Letters Between Calvin & Zanchi, on the Woes of Marbach
From left to right: Johann Marbach, Girolamo Zanchi, and John Calvin.
Edited by David Attebury. September 2023. This is a compound work: I use a customized ChatGPT 4 to assist in the first translation draft, but check each line to the original and make changes.
Source: Epostolas Familiares (1609), a collection of 190+ letters and correspondence between Girolamo Zanchi to princes, nobles, and learned men.
Letter 1, Calvin to Houbraque, on whether to sign the statement. March 13, 1563.
Letter 2, Zanchi to Calvin, on the woes that Marbach inflicted. April 18, 1563.
Letter 3, Calvin to Zanchi, counsel on how to proceed. May 13, 1563.
Letter 4, Zanchi to Calvin, a plea to publish letters from Melanchthon to help Zanchi’s defense. No date attached.
Letter 5, Calvin to Zanchi, on matters of relocation. September 4, 1563.
Historical Situation
The local Calvinist French refugee congregation in Strasburg was under suspicion of running afoul of the town’s doctrine on the Eucharist and predestination. Johann Marbach (April 14, 1521–March 17, 1581) was the head of the Strasburg church and the principle instigator of the trouble.
In 1555, the pressure led Peter Martyr Vermigli to resign as a teacher in the Strasburg school, not wanting to openly declare his position. His fellow Italian, Girolamo Zanchi, remained behind at the school and was a member of the Calvinist French congregation.
The first letter is to Guillaume Houbraque, pastor of the French congregation at the time, and Zanchi’s own pastor. Calvin advises on an ultimatum that was given to Houbraque, being asked to sign a statement on predestination and the Lord’s Supper.
In his letter to Calvin, Zanchi mentioned correspondence with Heinrich Bullinger on this matter. I have forthcoming plans to translate those letters as well (46 pages total).
There is also another letter from Calvin to Zanchi, dated March 14, 1554. I will publish that one later, once I get a better grasp of the historical situation.
LETTER 1: From Calvin to Houbraque, on whether to sign the statement. (210 words).
Guillaume Houbraque (1546-c.1584) was the pastor of the French Congregation in Strasbourg 1559–1563.
John Calvin, to Guilhelm Holbracho, Greetings.
You will pardon both my brevity and my tardiness, dear brother. However, it will be quick if it is good and sufficiently detailed if it is clear. As for the statement that has been composed with malicious and captious artifice, to obscure the light of the truth, you have acted wisely by not daring to subscribe thus far. But I do not advise that you flatly refuse.
Concerning predestination, they have openly uttered nothing impious; they have only sought to please Marbach with undue flattery. They have cast a shadow over clear light. Concerning the Supper, however, they have pronounced it in such a way that the liberty of teaching has been taken from you, unless you wish to willingly subject yourself to daily slanders.
Therefore, it will be necessary to interpose exceptions now to free you from these troubles. If they are admitted, as far as possible, I consider it necessary for you to make every effort to preserve your Church through your moderation, as they are plotting its dissolution. And I ask you, again and again, to strive to do this.
Farewell, most upright brother. May the Lord be with you, guide you, and bless your holy labors.
Geneva, March 13, 1563.
LETTER 2: Zanchi to Calvin, on the woes that Marbach inflicted. (4,166 words).
The acts of our tragedy, which lasted for two years, I never intended to write to you, most learned father Calvin, for certain reasons. One of which was, not the least, that nothing could more completely undermine our entire and good cause (such is the ingratitude of this age towards men who have most excellently served the Church of Christ) than if it had come to the knowledge of our people that I had written to Calvin about our cause, as if seeking advice from him.
Therefore, if during this time I have been slow, or rather, entirely absent in writing to you, I ask that you take it in the spirit of fairness and piety, and also in consideration of my respect for you. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that, as long as my truly venerable father and teacher, the beloved Peter Martyr, lived, I used his counsel as I should—thinking that other great men occupied with weightier matters should not be burdened by me.
Now, I write to you, especially concerning the outcome of the entire tragedy, not recklessly but so that I may hear your opinion on it, and I will accept your counsel, if any action is needed, for the glory of God.
The beginning of this controversy, what it was, and its nature, I believe you have learned from many sources. It began with [Johann] Marbach’s resentment towards me because I caused [Tilemann] Heshusius’ book*, which he, Marbach of Strasbourg, had ordered to be printed under a fictitious city name and against the city’s laws, to be suppressed. So, it had a mild start. However, as I assume you are aware, it escalated to more serious matters, and the outcome was far from pleasant. [*De præsentia corporis Christi in cœno Domini]
Regarding the progression, I was soon accused of very serious crimes, although not in life, thanks to God, but in doctrine. When it came to the evidences, the accusers could not prove anything for two years. If they had been able to do so, who doubts that I would have been condemned immediately?
On the contrary, I initially rejected some of the accusations as groundless, with simple denials, and I admitted some of them. However, I argued that the matters I was accused of were neither new nor heretical but rather ancient and orthodox, both in this School of Strasbourg and in the broader theological tradition. I resolved to demonstrate this if I were allowed to continue with my lectures. However, I was immediately prohibited from further discussing the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints.
My opponent, on the other hand, was given free rein to do as he pleased. For this reason, I decided not to return to the School until the liberty to defend Christ’s doctrine was restored to me, which had been taken away. But this could never be obtained.
Meanwhile, a conspiracy formed against me, as if I were a heretic, to the point that no Pastor or Deacon, except for the elders who did not consent to this conspiracy, would deign to have any conversation or exchange a word with me. They all began to proclaim me as exactly what they had been persuaded by Marbach – a Zwinglian, a Calvinist, a Sacramentarian, an enemy of the Augsburg Confession, an opponent of the Church in Strasbourg, an Anabaptist, a Swenckfeldian, a Nonatian, a Cathar, and whatnot.
And so, for this entire two-year period, I have been adorned with such and other splendid titles, publicly and privately, through word and writing, and passed through the mouths of all. You can easily judge for yourself what their plan was, namely, either to have the Senate expel me or to make me depart of my own accord, burdened by prolonged trouble.
Never once ever did our friend want to meet with me. And he was so unwilling to engage that he could never be induced by our Council to even respond to my arguments and authorities. Instead, with a clear understanding of the case, he proceeded with his evasive tactics.
The Chapter remained occupied for many months, and it even extended into new disputes. Eventually, the whole matter was astutely transferred from the Chapter to thirteen gentlemen. However, the Chapter did not allow it to be transferred without the thirteen lords first expressing their own opinion on the matter.
And, even if he hoped that I would soon be condemned by the lords, it was not easily accomplished. They, being prudent and wise, saw that the matter was not as it had been accused. They, being just, were not willing to condemn the innocent. But they also did not dare to absolve, although they had heard the Chapter’s opinion and had read the testimonies and judgments of many Academies and Churches regarding my theses. Finally, they saw my supplication and Confession.
And throughout all this time, adversaries did not cease to inveigh against us in their sermons: however, with their own names suppressed; and to condemn the doctrine itself as heretical. When I saw the matter to be in this state, namely, that adversaries are perpetually allowed to condemn both the doctrine of Christ and me in front of everyone, through numerous writings scattered here and there throughout Germany, and through spoken words addressed to the public in the city; and I myself had all means of defense taken away from me: I consulted with some friends recently when I was in Frankfurt about what I should finally do.
They approved of my opinion about making a protestation, which I had also informed you about through Mr. Johann Grauel, but in such a way that first, I should take care to have the judgments from the Academies accepted, and then my lectures on controversial matters, and even the expulsion of slanders which I had presented to our lords, printed. I should not expect, however, that the Magistrates will ever pronounce anything in this case.
Nevertheless, it is necessary that I somehow justify myself before the Churches. I heard, and as they advised, I acted. But behold, when the whole book had been printed by Oporino, the matter was discovered and reported to my lords. They immediately arranged with the Senate of Basel that both one copy and the very original [αὐτόγραφος] should be sent to them, with all the rest being thrown into some cask. My lords saw that the book was modest, without any abuse; no one was named there, no one was attacked, only the truth was defended. However, whether they will allow it to be acquitted and brought to light, I do not know.
Now I come to the conclusion of the matter. Last month, Jacob Andreae, a Theologian, and Mr. Chilianus, a Jurist, were sent from Württemberg. And Chunmannus Flinsbachius, the Superintendent, and another Jurist were sent from Zweibrücken. Sulcerus and Coccius were also summoned by the Senate of Basel, but all were invited by our lords.
Four were added, from our lords, so that they might finally put an end to all our controversy. From the beginning, I had a very certain hope that either a debate or, at the very least, a discussion with the opposing party would take place.
Here I began to worry because I could see that no one had been sent by the Elector Palatine, and no one had even been summoned from there. Nevertheless, because I trusted in the righteousness of our cause and fully expected a debate or discussion, I said to [Johannes] Sturm: “Rely on your prudence to ensure that we are neither deceived nor overwhelmed. As for the debate, leave that burden to me; just make sure we come to a debate or discussion, and truth will prevail.”
But while I was preparing myself more diligently for the debate, those appointed to compose the records and all our writings that we had submitted to the Magistrate were reading them. After reading these, both sides were called, but I am unaware of what took place with the opposing party.
However, I had a meeting with those four Theologians, during which we discussed both predestination and perseverance. In both articles, I had satisfied them not only through my writings but also in person. They stated that these two articles could easily be reconciled between the Pastors and me. They also did not object to Augustine, Luther, and Bucer, except that they would like to hear my opinion on the Lord’s Supper.
At this point, I explained my view in my Confession, which they read, as well as a refutation of the latest accusation—according to the words of Christ recounted by the Evangelists, and the interpretation of Paul.
“But what do you think about the presence?” says James Andreae. “I don’t like to argue about the presence,” I replied, “because I have no word about it in the Scriptures. I neither read anywhere that Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ nor that Paul interpreted Christ’s words in such a way as to teach that wherever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, there is the body of Christ given for us. I do hear, however, when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, these words of Christ, ‘Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.’ I also hear Paul explain these words in such a way that he says, ‘The bread that we break is a sharing [κοινωνίαν] in the body of Christ.’ But I do not read anywhere that he said, ‘This is my body,’ or that he taught that the body of Christ is in the place where the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.
“Meanwhile, if we are to talk about the presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, I say that it is present—but not to the body, rather to the spirit within us. Not to the body, because I do not perceive it with the senses of my body. However, it truly communicates itself to my mind and soul. For, illuminated by the light of faith, I see with the eyes of my mind, and I embrace it with the hand of my spirit. And with the mouth of my soul and faith, I consume it, and it becomes part of me—the body of Christ, dead for me. I cannot deny its presence to my soul and spirit. However, I cannot send it to the body.”
Then Jacob Andreae replied, “Truly, you are saying the same thing as we are. So, what are we arguing about?” I responded, “You have heard what I believe. If your opinion about the presence of Christ’s body is the same, I congratulate the Church.”
Here, however, I did not further explain the distinction between the presence of something and its local proximity, and the absence of it and its local distance. When he interrupted and approved of the conversation, I did not want to add anything that might seem unnecessary.
For we soon moved on to a discussion of oral reception. Since I condemn this in my Confession, he himself stated it plainly and openly: he and his group do not speak as if they touch the body of Christ and our body, which is utterly false. Instead, they only speak this way occasionally because of the sacramental union.
We had begun to discuss the eating of the meal by the impious, but this was also soon interrupted. So we departed. However, based on what we had discussed among ourselves, which they approved, and what we had all heard more than once from Cunmanus and Coccio, I thought the matter was in an excellent state, and the truth would prevail. I immediately reported this to our pastor, not without tears of joy, so that he could also share in my happiness and give thanks to the Lord, and we could intensify our prayers together.
But while we were living in this good hope, behold what happened beyond all expectation. First, they presented Mr. Sturm with certain articles on predestination, and then they presented them to me and Conrad. These articles were composed by Cunmanus on behalf of everyone, and they wanted us to subscribe to them. However, they were presented in a manner that didn’t allow us to take them home for further examination.
I responded to Churmannus that I couldn’t subscribe to them unless I could take them home and carefully and peacefully ponder each word of them. He said he didn’t have the authority for that. Then, Sturm asked for my opinion.
I replied that to the best of my judgment, given the little time I had to quickly read them, they didn’t seem to contain any blatant impiety, provided they have a fair interpreter. However, I expressed my concern that there might be hidden snares within them. I was also troubled because they wouldn’t allow us to examine them at home, and they contained some ambiguous expressions. Additionally, it seemed to me that they were merely repeating what Mr. Marbach and his associates had taught, and they had falsely accused us of promoting the opposite view, which had never been the subject of dispute.
These articles are so cunningly and artfully composed that if we refuse to subscribe, the people will be confirmed in the belief that what the preachers had slandered about us is indeed true. That is, they would believe that we did, in fact, believe and teach those things contained in the articles. However, if we subscribe, they will think that we have changed our minds and, therefore, have retracted our previous positions.
The next day, the same person returned and made the same request in the same manner. I read through them again, but I gave the same response as before. Then he explained that they didn’t want to leave the articles in my hands because they were afraid that I might write lengthy commentaries on them. They were also concerned that if they granted this request to us, the adversaries would ask for the same privilege. Lastly, they said there was a need for quick resolution because he had to return home within a maximum of two days.
I said, “It is fair that if both parties are to subscribe, both should also approve after they have been thoroughly examined. However, I will not be composing commentaries on them. But now, when this dissension has lasted for two years, why are you so eager to conclude? In a matter of such great importance, I want to proceed with caution.”
He departs. However, my friend urges me to subscribe, saying there is nothing to fear regarding any traps, that these are good people who genuinely desire reconciliation, and that they are willing to concede more to us than to our adversaries. I, on the other hand, find this course of action and haste suspicious. Therefore, I cannot agree to subscribe unless I thoroughly examine these articles in the quiet of my home, at my leisure, to the Lydian stone of Holy Scriptures. The next day, another of the composers came and urged me not to resist any longer.
I say, “I cannot, preserving my conscience and my reputation, subscribe to any articles unless I have first thoroughly and carefully examined them at home and approved them according to my conscience. I cannot subscribe when my conscience does not subscribe first, and I am surprised that you, being Theologians, are adopting this approach, which goes against all divine and human laws and fairness.”
Therefore, in the evening of that third day, they brought back the same articles to me in the presence of our Sturm, so that I could examine them at my home that night. However, it was with the condition that I should not copy them, but return them in the morning. They had also added some general points about the Lord’s Supper here, namely, that it should be taught from the Word of God according to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, as well as the articles of concord between Luther and Bucer.
In the early morning, I go to Sturm’s place, where many of our brethren and colleagues are gathered. I share what I think about those articles, which is the same as I said from the beginning: that we should not subscribe unless a good and prudent protestation is added. While we are deliberating among ourselves, the composers went to the Senate and presented their judgment on the Acts and the writings and speeches of both sides. When they talked about me, it was reported Peter Sturm, the Praetor and Scholarch, said, “Where, then, are the numerous and great heresies that were attributed to Zanchius?”
We were to be allowed to protest orally, but without making any mention of it in the subscription. This also made me suspicious, and I feared that some of them might want to use our subscriptions to convince others to simply subscribe to such a doctrine, promoted by our testimony. So, I refused to subscribe unless I also subscribed to my own protestation, especially since the composers, when reminded by me to clarify ambiguous words, refused to do so.
Here, everyone, from the least to the greatest, was against me. They said that I would be alone in this matter, causing great discord, overthrowing the French Church, bringing disgrace upon the city, and harming our cause significantly. They believed it would also lead my adversaries to claim, after my apparent condemnation, that all the accusations previously spread about me were indeed true.
I, on the other hand, argued that we should insist on having the controversial matter judged first, and then we would respond regarding the new teaching formula. However, others believed that they had come not to judge but to settle.
I cannot describe everything that transpired. So, I consulted other friends and devout men after leaving my colleagues who were involved in the same cause. Some advised against subscribing, while others, considering the possible consequences if I didn’t, said that I could subscribe without making any mention of a protest in the subscription or presenting a written one, as long as I orally protested before everyone, and this would suffice.
While I heard all this, my conscience couldn’t agree because I could see that it might happen, if not immediately, at least in the future, that many simpler folks could be misled by my endorsement. So, when all my other colleagues were going to the houses where the lords had gathered to subscribe to the articles, I refused to go. I preferred to be thrown out or even die rather than so simply endorse such a doctrinal formula with my own hand.
When I returned home, a friend persuaded me to at least be present, even if I didn’t want to subscribe. I went back. Here again, they asked me, in the name of Jesus Christ, to join in subscribing with the others, assuring me that there was no danger, no deceit, and many such things. Finally, I thought that I could, with a clear conscience, follow my friend’s advice and the example of other brothers, that if I were to subscribe to the articles, I would only endorse and accept those that were pious. I would acknowledge my own reservations first.
So when it came to the matter, I said that I would subscribe, but I wanted to make the following protestations beforehand. First, I did not want my subscription to prejudice any other Churches, Academies, or the truth. Secondly, I did not want it to be used to harm the doctrine that I have taught here for a decade and which is contained in my lectures, disputations, and confessions.
Lastly, I wanted the liberty to interpret these articles, which agree with the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Articles of Concord, in accordance with the rule of God’s Word, the teachings of Augustine and Luther, and the explanations of Bucer and the Confession of this city of Strasbourg. I then subscribed with the following words: “I acknowledge this doctrinal formula as pious, and I also receive it. I, Hieronymus Zanchius.” So, if there is anything I do not acknowledge as pious, it is clear that I have not received it.
The next day, we assembled again, and there was another action. They encouraged us to genuinely forgive all the injuries, insults, and abuses from both sides. This was easily granted. Then, we were asked to shake hands as a sign of friendship and brotherhood. I hesitated here because my conscience told me not to offer my hand unless I was sure there was a consensus between us on the doctrine necessary for salvation and in true religion, as stated in John’s Second Epistle.
It’s evident that Marbach had condemned Christ’s doctrine as heresy. How could I extend my hand to him unless I was sure either from him or the composers that he no longer condemned such doctrine? Sulcerus then took me aside and said that the request was to shake hands as a testimony to two things: first, that we had subscribed to the doctrinal formula from the heart, and second, that we had truly forgiven the injuries. “You can say that the matter of the disputed doctrine has not been judged,” he added, “and it was not our role to judge it but that of a synod.” This explanation satisfied me somewhat.
I couldn’t refrain from asking Marbach when I was about to give him my hand whether he still considered me a heretic and my doctrine heretical. He seemed to struggle, rolled his eyes towards the Composers, and uttered some words. Then, the Composers ordered me to refrain from discussing these matters. Thus, a certain agreement was reached. Later, in the sermons, those four Theologians informed the congregation that all, including professors and pastors, were good and pious men, and that they had found in their writings things that could easily reconcile everything.
This is the end of our tragedy, dear father Calvin, which I wanted to explain in detail so that you could better understand the particulars and judge what is or isn’t a sin. However, I ask for your understanding of my verbosity. I am not as fortunate as you and Sturm, who can explain many things briefly and clearly.
Now, briefly receive a certain appendix. After all the matters related to the described events had been settled, and after all the Composers had left, we were summoned by our lords— Sturm, Marbach, and myself. We were instructed: first, to take all documents related to this case to the Chancellery, which I promptly did. Secondly, not to discuss or dispute anything about those disputed articles in the School. Lastly, not to have anything about these matters printed.
Regarding myself, I replied as follows: “As long as I am your citizen and professor in your School, I will obey your commands, just as I have done so far.” The next day, with permission obtained from one of the Scholarchs and Sturm, the Dean, I left Strasbourg and went to the Baden Baths, both for the sake of my spirit and my health, with the intention of traveling to Rhetia to visit my wife’s parents.
I then proceeded to Zurich after the Baths and discussed everything with our dear Bullinger, my best friend and father. I would also like to hear your advice on whether I should stay in Strasbourg under the conditions you’ve heard. I am in doubt, as I am directly involved in this matter. I gladly listen to the advice of pious and learned men. On the other hand, if I depart, there is a fear, as Sturm said, that the door will be wide open for wolves.
Therefore, I am awaiting your advice. The opinion of Mr. Bullinger is that I should request from our lords the same freedom of teaching that I had before this disagreement. If they refuse, I should seek permission to leave. Alternatively, at the earliest opportunity, I should openly teach my own view in the School, especially regarding the Lord’s Supper. If the authorities remain silent, that’s well and good. If they prohibit it, I should depart.
Desired to visit you to see the brethren and talk to you and others about various matters. However, the difficulties of the journey, coupled with the unpleasant weather, have kept me here. Perhaps, when I return from Rhaetia, God willing, I can make it happen.
I also ask that you make sure that the lord, who sent this courier, a good man, here, will excuse him for not returning sooner. We kept him here for one more day so that we could send letters to you through him as well. Farewell, most esteemed father, and may the Lord Jesus preserve you for a long time for the benefit of the Church and the spread of His kingdom.
Zurich, April 18, 1563.
LETTER 3, Calvin to Zanchi, counsel on how to proceed. (361 words).
John Calvin to the esteemed man of piety and learning, Dr. Hieronymus Zanchius, Doctor of Theology in Strasbourg, my dear brother and friend.
Since I heard that Sulcerus and Jacobus Andreas were called upon to settle your controversies by their judgment, I conceived a moderate hope regarding one point: knowing that both of them rightly understand the secret predestination of God. Yet, in the meantime, I knew that the disposition of both of them was flexible to gain favor.
However, in regard to the doctrine of the Holy Supper, I always foresaw an unhappy outcome. Sulcerus, as if to follow the custom of the Lutherans, aims to appear moderate. But what can you expect from the other, who is entirely devoted to Brentius and sells himself? Thus, it has come to pass. As for predestination, which they did not dare to undermine, they left it to you, entangled in ambiguous expressions, like a hidden treasure.
But concerning the Augsburg Confession in the matter of the Supper, it will be a noose in Marbach's hand by which (if it pleases the gods) he will bind you as often as he wishes. However, I complain in vain about the past. Furthermore, even with me as the author, you will not find an opportunity to evade your subscription with vague language because it would be dishonorable to escape lightly and it would imply to them a malicious cunning.
One thing remains: that on every suitable occasion before the Senate, you should testify: that you were motivated by a sincere desire for peace when you subscribed; but with explicit exceptions added so that your readiness would not be a future detriment to you. Likewise, now profess the same thing again, lest anyone accuse you of cunningly concealing what should have been freely disclosed.
Nothing would be more opportune for this action than if our opponents were to engage with our Holbrachus. If you are heard, and your protest is admitted, you will have won. If not, be cautious.
Farewell, excellent man, and dear brother from my heart. May the Lord always be with you, guide and protect you.
Geneva, May 13, 1563.
Yours, John Calvin.
LETTER 4, From Zanchi to Calvin, a plea to publish letters from Melanchthon to help Zanchi’s defense. (643 words).
H. Zanchius to John Calvin, Greetings.
I rarely write to you, dear Father Calvin, yet my constant respect for you remains. There are many reasons for my silence, but that is not the primary one. I know that you are occupied with so many important matters that you are almost overwhelmed, so much so that it would be unreasonable, let alone unpleasant, to burden you with my untimely letters. Therefore, I humbly request that you, in your wisdom, interpret my silence as a sign of goodwill.
Now, I have a necessary reason for breaking my long silence, which is as follows: I do not doubt that, in your piety, you have, at some point, kindly admonished the man of God, the late Philip Melanchthon, in your letters regarding his last teachings on both predestination and free will, which were very different from his previous doctrine. I also have no doubt that, being the humane and very close friend to you, and highly valuing your admonitions, he responded to your letters.
But my concern is not only with those who are more aligned with Lutherans on the sacramental matter but, what’s worse, almost Pelagian on the topic of predestination, free will, and the grace of God. However, since they press the later writings of Philip, and, as you know, Philip’s authority is great and has always been in Germany, if I could demonstrate from his own letters that he did not hold such impious views on these matters as his adversaries interpret from his common passages, it would be worthwhile for the cause.
Therefore, if you have any letters from him on these subjects that could contribute to the promotion of the good cause, please send them to us, I beg you by Christ the Savior. I solemnly promise that, once I’ve made use of them, I will return them in good faith. You will be doing a useful thing for the cause and a great favor to your friends. I haven’t written anything yet about our own matters because they are not yet fully settled.
I can only write and affirm this, that things are in such a state that the lords cannot condemn the teaching handed down by me here as pious, and by Marbach as impious, without also knowingly and willingly condemning the teaching (to say nothing for now of the clear word of God and the Fathers) handed down by M. Bucer in this school and church; and, besides our Chapter, also condemning two universities of Germany, Marburg and Heidelberg.
When I saw that not only a discussion but also any friendly and private conversation with those men was denied to me, and, in the meantime, sound doctrine was continuously condemned from the pulpit, and I was treated as a heretic in front of the Lords and throughout the entire city, and they even claimed that the doctrine they taught against me was the doctrine of all the churches that have embraced the Augsburg Confession—I wanted to see if it was so.
So I went to Heidelberg and Marburg, conferred with those Theologians—and both Academies not only approved of our doctrine but also confirmed it with additional testimonies from Scripture. They provided strong support for sound doctrine, and they even asked me to come and teach if I couldn’t stay in Strasbourg.
Pistorius not only gave his approval on behalf of the University of Marburg but also wrote serious letters about this doctrine to Mr. Sturm. His purpose was to present them to the Senate. He expressed strong amazement about how the doctrine of Christ, which Bucer had previously taught here and which the Senate had embraced with great applause, was now being condemned in the same School and Church.
Farewell, and please greet the brothers on my behalf.
Strasbourg.
[No date is attached to this letter]
LETTER 5, from Calvin to Zanchi, on matters of relocation. (344 words).
It happened in due time that what made you inarticulate would render you eloquent. Indeed, it was necessary to declare sincerely that which was extorted from you. Regardless of the outcome that may follow, there is no reason for you to regret having confronted an impertinent, insolent, or cunning man, lest he celebrates a triumph over the suppressed truth, which he certainly sought to exploit from your silence.
In the meantime, if it has turned out unfavorably, the dissolution of the once most flourishing school distresses me. But it is our duty, once we have fulfilled our responsibilities, to acquiesce to God’s plan. Our own Holbrach, whom he [Marbach] attacked simultaneously, the more he boasts with insolence, by his own pride, as I hope, will be cast down precipitously.
Regarding your need to relocate, Beza and I eagerly desire a promising future for the boy you are educating. Speaking about the son of Mr. Moses, whom his father, unaware of your troubles, recently entrusted to us. And, at his request, even though things were calm for you, we were about to write to you. He is an upright and sensible man, with a generous spirit and dedicated to his Church duties, worthy of everyone's devout efforts.
So, we know it is necessary for you to leave that place, yet neglecting the child would be unacceptable to us. However, we have found no better choice than for you to send him to Heidelberg to be with Immanuelem, or to accompany him to Zurich and place him in the care of our Gualtherum, who will gladly take on this responsibility. We pledge that nothing would be more pleasing to the father than if you were to heed our advice.
Farewell, excellent man and respected brother. I pray for much health to Mr. Sturm and Holbracho. Since it seems that the Queen is seriously considering supporting our churches: if she continues, we will breathe easier. May the Lord keep you safe, guide you with His spirit, and strengthen you with His power.
Geneva, September 4, 1563.
Theod.