Jean Calvin — Letters of John Calvin — The plague at Geneva—conduct of the ministers in these circumstances—Italian refugees—the question of the ecclesiastical property examined.

The plague at Geneva—conduct of the ministers in these circumstances—Italian refugees—the question of the ecclesiastical property examined.

[Geneva, October 1542.]

Your letter, in which you requested that I would write somewhat about the ecclesiastical property, was delivered to me on Monday, while I was engaged upon the relics of the wedding. Although that by no means had prevented me from writing, yet since that time I have not had a single moment of leisure.

The pestilence also begins to rage here with greater violence, and few who are at all affected by it escape its ravages.[381] One of our colleagues was to be set apart for attendance upon the sick. Because Peter offered himself, all readily acquiesced.[382] If anything happens to him, I fear that I must take the risk upon myself, for as you observe, because we are debtors to one another, we must not be wanting to those who, more than any others, stand in need of our ministry.[383] And yet it is not my opinion, that while we wish to provide for one portion we are at liberty to neglect the body of the Church itself. But so long as we are in this ministry, I do not see that any pretext will avail us, if, through fear of infection, we are found wanting in the discharge of our duty when there is most need of our assistance. In what concerns yourselves I have already told you what occurred to me.[384] Now, since that colleague has been removed, you must seek for some one else to be put in his place. If no such person can be found, you must devise some plan, but with the common advice of the brethren.

Our friend Bernardino[385] has been assailed by strange manœuvres to induce him to leave us. He remains constant, however; and in a great measure, he has so broken with Antichrist, that they need not think of troubling him for the future. He has written a volume of sermons, at the end of which he professes that he entirely, and, without any exception whatever, goes along with us—thinks as we do. Many of the Italians visit him; and we have already two other preachers. Those who have known him, consider that the kingdom of Christ has got no small addition in that single individual. In the meantime, as you may conceive, I need to have all my wits about me. The more attentively I observe him, the more highly do I esteem him. He acknowledges, however, that he has been greatly helped and relieved by me, so as to be less easily shaken. The Senate has already granted allowance for his preaching as often as he thinks proper.[386] We have here at present Julio Camillo,[387] whose manifold tergiversations are somewhat suspicious; for although he talks boastingly of the Gospel, yet, because he has something of a secret purpose, which, even although unknown to us, we do not like, we have reason to be upon our guard with him. It is well, however, that Bernardino is on his guard, and dreads him as an enemy.

Now, however, I return to that request of yours about the ecclesiastical property; for you remind me of it again in your last letter. I beg, however, that you may pardon me; for you are aware that the nature of this question is of a kind that requires both time and leisure, a composed mind, and no little diligence. When we were at Ratisbon I lent a hand to Bucer in collecting those materials which he published among the acts of the conferences; but as the question was there only incidentally brought under discussion, what was written there at that time will not suffice for the present exigency. Some little insight, however, may be derived from it. To me it seems twofold. The case seems to me to divide into two heads. In the first place, that you may declare that this alienation will occasion stumbling and causes of offence, and, in the next place, you may demonstrate that it is not lawful.

The occasions of stumbling are readily stated. Because that on that account the Papists defame the Gospel, and they have begun to do so even at a time when they had not such a specious pretext for doing so. Formerly, therefore, they took advantage of these calumnies; they will now have a just ground of accusation when they talk about the plunder of Church property. In the next place, because the common people throughout the whole canton dare not speak out openly, they complain about it everywhere in corners, and the ministers have not a word to answer. For after having cried out without ceasing against the sacrilege of the Pope and the whole of the Popish priesthood, with what face can they defend the sale of property which entirely strips the Church bare, and may leave her naked, while they could not even submit to any abuse or misapplication of the revenues? In the third place, because they afford the very worst precedent to other states and rulers. They are more eager than enough to seize upon church property without having further inducement from any other quarter presented to them, but now, if they shall transgress in this respect, one half of the blame will lie upon those who set them the example. Fourthly, that they are not aware, and have no means of knowing, what posterity will do in this matter; for it may so happen, that when the Church has been plundered of everything of her own, she may be left entirely helpless and destitute.

With reference to that second head which is above stated, keep in mind that argument on which the chief hinge of the whole question turns, that what has once been devoted to Christ and the Church, is not the property of the magistrate. And here it will be necessary to put them in mind of that law and ancient method, by which rule of appropriation property of this kind was to be dispensed. You must, therefore, insist upon it that those ungodly paunches have taken possession of what had been solemnly set apart to the service of the Church, that it is clear enough what is a lawful application of Church property, and that appropriation ought now to be adopted; that the alienation is liable to anathema and to the curse, because it profanes that which is sacred. In the meantime all suspicion will need to be taken off, that they may not think you have a hankering desire after the property. It will need to be demonstrated to them, however, that the rule of reformation which King Josiah prescribed is the best, that the magistrates may have a power of inspection, and that the deacons be the administrators. You can testify, however, that you are content that the magistrate may have the full power of administration, provided he faithfully dispenses the annual income, and neither diminishes nor dilapidates the property.

You perceive how confusedly and hurriedly I have run over these few heads. I make no apology, however; with you especially, who are so well aware that I do not, on so grave a matter, babble with carelessness and rashness whatever comes uppermost, but am forced, by the urgency of the case, to launch forth at once what I would willingly elaborate had I more leisure. Adieu, my excellent and very dear brother. We shall see to the relative of Cordier. The brethren salute you,—my wife and the whole household. Again, farewell. May the Lord preserve you and other good men. I am very glad that you have at length removed to another house, which, if you had not done, I would have turned you out of the old one by my abuse. Farewell; may the Lord always guide you by the counsel of his own Spirit, and protect you by his strength from on high.—Yours,

John Calvin.

I scarce know what I have written, my eyes are so much affected.

[Lat. orig. autogr.—Library of Geneva. Vol. 106.]