How Ancient Creeds Can Benefit the Contemporary Church

Christopher Poshin David is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in India – Reformed. He is a church planter in Chennai. He is also the author of the book, Engaging Hinduism: Rethinking Christian Apologetics in India.

Creeds are tools of truth, they help us learn our faith, teach our faith and defend our faith.

Original source: https://in.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-benefit-of-ancient-creeds-for-the-contemporary-church/

I recall standing with an outstretched arm in the morning assembly at school reciting the Indian national pledge on Republic Day and Independence Day. The national pledge is an oath of allegiance. It also reminds us of our identity as part of a national community bigger than our individual selves. 

The church of Jesus Christ similarly has pledges that remind us of our corporate identity as the people of God. These pledges are called the creeds of the church.

The word creed comes from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe.” A creed is a truthfully and carefully crafted, time-tested summary statement of the Christian faith. They help us learn fundamental Christian truths. And, in our constant reaffirmation of them, creeds help us remember these truths and live by them.

Creeds have served the church well for centuries. They are useful as a tool of communication to teach the faith, as a tool of apologetics to defend the faith, and as a tool of ecumenicalism to foster fellowship between churches.

Why Should We Use Creeds?

The Shema (Deut. 6:4) was a creedal statement for ancient Israel that reminded the people of their allegiance to a monotheistic faith against the surrounding polytheistic religions of the Canaanite nations. This creed was repeated morning and night and was the central pillar of the Jewish faith. Even in the New Testament, we see the Shema quoted by Jesus (Mark 12:29) and early church leaders (Gal. 3:20James 2:19).

In the New Testament church, the earliest creed to develop was the statement, “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:91 Cor. 12:3Phil. 2:11). The doubting disciple Thomas, when he encountered the risen Jesus cried out a variation of this creed and pledged his life to Jesus saying, “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

This simple creed that “Jesus is Lord” (Kyrios Iesous) was a countercultural creed to the imperial cult of the Roman Emperor who demanded all confess that “Ceasar is Lord” (Kyrios Kaisar). This is another way creeds help deepen and defend our faith—by resisting cultural norms with the truths of our faith.

Other creeds in the Bible include Saint Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16; Cf. Acts 8:36-37), the “trustworthy sayings” mentioned by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:92 Tim. 2:11), the confession of the “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) and the confession of the unity of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:4-6). These biblical instances establish that creeds were used extensively in the life of the church through the ages.

What Could Go Wrong?

Risks of both misuse and disuse are common in the way churches use creeds. The creeds of the church, even the most ancient ones, do not have divine authority on their own. Their authority upon the church and the believer’s conscience is only to the extent they are in accord with the Bible.

Creeds are not inspired documents and are always to be submitted to the authority of the word of God. One grave error is to  misuse creeds by giving them undue authority.

On the other hand, some churches dismiss creeds as human inventions which have no place in the church. Thus, we have the often-touted phrases “no creed but Christ” or the similar “no creed but the Bible.” Ironically, these very anti-creedal statements themselves are also, in fact, creedal themselves.

To disuse creeds entirely leaves the church poorer—without a distinctive doctrinal identity and susceptible to every new idea. This is the other possible error.

How Are Creeds Useful?

The early church creeds were developed to uphold fundamental truths in the light of erroneous and heretical teachings. Thus, the creeds of the early church became a yardstick or measure of faith.

Creeds stood guard against subtle or overt errors; heresies of the orthodox scriptural understanding of the Christian faith. They were vital for the proclamation and the preservation of the Christian faith. They also promoted unity within the churches of Christ based upon a common core confession of faith.

Creeds are best used in teaching the faith. They are great catechetical tools to teach the essential doctrines of the church. The Apostles’ Creed mainly is beneficial to teach those who are joining as members of the church. It is also helpful to teach children to understand even at a young age what they believe.

It is also beneficial to publicly confess creeds together as the corporate body of Christ. There is a particular beauty when the members of the church confess and affirm the faith they rest their lives upon. One way to inculcate this practise is to add the confession of creeds in the liturgy of the worship service.

Creeds also unite the contemporary church to its historical roots. Christians who confess and subscribe to the creeds are provided with an orthodox identity and share a common unity with saints around the world and throughout the ages.

What Are Some Creeds We Should Know About?

Here is a quick primer of a few well-known ecumenical creeds that are affirmed by all the major church denominations.

The Apostles’ Creed

The history of the Apostles’ Creed is shrouded in mystery. Its authorship is unknown. The earliest form of the creed comes from the fourth century—centuries after the lives of the apostles. But there is evidence the creed was already in use in the church as early as the second century.

This has become perhaps the most well-known creed of Christendom due to its concise summary of the apostolic teaching. The Apostles’ Creed continues to be widely used to instruct new believers in the faith and prepare candidates to be received into the church as members.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed came out of the first great ecumenical council held at Nicaea in AD 325. The first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine convened this council to combat Arianism—a heresy which claimed Christ Jesus was not the eternally begotten Son of God but rather begotten in time and subordinate to the Father. The council condemned Arianism giving rise to the Nicene Creed.

In the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) a few lines were added to the creed giving rise to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Finally, the Western Church in AD 581 added the statement that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This is the current form of the creed that the Western Church confesses. The Eastern Church confesses the creed but without the addition of the Filioque.

The Chalcedonian Creed

The Chalcedonian Creed originated from the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. The Emperor called the council to combat the heresies of Eutychianism (the belief that the human and divine natures of Christ are united as one nature) and Nestorianism (the belief that Christ exists as two distinct persons—human and divine).

The Council affirmed the Nicene Creed and set forth the Chalcedonian definition that Christ is one person with two distinct natures (hypostatic union). This definition has become the hallmark of the orthodox expression of the person of Jesus Christ.

The Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed is recognised as the classic Christian exposition of the catholic (universal) faith. The creed depicts with clarity the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. The authorship of the creed is unknown though modern scholarship attributes it to the fifth-century Gallic monk, Vincent of Lérins.

It was named after Athanasius, the stalwart defender of Nicene orthodoxy in the early church. This creed is unique in that the final part includes an anathema (condemnation) of anyone who fails to believe the contents of the creed as one without salvation.

Creeds are a beautiful part of church history because they have helped Christians understand, remember, proclaim, defend, and enjoy what we believe. Any church that uses them well will be richer in its faith for it.

Questions About The Lord’s Supper

original source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-questions-about-the-lords-supper/

Aubrey M. Sequeira (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as the senior pastor of Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi. He has served in ministry in India, North America, and now the Middle East. He is the author of the 9marks book Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important?.

Q: What does the Lord’s Supper mean? How can I ensure that my participation in the Lord’s Supper is meaningful?

A: The Lord’s Supper is a beautiful act of worship ordained by the Lord Jesus for the spiritual good of his people. We miss out on its blessings, however, if we thoughtlessly “go through the motions” without understanding, or worse, while misunderstanding what’s taking place. The Lord’s Supper is the new covenant meal ordained by Jesus to be celebrated by the local church. At the Lord’s Supper, believers partake of bread and wine, symbolizing Jesus’s body and blood. Through their participation in this meal, believers together remember our Lord’s sacrificial death, enjoy communion with Christ and with one another, are strengthened and nourished by Christ’s sustaining grace, and proclaim Jesus’s death until he returns (Matt. 26:26–29Mark 14:22–25Luke 22:14–201 Cor. 11:23–26). Believers are exhorted to careful self-examination before participation (1 Cor. 11:27–32).

To participate meaningfully, think of “looking” in five directions as we come to the Lord’s Supper:

  • We look backward: we remember Christ’s body and blood given for us at the cross; we remember that his death has brought us forgiveness of sins and eternal life
  • We look outward: we celebrate the family bond we share with brothers and sisters in Christ in the local church
  • We look upward: we realize that we’re lifted up to be seated with our heavenly host, Jesus, to whom we bring our hungry hearts for nourishment with the grace of the new covenant
  • We look inward: we examine our hearts to ensure that we’re walking in faith and repentance, and living with love for our brothers and sisters in Christ
  • We look forward: we wait in hope for the glorious day when we will celebrate the fulfillment of all God’s promises at his heavenly banquet1

Q: Who can take the Lord’s Supper?

A: Since the Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal of the church, it has clear boundaries for who can participate. The Lord’s Supper is a meal for baptized believers who are members in good standing of a local church. First, the Lord’s Supper is for Christian believers: those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus for eternal life. Non-Christians cannot participate in this meal because they haven’t trusted in Jesus’s death for their forgiveness. They can’t commune with Jesus and his family because they haven’t trusted in Jesus as their Savior, and they’re not a part of his family. They can’t remember Jesus’s death because they haven’t trusted its significance for their lives.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized. Not only should someone have trusted in Christ, they should have publicly identified with him and his family. Baptism is how someone makes this public identification. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both signs of the new covenant. Baptism is the initial sign of the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is its ongoing sign. Baptism is where one receives the family name, which is necessary before one sits down at the family table in the Lord’s Supper.

Third, the Lord’s Supper is for members in “good standing” of a local church. Membership in a local church is not optional for the Christian life; it’s essential. The local church is the context in which we live out our commitment to Jesus and his people. Belonging to a local church is basic obedience for disciples of Jesus. So, before sitting at the family dinner table, you should make sure you’ve committed yourself to be a part of the family—a commitment that’s made through membership. To be in “good standing” means that one is not under the discipline of the church and therefore still recognized as a part of the body of Christ (Matt. 18:15–201 Cor. 5:1–11).

Q: Why must we be at a church gathering to take the Lord’s Supper? Why can’t I take the Lord’s Supper at home or somewhere else?

A: Underlying this question are certain assumptions about the role of the church in the Christian life. Many evangelical Christians mistakenly think that the Christian life is something that’s just “between me and Jesus”—a private relationship with God with no one else involved. People view the church as having nothing or little to do with their faith. The church is viewed as something optional that may aid one’s faith, but is not essential to one’s faith. With this kind of mindset, the Lord’s Supper becomes like a private dinner date with Jesus.

Biblically, however, a person’s faith in Christ is inseparable from one’s participation in the family of Christ. The local church is the context where the Christian life is lived out. Jesus didn’t just die to save individuals, he died to save a people in order to make them his family (Eph. 2:19–20Heb. 2:11–13).

When we understand that the church is a family, we more clearly perceive the biblical emphasis on the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, to be celebrated by the church as Jesus’s family. That’s why the Lord’s Supper must only be taken when a church is gathered together in Jesus’s name.

In his corrective instructions on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly underscores the gathering of the church as the context in which the Lord’s Supper must be taken:

  • when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17b).
  • when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:18b).
  • When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:20–22).
  • “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34).

You’ll notice that throughout this passage Paul makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper was to be shared together when “assembled as a church.” Paul differentiates between eating in your own home and the special meal “when you come together.” Just like a family shares a special family meal in the context of the family being together, the Lord’s Supper is reserved for when the church family is together. It’s the church’s meal.

Our day is marked by widespread confusion concerning whether a dispersed group of individuals connecting online actually constitutes a “church gathering.” The increased difficulty of embodied fellowship over the past two years of the global pandemic and the alluring convenience of Zoom has duped Christians into feeling more “connected,” while in fact we are growing apart. The fellowship we share becomes an illusion as we relate to one another as disembodied talking heads on a screen. The development of the “metaverse” only further exacerbates this mirage, as the safety of virtual (un)reality provides an easy excuse from the command to offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1–2). The Bible, however, refreshingly reminds us that we are embodied persons who need one another’s physical presence for our spiritual good—and a pandemic doesn’t change that. The Lord’s Supper is a time for the church to come together and to strengthen our bonds of faith as we enjoy communion with Jesus and with one another.

Q: Why should I not participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Roman Catholic Mass?

A: Bible-believing Christians who hold in faith to the biblical gospel of Christ ought not to participate in the Mass, particularly in the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church. This is because the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper denies that Jesus’s one-time sacrificial offering on the cross was sufficient to take away our sins. Instead, they believe Christ’s sacrifice must be continually perpetuated in the Lord’s Supper: “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”2

The Roman Catholic Church erroneously teaches that the bread and wine, when consecrated in the Mass, miraculously transforms into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, now offered on the altar. They assert that this repeated presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist actually ensures our redemption. Furthermore, they believe this saving work of the Eucharist takes place ex opere operato, i.e., by mere participation in the ritual, apart from faith in the worshipers. This teaching denies the heart of the gospel and is the reason why gospel-affirming Christians should refrain from participation in the Eucharist at Roman Catholic Mass. By participating in the Eucharist at Catholic Mass, we would be giving our approval to a false understanding of the gospel. This is why many Protestant Reformers were willing to be martyred rather than take the Mass and affirm the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

Notes:

  1. Aubrey M. Sequeira, ​​Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 48.
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1367.

In An Unmarked Grave

By Ryan Griffith (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) – pastor at Cities Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and a Senior Fellow at the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/hero-in-an-unmarked-grave

On May 27, 1564, just after eight o’clock in the evening, a nurse urgently summoned Theodore Beza (1519–1605) to Calvin’s bedside. “We found he had already died,” Calvin’s friend and fellow pastor later wrote. “On that day, then, at the same time with the setting sun, this splendid luminary was withdrawn from us.”1 Calvin was 54 years old.

Calvin’s death sent a shock wave throughout Geneva and beyond. Beza writes, “That night and the following day there was a general lamentation throughout the city . . . all lamenting the loss of one who was, under God, a common parent and comfort.” He records that two days later “the entire city” gathered at the St. Pierre Cathedral to honor their beloved pastor. Despite Calvin’s prominence, the funeral was unusually simple, “with no extraordinary pomp.”2 But Calvin’s burial was particularly unusual.

Unmarked Grave

Eighteen years earlier, on February 18, 1546, fellow Reformer Martin Luther died at the age of 63. As was common practice for ministers, Luther’s remains were interred inside the church where he had faithfully served. His casket lies in Wittenberg’s Castle Church, near the pulpit, seven feet below the floor of the nave. Luther’s successor and fellow Reformer, Philip Melanchthon (1490–1560), is buried beside him.

So also William Farel (1489–1565), who first called Calvin to Geneva in 1536, is buried in the cathedral of Neuchâtel, where he spent the final years of his ministry. When Calvin’s friend and successor Theodore Beza died in 1605, he was buried next to the pulpit of St. Pierre, the Genevan church in which he and Calvin ministered together.

But Calvin’s remains lie elsewhere.

Rather than being interred in St. Pierre, Calvin’s body was carried outside the city wall to a marshy burial ground for commoners called Plainpalais. With close friends in attendance, Calvin’s body was wrapped in a simple shroud, enclosed in a rough casket, and lowered into the earth. Beza writes that Calvin’s plot was unlisted and, “as he [had] commanded, without any gravestone.”3

Why did Calvin command that he be buried, contrary to common practice, in an unmarked grave? Some speculate that he wanted to discourage religious pilgrims from visiting his resting place or to prevent accusations from the Roman church that he desired veneration as a saint.4 But the answer lies somewhere deeper — in Calvin’s understanding of Christian modesty.

Forgotten Meaning of Modesty

When we speak of modesty today, we most often mean dressing or behaving in such a way as to avoid impropriety or indecency. But modesty more generally refers to the quality of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of oneself. For centuries, the church understood the connection. Immodest dress was not simply ostentatious or sexually suggestive; it reflected an overemphasis on appearance. As Jesus warned, outward appearance can mask impiety (Matthew 6:16) or pride (Luke 18:12).

This is why both Gentile women converts in Ephesus and the Jewish Christians addressed in Hebrews are urged to consider how their outward appearance relates to the disposition of the heart. Excessive adornment could be evidence of self-importance (1 Timothy 2:9). Acceptable worship requires a posture of reverence, not pretension (Hebrews 12:28). Thus, a modest person represents himself neither too highly nor too meanly because he understands both the dignity and the humility of being transformed by the grace of God.

Modesty, then, is simply the outward reflection of true Christian humility. It obliterates pride by embracing the reality that a Christian is both creaturely and beloved. In this light, self-importance becomes absurd. Grandiosity becomes laughable. Celebrity becomes monstrous.

We Are Not Our Own

For Calvin, the gospel radically reshapes our view of self. As those created in God’s image, provisioned by his goodness, redeemed by his mercy, transformed by his grace, and called to his mission, those who belong to Christ no longer live for themselves. “Now the great thing is this,” Calvin writes, “we are consecrated and dedicated to God in order that we may thereafter think, speak, meditate, and do, nothing except to his glory.” Calvin continues,

If we, then, are not our own but the Lord’s, it is clear what error we must flee and whither we must direct all the acts of our life. We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us not therefore see it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours.

Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal. Oh how much has that man profited who, having been taught that he is not his own, has taken away dominion and rule from his own reason that he may yield it to God! For, as consulting our self-interest is the pestilence that most effectively leads to our destruction, so the sole haven of salvation is to be wise in nothing through ourselves but to follow the leading of the Lord alone.5

Modesty and humility flow from a heart transformed by the Spirit of Christ. “As soon as we are convinced that God cares for us,” Calvin writes, “our minds are easily led to patience and humility.”6 The Spirit shapes us with a kind of moderation that “gives the preference to others” and that guards us from being “easily thrown into agitation.”7 Modesty blossoms when we experience the freedom from having to prove ourselves to God or one another.
‘Modesty, His Constant Friend’
Calvin’s life reflected this reality. Despite the doors that were opened to him through his writing and network of connections, he was committed to “studiously avoiding celebrity.”8 When the Institutes was published in 1536, he was so successful in his object to “not acquire fame” that no one in Basel knew that he was its author. For the rest of his life, wherever he went, he took care to “conceal that I was the author of that performance.”9 Calvin even sought to avoid a wider ministry in Geneva, having “resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity.” He was drawn into the limelight only when William Farel warned him “with a dreadful imprecation” that turning down the post would be refusing God’s call to service.10 In brief autobiographical comments he wrote the year that he died, we see a glimmer of his own surprise over God’s sovereign hand through his life.
God so led me about through different turnings and changes that he never permitted me to rest in any place, until, in spite of my natural disposition, he brought me forth to public notice. . . . I was carried, I know not how, as it were by force to the Imperial assemblies, where, willing or unwilling, I was under the necessity of appearing before the eyes of many.11
It is no surprise, then, that a few days before his death, Calvin exhorted his friends to not be those who “ostentatiously display themselves and, from overweening confidence, insist that all their opinions should be approved by others.” Instead, he pleaded with them to “conduct themselves with modesty, keeping far aloof from all haughtiness of mind.”12 For Beza, Calvin’s modesty — forged by his vision of God’s glory, Christ’s redeeming love, and the Spirit’s animating power — was his defining characteristic. After Calvin’s burial, Beza captured it in verse:
Why in this humble and unnoticed tomb
Is Calvin laid — the dread of falling Rome;
Mourn’d by the good, and by the wicked fear’d
By all who knew his excellence revered?
From whom ev’n virtue’s self might virtue learn,
And young and old its value may discern?
’Twas modesty, his constant friend on earth,
That laid this stone, unsculptured with a name;
Oh! happy ground, enrich’d with Calvin’s worth,
More lasting far than marble is thy fame!13
Free to Be Forgotten
In old Geneva, on the grounds of the college Calvin founded, stands an immense stone memorial to four leaders of the Protestant Reformation. At its center are towering reliefs of Calvin, Beza, Farel, and John Knox (1513–1572). Calvin would surely detest it. But the monument is a metaphor. We live in a culture that fears obscurity and irrelevance. We measure ourselves against others and build our own platforms in the hope that we will not be forgotten. We attempt to distinguish ourselves at the expense of the humility and modesty that honors Christ. Calvin would have us be free from such striving.
For however anyone may be distinguished by illustrious endowments, he ought to consider with himself that they have not been conferred upon him that he might be self-complacent, that he might exalt himself, or even that he might hold himself in esteem. Let him, instead of this, employ himself in correcting and detecting his faults, and he will have abundant occasion for humility. In others, on the other hand, he will regard with honor whatever there is of excellences and will, by means of love, bury their faults. The man who will observe this rule, will feel no difficulty in preferring others before himself. And this, too, Paul meant when he added, that they ought not to have everyone a regard to themselves, but to their neighbors, or that they ought not to be devoted to themselves. Hence it is quite possible that a pious man, even though he should be aware that he is superior, may nevertheless hold others in greater esteem.14
We may rightly regard Calvin as a hero of the faith, but he didn’t ultimately see himself that way. Humility had taught him to walk modestly before God and others — and, in the end, the freedom to lie down in a forgotten grave.

Theodore Beza, “The Life of John Calvin” in Tracts Related to the Reformation (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 1:xcv. 
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. 
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. 
Eighteenth-century guidebooks indeed list the disused Plainpalais cemetery as an important stop for tourists, though they warn that pilgrims will search for Calvin’s resting place in vain. By the nineteenth century, keepers of the burial ground staked out a “likely-enough” site for Calvin’s grave (complete with a rudimentary marker) simply to avoid the irritation of being so frequently asked. 
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 3.7.1 (emphasis mine). 
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: T. Constable,1855), 149. 
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1851) 52–53. 
John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Edinburgh: Edinburg Printing Company, 1845), 1:xli, xlii. 
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. 
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. 
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xli, xliii. 
Beza, Tracts, 1:xci. 
Beza was widely known for his literary works. As a humanist, he became famous for his collection of Latin poems in Juvenilia, published just before his conversion in 1548. He continued to write poetry, satires, and dramas until the end of his life. Francis Sisbon’s nineteenth-century translation attempts to capture the sense of the Latin in a more familiar poetic form (Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin, trans. Francis Sibson, [Philadelphia: J. Whetham, 1836], 94). For the original text, see Calvin and Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. 
Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul, 53.