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.
[432] Son-in-law of the minister Chaponneau, whose opinions he no
doubt shared.
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.
[433] The celebrated jurisconsult, Andrew Alciat, from Milan, whose
instruction Calvin had received at the University of Bourges.
He lectured upon Law alternately in the schools of France and
Italy, and died in 1546, leaving numerous disciples in the various
countries of Europe.
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,