CHAPTER V.

CALVIN CONTENDS WITH FOREIGN DOCTORS, AND IS ACCUSED OF ARIANISM.

(March to June, 1537.)

ARRIVAL OF FOREIGN DOCTORS.
THE SPIRITUALS.

The peace and satisfaction which were the fruit of the settled order, and even of the beauty of the places in which these great changes had been effected, did not long remain undisturbed. Some foreign doctors came to Geneva, Herman of Liége and Andrew Benoît, the latter also a native of the Netherlands, both of them belonging to that enthusiastic sect, some of whose leaders Calvin had previously encountered in France, and who called themselves the Spirituals.[481] These sectaries had found their way into western Europe, but Germany and the Netherlands were, above all, their proper countries. The German mind has a philosophical and even mystical tendency, which gives rise to a longing to penetrate deeper than the Bible itself into the knowledge of divine things. The central position of Geneva, the important revolution in politics and religion which had just been accomplished there, excited in those sectaries the hope of establishing themselves in the city for the purpose of spreading themselves afterwards over France, Italy, and other countries. These new doctors, from the time of their arrival, had labored to diffuse their opinions, and had gained partisans. Among these were some members of the council.[482] Proud of this first success, they expected to substitute in Geneva their dreams for the Gospel. The claim set up by these Spirituals, of penetrating further into the truth than the reformers did, gave them a certain attractiveness for minds eager for novelties. They boldly announced that they were willing to dispute with the preachers. As early as March 9 they were called before the council, and were invited to communicate in writing the articles which they intended to maintain.[483] Herman and Benoît complied with this request, and delivered their theses to the council. The council took them into consideration on March 13. In calling themselves the Spirituals, these men meant to assert that the spirit alone acted in them. Their doctrine was a more or less gross kind of Pantheism. They did not think, in general, ‘that the soul was a substance, a creature having essence; it was merely, in their view, the property which a man has of breathing, of moving, and of performing other vital actions.[484] They said that in place of our souls it is God who lives in us, and does in us all the actions pertaining to life. God became the creature,’ adds Calvin, ‘and the latter was no longer anything.’[485] An assassination having been committed at Paris, Quintin, a leader among the Spirituals, replied to some who asked him who committed it, ’Tis thou, ’tis I, ’tis God, for what thou and I do, ’tis God that does it.’ They had also peculiar ideas respecting Jesus Christ. They did not hold that he had been very man, but made him a kind of phantom, as to his body. They held similar errors about baptism, excommunication, the magistrate, oaths, and other matters. We are not in possession of the articles which they presented to the council, and it is probable that they did not put forward the most offensive points of their system. But the majority of the council ‘believed that it would be dangerous to discuss those articles in public, on account of the weakness (tendrité) of men’s minds. They therefore determined to give them a hearing on the following day, March 14, but only in the Council of the Two Hundred.’[486]

The sensation created in the city by the presence of Herman and Benoît, and the eagerness with which certain citizens were pleased to listen to them, had not escaped the notice of the reformers. If these doctors were not refuted, Geneva, withdrawn from the errors of the papacy, might fall into the dreams of Pantheism. The reformers therefore asked permission to attend the sitting. Herman and Benoît expounded their system. The council wished to hush up the affair; but Farel, confident in the force of truth, requested that it might be publicly discussed. His entreaties were complied with, and the debate was fixed for the next day, March 15.[487]

The disputation took place in the grand auditory of Rive, on March 15, 16, and 17, and on each occasion lasted the whole day. No report of these debates has come down to us. But some notion may be formed of them from the two tractates which Calvin devoted to the exposition and refutation of the system.[488] The discussion was very animated. The reformers so forcibly confuted, by the Word of God alone, the doctrines advanced by the two Spirituals in the public disputation, that the whole tribe thenceforth disappeared from that Church.[489] The Council of the Two Hundred having assembled, March 18, declared that the assailant was not sufficient, that is to say, that his opinions were erroneous. But they remarked that this disputation might beget differences, and that the faith might be imperilled. The reformers were therefore forbidden for the future to engage in such discussions. Then Herman and Benoît being called in, the syndics said to them, ‘We have been quite willing to hear you, for we listen to everybody, but seeing that you are not able to prove the truth of your propositions by Holy Scripture, we have pronounced them to be contrary to the truth. Are you willing to retract, and to return to God and ask his forgiveness?’ ‘We submit to the will of God,’ they replied, ‘but we will not by any means retract our words.’

EXPULSION OF THE SPIRITUALS.

Those of the Genevese who had taken them from the time of their coming for good evangelical Christians had called them brethren. But these foreigners had shown themselves very quarrelsome; and having refused even to pray with the Christians of Geneva—an offensive sign of their sectarian spirit—they were no longer called by the name of brethren. However, no penalty was at that time imposed on them, in the hope that they might be brought to more Christian sentiments. But that was indulging in a mere illusion. It was therefore decreed, according to the custom of the age, that these doctors, and every member of their sect, should be banished for ever from Geneva, under pain of death. ‘The most admirable feature of this business,’ said the early biographers of Calvin, ‘is, that if some churches of Germany have been delivered from these doctors, they were so by mere rigor of justice; while at Geneva the magistrate had no hand in it.’[490] Certainly, he did not employ against them either imprisonment or torture; Calvin endeavored only to convince them by argument. But banishment, under pain of death, is nevertheless a very palpable act of the magistrate. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to say that the Registers knew nothing of Calvin’s victory.[491] On the contrary, the decree of the council was expressly based on the fact that the doctors had been unable to prove the truth of their propositions by Holy Scripture.

These were not the only attacks which the reformers had to sustain at the outset of their career. There were certain restless spirits who saw with vexation Calvin, Farel, and Viret at the head of the Reformation in French-speaking lands, and who wished to deprive them of their position, that they might occupy it themselves. These new troubles, caused by jealousy and ambition, were of a sharper kind, and lasted longer.[492] Their originator was that doctor of the Sorbonne, Caroli, whom we saw arrive from France at Geneva at the time of the great disputation of 1535.[493] Caroli was a sort of theological adventurer. He did not at heart care for the sacred end which the Reformation had in view. An incurable levity, which would not allow him to adhere to any party, a liking for anything which seemed to him new and fashionable, a burning thirst for glory and for fortune, a craving for liberty to satisfy his vicious inclinations, these were the feelings which actuated him, and threw him into a camp which he soon abandoned to seek in another the gratification of the same evil desires. Vain, proud, cringing, and inconsistent, he appeared as an assailant of the monks when a sort of reformation was in vogue in France. Next, when the era of persecution had begun, he made his escape to Geneva. The object of his dreams was to become a sort of bishop, to govern the reformed churches in French Switzerland; and he proposed to establish a doctrine which should hold a middle place between the Gospel and the pope. He had made acquaintance with the principal cities of his future diocese. From Geneva he had gone to Neuchâtel, and there he had become pastor, and had married. We have seen him appointed first pastor at Lausanne. ‘In every place that he visited he left some traces of his baseness.’[494] He tacked before every breeze. In a little while he passed from the Romish camp into the Protestant; then, because the reformers remonstrated with him, he returned to his vomit, according to the Scripture phrase; quitted the papal hierarchy a second time, to associate with the evangelicals; and finally ended his roving and wretched life at Rome. Caroli is one of the most despicable characters of that epoch—one of those ecclesiastical Don Quixotes who boast of smiting all their enemies. Besides vainglory, he had another passion quite as intense—hatred. He detested Farel, who had known him at Paris and had rebuked him for his vices. He detested Viret, who had once preached on impurity before him; a sermon which Caroli, convicted by his own conscience, thought was meant for him. In vain Viret assured him that he had preached for everybody: Caroli never forgave him. And lastly, the high esteem in which Calvin was held filled this Parisian doctor with envy and jealousy. He was hardly settled at Lausanne when, eager to realize his dreams, he demanded at Berne the oversight of a certain number of pastors and of churches. The Bernese refused this, and at the same time begged Viret to aid with his advice a foreigner who did not perfectly know the country, and decreed that no innovation should be introduced among the people by any pastor without a preliminary deliberation of all the brethren.[495]

CHARACTER OF CAROLI.

Caroli was not at all inclined to submit to this rule. A fantastic schoolman, he was fond of putting forward strange paradoxes, and of raising discussions which irritated men’s minds and gave him an opportunity of showing off his cleverness. That sort of thing was a remnant of the Middle Ages; but the age of the Reformation demanded a different method. Caroli was an anachronism. His rank as doctor of the Sorbonne ought, in his view, to set him at the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, before which the rude herdsmen of Helvetia must bend. He meant to make a reformation sui generis, to advance views peculiar to himself, and to set up doctrines to which no one had before attained. An opportunity soon presented itself. Viret, his young colleague, having gone to pay a visit to his friends at Geneva, Caroli took advantage of his absence, and, ascending the pulpit, read a series of theses tending to prove that prayers ought to be made for the dead. ‘I have no intention,’ he said as he closed, ‘of taking lessons from a young man,’ thus pointing to Viret. It was plain, from his gestures, his voice, his words so arrogant and so full of tartness, that he was over-excited.[496] Viret, being informed by one of his friends, soon returned, and rebuked him for his freak. But Caroli, proud of what he impudently called his discovery, replied—‘I do not believe in purgatory, nor do I suppose that the dead can be comforted by the prayers of the living; those things are mere fictions. But I believe that we ought to ask God to hasten his judgment for the happiness of his saints and of all the members of the Church, the Virgin, the prophets, and the apostles, who will be the first to profit thereby.’[497] Caroli thus pitched his tent between Rome and the Gospel, being neither with the one nor with the other, but being merely himself. That was his wish. Had he only urged the Church to say to the Lord, ‘Come quickly,’ he would have spoken in conformity with Holy Scripture. But his intention was that the prayer should be offered in favor of the dead, a pretence which finds no justification in the Bible. Viret replied to him—‘You know that we ought not to preach any merely private views without having first communicated them to one another. If you have found in Scripture any instruction which is unknown to me, I will freely embrace it; but if you preach some erroneous doctrine, allow me, as your colleague, to make some observations on it.’[498] That was just what Caroli did not want. He answered Viret haughtily, and proudly maintained his doctrine.

CAROLI AT LAUSANNE.

Many friends of the Gospel looked to Calvin, who enjoyed their entire confidence, and begged him to go immediately to Lausanne. This he did. Farel would have liked to accompany him; but the Bernese requested him to look after his own church and not after theirs. Delegates from Berne were sent to Lausanne, and a kind of consistory was thus formed, in which Calvin, it appears, stated the case. But the proud Caroli, who thought it beneath his dignity to make any defence, refused in the haughtiest manner to give the least explanation of his conduct. He was greatly annoyed to find himself accused by Calvin, whose superiority was so troublesome to him. He immediately formed his plan. He resolved to turn against the reformer the sword with which the latter had threatened him, and to plunge it into him up to the hilt. ‘If the minister of Geneva,’ he exclaimed, ‘has shown so much zeal in bringing this business before your assembly, it is a shameful conspiracy, the only object of which is to ruin me completely.’ Viret then spoke, and so clearly set forth the subterfuges and calumnies of Caroli, that the assembly condemned him to make a retractation, regardless of his amour propre. Astounded by a sentence so severe, this man, who so easily passed from one extreme to another, humbled himself, and with lamentings and tears asked for pardon. Calvin was touched by this demeanor, and in the abundance of his moderation prayed the assembly to spare Caroli the act which wounded his pride. Viret did the same. Their request was granted. The doctor of the Sorbonne had then nothing better to do than to retire quietly to his own house, with a grateful feeling towards his two noble adversaries. But their well-meant interposition had not really softened him; his humility was a mere feint. He was determined at all cost to reach his end and become the foremost man in the Church. Jealous of the influence exercised by Calvin, Farel, and Viret in Switzerland, he said to himself that in order to get firmly seated in the saddle, the man already riding must first be dismounted. The ruin of these three doctors was the task which he had to undertake. He felt sure of the secret support, at least at Geneva, of some of the leading men; and he flattered himself that he should be able to involve Calvin in hopeless embarrassment.[499] He resolved therefore to assume the character of accuser, and to reduce his enemies to play the part of the guilty and the accused.

People thought that they had done with this man, and the assembly was on the point of breaking up, when he suddenly rose, with a preoccupied look, as if he had some burden on his conscience of which he was anxious to be rid. ‘For the glory of God,’ said he, speaking in a declamatory tone, ‘for the honor of the lords of Berne, for the purity of the faith, for the safety of the Church, for the public peace, and for the relief of my own conscience, I have now to set before you, my honorable lords, a matter on which I have long kept silence. The silence must now be broken. I must speak. There are in the city of Geneva, as well as in your country, many ministers who are tainted with the Arian heresy.’ Putting himself forward like a second Athanasius, he named a great number of ministers, good men, whom he declared guilty of the error of Arius, but without giving any evidence at all.[500] Calvin was among the first in this catalogue of heretics. To accuse him of being an Arian required an audacity and a passion carried to the pitch of madness. It appears that he was even accused, in common with his friends, of maintaining the errors of the Spaniard Servetus.[501] The Genevese theologians had very recently encountered and defeated an Arian at Geneva, Claude of Savoy. There was something more than passion in this attack; there was absurdity. Calvin leaning towards Deism, indeed! The Reformation was not a beginning of Deism, with which stupid enemies have charged it: it was a reëstablishing of Christianity.

CALVIN ACCUSED OF ARIANISM.

The reformer was struck with astonishment. ‘It had never entered into my imagination,’ he wrote, ‘that we had to fear being accused on this point.’[502] Calvin perceived the scope of the attack which Caroli had just made. If he were to remain under this charge, his ministry would be compromised, his zeal suspected, his labors fruitless. Discord would be thrown into the evangelical camp, and Rome exult to see the most devoted champions of the Reformation accused of denying the divinity of the Saviour. The reformer immediately rose; and without any exhibition of violence, with which his enemies are always ready to reproach him, he pointed out with much spirit the inconsistency of his opponent. ‘Only a few days ago,’ he said, ‘Caroli invited me to his table. I was at that time a very dear brother. He bade me present his compliments to Farel; he treated as Christians all those whom he looks on to-day as heretics, and protested that he wished to maintain for ever a brotherly union with us. Where, at that time, was the glory of God, where the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church?’ Then, turning towards the doctor of the Sorbonne—‘How could you,’ he said, ‘conscientiously celebrate the holy supper on two occasions with an Arian associate? From what source have you learnt that I am tainted with that heresy? Tell me, for I will clear myself of that infamy.’ As Caroli brought forward no evidence, the reformer appealed to the catechism which he had recently published. ‘This is the faith,’ said he, ‘which I have but lately professed. We confess that we believe in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; and when we name the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, we do not imagine to ourselves three gods. But we believe that Scripture and the experience of piety show us the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in simplest divine unity.’[503]

Caroli was not by any means satisfied. The words in his view essential were missing. Calvin thought it advisable, in works of a practical and popular character, to avoid the use of expressions which are not found in holy Scripture. Therefore he had avoided the use, in the passage cited, of the terms Trinity, substance, or persons. Luther had done the same. ‘This term, Trinity,’ said he, ‘is nowhere to be found in holy Scripture; it was invented by men. Moreover the word is frigid, and it is far better to say God than Trinity.’[504] Calvin, who was full of spirit and life, was afraid that by the use of these theological terms Christianity should be placed solely in the understanding of the man and of the child, and not in his conscience, his heart, his will, and his works. He had employed them the year before in the first edition of his Institution, which was intended for professed theologians:[505] but he had excluded them both from his Confession, prepared chiefly for the laity, and from his Catechism, composed for children. All this did not pacify Caroli, who, if he was orthodox, was only orthodox in the head. He alleged that if Calvin was innocent of Arianism, he was guilty of Sabellianism. ‘You will be under suspicion on that matter,’ said he, ‘until you have subscribed the Athanasian creed.’ ‘My practice,’ replied Calvin, ‘is not to approve of anything as in conformity with the Word of God until after due consideration.’ Caroli, thinking that the Athanasian creed was compromised by this reserve, flew into a passion and cried out, ‘that this avowal was unworthy of a Christian.’[506]

CONVOCATION OF A SYNOD.

Up to this moment Calvin had restrained himself; but he felt deeply the injustice of the doctor’s accusations. When he had received an unmerited blow, he not seldom replied by striking another himself. The blow was just, but sometimes rather sharp. ‘You will not find any one,’ he said to Caroli, ‘more earnest than I am in maintaining the divinity of Jesus Christ. I think that I have given a sufficiently clear account of my faith. My works are in everybody’s hands, and all the orthodox churches approve my doctrine. But as for you, what evidence have you ever given of your faith, except possibly in public-houses and the haunts of vice? For it is in such places that you have hitherto practised.’

Caroli, knowing all that could be told of his abandoned life, and as cowardly as he was rash, trembled when he found that Calvin was approaching that subject. In order to break the force of the blow, he retracted his charge, and declared that the writings of his opponent were good; that he had always spoken well of the Holy Trinity; and that no accusation could be drawn up against him, ‘provided that he did not support the cause of Farel.’ Caroli feared Farel less than Calvin, and hated him more. Viret then spoke, and compelled the presumptuous doctor to retract what concerned himself (Viret). ‘These retractations are not sufficient,’ said the two reformers; ‘we mean to defend likewise the cause of Farel and of our other absent brothers, whom you have unjustly accused.’ The delegates of Berne, when they saw what an important character the debate was assuming, declared that it was necessary to carry it before a general assembly, and undertook to get one held. The meeting then broke up.[507]

These circumstances occurred in February. Calvin, on his return to Geneva, fearing that the Bernese delegates might be slow to fulfil their promise, and perceiving moreover that this affair concerned the Church rather than the state, persuaded the ministers of Geneva to write to the ministers of Berne, pressing them to take the matter in hand.[508] He wrote himself to Megander, the chief among the Bernese pastors. ‘I cannot find words,’ he said, ‘adequately to express the imminent peril to which the Church will be exposed if this business be indefinitely postponed. The influence which your position gives you lays on you more than any one else the obligation to use all your efforts to promote an early meeting of the assembly. You cannot imagine how severely the blow struck by Caroli has shaken the foundation which we have laid. People are saying, especially, even in country places, that we ought to begin by agreeing among ourselves before we think of converting others. Let us not allow the coat of the Gospel, woven in one piece, to be rent by wicked men. Do all that is possible to secure the meeting, before Easter, of all the French-speaking ministers who live under the government of your republic.’[509] Easter fell in that year on April 1.

As the reformer received no satisfactory reply, he set out for Berne in the first fortnight in March, and implored the magistrates, the councillors, and the pastors to convoke the synod immediately. This was refused him, probably on account of the business which accumulates during the weeks preceding the feast of Easter; but they promised him that the assembly should be convoked immediately after Easter.[510] We see what courage and activity Calvin displayed; this was one of the signs of his genius. Farel, on the contrary, was worn out by the distress of mind which this affair had occasioned him. His condition was afflicting to his friends. ‘I should never have believed,’ said Calvin to Viret, ‘that with his iron constitution he could have been so pulled down.’ Farel’s age and his immense labors, however, accounted for his state. Calvin, alarmed at the prospect of losing so invaluable a fellow-laborer, wrote to Viret: ‘It is indispensable that you should return to us, unless we are prepared to see Farel die of grief. If we allow a breach to be made in the Genevese Church, I am afraid that schism will tear it to pieces.’[511] Instead of diminishing, the energy of Calvin appeared to increase, for he felt the justice of his cause. ‘I am ready,’ he said, ‘to maintain the contest with the utmost energy. The charges, first of Arianism, and then of Sabellianism, have not greatly disturbed us; our ears have been long accustomed to such calumnies, and we are confident that they will all end in smoke.’[512] The valiant champion therefore awaited fearlessly the convocation of the synod. The council of Geneva, on receiving the letters from the lords of Berne respecting this gathering, invited the preachers to go thither; and on May 11 the treasurer placed in Farel’s hands fifty florins, to cover the expenses of the journey.[513]

SYNOD OF LAUSANNE.

The assembly met at Lausanne. On May 13[514] there were seen entering the church of St. Francis the banderet Rodolph de Graffenried, Nicholas Zerkinden, secretary of state, the pastor Grosmann, commonly called Megander, and another deputy from Berne. From Geneva came Calvin, Farel, and Courault; about twenty ministers from Neuchâtel, and a hundred pastors from the Pays de Vaud, among the latter, Viret. Caroli, it seems, came with a bag such as barristers are accustomed to carry, containing the brief of his proceedings.[515] Megander was president. He stated that the assembly had met in consequence of the charge brought by Caroli against several ministers, of not believing in the Trinity, nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Then addressing Viret, a subject of Berne, he inquired what was his opinion on that doctrine. ‘When we confess one only God,’ replied the pastor of Lausanne, ‘we comprehend the Father, with his eternal Word, and his Spirit, in one single and divine essence. Nevertheless we do not confound the Father with the Word, nor the Word with the Spirit.’ Caroli rose and said with bitterness, ‘This profession is too short, too dry, too obscure. No mention is made in it of the Trinity, nor of substance, nor of person.’ Then taking a declamatory tone, he began to recite the Nicene creed, afterwards the Athanasian creed, making undignified gestures with his hands and arms, and moving his head and his body about in such an extraordinary way that the grave assembly could not refrain from laughter. In closing his speech, he said to his adversary, ‘Nothing can clear you from the charge of heresy except your signing the three œcumenical creeds.’[516]

CAROLI UNMASKED.

Calvin listened to him without interrupting him; but he could no longer keep silence. A justification on his part was almost superfluous. He had fully professed the doctrine in his popular writings; he had even, as we have seen, employed the terms of the school in his theological Institution. But the point of importance for the safety of the Church was to make his adversary known, to tear the mask from his face. That man, of dissolute life, destitute of convictions, destitute of faith, whose only thought was how to get possession of the highest place, and who was endeavoring to conceal the licentiousness of his evil life under the pretence of religion, dared to accuse, with hypocritical lips, the faithful servants of God. A course so revolting roused Calvin’s indignation; and from his lips fell such earnest words as were inspired by the fraud, the vices, and the shamelessness of his adversary. He completely stripped the man. ‘What wickedness this is,’ said he, ‘without any cause but mere lawless passions, to disturb the Church and to check the progress of the Gospel by bringing atrocious accusations against persons entirely innocent, who have rendered the most conspicuous services to the truth! Caroli sets up a quarrel with us about the distinction of the persons in God. I am going to examine him in turn, but I take up the subject at a higher point, and I ask him if only he believes in God. I declare before God and before men, that he has no more faith in the divine Word than the dog and the swine that trample under foot holy things.’ Some will perhaps exclaim against this language, but it must be remembered that Calvin took these two words from holy Scripture, where they are used to mark two different characters, of both of which we must equally beware.[517] ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,’ said Jesus, ‘neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’ The swine represent men defiled by debauchery, and the dog is the beast that barks, pursues, and bites. These two kinds of excess precisely characterized Caroli.

But Calvin did not stop there. He did not mean that people should be able to say that the ministers were not cleared of the charges brought against them. He therefore made a confession which had been beforehand approved by his colleagues. ‘When we distinguish the Father, his eternal Word, and his Spirit,’ said he, ‘we believe, in common with ecclesiastical writers, that in the simple unity of God there are three hypostases or substances, which, although they be one sole and identical essence, are nevertheless not confounded with each other. With respect to Jesus Christ,’ he added, ‘before taking on himself our flesh, he was the eternal Word, begotten of the Father before time was, very God, of one same essence, power, and majesty with the Father, Jehovah himself, who has ever existed of himself, and gives to others the property of existing.’[518]

CALVIN AND THE EARLY CREEDS.

This declaration baffled Caroli; and now, after having very strongly asserted that Calvin was not orthodox enough, he began to cry out that he was too much so. ‘What,’ said he, ‘you attribute to Jesus Christ the name and the nature of Jehovah; you say that he has of himself the divine essence!’ Calvin replied, ‘If we attentively consider the difference between the Father and the Word, we must acknowledge that the Word proceeds from the Father. But if we concern ourselves with the essence itself of the Word, so far as the Word is God with the Father, all that is said of the one must likewise be said of the other.’[519] Caroli, giving up the matter, took refuge in the words. ‘In your confession,’ said he, ‘there is not the word Trinity, there is not the word person.’ Then, wishing to compel Calvin and the other ministers to adopt the confessions made by men,—‘I demand,’ said he, ‘that you sign the three ancient creeds.’ Calvin and the ministers who were with him would have given their signature under other circumstances, but they now refused it for very wise reasons. ‘Caroli,’ they said, ‘by compelling us to sign, wishes to throw suspicion on our faith. We do not consider it fitting to show him so much deference. Moreover, we will not, by our example, promote the introduction into the Church of a tyranny which would brand every man as a heretic who will not express himself in terms dictated by another.’[520] Herein Calvin gave proof at the same time of a magnanimity and a fidelity which do him honor. Every Church, in his opinion, ought to confess its doctrine, but he would rather that the confession should be the product of the life and the faith of those who make it; and not a mere return to ten or twelve centuries back, in order to seek the truth in the antiquated phrases of another age. He professed with all his heart the doctrine enunciated in the early creeds, the Nicene and the so-called Athanasian, which set forth, perhaps with superfluity of words, but nevertheless with much force, a faith which is dear to Christian men. But he felt that these writings were wanting in evangelical simplicity. The phrases ‘God of God, Light of Light’ (Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτὸς), used in the Nicene creed, appeared to him less apostolic than Oriental in their character. It shocked him that the Quicunque, better known under the name of the Athanasian creed, just at the time when it is going to make subtle distinctions, such as the faith of a simple Christian man cannot comprehend, should begin by asserting—‘Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith (that of the creed). Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.’ Caroli’s ignorance as to this profession of faith was so great that he believed it was drawn up at Nicæa in A.D. 325, and by Athanasius. This was startling to Calvin. The creed appears, in fact, to have been formed gradually in the African church, some of its formulæ being met with towards the close of the seventh century; but it did not exist as a whole until the age of Charlemagne, nearly five centuries after the council of Nicæa. That was an age in which, if the doctrine of the divine nature was truly stated, the doctrines of justification by grace and of the new birth by the Spirit were obscured. Semi-Pelagianism was more and more invading the Church; literary and scientific culture, decried by the monks as belonging to paganism, was becoming rare; the state, not content with deciding on the exterior relations of the Church, published edicts on the articles of faith or of doctrine; miracles were alleged to be wrought by relics; the bishops of Rome assumed the title of universal bishop, a title branded by Gregory the Great as antichristian; the controversy about images was especially agitating men’s minds; both the Church and the state were in the utmost confusion; the bishops took up arms against the lords; the clergy, both regular and secular, were without culture and without discipline; and, in one word, Christianity had lost the life which was peculiarly its own. It was, doubtless, the existence of this melancholy condition of society at the period in which the Quicunque was formed that induced Calvin to make reservations, and to declare that it was to the belief in one only God that he made oath, and not to the belief of Athanasius, whose creed no genuine Church would have accepted.[521]

SYNOD OF BERNE.

The synod, having heard both parties and maturely considered the matter, acknowledged the confession of the Genevese ministers to be good and orthodox; and they condemned Caroli, and declared him henceforth unworthy to fulfil the functions of the ministry. ‘We have, by our refutation,’ said Calvin, ‘exhausted all that bag of Caroli’s;[522] with regard to ourselves there now remains not the slightest suspicion.’ Caroli appealed from the sentence of the synod to the lords of Berne. Who was right? Who was wrong? Calvin or Caroli? Judgments have differed on the point. Some have said, ‘The denunciation by Caroli was not altogether unfounded; it is no wonder that he declared himself dissatisfied and maintained his charge.’ Others have added that Calvin fell on his adversary with a violence which made the assembly tremble, and which afforded the first instance of that fearful anger with which so often afterwards he struck down those who were against him.[523] This is not our opinion. As to his expressions, Calvin’s defence is not so terrible, so passionate, if we call to mind the sort of man with whom he had to deal; and as for the hardest words of the reformer, they are, as we have seen, two which he adopted from the Saviour himself. As to the substance of the defence, he would not bring forward, as Roman Catholics do, human authorities; he preferred to hold fast to the Word of God. That is his chief glory, and therein does he show himself a genuine reformer, as Luther did. His adversary was an immoral character, and the Reformation would make no covenant with immorality. Who would blame him for that? Calvin could not consent that a dissolute man, whose hand was stained with the blood of the saints, should pass for an Athanasius, one of the noblest of the ancient doctors of the Church. He was, above all, profoundly afflicted by the thought that the blow struck by that man was shaking the foundations of the spiritual building which was being erected to the glory of God.

These debates made a great noise in other lands. All kinds of rumors were current at a distance, and evil reports were circulated about the Genevese reformers. People were asking one another what this contest between Caroli and Calvin was about, and they waited impatiently for the issue of it. French vivacity had been offensive to some theologians of German Switzerland. Megander himself complained to Bullinger of the annoyance which those turbulent Frenchmen had caused him.[524] People, however, were as easily agitated in German Switzerland, and even in the land of Luther. Some Catholics began to attach importance to these struggles, and to take advantage of them. Letters were exchanged on the subject. Bucer and Capito wrote from Strasburg, the former to Melanchthon, the latter to Farel; and Myconius wrote from Basel to the assembly itself. This must needs invest with more solemnity the judgment on the appeal which was about to be heard at Berne.

‘On May 24, Guillaume Farel requested of the council of Geneva to send to that city Master Cauvin (Calvin) for any battle (journée) there was to be, to take part in the disputation. Upon which it was resolved that he should go.’[525] Berne had shown a certain favor towards Caroli. It might therefore be feared that the judgment pronounced at Lausanne would not be confirmed. We cannot tell what the sentence would have been if it had been pronounced by the state authorities. But the council, finding that it was a question of doctrine, had convoked at Berne the synod of the Bernese Church for the end of May. The debate was opened in the presence of the great council, which doubtless took part so far in the cause. The would-be Athanasius supported his charge with confidence and a haughty spirit, assuming to play in the sixteenth century the part which the great bishop of Alexandria had played in the fourth. Calvin completely justified both himself and his colleagues. Consequently the reformer was once more entirely acquitted, and declared free not only from all fault but also from all suspicion. As for Caroli, he was pronounced a slanderer, and as such condemned.

CONDEMNATION OF CAROLI.

When that was over, the lords of Berne inquired of Calvin, Farel, and Viret whether Caroli was, so far as they knew, guilty in any respect, either in his private life or especially in his ministry. As soon as he heard these words, the doctor of the Sorbonne, seeing that his own turn was come, was terror-struck, and vehemently opposed the inquiry. ‘Those whom I have just accused of great crimes,’ said he, ‘cannot be allowed to bring formal charges against me.’ ‘You have indeed accused them,’ replied the Bernese, ‘and without being able to substantiate your charges. Why then should they not be allowed to accuse you?’ And the doctors were enjoined to communicate anything they knew with regard to him. Thereupon this man, who had no heart, no moral sentiment, was disconcerted; and as he dreaded above all the revelations of his adversaries, he fancied that the best way to avert them was to accuse himself. He began therefore to confess the faults with which he knew that Farel and his friends were well acquainted—the debaucheries to which he had addicted himself in France, the meanness with which he had dissembled his sentiments in matters of religion, and the cruel perfidy which had prompted him to deliver to death two young Christians whose way of thinking he himself approved. It was a strange sight! Here was a singular penitent, without repentance and without scruple, assuming a contrite air and confessing his faults solely because he hoped in that way to secure exemption from punishment. ‘A devil’s penitent!’ said Tertullian in such cases.

Farel had let him speak; nevertheless he did not think that he was thereby discharged from the injunction which had been given him. He was acquainted with certain traits of Caroli’s life which might give the lords of Berne the intelligence of which they were in need. He narrated the shameful licentiousness of the man, who had lived at Paris with women of the vilest reputation, and had actually been accused of keeping five or six at a time. He showed how two young men, carried away by their zeal against images, had taken it into their heads to hang some of them; and how that same Caroli, who at that time professed that the worship of images diverts men from the knowledge of the true God, had caused these youths to be kept in the prison into which they had been cast until two judges arrived, who had them delivered over to the executioners. Viret related the discussion which he had held with Caroli on the subject of prayers for the dead; and, at the request of the Bernese, reported various details of his conduct, among others his drunkenness, which had more than once exposed him to the derision of the public.

BERNE PROMOTES THE REFORMATION.

In consequence of these debates, Caroli was deprived of his functions by the synod. The great council of Berne confirmed this sentence; pronounced Farel, Calvin, and Viret innocent of the charges brought against them; condemned Caroli to banishment as guilty of slander and other excesses; and remitted the cause to the consistory to be formally terminated. As the presumptuous doctor was unwilling to submit to that authority, the parties were summoned before the civil magistrates (avoyers) and the councils. Calvin, Farel, and Viret accordingly presented themselves, June 6, but Caroli did not appear. An usher, sent by the lords of Berne to seek him, brought word that he had disappeared.[526] He had in fact fled early in the morning, and had taken the road to Soleure. From that place he withdrew into France, to the cardinal of Tournon, the great enemy of the Reformation. The latter obtained absolution for Caroli from the pope. The wretched man had hoped that, by returning into the Roman Church, he should get a good benefice; but he found that he was held in equal contempt by Catholics and Protestants. To close the affair, it was agreed to approve the terms Trinity, substance, and persons (Calvin himself had made use of them); but at the same time that if any pious man declined to employ them, ‘he should not be cast out of the Church, nor should be looked on as one who thought wrongly as to the faith.’[527]

This episode in Calvin’s life shows us not only his firm attachment to the truth, which everyone acknowledges, but likewise a spirit of freedom which is ordinarily denied to him. It is clear that with him the Word of God stood before all, and that the faith, the life, and essence of Christianity had more value in his eyes than mere traditional terms, which are not to be found in the Scriptures.

CHAPTER VI.
CALVIN AT THE SYNOD OF BERNE.
(September, 1537.)

This was not the only triumph which Calvin achieved, nor the only synod of Berne in which he took part. Keen debates were at that time going on in the evangelical Churches of Switzerland. They had gradually arisen after the disaster of Cappel in 1531. In the canton of Soleure the Reformation had indeed been crushed by the intervention of the Catholics, although the majority in the country and a minority in the town were Protestants. But other cantons had remained faithful to the Reform. In Bullinger, Zurich had found a worthy successor to Zwingli; and Oswald Myconius happily filled the place of the amiable Œcolampadius at Basel. Berne, not satisfied with having adopted the Reformation herself, eagerly promoted its establishment everywhere. The great question which was then under discussion was this—Should the Swiss Churches unite themselves with the Lutheran Churches or not? Bucer, at Strasburg, warmly advocated the union; and the magistrates, above all those of Berne, were not at all opposed to it. They had political skill enough to perceive that the Church of the Reformation, then so formidably threatened, had need to combine its whole forces. The pastors of Berne, Haller, Megander, and Kolb, were desirous of extending a friendly hand to Luther; but those free Swiss, disciples and friends of Zwingli, disliked the equivocal formulæ of Bucer. The Zuricher Megander, in particular, a learned professor and an eloquent preacher, but of rash character, violent and somewhat domineering, designated by his opponents the ape of Zwingli,[528] had set himself the task of maintaining at Berne the theology of the Zurich reformer. As Haller and Kolb were then enfeebled by age and ill-health, Megander exercised a powerful influence over the country pastors; and the magistrates themselves, aware of his abilities, committed to his hands the most important affairs. The Zurichers had drawn up a confession on the Lord’s supper in conformity with Bucer’s wishes. Basel, St. Gall, and Schaffhausen had approved it; but Megander induced his colleagues to reject it. The French diplomatists also, who were anxious to obtain the assistance of the Swiss and German Protestants against Charles V., said—‘All the Swiss towns agree with Luther except these Bernese blockheads, who walk backwards like crabs, and stick obstinately to an opinion which they cannot possibly defend.’[529]

THE ZWINGLIANS AT BERNE.

The Bernese magistrates, however, were not willing to break with their allies. The war against Savoy, which they had undertaken in 1536, for the defence of Geneva and the occupation of the Pays de Vaud, had convinced them of the need of their support. Consequently, they sent delegates to the four colloquies which were held that same year at Basel, to take into consideration the agreement with the doctors of Wittenberg. But the council, so far from breaking with Megander, put him at the head of these theologians. So the confession which was prepared at the first of these colloquies, in January 1536 (the second conference of Basel and the first of Switzerland,) when speaking of eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, added that this took place only in a spiritual sense. This displeased Bucer. The Zwinglians, in turn, called him ‘a doubled-faced man,’ and said that this pretended peacemaker brought division into the Helvetic Churches. It was to no purpose that his defence was undertaken by Myconius, who, since 1532, had presided as overseer of the Church at Basel, and the learned professor Grynæus. The Zwinglian party would not hear a word about an agreement with the Strasburg trimmer. Various circumstances occurred to bring about a change in this state of things. The Swiss and the Bernese themselves were touched by the beautiful letter which Luther had written to the burgomaster of Basel, in which he spoke approvingly of the confession drawn up in that city. The aged Kolb, pastor of Berne, had died at the end of 1535; and on February 25, 1536, Haller also had passed into the unseen world. A great change then took place in Berne. Kunz, a man of a very different spirit from Zwingli and Haller, became pastor in the place of Kolb. Having studied at Wittenberg, he was a passionate admirer of Luther and of his doctrine. Of ardent temperament, Kunz longed to promote the triumph of his master’s doctrine, and so much the more as he was his inferior in respect to the living faith of the Gospel. Sebastian Meyer, a former Franciscan, who from the beginning of his ministry had been remarkable for the violence of his discourses, and who was a friend of Bucer, had taken the place of Haller. The council had probably been influenced in the election of these men by the Strasburg doctors, with whose projects the members were more and more pleased. Thus it seemed likely that in Berne the Lutheran party would succeed the Zwinglian. The new pastors, however, did not immediately set up their claim; they rather applied themselves to the preparation of men’s minds, and their conquests were very numerous, especially among politicians. But Megander, the inflexible Zwinglian, still kept the upper hand; and it was he who spoke in the name of Berne in the Swiss assemblies. Bucer, doubtless, had him in mind when he complained to Luther ‘of those untractable heads which are found in Switzerland, which for every trifle make so much ado.’[530]

A PATCHED-UP PEACE.

The new pastors of Berne, encouraged by their friends abroad, threw off the restraint which they had at first imposed on their speech. Sebastian Meyer, in particular, giving way to his natural disposition, thoroughly headlong and incautious, taught publicly that in the supper the body of Christ is truly eaten and his blood truly drunk, but took care to add, by faith. Kunz supported him. The conflict thus began. Megander and Erasmus Ritter started up to oppose this doctrine; and Meyer did not hesitate to say in the colloquies that the doctrine of the supper had never been rightly taught in the canton of Berne. The Bernese council convoked a synod, at which three hundred ministers of the German and French cantons of Switzerland were present. Meyer, together with Kunz, vividly depicted the evils which would be involved in a rejection of the agreement. Erasmus Ritter, with Megander, replied that an agreement was certainly very much to be desired, but that the truth must not be sacrificed to it. The Zwinglian party had the best of it. They agreed to stand by the second confession of Basel, and to avoid the use of terms which gave origin to the disputes; such as, corporal, real, natural, supernatural, invisible, carnal, miraculous, inexpressible presence. But this patched-up peace was of short duration. The secret correspondence between Bucer and Luther having been published, the Zwinglians were scandalized, people’s minds were thrown into agitation, and the edifice of concord, which they had toiled to rear, threatened to crumble away. Bucer then applied to the council of Berne, and requested it to convoke a synod at which he might be allowed to vindicate himself. ‘This whole business of the supper,’ said he, ‘is a mere dispute about words, but it is of the utmost importance to put an end to it; and I appeal to the justice of the Bernese magistrates, who cannot allow a man, whoever he may be, to be condemned before he is heard.’ Another synod was consequently convoked at Berne, for the month of September.[531]

Everybody was aware of the importance of this assembly. Bucer and Capito arrived in the city, provided with a letter of introduction from the magistrates of Strasburg, and accompanied by two theologians from Basel, Myconius and Grynæus, who though sincerely adhering to the reformed party, earnestly desired the union. Almost at the same time, three ministers from the French cantons, who had been specially invited, entered Berne; they were Calvin, Farel, and Viret. Those who knew that at Geneva they allowed neither unleavened bread nor baptismal fonts, nor the feasts and rites to which the Lutherans were strongly attached, could entertain no doubt that these bold champions would take the side of the Zwinglians. The pastors of the canton of Berne were represented only by delegates of classes. The government, fearing lest the spirit of discord should mar the meeting, requested Bucer and Capito to confine themselves to their own justification, and not to meddle with other matters. They were not even permitted to preach, except on condition that they did not introduce disputed topics in the pulpit. The assembly met at the Town Hall, in the presence of the two councils of the republic, and under the presidency of the mayor (Schultheiss) de Watteville. After the customary formalities, this magistrate invited the Strasburgers to begin. ‘Union in matters which concern the glory of God and the benefit of the Church,’ said Bucer, ‘is already established in a great number of kingdoms, duchies, and principalities; and the churches of the Swiss confederation form almost the only exception, it is thus that Satan opposes the kingdom of God. Yes, it is to Satan that are owing those suspicions which are prevalent respecting the agreement which we are striving to bring about. We demand that passion should be silenced, and that God should be regarded rather than men. You have lent one ear to calumny, lend the other now to the voice of truth. If you condemn us, you will condemn many other Churches, and particularly that Church whose representatives met at Smalcalde, and which includes within its pale many learned and pious men.’ Bucer next, desirous of clearing himself from the reproaches which had been addressed to him, pointed out that Zwingli and Luther had set out from two different points of view; Zwingli striving to keep as far away as possible from the Roman dogma of transubstantiation, and Luther endeavoring to maintain that there is nevertheless some kind of real presence in the bread. In making afterwards his own confession of faith, he said, ‘No, the bread and the wine are not mere signs; the presence of Christ by faith is not a mere logical presence, not imaginary, such as that which I have when I say, for instance, that I now see my wife at Strasburg.[532] Faith requires something higher than that. When I say with you, Christ is present in a celestial manner, and with Luther, Christ is present in an essential manner, I express fundamentally one and the same faith.’ On the following day, Capito coming to the support of his colleague, preached a sermon in which he endeavored to show that Zwingli and Œcolampadius were in agreement with Luther. They were so on the essential point of seeking and finding in the supper a true communion with the Saviour.

BUCER’S VIEWS.

Megander had been charged with the duty of speaking on behalf of the synod. Brevity and moderation had been recommended, lest any imprudent word should give rise to a dispute. For him this task was not an easy one. In fact, the next day he attacked Bucer and Capito with some vehemence, upbraiding them for being with Luther rather than with the Swiss, and with having, in other places, signed certain acts which the Swiss could not sign. ‘I have,’ said he, in drawing to a close, ‘some letters in which Bucer is spoken of. However, I think better of him than those letters, and I should be pleased if we could agree with him.’ Unhappily, they were far enough from such agreement. The discussion grew warm. ‘You teach children in your catechism,’ said Bucer, ‘to receive a sign in the supper, without reminding them of the thing signified.’ ‘How then,’ exclaimed some of the Bernese ministers, ‘can you pretend that we hold the same faith?’ ‘Let Bucer speak,’ said Megander; ‘we will reply to him in the afternoon.’ But, in that afternoon sitting, Bucer began anew to discourse to the Swiss about the sacrament. ‘Enough of these homilies,’ said Megander, impatiently. ‘You shut our mouths,’ said Bucer. ‘Let all those,’ said Megander, ‘who have anything to say speak freely.’ But not one of the Bernese pastors rose.

A good understanding seemed impossible. The leaders on both sides were angry and provoked each other. The vessel of concord, built by the careful toil of the pastors of Strasburg, was violently tossed and was going to founder in the Helvetic waters. Disagreeing in doctrine, said one of those who were present on this occasion, there was nothing between them but debate, a deadly plague in a Church. Where were they to find the last plank, the desperate resource for escape from shipwreck? They must founder, or be saved as if by miracle. A young man, of only eight-and-twenty, but known for his love of the Holy Scriptures and his slight respect for tradition, was sorrowfully contemplating these discussions. It was John Calvin, he who called the discussions ‘a deadly plague’ for the Church. His convictions were free and spontaneous. They did not proceed, as with others, from a desire for compromise, but from a perception of what is the essence of the faith. He would not at any price have sought some expedient for the union of minds by a sacrifice of truth. But he knew by experience the power of the Holy Spirit; and he was the man called to stand between the two armies, to get the sword returned to its sheath, and to found unity and peace.

INTERVENTION OF CALVIN.

We almost hesitate to report his words, because they will be difficult to comprehend. He spoke, for the faithful, of a complete union with Christ, even with his flesh and his blood, and nevertheless of a union which is effected only by the Spirit. Calvin’s speech was of so much importance that we cannot think of suppressing it. Vulgar minds insist on comprehending everything as they do the working of a steam-engine; but the greatest minds have acknowledged the reality of the incomprehensible. Descartes said that ‘in order to attain a true idea of the infinite, it is not in any sense to be comprehended, inasmuch as incomprehensibility itself is contained in the formal definition of the infinite.’ ‘Infinity is everywhere, and consequently incomprehensibility likewise,’ said Nicole.[533] The Christian however comprehends to a certain extent the mystery which we are now considering, and above all he experiences its reality. ‘If, as the Scriptures clearly testify,’ said Calvin at the synod of Berne (1537), ‘the flesh of Christ is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, it follows that if we seek life in Christ, we must be thereby veritably fed. The spiritual life which Christ gives us consists not only in his making us alive by his Spirit, but in his rendering us, by the power of his Spirit, partakers of his life-giving flesh, and by means of this participation, nourishing us for eternal life.[534] Therefore, when we speak of the communion which the faithful have with Christ, we teach that they receive the communication of his body and his blood, no less than that of his Spirit, so that they possess Christ wholly.

‘It is true that our Lord has gone up on high, and that his local presence has thus been withdrawn from us. But this fact does not invalidate our assertion, and that local presence is by no means necessary here. So long as we are pilgrims on the earth, we are not contained in the same place with him. But there is no obstacle to the efficacy of the Spirit; he can collect and unite elements existing in far separated places. The Spirit is the means by which we are partakers of Christ. That Spirit nourishes us with the flesh and the blood of the Lord, and thus quickens us for immortality. Christ offers this communion under the symbols of bread and wine to all those who celebrate the supper aright and in accordance with his institution.’

Such was Calvin’s speech. ‘I embrace as orthodox,’ said Bucer, ‘this view of our excellent brothers Calvin, Farel, and Viret. I never held that Christ was locally present in the holy supper.[535] He has a real finite body, and that body remains in the celestial glory. But in raising us by faith to heaven, the bread which we eat and the cup which we drink are for us the communication of his body and his blood.’

Calvin wrote down his view. Bucer appended to it the words last reported. Capito signed them. Bucer even succeeded, by dint of moderation and kindliness, in taming Kunz; and the latter showed in this instance some goodwill. ‘But,’ said Calvin at a later time, ‘that single moment was soon past, and he became worse than himself.’ The synod acknowledged the Strasburgers as justified, as faithful, as Christians, and their confession of faith as not in any respect contrary to the Helvetic confessions. Megander was invited to modify his catechism to a small extent so far as it treated of the doctrine of the supper, and this he agreed to do. The deputies of the pastors of the canton went to the hostelry where Bucer and Capito lodged, and requested their co-operation in putting an end to the difficulties which existed between the ministers of the city. The council itself exhorted these pastors to concord and peace. Such was the force of the speech of a single man, that at the moment when the waves were in stormiest agitation, there was suddenly a great calm.

God was in the midst of us, said one of the attendants. The divine power had employed the speech of the reformer to appease the tumult and establish agreement and unity.[536]