[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.