Calvin’s Theological Method: The Case Of Caroli

By Richard C. Gamble

Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Introduction: Justification For The Investigation

Calvin’s early ministry in Geneva was marred by the intense controversy between his colleagues and himself, and a colleague from Lausanne by the name of Pierre Caroli. This fascinating period of church history has received very scant investigation in the English language. There is only one major article (published in 1972) which is a translation of an earlier Dutch article.[1] Prior to that there was a five page study which investigated a small part of the controversy and addressed one specific problem,[2] and there were a few pages analyzing Caroli from the perspective of the reforming movement at Meaux.[3]

The situation is not much better in German language study. A few pages of analysis are given by W. Kampschulte, O. Ritschl, and A. Lang.[4] Their combined analysis accounts for less than ten pages of material. More lengthy is the work of E. Bähler, Petrus Caroli und Johannes Calvin,[5] but it is unbalanced and at times inaccurate. More work has been done in Dutch and French. Very helpful is the biographical account of Caroli in Haag[6] and two articles by Pierson.[7]

Combining the work of Nijenhuis, Haag, Pierson and Bahler, a relatively complete account of the historical background and theological results of the controversy may be obtained. Nevertheless, no thorough analysis has been undertaken examining the literature of the controversy from the more narrow focus of Calvin’s theological method.

The impetus for this investigation has come from two sources. The first is the necessity to prepare annotations to Calvin’s letters from 1535 to 1538 for a republication of Calvin’s Correspondence. Professor Neuser has been a great aid to the important cause of the production of the Editio Recognita of Calvin, of which the letters play a part. The second comes from the aforementioned article by Nijenhuis. One statement in particular underlines the need for further analysis: “In Caroli’s mode of thought and discussion..., Calvin detected the speculative and rationalistic method of theologizing which according to him were characteristic of the church of Rome. The way in which Calvin repeatedly returns to this subject in his Defensio shows us that this difference played an important role in the conflict.”[8]

Questions which naturally accrue from this statement are: how repeatedly does Calvin return to this subject, and how important was this theological difference in fact? These questions are properly raised by Nijenhuis but not fully answered because he focuses attention more specifically upon Calvin’s attitude toward the church symbols rather than Calvin’s theological method. Thus this controversy should also be analyzed from the vantage point of theological methodology.

Calvin And Caroli: History Of The Debate And Its Interpretation

A. History Of Calvin Interaction With Caroli, To 1537

Caroli[9] had probably been influenced by the reforming movement connected with bishop Briçonnet in Meaux, as early as 1521.[10] We know that he was teaching and preaching in Paris in 1524 with a doctor’s degree from the Sorbonne. His preaching was apparently being done in the French language with men and women present.[11]His theological problems began in 1525 with charges being brought against him by the Parisian faculty. Nevertheless, by 1530 he was reconciled to the faculty.

Later he had a church in Alençon in 1530.[12] After a short time of peace, in 1533, some over-zealous youths destroyed church property. This brought heavy judgment to the area with the death sentence meted out to the two, plus seven others. Caroli, too, was condemned, not for this crime but for theological heresy.[13] Caroli then fled France to Switzerland. He was resident for some time in Geneva, then spent further time in Basel, between the end of August 1535 to March 1536.[14] After that, he was sent to minister to the protestant church in Lausanne, as main preacher, chosen over Viret (Spring 1536)[15] and to be professor of Old Testament at the new Academy[16] (late 1536/early 1537).

Calvin arrived in Geneva in 1536, having apparently met Caroli earlier in Basel. Very shortly after his arrival in Geneva, Calvin was involved in the controversy with Caroli. The controversy was not at all purely between the two of them, but it began with Viret, extended to Farel and Calvin, then to the ministers of Lausanne, Geneva and Berne,[17] and eventually Basel,[18] Strassbourg and Zurich.[19]

Caroli was charged with believing in the efficacy of prayers for the dead.[20] He in turn charged Viret, Farel and Calvin with Arianism. These charges and counter- charges were dealt with first in a discussion in Lausanne in October of 1536,[21] continued in Berne, and concluded with a synod held in Lausanne, May 14 1537.[22] The syndics of Berne wanted Caroli to come there and express himself in debate with Farel in June of 1537,[23] but before a total resolution of the situation occurred, Caroli returned to the Roman church.[24]

B. A Brief History Of Interpretation

There has not been a great deal of interest in secondary literature as to whether or not Caroli actually advocated prayers for the dead nor whether Calvin was an Arian. Much more interesting has been the issue as to why Calvin would not subscribe to the Athanasian creed as demanded by Caroli.

Certainly scholars agree that this controversy was very important for the movement of Reformation in French-speaking Switzerland. Caroli’s charges brought a cloud over the theology of all the major preachers. There is also agreement that his charges, although appearing absurd upon first reading, had sufficient weight for this to be a true controversy. Nijenhuis is particularly helpful in outlining why it could be believable that Farel, for one, could be questioned on his doctrine of Christ.[25] Nijenhuis has also provided the most modem synopsis of the history of interpretation. He concludes correctly that the issues between Calvin and Caroli are far more than personal, and that McNeil, Long, and Bähler are incorrect in their conclusions concerning the matter. McNeil analyzed Calvin from a late nineteenth/early twentieth century vantage point by making Calvin a champion of individual rights, which is not correct. Lang also incorrectly underlined Calvin’s independence from church tradition and Bähler sided with Caroli regarding his suspicions against the reformers.[26]

Calvin could certainly sign ecumenical creeds and, furthermore, he could see them as binding upon the conscience of the person.

An Analysis Of Calvin’s Pro G. Farello Et Collegis Ejus..., 1545

A. History Of Events From 1537 To 1545

After Caroli’s defeat and expulsion at the synod of Lausanne, he travelled back to France and returned to the Roman Church. In a letter dated June, 1537, Caroli rejected his own “errors” in conjunction with joining the Protestants.27 One other “error” which he rejected was his wife who was left in Switzerland.28 He was then forgiven by Pope Paul III in August.[29]

However, in 1539 Caroli travelled back to Switzerland to be reconciled with the Protestants.[30] The ministers Farel, Viret, Zebedee and others met with him in July of that year and had an amicable colloquium. In September he arrived at Strassbourg. In the first week of October there was a conference held with Bucer, Capito, Sturm and the other ministers present, with the possible exception of Calvin.[31] There he repudiated all of his “papal mistakes” and asked to be received as a brother, which was granted. Finally, he was officially forgiven by the Senate of Berne in January of 1540.

Also in 1540 Caroli travelled to Metz.[32] At this time the city was not protestant, and since it was important, was carefully observed by both sides of the controversy. Details of Caroli’s life and work during this period are difficult to determine. However, the Protestants determined that Farel should travel to Metz to assist in evangelizing the town, which he left to do in August of 1542.[33] As can be expected, with Farel’s arrival a tremendous controversy broke out among the populace, and Farel was expelled at the beginning of the next year. Farel’s appearance was probably the catalyst for Caroli’s published work against Farel and Calvin in 1543. Response to the writing occurred immediately, with a conference concerning it occurring in May of 1543.

B. Synopsis Of The Contents

It is impossible within the space of a short article to analyze the entire document of forty-seven columns. The issue which will be addressed in this article concerns Calvin’s theological method.

The first question which must be answered touches upon the relationship between Calvin’s statements in the Institutes of 1536, the Genevan Catechism of 1537, the Institutes of 1539[34] and then six years later in the Pro Farello. By focusing upon his implementation of the words ‘trinitas’ and ‘persona’ prior to the Pro Farello, a framework can be built to understand Calvin’s reasons for refusing to employ those words during the controversy and will shed light upon his theological method.

From the first edition of the Institutes, Calvin did not hesitate to use the terminus technicus, ‘trinitas’. As a matter of fact, he made a strong argument for implementation of the word, even though it does not itself appear in Scripture. That word was crucial in resolving the conflict with Sabellius, and Calvin says: “Say that in one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness.”[35]

The word ‘trinitas’ appears at least six times in the 1539 Institutes, three times in direct connection with the word ‘persona’.[36] Therefore, in the first two editions of the Latin Institutes, Calvin does not have any hesitation directly discussing this important topic.

In between the writing of these two editions, the citizens of Geneva accepted a Catechism which does not contain the classical trinitarian formulations.[37] That lack was the ostensible reason for Caroli’s objection to the Catechism and cry for the return to the Ancient creeds.

C. Specific Analysis Of Method

With this background completed, analysis can begin. Since Calvin was not against implementing the terms ‘trinitas’ and ‘persona’ in his Institutes, there is no question that he was not an Arian and that he finds the technical terms acceptable in theological discussion. There are therefore other reasons for his not using the formulations in the Catechism and his rejection of its use during the controversy with Caroli.

One plausible reason for his not employing it with Caroli is on personal or psychological grounds. In that his opponent insisted upon its utilization, Calvin in arrogance could simply refuse to grant him the request. This reason is not unrealistic, for there was apparently quite a bit of personal dislike for Caroli by Calvin. Recognizing, nevertheless, the human element in this controversy, Nijenhuis is correct in assuming that these personal or psychological reasons are not sufficient to explain the controversy.[38] The grounds are theological.

Calvin, like other protestants before him, had made it clear that when discussing the doctrine of God, great care must be taken to avoid speculation. Calvin’s classic formulation of this principle is found at the beginning of the first edition of the Institutes, “For I do not feel that concerning God we should speak with less conscientiousness than we should think, since whatever by ourselves we think concerning him is foolish, and whatever we speak, absurd. Yet some measure ought to be preserved: we ought surely to seek from Scripture a rule for thinking and speaking. To this yardstick all thoughts of the mind and all words of the mouth must be conformed.”[39] This “rule” for theologizing would not itself preclude use of the technical trinitarian terms. In the same edition of the Institutes Calvin supports their use.

In the controversy with Caroli, as recorded in the work Pro Farello, in addition to providing historical background to the debate itself the theological issue between these two theologians is precisely the issue of the “rule for thinking and speaking.” In the previously cited statement, Calvin asserted that the Scripture must be the yardstick for all thoughts and words concerning articulation of the doctrine of God. Undoubtedly this is the central issue of debate.

The Pro Forello is riddled with statements supporting Calvin’s view of the Trinity from the Scripture. Over and over one reads “Ex Verbo Dei,” “Ex Scripturis,” “A verbo Domini,” “Scripturae Normam,” “Scripturae Fontibus,” “Scripturae Testimonia,” “Scripturae Verbis,” etc.

These statements concerning the application and the authority of the Scripture are set in contrast to the theological method which Calvin summarized as that of Rome or the Sorbonne. There one finds the “sacra dotium papisticum,” the foolishness of the “Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis.”[40]

Oftentimes Calvin makes the contrast very clear as to the precise theological difference between the method of the Parisian theologians and the method which he would follow. For example “Cur hic, inquit, sedemus? an non ut palam fiat huic populo, doctrinam quam profitemur veram esse et ex Verba Dei sumptam, papistarum vero religionem impiam esse et plenam multis abominationibus.”[41] More particularly the issue of the debate is the “frigidam cavillationem”[42] of the specific propounder of this theological method, Caroli, versus what Calvin considered to be the simple and clear teaching of the Scripture.

D. The Methodological Difference

Why the issue of the debate is the “cold” theology of the Sorbonne can be proven by examination of four elements of Calvin’s text in conjunction with comments made in other parts of Calvin’s contemporary theological writings. At nearly the same time that Caroli was forgiven by the Senate of Berne for returning to the Roman Church, (January of 1540), Cardinal Sadolet had written to the leaders of the city of Geneva admonishing them to return to the church. Calvin was, of course, asked to respond to Sadolet’s missive which he did in 1539. Neither Calvin’s writing nor the history of that interesting time of the Reformation concerns us in this article. However, in the Pro Farello Calvin mentions Sadolet no less than three times.

Calvin’s specific condemnation of the theological method which was against his own, appears throughout the works. For example, he condemns the use of antithesis as done by his opponent.[43] He also condemns “otiosa speculatio.”[44] This speculation is also condemned in the 1539 Institutes. There Calvin says: “Quae practica notitia certior haud dubie solidiorque est qualibet otiosa speculatione: Illic enim pius animus Deum praesentissimum conspicit et pene attrectat, ubi se vivificari, illuminari, servari, iustificari ac sanctificari sentit.”[45] Furthermore, in the Institutes Calvin condemns the use of “coniecturam.” This is likewise rejected in the Pro Farello.[46]

Conclusion

It is clear that prior analysis of the controversy with Caroli and the Pro Farello, although oftentimes accurate, has not sufficiently underlined the true issue at stake in the controversy. Analysis has focused especially upon Calvin’s attitude toward the early creeds. This is a proper focus, nevertheless sufficient attention has not been paid to the underlying methodological questions of the debate. Caroli, as a doctor of the Sorbonne, represented for Calvin the embodiment of a most improper theological method. As has been made clear in other articles, for Calvin both theological and exegetical methodology is not a neutral science.[47] The way in which theology is performed must be in accord with very strict theological principles. Those principles are conformity, as far as humanly possible, to the clear expressions of Scripture.

Since Calvin found the Athanasian creed to be in accord with Scripture (but not above criticism), and the use of the words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Person’ acceptable, the underlying issue with Caroli must be conceived in terms of a methodological debate.

It was Caroli’s attempt to conform theological statements to a ‘cold’ mold which forced Calvin and the Reformers to fight for their freedom.

This article was originally published in Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. geburtstag, Willem
van ‘t Spijker, ed. (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing, c1991), 130-137.

Notes

1. W. Nijenhuis, “Calvin's Attitude Towards the Symbols of the Early Church During the Conflict with Caroli,” in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 73-97.
2. Steven M. Reynolds, “Calvin’s View of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds,” Westminster Theological Journal 23 (1960/61), 33-37. Reynolds is primarily dealing with Wiliston Walker's misunderstanding of Calvin's attitude toward the Athanasian Creed. Reynolds properly corrects Walker's citation that according to Calvin no true church would have ever approved of the Athanasian Creed. Reynolds is simply agreeing with the interpretation of E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin, vol. II, 256. John T. McNeill also briefly addresses the controversy, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 141, 155.
3. H. Heller, “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformation of Meaux,” in Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 33 (1971), 271-273.
4. W. Kampschulte, Johann Calvin, Seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf (Leipzig: 1908); O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus (Leipzig: 1908); August Lang, Johannes Calvin: Ein Lebensbild zu seinem 400. Geburtstag am 10. Juli 1909 (Leipzig: R. Haupt, 1909).
5. E. Bähler, “Petrus Caroli und Johannes Calvin,” in Jahrbuch für Schweizerische Geschichte 29 (1904), 39-169.
6. Eugène et Emile Haag, La France Protestante (Paris: Librarie Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1881), III, col. 770-775.
7. Pierson, “Kalvijn en Caroli,” in Nieuwe Studien over Johannes Calvijn (Amsterdam: 1883), 17-89; “Caroli na de nederlaag,” in Studien over Johannes Calvijn, 3rd series (Amsterdam: 1891), 123-158.
8. Nijenhuis, 88.
9. Born in 1480, in Rosay (province of Brie). Cf. Haag, col. 3:770 and Bählcr, 44.
10. Haag, III, col.770. H. Heller, “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux,” in Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 33 (1971), 271.
11. Cf. Bähler, 46.
12. Haag, III, col. 771. Pierson, “Caroli na de nederlaag, 123. Bähler, 48.
13. Bähler, 48f.
14. Nijenhuis, 78. On page 79 he cites a letter from Grynaeus who states that Caroli is in Basel at the time. Cf. Herm. III, 374. Cf. also Bähler, 55.
15. Pierson, “Caroli na de nederlaag,” 123 incorrectly gives the date as May 1535, but we know that Caroli was still in Geneva at that time. Cf. Bähler, 51-53. Cf. Herm. IV, 103 and 109.
16. Herm. IV, 167.
17. Herm. IV, 183-187.
18. Herm. IV, 241.
19. Herm. IV, 252f., 254f.
20. CO VII, 328f. Cf. Herm. IV, 188.
21. Haag, La France Protestante, III, col. 772.
22. Nijenhuis, 83.
23. Haag, La France Protestante, III, col. 773.
24. Caroli's letter to Pope Paul III is dated the end of June, 1537. Cf. Herm. IV, 248f.
25. Nijenhuis mentions that in 1534 Farel was suspected in Berne of holding to certain anti- trinitarian views, that in 1535 Grynaeus wrote to Farel on the christology found in the Sommaire (suspicions raised to him by Caroli himself) and that the Sommaire did not in fact contain classical trinitarian formulations, 79.
26. Nijenhuis, 88f.
27. Herm. IV, 249. “Cum autum [...] blasphemias aequo animo ferre.”
28. Herm. IV, 250. “...et poenas quas ob dictum (...] declarare.”
29. Haag, col. 773. Bähler, 86 cites a copy of the letter in the Berne archives.
30. Cf. Haag, col. 773f. and Bälhler, 122.
31. Cf. Herm. VI, 40ff. for a complete transcript.
32. There is a letter to Caroli from Calvin in August of 1540.
33. Bähler, 130.
34. Although we are not analyzing all of the Latin and French editions of the Institutes until 1545, our point will be easily demonstrated by the time of the 1539 Institutes.
35. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1536 Edition. Battles, transl., (1975), 48.
36. “Dic in una Dei essentia personarum trinitatem , dixeris uno verbo quod scripturae loquuntur.” IV 29,106 “Proinde et nos eam personarum trinitatem, ne imaginari in animum inducamus.” IV 29,110. “...in Dei unitate, subsistere personarum trinitatem.” IV 29, 62. Institutes of the Christian Religion of Jolin Calvin, 539: Text and Concordance. Wevers, vol. 2 (1988), 18.
37. Catechism of Geneva; CO X/1 13.
38. Nijenhuis, 88.
39. Battles, 46.
40. In the Pro Farello Calvin mentions in a negative way the “papists” wilh a variety or adjectives at least thirteen times.
41. CO VII, 303.
42. CO VII, 325.
43. CO VII, 332.
44. CO VII, 313.
45. Wevers, Vol. 1, 102.
46. CO VII, 299.
47. Cf. Richard C. Gamble, “Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin's Hermeneutic,” in Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985), 1-17; “Exposition and Method in Calvin,” in Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987), 153-165; “Calvin as Theologian and Exegete. Is There Anything New?” in Calvin Theological Journal 23 (1988), 178-194; “Calvin's Theological Method. Word and Spirit. A Case Study,” in Calviniana, Vol. X, 63-75. One or the fundamental points of these articles is that “method” is not a neutral science for Calvin. Calvin discussed in the Pro Farello, which had not been analyzed in my earlier articles, the concept of 'brevitas' in theological writing when he said: “Neque enim credibile est, quum sancti patres, quam maxima possent brevitate, complecti vellent formulam compositam ex rebus adprime necesariis, lusisse supervacuo verborum circuitu. Vides autem in his verbis esse battologiam, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Quorsum ista repetitio? An vel emphasim habet ullam, vel maiorem expressionem? Vides ergo carmen esse, magis cantillando aptum quam formulam confessionis, in qua syllabam unam redundare absurdum est,” CO VII, 315.