The second fact concerns William Farel. The author said in his History that this Reformer, the most zealous evangelist of that period, had imbibed the evangelical doctrines at Paris from the lessons of his master, Le Fèvre of Etaples, and that he was converted between 1512 and 1514—before the beginning of the Reformation properly so called. That point having been denied, the author proved it by the positive declarations of Le Fèvre and Farel. The latter says pointedly: 'This took place in the time of Louis the Twelfth.' Now Louis XII. died in 1515.
The third fact relates to Thomas ab Hofen, the friend of Zwingle, and deputy from Berne to Geneva in 1527. The author wrote in his History that this layman was, properly speaking, the first who labored to spread the Gospel in Geneva. As that statement had been impugned, the author proved it by the German and Latin letters of Zwingle and of Ab Hofen himself.
The fourth fact concerns Robert Olivetan, Calvin's cousin, and author of the first translation of the Bible into French. It has been doubted whether he was tutor in the family of a Genevese councillor in 1532, and whether he 'evangelized' at that time in Geneva. The author proved his statement by the positive testimony of the reformer Froment, in his _Actes et Gestes de Genève_, and by extracts from the official records of the Genevese Council. He has demonstrated that Olivetan preceded in Geneva as a preacher of the Gospel, not only Calvin but Farel and Froment.
Lastly, the fifth fact relates to Calvin. A Genevese writer denied a few years back that Calvin, when returning from Italy, passed through Aosta, where there exists, however, a monument erected to commemorate his flight. The author hopes he has proved that the universal opinion, which makes the Reformer pass through that city, is well founded, and that the contrary opinion has no weight.
This last point is discussed in the Preface to the French edition of this volume: the four others are examined at length in an article entitled _Critique d'une Critique_, published in the _Revue Chrétienne_ of Paris.
There are individuals who, when they meet with facts in a history that have not been previously discussed in an archæological dissertation, or with circumstances that had hitherto been unknown, immediately imagine that such facts have no foundation. This is a curious aberration. If an historian writes—not according to second-hand authorities, but after original materials—it is quite natural that he should come upon things that have not been noticed before. This has happened to the author of the _History of the_ _Reformation_. True history, no doubt, possesses coloring and life; but it describes such events only as are founded on the firm basis of truth.