The presidency of the consistory was not vested in Calvin, but in one of the syndics. The reformer knew how to keep his own place, and gave due honor to the lay magistrate. While, however, he was not president of this body, it may be truly said that he was its soul.[[183]] The consistory met immediately after its establishment. The report of its sittings did not begin till Thursday, February 16, 1542; but nine meetings had previously been held.
Calvin was not a theocrat, as he has been called, unless the term be taken in the most spiritual sense. A breath of eternal life inspired him; he was full of love for souls; a practical man in the best sense of the word. Many of the characteristics of St. Paul reappeared in Calvin. While, like Paul, he strenuously maintained the great doctrine of grace, he took an interest in the comforts of life of those to whom his preaching was addressed, and sometimes applied himself to the humblest details. He was well informed even on matters which do not seem to be in his province. For instance, he made inquiries after a house for his friend De Falais, and offered him one with ‘a garden, a large yard, and a fine view.’[[184]] But it was especially in the consistory that he displayed the same interest in small things as in great. Conversation, dress, food, all were interesting to him. He protected women against the bad treatment of their husbands; he taught parents and children, masters and servants, their mutual duties; and saw that the sick were treated with all needful attention. At the first sitting of the consistory (February 16, 1542), De Pernot, from the district of Gex, who had somewhat the air of those loungers (flâneurs), who are found in all parties, related to the venerable body that he had been to Mount Salève with Claudine de Bouloz and some companions. The Genevese had before this time begun to enjoy pleasure excursions on this mountain. This excursion was perhaps for De Pernot one of those parties of pleasure to which some mystery is attached. He walked with the Genevese maiden; they chatted and laughed as they came down the mountain, and, as Racine says:
Ils suivaient du plaisir la pente trop aisée.
Now, in the midst of this gaiety and these pretty trifling speeches, there was, said Pernot to the consistory, some talk about marriage. Moreover, he added, when they arrived at Collonges-sous-Salève, Claudine had drunk with him ‘to their marriage, in the presence of credible witnesses.’ But Claudine denied it altogether. She drank, she owned, but agreed to nothing else, because she had not the permission of her parents. Thus, then, a dispute about a promise made on the mountain and at the inn was one of the subjects to which the grave Calvin had to give his attention. There were other questions of more importance. Domestic disagreements, altercations, duels, games of chance, above all licentious conduct, were frequently brought before the consistory; but such cases gradually diminished in number.[[185]]
Subjects Before The Consistory.
The consistory had besides much to do with Roman Catholicism, which was of too long standing in the episcopal city to be expelled from it at a single stroke. Now, hostility to Rome was at this time general. It prevailed in the ministers and their friends by reason of their attachment to the Holy Scriptures, which condemned the system of the papacy. It prevailed in the other citizens by reason of the conviction which possessed them that Protestantism alone could maintain their independence. It influenced the French refugees who, having escaped from prison, and from the death to which their brethren were still exposed, felt their hearts stirred with indignation at the sight of Roman Catholicism, the source of these hateful persecutions. Further, many persons were cited before the consistory on suspicion of being Romanists. These people were not very courageous; in their own church they were placed under a régime of fear; and a soul that is led by fear is always the weaker. |Examination Of Jeanne Peterman.| On March 30, 1542, Dame Jeanne Peterman appeared before the consistory. She was unwilling to abjure her faith, but she endeavored to confess it as faintly as possible, and even had recourse to strategem to avoid making an avowal of what she believed. She made a well-tangled skein, and endeavored thereby to entangle the members of the consistory. They wanted to clear up the matter, and she tried to darken it. ‘You have not received the holy supper,’ they said to her, ‘and you go to mass; what is your faith?’ ‘I believe in God,’ she said, ‘and wish to live in God and holy church. I say my Pater Noster in the Roman tongue, and I believe just as the church believes.’ ‘What do you mean by that?’ ‘That I do not believe except just as the church believes.’ ‘Is there no church in this town?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Are not the sacraments of our Lord administered here?’ ‘I believe in the holy supper, as God said, This is my body.’ ‘Why are you not content with the supper administered in this town, but go elsewhere?’ ‘I go where I please; our Lord will not come here in full array, but where his word is there is his body. He said that there would come ravening wolves.’ After Calvin had given her an admonition according to the Word of God, she said that on the previous Sunday a German, a very respectable man, asked her how she prayed, and that she had replied, ‘You do not find people here saying to the Virgin Mary, Pray for us.’ She did not on this occasion add that she herself invoked her. As she often said, ‘I believe in God,’ which deists themselves might have said, she was asked, ‘What then is your faith toward God?’ She replied, ‘The preachers ought to know better than I do about God. I am not a learned person like you. There is no other God for me but God.’ She was pressed more closely. ‘In what way will you take the holy supper?’ ‘I do not mean to be either an idolater or an hypocrite. The Virgin Mary is my advocate. The Virgin Mary is a friend of God, daughter and mother of Jesus Christ. I do not know about the church.’ By this she doubtless meant that she would not enter into controversy on this subject. ‘I do not know,’ she added, ‘whether the faith of others is right. Our lady is a good woman, and I wish to live in the faith of holy church.’ Thus the poor woman hardly got any further than the Virgin and the church. This was a long way. It appears that it was the president-syndic and not Calvin who had pressed her, for she ended by saying, ‘The lord syndic is a heretic, and I do not wish to be one.’ The pastors said to her, ‘There is only one mediator, Jesus Christ; as for the saints, male or female, let people do as they will.’ The consistory required that the poor woman should be corrected in an evangelical manner, in order that she might not go to other places to worship idols; ‘that remonstrance should be made, and that she should go daily to sermon.’ Again, appearing before them on the following Thursday, she spoke with more decision. ‘I cannot receive the supper,’ she said; ‘I have taken it and will take it elsewhere, until the Lord touch my heart.’ Thereupon she was declared to be out of the church. ‘In my time,’ she said; ‘the Jews have been driven out of this town, and a time will come when the Jews will be all over the town.’ If the prediction has not been fulfilled with respect to the Jews, those who adhere to the faith of this woman are now very numerous there; and, perhaps, this is what at bottom she meant to predict.[[186]]
Matters of the same kind as that which we have just indicated, and others, such as extravagance in dress, licentious or irreligious songs, improprieties during divine service, usury, frequenting of taverns and gaming houses,[[187]] drunkenness, debauchery, and other like offences were frequently brought before the consistory. It had nothing to do, or only indirectly, with political events, or even with measures for the suppression of the libertine party, for this was effected by judicial methods, and the consistory was not called upon to take cognizance of such matters. There is not a word about the trial of Servetus in 1543; the consistory had nothing to do with that proceeding. The only allusion that we find to it does not occur till a month after that odious act, November 23, 1543. On that day a woman, accused of frequenting a certain house, replied that she had only been there twice, the day after the supper ‘and the day the heretic was burnt.’ The name of Servetus is not even mentioned. In this circumstance there is, perhaps, a hint for those who look upon Calvin as the principal offender in the death of the unfortunate Servetus. Assuredly he was blameworthy, and his whole age with him.[[188]]
Impartiality.
If the consistory proceeded with severity against immorality and licentiousness, its activity was no less conspicuous in a charitable direction, and one favorable to the public liberties.[[189]] It did not forget that it was bound to protect the little ones who were oppressed, and all those who were in any misfortune. Calvin recalled the saying of Jesus Christ about those of his people who are brought low, and said, ‘If their insignificance give occasion to the world to fall upon them, they ought to know that God does not despise them. It would be a thing too absurd for a mortal to make no account of those who are so precious in the sight of God.’[[190]] The consistory used its influence with the council on behalf of reforms which were for the advantage of the people. It demanded a reduction in the price of wheat, improvement of prison discipline, and restriction of imprisonment for debt. It censured fathers who were too severe with their children, and creditors who were too exacting with their debtors. It was severe against those who held a monopoly, and against forestallers of food. It urged moderation in the citations made before the consistory, and desired that they should be confined to scandalous cases. Men have been heard at various periods, even men of the humblest class, lifting up their voices against Calvin and his consistory without any suspicion that they were insulting their own friends and benefactors. Was not the suppression of drunkenness, of immorality, of gaming-houses, of quarrelling, and other evils of the like kind a benefit, and a very great benefit to the people? One who has set forth in the most accurate and impartial manner the proceedings of the consistory has said, ‘We must not, indeed, expect absolute impartiality nor abundance of good nature in the face of the resistance which was offered to the consistory; nevertheless, the facts speak, and are all in favor of the reformers.’[[191]]
The realization of the plan formed by Calvin, the moral and religious restoration of Geneva, called for great efforts on his part, and exposed him to much opposition, many affronts and contemptuous speeches which were flung in his teeth. He bore it all without cherishing resentment. This man, whose name was familiar throughout Christendom, the leader who could cope with Rome, the great teacher whose letters kings received with reverence, when called by a fish-wife, in the presence of his colleagues, ‘a tavern haunter,’ took it with admirable patience. Wrongs done against the persons of the pastors were treated by the consistory with greater lenity than opposition to evangelical doctrine, invocation of the devil, or invocation of the Virgin and the saints. Calvin, admitting that outward appearance has its value in the policy of the world, but holding that it ought not to be considered in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, held the balance true between a working man and a member of the most honorable families. Sons of the latter were more than once reprimanded and punished, even though the father was friendly to the reformation. Hence troubles frequently arose, although the fathers continued faithful to the established order. In the midst of these agitations Calvin remained calm. He wrote to Myconius, ‘It was in my power, when I came here, to triumph over my enemies, and to attack at full sail the party which had done me wrong; but I have abstained. I have also most carefully avoided all kinds of reproach, lest in uttering a word, however innocent, I should seem to intend to persecute the one or the other.’[[192]]