CCXXIV.—To Henry Bullinger.[199]

New explanations regarding the Supper—Violence of some of the Bernese ministers—Calvinism and Buceranism.

Geneva, 26th June 1548.

Your letter at length reached me, eight days after I had arrived at home. Reust was not himself the bearer of it; it was brought by Roset. The former, I suppose, was less solicitous about the delivery of it, as he had found a master without our assistance. We both, however, courteously placed our services at his disposal. With regard to your small treatise to which you refer in your letter, I wish, my Bullinger, as we were lately in your quarter, it had not been troublesome to you and your colleagues to have talked together in a quiet way of the whole matter. There would assuredly have been some advantage in this; for I had not come prepared for a stage display, which is not less disagreeable to myself than it is to you, to say nothing of Farel, whose disposition you are also aware is utterly averse from ostentation. But we were anxious to discuss with you in a familiar way, and with not the least desire to engage in formal debate, those points with regard to which we are most nearly at one. And this indeed were the best method of procedure among brethren, and one we should have found profitable, unless I am greatly deceived. For with regard to the Sacraments in general, we neither bind up the grace of God with them, nor transfer to them the work or power of the Holy Spirit, nor constitute them the ground of the assurance of salvation. We expressly declare that it is God alone, who acts by means of the Sacraments; and we maintain that their whole efficacy is due to the Holy Spirit, and testify that this action appears only in the elect. Nor do we teach that the sacrament is of profit, otherwise than as it leads us by the hand to Christ, that we may seek in him whatever blessings there are. I do not in truth see what you can properly desire as wanting in this doctrine, which teaches that salvation is to be sought from Christ alone, makes God its sole author, and asserts that it is accepted only through the secret working of the Spirit. We teach, however, that the sacraments are instruments of the grace of God; for, as they were instituted in view of a certain end, we refuse to allow that they have no proper use. We therefore say, that what is represented in them, is exhibited to the elect, lest it should be supposed that God deludes the eyes by a fallacious representation. Thus we say, that he who receives baptism with true faith, further receives by it the pardon of his sins. But lest any one should ascribe his salvation to baptism as the cause, we at the same time subjoin the explanation, that the remission flows from the blood of Christ, and that it is accordingly conferred by baptism only in so far as this is a testimony of the cleansing which the Son of God by his own blood shed on the cross procured for us, and which he offers for your enjoyment by faith in his gospel, and brings to perfection in our hearts by his Spirit. Our opinion regarding regeneration is precisely similar to that about baptism. When the signs of the flesh and blood of Christ are spread before us in the Supper, we say that they are not spread before us in vain, but that the thing itself is also manifested to us. Whence it follows, that we eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. By so speaking, we neither make the sign the thing, nor confound both in one, nor enclose the body of Christ in the bread, nor, on the other hand, imagine it to be infinite, nor dream of a carnal transfusion of Christ into us, nor lay down any other fiction of that sort. You maintain that Christ, as to his human nature, is in heaven; we also profess the same doctrine. The word heaven implies, in your view, distance of place; we also readily adopt the opinion, that Christ is undoubtedly distant from us by an interval of place. You deny that the body of Christ is infinite, but hold that it is contained within its circumference; we candidly give an unhesitating assent to that view, and raise a public testimony in behalf of it. You refuse to allow the sign to be confounded with the thing; we are sedulous in admonishing that the one should be distinguished from the other. You strongly condemn impanation; we subscribe to your decision. What then is the sum of our doctrine? It is this, that when we discern here on earth the bread and wine, our minds must be raised to heaven in order to enjoy Christ, and that Christ is there present with us, while we seek him above the elements of this world. For it is not permitted us to charge Christ with imposition; and that would be the case, unless we held that the reality is exhibited together with the sign. And you also concede that the sign is by no means empty. It only remains that we define what it contains within it. When we briefly reply, that we are made partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ that he may dwell in us and we in him, and in this way enjoy all his benefits, what is there, I ask, in these words either absurd or obscure, especially as we, in express terms, exclude whatever delirious fancies might occur to the mind? And yet we are censured, as if we departed from the pure and simple doctrine of the Gospel. I should wish, however, to learn what that simplicity is to which we are to be recalled. When I was lately with you, I pressed this very point. But you remember, as I think, that I received no answer. I do not make this allegation so much by way of complaint, as that I may publicly testify to the fact that we lie under the suspicion of certain good men without any ground for it. I have long ago observed, moreover, that the intercourse we have with Bucer acts as a dead-weight upon us. But I beseech you, my Bullinger, to consider with what propriety we should alienate ourselves from Bucer, seeing he subscribes this very confession which I have laid down. I shall not at present declare the virtues, both rare and manifold, by which that man is distinguished. I shall only say, that I should do a grievous injury to the Church of God, were I either to hate or despise him. I make no reference to the personal obligations under which I lie to him. And yet my love and reverence for him are such, that I freely admonish him as often as I think fit. How much greater justice will his complaint regarding you be judged to possess! For he sometime ago complained that you interdicted youths of Zurich, who were living at Strasbourg, from partaking of the Supper in that church, although no confession but your own was demanded of them. I indeed see no reason why the churches should be so rent asunder on this point. But what is the reason that godly men are angry with us, when we cultivate the friendship of a man who, by himself, professes nothing that can stand in the way of his being received as a friend and a brother? As the matter hinges on this, shew me, if you can, that by my friendly intercourse with Bucer I am restrained in the free profession of my views. I may perhaps seem to be so, but I make the thing itself the test of the truth. Wherefore, let us not be so suspicious where there is no call for it. As to the other matters, when I had come to Lausanne I counselled the brethren to send as soon as possible to Haller, for I had the hope they would obtain from him all that was just; and in this expectation I was not disappointed. Jodocus, however, and Ebrard,[200] what brother of the giants I know not, who had been sent, were so grossly violent in their invectives, that they were presently compelled to betake themselves [home]. So great a source of indignation was my proceeding to Zurich, as if, forsooth, I had no right to be affected by the danger of a church so near us, or to seek a suitable remedy in conjunction with the brethren. Jodocus said, in a threatening way, that he knew what I had done when with you. I boasted, however, that I had been a party to no transaction that was unworthy of my reputation as an honourable man. But why should I recount to you the insolence and scurrilities of both of them? Take this as the sum of the matter, that the two brethren, both eminently learned, grave, and judicious, were so astounded, that they thought it best to make a seasonable departure. Such is brotherly clemency. It is, however, worth while to make a brief statement, that you may form a judgment of the matter from the beginning to the end. Immediately on our first meeting, in place of salutation, it was asked, Who raised these tragical commotions? When it was said, in reply, that they were known to have proceeded from Zebedee, Ebrard exclaimed, 'Yes, that good man is unworthily traduced by you, because he laid bare your stratagems.' On the brethren requesting those stratagems to be explained to them; 'We have,' he says, 'a Bernese disputation from which we form our judgment of you and all your affairs.' I beseech thee, my Bullinger, to say whether such is the case. What have we profited by shaking off the tyranny of the Pope? Observe, also, how suitable was the interrogation of Jodocus, who had asked me to form one of the assembly at Lausanne? Finally, that the last part of the proceedings might be of a piece with the first, the brethren were ordered to go away, and have done with their Calvinism and Buceranism. And all this with an impetuosity almost like madmen, and outrageous clamours. Could you expect anything more unfeeling or truculent from Papists? Though we may patiently tolerate this intemperate Bacchantism, the Lord, nevertheless, will not suffer it to pass unpunished. At Paris and in many parts of the kingdom, the ferocity of the ungodly is inflamed afresh. The King himself holds on in his fury. Thus is fulfilled the prediction, Without fightings, within fears; although Jodocus excites not only fears within, but open fightings. But may the very fewness of our numbers incite us to an alliance!

Adieu, most excellent and most honoured sir, along with your colleagues, all of whom I desire you will respectfully salute in my name. To your wife also, and your whole family, I send the best greeting. May the Lord Jesus protect and direct you all. Amen.

Something is said about the state of Constance, not much fitted to inspire gladness. May the Lord regard you, and rescue you from the jaws of the lion.—Yours,

John Calvin.

It would be better you should suppress this letter, if you thought proper, than that it should lead to the excitement of a greater conflagration at Berne; for the lack of self-restraint on the part of some is marvellous.

[Lat. orig. autogr.—Archives of Zurich. Gest. vi. p. 6.]