This article focuses on catechetical in­struction in Geneva under Calvin, taking the 1537 Instruction and the 1545 Cat­echism as objects of study. The relation­ship between three key notions — Calvin’s own ideal of striving for brevity and simplicity on the one hand, the notions of Confessio and Institutio on the other hand — serves as catalyst to approach the nature of this catechetical instruc­tion. After an historical overview of the circumstances amidst which the above mentioned writings were produced, a comparative study of their internal or­ganization leads to the assessment of Calvin’s method of theological exposi­tion when dealing with the Law and the Apostle’s Creed.

1. Striving for Simplicity⤒🔗

About a month before his death, on 28 April 1564, John Calvin met with the pastors of the Church of Ge­neva to speak to them for the last time. His first words, written down at this occasion by pastor Jean Pinaut, were:

As for my teaching, I did it faithfully, and God gave me the gracious gift of writing, which I did as faithfully as I could. I did not corrupt or distort willfully a single portion of Scripture; and whereas I could have brought for­ward many subtleties, I suppressed this inclination and always strove for simplicity.

After recounting the many hardships he had endured in Geneva and also ac­knowledging that everything he had achieved was worth nothing, even that he was a miserable creature, Calvin paradoxically insisted on his faithfulness to Scripture as an expositor.

At the very end of his life, Calvin had not changed his views on the ideal meth­od of exposition of Scripture, striving for simplicity, as delineated in the very first of his Bible commentaries, which was on Paul’s epistle to the Romans, writ­ten in 1539 and dedicated to his friend Simon Grynaeus. In the beginning of the preface (dated 18 October 1539), he writes the following:

I remember that when three years ago we had a friendly conversation as to the best mode of expounding Scripture, the way to achieve it which you most approved was also the one I liked above all others: for we were both in agreement that the main qual­ity of an expositor consists in simple brevity, without obscurities.

Twenty five years later, speaking of the simplicity of his style in his works (whether exegetical or not), Calvin indirectly commends this facilis brevi­tas which he had intended to apply throughout his life. It was, however, also for other reasons that he had to use brevity upon his return to Geneva, as he recounts in his farewell speech to the ministers:

When I came back from Strasburg, I hastily drew the catechism, for I never wanted to accept the ministry lest they solemnly grant me these two points, namely upholding the cate­chism and the Church discipline; and while I was writing it, people came to fetch the small pieces of paper, hardly bigger than a hand, and they carried them to the printer.

Still, this self attributed quality should not be seen as being only applicable to his exegetical works (the commentar­ies), to the exclusion of his catechetical writings. In the preface addressed to Grynaeus Calvin takes Melanchthon, Bullinger, and Bucer as models for various qualities in their exposition of the epistle to the Romans. The lengthy Bucer, although praised for the remark­able fecundity of his mind, is obviously not catering for all publics. If — this time on the catechetical level — one would for instance take Pierre Viret’s Instruction Chrestienne en la Doctrine de la Loy et de l’Evangile published in three volumes in 1564, he would easily understand that Calvin’s ideal of brevity has to be as­sessed against the background of other catechetical works published during his lifetime by fellow reformers.

2.  Attempting to Discipline the Church via Confessio←⤒🔗

From the beginning of his first stay in Geneva, September 1536, it had been Calvin’s ideal (and also the ideal of his fellow preacher and reformer Guillaume Farel) not only to draw a confession of faith and have it adopted by the City Council, but to have each and every in­habitant of the city accept it in public, starting with the magistrates. Access to the Holy Supper would be reserved for those who had performed the required act.

The city council had agreed in prin­ciple and, indeed, started requesting from everyone this public confession. It had been published and widely distrib­uted in the city; city officers were sent to every district, and every house, to pro­ceed with the plan. After all, it was on a memorable day in May 1536 — thus a few months before Calvin’s arrival in that city — that the General Council of Geneva, consisting of all its citizens, had unanimously decided to live according to the principles of the Gospel, and to reform the life of the city under the sway of God’s Word.

The campaign launched by the Coun­cil did not yield the desired results, how­ever, as many inhabitants of Geneva re­sisted this attempt to force them into a personal and public statement of faith. A second attempt, this time to gather inhabitants of the city according to their respective districts (dizaines, as they were called) and bring them to Saint-Pierre cathedral for a collective confes­sion, proved to be no more successful. At the same time, Calvin wrote a small Christian Instruction in French. It was based on the first version of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which had been published a few months earlier in Basel.

As opposition grew against the Re­formers, tensions with the civil authori­ties of Geneva also arose. Early in 1538 they tried to force the ministers to ac­cept everyone at the Table of the Lord, regardless of whether the public confes­sion of faith had been made or not. In February, four new Syndics — that is, the highest executives of Geneva’s govern­ment — were elected, who were opposed to Calvin and Farel. Meanwhile, another matter of contention had arisen, namely the insistence of the city of Bern’s au­thorities on imposing their liturgical practices on the cities of Geneva and Lausanne, especially with regard to the celebration of the Holy Supper.

For political reasons, the magistrates of Geneva wished to comply with the Bernese requirements. When the min­isters refused to administer communion to those who had not expressed their faith publicly, and also vehemently ob­jected to the imposition by civil authori­ties of given liturgical uses, they were forbidden to preach. Since they did not submit to this injunction, they were giv­en notice on 23 April 1538 to leave the city within three days.

As Calvin recalled at the eve of his de­parting from earth, his return to Geneva in 1541 — earnestly requested by this city’s new authorities — was linked to the acceptance of a confession of faith, which alone could guarantee access to the table of the Lord. Church discipline and confession of faith were to go hand in hand, while catechetical instruction was to lead to a personal confession of faith by the children. This, for Calvin, was not negotiable if true Church ref­ormation was to take place. His words to the pastors on his deathbed made it plain: preaching alone did not constitute any solid reformation. As such it did not dispel the chaos and confusion prevail­ing in Geneva. The last point, concern­ing catechetical instruction, had been explicitly stated in the Articles prepared by the Reformers and presented to the Council of Geneva by Calvin himself four years earlier, halfway through Janu­ary 1537:

Thirdly, in order to keep the purity of doctrine among the people, it is most necessary that children should be so in­structed from their youngest age, that they may give an account of their faith and that in such a way the evangelical teaching would not diminish; on the contrary it should be carefully remem­bered and transmitted from father to son.

3. Institutio versus Anabaptism←⤒🔗

We certainly find in the Articles of 1537 a strong antidote against any pos­sible Anabaptist drift in the Church, which would make mystical, subjective and individualistic movements the actu­al object of faith, thus undermining any strong and articulate communal expres­sion of it. From the beginning — that is, after his subita conversio ad docilitatem, somewhere around 1533 — Calvin had been extremely wary of Anabaptism in all its forms, as the first of his theologi­cal treatises — the Psychopannychia — testifies. A sentence from the epistle to King Francis I, preceding the text of his first Institutes, speaks volumes in this re­spect. Calvin justifies his own enterprise by stressing the fact that before him the matter of Evangelical faith had been treated by its proponents in a rather poor and disorderly way:

For this reason, most invincible King, I not unjustly ask you to undertake a full inquiry into this case, which until now has been handled — we may even say, tossed about — with no order of law and with violent heat rather than judicial gravity.

For a man like Calvin, strongly edu­cated in the classical rhetorical tradi­tion of Cicero and Quintilian, and also trained to apply methods of critical phi­lology to juridical texts, a confessio had to be articulate, synthetic, and apt to be taught and transmitted. So too with the catechism. It is nevertheless significant that the title Institutio, which embod­ies some of these characteristics, is also applied to the Latin translation of the Christian Instruction, published a year later in Basel, thus in 1538.

Conversely, Calvin refers to his Institutes as a “catechismus” in various Latin letters to his friends. In the introduction to his 2008 edition of Calvin’s Institutes of 1541, O. Millet points out that from the Institutes to these two catechetical works, there is an adaptation to different functions, but in the same spirit and so to speak within the same genre. Millet also reminds us that the word Institutio had at least one precedent in patristic literature: Lactantius’ Divine Institutes during the early fourth century, a work of apologetics against pagan religion and philosophy. Erasmus had mentioned it in 1519 under the title De institutione religionis christianae which might have suggested to Calvin the title of his own project. Along with the character of a didactic summa, meaning a comprehen­sive survey, this Institutio had sought to establish anew the foundation of Chris­tian doctrine; not so much as a sys­tematic set of Loci (like Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, however much Calvin benefitted from this work for his own project and reflection) than as a Christian philosophy of faith and life, and an introductory key to Scripture intended for all: first the learned ones (those who read, wrote and spoke Latin) and then the not so learned ones (for whom was intended the 1541 French edition of the Institutes, the famous French literary masterpiece).

However, this comprehensive char­acter of Institutio does not conflict with that of facilis brevitas (at least at this stage of Calvin’s theological reflection and expression) and the Christian In­struction of 1537 bears ample testimony to this. Comprehensiveness would grow through the subsequent versions of his Institutes, until the final French edition of 1560. Actually, the shorter confession of faith as Calvin and Farel presented it to the Council of Geneva, was consid­ered to be a part of the Instruction, or catechism. The exact title of the confes­sion was Confession of faith which all citi­zens and inhabitants of Geneva as well as subjects of the country must swear to keep and uphold; extracted from the instruction used in the Church of the aforesaid city.

One could perhaps say that the In­struction displays more the character of an Institutio, while the appended con­fession (even if stemming from Farel’s pen) reflects the above mentioned facilis brevitas; in the eyes of the reformers, it should have made it easy for Geneva’s population to adhere to this creedal statement. However, as we have seen, things turned out quite differently, cul­minating in Farel and Calvin being ex­pelled from Geneva in April 1538.

With the catechism of 1542–1545, we have a different kind of Institutio, and children are required to have a remarkable ability to handle a complex dialogue with the minister, even though the whole dialogue has been written for them. What strikes the reader of the 1545 Catechism in terms of its method of teaching is precisely this: a complex dialogue, at times not devoid of dialectical reasoning, most apt to sharpen the ability of the child to reason, argue, and defend a point of doctrine. No doubt, what is required of the child in terms of understanding is of a very high standard, especially if one takes into consideration that children coming to the ministers to give an account of their faith could be as young as 12. It remains to be seen whether, during their examination, children had to repeat word for word what the catechism puts into their mouth, as a way of conducting the dialogue. At times the minister himself provides the answers, which the child just has to approve. These sections must have come as a relief to many of them and it is actually difficult to think that such was not — at least in part — Calvin’s intention in distributing the material of the catechism thus: at regular intervals the minister could provide the child with a platform to give him direction for the subsequent section of the argument.

Must we see here the influence of Mathurin Cordier, the celebrated educator under whom Calvin perfected his Latin as a young student of the Collège de la Marche in Paris, whom he called to come and teach at the Academy of Geneva many years later? It is difficult to say, as Cordier is mostly remembered for his method of teaching Latin consisting in starting from the pupil’s mistakes and guiding him progressively to the classical and proper use of the language. Whatever the case may be, it looks almost as if in his catechism Calvin seeks to train his younger brother or sister to develop theological skills by memorizing this complex dialogue. So can we really speak of facilis brevitas here? Probably not if we take as criterion our contemporary standards of synthesizing a matter in the most compact manner in order to appear concise and efficient, if not pragmatic. But that would be an anachronistic way of assessing Calvin’s educational goals in the instruction of faith. The ideal expressed in the 1537 Articles presented to the Council of Geneva a few years earlier is still the same: that they may give an account of their faith and that in such a way the evangelical doctrine would not diminish; on the contrary it should be carefully remembered and transmitted from father to son.

In the text of the Church Ordinances presented to the General Council by Calvin on 20 November 1541 upon his return to Geneva two months earlier, all inhabitants were required to send their children to the catechism on Sunday at twelve o’clock:

Let a certain formulary be set up by which they will be instructed, and with the doctrine given to them, let them be examined about what has been said, in order to see whether they have understood and remembered it properly. When a child has been sufficiently instructed for him to be able to do without the catechism, let him recite solemnly the summary of its content; and let him thus make a profession of his Christian faith in the presence of the Church. Before having done that, let no child be admitted to the Holy Supper and let the parents be warned not to bring their children before the proper time. For it is quite a dangerous thing, both for the children and the fathers, to present them before good and sufficient instruction has been provided. Therefore, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to follow this prescribed order.

The link between the 1537 Articles and the Church Ordinances of 1541 on that point can be summarized as follows: the careful transmission from father to son of the evangelical doctrine forbids premature participation in the Lord’s Supper without proper instruction and maturity of faith. The latter implies not just remembering properly (learning by heart) but also understanding properly. This is a condition for the evangelical doctrine not to diminish. One must also pay particular attention to the following clear stipulation in the Ordinances: it was the responsibility of the parents (specifically the fathers) to assess when their children were ready to be presented to the ministers for an examination. It implied that parents had to monitor the progress of their children in understanding and remembering the content of the Christian instruction. Obviously they could not do it without studying it carefully and understanding it themselves. Through this prescribed order, the catechism was also intended for them.

After the failure of Farel and Calvin to enforce a confession of faith upon the inhabitants of Geneva, a new strategy was thus elaborated, which would in time bear remarkable fruit, as the religious and political panorama of the city after 1555 shows. In the Ordinances, for parents to bring their children too early to the ministers in order to have them partaking in the Holy Supper, is called a dangerous thing. Besides the contravention of Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians 11:29 (crucial to the whole Calvinian notion of church discipline centered around the access to the Table of the Lord) another danger awaited such parents: the inadequate preparation of the child would reflect on the parents’ own inadequate understanding of the contents of the catechism. This transmission at home from father to son (from parents to children) with the parental responsibilities it implied, was therefore crucial for the evangelical doctrine not to diminish.

We find an interesting parallel of this interaction between parents and children (or young ones and older ones) both in the 1537 Articles and the 1541 Ordinances, this time with regard to the congregational singing of the Psalms in Church. Here, edification in faith of the assembly occurs the other way around. By their singing, the younger ones instruct the older ones:

It seemed to us that a good way to implement it would be to first teach some children to sing in a decent style, appropriate for the church, and then let them sing it with a good a clear voice so that the people, after listening very carefully and following with their minds what is sung with the mouth, would little by little get used to singing along. However, in order to avoid any confusion, it is necessary for you not to allow anyone to trouble this order by his insolence and make fun of the holy congregation.

To come back to the catechism, making sure that understanding will take place implies an order and a method, both of them characteristic of the notion of Institutio. Shortly after the beginning of the catechism, the minister invites the child to expound in an orderly way the matters dealt with: “Now, for these things to be gathered and expounded in an orderly manner, and in more detail, what is the first point?”

A comparison between the beginning of the Instruction of 1537 and the 1545 catechism will illustrate the nature of this order and method, but also points towards the fact that the order can differ.

The beginning of the Instruction leads to the Law — just as in the 1536 edition of the Institutes — whereas the beginning of the Catechism leads to the Apostle’s Creed. This fact did not escape the attention of Calvin scholars already more than seventy years ago, as the editors of the Opera Selecta point out in their introduction to the 1545 Latin catechism. Luther’s influence (his Kleiner Katechismus of 1529) and possibly too the influence of Zwingli (his 1523 Eine christliche Anleitung an die Seelsorger) had in the meantime given way to the influence of Bucer and Capito’s own catechism, which first introduces the 12 articles. While in Strasburg, Calvin had himself written a short Institution puerile de la doctrine chrestienne faicte par maniere de dyalogue, introducing the question-and-answer method and treating the main points of the Christian teaching in the following order: The Apostle’s Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.

Taking note of these new influences does not exempt the reader of Calvin to examine afresh possible internal factors that would bring about such a development in his own theological thought and choice of order. Why such a shift, may we ask, since both Instruction and Catechism start with the same initial premise? The order — in the sense of institutio — seems to differ, while at the onset of both documents the summum bonum of mankind and its main goal consist in knowing God. The Instruction begins thus: “Since one cannot find any human being — however barbarian and uncivilized he may be — who does not have some religious opinion, it is clear that we all are created to this end, i.e. to know the majesty of our Creator; having known it, we should esteem and honor him with all due fear, love and respect.” To which the Catechism echoes:

The minister: What is the main goal of human life?

The child: It is to know God.

The minister: Why do you say so?

The child: Because he created us and placed us in the world to be glorified in us. This is enough reason for us to relate our life to his glory, since he is the origin of it.

From this premise, we are in both cases led to Scripture as a guide. But the branching off appears precisely when Scripture as instrument of knowledge is mentioned. In the Instruction, Scripture as a teacher first serves to separate true religion (or true knowledge of God) from false religion (or false knowledge of God). God’s works in Creation are ample testimonies of his divine power and virtues, but man’s perversity does not consider God’s works properly.

Only in Scripture are they exposed in the proper perspective:

Thereby we certainly ought to be adequately and sufficiently taught that he is God, if it were not for the fact that such a bright light blinds our own dullness. However, here we do not only sin by our blindness, but our perversity is such that there is nothing which it does not consider wrongly and perversely when considering God’s works; it overthrows all the celestial wisdom which otherwise shines forth very clearly. We must therefore come to the Word where God is perfectly described in his works, inasmuch as these are considered not by the perversity of our judgment but by the rule of eternal truth.

After this section, the Instruction proceeds with mankind (Creation and Fall); free will (denied to mankind due to his total corruption); sin — defined by Scripture — and death. Afterwards a section entitled “How We Are Restored to Salvation and Life” introduces the Law, which is then presented in a short paragraph before the exposition of the Decalogue itself. The emphasis is on the Law as a perfect rule of justice. The Law is an instrument of God’s mercy towards those he has decided to let inherit eternal life, inasmuch as it serves to bring them to repentance (by showing them the extent of their sins and have them turn to God for forgiveness).

The Law is actually the first instrument by which God calls sinners back to him:

Although our iniquity deserved something much different, this merciful Father, according to his unspeakable kindness, voluntarily shows himself to us who are so afflicted and stunned; by such means as he knows appropriate to our weakness, he calls us back from error to righteous paths, from death to life, from ruin to salvation, from the kingdom of the devil to his kingdom. Therefore the Lord first establishes this step to all those it pleases him to restore in the inheritance of heavenly life: namely that being saddened by their conscience and burdened by the weight of their sins, they should be aroused and stirred up to fear him. He therefore puts his Law before us in the beginning, in order to sharpen in us this knowledge.

In the Instruction, the Law as Scripture is nothing else than a first degree to the Gospel, a pedagogue that points one to Christ. The section following immediately the summary of the Law by Jesus Christ — thus after the exposition of the Ten Commandments — states it plainly: The Law is a first degree to come to Christ. So far Scripture has been a guide to understand God’s works properly, to speak adequately about mankind’s sinful condition, and to expose the perfect law of righteousness as a first degree to the Gospel. However, until the end of the exposition of the Decalogue, Jesus Christ has hardly been mentioned.

The turning point occurs in the above mentioned section and is articulated around the quotation of Romans 11:32:

The apostle indeed testifies (Romans 3) that we are all damned by the judgment of the Law, so that any mouth should be shut and everyone would be found guilty before God. However, he himself teaches somewhere else (Romans 11) that God has consigned all to unbelief, not though to lose them or let them perish, but in order to show his mercy to all. Therefore, after having convinced us by the Law of our own weakness and uncleanness, he comforts us by the assurance of his power and mercy: in Christ his son he shows himself to be benevolent and favorable.

Therefore, the Law as first degree to Christ is presented to the reader of the Instruction in terms of a measure of divine grace to help distinguish good from evil, and righteous from unrighteous. But after the exposition of the Ten Commandments, it is evident that the Law dooms mankind, so that one would necessarily be led to the second degree, namely the Gospel.

If we now look at the beginning of the Catechism (Sunday two), true knowledge brought forth by Scripture is there to assure us that God loves us and wants to be a Father and Savior to us. The emphasis lies obviously on a different point, leading immediately to the person of Jesus Christ in whom true confidence in God’s grace and mercy is to be found:

The minister: How do we know this?

The child: By his Word, where he declares his mercy in Jesus Christ and assures us of his affection towards us.

The minister: The foundation of our true confidence in God is therefore to know him in Jesus Christ (John 17:3).

The child: Yes.

The minister: But what is, in short, the essence of this knowledge?

The child: It is contained in the confession of Faith made by all Christians, which is commonly called the Apostle’s Creed, for it is a summary of the true faith which was always upheld in Christendom; it is also derived from the pure apostolic doctrine.

In the Instruction, a similar section (entitled “What True Faith Is”) appears only after the passage about election and predestination, which follows the section about the Law.

There Christ is presented as the foundation of God’s promises:

It is a firm and solid confidence of the heart by which we surely entrust ourselves to God’s mercy promised to us in the Gospel. Thus the definition of faith must be taken from the substance of the promise; this faith leans so much on such a foundation that if the latter was taken away, faith would be ruined or would completely vanish (¼) Now, as all of God’s promises are confirmed in Christ and are so to speak kept and accomplished, it appears clearly that Christ is without any doubt the perpetual object of faith. In him faith contemplates all the riches of divine mercy.

This is basically what Calvin will say (with much more facilitate brevitate!) already in Sunday two of his 1545 Catechism. How then does he come to the Law in the Catechism? Via the sections following the Apostles’ Creed: a section on justification by faith and not by works, a section on works produced by true faith, a section on penitence and repentance leading to the true and legitimate service of God, which consists in obeying his will. Then follows the exposition of the Law: the Law as an expression of life after regeneration and justification; the Law as a rule of thankfulness and sanctification.

Now, how does Calvin come to the Apostle’s Creed in the Instruction? After the paragraph concerning justification by faith in Christ, comes a paragraph on faith by which one is sanctified to obey the Law; for — Calvin writes — Scripture teaches that Christ was made not only our justice but also our sanctification. Where the Lord has engraved the love of his justice in the hearts, the Law is a lamp to guide the feet of sanctified people. We are already here close to the order of the Catechism, save for the fact that penitence and regeneration, as well as the correct relationship between good works and faith within the scope of God’s justice, must still be expounded before the Apostle’s Creed comes to the fore.

The introductory sentence for the latter articulates the position of the Creed in the whole presentation as follows: We have said above what it is that we obtain in Christ through faith. Now let us hear what our faith must look at and consider in Christ to be confirmed.

Provisional Conclusions←⤒🔗

Summing up now the issue at stake, namely the difference of order between the Instruction and the Catechism, and the precedence given to the Apostle’s Creed over the Decalogue in the latter, we may arrive at the following provisional conclusions, on the basis of the internal movement of Calvin’s thought:

1. True knowledge of God — seen as summum bonum for mankind in both cases — is only knowledge through faith in him.

2. The specific purpose of the Catechism, as covenantal instruction (it should be carefully remembered and transmitted from father to son) is to lead the child to confess his or her faith, the content of which should therefore be presented first, before being deductively expounded point by point. Once the contents of true faith have been elucidated, the fruit of it comes next: true faith leads to good works — distinguished from works done out of wrong motives and therefore in vain. Good works are measured by God’s standard: his Law.

3. The Instruction, being a summary of Calvin’s first version of the Institutes, displays — in its mode of being an institutio — an apologetic character for the Christian faith: knowledge of God which can be attained by the contemplation of his works has a universal character, but can only be properly understood through the lens of Scripture. The Law reduces further the scope of those to whom Scripture is addressed in a redemptive way: they are not only endowed with some kind of distinction between good and evil, but they are enabled to realize their own inadequacy, the Law being to them a step further towards the true knowledge of God. Christ is provisionally maintained outside the range of Calvin’s argument in order to make him appear even more central and necessary once the revealed Law has made it clear that mankind is doomed: he then appears as the only recourse. We are, so to speak, led inductively to him. Once Christ has been presented as the only means for the redemption of mankind, the Creed — expressing the full confidence of the Christian — is introduced, preceded by several sections on the nature of true faith.

4. The Catechism presents twice as much material as the Instruction. As such, this justifies applying the notion of brevitas to the Instruction, at least comparatively. On the other hand, the notion of facilitas finds a better application in the Catechism, with its method of exposition based on questions and answers intended to elicit the expected answers from the children catechized.

The existence of two different orders for the presentation of the contents of Christian faith in the two documents briefly examined certainly deserves further careful consideration. It should nevertheless be stressed that the material as such does not differ in essence. We find the same themes throughout. The Law as pedagogue pointing to Christ distinguished from the Law as rule for a sanctified life has become a well-known distinction in Reformed theology. Of course, to speak here of a deductive method as against an inductive one should never be understood as if the second derives from some kind of natural theology. We have seen that, from the outset, the role of Scripture as guide is stressed by Calvin. What perhaps is the most interesting element regarding Calvin’s ways of dealing with this matter is that one cannot really speak of a progress from the one version to the other: both have their own internal cohesion in terms of institutio, both have a confessio as primary goal, both read with equal facility, taking into account the different layout of the material presented. The differences noted are more a tribute to Calvin’s ability to render his material with great flexibility, and a proof that the accusation of doctrinal rigidity sometimes directed against him does not resist the test of a confrontation with the sources of his teachings.