Part 36

VERY DEAR AND HONOURED BRETHREN,--As I desire your quiet, to the end that, being at peace among yourselves, you may be the better enabled and disposed to serve God, and may do so with the greater courage, I have grieved for the trouble which some inconsiderate people have occasioned you, and grieved doubly because they made a cloak of me and of this Church in order to trouble you. Now, as they did us injustice in that, it appears to me that you ought to have been too reasonable and humane to suffer us to be mixed up and implicated in their follies. One of them, of whom I had heard complaint made, will bear me witness that I have not encouraged him in his fault since his return, but have rather endeavoured to make him feel and understand it, although M. A Lasco had written to me confidentially that all had been forgiven. I mention this, because I have heard that they have been reproached with wishing to make an idol of me and a Jerusalem of Geneva. I have not deserved that your Church should treat me thus, and even were there twice the amount of ingratitude, I should not cease to seek your welfare. But I am constrained to warn you of it, for such proceedings are calculated rather to ruin than to edify. And however I may seek to bury such matters in oblivion, I cannot hinder many from being offended by them. If those who have stirred up these conflicts have taken occasion to do so from the diversity of ceremonies, as M. A Lasco has informed me,[383] they have but ill understood in what the true unity of Christians consists, and how every member is bound to conform himself to the body of the Church in which he lives. It is true, that if a different form has been seen and preferred, it is quite allowable in communicating first of all with the pastor, to tell him what is thought of it, provided one accommodates one's-self to the usages of the place where one lives, without clamouring for novelty, but peaceably conforming to any order that is not repugnant to the word of God. Now, how the two persons in question have proceeded I know not, unless I give credit to the testimony which has been furnished me, namely, that there has been a great want of consideration, and that they have neither observed due measure nor modesty. But this I say, because it is well to set such persons right by gentleness, rather than to make matters worse by over-violent remedies. Not that I mean to say that they have been too severely dealt with, but that I have heard it so reported, although I do not believe it. I think you will not take it ill that I let you know this, as it can do you no harm.

[383] A Lasco had composed a work entitled, _The whole Form and Manner of the Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church of the Strangers, set up at London by the very faithful Prince, Edward VI._

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part, I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

As for the name of the Bishop of Rome, that is a foolish question to dwell upon. We bestow too much honour upon those horned cattle in calling them bishops, for the name is too honourable for them. Neither does the title of Pope any better suit the brigand who has usurped God's seat. In reference to this, I would follow unbiassed that which is commonly received. The chief practical point of difference is about the form of prayer. I know that we must make a due distinction between the individual and the abominable and accursed seat (of the beast). But I do think that those who pray specially for him who bears such a mark of reprobation, have surely much time to spare. I lay down laws for no one, but it were much to be desired that the sobriety of our prayers should shew the reverence we feel for the name of God. I speak with such freedom as you ought to bear from a brother, and I hope, too, that you will bear with it; for I shall be quite ready to suffer the word of admonition from you whenever you disapprove of what I write to you. Moreover, when you have well weighed the matter, and that each is willing, without contention, to submit to the truth, I hope that harmony will easily be established amongst us. Furthermore, if this annoyance has been hard upon you, have some compassion upon us, who have here daily far more rude encounters to sustain. And for my part, I shall continue to pray our good Lord as I do, that it would please him to increase you more and more in the graces of his Spirit, to make your labours profitable, and to strengthen your hands in the exercise of the rule which he has committed to you. And my brethren will do the same, for I know their mind towards you.

[_Fr. Copy._--_Library of Geneva._ Vol. 107.]

CCCI.--TO THE SEIGNEURS OF GENEVA.[384]

[384] On the back, in the handwriting of Calvin: "The case against Trolliet."

Trolliet, of Geneva, a discontented and unsettled spirit, became, first of all, a hermit in Burgundy, and lived in affectation of sanctity. Soon tired, however, of playing this part, he re-appeared at Geneva, and solicited the functions of the ministry, from which he was warned off by the influence of Calvin, against whom he vowed an irreconcilable hatred. Thenceforward, he made himself remarkable in the ranks of the libertine party, by the violence of his attacks against the Reformer. He arraigned his writings, and offered to prove, that in the book of _The Christian Institution_, Calvin had made God _the author of sin_. These accusations, emulously repeated by the adversaries of the Reformer, and speciously tricked up with the authority of Melanchthon, provoked sharp discussions, which were only half appeased by the sentence of the Seigneurs of Geneva, who approved the _Christian Institution_, while at the same time declaring Trolliet, "homme de bien," out of consideration for the party to which he belonged. The whole of the papers relating to the controversy of Calvin with Trolliet, are to be found collected in Vol. 145 of the _MSS. of the Library of Geneva_.

Reply of Calvin to the Syndics of Geneva in the case of Trolliet.

_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]

[385] "Since we are all corrupt and contaminate by vice, it cannot be but God must hate us, and that not with tyrannical cruelty, but with reasonable equity.... That all the children of Adam come forward to contend and dispute against their Creator, because by his eternal Providence, they were devoted, before they were born, to perpetual calamity. When, on the contrary, God brings them to know themselves, how can they murmur at that? If they have all been taken out of a corrupt mass, it is no way marvellous that they are liable to condemnation. Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity, because by his eternal decree they are ordained to condemnation, to which their very nature makes them amenable."--_Institution of the Christian Religion_, edit, of 1554, p. 461.

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.

[386] "The first man fell, because God thought it fit. Now, as to why he thought it fit, we know nothing. Yet it is certain, that he has not thus decided, unless because he saw that it would advance the glory of his name.... Man then falls, according as it has been ordained of God, but he falls by his own vice."--_Ibid._ edit, of 1551, p. 463.

"Although that by the eternal Providence of God man has been created for that state of misery in which he is, yet notwithstanding he has derived the cause of that misery from himself, and not from God. For he perishes only because of his having, through perversity, degenerated from the pure nature which God had given him."--_Ibid._, p. 464.

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]

[387] This is the book: _De Æterna Dei Prædestinatione et Providentia._ Genève, 1550, in 8vo; translated into French the same year.

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.

As to the passages extracted out of the book of Melanchthon,[388] I confess that God is not the author of sin. I have even expressly maintained this article of faith in my books, and as warmly as could be required from a faithful servant of God. It is therefore superfluous to set up this as a matter of dispute between us. Notwithstanding, I must confess, as I have formerly declared, that the method of instruction which Melanchthon adopts, is different from mine. I have also, honourable Seigneurs, explained to you the cause of this. It is, that Melanchthon, being a timorous man, has accommodated himself too much to the common feeling of mankind, that he might not give occasion to over-curious people to seek to pry into the secret things of God. And thus, as at last appears, he has spoken of the present question rather as a philosopher than a theologian, having no better authority to rest upon than that of Plato. And then evidently he aims at a middle course, as if he would confess that he swam between two currents, which is what the adverse party ought to take rather more into account.[389]

[388] This is the famous book of the _Common Places_ (_Loci Theologici_), translated into French under the care of Calvin: _The Summe of Theology, or Common Places of Melanchthon_, translated from the Latin, by John Calvin. With a Preface. 1546, in 8vo.

[389] It is not uninteresting to compare this estimate formed by Calvin of Melanchthon, with the remarkable one contained in the preface to the _Common Places_:--"I perceive that the author, being a person of profound knowledge, has not chosen to enter into subtile disputations, nor to treat these matters with that high degree of skill which it would have been so easy for him to employ. But he has brought himself down as much as he could, having only regard to edification. It is, certes, the style and fashion which we should observe, did not our adversaries constrain us by their cavils to turn aside from this course.... The same about predestination, because he sees now-a-days so many flighty spirits who are but too much given to curiosity, and who go beyond bounds in this matter. Wishing to provide against this danger, he has proposed to touch only on what was needful to be known, leaving all else buried out of sight, rather than by disclosing all he could, to give the reins to much perplexing and confused disputation, from whence arises no good fruit. _I confess that the whole of what God has been pleased to reveal to us in Scripture ought not to be suppressed, whatsoever happens_; but he who seeks to give profitable instruction to his readers, may very well be excused for dwelling upon what he knows to be most essential, passing lightly over or leaving out of sight that which he does not expect to be equally profitable."

As for the rest, most honourable Seigneurs, he who would place Melanchthon and myself in opposition, greatly wrongs both the one and the other, as well as the whole Church of God. I honour Melanchthon as much on account of the excellent knowledge which is in him, as for his virtues; and more than all, because of his having laboured faithfully to further the Gospel. If I find anything to reprove, I do not conceal it from him, as he gives me full liberty not to do so. As for him, there are witnesses more than enough, who know how much he loves me. And I know that he would detest those who sought to shelter themselves behind him, to disparage my doctrine in any way. Moreover, such sort of people only seek to sow tares and scandals to obstruct the course of the Gospel. I shall not waste my time in disproving these propositions, brought forward by the adverse party, in which Melanchthon gives satisfaction to none of the learned, because he yields to too tender a caution, not venturing to say what he knows to be true, because he fears that all may not be capable of hearing it. It suffices that I have produced to you letters under his hand, wherein appears what I have advanced. But even if license were given to the adverse party to form any conclusion he might think proper, and to make what resolutions he liked upon the writings of learned men, you would be at his mercy as to receiving three Sacraments,--among which is the confessional, because, forsooth, Melanchthon receives them. This I merely mention, that he may learn to know himself better, and not to be so excessively eager to throw himself into the battle-field.

As for myself, most honourable Seigneurs, having the assurance of my conscience, that what I have taught and written has not been the creation of my own brain, but that I have had it from God, it must needs be that I maintain it, as I think I have fully done, if I would not prove traitor to the truth. And should it seem good to you, I offer anew to reply more fully, until the adverse party be convicted of having falsely accused me, contrary to all truth and reason.[390]

[_Fr. orig._--_Library of Geneva._ Vol. 145.]

[390] Here is the sentence pronounced on this occasion by the Seigneurs of Geneva:--

"_Wednesday, 9th November 1552._--Having heard in council the worshipful and learned ministers of the word of God, Master William Farel, and Master Peter Viret, and after them worshipful Monsieur John Calvin, minister of this city of Geneva, and noble John Trolliet, also of Geneva, in their depositions and replies, now often repeated, touching the _Christian Institution_ of the said Monsieur Calvin, and having well considered the whole, the council has determined and concluded, that all things well heard and understood, it has pronounced and declared, and pronounces and declares the said book of the _Institution_ of the said Calvin, to be well and holily done, and his holy doctrine to be God's doctrine, and that he be held as good and true minister of this city, and that henceforward no person dare to speak against the said book, nor the said doctrine. We command both parties, and all concerned, to observe this.

"My said Lords Syndics and Council,

"ROSET."

CCCII.--TO FAREL.[391]