6th October 1552.
The answer of John Calvin, minister of the word of God in the Church of God, presented this Tuesday, the 6th of October 1552, to our honourable Lords Messieurs the Syndics and Council, against the writing produced on the Monday preceding, by the Seigneur Trolliet:—
In the first place, Messieurs, as for what he terms his written defence in his disputation against me, I do not understand what he aims at, nor for what purpose he says this, unless to acquire reputation with the ignorant, from having disputed with John Calvin. And your Excellencies know what the whole procedure was, namely, that he became confused, having no reply to make, except that he did not understand it. Wherefore, it would be well that he should get rid of vain-glory, which has too much incited him already to give unnecessary trouble and annoyance, as well to himself as to others. For had he walked as modestly as he ought, according to his measure, this contention would never have arisen.
But the worst is, that he pretends to sustain his charge against me, and, nevertheless, misrepresents the whole argument. For the point which was debated on the first day of September, was that he charged me with making God the author of sin, which I denied with all due protestation, for it is an utterly execrable blasphemy. Whereupon he attempted to prove it, alleging the passages which he cites in his written representation. So that the main point of our case, as he has maintained in your presence more than ten times over, lies in this,—Whether I have made God the cause of evil and of sin, or not. And but for this, there was no difficulty whatever regarding this first point. For I do not disavow anything that I have written. But I say that we ought to have a horror of applying the word sin, to God; seeing that in him there is nothing but all equity and justice, even as he is both the rule and the fountain thereof. Wherefore I am amazed that he was not ashamed of denying it. But be that as it may, if he be obstinate in his denial, I require, as right and reason enjoins, that it may please you, before going farther, to order your secretary to give me an act and extract to that effect. For I ought not, and cannot suffer such a reproach to be fastened upon me, without clearing myself as I ought. Moreover, in the sentences which he quotes as extracts from my Institution, he does me great wrong, having given them in a detached and garbled form. And he even thrusts in and mixes up with the doctrine which is avowedly mine, the objections which are made to it by blasphemers. He ought to have been much ashamed, when I demonstrated that by such means Saint Paul might be charged with having called God unrighteous. But that he should persist in such a course, is altogether unbearable. Again, that which he brings forward on the first page, from leaf 461, is wrongly stated, and contrary to my true meaning, seeing that he accumulates there what I have said about the wicked, whom I reprove and condemn.[385]
However, I am free to confess, that I have stated that God not only has foreseen, but also foreordained, the fall of Adam, which I maintain to be true,[386] not without good grounds and evidences from holy writ. The opposite party, without alluding to the proofs which I bring forward, says that I have spoken amiss, and at the same time can allege nothing to shew that I have done so, except, indeed, that he is pleased to arrive at that conclusion. Judge, Messieurs, whether this be equitable.
On the second proposition:—
As to his accusing me of having written—That man is by the ordinance and will of God under the necessity of sinning; I much wish, as I have so often said, that people would not attribute to me that jargon of the monks, which I have never used. And indeed it is only those hypocrites who have ever twaddled thus. Let then the doctrine, as I state it, be attentively considered, and I am ready to acknowledge that the wicked, sin of necessity, and that such necessity is by the ordinance and will of God; but I also add, that such necessity is without constraint, so that he who sins, cannot excuse himself by saying, that he was compelled thereto. And I prove this doctrine so clearly from holy Scripture, that it is impossible for any living man to resist it. And it amazes me, that the adverse party should not display his subtlety in controverting what I have said before you, and that he even conceals the proofs which I have abundantly brought forward in my books. He says that he has maintained contrary opinions, without the will or the power to approve of mine. But were he the most learned personage in the world, it would be too much to insist upon being believed, while simply answering that he neither will nor can consent to what is proposed to him. So much the less reason is there for a man who is scarcely at all versed in the holy Scriptures, and who is no competent judge in theological matters, to expect that those to whom God has vouchsafed grace to understand them a little better, should be reproved according to his fancy. Now, then, honourable Seigneurs, if the proofs which you have heard are not sufficient, I offer to make them more complete, as often and whenever it may please you. And for the rest, I refer to what is contained in the Book concerning the predestination and providence of God.[387]
On the contradictions which the Seigneur Trolliet has imagined.
The opposing party thinks that I contradict myself, when I teach that a man ought rather to search for the cause of his condemnation in his corrupt nature, than in the predestination of God; and does not see that I there expressly state, that there are two causes, the one concealed in the eternal counsel of God, and the other open and manifest, in the sin of man. Now, since he confesses that this is true, he condemns himself by his own mouth and sign-manual. And as for me, I willingly accept that confession, which shews plainly that he has never understood a single point of the case which he discusses so boldly. Here, then, Messieurs, is the very core of the whole question: that I say, that all the reprobate will be convicted of guilt by their own consciences, and that thus their condemnation is righteous, and that they err in neglecting what is quite evident, to enter instead into the secret counsels of God, which to us are inaccessible. The Scripture, however, shews us clearly, that God has predestined men to such ends as he chose them to reach. But as to why or how this is done, we must remain ignorant, because it has not been revealed to us.
Touching the contradiction which the adverse party conceits that he has brought forward from the second page of the 463d leaf, it is marvellous, that after having been so disgracefully cast in such a frivolous objection, he should return to it anew. I say, in that passage, that it is perverse to pry into the secrets of God whereto we are unable to attain, in order to search for the origin of the condemnation of mankind, while passing over the corruption of their nature, from whence it manifestly proceeds. However, this does not mean that the counsel of God does not overrule in a sovereign degree the disposal of everything, although proximate causes may strike our eyes. That were as much as to find a contradiction in these propositions, which are all those of holy writ: That man is not nourished by his labour, nor by his industry, but by the grace of God alone. That it is not the heat or influence of the sun which makes the earth fruitful, but the pure grace of God. That it is not bread that sustains and nourishes us, but the strength which God of his goodness puts into us. And on the other hand, that the idle man deserves to starve. Item, that the earth will deny us pasturage. Item, that we are sustained and strengthened by bread. Now the solution is quite easy when we learn to distinguish between the sovereign cause, and those which are secondary, and more upon a level with human understanding.