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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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]