Supremacy Of The State.
Calvin knew that a hand mightier than his must establish religious and moral order in Geneva. ‘If God do not work by his spirit,’ said he, ‘all the doctrine that may be set forth will be like a trifle thrown to the winds.’ There was at this time a sort of public manifestation of this thought. In the month of December, 1542, the Council ordered that the monogram of the name of Jesus should be engraved on the gates of the town (Jésus gravés en pierre).[[157]] The chronicles of Roset say that the Council ‘ordered to be engraved on the gates of the new walls which were being built, the name of Jesus above the armorial bearings.’[[158]] It is very commonly stated that this resolution was adopted at the request of Calvin; but neither the registers of the Council, nor those of the consistory, nor Roset, mention it. This does not indeed imply that he had nothing to do with it; and this inscription was at all events placed by order of the Council, which was friendly to Calvin. But it was nothing new. Roset states that ‘this name was engraved on the old gates of the city, time out of mind.’ It had been placed there on the demand of the syndics, in 1471, and the custom appears to be still more ancient.
Opinions differ as to the nature of the government of the church of Geneva in the sixteenth century. Some have called it a theocracy, and have seen in it the predominance of the church over the state. This view is the most widely spread, and is current among both friends and opponents of the reformer. In our days the contrary view has been maintained. It has been asserted that at the time of the reformation of Geneva, the authority of the state was completely substituted for that of the ecclesiastical power; that the Council from that time intruded on ground which was altogether within the province of the church. In fact, it went to such a length as to regulate the hour and the number of sermons; and a minister could neither publish a book, nor absent himself for a few days, without the permission of the Council.[[159]]
State Control Of The Church.
This last point of view is the true one; but there were sometimes circumstances which modified this state of things. Much depended on the relations of Calvin with the governing body. If he were not on good terms with them, the Council rigorously imposed its authority. Thus it was that in the affair of Servetus, Calvin, in spite of reiterated demands, could not induce the magistrate to soften the punishment of the unhappy Spaniard. But when their relations were agreeable, Calvin’s influence was undoubtedly powerful. There is no need to suppose that the state of things was always the same and absolutely self-consistent. But if the legislation be considered by itself, apart from the circumstances, which we have just pointed out, and without regard to the conviction which possessed Calvin’s mind that when essential matters of faith are at stake we must obey God, and not man, then it is not untrue to say that ‘Calvin impressed on his organization a lay, not to say a democratic, stamp; that he did not invest the clergy either with exclusive authority or even with the presidency of the church; and that assigning carefully the part of the magistrate and that of the ministry he set at the summit of his scheme a secular episcopate, which he placed in the hands of the state.’[[160]]
It is true that this episcopate was placed in the hands of the state; but it is not certain that it was Calvin who placed it there. It was the state that assumed it. Before Calvin’s arrival, and while Farel and his friends were evangelizing Geneva, the Council had constantly exercised this overseership; and it was unwilling to throw it up by resigning it afterwards to the ministers. The Ordinances were not accepted exactly in the form in which Calvin had conceived them. The commission, of which the majority were laymen, and the Council itself, introduced corrections and additions, as we have previously remarked. But we insist on this point in order that the part of Calvin and that of the Council in this business may be clearly distinguished from each other. If the draft names the elders, the official copy adds, ‘Otherwise named appointees of the seignory (commis par la seigneurie);’ and elsewhere, ‘deputies of the seignory to the consistory.’[[161]] This is important. If the subject be the examination of a minister, and his introduction to the people, the official copy adds, ‘being first of all, after examination had, presented to the seignory.’ If the draft says, ‘To obviate any scandals of life it will be necessary that there should be some form of correction;’ the official copy adds, ‘which shall pertain to the seignory.’ If the draft says of the schoolmaster, ‘that no one is to be received unless he is approved by the ministers;’ the official copy adds, ‘having first of all presented him to the seignory, and that the examination must be made in the presence of two lords of the Little Council.’ If the draft set out how the elders and the ministers are to proceed in their admonitions, the Council adds, ‘We have ordered that the said ministers are not to assume to themselves any jurisdiction; but that they are merely to hear the parties, and make the above-mentioned representations; and upon their statement of the case we shall be able to consult, and to deliver judgment, according to the exigencies of the case.’
Finally, the following additional article, proposed by the commission, was inserted in the official text, at the end of the Ordinances. ‘And let all this be done in such a manner that the ministers may have no civil jurisdiction, and make use only of the spiritual sword of the Word of God, as St. Paul enjoins upon them. And that this consistory shall in no respect trench upon either the authority of the seignory or ordinary courts of justice; but that the civil power may continue in its integrity. And if there should be need of inflicting any penalty and of attaching the parties, that the ministers with the consistory, after hearing the parties and making such representations as shall be proper, are to report the whole to the Council, which, on their statement, will consider of their decree, and give judgment according to the facts.’[[162]]
The Council displayed its zeal even in mere trifles. Not once only, but every time the word elder occurs, it added to it or substituted for it the words appointed or deputed by the seignory. And whenever the report, to designate the Council, employs the word Messieurs, the official copy does not fail to insert in its place the seignory.
If Calvin had a large share in the Ordinances, assuredly the Council had its share too. The corrections which Calvin’s work received at their hands are all the more remarkable because at no other time did they hold him in greater esteem. The members of the seignory were friends of his, and the reformer having yielded to their entreaties so frequently repeated, it would have been natural that they should exhibit some deference to him; but, on the contrary, their manner of proceeding had a little stiffness in it. Calvin having, it seems, some fears about the alterations which the Council might have introduced into his scheme, requested, in concert with his colleagues, to see them; but the Council decided that it was not for the preachers to revise them,[[163]] and that the whole should be delivered the same day to the Council of the Two Hundred.
Limits Of Calvin’s Responsibility.