CXVI.—To the Ministers of Neuchatel.[431]

Controversy with Chaponneau regarding the Divinity of Christ.

Geneva, 28th May [1544.]

It has much grieved me, my very dear brethren in the Lord, that your letter was not sooner delivered, for had I received it in time your wish would have been complied with, if not to the full extent, yet, at all events, partially. That I did not, therefore, come to Neuchatel on the day appointed, nor send an answer, arose from no neglect, but only because John Roger, the chirurgeon, upon the sixth day after his arrival here, at length presented your said letter, along with those pretty articles of Courtois.[432] Because, however, the time had gone by, I did not think that there was any need to be in greater haste, until an occasion for writing should offer itself. Our brother Michael now presents himself, who will faithfully bring you my reply.

As for Chaponneau, one may well wonder what would induce him to disturb the Church, if I had not known, long ago, the nature and disposition of the man. There is, however, this peculiarity about it, which I cannot but wonder at. I mean, what can be the cause or pretext why he wishes to dispute with me? If he had done so on provocation, even then the excuse would not have been sufficient to justify him. Neither are we called to the office of the ministry in order that we may contend among ourselves, but that with cordial unanimity, and by common consent, we may wage war under the banner of Christ. But at this present time, when there is nothing whatever, so far as I am aware, either of rancour or of controversy astir among us, the man must be utterly without brains who sounds the war-trumpet so rashly in the midst of peace. Moreover, how very senseless is it, on his part, who has never been well taught the elements of grammar, to put himself forward and boast of all sorts of learning, although this is not the first time he has begun to wax insolent with his empty vapouring! I remember that when Alciat[433] had upon some occasion reproved the theologasters of Louvaine, because they had endeavoured to prevent the institution of a college of the three languages in that city, Chaponneau, in a noisy and intemperate oration, declaimed against the study of languages and the civil law. Alciat, offended at such distempered folly, but, at the same time, conceiving it to be inconsistent with the dignity of his station to enter into a dispute with such a person, merely gave intimation to the magistrate, and requested that he would restrain his disorderly impertinence, which was done accordingly, and not without disgrace to the offender. Now-a-days, the place of his abode, and the office which he fills, ought to make him more moderate; but because he is so injudicious, so borne along by a blind and unbridled impulse, I shall consider not so much what his effrontery deserves as what is becoming and proper on my part. Certainly I shall not so far yield to him the advantage as to enable him to boast that I was drawn into strife upon his provocation. Would that he might only be quiet in time, and allow others also to be quiet; but, if otherwise, it clearly belongs to you, of your own authority, by lawful process of the Church and of the magistrate, to repress his violence. It is not without reason that Paul has written, that he who would be considered as belonging to the kingdom of Christ must be a new creature; and yet I think there did not then exist men of this sort among them—disturbers of the peace, and without any due regard either of place or person, who would be ever prompt and ready, for no cause whatever, not merely to enter upon a brawl or quarrel, but even to come to blows. O the wretchedness of these our times! Is it possible that even in the remotest corner of the Church, there can be found a place for one who dares openly to boast, as if it were a noble deed, that he had almost laid violent hands upon his own colleague,—who unless compelled by the authority of the civil magistrate, refuses a willing obedience to the Presbytery,—who makes his house a very hot-bed and nursery of sedition,—who takes counsel apart from all the rest?—to say nothing about other matters, which it is of no use, and can answer no good purpose at present to commemorate.

As for those conclusions, which, as you suspect, he has suggested to Courtois, his son-in-law, I know not why you suppose that the greater part refer to me. There is one passage, indeed, in which he plainly approaches near enough to touch me. I see nought besides which suits me in the application. In so far as relates to that passage, wherein, as if from the tripod, he pronounces, oracularly, those persons to be heretics who say that Christ, inasmuch as he is God, is self-existent, the reply is easy. First of all let him answer me, whether Christ is true and perfect God. Except he would have the essence of God to be divided, he will be forced to acknowledge that that exists entire in Christ. And the words of Paul are express, "that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead." Again, I ask, has he that fulness of Deity in or of himself, or has he derived it from elsewhere? But he objects, that the Son is of or from the Father. Now, I have not only always willingly acknowledged that, but, indeed, have also preached the same doctrine. The point is this, however, wherein these asses are mistaken; they do not consider that the name of Son is spoken concerning the Person, and therefore is contained in the terms employed in defining the relation, which relation is not brought in question where the Divinity of Christ is simply treated of; on which subject, Augustine treats elegantly upon the 68th Psalm, which writer these same persons make a boast of, when, notwithstanding, they have never read anything of his except some rhapsodies or other. The words are—If any one asks whether the Father may be said to be the same as the Son? Reply, As regards the substance, he is the same; not relatively, in so far as it is spoken of anything else. Of himself, he is called God. In relation to the Father, he is called the Son; and again, on the other hand, the Father, in reference to himself, is called God; in reference to the Son, he is called Father. When what is spoken relates to the Son, the Father is not the Son. When he is spoken of as the Son in his relation to the Father, he is not the Father. When what is spoken relates to the Father and the Son as self-existent, this is the Father and the Son, the same God. So far Augustine. Now, that distinction being employed, what further ambiguity, I beseech you, remains about the matter in question? Wherefore, the same holy man, in the 39th homily on John, after he moved this question, In what manner the Father and the Son are the Beginning? [Principium,] he makes use of this solution, that mention is here made of number, in so far as they have relation to each other, not, however, as regards the essence. Also, on the 109th Psalm; If the Father is the Beginning, he says, are there not two Beginnings? By no means; for as the Father is God, and the Son God, so each is the Beginning. Neither are there two, but one Beginning. Now, let your little masterling go his way, and, with a bold front, flout at us. The 38th homily also, concerning time, which has for title, "Concerning the Trinity and the Dove," treats copiously of how much importance it is to make a distinction according as we consider the relations or the essence of the Godhead. Should, however, his obstinacy not yet be tamed or broken in, I do not refuse to be called a heretic by such a wild beast, provided only that I may have Cyril for my companion, who makes use of the same expressions more than once. But how monstrous it is to declare that to be heresy which has so many illustrious testimonies, both in the Sacred Oracles and in the writings of the ancient Fathers!

This small particular excepted, I observe nought else that he could apply to me, although this does not touch me alone but applies to every one of you who have made a profession along with us, which contains that same doctrine. It is, therefore, your duty, and common to you all, to follow up this reproach which is cast upon you and on the truth itself. Which unless you do, I have determined for my own part never to yield; I mean, if there is any one there who confesses himself to be the author of these fine conclusions. Why should I weary you, and myself at the same time, all to no purpose in discussing the others?

He preaches a great deal about charity, and frets and fumes grievously that it has not been well observed among us. I would like, however, to know what sort of charity that is, to cut off from the Church those who, agreeing entirely in the doctrinal sense with all the godly, merely reject certain forms of expression: "For what can be more contentious," says Augustine, writing to Pascentius, Epistle cxxiv., "than where one is agreed upon the doctrine in dispute, to contend about the person?" If even yet he must hold us suspect, I might allow him to do so, but in such an excessive rigour I cannot discover the meekness of charity.

As regards the essence of the Godhead, how puerile to say that the Fathers did not see it before the coming of Christ! I ask, indeed, with what kind of eyes the essence of God can now be seen by the souls of the dead? Does he suppose that the glory of God, infinite as it is, can be seen or comprehended by them? He will say, that he is to be seen, not as he is, but in suchwise as the weakness of our perception admits of. I then reply, that it was visible, in some degree, even before the advent of Christ, that now at length he is revealed in greater fulness, and that we shall see him perfectly, when we shall have been made like unto him. He objects, however, that the whole choir of the saints cry out against this. But where has he heard that heavenly choir intoning this complaint? He opposes my arguments, but on what ground? Boastingly he vaunts, that it can very easily be proven: let him, however, make this easiness of proof quite evident by demonstration.

So far have I deigned to trifle, and to answer him according to his folly. I may now address you seriously. Consider well, I beseech you, whitherward these speculations tend. Are they not of that sort which Paul so highly disapproves? That the Spirit was not united to the Dove, so as to be constituted one person as there is one person in Christ, I consider to be beyond all dispute. That he takes away the perfection of faith from Joseph and Nicodemus, I am not inclined to question, provided he does not bestow it on any other. That the spirit of prophecy has not always continued steadfast even in the prophets, Saul presents a striking example, I do acknowledge. But perhaps he takes another view of it, which I could not admit. Concerning Ananias and Sapphira, he must shew that some other crime beyond lying and falsehood was punished in their case, if he wishes any reliance to be placed on his comment. It is no way surprising that in such an animated style he defends the Allegories; for those who have not an atom of understanding, unless to trifle with frigid and insipid allegories, very naturally contend for them as if they were contending for their family altars and their own firesides. But I am growing more tedious than I had resolved to be; I therefore make an end. Adieu, my very dear brethren in the Lord. May the Lord increase you more and more both in wisdom and strength, that you may go forward in the upbuilding of his Church as you had begun. Amen.—Your own,

John Calvin.

[Lat. copy.—Library of Geneva. Vol. 111.]