THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL—A DEFENCE OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HUMAN CHOICE AGAINST PIGHIUS
I was with intense gratification that many of us received the news last year, albeit over forty years too late, that Tom Finney was to get a knighthood. But the significance of that event cannot begin to be compared with the magnificent work of Messrs A. Lane and Graham Davies in translating and editing this great text of Calvin’. Doubtless they will never get that sought-after letter from the Palace—ur modern sense of priorities is definitely and seriously askew—ut a Christian spirit would suggest a peerage even could be justified for their contribution to the English church. This is the second volume in the series Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post–eformation Thought. It is being published in English for the first time, having been written in . Why such a delay should ever have occurred is inexplicable. A second projected part, later published as Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God also suffered scant attention from the English speaking church. It was not translated until when Henry Cole published an excellent translation. But it never made its way into the classic English edition of Calvin published by the Calvin Translation Society. This too is mysterious. That Calvin’s Sermons on Election and Reprobation were also out of print in English for over years (from John Field’ edition to Engelsma’ edition) only adds to the mystery. One is tempted to ask whether the church has had a problem with the contents, but that’ a matter I don’ want to go into here. The editor, A. N. S. Lane, and the translator, Graham Davies, have done their work exceedingly well and are to be congratulated for a fine volume. Davies’translation manages to retain the dignity of Calvin’ Latin text while producing eminently readable English. Lane’ editing is superb, the footnotes are meticulously researched, highly informative and apt, making this one of the best published translations I have seen of any work. In many instances the footnotes act as a useful commentary on important aspects of the debate. For instance, when Pighius argues for the necessity of the church for interpreting Scripture Lane perceptively informs the reader (page , n.) “t is ironical that while Calvin argues for the impossibility of obeying God’ Word, Pighius argues for the impossibility of understanding it.”While on page (n. ) he draws our attention to the crunch issue of the debate between Pighius and Calvin: “ere is the classic Reformation divide: for the Reformers, the true church is that which truly preaches the word of God; for Rome the true meaning of the word of God is that given to it by the church.”The editor has also written an excellent introduction to the whole that is both instructive and a delight to read. Too often introductions are boring academic pieces that merely pad out the intended volume; here we have one that we only wish could have been longer. Both editor and translator have thoroughly researched their field and are masters of their subject. At least from their viewpoint this has been a labour of love rather than a pecuniary-driven venture. Attention to detail has been extraordinary; even the tracing and checking of Calvin’ quotations took considerably longer than the original writing of the book, and numerous international Calvin scholars have been co-opted to make this as good a volume as it can be. It will be a standard for years to come. But if we can thus laud the editor and translator, what might we say of the author? This work is a tour de force by any standard. It is to Christian literature what Handel’s Messiah is to Christian music (and written at about the same furious speed!). The reviewer would die a happy man if he could produce just one volume like this in his lifetime. Calvin wrote Bondage and Liberation of the Will as a reply to Pighius’s attack on his Institutes in his ten-book Free Choice. Albert Pighius was a Dutch Roman Catholic and, at the time in question, provost and archdeacon of St John’s Church in Utrecht. Calvin felt that a response was called for. But this was not because he believed that he could convince either Pighius or his camp-followers. On the one hand, he believed it essential to publicly rebut Pighius’ equally public misrepresentations of Protestantism. Pighius was not a nobody. Regarded as one of the foremost Roman Catholic polemicists of his day, he was considered important enough to be appointed a delegate to the colloquies between Protestants and Catholics at Worms in - and Regensburg in the summer of . In addition he had held high office in Rome serving three successive Popes. Calvin was particularly concerned to buttress the faith of new converts to Protestantism against the misrepresentations of Pighius’ Free Choice and to provide an antidote to them for those on the threshold of leaving Rome who might come into contact with this libel. He felt, too, that failure to say anything might well be construed as conceding the strength and validity of Pighius’arguments. And although Pighius directed his attacks at Protestantism generally, he was astute enough to realise that to be really effective he needed a focussed target and that this meant supremely Calvin’ Institutes. Thus Calvin also felt a personal responsibility for answering Pighius. Calvin found the work difficult because of lack of time and lack of resources. But even more annoying was the lack of consistency and direction in Pighius’argument. Rather than develop a systematic argument for the Reformed point of view Calvin was forced more or less to follow the meanderings of his opponent. Nevertheless he made an excellent job of producing an orderly response. In particular, he concentrated on two exceedingly important themes. The first was the relationship between Holy Scripture and tradition; the second was the relationship between patristic theology, especially Augustine’, and that of the Reformers. The debate about Scripture and tradition is dealt with in reply to the second of Pighius’ ten books. It is a masterpiece of close, lucid reasoning by Calvin. Against Pighius he argues for the supremacy of Scripture over all other authorities. For him there can be no intermediary between Scripture and the heart. Now, while we generally maintain that a return to Calvin implies a going-beyond Calvin, on this issue much of the later material seems to be a regression rather than an advance on his insights. For the debate has not gone away. Many within the Reformed tradition now wish to enmesh the authority of Scripture within the context of a traditionary authority. While they would deplore and anathematise the traditions accumulated by Rome over the centuries they nevertheless are looking to bind our faith to a so-called catholic orthodoxy, mainly centring on the creeds of the patristic era; an orthodoxy that seems to imply a refusal to allow Scripture the final word. Some have gone to what one might call extremes on this. In Internet discussions, the American Jay Rogers has maintained (and with little or no opposition voiced) that the early creeds are infallible and without error. He has also insisted that the validity of the authority of Scriptural books depends on the imprimatur of the church. It is difficult to see by what authority he can promulgate such statements; evidently their authority cannot be based on Scripture without serious logical difficulties. In the light of the seriously cavalier manner in which American fundamentalism has perverted the Sola Scriptura doctrine to enable it to teach anything and everything it likes this violent reaction is understandable, though it is none the less reprehensible for that. Rogers has not thereby settled the issue of the locus of ultimate authority; he has simply opened a can of worms. Others are attempting to create a more informed position. In particular Andrew Sandlin is developing what he calls the idea of historical conditioning. It is difficult to say much on this at present as his work is only in draft form and not for public discussion. But while we think his argument contains a number of useful insights we are not convinced that it improves on the position of Calvin. Calvin’s position is quite clear. He asserts that “the only consensus of the church is that which is throughout suitably and fittingly in agreement with the word of God” (p. ). One of the concealed assumptions of the catholic orthodoxy brigade is that the decisions of former generations are in some way authoritative for succeeding generations. The reasoning behind this, as we said above, is largely animated by a perversion of the Sola Scriptura idea in American fundamentalism. It is a worthy if ill-conceived attempt to find some locus of authority that will maintain the importance of Scripture while yet preventing the excesses and distortions of the fundamentalists. We would ask whether this is even necessary, or is it perhaps a case of Uzzah-type zeal? See Sam. :-. We must clearly distinguish between the conditioning effect of history (which is real enough, and can have either a beneficial or deleterious effect) and the possible normative nature of that conditioning. That is, simply because I am brought up to think in a certain way does not in and of itself mean that I am morally obliged to continue in that course. The question arises, What is the criterion that establishes the validity of a particular historical effect? For a criterion of sorts is evidently necessary. On each and every occasion in which an historical events impinges on my experience, I must have a means of deciding whether or not it makes any requirements of me, i.e. whether it is authoritative. And this criterion cannot be itself historical. For that would simply be a self-refuting historicist approach. The criterion must, of necessity, stand over and above history if it is to decide the validity of historical issues. Surely God, and God alone, is in this position. Therefore we would maintain that ultimately Scripture and Scripture alone, as God’ only word to man on every issue, is what each and every man, each and every family, each and every congregation (church), each and every voluntary association, and each and every civil government must take as its canon, its infallible measuring rule. This is what Calvin so lucidly puts forth in this volume. We likened the attempt to counter fundamentalist distortions of Sola Scriptura with Uzzah’ over-zealous hand upon the Ark. We did not do this lightly. It is becoming clear that a considerable force is arising within the theonomic constituency that is quite puritanical in its opposition to freedom. Its repressive nature is surfacing in its visible attempts not so much to bring man under God’ law but to bring him under God’ law as put into the hands of men. That is, God’ law has become for them a law which must always be enforced by a human authority. But most biblical law (certainly not all) is not like this. And man’ attempts, whether Christianly-directed or otherwise, to enforce conformity and uniformity are quite unscriptural. In reference to the defence of Scripture Spurgeon once made the remark that one does not defend a tiger by caging it but by letting it run free. We feel that much of the attempt to defend scriptural teaching by appeal to the extra-biblical authority of a catholic orthodoxy is thus more misguided than erroneous, and we would strongly recommend a study of, and return to, the position espoused by Calvin in this volume. In his third book Pighius seeks to pit the patristic writings against Protestantism. This was his big mistake. One might as well challenge Mike Tyson to ten rounds in the ring as challenge Calvin to a debate on the writings of the “church fathers,” particularly Augustine. Calvin’s grasp of Augustine borders on the phenomenal; it has been suggested that he knew most if not all of Augustine off by heart. In his brilliant study Saint Augustine dans l’oeuvre de Jean Calvin () Luchesius Smits has uncovered in Calvin’ writings quotations from Augustine and a further references to him. Certainly in this volume he is completely at ease in handling his writings even though, as the editors point out, he had few volumes to hand at the time. There was no way Pighius could win this debate. The chapter is a piece of consummate writing and a lesson to all who would enter the lists as polemic theologians. Calvin had, as we say, done his homework. This was not the work of a moment, not a mere flicking through a few volumes to find a handful of quotes to bolster a flagging argument. Calvin knew his material thoroughly; he had been engaged in hard study of it since early youth and now it was paying off. It is not without considerable justification that at one time Calvin was referred to as Augustinus Redivivus (Augustine Resurrected). I have only two criticisms of this volume, one internal, the other external. Internally, it was unfortunately a rush job by Calvin, to get the book finished in time for the Frankfurt Book Fair of . In all he spent no more than two months on it. But though this would not have been noticeable to anyone unless it had been pointed out, clearly we would have had an even grander volume if Calvin had had the time and, above all, the resources that were then unavailable to him. Of the publication itself we can only say that it is a pity that such historic works have to see the light of day in paperback form. This is an enduring work and both the work itself and the high standard of editing and translation deserve much better treatment. Nevertheless we do not wish to apportion blame to the publisher for this; it is clear that this is the outcome of today’ market conditions. Better a paperback that people will buy and read than a hard back that lies unopened on a warehouse rack. But I shall be getting my copy bound as soon as possible. Postscript: Our American readers may well be asking: Who is Tom Finney? Finney is to English football what Babe Ruth is to American baseball, and then some. The USA’ demolition, last year, of world champions Brazil now puts them in the realm of real nations. So I thought they might like to know this. C&S
