[358] The magistrates of Geneva, after having received the advice
of the leading Swiss Churches,--which were unanimous alike in
their recognition of the doctrine of election, and in soliciting
indulgence for Bolsec,--proceeded with the trial of the prisoner,
who, having refused to retract his opinions, was solemnly banished
on the 23d December 1551, for having persisted in an obstinate
despisal of the judgment of the Churches to which he had promised
submission.--(_Registers of the Council_, Dec. 1551. Spon and Picot,
_Histoire de Genève_.) Calvin did not wish the sentence to be more
severe, although he counted on the Swiss Churches taking a more
energetic course, and in the ardour of his zeal for what he regarded
as sound doctrine, looked upon all hesitation and all weakness as a
cowardly abandonment of the truth.
Thanks for the zeal manifested on behalf of the faithful in
France--Complaints of the conduct of the Ministers of Zurich in
the affair of Bolsec.
GENEVA, _January 1552_.
You have clearly shown yourself to be what you have always been, by
your unremitting endeavours to mitigate the rage of our Pharaoh,
and aid our unfortunate brethren. I cannot forget how strenuously
and faithfully you have always devoted yourself to this cause.
Still, I have good reason to fear that little has been gained
by our letters: for the courtiers to frustrate them is nothing
wonderful. Indeed, I lately learned as much, in a quiet way, from
the royal ambassador when he was here. We would require to send
some one, therefore, if we wish to be of any use. The matter was
taken up at Baden, I understand, but their deliberations probably
came to naught. So confident am I of your watchful attention and
faithfulness, that I consider it unnecessary for me to stimulate you
by a single word.
Would that we were so well satisfied about another matter, that
we could tender our thanks to you and your colleagues without any
qualification. Inasmuch as we experienced--not without severe
pain--considerably less support from you than we had anticipated,
I prefer bringing my complaint candidly before you, rather than
nourish my displeasure by keeping it to myself. You write that you
were astonished why we, annoyed by a vile and impious wretch, should
ask your opinion of a doctrine which he was falsely attacking. In
this impression you have been greatly mistaken, for when he accused
us of holding impious doctrine, we deferred to your judgment out of
respect to you. I fail to see why this should annoy you. I certainly
did not think you would consider any amount of labour burdensome,
which should bring so very great relief to your brethren. You say
that it is a serious matter to give an unqualified approval of
disputations, especially when they turn upon a matter which, in the
reader's judgment, might be handled to better purpose in some other
way. And yet, I have never supposed, nor do I yet believe, that you
belong to the number of those who are so well pleased with their
own performances, that they cannot peruse without aversion anything
executed by another; nor, in truth, did I propose dictating a
formula to you, to which we desired your unqualified assent. It was
enough, and more than enough, to have your approval of a doctrine
which we held to be found in the word of God, nor was it our object
to discuss it with skill and acuteness; so far from that, the
matter, when stripped of all artifice, shows that we wanted nothing
more than that by refuting the man's wicked calumnies, you should
bear testimony to our teaching only what was drawn from the pure
fountain of God.
You ought not to have feared, I think, that any one was accusing you
of dishonesty, because I asked you not to think it troublesome, to
give an answer to our magistrates, as if on an entirely new subject.
For how could they make a public statement regarding a matter,
into which no one had made any inquiry, although I readily allow
it appeared differently to you? Your charging us with the want of
moderation and humanity, was caused, we think, by your placing less
confidence in our letter than you ought to have done. Would that
Jerome were a better man than our letter declared him to be! Would
that he attributed all to the grace of God, as you seem to think.
But for you to plead in defence of a man who seditiously disturbed
a peaceful Church, who strove to divide us by deadly discord, who,
without ever having received the slightest provocation, loaded us
with all sorts of abuse, who publicly taunted us with representing
God as a tyrannical governor, nay more, that we had put the Jove of
the poets in the place of God,--to defend such a man, I say, were
the extreme of absurdity. How, moreover, can he attribute all to
the grace of God, when he says that grace is offered alike to all,
but that its efficacy rests with the free will of every one; when
he prates about the heart of flesh, or the susceptibility of grace,
being given to all, but so that every one may receive it of his
own accord? Altogether, I feel grieved beyond measure that there
is not a better understanding between us. Indeed I was astounded,
on finding from your letter, that the kind of teaching which I
employ is displeasing to many good men, just as Jerome is offended
by that of Zuingle. Wherein, I beseech you, lies the similarity?
For Zuingle's book, to speak confidentially, is crammed with such
knotty paradoxes, as to be very different, indeed, in point of
moderation, from what I hold. You are wrong in inferring that I
have promised a new work, in which I undertake to demonstrate that
God is not the author of sin. When that impostor was vexing me with
his calumnies, I stated in refutation what was true, viz., that I
had given sufficient evidence in a book which I had published, of my
utter abhorrence of such blasphemy. I refer to the book published
long since against _Libertines_. The dishonesty of that worthless
wretch, however, induced me to publish in addition what remained
of my reply to Pighius on _Predestination_. Should I fall into any
mistakes, you will be kind enough to set me right. For the rest,
I am sufficiently alive to the desirableness of my saying what I
have to say with frankness and candour. Jerome has been publicly
sentenced to perpetual exile. Certain slanderers have been falsely
circulating that we desired a more cruel punishment, and some have
been foolish enough to believe it. Our friend, De Falais, whose
maid-servant Jerome had cured of cancer, on that account espoused
his cause so very warmly, that he seemed almost infatuated. We
easily, and from the first, shook ourselves free of this annoyance.
But at the request of the neighbouring brethren, we were anxious to
remove that plague from the Bernese district. Now that your answer
has been ambiguous, the sorry wretch is making his boast that you
countenance his error. I only wish I could at present venture to
indicate the catastrophe of the tragedy, regarding which you desired
to be informed. You will hear, before long, or I am much mistaken,
in certain attempts just made, that he has paved the way for making
still greater disturbances. Now, if I have laid bare my inmost
feelings in making these complaints to you, let that have no weight
so far as our reply is concerned. Although you disappointed my
expectations, I nevertheless gladly offer you our friendship. I pass
by the others just as if I was entirely satisfied. In conclusion,
as my brother's sister is anxious about her son who is boarded in
your place, I am compelled to trouble you about him. I wish you
would inquire at his teacher, in her name, as to what progress
he is making, and if you find that he is not realizing the hopes
and desires of his father, that you will inform me of it at your
earliest opportunity.