

But suppose in the face of all this improbability, that Calvin did wish to introduce Prelacy; what occasion had he to go to England for the purpose of obtaining it? Were there not several men who had been Bishops under the Papacy, who espoused the cause of the Reformation, and who would have been ready to lend their aid toward the consummation of the desired object? Besides, our Episcopal brethren tell us that the Waldenses always had bishops, in their sense of that title, among them. If so, where was the difficulty of Calvin and his colleagues obtaining the Episcopal succession, as the modern phrase is, from that body of pious believers? We know, indeed, that this assertion concerning the Waldenses is unfounded. They had no such bishops. They themselves, in their correspondence with OEcolampadius, in 1530, explicitly inform him that they had not; still, as an argumentum ad hominem, the argument is conclusive. Either there were no such bishops among that pious, devoted people, as Prelatists claim; or Calvin, who knew the Waldenses intimately, and had intercourse with them, acted a strange part in seeking an ecclesiastical favor from the British Church, which he might, quite as conveniently, to say the least, have obtained from churches in his native country, where many of them were settled, as well as in the Valleys of Piedmont.

But there is another fact bearing on the point, no less conclusive. The allegation is, that Calvin and his friends begged for Episcopal consecration from Archbishop Cranmer, in the reign of Edward VI, when that prelate was at the head of the ecclesiastical affairs of England. Now, in that very reign, when this wish and request must have been pending, as shown in a former letter, we find Calvin repeatedly publishing to the world his opposition to Prelacy, and his solemn conviction that the Scriptures laid down a different form of church order; and one of these publications, containing one of his strongest assertions in favor of Presbyterianism, he dedicated to the king of England, and sent to him by the hand of a special messenger; on the return of which messenger, Cranmer wrote to Calvin an affectionate letter, thanking him for his present, and expressing an opinion that he could not do better than often to write to the king. (See Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 413.) How is it possible for these things to hang together? If Calvin was capable of writing and printing these things, and sending them by special messengers to the king, and to Archbishop Cranmer, at the very time when he was negotiating with Cranmer, to obtain front him an investiture of a different and opposite kind; — if he was capable of acting thus, it would be difficult to say, whether he was more of a knave or a fool. But I know not that any one, who was acquainted with the history or the writings of that eminent man, ever charged him with being either.

The first evidence that Bishop Ives adduces to support his allegation, that Calvin desired to obtain Prelatical Episcopacy for his own Church in Geneva, is drawn from his language in the Confession of Faith, which he composed in the name of the French Churches. The friends of Prelacy are heartily welcome to all the testimony which can be drawn from that Confession. Everything in it which bears upon this point is in the following words: “As to the true Church, we believe it ought to be governed according to the policy which our Lord Jesus Christ has established; that is, that there be Pastors, Elders and Deacons; that the pure doctrine may have its course; that vices may be corrected and repressed; that the poor and all other afflicted persons be succoured in their necessities; and that all the assemblies be made in the name of God, in which both great and small may be edified. We believe that all true pastors, in whatsoever place they be, have the same authority and an equal power, under one only Chief, only Sovereign, and universal Bishop, Jesus Christ; and for that reason that no church ought to pretend to Sovereignty or Lordship over another.” If this be evidence that Calvin wished to introduce Prelacy into those churches on the Continent, over which he had influence, then I know not what testimony means. The Confession is decisively and prelatical in its character throughout, and the churches which were organized on its basis, were as thoroughly Presbyterian as the Church of Scotland ever was. In the “Articles of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” drawn up at the same time, it is declared that “a President in each Colloquy (or classis) or Synod shall be chosen with a common consent to preside in the Colloquy or Synod, and to do everything that belongs to it; and the said office shall end with each Colloquy or Synod and Council.” (See Laval’s History of the Reformation in France Volume I. p. 118.)

Another source of proof on which Bishop Ives relies to show that Calvin wished for and endeavored to obtain Prelacy from the English Church, is found in the language which he addressed to the clergy of Cologne, blaming them for attempting to depose their Archbishop, because he was friendly to the Reformation. But could not Calvin reprobate this conduct without believing in the divine institution of the office which the Archbishop held?

Suppose Bishop Ives should become a Calvinist, as to his theological creed, and suppose the Episcopal clergy of North Carolina should conspire on that account alone, to expel him from his diocese, might not the firmest Presbyterian in the State remonstrate against their conspiracy without being an advocate for the divine right of prelacy? Might he not consider it much better to retain, in an influential station, one who was an advocate for evangelical truth, rather than thrust him out to make way for an errorist in doctrine as well as in church order?

A further testimony to which he appeals is, that Calvin in writing to Ithavius, a Polish Bishop, styles him “illustrious and reverend Lord Bishop.” He addresses him, “illustris et reverende Domine. ” The last word, which is equivalent to sir, Calvin addresses to the humblest curate to whom he writes. Of course no stress can be laid on that title. But what does the venerable Reformer say to this Polish dignitary? Urging him to give his influence decisively in favor of the Reformation, he writes to him in the following faithful language — a part of which only Bishop Ives quotes — “It is base and wicked for you to remain neutral, when God, as with outstretched hand, calls you to defend his cause. Consider what place you occupy, and what burden has been laid upon you.” This is proof enough that Calvin thought that Ithavius had been placed in his station by the providence of God, and that he was bound to employ all the influence and authority connected with that station for promoting the cause of truth; and certainly nothing more. I take for granted that Bishop Ives believes that the tyrant Nero was raised to the imperial throne by the providence of God; that, in that station, he had a great opportunity for doing good, if he had been inclined to improve it; and that any benevolent inhabitant of his dominions might have addressed his emperor in the very language addressed to Ithavius, without believing in the divine right of monarchy.

An extract of a letter from Calvin to the King of Poland, is also brought forward to show that he was an advocate for Prelacy. Let the passage which Bishop Ives refers to, be seen in its connection, and its worthlessness for his purpose, will be manifest to the most cursory reader. It is as follows: — “Finally, it is ambition and arrogance alone that have invented this Primacy which the Romanists hold up to us. The ancient Church did indeed institute Patriarchates, and also appointed certain primacies to each province, in order that, by this bond of concord, the Bishops might continue more united among themselves; just as if at the present day, one Archbishop were set over the kingdom of Poland; not to bear rule over the others, or to arrogate to himself authority of which the others are robbed; but for the sake of order, to hold the first place in Synods; and to cherish a holy union among his colleagues and brethren.

Then there might be either provincial or city Bishops, to attend particularly to the preservation of order: inasmuch as nature dictates that, out of each college one should be chosen on whom the chief care should devolve. But possessing an office of moderate dignity, that is to the extent of a man’s ability, is a different thing from embracing the whole world in unlimited jurisdiction.”

Here it is evident that, by the “Ancient Church,” Calvin meant, not the apostolic church; for then there were no patriarchates, as all agree; but the church as it stood in the fourth and fifth centuries. He thus fully explains this phrase in his letter to Sadolet, as well as in his Institutes. And it is no less evident that by the man in each college of ecclesiastics on whom the “chief care was to be devolved,” he meant only a standing moderator, such as he describes in those extracts from his Commentary, which I detailed in my last letter. And besides, as Calvin knew that prelacy was universally and firmly established in Poland, he was much more anxious to plead for the promotion of the doctrines and spirit of true religion in that country, than for pulling down its hierarchy. Hence he was disposed to treat, the latter with indulgence, if the former might have free course.

But Bishop Ives seems to lay the greatest stress for proof of his assertion, on a statement found in Strype’s “Memorials of Cranmer,” p. 207; and in his “Life of Bishop Parker ” pp. 69,70. The story, as related by Strype, is, that Bullinger and Calvin, and others, wrote a joint letter to king Edward, offering to make him their defender, and to have such bishops in their churches as there were in England. The story is a blind and incredible one.

Let us see the letter, and we will then believe that such a communication was sent, and not till then. The truth is, Bonner and Gardiner were popish bishops, entirely out of favor during the reign of king Edward, and letter directed to the king would be by no means likely to fall into their hands.

Calvin is known to have kept up a constant correspondence with Archbishop Cranmer, as long as the latter lived. Cranmer consulted him frequently, sought his counsel on a variety of occasions, and requested his aid in conducting the affairs of the English Reformation. The archbishop sent to Calvin the first draft of the English Liturgy, early in the reign of Edward, requesting his advice and criticism respecting it. Calvin returned it, saying that he found in it some tolerabiles ineptias (tolerable fooleries) which he could wish might be corrected. This criticism was well received, and the Liturgy was corrected agreeably to his wishes. This that is attested by Dr. Heylin, one of the bitterest opponents of Calvin, and of Presbyterianism, that ever lived. “The first Liturgy,” says he, “was discontinued, and the second superinduced upon it, to give satisfaction unto Calvin’s cavils, the curiosities of some, and the mistakes of others, his friends and followers.” History of the Presbyterians , p. 12. 207. Dr. Nichols, also, the author of a Commentary on the Common Prayer, bears testimony to the same fact, in the following statement. “Four years afterwards the Book of Prayer underwent another review, wherein some ceremonies and usages were laid aside, and some new prayers added, at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Geneva, and Bucer, a foreign divine, who was invited to be a Professor at Cambridge.” Preface to his Comment, p. 5.

The fact is, Cranmer and his coadjutors in the English Reformation, had to struggle with great difficulties. The Papists, on the one hand, assailed and reproached them for carrying the Reformation too far; while some of the most pious dignitaries, and others in the Church, thought it was not carried far enough. In these circumstances, Cranmer wrote often to the Reformers on the Continent, and sought advice and countenance from them, and to none more frequently than to Calvin, who wrote, we are told, in return, much to encourage and animate Cranmer. Among other expressions of opinion, we are informed that Calvin blamed Bishops Hooper and Latimer, those decided friends of evangelical truth, for their persevering scruples respecting the habits or ecclesiastical vestments, which were then the subject of so much controversy. He gave it as his opinion, that where the great and vital principles of the gospel were at stake, it was bad policy for the friends of true religion to allow themselves to be alienated and divided by questions concerning clerical dress, or even the external order of the Church. The kind and friendly things of this nature which he so frequently uttered, were, no doubt, misinterpreted, as indicating a more favorable opinion of the Prelacy of England, than he really entertained, or ever meant to express.

I shall trespass on your patience, Mr. Editor, only by making one statement more. Calvin was so far from ever alleging that the Genevan form of church government was adopted by him from necessity and not from choice, that he, on the contrary, steadfastly maintained that it was strictly agreeable to the word of God, and that which he felt himself bound, by obedience to Christ, to establish and defend. “Besides,” says he, “that our conscience acquits us in the sight of God, the thing itself will answer for us in the sight of men. Nobody has yet appeared that could prove that we have altered any one thing which God has commanded, or that we have appointed any new thing, contrary to his word, or that we have turned aside from the truth to follow any evil opinion. On the contrary, it is manifest that we have reformed our Church MERELY BY GOD’ S WORD, which is the only rule by which it is to be ordered and lawfully defended. It is, indeed, an unpleasant work to alter what has been formerly in use, were it not that the order which God has once fixed must be esteemed by us as sacred and inviolable; insomuch, that if it has, for a time, been laid aside, it must of necessity, (and whatever the consequences should prove,) be restored again. No antiquity, no prescription of custom, may be allowed to be an obstacle in this case, that the government of the church which God has appointed, should not be perpetual, since the Lord himself has once fixed it. ” Epis. ad quendam Curatum — In Calvin. Epist. p. 386.

Such are the testimonies which satisfy me that Calvin was a sincere and uniform advocate of Presbyterian church government, and that if he ever wished to introduce Prelacy into his church at Geneva, we must despair of establishing any fact by historical records. That Bishop Ives was a real believer in the truth of all that he asserted, I never entertained the least doubt. But I have as little doubt, that it is totally destitute of any solid foundation. Either Calvin had no such desire as the bishop ascribes to him, or he was one of the most weak and inconsistent men that ever breathed. That nobody ever thought him.

I am, Mr. Editor, yours respectfully, SAMUEL MILLER.