CHAPTER VII.

GENEVA.—THE CONFESSION OF FAITH SWORN AT ST. PETER’S.

(End of 1537.)

GENEVA.

It was not only in his relations with those Christian men, Megander and Bucer, or with the wretched Caroli, that Calvin’s efforts were crowned with success. Happy presages seemed to announce to him a blessed and powerful ministry at Geneva. His reformation, as we have seen, was not only doctrinal but moral, a fact of the highest importance for the Church and for the people. But, as happens in all human affairs, a few spots sullied this beautiful aspect of his work. Rules were introduced which were too circumstantial, and a mode of repression which was too legal. Calvin found at the time a sympathy on the part of the magistrates which was pleasant to him, but which at the same time intruded the civil power into matters for which the moral influence of the Church ought to have sufficed. All his requests were complied with. He asked, together with Farel, for four preachers and two deacons, and they were granted. He represented that there was a preacher, a good man from Provence, who would fain retire to Geneva; and they gave him a place.[537] One of the most violent politicians, Janin, surnamed Colony, a great lover of novelties, after ardently embracing the Reformation, had thrown himself with his natural impetuosity into the notions of the Spirituals or Anabaptists, and was uttering everywhere audacious speeches on matters of faith. The council requested him ‘not to grieve the preachers,’ and added grave menaces in case he should refuse to be corrected.[538] Another citizen, a hosier, who was suspected of holding the same views, having been exhorted by the pastors and the magistrates, declared that his doubts about baptism had vanished, and took an oath, says the Register, ‘to live as we do.’[539] On October 5, Farel and Calvin announced that they would administer the supper, but ‘that there were some who kept aloof, holding the opinions of Benoît and Herman; and others who still kept their beads, which are implements of idolatry.’ Thereupon the council determined ‘to take away all the beads.’ That was far easier than to take away the faith of which the beads were a sign.

PARTIES AT GENEVA.

Nothing could check the zeal of Calvin. On October 30 he presented himself to the council, and set forth various grievances. ‘The hospital,’ he said, ‘is very poorly furnished, and the sick are suffering in consequence. Geneva has a Christian school, and nevertheless some children go to the school of the papacy. Lastly it is to be feared that dissensions will arise between the citizens, for while some have taken the oath as to the manner of living, others have not done so.’ The sick, the young, and peace among the citizens, these were the matters which occupied the mind of the reformer, subjects well worthy of his attention. The council decreed—‘The hospital shall be supplied; all children shall be bound to go to the Christian school, and not to the papistical; and the confession shall be required of all who have not yet made it.’ This last point must inevitably be the most difficult. A conflict was about to begin, and what would be its result? We have just seen that there were in Geneva two parties, more or less considerable, who set themselves in opposition to the evangelical Reformation—the Roman Catholics and the Spirituals or Anabaptists. But there was yet a third party, more respectable and therefore more formidable. The Genevese people were naturally restless, and delighted in freedom and in pleasure. At first they had warmly embraced the Reformation, merely thinking that they should thereby be delivered from their bishop and from the practices which they disliked. But as soon as the Reformation demanded a Christian faith and life, the ardor of the Genevese rapidly diminished. The severity of Calvin and his colleagues chilled the violent ebullition of their zeal. They felt the ordinances imposed on them to be troublesome and exorbitant. Moreover, it was not only the jolly fellows, the lovers of pleasure and the libertines as they are called, who were refractory. It would be a great mistake not to acknowledge that in the ranks of the opposition there were other motives and other men.

We have already related the heroic struggles which had restored to Geneva her freedom and her independence.[540] We did so, less on account of their intrinsic interest than because they exercised a powerful influence, whether for good or for evil, on the Reformation. We have seen how political emancipation permitted and was favorable to religious emancipation. We have now to observe the obstacles raised up by those who, while they rejected popery, did not embrace the Gospel. The Huguenots (that is, as our readers will recollect, the name which was given to the partisans of the alliance with the Swiss Confederation) were divided after Calvin’s arrival. Some of them were friendly to and supported the Reformation; others pronounced themselves against him, and opposed his work. The opposition did not consist merely of men of the lowest rank, vulgar and dissolute. There were on both sides, in the great national party, some generous characters, some honorable citizens. Unfortunately, as the State and the Church were at that time not only united but blended with each other, these two parties were at the same time both right and wrong. The political Huguenots were right with respect to the State, and in error respecting the Church; and the evangelical Christians were right with respect to the Church, and in error with respect to the State. To make the confusion greater still, the true principles of Church and State were at that period very little understood. Many of the eminent citizens who had exposed themselves to famine, pillage, and death for the sake of being free, who had resolved not to have for their master either their bishop, or the Duke of Savoy, or the King of France, or even Berne; who had marched in the van for the political emancipation of Geneva; now asserted their right to enjoy in peace the liberty for which they had so long fought. We have admired them in their heroical struggles. We will not brand them in this new opposition. Politically they were right. In a certain sense they were also right religiously. The religion of Jesus Christ will not be imposed by force, and it rejects all compulsion. In the attempt to establish itself in any town, it refuses alike the intervention of the martyr-fires of the Holy Office and the decrees of a council of state. Jesus Christ said, Wilt thou be made whole? This is not the place for an inquiry into the aids which this will of man receives from on high: we hold simply to the declarations of the Saviour, and we say that man ought to feel the want of the Gospel, and if he does not want it, no one has any right to impose it on him. To act as the syndics then did was to ignore the divine spirituality of the kingdom of God, and to make of it a human institution. Another motive may possibly have contributed to arouse opposition. Farel, Calvin, Courault, Saunier, Froment, and Mathurin Cordier were foreigners, Frenchmen. They had drawn around them their brothers, their cousins, and some of their friends. These foreigners appeared to be taking the upper hand in Geneva, and this hurt the feelings of the old citizens. They wished that Geneva should belong to the Genevese, as France did to the French and Germany to the Germans.

FAITH BY COMPULSION.

Calvin having pointed out to the council, October 30, the danger to which the republic was exposed by the existence within it of two opposing parties, it was decreed that those citizens who had abstained, on July 29, from swearing to the evangelical confession, should be called upon to do so without delay; and November 12 was appointed for that purpose. Calvin, Farel, and their friends, who assuredly knew the worth of a voluntary adhesion, did what they could to induce opponents to receive the Gospel with all their heart, and not to separate themselves from their fellow-citizens in a matter of such moment. They urged them with kindness to listen to the good tidings of salvation, and affectionately exhorted them to peace and union.[541] There were indeed some vexatious proceedings. A tithing man (dizenier) having in his district two young lads who refused obstinately to answer to the summons, gave them legal notice of the order of the council, and cited them to obey it. Thereupon these two opponents flew into a rage and assaulted him, and for this they were imprisoned. But this was the only case of the kind. Kindliness, however, had little more effect than violence. In vain mild persuasion flowed from the lips of the ministers and their friends; it repelled instead of attracting.

At length November 12 arrived. Each tithing man having called together those of his quarter who had not yet taken the oath, they were conducted to St. Peter’s in groups, tithing by tithing. The looks of the people were fixed on these late comers. They were counted, but the whole number was not large. Many did not come at all; ‘and likewise, of those who lived in the Rue des Allemands, not one came.’[542] This was a blow for the friends of the Reformation. The Rue des Allemands (of the German Swiss) was chiefly inhabited by those who had early declared themselves for liberty, and afterwards for the Reformation, and who had adhered to the Helvetic confessions. When the Genevese Catholics, March 28, 1533, had attacked this party by force of arms, it was in the Rue des Allemands that the reformed were drawn up in order of battle, five in a row. It was there that the most pious had said, ‘There is not one single drop of comfort assured to us except in God alone.’ It was there that all had exclaimed, ‘Rather die than give way a single step.’[543] And now, of all those who inhabited that street, not a single man came! Doubtless some of them had already sworn to the confession. But there were probably some also who objected to the doctrine, and others who, like Desclefs, felt the divine commandments too hard for them to pledge themselves to keep them. But what chiefly repelled these Huguenots was the fact that an act was commanded which they knew they were free to do or not to do. They were determined not to bend under that yoke. After having dared all kinds of hardship for the sake of winning their freedom, they did not intend that, when they had gained it in the state, it should be snatched away from them in the Church. They were more in the right perhaps than they imagined; for it is hardly likely that they fully understood this great principle, ‘The power of the magistrate ends at the point at which that of conscience begins.’ The difficulty was still more increased by the circumstance that ‘those who had refused to swear to the confession, whether Catholics or Huguenots, were among the most influential persons in the city.’ Such is the testimony of Rozet, the secretary of state, who is assuredly a witness above suspicion. But the syndics and their council were no more disposed to give way than their adversaries. They thought that they had as much right to impose that act as to order a military review. On the same day the council decreed ‘that those who will not take the oath to the Reformation must go and dwell in some other place, where they may live according to their fancy.’ Two days later the Two Hundred confirmed the decree, expressing themselves somewhat bluntly, ‘that they must quit the city, since they will not obey.’[544] The bow was tightly bent, and no one was willing to unbend it. The crisis became more violent; a shock and a catastrophe were inevitable. The only question was, who would be the victims.

OPPONENTS OF COMPULSION.

The citizens thus lightly banished from their native land by the council could hardly believe their own ears. What! they had delivered Geneva, ‘and will Geneva drive them away?’ Is it resolved that they must forsake their homes, their families, their friends, to go and eat the bread of the stranger? They murmured aloud and stoutly stood out against this strange edict, confident in their strength and their number. ‘There was no obedience at all;’ no one thought of packing up. ‘The hostile band was of such a character that the lords dared not execute their own decree.’ Complaints and threats grew louder from day to day. The most influential men exclaimed—‘The present syndics were elected by means of underhand dealings and intrigues. They have violated our franchises and made an attack on our liberties. There are three or four among them who do just as they will with the ordinary council, and even with the great council. We must take the government of the republic out of the hands of these two councils, and henceforth everything must be managed by a general council. These gentlemen want to reign over us as princes; but it is the people, it is we ourselves, who are princes.’ These powerful malcontents, among whom De Chapeaurouge distinguished himself, sought even to gain over those of their friends who had already taken the oath, and addressed to them the most vehement reproaches. Many of the latter were shaken, and sought to excuse themselves. They laid the blame on the secretary of the town. They reprimanded him (l’impropéraient) and blamed him for getting them to swear without knowing what they were doing. Some even of those who had sworn ‘adhered to the rebels.’ All these malcontents excited one another more and more, and they thought of nothing but of securing for themselves at the next election the place of the syndics. The authoritative act of the council was to bring about the revolution.

Ambassadors of Berne were at Geneva at the time on some question of jurisdiction, and the opposition party endeavored to gain them over to their cause. This was not difficult. Calvin and Farel had adhered to the confession of Basel, which was likewise received at Berne. Now adherence to another confession was in their eyes a violation of the first oath. One day, at an entertainment at which the Bernese deputies were present with the magistrates and the notabilities of Geneva, one of the ambassadors said with a loud voice that all those who had taken the oath to the confession of Calvin and Farel were perjured persons. One of the leaders of the opposition, Jean Lullin, who was there, was delighted to hear it and did not fail to publish the rash remark. It seemed to be a giving up of the cause to the opposition, which, proud of finding the Bernese on its side, believed its victory secured. The people began to be restless; and many, whom the council registers call the mutineers cried out in the streets that ‘everything was to be settled in a general council.’ These signs of resistance greatly afflicted the reformers and, says a chronicler, ‘put Calvin about (pourmenait) in a strange way.’ Within the walls of Geneva the agitation increased. The day grew dark, and a storm appeared ready to burst forth.[545]

THE GENERAL COUNCIL.

The council was deeply moved. Its members were accused of having obtained their seats by illegal practices, and appeal was made to the people. It seemed indeed as if it would be needful for the general council to decide between them and their adversaries. The syndics therefore, on November 23, convoked the Two Hundred to deliberate on the matter. The latter showed themselves determined to support the government. The magistrates in office must not think of resigning, they said, nor attach so much importance to these clamors. ‘All this noise is made by certain people who have no mind to amend their ways and who want to take the place of the syndics.’ Nevertheless, everyone perceived that it was impossible to refuse the convocation of a general council. It was necessary, besides, to name a deputation to Berne to treat of important business. The day fixed was Sunday, November 25. It was agreed to prepare some fair ordinances to be read to the assembled people. The opposition were aiming at getting rid not only of the magistrates but of the reformers. What took place in the council is therefore of great importance. It was the beginning of the counter-reformation.

On the day appointed, the Two Hundred, in order to impart more solemnity to their proceedings, assembled at the Town Hall and thence accompanied the syndics and the council to St. Peter’s church. These magistrates felt keenly the accusations which were spread abroad against them by the opposition; and having a good conscience they wished the people to decide between them and their calumniators. Consequently, when the assembly had been formed, the following remonstrance was addressed to the people in the name of the syndics and the councils.

‘Magnificent, discreet, most dear and honored lords,—

‘The lords syndics whom you have elected according to your custom, as likewise their ordinary council, that of the Sixty and that of the Two Hundred, feel hurt by the talk of some private persons, who speak as if they had charge of the general council, alleging that the said councils were elected by intrigues and have violated the franchises; that it is they (the opponents) who are princes, and that they wish that for the future everything should be transacted in a general council. The syndics and councils desire to learn from you, gentlemen, before they proceed further in the investigation of the matter, whether you allow that. You know whether or not your magistrates were elected by the intrigues of three or four citizens, as they are alleged to have been. You know that the four syndics were chosen by you in general council; and while in time past the ordinary council was chosen by the four syndics, this election, since 1530, has been made by the Council of the Two Hundred.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE COUNCIL.

‘Elected thus, the councils ask you whether you will not acknowledge them as your magistrates, that they may continue to exercise the power which God has given them by your general election. They are prepared to submit to punishment with all legal rigor, if it be found that they are in fault; but if it be otherwise, they demand that those who defame them should suffer chastisement, so that God may not be angry with us, nor take away the spiritual lordship and liberty which he has given us by his Son Jesus Christ. Assuredly he has shown us more favor than he ever did to the children of Israel. But it might happen to us as it did to the Romans, who by civil discords of this sort lost little by little the empire which they had acquired over the world, and fell into the bondage in which they still remain.

‘We ought to pray God to send us well-instructed and Godfearing men to administer justice. But if we will treat them with contempt, we shall by-and-by find no one to serve us. Well may the heart of a citizen ache when, after laying aside his private affairs to serve the community, he gets for his reward the censure of those who dread correction and will not obey the lawful authorities.

‘Come then, gentlemen, one after the other, peaceably to give your opinion, yes or no, in order that all things may be done well and orderly, to the glory of God and our own great benefit.’[546]

One might have expected that, after this declaration, the leaders of the opposition, De Chapeaurouge and his adherents, would state in due form their alleged grievances. They remained silent. This was an acknowledgment that their accusation was unfounded. They would have found it difficult to assert that the election of the magistrates had been due to the intrigues of a few individuals, in the presence of the people who had themselves made that election freely and honorably. Moreover, ten weeks only had to elapse before the regular renewal of the council; and the opposition did not think that they ought to unmask their batteries so long beforehand. It would be better to employ the time in preparing the change which they wished to bring about. Thus, therefore, after the address of the syndics there was a long silence. After some time De Chapeaurouge rose; but instead of speaking as a tribune who seeks to draw the people after him, he made a remark on acoustics; ‘We cannot hear well,’ said he, ‘the place gives a dull sound.’ There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. In fact, the chief of the opposition pretended that the challenge and invitation of the council had not reached his ears, and that this excused his making a reply. ‘Is a second reading desired?’ said the first syndic; no one demanded it. As the leaders were silent, the youngest and most blustering of their followers began to speak. The opportunity was too tempting not to cry out, and instead of the great piece which was looked for, a little one was produced. Men destitute of culture and acquirements attacked the chief magistrates. One man, who had just come out of prison, flung in the face of the reformers the most absurd accusations. There was an ebullition in the assembly; a tempest in a teacup. The young people caused this first outbreak of excitement, which they show in their pursuit of pleasure and which they easily transfer to public affairs. Claude Sérais, a tailor, one of those who in February had played at Picca-Porral, came forward and laid a complaint against Ami Perrin, who enjoyed great respect. It was he who had accompanied Farel the first time that he preached (in 1534) in the convent of Rive. He had not heartily embraced the Reformation, but he was still associated with the reformers. ‘Perrin,’ said Sérais, ‘said that there are traitors at Geneva, people who speak ill of the preachers. He said that Porral was a good man.’ As Porral was a great friend of the Reformation, he was at least as hateful to these people as Farel and Calvin. ‘I replied to him,’ said Sérais, ‘that if he were so, he had no occasion to bring Farel to the prison, to preach to us as if we were thieves who were to be prepared for death.’ ‘Yes,’ cried one of those who had been in prison with Sérais, Jacques Pattu, ‘yes, they brought Farel to prison and he told us that he would sooner drink a glass of blood than drink with us.’ Scarcely had he let fall these strange words, when Pierre Butini mounted on a bench and cried out, ‘The franchise has been taken from us by the Porrets (Porral’s friends), for we were seized, many good men, without informations and without plaintiffs.’—‘I complain,’ resumed Pattu, ‘that they gave me the halter without cause,’—‘I complain,’ said Sérais, further, ‘that Claude Bernard told me that I would not go to hear Farel preach.’—‘Let the others speak now!’ cried Baudichon de la Maisonneuve, annoyed at Sérais beginning over again. But the friends of Sérais cried, ‘And we, we will have Baudichon hold his tongue.’ Then Etienne Dadaz, resuming the series of grievances, said, ‘I complain that I have been sent to prison and accused of meaning to sell the town.’—‘Thou oughtest to be silent,’ said the syndic Goutaz, ‘for thou hast brought from France articles designed to make us subjects of the king.’ On which Dadaz replied, ‘It is not I who made them, it is M. de Langey who gave them me.’ This was certainly not justifying himself, for Langey was a minister to the king.[547]

CONFUSED COMPLAINTS.

The most reasonable of the leaders saw that they must put a stop to these turbulent complainings, which were ruining their interests. The former syndic, Jean Philippe, a friend of freedom and courageous, but also rash and leading a loose life, began to speak, and, addressing the secretary of the council, Rozet, accused him of having caused the confession to be sworn which he declared he had not sworn. This was not escaping from the question, but plunging into it. This was the master grievance of the opposition, and the matter to be investigated. ‘We did ill to swear it,’ said Jean Lullin. ‘The ambassadors of Berne have told us that we were perjured.’ De Chapeaurouge himself, who at first had kept silence, getting enraged with the secretary of the council, Rozet, who had caused the confession to be sworn, accused him of being ‘a witness of Susanna’ (that is to say, a false witness). ‘Gentlemen,’ said the respectable Rozet, with much feeling, ‘I have served you long, and I have neither done wickedly nor borne false witness; and here is De Chapeaurouge making me out to be a witness of Susanna!’ Chapeaurouge replied, ‘You told me, before the syndic Curtet, that you had no conscience at all.’ Curtet answered, ‘I never heard that;’ and everyone began to laugh. Jean Philippe, a clever man, then made a proposition which he thought likely to satisfy the opponents. He wished to place the syndics under guardianship. ‘Gentlemen,’ he said, ‘it would be a long task to listen in this place to all these plaintiffs and to provide for them. It seems to me better that we should choose, in general council, twenty-five men.’ These were twenty-five superintendents whom he wished to set over the syndics and the council, as representatives of the people. ‘That done,’ continued Philippe, ‘these gentlemen will hold their Little and Great Councils, and the plaintiffs shall be heard before all.’ Naturally, Philippe wished these twenty-five to be of his party. The syndics understood and were indignant. ‘Do you mean, then,’ said they, ‘to have men set over us?’ The crafty Philippe did not lose the thread. ‘Not men over you,’ he said, ‘but the general council is over all.’ Then, like a very tribune, he turned boldly to the people. ‘Gentlemen,’ said he, ‘do you not intend that the general council should be supreme over all?’ Instantly the cry was heard from all sides, ‘Yes, yes!’ The opposition succeeding thus in getting the people on their side, the days of the party in power were numbered. The syndics hastened to cut short. ‘Now then,’ said the syndic Curtet, let us talk of business.’[548]

It then occurred to them that the general council had to appoint deputies to go to Berne. The three leaders of the opposition, Jean Philippe, Ami de Chapeaurouge and Jean Lullin, were proposed by the council itself, which would much rather see them at Berne, where they might support the cause of the republic, than at Geneva, where they were making war on the government. But the three opponents saw through the trick. ‘For my part,’ said Lullin, ‘I have an excuse which prevents my going.’ ‘I hold to what was decreed,’ said Philippe, ‘that those who have begun the business should go thither to complete it.’—‘I say the same,’ added De Chapeaurouge. The three conspirators (if we may give them such a name) will therefore spend the winter at Geneva, and they will not be idle there.

VINDICATION OF THE REFORMERS.

The angry recriminations, the rash charges, and the turbulent movements of this council came to the ears of the reformers, and the report gave them much pain. The next day therefore, November 26, when the Council of the Two Hundred assembled, Farel and Calvin appeared before them. The former said, ‘Sérais accuses me of having said that rather than drink with him, I would drink a glass of his blood. Now what really passed was this. One of them having said to me, You wish us no good, I answered, I wish you so much harm that I would willingly shed my blood for you.’ Then coming to the essential point; ‘I have heard,’ continued Farel, ‘that they call those perjurers who have sworn the confession. If you examine carefully its contents, you will find that it is made in conformity with God’s Word, and is adapted to unite the people. You have not sworn to anything else than to hold fast faith in God, and to believe in his commandments.’ One of the members said, ‘It is not we, it is the deputies from Berne who spoke of perjury.’—‘We should very much like to know when they did so,’ replied Farel, astonished. ‘They spoke of it at table, in the presence of people,’ said the syndics Curtet and Lullin. ‘We offer to maintain this confession at the cost of our lives,’ replied the reformers. The syndics, beginning to fear lest the murmurs of the people should be excited, entreated the preachers to be careful that this business might end well.

The discovery that the lords of Berne blamed them in the affair of the confession was a very heavy blow to the reformers. If that powerful city should unite with the party of the opposition, the Reformation would be in great danger. They were not long in finding that their fears were not unfounded. The Bernese, who intended to act as if they had the superintendence of the Church of Geneva, wrote to Farel and Calvin—‘It has come to our knowledge that you, Calvin, have written to certain Frenchmen at Basel that your confession has been approved by our congregation, and that our preachers have ratified it, which will not be proven (ne constera pas). On the contrary, it is you and Farel who have been consenting parties to sign our confession made at Basel, and to hold to it. We are amazed that you should attempt to contravene it. We pray you to desist from the attempt, otherwise we shall be compelled to have resource to other remedies.’[549]

It was supposed at Berne that the two confessions differed, while in fact they were fundamentally the same; and the lords of that city believed that if Geneva had a confession of her own, their ascendancy would be risked. That young Frenchman, who had arrived only the year before, had a soul, as they thought, too independent. He was ready to break the ties which bound Geneva to the Swiss Churches. Calvin saw how matters stood. He felt that it was necessary to enlighten the Bernese about the confession of Geneva, and therefore set out immediately with Farel for Berne. The two reformers represented to the council that the confession which they had prepared, so far from making them perjurers, confirmed the confession of Basel. At the same time they presented it to the Bernese senate. That body had it examined, and it was pronounced to be very good. ‘We are going to send ambassadors,’ said the Bernese lords, ‘and they will declare to your general council that the words spoken by our deputies were not uttered in our name.’ The satisfaction made was brilliant. The reformers had gained their cause.[550] They returned to Geneva without delay; and having been received, December 10, in the ordinary council, they communicated to it the happy issue of their journey.[551] But there were at Berne certain persons who desired to see the Church of Geneva placed in subordination to that of Berne. The projected embassy might baffle their schemes, and they resolved to prevent it. For that purpose they did not shrink even from blackening the reformers. They asserted that the Genevese preachers had said in their sermons that all the mischief came from Germany! (that is to say, from German Switzerland, from Berne). The Bernese changed their mind, and wrote to Geneva, ‘that they would not send ambassadors.’[552]

THEIR VINDICATION AT BERNE.

Calvin and Farel were struck with astonishment. The letter from Berne had arrived on December 13. On the morning of the 14th they went to the council and asked that the Two Hundred might be convoked for the afternoon. Before that assembly they repeated that after having heard them, the Bernese magistrates had declared that ‘the thing (the confession) had been well done.’ As to the charge of having said that all the mischief came from Germany, they pointed out, that as ambassadors were about to be sent to Berne, they ought to be instructed to ascertain who it was that had reported such things. The council determined that Farel himself should go to Berne with the ambassadors, and should make inquiry.[553]

The deputies of Geneva, charged with the defence before the Bernese government, of certain interests of state, were Claude Savoye, Michel Sept, Claude Rozet, secretary of the council and father of the chronicler; all of them true friends of the reformers and the magistrates; and Jean Lullin, who had at last consented to form part of the embassy, and who was the only member of the opposition.[554] They went to Berne with Farel; and the latter having given satisfactory explanations, the Bernese magistrates wrote, December 22, to Geneva, ‘that they and their preachers had found the Genevese confession to be according to God’s will and the Holy Scriptures, and thereby in conformity with their own religion.’ They added, ‘Set then these matters in good order. May dissensions cease, and may the sinister intrigues of the wicked be confounded.’[555]

Would the passions which actuated one part of the Genevese people allow them to follow such good counsel? They were not to wait long for an answer to this question.

CHAPTER VIII.
TROUBLES IN GENEVA.
(Jan. and Feb. 1538.)

AGITATION IN GENEVA.

Six days later, December 28, Farel and Calvin appeared before the council, and stated that they were about soon to celebrate the Lord’s supper, and requested to be sustained in their admonition to those who were leading evil lives.[556] An exhortation to live well had nothing revolting about it. If a man is living ill, it becomes a duty to entreat him to live well. That is most of all the duty of faithful pastors, especially on the approach of the supper. But what need had the ministers of being sustained by the magistrate? This request transformed a religious act into a matter of civil business, and thus totally altered its nature. The answer to be made to the reformers was put off until the return of the delegates sent to Berne. This step of the reformers was irritating to those who supposed they would be among the subjects of the admonition. Claude Sérais, who had a free tongue, that source of all debate, said daringly in the presence of a numerous company, ‘Farel is a bad man.’[557] Others took part with him in censuring the ministers. They indulged in detraction, in aspersions, in cutting speeches; they cast about in all directions for anything which might be taken amiss. It was but a small fire at first, but little by little it spread far and wide. On January 1 and 2 (1538) the council was occupied with the affair, and resolved that ‘those who had circulated insults against the preachers about the town should be taken before the lieutenant, at the instance of the attorney-general.’ ‘We shall see,’ they said, ‘who is bad, and the bad shall be punished.’[558] The preachers made no complaint; but it was their unfortunate application to the council which had given occasion to these insults. This agitation would certainly not have arisen had each pastor, in conformity with the precept of Jesus Christ—‘Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone’—addressed those who were blameworthy kindly and privately. One fact, however, exonerates the preachers: they were not at liberty to act otherwise than they did. The state had resolutely placed itself above the Church, and was intermeddling with matters which pertained only to the pastors. If the latter had rebuked some citizens without the consent of the council, they would certainly have been liable to rebuke themselves. The fault was above all with the magistrate. Geneva sailed for some years on a high tide of Cesaropapia (government of the Church by the state).[559]

On January 3 the reformers presented themselves again before the council. They did not come to complain of the insults to which they had been subjected. They proposed a nobler object, the union of all the members of the Church in the same faith and the same charity. They drew a vivid picture of the discord which was increasing day after day, and of the divisions which were fomented in the republic by restless and factious spirits; and they represented that one of the best methods of applying a remedy would be to keep the disturbers away from the supper. ‘As it is determined to celebrate it on Sunday next,’ they said, ‘we are of opinion that, those persons should not be admitted. On this point we desire the opinion of the council.’[560]

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE.

This exclusion proposed to the senate is one of the gravest facts in the reformation of Geneva, and it kept up excitement in the city for nearly a whole generation. Wherein then were the reformers right, and wherein were they wrong? A society is a collection of men who, while differing on some matters, are in agreement on the subject which is the very essence of their union. A society of financiers is not composed of people who know nothing of money matters. It is not the unlearned who are admitted to a learned faculty. A regiment is not recruited with one-armed men. Men who know nothing of French are not elected to form the Forty of the Academy. It is just the same with Christian society. Its members may differ in many respects—political, literary, social, etc.—but Christian faith must actuate them all. A Jew or a Mohammedan does not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ; and a man who rejects the facts, the doctrines, and the duties of Christianity is not a Christian. ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’ says a common proverb. Ought the reformers to ignore such an elementary truth? There were still some Roman Catholics at Geneva; there were the so-called Spirituals, many of whom did not believe even in the immateriality of the soul; there were also a great number of citizens who did not consent to the faith as set forth in the confession made at St. Peter’s. Should such a confused mass, in which it would be impossible to know where one was, form the Church of Geneva? Should that Church be

‘De tant d’objets divers le bizarre assemblage?’[561]

Would it not in such a case remind one of certain monsters, which are spoken of by the ancients, possessing a conformation which was against nature? The reformers were with the truth when they answered No. But where they were wrong was in requiring all the citizens to take an oath to their confession. Was it possible for them to fancy that the act by which Geneva had broken with the pope had transformed, as by the stroke of the enchanter’s wand, all the Genevese, so that from that moment they all believed heartily, and ought all to make confession with their lips? Nascitur homo, fit Christianus, said Tertullian in the second century. One is born a man, but one becomes a Christian. To pretend that all those who belonged to the state belonged at the same time to the Church was irrational. To decree that those who would not take the oath to the confession should depart from the city and go elsewhither was iniquitous. What, drive from Geneva the men to whom Geneva owed her independence! Such an enormity could not fail to lead to a revolution. The fusion of the Church and the state in a single society is the origin of those blemishes which in some instances disfigured the otherwise glorious work of the Reformation. But how to settle the dilemma? how admit two contradictory propositions? How to exclude and to keep at the same time?

The early Church accomplished this. It had its ἀκροώμενοι, audientes, hearers. Instead of excluding those whose faith was not yet formed, it invited them lovingly to hear the preaching of the Word. They attended the service and joined in the prayers, without taking part in the mysteries of the Lord’s supper, which they shrank timidly from approaching. And when in their experience that great process of the Christian life was accomplished of which St. Paul speaks—Faith cometh by hearing—they shared the communion at the sacred feast. Perhaps Geneva was not yet ripe for this order of things.[562]

The council assembled the Two Hundred to consider what answer should be made to the reformers. Since the scenes which had taken place in the council of November 25, the syndics had become more timid. They dreaded whatever might provoke the people and drive them on to any rash proceeding, and they felt less inclined to support the reformers. A letter was read from Berne which bore approving testimony to the confession, and exhorted to concord. Three of the members who had not sworn the confession—De Lesclefs, Manlich, and Ameaux—were urged to do as others had done. The first two took the oath required; Ameaux alone refused. The council then believing that they had gone far enough, recoiled from a measure which might have grave consequences, and determined ‘not to refuse the supper to any one.’[563]

Thus did the magistrates give a flat refusal to the ministers. It was a lesson for Calvin and his friends. This decision was contrary to their convictions; but as they knew that the council was at heart friendly to the Reformation, they did not feel bound to oppose its will. They gave proof of moderation, conciliation, and patience. Some will perhaps say that they pushed these virtues too far. They yielded. That is not the crime of which they are commonly accused. The supper was celebrated, and there was no disturbance.

DISORDERS.

But although the communion passed off in an orderly manner, troubles arose afterwards. The opposition party looked on this general admission as a triumph for them; and as they saw that the representations of the ministers were no longer listened to by the councils, their audacity increased. Again were seen bands of men, consisting of the least respectable classes of the people, parading the city with green flowers in their hats. They indulged in acts of violence; they annoyed those who had sworn to the Reformation; ‘they drew their swords and terrified others into flight.’ The taverns were thronged with these people, who ate and drank to excess. Puns and sarcasms were showered on all sides. Even holy things were turned into ridicule. Just as St. Paul addressed his Epistles to his brethren in Christ, so the evangelical Christians of the Reformation gave each other that title. The wags had noticed it, and did not fail to laugh at it. ‘A party of drunken men,’ say the Registers of January 16, ‘went in the night through the town and to the wine-shops, mocking the preachers and saying to each other, ‘Thou art one of the brethren in Christ,’ and other things of the like kind. These mockers having come to the Lord’s supper, to which all were admitted by order of the Council, gave themselves in jest the name of brethren. Jean d’Orbe said to Claude Jaccard, ‘Art thou of the brethren in Christ?’ and swearing a great oath, he added, ‘Thou wilt repent of it.’ Many persons, alarmed at these disorderly proceedings, trembled for the general council which was to be held fifteen days later. ‘Many a sword-thrust will be given there,’ they said, ‘so that we shall not wish to go.’ The discord which prevailed in Geneva agitated also the neighboring country districts. The Council of the Two Hundred was deeply affected by all these reports, and determined to have inquiry made and to punish the guilty. The measure which the council adopted in order to prevent disturbances was precisely that which actually gave rise to them.[564]

All these things greatly afflicted Calvin, and he had at the same time other sorrows to bear. A man of mild disposition, with a spirit given to contemplation, on which the incessantly renewed struggles to which the reformer was called made a most painful impression, was at that time living in intimate friendship with him. Louis du Tillet, canon and archdeacon of Angoulême, had been first won to the Gospel by the lively piety of Calvin, whom he had followed to Switzerland, to Italy, and to Geneva. But by slow degrees a perceptible difference grew up between the master and the disciple. In Du Tillet’s view the doctrine of the Church was the essential matter, and the re-establishment of the apostolic Church ought to be the aim of the Reformation. ‘Let us protest,’ said he, ‘against the abuses of the Roman Church, but let us re-establish the Catholicism of the first centuries. It is there that lies hidden the Christian germ; let us beware of arresting its developments. The Reformation, unless it is to disappoint the fair hopes which it has excited, must re-establish in the world the one holy, universal Church. The only way open to us for accomplishing the work which the state of Christendom claims at our hands, is to go back to the beginning, and to re-establish the Church of the first ages. Alas! fatal discords are already threatening to make division in the new Church. May the hand of God recall her from this error, and establish her on the foundation of the apostles and the fathers. The Reformation must not, while highly exalting Jesus Christ, too much abase the Church. Let us take care that the torrent which we turn into the stables to cleanse them do not carry away the walls and the foundation. The reform of the Church must not become its annihilation. Assuredly the Catholic Church is the pillar of the truth, and the consent of this Church is the infallible support and the full assurance of the truth.’[565]

LOUIS DE TILLET.

Calvin was at no loss for an answer to his friend, the Old Catholic. He pointed out to him that where falsehood reigns there can be no Church; that the state of the papacy, although it might still hold some remains of truth, was such that those who abandoned it did not create a schism. He added, that we could not wait until the papacy reformed itself; that the councils assembled in the fifteenth century, and even earlier, for the purpose of working out that the reform, had all failed. He insisted that it was not to Catholicism of the first five or six centuries that we must return, but to the Gospel—to the sacred writings of the apostles—in which the truth was taught in its purity. Calvin maintained his thesis with energy, nay, as he said, with rudeness.[566] Driven from point to point, hesitating between the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and that of the councils and the fathers, melancholy and pining, Du Tillet secretly quitted Geneva, adopted the resolution of re-entering the Catholic Church, and told Calvin so.

The reformer wrote to him, January 31, 1538, with moderation and humility, but at the same time firmly. ‘What afflicts me most of all,’ he said to him, ‘is the fear of having hurt your mind by my imprudence, for I confess that I have not exhibited in my intercourse with you the modesty which I owed to you. I cannot, however, conceal from you that I was greatly astonished on learning your intention and the reason which you assign in your letters to me. This change, so suddenly made, seemed very strange, considering the constancy and the decision which you displayed. It is separation from the Church to join ourselves to that which is contrary to it.’[567] This did not prevent Du Tillet from again becoming and remaining a Roman Catholic.

THE TWO PARTIES.

However, Calvin’s attention was at this time attracted and absorbed by other objects. The disturbances which were agitating Geneva did not arise exclusively from religious doctrines. The opposition wanted to get into power; and if it succeeded, the days of the Reformation were apparently numbered. The leaders acted prudently, but they could not restrain the restlessness of their adherents. There were two entirely distinct parties in the republic. The one aimed at any cost to take the government out of the hands of the syndics and councillors who favored the reformers, and to occupy their place; the other wished to appoint magistrates who would persevere in the course on which the council had entered. The two parties were now face to face. The attacking party marched to the assault with decision and much noise, determined to come to blows if necessary. ‘Insults and outcries were multiplied throughout the town, both by night and by day.’[568] Excitement was daily becoming more intense. ‘Next Sunday syndics are to be appointed,’ it was said; ‘there will be strife; we must go to the election in arms.’ One of the most furious of the opponents, who carried leeks in his hat, cried out, ‘To-day we are wearing green gillyflowers, but the day will make plenty of red heads.’[569] These symptoms alarmed not only the aged and the sick, but also moderate men, who are sometimes a little timid. To make use of menaces in order to keep citizens of the opposite party from voting, is commonly enough the practice of a blind demagogy. It gained its end. These violent speeches greatly grieved the pastors. Fearing that blood would be shed, they appeared, February 1, two days before the election, before the Council of the Two Hundred, and made a wise (belle) remonstrance. The lieutenant of police, Henriod Dumolard, one of the champions of freedom, who enjoyed general respect, confirmed these fears ‘from good information.’ The council determined to imprison those who had threatened to shed blood, and to take other measures for the purpose of preventing on the appointed day either tumult or conflict.

But if the violent members of the opposition injured their influence, the abler men dealt effective blows at the order of things established by the reformers and the magistrates. They called to mind the ancient franchises of Geneva and the battles fought in their defence. They showed that the bishop himself had not required of them so positive an adhesion to doctrine, nor imposed on them ordinances so harassing in respect to morality. Under the pretext of aiming at the maintenance of freedom, these men acquired high esteem among the people.[570] They wished, nevertheless, so they said, for reform. Doubtless they did. But if we may judge by their opposition to the confession and to discipline, they wanted a reform without either faith or law. Such was not that of Calvin; and this alone, in the grand crisis of the sixteenth century, and in the midst of attacks so numerous and so varied, could make Geneva a strong and invincible city. The vital doctrines of Christianity, which are the salvation of the individual, are likewise necessary to the prosperity of nations. This is proved by great examples. Geneva without the Gospel, without Calvin, would not have won the sympathy of the evangelical nations, nor would she have possessed the moral force to surmount great perils. Weakened, enervated, and corrupted, this city would soon have lost her independence, as all those free cities of the Middle Ages in Italy and elsewhere did. These were one after another compelled to stoop under the sword of their neighbors and under the yoke of Rome. A free people must have a religion of high quality (de bon aloi). To invite the nations to cast Christianity out of their bosom, as some rash or criminal voices did, is to invite them to put to death liberty, morality, and prosperity. It is to preach suicide to them.

ELECTION OF SYNDICS.

Was Geneva, then, going to make trial of it? February 3, the day of election, at length arrived. The opposition, which was at the outset a minority, but a minority of the inflexible kind which generally wins, had succeeded in persuading the people that if they wished to keep their liberties they must change the government. The council general assembled in the cloisters of St. Peter’s, and the first syndic said, after the customary formalities—‘The election of syndics is a matter of so great importance, that it will be enough to occupy us to-day without any other business. Let everyone give his vote peaceably, and let no one be so rash as to stir up disorders, either by word or by sword. Any man who does so will be sent to prison, and will afterwards be punished according to his desert.’ The Two Hundred, according to custom, presented eight names, and the council general was to retain four of them. Two secretaries were at hand to enter the votes; and presently the citizens, coming forward group by group, gave their votes. Of the eight candidates the people chose three who had put themselves at the head of the opposition, and whom the impartiality of the Two Hundred had led them to present with the others. These three were Claude Richardet, who, with furious gesture, had declared that they would not get him to go to prison; Jean Philippe, who had proposed in the council general to name twenty-five citizens to watch the syndics; and Jean Lullin, who had accused the council of violating the franchises. These three enemies of the new order of things were named syndics. But there must be four of them. The opposition intended that the fourth should likewise be one of their party, but it did not find another set down in the list of the council. Regardless of the rule on that point, they chose a citizen who had not been proposed by the Two Hundred—De Chapeaurouge—who had greatly compromised himself by the vehemence of his speeches against the reformers. On February 4 and 5 the election of councillors as assistants to the syndics was conducted in almost the same spirit.

The victory of the opposition was complete. A great revolution had been wrought in this small city. The citizens had come to a decision of such a character as must excite disturbances and prepare the way to their ruin. This soon became apparent among the lower classes. The election was followed, especially at night, by noisy promenades, licentious songs in the taverns, insults and blasphemies. At Geneva, as in France, the song was one form of opposition. The people feasted, drank, and made songs on their enemies. Thus these lawless subjects had their triumph after their own fashion. But Calvin and Farel did not hesitate to present themselves before the council in which their antagonists sat, and to demand the suppression of these disorders. The new syndics were the most decided of the citizens in the sense opposed to the reformers; but they were intelligent men, and they had no wish that the mischief should run to an extreme. History, moreover, gives us many examples of a change effected in individuals by accession to power. Sometimes an ecclesiastic vehemently opposed to the encroachments of the Roman see has been made pope, and he has thereupon become the most thoroughgoing papist. The magistrates had no wish to compromise themselves at the outset by making common cause with the libertines; they therefore ordered that justice should be done at the demand of the pastors. The sound of the trumpet was heard in the streets, and the officer of the council cried, ‘No one shall sing indecent songs containing the names of the inhabitants of Geneva; no one shall go into the city without a candle after nine o’clock at night; no one shall create excitement or strife, under pain of being imprisoned on bread and water, for three days for the first offence, six days for the second, and nine for the third.’[571] Immediately after its election the new council had given a proof of moderation and impartiality. Jean Jacques Farel, a brother of the reformer, having replied to the threats of the opposition that he would go armed to the council general, had been sent to prison by the council formed of his own party. After the new election Farel interceded for his brother, and the new council, in its session of February 5, released him, because he had, according to the Registers, already remained three or four days in prison. The blustering fellows thought it very strange that the magistrates, who set Farel’s brother at liberty, should reward them, the men who had placed them in office, by prohibiting songs at their tables, in the midst of their cups, which were so delightful to them. But notwithstanding these appearances, the revolution was none the less profound and decisive; and it is doubtful whether, even after the trumpet-blast, the disorders ceased.

MONTCHENU AT GENEVA.

The conduct of the syndics with regard to those who had preceded them showed immediately that they did not lose sight of one of the chief objects of their election. A Frenchman, the Seigneur de Montchenu, being at Geneva, caused letters to be sent to three Genevese councillors, Claude Richardet, Claude Savoye, and Michel Sept, in which it was stated that if the Genevese would become subjects of the King of France, he would leave to them their usages and liberties, would fortify their city, and answer for them when attacked. Berne took alarm on hearing this, and cautioned the Genevese to be on their guard. When the councils met they ordered answer to be made to the French agent that Geneva would no more entertain such projects, and decreed that every Frenchman found wandering on the territory of the republic should be expelled. It was not easy to treat the letter which had been written to them as a crime on the part of the three Genevese, especially as the first to whom it was addressed was Claude Richardet, then syndic, the fierce enemy of the ministers and the priests. Nevertheless they found means of employing these letters without taking Richardet into account. He, however, was not only compromised, like the other two, in having received a letter, but there was one grave fact against him. Montchenu having presented himself by night, with some horsemen, at the gates of Geneva, Richardet, syndic at the time, went to them at their request, ordered the great gate to be opened, and introduced the Frenchmen into the city. Montchenu having proposed to Richardet to go to supper with him at the Tête-Noire, he declined. When he was subsequently called upon by Claude Savoye to explain this circumstance in the council, Richardet stated that he had thought that Montchenu was going on an embassy into Germany to bring soldiers for the king. If this adventure had happened to either of the other Genevese who had received the letter, Claude Savoye, for instance, what would not have been said? But Richardet was as innocent as his compatriots. A Genevese does not betray his country. For the rest, he assured the council that he had had no intention but to please it.

Whatever the fact may have been, on the proposition of Monathier, one of the most violent members of the party then in power, the council suspended Claude Savoye and Michel Sept from their functions until this business should be cleared up. It has been remarked that, to take advantage of their ascendency in order to get up any bad case against their antagonists, was a traditional propensity which Genevese parties had too long indulged.[572] Similarly, three of the former syndics and a councillor were suspended on account of charges brought by people of doubtful respectability. In this way the new government secured a majority in the Council of the Two Hundred.[573] A pitiful victory of party spirit! Everyone was eagerly hunting up grievances against the fallen magistrates.

CONFUSION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

It appears that Calvin blamed this proceeding, and, holding it to be contrary to justice and to truth, called it the work of him whom the Scriptures name the father of lies. Hereupon it was determined to warn the preachers that they must not intermeddle with the business of the magistrate, but preach the Gospel.[574] Calvin felt this deeply. Is not justice also in the Gospel? Ought not a minister to demand it? So much hostility was at that time exhibited against the reformers by the majority of the Genevese, that the Bernese themselves, when they came to Geneva to oppose Montchenu, undertook their defence. Farel was accused of having said at Berne, ‘There is strife at Geneva because one party wants the mass and another the Gospel.’—‘Farel never said such a thing,’ said the Bernese to the general council; ‘we beg you to treat him with favor, for he has freely made known the Gospel.’ Certainly Calvin, Farel, and all the pastors ought to set an example of respect for the authorities. But the state and the Church were then so closely united that they were almost confounded with one another; and as the magistrates themselves dealt with religion in their councils, it is not to be wondered at that the ministers should speak of the proceedings of the councils in their sermons. The independence of the temporal and the spiritual was as yet far off. It must not be forgotten that it was for Geneva a creative epoch. Magistrates and reformers were working at the organization of the State and the Church. Moreover, in this business morality was in question, and no wonder that the ministers of God thought that morality was within their province. But the magistrates looked on the matter in another light, and did not intend that anyone should give them a lecture. Calvin was fettered not only in his preaching but still more in the discharge of his pastoral duties. ‘In general,’ he wrote to Bullinger, February 21, ‘we are looked on here as preachers rather than pastors. We cannot have a Church that will stand unless the discipline of the apostles be restored.’ However, he had not lost hope. ‘There is much alteration which we earnestly desire,’ he further wrote to his friend at Zurich, ‘but which can be effected only by our applying ourselves to it with faith, diligence, and perseverance. Oh, that a pure and sincere agreement might at length be established among us! Would there be any obstacle in the way of the meeting of a synod, at which everyone might propose what he believed to be useful to the Churches?’[575]

Having lost all hope in the institutions of the state, the reformer turned his attention to those of the Church. So long as sincere friends of the Reformation had been in power, Farel and Calvin had displayed a spirit of concession even on important points. When the council, for instance, had determined that the supper should not be refused to anyone, they had yielded. But now, when they saw at the head of affairs men who were opposed to order in the Church, they no longer felt it their duty to yield. They will not allow the state authorities to organize the spiritual body at their will. They will contend against notions contrary, as they think, to the Word of God. They will contend against them by their prayers and efforts, and by their resistance. The moment is come for them to say with Luther, I can do no otherwise (Ich kann nicht anders). There was enough in such a resolution to arouse a storm. But other blasts, not less impetuous, and blowing from other quarters, were soon to assail the reformers.

CHAPTER IX.
STRUGGLES AT BERNE.—SYNOD OF LAUSANNE.
(1538.)

The state of affairs at Berne had changed since the synod of September 1537, at which Calvin, appearing on the scene as the messenger of peace, had brought in concord after strife. Megander, Erasmus Ritter, and Rhellican complained of the progress of Bucerism, and their adversaries complained of them as disturbers. Megander, it may be recollected, had agreed at the time of the synod to amend his catechism to a small extent. Now Bucer himself had in his zeal undertaken the task, and the council, without consulting Megander, had printed the revised and amended catechism. This was an act at once imprudent and wanting in respect. The lords of Berne were accustomed to play to some extent the part of autocrats. Megander was deeply wounded; and presenting himself before the council with Erasmus Ritter, he declared that he was fully determined not to become a Lutheran, and that consequently he could not allow the corrections of Bucer. Kunz and Sebastian Meyer on the other hand stoutly defended the catechism as revised by the Strasburg doctor.

STRUGGLES AT BERNE.

The State, when it intrudes into theological discussions, is wanting in the necessary tact, and is too often influenced by considerations foreign to religion. The council replied magisterially that the catechism was in conformity with Scripture; and it added despotically that Megander and Ritter must accept it as it is, or they would be immediately deprived of their offices. Ritter, who did not find in the catechism anything which at bottom imperilled the Christian faith, submitted. But Megander raised objections more or less well founded. He was wounded in his amour-propre as author, and observing the eagerness of his adversaries to annoy him, he perceived that his position at Berne had become untenable. Therefore he held his ground and received his congé: a measure in which, however, they showed a certain consideration. It was the end of the year 1537. He then withdrew to Zurich, which received him with open arms.[576]

This proceeding of the Bernese government excited a great sensation. Zurich addressed to Berne a sharp remonstrance. The country pastors of the canton of Berne complained loudly of the government and of the ecclesiastical councillors, and inquired whether these gentlemen meant to abjure the Reformation. A meeting was held at Aarau, January 22, 1538, at which it was resolved to make representations to the council; and the dean of Aarau, Zehnder, named chief of the deputation, presented the complaint. February 1 was fixed for the hearing of the two opposing parties. But while Kunz and his colleagues were admitted into the council chamber and took their places by the side of the president, the dean and the country ministers waited at the door. No sooner were they admitted than Kunz addressed them with a haughty air, and rebuked them in a loud and stern voice. The country deans replied that they did not mean to be ruled by the city ministers as boys are by their schoolmaster. The discussion grew warm,[577] and even the members of the council took part in the quarrel.

Theological motives, as we may see, were not the only cause of the opposition raised by the country ministers. There were, besides, the rule which the city ministers assumed to exercise, and the power which the council arrogated to itself in the Church, and by virtue of which it had despotically deprived Megander. The country party did not want an aristocracy of the city clergy; the city party, lay and clerical, understood this. Little by little, therefore, they both lowered their tone, and instead of quarrelling they sought reconciliation. The city members assented to two alterations in the catechism revised by Bucer, and they declared that the country deputies had acted honorably. The latter on their part acknowledged that their colleagues of Berne had not become faithless to the Reformation. Apologies were made for the sharpness which had been imparted to the discussion. The city ministers paid visits to those from the country; they conducted them to the house of the provost, the first ecclesiastic of the canton, who gave them the warmest reception; they ate and drank together; and at last these good Swiss parted on the best terms with each other.[578] The cordial letter which Luther had written to the Swiss, December 1, 1537,[579] soothed their minds still more. The doctrine set forth by Calvin at the synod of September, to which Bucer and Capito had given their adhesion, was recognized at Berne as the true doctrine. Erasmus Ritter, above all, was heartily devoted to it. There was some hope of finding in it a basis of union; and by its means the petty divisions of Protestantism were to disappear.

EXILE OF MEGANDER.

Unfortunately, Luther has always had some disciples who were more Lutheran than himself. Kunz and Sebastian Meyer were of that number. Dissatisfied with Calvin’s confession, which to them was an irksome yoke, they were eager to shake it off. A new minister, just then called to Berne, joined them; but as he was endowed with a quiet, prudent, and tractable disposition, he constantly sought, although a decided follower of Luther, to moderate his two violent colleagues. This was Simon Sulzer. He was an illegitimate son of the Catholic provost of Interlaken, and had spent his earliest youth in the châlets and on the magnificent Alps of the Hasli. Haller had afterwards found him in a barber’s shop where he was earning a living in a humble way; and discovering his great abilities, he had recommended him to the council. In 1531 Sulzer became Master of Arts at Strasburg. The council of Berne had then intrusted to him the task of directing the establishment of schools in all the places of the canton which had none. He had afterwards applied himself to theology; had gone to Saxony for the purpose of holding intercourse with Luther, and on his return had been named professor of theology at Berne, as successor of Megander. Step by step he became the most influential representative in Switzerland of the system which aimed at union with the German reformer.[580]

Kunz, whose aim was the same, was not only a votary of tradition, in opposition to the Scriptural spirit of the Genevese minister, but he was also a man actuated by strong personal enmities. Calvin, although he did not wholly approve of Megander, had emphatically signified the pain which he had felt at his deprivation. ‘What a loss to the Church,’ he wrote to Bucer, January 12, 1538, ‘and how the enemies of the Gospel will exult when they see that we begin to banish our pastors; and that instead of considering how to overcome the powerful adversaries in whose presence we stand, we are inflicting mortal wounds on one another. This news of the deprivation of Megander has struck us as sharp a blow as if we had been told that great part of the Church of Berne had fallen down.[581] I admit that there was a mixture of what is human in his cause. But would it not be better to retain such a man and forgive him that trifling weakness, than to deprive him of his ministry, to the dishonor of God and of his Word, to the great injury of the Church, and with serious risk for the future? True, Sebastian Meyer and Kunz remain; but what can the former do except ruin the cause of the Gospel by his extravagances,[582] and by the violent outbreaks in which, when he is no longer master of himself, he indulges? As for Kunz, I can hardly trust myself to say what he is. Farel tells me that when he had lately to do with him, he never saw any beast more furious. His countenance, his gestures, his words, and his very complexion, said he, reminded him of the Furies.’[583] It is true that Calvin wrote thus to a friend, to Bucer. He said to him, ‘If I speak so freely to you, it is because I know to whom I am writing.’ But it was hardly possibly that Kunz should not hear from some one what Calvin thought of him. He became his mortal enemy, and he cherished the like hatred towards the other ministers of Geneva.[584] He let no opportunity escape him of opposing them. It was to no purpose that the Genevese sought to show him that they were not his enemies, and to appease him by their moderation. It was gratifying to him to appoint ministers in the Bernese territories about whom Calvin had expressed himself in the severest manner;[585] and when competent men had been examined and approved at Geneva, he would not receive them until after they had been re-examined by the Bernese classes.[586] Calvin however knew better than Kunz. ‘What do such beginnings forebode?’ exclaims Calvin; ‘while he fancies that he is inflicting lashes on us he is in fact preparing his own ruin. Assuredly, if that be the will of God, he will fall into the pit which he has digged, rather than continue to be the cause of so great troubles to the Church of Christ.’[587]

RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE.

In addition to the question of Lutheranism, there was also that of the relations between the Church and the State, which was a subject of difference between Berne and the Genevese reformers. At Berne the magistrate was considered, according to the views of Zwingli, the representative of the members of the flock; he was the bishop; the Church was a State Church. Calvin on the contrary, who had seen in France how the state treated the Reformation, wished for the autonomy of the Church. He did not indeed demand the complete separation of Church and State, but he desired that each of these two societies should have its own government. This was the end for which he was striving, and Kunz, when once aware of it, was still more enraged. To these two questions was added that of worship. On this matter, as on others, Kunz was the ape of Luther, as Megander was of Zwingli. Calvin was no imitator of either the one or the other, but adopted generally a middle course. With respect to worship he wished for great simplicity. Berne had retained certain Catholic usages. They baptized as formerly in a baptistery; at Geneva they put away the font and made use of a simple vessel. Berne, at the supper, used wafers and unleavened bread; Geneva used common bread. Berne had retained several festivals, even that of the Annunciation of the Virgin; Geneva celebrated none but the Lord’s day, the Sunday.[588] Farel having found these usages, at least in part, among the Vaudois, in the visit which he made to those valleys in 1532, had introduced them at Geneva, and Calvin, finding them there, had made no change.

Kunz detested these practices, and directed attention to them at Berne. The Lords of Berne saw these differences with regret, either because they intended to exercise a certain supremacy over the Church of Geneva, which they thought was indebted to them to a great extent for its reformation, and because they desired to see it in all respects like their own: or because they were afraid that these diversities would furnish the Catholics with weapons: or because the Churches of the canton of Vaud seemed inclined to adopt the order of Geneva and not that of Berne, which in the eyes of those gentlemen was almost an act of rebellion. The Bernese bailiffs forbade the Vaudois pastors of their department to receive Calvin and Farel at their colloquies, or to attend themselves those which were held at Geneva.[589] Farel, who had rendered signal services to Berne and to Vaud, was now forbidden to appear in the canton, into which, nevertheless, the fanatic ‘Spirituals’ had free admission. The reformer was indignant. ‘The Lord reward Kunz according to his deserts,’ he wrote to Fabri. ‘Yes, the Lord destroy those who go on destroying the Church.’[590] These expressions are, as we think, more in the spirit of the Old Testament than of the New.

SYNOD AT LAUSANNE.

The Bernese magistrates, in order to establish an outward unity, to which they attached great importance, as politicians generally do, determined to convoke a synod at Lausanne, and they wrote on the subject, March 10, to the magistrates of Geneva. The Council of the Two Hundred were quite inclined to adopt the usages of Berne as far as regarded ceremonies. Calvin and Farel having expressed to the council a desire to attend the proposed assembly, it was decided to send them, but at the same time to associate with them the councillor Jean Philippe.

The synod met at Lausanne, March 31. The temper of the Bernese was more dictatorial than conciliatory. The lords of Berne had indeed requested that Calvin and Farel should go to Lausanne; but instead of expecting of the assembly a work of conciliation, they had positively stipulated, in a letter to the council of Geneva, that the Genevese preachers must pledge themselves beforehand to adopt the order of worship established at Berne; and that on this condition only would they be allowed to take part in the deliberations of the synod. If their adhesion were not given before the meeting, they should be heard afterwards and should be separately treated with. The Genevese reformers, therefore, were invited neither to a free assembly nor a free discussion. No other right was conceded to them but that of submission. The Bernese added that the motive of this strange proceeding was to avoid giving their neighbors an opportunity of slandering the reformed religion, and to promote the union of the Churches. But the latter object, and through it the former, too, would probably have been more promptly attained by treating the ministers of Geneva in a brotherly and not in a despotic spirit. ‘The Bernese,’ according to Rozet, ‘inquired in a friendly way of Farel and Calvin on their arrival, whether they accepted their ceremonial.’ The reformers replied ‘that the subject was well deserving of discussion.’ Discussion was refused to them.[591]

The Bernese senate had named Kunz one of the presidents of the synod. Associated with him were the ministers of Erasmus Ritter, and two members of the great council, Huber and Amman. Kunz was one of those overbearing characters which inspire awe in other men, and whose influence is almost irresistible. His colleagues, moreover, were in agreement with him. The affair did not encounter any difficulty. The synod, which opened on March 31, unanimously accepted the usages of Berne,—the baptisteries, the unleavened bread at the supper, and the festivals, including that of the Annunciation of the Virgin.

Did Calvin and Farel attend the synod or not? It seems hardly probable that they would be willing by their presence to give a kind of sanction to an assembly from which they were virtually excluded. The letter of Berne to Geneva seems, moreover, to indicate clearly that unless they humbly received the ecclesiastical decisions of the magistrates and councils of Berne, they would only have a hearing apart. A highly partial biographer[592] states that they were seen in the town and even that they ‘went outside of it for pleasure.’ There would have been no great harm in their taking walks on the surrounding hills and on the banks of the Aar, enjoying the beauties of Swiss scenery, while they waited till it should please the lords of Berne to permit them to speak. But they would have been open to blame for not attending the synod if the order of Berne had not absolutely prohibited them. History therefore has been guilty of an error in that, while she mentions their absence from the synod, she has not reported the fact which justifies it; that is to say, the strange requirement of Berne,—a grave omission, which we would fain think was unintentional.[593]

ABSENCE OF CALVIN AND FAREL.

The conference between Calvin and Farel and the delegates of Berne took place. The ministers of Geneva, while they objected to the use of baptisteries and unleavened bread, had no intention of causing division on account of such things. They adhered more firmly to their views respecting festivals. ‘On what ground,’ said Calvin, ‘will you honor the day of the circumcision more than that of the death of the Redeemer?’ In fact, Good Friday was not celebrated at Berne. Kunz was silent.[594] Calvin and Farel wished that questions of this kind should be settled, not by delegates of the government but by the Church in its assemblies. They demanded therefore that the decision should be referred to a synod of the whole Reformed Church of Switzerland, which was to be held without delay at Zurich. All appearance of compulsion would thus be avoided; liberty and order would be equally respected, and the Church would be spared much grievous dissension. ‘There was an excellent remedy,’ Calvin wrote afterwards to the Zurichers, ‘by means of which danger might have been obviated; it was that we should be invited to your synod. But this we could not obtain.’[595]

When the lords of Berne found that their delegates had failed in their conference with the Genevese ministers, they resolved to write, on the same day, April 15, two letters: one to Calvin and Farel, the other to the council of Geneva, having no doubt that this clever contrivance would succeed. Their two missives were very nearly alike. They urged the ministers to accept the decision of the synod, without waiting for the assembly at Zurich, in order that the two Churches, united in the fundamentals of the faith, might likewise be in conformity in matters of ceremonial. And to the council they addressed entreaties to accept the same decision, ‘in the hope that Masters Farel and Calvin, although they had raised some difficulties, would advise for the best.’[596]