CCXVIII.—To Henry Bullinger.[190]

Brotherly explanations regarding the difference on the subject of the Communion.

Geneva, 1st March 1548.

I hardly know what prevented me from replying sooner to you, unless it were that no trustworthy messenger presented himself who roused me to diligence. But when I heard that the ambassador of your city was here, I was unwilling to be guilty of allowing him to depart without a letter from me. I pass over in silence the long reply in which you seek to wash away all those points of difference about which I had carefully admonished you. For of what avail is it for us to enter on a controversy? I made a note of those points in your book that did not satisfy myself, or that might prove unsatisfactory to others, or such as I thought might not meet the approbation of the pious and learned. I did that at your request. I discharged the duty of a friend; if you think differently, you are at liberty to do so, as far as I am concerned. It would certainly not be the last of my wishes that there should be perfect harmony between us. But in whatever way I may hold the firm persuasion of a greater communication of Christ in the Sacraments than you express in words, we will not, on that account, cease to hold the same Christ, and to be one in him. Some day, perhaps, it will be given us to unite in fuller harmony of opinion. I have always loved ingenuousness, I take no delight in subtleties, and those who charge others with obscurity, allow me the merit of perspicuity. Neither, accordingly, can I be charged with guile, who never artfully affect anything to gain the favour of men; and my method of instruction is too simple to admit of any unfavourable suspicion, and too detailed to offend on the ground of obscurity. Wherefore, if I do not give uniform satisfaction, indulgence must be extended to me because I study in good faith, and with perfect candour, openly to declare what I have to say. It was on this account that lately, when at Bâle, I felt surprise at your complaint, as a friend reported to me, that I taught differently in my Commentaries from what I had held out to you. I replied in one sentence, which was the truth, that I used the same language at Zurich as at Geneva. I was, however, disposed to attribute the whole statement, be it what it might, to the mistake of my informant. At a time when it was dangerous for me to declare in language what views I held, I did not turn aside from the straight line by foregoing the free and firm announcement of my opinions in every particular, even so far as to bend the most rigid to some sort of moderation. Why then should I now, without any necessity, change at once my general mode of procedure and my convictions? If, however, I fail in persuading men of the truth of this, I shall be content to have God as the witness of my confession.

Your ambassador will give you a fuller and more perfect account of affairs in France than I can compress in a letter. I wish they were of such a kind as it would give you pleasure to hear; but there is nothing except sad news daily. Although he was ordered to abstain from all the abominations of the Papacy, he could not avoid observing a disgraceful profanation of the sacred ordinance of baptism.

Adieu, illustrious sir, and highly to be revered brother in the Lord. You will respectfully salute in my name Masters Pelliean, Bibliander, Walter, and the other fellow-ministers and masters of the school. May the Lord Jesus guide you by his own Spirit, bless your pious labours, and preserve you safe.

All my colleagues also reverently salute you. To your wife and family the best greeting.—Yours,

John Calvin.

[Lat. orig. autogr.—Arch. of Zurich. Gallicana Scripta, p. 8.]