On Book One (Of Pighius)
Background
Two years ago, during a meeting in Worms, I heard rumors that Albertus Pighius was preparing a work aimed at refuting my teachings, though it wasn’t published yet. He boasted among his friends that he had written something that would end my arguments. However, his book, once released, mainly targeted Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon, along with others in our shared cause, rather than directly challenging me. I concluded that he preferred to confront the broader Reformation movement, aiming for a larger triumph or a lesser disgrace if he failed.
When I finally received his volume, Free Choice, it became clear that his primary goal was to overturn my arguments in the Institutes. Though he claimed he was attacking our entire movement, he issued a special challenge to me, assuming that I had addressed this subject of free will more comprehensively than others.
Initially, I would have hesitated to respond alone if his attack had been directed at all of us. I would not want to seem presumptuous by putting myself above others who are more qualified. Yet now, with no one else expected to reply, and considering Pighius’ boldness in publicly mocking God’s truth, I feel compelled to defend sound doctrine. Though there are others more learned and capable, since Pighius has directly called me out, I am stepping forward. I do so trusting in the strength of my Lord and in the spiritual armor He provides, so that Pighius may not boast of defeating even one of Christ’s servants.
Pighius appears to single me out for dispute, although his anger clouds his judgment. Perhaps he imagines that by elevating me among my peers, he can make it seem as if he’s batthng a formidable opponent. But whatever he thinks matters little to me. A true servant’s honor is found not in eloquence or reputation, but in a clean conscience before God, not human approval.
While Pighius might possess learning and skill in debate, his cleverness is misdirected. His pride blinds him, so much so that he seems to see things that aren't there. His eloquence may charm those with little discernment, but what use is it when his mind is clouded by folly?
If Pighius truly wishes to gain respect among the learned, he must first restore clarity to his thinking. For this, two remedies are needed: he must stop his malicious attacks on God’s truth and cast aside his arrogance, which has warped his understanding. But rather than continue criticizing his character, I’ll guide readers to examine his work directly, where they may see for themselves the truth of my observations.
Method to Be Followed
Before addressing Pighius's arguments, I need to clarify how I’ll approach this discussion. Readers shouldn’t expect me to follow his lengthy and scattered discourse point-by-point. If I responded to every argument in detail, this work would become excessively long. Pighius is a skilled speaker who uses his words to bury the issues in pomp and overwhelm his readers. He may even hope that his impressive speech will dazzle those who lack discernment.
But I am content to let him win the prize for wordiness; to me, excessive talk is as troubling as any other lack of self-restraint. While he might fool the simple with his flowery speeches, those who are perceptive will recognize the emptiness behind his words. My goal, therefore, is to cut through this “fog” he creates so that the truth of God shines clearly. Rather than tire myself and my readers with excessive writing, I aim to highlight what matters, exposing his distortions and letting God’s simple truth be revealed.
I’m also compelled by practical concerns. Time is limited, as I only have two months to prepare this reply for publication at the Frankfurt market. Readers will understand if some points are treated briefly due to these constraints. While some may criticize me for not taking more time, I believe my duty to defend God’s truth when it is attacked outweighs this concern. I aim to write quickly without sacrificing clarity, trusting that this work will still serve its purpose.
For ease of comparison, I will follow Pighius's structure but focus on conciseness and simplicity, leaving aside his insults and exaggerated attacks. These slanders against us neither diminish Christ’s glory nor harm the reputation of good people, so I won’t be drawn into a battle of words. Pighius’s rants, born of anger and arrogance, speak more about him than about the truth we defend.
Calvin’s Response to Pighius’s Letter of Dedication
Let’s briefly address some of the points Pighius raises in his letter to Sadoleto, although they aren’t central to our main discussion. Pighius is bewildered and frustrated that Germany could be won over to our teaching, which he considers absurd and akin to past heresies. He claims that we lack learning, eloquence, and holiness—qualities he believes necessary to draw followers.
My response is simple: Pighius fails to see that our success is a clear work of God. The less we seem capable on our own, the more evident it is that God’s power works through our weakness. Pighius’s complaint could just as well come from the mouths of early opponents of the apostles, who similarly scorned the apparent weakness of their message. Like Paul, we gladly admit that our strength is not in human skill or protection but in the Spirit of God, which sustains the truth by its own power, not ours. Pighius shouldn’t be surprised at the effectiveness of this teaching, since it was God who first spoke through Luther, and it is God who continues to speak through us.
Pighius also tries to highlight the differences between us and the apostles. While we cannot match them in personal stature, our doctrine aligns with theirs. We haven’t invented a new gospel; we proclaim the same message they received and faithfully taught. The disagreements we have with Rome often stem from our insistence that Christ, the prophets, and the apostles should be heard directly, while our opponents prefer their own interpretations above these voices.
Pighius praises the unity among the apostles, as if we lack such unity today. But the same Spirit that gave them harmony over doctrine has brought unity among those committed to restoring the gospel. He also speaks of the powerful presence of the Spirit in the apostles’ lives. Yet this very Spirit is our strength too, for we teach the same gospel, calling the world to listen to the message that has been neglected and nearly erased from memory.
For twenty-five years, our goal has been to see this conflict resolved in a way that brings glory to Christ’s teaching, not to human efforts. We are ready to correct any part of our doctrine if it’s proven to contradict the teaching of Christ and the apostles. When people demand fresh miracles as proof of our message, they overlook that the apostles’ miracles were given to affirm the gospel once for all. It’s ungrateful and even shameless to insist that new signs are needed, as if the gospel were something new.
Pighius accuses us of using deceit, twisting Scripture, and even living worse than pagans, hoping to tarnish our teachings by maligning our character. But I invite any honest observer to judge for themselves. Our words may seem harsh, but they are directed only at those who see God’s truth as a threat. And it’s unfair to judge the truth of a teaching based on the actions of those who misuse it.
Pighius claims our work is more difficult than that of the apostles, and in a sense, he’s correct. Luther and those who followed him faced immense opposition, including the powerful influence of the pope, who commands armies, wealth, and widespread allegiance. The pope, with his cardinals, bishops, and priests, sees his entire empire as threatened by the gospel we proclaim. Therefore, he mobilizes all resources as though fighting for his very life.
In some ways, our challenge is harder than that of the apostles. While they faced overt paganism, we must contend with a false image of the church that hides under God’s name. Centuries of superstition and corruption have embedded themselves deeply into people’s minds, and these errors are defended by worldly powers willing to use cruelty to maintain their grip.
Pighius says we are bold, and indeed, it would be reckless if our mission were merely human. But we rely on God’s strength, as Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 10. This power enables us to tear down every falsehood that opposes the knowledge of Christ. Trusting in God’s invincible power, we stand firm against all the forces upholding papal authority, knowing that it is His truth we defend.
Pighius accuses us of undermining church history and dismissing the teachings of past saints, claiming that we act as if the church has been without Christ for 1,400 years. But this is simply false. We firmly believe that Christ has always been with His church, preserving it by His power and Spirit as He promised. At the same time, we recognize that Scripture foretold a widespread rebellion within the church itself, an event Paul describes as the rise of Antichrist from within, defying God while sitting in His sanctuary. The present state of the church, dominated by corrupt leadership, matches Paul’s prophecy exactly, affirming the truth of God’s Word.
Christ’s faithfulness to His church remains, even through times of spiritual darkness. Though the world was nearly blinded by error, God preserved a remnant, and from that remnant, a revival of truth has emerged. Pighius may accuse us of faithlessness, but the facts testify that Christ never abandoned His church, even when it seemed lost in error.
Pighius acknowledges that some abuses have crept into the church, yet insists they are minor and that only church leaders should address them. He also suggests that we left the church simply because we were disturbed by the moral failures of its leaders. This accusation misses the point entirely. Initially, Luther’s criticism focused on obvious abuses and corruption within the priesthood. Yet, rather than address these concerns, the leaders of Rome responded with hostility, making reform impossible. Luther’s efforts gradually revealed the deeper extent of corruption, showing that the problem was more than individual misconduct; it was rooted in the entire system of the papacy.
We never intended to divide over matters of personal conduct alone. We understand that church unity is essential, and moral failures, even serious ones, do not justify a split. But when doctrine itself is corrupted and leaders refuse correction, division becomes unavoidable. Pighius would have a case if we had left over mere moral grievances. However, the split happened because the Roman church would not tolerate any reform of its teachings. Rather than tolerate faithful critique, they demanded submission to ungodly teachings, leaving us no choice but to stand apart.
Our goal has always been unity in true doctrine, not separation for minor disagreements or personal grievances. Yet when the church’s leadership suppresses truth and rejects reform, faithful believers must choose faithfulness to Christ above allegiance to corrupt authority.
Pighius claims that we initiated our separation from the Roman church out of mere offense at the moral failings of its priests. This is simply not true. It was not we who instigated division, but the leaders in Rome, who drove out anyone who spoke the truth, using tyrannical decrees and even violence to silence opposition. How can they accuse us of dividing the church when they were the ones who first excluded us?
Pighius argues that we should have maintained “peace” by keeping silent to preserve unity. But what kind of peace is built on ignoring the truth of God? True unity, as the Holy Spirit teaches, is rooted in sound doctrine. Rome’s so-called unity is built on idolatry, superstition, and corrupted doctrine. Christ’s power is obscured, His grace nearly forgotten, and His sacraments disfigured by human inventions.
Pighius advises us to maintain peace by tolerating these evils. But to remain silent in the face of such distortions would be to betray God’s glory, Christ’s gospel, and the souls Christ redeemed. Just as a guard dog barks at the approach of a thief, we cannot stand by and say nothing while the church is plundered, God’s majesty trampled, and Christ’s kingdom robbed.
Pighius also argues that our actions have weakened the pastors’ authority to address abuses. But he ignores the reality: the leaders in Rome show no urgency to address corruption, even amid an undeniable crisis in the church. The world itself cries out for reform, and yet these leaders remain unmoved. The current state of affairs shows that they would have done nothing to address abuses, whether we spoke out or remained silent.
Pighius accuses us of disrupting the church, but like Elijah said to King Ahab, we reply: "It is not we who trouble Israel, but you, by abandoning the commandments of the Lord" (1 Kings 18:18). We are not responsible for the present turmoil; rather, the blame lies with those who prefer to maintain power and resist the reign of Christ. Scripture foretells that the “wicked one” will endure until Christ’s coming destroys him, and we trust God to bring true peace in His time.
Pighius claims that the Roman church leaders would enact reforms if we didn’t obstruct them. But if that’s true, why have they shown no genuine intention of doing so, despite repeated requests? The truth is, they fear that any attempt to reform this decaying structure, which is already on the verge of collapse, will only bring it down upon themselves. Their priority isn’t the church’s health but rather preserving their own power, regardless of the church’s future state.
Pighius also laments that we have disrupted the discipline of the church, as though any true discipline existed before. The church under Rome was filled with disorder and corruption. He boasts of ancient church laws, yet they were ignored as though they had never been written. It’s absurd for Pighius to mourn the loss of discipline when what existed was more tyranny than order.
I respond to Pighius briefly to clear up these misunderstandings before we engage in the actual debate. I’ll avoid addressing his petty attacks on Luther’s character, which are no more than empty insults. Pighius accuses Luther of being a "hellish monster" simply because Luther, like many devoted believers, experienced intense struggles of conscience. Yet if Pighius understood what it means to wrestle deeply with faith and repentance, he might respect Luther instead of mocking him.
Every believer, especially those strong in faith, experiences times of intense internal struggle as they grow in humility and fear of God. Just as Jacob wrestled with God, bearing the mark of that struggle for life, many saints are tested deeply in ways that bring them closer to God. But those like Pighius, who lack true reverence, view these struggles with disdain, as if they were fairy tales.