ing on the margin the note: "Haec Joannes Calvinus propria manu
descripsit, et est auctor." This portion is printed in Herminjard,
Corresp. des reformateurs, iii. 418-420, and Calv. Opera, Baum, Cunitz,
et Reuss, ix. 873-876. Merle d'Aubigne used it in his Hist. of the Ref.
in the time of Calvin, ii. 198, etc. Still more fortunate than M.
Bonnet, Messrs. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss very recently found a complete
copy of the same address in the archives of one of the churches of
Strasbourg. The newly found portion is of great interest. Calvini Op.,
x. (1872), 30-36.]

[Footnote 322: Calvin to Fr. Daniel (1534), Bonnet, i. 41; Histoire
eccles., i. 9.]

[Footnote 323: Francis I. to Council of Berne, Marseilles, Oct. 20,
1533, MS. Berne Archives, Herminjard, iii. 95, 96.]

[Footnote 324: Berne was accustomed to give and take hard blows. So,
although the chancellor of the canton endorsed on the king's missive the
words, "_Rude lettre du Roi_, ... relative aux Farel," the council was
not discouraged; but, when sending two envoys, about a month later, to
the French court, instructed them, among other things, again to
intercede for a brother of Farel. Herminjard, iii. 96, note.]

[Footnote 325: Du Bellay was himself believed, not without reason, to
have sympathy for the reformed doctrine, and it was under his auspices,
as well as those of the King and Queen of Navarre, that the evangelical
preachers had lately held forth in the pulpits of the capital. See, for
instance, Bucer to Blaurer, Jan., 1534, Herminjard, Corresp. des
reformateurs, iii. 130.]

[Footnote 326: Francis I.'s letter to Du Bellay, Lyons, Dec. 10, 1533,
MS. Dupuy Coll., Bibl. nat., Bulletin de la Soc. de l'hist. du prot.
franc., i. 437. His orders to parliament of same date, Herminjard,
Corresp. des reformateurs, iii. 114, etc.]

[Footnote 327: Francis to parliament, _ubi supra_, iii. 116.]

CHAPTER V.

MELANCHTHON'S ATTEMPT AT CONCILIATION, AND THE YEAR OF THE PLACARDS.

It appears almost incredible that, so late as in the year 1534, the hope
of reuniting the discordant views of the partisans of reform and the
adherents of the Roman Church should have been seriously entertained by
any considerable number of reflecting minds, for the chasm separating
the opposing parties was too wide and deep to be bridged over or filled.
There were irreconcilable differences of doctrine and practice, and
tendencies so diverse as to preclude the possibility of harm