expresses such general opposition; opposition to theology for its own sake, yes,
but not opposition in general to learning for its own sake. On the other hand,
I also know of no passage in which he explicitly praises learning for its own
sake. When discussing non-biblical learning what he invariably does, instead,
is describe how such learning is to befitted, in one way or another, into a life of
Christian devotion. Rarely does that amount to utility in the modern sense. Let
us consider some passages.
He says, in one passage,‘Read Demosthenes, or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle
and others of that tribe. They will, I admit, allure you, delight you, move you,
enrapture you in wonderful measure.’^16 Calvin does not go on to say that there
is something wrong about this—how could he, since he is clearly describing
his own experience in reading these authors? What he instead goes on to say is
that when one turns to Scripture after reading the ancients, onefinds that one
is yet more deeply affected.‘Compared with [Scripture’s] deep impression,
such vigor as the orators and philosophers have will nearly vanish.’^17
In another passage of theInstitutes, Calvin speaks of the native endowment
of‘reason and understanding’present in human beings in general, both‘pious
and impious’, that enables‘the discovery or systematic transmission of the
arts, or the inner and more excellent knowledge of them’. Then he goes on to
say the following:
Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light
of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and
perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with
God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole foundation of
truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall
appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For, by holding the gifts
of the Spirit in slight esteem, we condemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What
then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established
civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philo-
sophers were blind in theirfine observation and artful description of nature? Shall
we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of
disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane
who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of
all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen?
No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great
admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how pre-
eminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without
recognizing at the same time that it comes from God?^18Here too there is no indication that Calvin thinks that it is wrong to study, say,
philosophy and mathematics for their own sake rather than for some utility.
(^16) Calvin,InstitutesI.viii.2. (^17) Calvin,InstitutesI.viii.1.
(^18) Calvin,InstitutesI.ii.15.
84 Nicholas Wolterstorff