[854] The full title of the first edition is 'Christia- | næ Religionis Insti- | tutio totam fere pietatis summam et quic | quid est in doctrina salutis cognitu ne- | cessarium, complectens: omnibus pie- | tatis studiosis lectu dignissi- | mum opus, ac re- | cens edi- | tum. | Præfatio ad Chri- | stianissimum Regem Franciæ, qua | hic ei liber pro confessione fidei | offertur. | Joanne Calvino | Nouiodunensi authore. | Basileæ, | M.D.XXXVI.' The dedicatory Preface is dated 'X. Calendas Septembres' (i.e. August 23), without the year; but at the close of the book the month of March, 1536, is given as the date of publication. The first two French editions (1541 and 1545) supplement the date of the Preface correctly: 'De Basle le vingt-troysiesme d'Aoust mil cinq cent trente cinq.' The manuscript, then, was completed in Aug. 1535, but it took nearly a year to print it. The eighth and last improved edition from the pen of the author bears the title: 'Institutio Chri- | stianæ Religionis, in libros qua- | tuor nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus, ad aptissimam | methodum: aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut propemodum opus | novum haberi possit. | Joanne Calvino authore. | Oliva Roberti Stephani. | Genevæ. | M.D.LIX.'
[855] 'In doctrina,' says Beza, towards the close of his Vita Calv., 'quam initio tradidit ad extremum constans nihil prorsus immutavit, quod paucis nostra memoria theologis contigit.' Bretschneider was quite mistaken when he missed in the first edition the doctrine of predestination, which is clearly though briefly indicated, pp. 91 and 138. See Kampschulte, p. 256.
[856] The Strasburg editors devote the first four volumes to the different editions of the Institutes in both languages. Vol. I. contains the editio princeps Latina, of Basle, 1536 (pp. 10-247), and the variations of six editions intervening between the first and the last, viz., the Strasburg editions of 1539, 1543, 1545, and the Geneva editions of 1550, 1553, 1554 (pp. 253-1152); Vol. II. the editio postrema of 1559 (pp. 1-1118); Vol. III. and IV. the last edition of the French translation, or free reproduction rather (1560), with the variations of former editions. The question of the priority of the Latin or French text is now settled in favor of the former. See Jules Bonnet, in the Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du protestantisme français for 1858, Vol. VI. pp. 137 sqq., Stähelin, Vol. I. p. 55, and the Strasburg editors of the Opera, in the ample Prolegomena to Vols. I. and III. Calvin himself says expressly (in the Preface to his French ed. 1541) that he first wrote the Institutes in Latin ('premièrement l'ay mis en latin') for readers of all nations, and that he translated them afterwards for the special benefit of Frenchmen. In a letter to his friend, Francis Daniel, dated Lausanne, Oct. 13, 1536, he writes that he began the French translation soon after the publication of the Latin (Letters, ed. Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 21), but it did not appear till 1541, bearing the title 'Institution de la religion Chrestienne composée en latin, par Jean Calvin, et translatée en français par luymesme.' The erroneous assertion of a French original, so often repeated (by Bayle, Maimbourg, Basnage, and more recently by Henry, Vol. I. p. 104; III. p. 177; Dorner, Gesch. der protest. Theol. p. 375; H. B. Smith, 1.c. p. 283; and Guizot, p. 176, who assumes that the first French ed. was published anonymously), arose from confounding the date of the Preface in the French editions (23 Aug. 1535) with the later date of publication (1536). It is quite possible, however, that the dedication to Francis I. was first written in French, and this would most naturally account for the earlier date in the French editions. On the difference of the several editions, comp. also J. Thomas, Histoire de l'instit. chrétienne de J. Calv., Strasb. 1859, and Köstlin, Calvin's Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1868.
[857] See the Preface in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 847-850. It is written in excellent taste, and with profound respect and affection for Melanchthon, whose work, he concludes, 'conduit à la pure verité de Dieu, à laquelle it nous convient tenir, nous servant des hommes pour nous aider à y parvenir.'
[858] See the eulogies of Bucer, Beza, Sainte-Marthe, Thurius, Blunt, Salmasius, John von Müller, and others, quoted by Henry and Stähelin (Vol. I. pp. 59 sqq.). To these may be added some more recent testimonies. Guizot says (1.c. p. 173): 'The Institutes were and are still the noblest monument of the greatness of mind and originality of idea which distinguished Calvin in his own century. More than that, I believe this book to be the most valuable and enduring of all his labors; for those churches which are specially known as the Reformed Churches of France, Switzerland, Holland, Scotland, and the United States of America received from Calvin's Institutes the doctrine, organization, and discipline which, in spite of sharp trials, grave mistakes, and claims which are incompatible with the progress of liberty, have still, for more than three centuries, been the source of all their strength and vitality.' Hase (in his Kirchengeschichte) calls the Institutes 'die grossartigste wissenschaftliche Rechtfertigung des Augustinismus voll religiösen Tiefsinns in unerbittlicher Folgerichtigkeit der Gedanken.' G. Frank (Gesch. der Protest. Theol. Vol. I. p. 74): 'Wie Melanchthon hat auch Calvin seinen Glauben zusammengefasst in einem besonderen Werke, der Inst. rel. chr., nur methodischer, folgerichtiger, überlegner, die grösste Glaubenslehre des 16 Jahrh. ist sie wie ein hochgewölbter, dunkler Dom, darin der Ernst der Religion in andächtigem Schauer sich über die Seele legt.' H. B. Smith (1.c. p. 288): 'It is the most complete system [of theology] which the 16th century produced, nor has it been supplanted by any single work.' Baur (Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 27) calls it 'in every respect a truly classical work, distinguished in a high degree by originality and acuteness of conception, systematic consistency, and clear, luminous method.' To many editions of the Institutes the well-known distich of the Hungarian Paul Thurius is affixed: 'Præter apostolicas post Christi tempora chartas, Huic peperere libro sæcula nulla parem.'
[859] Florimond de Ræmond, Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l'hérésie de ce siècle, pp. 838, 883, quoted by Kampschulte (p. 278), who adds: 'Seine Schrift des Reformationszeitalters ist von den Katholiken mehr gefürchtet, eifriger bekämpft und verfolgt worden, als Calvin's Christliche Institution.' See his own judgment quoted on pp. 446 sq., note.
[860] The first edition of the Institutes contains only six chapters: 1. De lege, with an explanation of the Decalogue; 2. De fide, with an exposition of the Apostles' Creed; 3. De oratione, with an exposition of the Lord's Prayer; 4. Of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; 5. Of the other so-called Sacraments; 6. Of Christian liberty, Church-government, and discipline.
[861] Schleiermacher, the greatest divine of the nineteenth century, has defended Calvinism as the only consistent system on the basis of the orthodox anthropology and eschatology (though he runs it out into a final, unscriptural universalism); and his pupil, Alexander Schweizer, of Zurich (in his Glaubenslehre der evang. reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 79 and 81), thus clearly and sharply states the logical aspect of the case: 'Der reformirte Lehrbegriff, consequent gegründet auf das Materialprincip schlechthiniger Abhängigkeit von Gott und von da aus das menschliche Thun beleuchtend, ohne dessen willensmässige Natur zu verkleinern, ist weniger durch seinen Determinismus anstössig geworden, als durch das dualistisch Particularistische der auf die Prädestination angewandten Weltansicht. Gerade dieses aber gehört der Weltansicht aller damaligen Confessionen gleich sehr an and folgt wirklich aus der Vorstellung, dass unser ewiges Loos beim irdischen Sterben entschieden sei, nur hienieden Erlöste selig werden, alle Andern aber verdammt bleiben. . . . Das Harte am reformirten Lehrbegriff ist der dualistische Particularismus, der aber allen Confessionen gemein durch die reformirte Consequenz nur heller in's Licht gestellt wird, wodurch allein, falls er irrig wäre, die Förderung zur Wahrheit angebahnt ist. 1. Dualistischer Particularismus ist die Idee, dass in der Menschenund Engelwelt die einen selig werden, die andern ewig verdammt. Diess war die Ansicht aller kirchlichen Confessionen, indem der Universalismus, die Beseligung aller rationalen Kreaturen in allen drei Confessionen, als hæretische Irrlehre abgewiesen wurde. 2. Liegt im Particularismus Hartes, die Güte Gottes Beschränkendes, so ist es ungerecht, darüber nur die reformirte Confession anzugehen, die weiter nichts gethan, als gelehrt hat: Das Weltergebniss müsse dem Weltplan entsprechen, somit habe Gott ewig grade diese Welt mit diesem Ergebniss gewollt und eine particularistische Prädestination bei sich beschlossen, wovon nun alle Weltentwicklung einfach die Ansführung sei; denn dass alles anders herauskomme, als Gott es gewollt, heisse Gott von den Kreaturen abhängig machen, die Kreaturen zu Göttern machen, Gott aber zum Ungott.' Comp. also Baur, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III. (1867), pp. 144 sqq.
[862] 'Præscientiam quum tribuimus Deo, significamus omnia semper fuisse ac perpetuo mamere sub ejus oculis; ut ejus notitiæ nihil futurum aut præteritum, sed omnia sint præsentia, et sic quidem præsentia, ut non ex ideis tantum imaginetur (qualiter nobis obversantur ea quorum memoriam mens nostra retinet), sed tanquam ante se posita vere intueatur ac cernat. Atque hæc præscientia ad universum mundi ambitum et ad omnes creaturas extenditur. Prædestinationem vocamus æternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita æterna, aliis damnatio æterna præordinatur. Itaque, prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem prædestinatum dicimus.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 21, § 5 (Opera, Vol. II. pp. 682, 683). Comp. his Articuli de prædest., first published from an autograph of Calvin, Vol. IX. p. 713.
[863] 'Iterum quæro, unde factum est ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus æternæ morti involveret lapsus Adæ absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? Hic obmutescere oportet tam dicaces alioqui linguas. Decretum quidem horribile, fateor; infitiari tamen nemo poterit quin præsciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo præsciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat. In præscientiam Dei si quis hic invehatur, temere et inconsulte impingit. Quid enim, quæso, est cur reus agatur coelestis judex quia non ignoraverit quod futurum erat? In prædestinationem competit, si quid est vel justæ vel speciosæ querimoniæ. Nec absurdum videri debet quod dico, Deum non modo primi hominis casum, et in eo posterorum ruinam prævidisse, sed arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse. Ut enim ad ejus sapientiam pertinet, omnium quæ futura sunt esse præscium, sic ad potentiam, omnia manu sua regere ac moderari.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 7 (Vol. II. p. 704).
[864] 'Lapsus est enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censuerat; cur censuerit, nos latet. Certum tamen est non aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat, nominis sui gloriam inde merito illustrari. Unde mentionem gloriæ Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita. Justum enim esse oportet quod laudem meretur. Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante, sed suo vitio cadit. . . . Propria ergo malitia, quam acceptrat a Domino puram naturam corrupit; sua ruina totam posteritatem in exitium secum attraxit.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 8 (Vol. II. p. 705). The difference between the supralapsarians and infralapsarians was not agitated at the time of Calvin, but afterwards during the Arminian controversy in Holland. Both schools appealed to him. The difference is more speculative than moral and practical. In creating man free, God created him necessarily temptable and liable to fall, but the fall itself is man's own act and abuse of freedom. God decreed sin not efficiently but permissively, not as an actual fact but as a mere possibility, not for its own sake but for the sake of the good or as a negative condition of redemption. Besides, sin has no positive character, is no created substance, bat it is privative and negative, and consists simply in the abuse of faculties and gifts essentially good.
[865] There is a dispute about the precise meaning of Art. XVII.; but, as Prof. Fisher says (The Reform. p. 335), 'the article can not fairly be interpreted in any other sense than that of unconditional election; and the cautions which are appended, instead of being opposed to this interpretation, demonstrate the correctness of it."