Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law; Desdemona; count-your-change; RegulatorCountry; boatbums; Dutchboy88; Artemis Webb; ...
Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong calls this "baseless slander."

The single charge was made 13 years after Calvin's death by a priest who returned to Roman Catholicism. I wonder who stood to gain by trying to destroy his reputation?

From HERE...

"Jerome Bolsec, an ex-Carmelite friar who embraced the reformed faith in Paris, settled in Geneva and served as a physician. He publicly attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished from Geneva, and eventually returned to catholicism. His "revenge was to publish in 1577 a scurrilous biography of Calvin, accusing him among other things of sodomy, which continued to be an arsenal for anti-Calvinist polemics for the next two centuries" (Lindberg, 266).

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913):

"(Bolsec) published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on. They are "Histoire de la view, des moeurs . . . de Jean Calvin

Williston Walker, Yale historian, in his book, John Calvin (New York: Schocken Books, 1906; rep. 1969) writes about Bolsec:

The more specific charge, to which reference is now made, was formulated thirteen years after Calvin's death, by Jerome Hermes Bolsec . . . that Calvin had been convicted of heinous moral turpitude . . . No evidence has ever been produced of the existence of such a document as Bolsec alleges. Jacques Desmay, the earnest Catholic writer who used his stay as Advent and Lenten preacher at Noyon in 1614 and 1615 to learn all he could of Calvin's life there by records and tradition, found nothing of it. An equally determined Roman historian of Noyon, Jacques Le Vasseur, in his Annales of 1633, expressly repudiated it; and careful modern Roman Catholic scholars, such as Kampschulte and Paulus, reject it as "unworthy of serious refutation" and write:

"...The whole calumny would be unworthy of discussion had the accusation not been repeatedly renewed by a certain class of controversialists during the last century -- in one instance as recently as 1898."

"A certain class of controversialists." lol. Sounds familiar.

From Protestant historian Philip Schaff:

"Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy son of the distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part in the war of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin. He had gone to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring back scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the same Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin’s death, but without any evidence.768 If the Libertines had been in possession of such information, they would have made use of it. Berthelier is characterized by Beza as "a man of the most consummate impudence" and "guilty of many iniquities." He was excommunicated by the Consistory in 1551 for abusing Calvin, for not going to church, and other offences, and for refusing to make any apology...

That abominable slander about sodomy, which even Galiffe rejects, Audin and Spalding are not ashamed to repeat.

From "The Life of Calvin" by Theodore Beza...

After (Bolsec) had been banished from Geneva, through the influence of Calvin and Farel, for sedition and Pelagianism, he wrote a life of Calvin, with a view to destroy the reputation of that great and good man.

The great Dr. Moulin observes, that not one of Calvin’s innumerable enemies ever carped at the purity of his life, but this profligate physician, whom Calvin had procured to be banished from Geneva, for his wickedness and impieties. The reproach of such a man, says Middleton, was an honor to Calvin, and especially upon such an account, for as Milton truly says, “Of some to be dispraised, is no small praise.” The calumnies of Bolsec, however, were reiterated by other enemies, and are sometimes, even in this age, raked from the filth where truth has long since consigned them. “One of the greatest uses,” says Middleton, “which may be drawn from reading, is to learn the weaknesses of the heart of man, and the ill effects of prejudices in points of religion. No less a person than the great cardinal Richelieu, has produced all accusation against Calvin, on the credit of Bertelier, than which none was ever worse contrived, and worse proved; though it has been adopted, and conveyed from book to book. Bertelier pretended, that the republic of Geneva had sent him to Noyon, with orders to make an exact inquiry there into Calvin’s life and character; and that he found Calvin had been convicted of sodomy; but that, at the bishop’s request, the punishment of fire was commuted into that of being branded with the Flower-de-luce. He boasted to have an act, signed by a notary, which certified the truth of the process and condemnation. Bolsec affirms, that he had seen this act; and this is the ground of that horrid accusation. Neither Bertelier, nor Bolsec, are to be credited. If Bertelier’s act had not been suppositious, there would have been at Noyon, authentic and public testimonies of the trial and punishment in question; and they would have been published as soon as the Romish religion began to suffer by Calvin’s means. Bertelier had no party against him in Geneva more inexorable than Calvin, who held him in abhorrence, on account of his vices. Bertelier was accused of sedition and conspiracy against the state and church: but he ran away, and, not appearing to answer for himself, was condemned, as being attainted and convicted of those crimes, to lose his head, by a sentence pronounced against him, the sixth of August, 1555. No envoy or deputy was ever sent from Geneva on public business, who was not in a higher station than that of Bertelier; besides, there were some considerable persons at Noyon, who retired to Geneva, as well as Calvin: by whose means it was very easy to receive all the information which could have been desired, without going farther.

If what Bertelier said was true, he would have had his paper when he fled from Geneva: but it is plain he had not the commission he boasted of, after that time. But can any one believe, that, before the year 1555, when those who were called heretics durst not show themselves for fear of being burnt, a deputy from Geneva should go boldly to Noyon, to inform himself of Calvin’s life? Who will believeth that if Betrelier had an authentic act of Calvin’s infamy in 1554, he would have kept it so close, that the public should have no knowledge of it before 1557? Was it not a piece which the clergy of France would have bought for its weight in gold? ‘But why (says Bayle), do I lose time in confuting such a ridiculous romance? Nothing surprises me more than to see so great a person as cardinal de Richelieu, depend on this piece of Bertelier; and allege as his principal reason that the republic of Geneva did not undertake to show the falsehood of this piece.’ The truth is, this cardinal made all imaginable inquiry into the pretended proceedings against Calvin at Noyon, and that he discovered nothing; yet he maintained the affirmative on the credit of Jerom Bolsec, whose testimony is of no weight in things which are laid to Calvin’s charge. Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, and even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.

Varillas thought Bolsec a discredited author: Maimbourg rejected the infamy that was thrown upon Calvin: and Florimond de Remond owns, they have defamed him horribly. Papyrius Masso spoke very ill of Calvin, but would not venture to mention the story of the Flower-de-luce: and he called those, mean wretched scribblers, who reproached that minister with lewdness. It is not strange that cardinal de Richelieu, in one of the best books of controversy that has been published on the part of the church of Rome, should be less scrupulous and nice than Remond, Masso, and Romuald; and that he should give out, as a true matter of fact, the story of Bolsec, which began then to be laid aside by the missionaries? Richelieu intended to have reconciled both religions in France, but was prevented by death; and there was not one story which people did not believe, when it defamed him or cardinal Mazari.

So continue to spread a lie that was born out of the counter-Reformation. Your own Roman Catholic apologists deny it and call is a lie, giving proof to Calvin's supposition that regardless of the idolatry Rome preaches, there are still sheep among her. God willing, they will be led to greener pastures.

And Desdemona, every biography of Calvin states he and his wife, Idelette, had a son who died in infancy. Seems a rather base thing to ridicule.

35 posted on 06/27/2010 10:46:01 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Eckleburg
"He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic."

Which means he was right and had to be formally destroyed. The only reason Calvin had to have a secret police was because he had so many secrets to protect.

36 posted on 06/27/2010 10:55:17 AM PDT by Natural Law (Catholiphobia is a mental illness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
That doesn't change the fact that in every account of Calvin that I've read he comes off as a narcissistic control freak, personality traits that happen to be quite common among the homosexual men of my acquaintance (sp). I had never heard/read the charge of sodomy, and I am quite well aware of
37 posted on 06/27/2010 11:02:06 AM PDT by Desdemona (One Havanese is never enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

“Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, and even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.”

Yes, but why don’t you trust what he wrote?


52 posted on 06/27/2010 11:39:52 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I will continue to say in public what I tell you in private, you are without equal around here in your scholarship and ability to unmask errant, spurious (can I add idiotic) “arguments” that Roman Catholics throw out to prop up that tottering house of cards in Rome.

You seem to be able to find exceptional documentation that causes any honest reader to shake their heads and wonder if the Catholics are sitting at their keyboards, bright red with embarassment. I commend your work, your ministry to all of us here. God is using you to pour light into the darkness, sweet music into the silence. They might not see or hear, but we leave that to God. But, thank you for your contributions.


97 posted on 06/27/2010 2:19:36 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

This only goes to show that its the doctrine, not the person. Anyone can say anything about anyone.

But, does their doctrine match the Bible?


194 posted on 06/28/2010 7:55:43 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson