GREAT CONFUSION IN GENEVA.--THE COUNCIL OF BERNE MAKES A FRUITLESS
INTERVENTION.
(END OF APRIL, 1538.)
Meanwhile, the friends of the Gospel in Geneva had received a very
severe blow, which had fallen on them in an unexpected way. Many were
plunged into excessive grief; some lost all hope of ever seeing the
Gospel honored in that turbulent city. Some mourned silently, others
spoke their grief aloud. The most pious of them undoubtedly expected
from the faithfulness of God that restoration of faith, order, and
prosperity for which they longed so ardently. But ‘all good men,’ says
Beza, ‘saw with great pain their three pastors, in obedience to the
edict of banishment,’[661] depart from that town to which they had
desired to do so much good; and with regretful eyes, or with tender
thoughts, they followed them as if they could not part with them.
[Sidenote: GREAT CONFUSION IN GENEVA.]
The vulgar and mischievous demonstrations by which the most lawless
part of the population celebrated its triumph still further aggravated
the grief of serious men. The discomfiture of the pastors was laughed
at and turned into ridicule. Professional jesters have almost all a
false and superficial wit, and in every country it rains insects of
this kind.[662] They were not wanting at Geneva. We do not know whether
they went on the stage, but they played in masquerades. Large bodies of
these jesters were seen parading the streets, laughing, brawling, and
making disturbances. One of them, and he was the principal personage,
was holding a fryingpan by its long handle; and in the fryingpan were
lamp-wicks, which were called in the patois of the country _farets_.
Those who surrounded this standard-bearer exclaimed that they had
fricasseed _Farel_ (and his colleagues with him) like chickens or
turnips which are cut in pieces and then cooked in a stewpan. These
poor wretches were at bottom right: the ministers had in fact been
burned over a slow fire. _Bons mots_ and sarcasms gave a relish to this
strange dish; and there were persons in those days who would have been
glad to see the ministers who left Geneva ‘fall out of the fryingpan
into the fire’--from one state of vexation into another still worse.
Insults and derision were showered from all quarters. ‘Processions
of this sort usually end in debauchery. The citizens took license,’
says Rozet, ‘for impurity, dancing, games, and drunkenness.’ ‘Nothing
was talked of but masquerades, gallantries, and excesses in wine and
good cheer.’[663] Thus did the mass of the population celebrate the
departure of the pastors. ‘The wicked travaileth with iniquity, and
hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.’
As for the members of the councils, they let things take their course.
If they did issue any proclamation for the purpose of repressing these
disorders, little attention was paid to it. Besides, they did not
insist on its being obeyed. They attempted, however, to establish a
Church of some kind. The minister, Henri de la Mare, had not dared,
in spite of the order which he had received, to preach and administer
the supper on Easter Day, for fear of offending Farel and Calvin.
But, like the former superior of the Franciscans Jacques Bernard,
he had abstained from joining in their protest. These two men were
intrusted by the council with the functions of the three banished
ministers. At the same time the lords of Berne were requested to send
the ministers Marcourt and Morand, who did not come till afterwards.
The magistrates also ordered the restoration of the baptismal fonts
which had been taken down, and which were thenceforth to be used at
the baptism of children. Then they had proclamation made, with sound
of trumpet, that everyone would have to conform to what had been
decreed touching the supper, baptism, festivals, etc. But De la Mare
and Bernard were not men powerful enough to fill the place of Farel
and Calvin. They were far from enjoying high consideration, and were
frequently exposed to the criticism and even to the rebukes of their
hearers. Porral especially made loud complaint of their preaching. The
council took their part; and one Groli having accused Bernard of not
preaching according to the Word of God, the critic was condemned ‘to
beg for mercy at the hands of God and of the law, _with both knees on
the ground_.’ Had this happened in the time of Calvin, it would have
been a very godsend for those who delight in slandering that great
man; but the punishment was inflicted by his adversaries on one of
his partisans. The question, however, remains ever the same; and this
act of compulsion in the sphere of religious opinion was even more
censurable because it was the act of the very men who had driven away
the reformers for having attempted to infringe on their liberty. There
were, however, some cases more quietly settled. An influential citizen,
the former syndic Porral, having also criticised the preachers, the
council did nothing more than threaten him with its _indignation_; he
had not _to go down on his knees and beg for mercy_.
[Sidenote: THE REFORMERS AT BERNE.]
The exile of the two great reformers and this lamentable state of
things, which rejoiced the men of the Romish party, everywhere filled
the friends of the Reformation with sorrow. They wept over ‘the great
joy of the Pharisees and of the enemies of God’s holy name.’ There were
groans, prayers, and exclamations. ‘How is it that this town, which the
Son of God had chosen as his abode and his sanctuary, was nevertheless
as deeply sunk in its pollutions as before, just as if no single
drop of God’s grace had ever fallen upon it?’[664] People thought
of Capernaum, which was at first lifted up to heaven and then cast
down to hell! Calvin perceived that the causes which had led to his
exile endangered not only the progress but the very existence of the
Reformation. Terrified at the peril, he was resolved to do his utmost
to prevent such a calamity.
Où le danger est grand, c’est là que je m’efforce.
Will not the Churches and even the States of Switzerland sympathize
in their trials? Will they not help them to save Geneva? If Roman
Catholicism were reëstablished there and if by that means Savoy should
become predominant, the Reformation in Berne and the other cantons
would be more or less menaced, and the Pays de Vaud might return to
its former lords. Calvin, assuredly, might have elsewhere a more
peaceful and comfortable life than at Geneva; but he had decided to
‘lose his life,’ and had given it up for God and his kingdom. This
town, in which he hoped to raise the standard of the Gospel, might have
become one day a fortress whose formidable front would have repelled
the combined attacks of the enemy. And now he has to abandon it. He
hastened to Berne, where he expected to obtain assistance, as formerly
the Bertheliers and the Besançon Hugh had done, when threatened by the
forces of Savoy.
[Sidenote: THE COUNCIL OF BERNE.]
The arrival of the two reformers created a sensation in that town. At
the sight of that Farel whose labors in French Switzerland had been
for ten years crowned with such signal success; of that Calvin who
was already hailed as a master-spirit; of those two men banished,
driven away, having no refuge, men’s minds were struck and their
hearts touched. The Bernese magistrates themselves had not anticipated
measures so extreme. Admitted to the council April 27, the reformers
said,--‘We have been falsely accused. The Genevese (_Messieurs de
Genève_) have brought forward two charges: the one that we have
rebelled against their commands, and the other that we have refused
to conform to the ceremonies in use at Berne. These accusations are
both false; for we have done all that we could to obey them, and never
did we directly refuse such conformity, but on the other hand we have
rather protested our willingness to consider in what manner it could
best be arranged for the edification of the church. Further, it is
evident that these accusations are a mere cloak, for these gentlemen
were prepared to consent that this affair of ritual should be postponed
till the assembly at Zurich, on condition that we would consent to
our colleague Courault being deprived of his office as preacher. But
to this, as contrary to the express word of Scripture, we refused to
agree. On Easter Day we protested that if we did not administer the
supper it was not on account of the unleavened bread, the use of which
is in itself a matter of indifference, but for fear of profaning a
mystery so holy,--unless the people were better disposed. The reason
we gave was this,--the disorders and abominations prevailing at this
time in the town, as well execrable blasphemies and mockings of God and
of his Gospel, as disturbances, sects, and divisions. In public, and
unrepressed, a thousand derisive speeches are uttered against the Word
of God and even against the supper. And, more than that, the members
of the council have all along refused us leave to state our reasons;
and, without hearing us, they have stirred up against us both the Two
Hundred and the people, making charges against us which are not true
either in God’s sight or in the sight of men. By acting thus they show
plainly that they are only seeking for slanders and scandals to defame
the Gospel. And it is a fact that, six months ago, there was a rumor
at Lyons and at other places in France of such a nature that some
merchants were desirous of selling goods for large sums _payable when
we should be expelled_!... From this it appears that there are secret
intrigues of long standing. Likewise they are not content with loading
us with ignominy, but they have several times exclaimed that we should
be thrown into the Rhone.’ The reformers having thus spoken handed in a
memoir in which the same grievances were set forth.[665]
This discourse was severe; but the evil was great. It is useless to
deny it; the evidence is too positive. All the people, indeed, were
not guilty of these disorders and mockeries; but it happened then, as
it too often happens, that the agitators took the upper hand and good
men held their peace. We must also observe what Calvin said, that he
feared a profanation of the mystery of the supper, _unless the people
were better disposed_. He allows, therefore, a better disposition of
the people; he desires it; and then, he is certainly ready to celebrate
the sacred feast. As to his assertion that his colleagues and he
_had done all that in them lay_ to obey the magistrates, he indicates
clearly thereby that something _did not lie in their power_; to wit,
to act against their conscience and the command of God. Many in their
own time blamed them for this; but who now will make it a matter of
reproach? The most strenuous upholders of the union of church and state
say themselves, ‘That no state authority ought to interfere with any
man’s religious belief. If such a principle were really involved in
the maintenance of an established church, I should probably have been
found on the other side.’[666] No man, in our days, will censure the
reformers. In maintaining the independence of the faith, they did what
they were bound to do.
The council of Berne, which was not swayed by passion, like that of
Geneva, saw clearly into these matters, and was impressed with a sense
of the danger which was impending over their allies. Without loss of
time, they wrote the same day to their ‘singular good friends and
loyal fellow-citizens’: ‘Masters G. Farel and Calvin have this day
appeared before us and made the complaints comprised in the enclosed
schedule. We heard them with much sorrow of heart, for if these things
have actually taken place, they cause great offence and will turn _to
the dishonor of the Christian religion_. For this cause we earnestly
beg you, and in brotherly affection admonish and require you, to
abate the severity with which you deal with Farel and Calvin, for the
love of us and to avoid scandal. What we wrote touching conformity in
matters of ceremonial, we wrote from affection and not by any means
to constrain you. But you must know _that the troubles which exist at
the present time in your town, and the rigorous treatment which you
adopt towards your preachers, have been very offensive to us, and
that our enemies are greatly rejoiced at it_. Herein you will do us
a most welcome favor.’[667] This was the view of the lords of Berne,
themselves opponents of Calvin; and they might have a grudge against
him, particularly in this business, on the subject of unleavened bread.
But their views were loftier, wiser, and more profoundly religious and
politic than those of Richardet and his friends.
[Sidenote: REPLY OF THE GENEVESE COUNCIL.]
On receiving this letter the council of Geneva was still more excited
than that of Berne had been. The angry feelings which actuated its
members and which had led them to banish the reformers were not yet
soothed; and, as it has been remarked, their reply was of such a nature
as was to be expected from men dominated by passion.[668] They wrote
to Berne that they considered ‘very strange’ the complaints which were
sent to them; that they ‘could not imagine how Farel and Calvin were
so bold as to make untrue statements to their Excellencies; that there
was no great discord in their town, for on the previous Sunday the
supper had been observed, according to their own ceremonial, by a great
number of people, all of one mind.’ Which amounted to this--that the
pastors having been driven away without a hearing, their hearers being
intimidated, and the party opposed to the Gospel triumphant, uniformity
prevailed by means of violence and of fear. This is, indeed, the usual
result of a _coup d’état_.