The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought)

A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius

Calvin, John, Lane, A. N. S., Davies, G.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781441207012
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: History of Christianity

"This first English translation of an important work of John Calvin is a welcome supplement to his teachings in his Institutes."--E. Earle Ellis, Southwestern Journal of Theology This volume provides Calvin's fullest treatment of the relationship between the grace of God and the free will of humans. It offers insight into Calvin's interpretations of the church fathers, especially Augustine, on the topics of grace and free will and contains Calvin's answer to Pighius's objection that preaching is unnecessary if salvation is by grace alone. This important work, edited by renowned scholar A. N. S. Lane, contains material not found elsewhere in Calvin's writings and will be required reading for students of Calvin and the Protestant Reformation.

On Book One [of Pighius]

Background

§ [233] When we were at the meeting in Worms two years ago,[1] I heard that Albertus Pighius was now threatening me and announcing a fight, but that it was still far away. For he was boasting among his friends that he had written some book by which I should be completely finished; he was, however, not intending to publish it yet.[2] But when later on, after the Colloquy of Regensburg,[3] that half a book—which was written chiefly against Luther and Philipp Melanchthon but secondarily against all of us together—had come out (it was later supplemented by a second part),[4] I already felt to a large extent liberated from the fear that he might put out something directed particularly against me. For I reasoned as follows: because he had judged me an unworthy victim by myself for him to prove his strength, he had preferred to turn [his book] into an attack on the common cause itself, so that if he were victorious his triumph would be the more renowned, whereas if he were defeated the disgrace would be less. For he there proceeded with the theme which he had resolved to treat in opposition to me, and in many places he turned his pen specifically against me.

Meanwhile I hear that that magnificent book has taken wings[5]—though only among those who, without further investigation, would take pleasure in the simple fact that it attacks the doctrine of Christ. I was not myself able to get hold of it so as to have a chance to examine it,[6] but to tell the truth I was not much put out about that, for I thought nothing more certain than that it would be published the next day. Then a whole year passed by before it saw the light of day, either in whole or in part.[7] So I was not in the least doubt that he had changed his plan. Unconcerned now about Pighius I had taken in hand another task,[8] when unexpectedly I am presented with his large volume entitled Free Choice.[9] Even though he does not name me right § [234] at the beginning, he shows clearly enough when he gets down to a treatment of the subject itself that his purpose is none other than to overturn my discussion of it in my Institutes.[10]

He does indeed frankly declare that he is doing this with the specific intention of (as it were) driving his spear through my side into Luther and the rest of our party. But he issues the challenge to me alone in particular and joins in battle with me because he thinks that I have dealt with the full extent of this subject more carefully and arranged everything in a more orderly and methodical way than others have done. For myself I should not have dared to take up the defence of the common cause if he had attacked all of us together, for fear that I would appear to have wanted to put myself before others who are agreed to be far more competent, and so would seem to be motivated more by my own rashness and foolish self-confidence than by right judgment. Were it not for this fear, I should perhaps have made a response to that earlier book which I mentioned.[11] But now I am glad that, for whatever reason, I held myself back, when I see that Bucer, who was able to give it the better and more brilliant treatment that it deserved, has taken this task upon himself.[12] But in the present case I think that nobody will find fault with me for responding, when no others can be expected to do so and when Pighius would scoff at God so publicly if I were not to intervene in the defence of wholesome doctrine. Therefore no matter how many there may be today in the army of the Lord who are more learned and more practised than I, and who can curb the insolence of this proud Goliath and have been ready to do so if the need arose—since he has passed them by and challenged me by name to a contest, I will advance to meet him, relying on the heavenly strength of my King and Commander and those spiritual weapons which he is wont to supply to his servants, so that my adversary may not be able to pride himself in a victory over even one of the servants of Christ. § [235]

But why Pighius chose to start a dispute with me alone out of so many only he can see—if someone so blinded by madness can see anything at all! For he is mistaken if he supposes that I am in the slightest degree affected by that incidental remark that he devoted to me.[13] Perhaps when he gives me some priority over others, he is making this up for his own advantage, in case he appear to have joined battle with a mere man of the ranks. But whatever he thinks, it is of no importance to me, or very little. For the glory of the faithful is not in their learning or fine speech, but in a pure conscience,[14] and that not according to human judgment but in the sight of God. Moreover, I do not value his judgment so highly that I am on that account pleased with myself. “I am happy that I am praised,” said that famous man in the old tragedy, “but only because it comes from someone praiseworthy.”[15] Therefore even if I were vain, I should still have no reason to seek praise from these lips which are so foul and fetid and constantly utter nothing but abominable insults against Christ. In addition, during his flights of folly he is completely lacking in judgment and insight, whether because by being given over to a reprobate mind[16] as his impiety deserves he is an evident example of divine punishment, or because the unbearable pride which puffs him up is the most detrimental kind of blindness. Accordingly, just as on the stage “Pentheus sees ranks of Furies, two suns, and Thebes also appearing twice over,”[17] so he has such keen eyes that he thinks he sees what is not there. But at the same time he labours under the affliction that in broad daylight he is just as blind as he would be if struck by the most severe dizziness.

I admit that in other respects the man is clever and learned. I allow that he is an incisive debater and a skilful orator. I recognise that he is, in the popular sense, eloquent—that is, he is strong in that kind of eloquence which is able to captivate and allure those who have not much education, of whom there are many today. But to what end are all those talents when a person’s whole mind is disturbed and ruined by madness? Wherefore if he wants to have any place among the educated and enjoy the reputation for which he shows himself so excessively eager, he should first return to a sound mind. But for the curing of this insanity which afflicts him at present the remedies are two, namely these: let him cease to wage war with considered malice against the clear and certain truth of God; and let him strip off and cast away his stupid opinion of himself and the arrogant pride displayed in his threats which makes him entirely devoid of sense. But lest I should appear unduly impelled against him personally by the heat of controversy, I prefer now to bring my readers to his book, as it were to the very spot, so that there they may confirm whatever I say, or even more. § [236]

Method to Be Followed

But before I come to this I must begin with a few words about the order of discussion which I have decided to follow. First, there is no reason for the reader to expect that I should follow in my reply the thread of Pighius’s discourse. For if I wanted to examine individual items minutely, leaving nothing untouched, my book would grow to an immense size. For in addition to having an innate fluency of speech, he also constantly puts in a great deal of effort and study, so as both to conceal the matter in hand by his pompous speaking and to overwhelm his opponent by a long and dashing brandishing of words. Perhaps he even covets praise for this, since the best way to make an impression on the ignorant is to run wild with loud cries and a long accumulation of words. For myself I would happily yield the prize to him in this matter, even without a struggle, since I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels.[18] But for all his efforts to win his case by this kind of device, by as it were pouring out words, while he may be able to blind his readers by covering their eyes with fog, it will be too weak a defence with those of a sound mind. He will without doubt deceive the simpleminded and those who lack judgment, but anyone who has a spark of right understanding will have no time for those bombastic speeches in which one will find nothing substantial. And so I shall be content to make all devout and perceptive readers see that Pighius “turns brightness [into smoke],[19] while I bring light out of the smoke”[20]—that is, he has distorted by misrepresentations and malicious criticism what had been well written by me, but I seek only to disperse Satan’s smoke so that the pure and simple truth of God may shine forth. For I think that better than to weary myself in vain with a long and unnecessary piece of writing and at the same time be irksome to my readers.

To be honest, there is also another reason which compels me to be brief. I am limited by the pressure of time, since I have barely two months before the Frankfurt market,[21] at which I have decided, if possible, to publish this reply. And if only I had half of that time absolutely empty and free for writing! For this reason readers will forgive my haste if anywhere I should too lightly hurry over things which deserve longer reflection and more careful attention. But if anyone objects with that ancient and widely used saying that it is absurd to plead to be spared from blame which I could have avoided if I had wanted to,[22] I have my reply ready. First, I am compelled by force of duty to uphold and defend the truth of God when it is attacked on my own property;[23] secondly, I will write quickly in such a way that my labour will nevertheless be widely useful and not inappropriate § [237] to the seriousness of the matter, even if it fails to match its worth at all points.

But to help readers, when comparing what he and I have written, more easily and more surely to form their judgment and as it were mark the main points with their fingers, I will follow the order and arrangement which he himself kept to in his work. There will be only this much difference, that whereas he wanted to commend himself with a splendid array of words, I will as far as possible aim at conciseness and simplicity; and secondly, while he took up many pages with virulent insults against us which were born of an arrogance worthy of Thrason,[24] in this kind of thing too I will happily yield to him. For I reckon that if Pighius both is and is called an eloquent name-caller, this causes neither any loss to the glory of Christ nor any harm to the reputation of good people—provided that at the same time all understand that, moved partly by a raving passion for abuse and partly by a bad temper, or rather by madness, he is pulled this way and that indiscriminately.

Pighius’s Letter of Dedication

First let us consider in passing the points which [Pighius] treats in his letter to Sadoleto.[25] Although they are not germane to this discussion, they are nevertheless intended to put pressure on our position. Pighius is surprised and grieved at the torpor of his Germany, which is such that it could be won over to our teaching. After all, we [he says] are undertaking a task far more difficult than that once accomplished by the apostles: our teaching is utterly absurd, and we resurrect all the false teachings of the heretics of the past, which are inconsistent with the true rule of piety—indeed we go beyond the ravings of all of them. And yet we have nothing, even in appearance, which could deceive people by its (of course false) lustre. We excel neither in learning, nor in eloquence, nor in sanctity of life, which would necessarily arouse attention. And so as to enlarge on this the better, he shows how senseless and perverse our way of proceeding is.

I will reply briefly: Pighius is too stupid to recognise that [our success] is an evident and clear miracle of God’s power at which he is compelled to marvel, whether he wishes to or not. For the less well prepared and well taught we are for so great and difficult a task, the more clearly God’s power, which shakes the whole world through our weakness, shines forth. But if those complaints of Pighius were compared with the time of the apostles, you would say that a Porphyry,[26] or someone else from that century, was speaking. Therefore, lest I spend too long on this, I will reply by quoting Paul: we willingly admit that we have only very little of the many and great defences which would be needed to withstand such great might, so that the truth of our doctrine and faith must be based not on our own fine speaking or education, but on the spiritual power of God.[27] A cause must surely be strong and mighty if it is to continue not on the basis of human protection or of any outside support, but from its own goodness alone. § [238] So let Pighius cease to be amazed about the origin of this new and unheard-of efficacy of our teaching, when the fact itself proclaims that at the beginning it was not Luther who spoke, but God thundered through his mouth, and that now it is not we who speak, but God is displaying his power from heaven.

On the other hand, however, he declares how different we are from the apostles. Certainly if it is a matter of personalities, no words are enough to express the extent by which they surpass us. But in those matters of doctrine in which Pighius makes us differ, I say that we have the greatest likeness. They, he says, described what they had seen with their eyes and drunk with their ears,[28] which had been foretold or sketched in figures. But what of us? Have we hammered out a new gospel, to demand that it should be believed, having said good-bye to that which the apostles proclaimed? We have many disputes on a variety of matters with the realm of the Roman Antichrist, but almost all of them derive from the fact that we want a hearing to be given to Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, while our adversaries, not daring openly to impose silence upon them, require them to take second place to their own imaginings. There was, he says, a wonderful unanimity among the apostles over doctrine. As if the Lord has not given this same unanimity also to those who today seek to restore the teaching of the gospel to its original place. There was present then, he says, the immediate power of divine activity, there was that Spirit of fire who showed himself in their behaviour, their faces, and their eyes. But in fact these things, and whatever else Pighius relates to commend or confirm the teaching of the apostles, are our weapons. For all that we teach comes back to this main point, that the gospel, which he declares to have been confirmed by so many eminent evidences, should be heard by the world. For our complaint that it has been buried and as it were wiped out from human memory is quite justified.

We have sought nothing else these twenty-five years[29] but that the whole conflict should be ended in such a way that the victory should not fall to men, but should remain, as is fitting, with that teaching which was proclaimed by Christ and the apostles. Now too we are ready, if we are found guilty of teaching something contrary to [their teaching], not only to withdraw it but to attack it with total commitment. Therefore when miracles other than those by which the dignity of the gospel was ratified of old are demanded of us, no others need be produced but those which were performed through the apostles. For they happened once, but served to confirm the gospel for ever. And what a wide field would be open for me here to speak both of the ingratitude and ill will and also of the shamelessness of those who not only demand that the gospel of Christ be established afresh by new miraculous signs, just as if it were new and of recent origin, but turn those very miracles which ought to contribute to its glory into a cause for insults and mockery! But since I have devoted another work to this matter,[30] for the moment I will desist.

But Pighius continues § [239] his efforts to remove this defence of ours by saying that since all our teaching is contrived to subvert every whit of piety and to remove all thought of religion from people’s minds, we practise acts of pure trickery, guile and deceit, a wicked abuse of Scripture, exceptional audacity and shamelessness, lies, insults, the plotting of villains, insurrections, and a looseness of living that is worse than the heathen. What will he forbear to say? The former charge will be dealt with later in its proper place.[31] As far as our practice is concerned, I appeal to the facts themselves to refute Pighius’s lies. On the subject of our acrimony I will say only this: it has been poured out only upon those to whom the word of God itself is a deadly odour of death,[32] and further it cannot be regarded as excessive if one bears in mind the shameful state of affairs which forced it out of us. Besides, it is exceedingly unfair for a teaching to be evaluated on the basis of the behaviour of those who misuse it. However, if it should be agreed that the decision about us and our opponents be based on our behaviour, we by no means reject this ruling. For whatever we may be, we have nevertheless better cause than we could have wished for to glory in the fact that our behaviour is different from that of all the Romanists who today uphold the rule of Antichrist. Accordingly, I have no fear, if anyone looks carefully at our behaviour and theirs and compares them with equal care, that one will fail to see clearly that we for our part fear God, while they actually despise both him and his law.

What [Pighius] says about our struggling with a more difficult task than did the apostles of old would, if taken in a different sense, not be at all far from the truth. For anyone who considers with insight the conditions of the time when Luther came to prominence will see that he shared almost all other difficulties in common with the apostles, but that in one respect his situation was worse and harder than theirs. In their time there was no kingdom or dominion in the world for them to declare war upon, whereas [Luther] could in no way arise from the depths except by the overthrow and destruction of that empire[33] which not only was the most powerful of all empires, but also held all the others as it were in subjection to itself. This is a difficulty which we also now face. It is well known how powerful the pope is in the power of arms and in aid from treaties and in wealth and in the very reverence paid ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Preface
• Preface
• Introduction
• Abbreviations
• List of Works Cited
• Preface
• Book 1
• Book 2
• Book 3
• Book 4
• Book 5
• Book 6
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index
• Patristic and Classical Index
• About the Author
• Notes
• Back Cover