TROUBLES IN GENEVA.
(JAN. AND FEB. 1538.)
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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.