SYNOD OF ZURICH.--THE BERNESE AMBASSADORS CONDUCT CALVIN BACK
TO GENEVA.--HE CANNOT ENTER THE TOWN.
(END OF APRIL TO END OF MAY, 1538.)
[Sidenote: FAREL AND CALVIN AT ZURICH.]
Farel and Calvin did not allow themselves to hesitate by reason of the
obduracy of their enemies. They were determined to do all they could
to save the Church and likewise the town of Geneva from the calamities
which, in the opinion of good men in Switzerland, must certainly fall
upon them. The synod of the reformed Churches of this country, to the
decision of which they had appealed, was now sitting at Zurich. They
went thither without delay, to inform the assembly of the important
events which had taken place at Geneva, and to claim its mediation. The
deputies of Basel, Berne, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, Glaris, Mulhausen,
and Bienne, in conjunction with the doctors of Zurich, constituted the
assembly, which sat from April 29 to May 3. Bucer and Capito had also
come from Strasburg to be present at it. The principal business of the
synod was the union with Luther, who at that time showed a conciliatory
disposition. All the members, except Kunz, the Bernese deputy, received
the two exiles with true Christian cordiality. It appears that Farel
and Calvin found relief and relaxation in this meeting of brethren.
From their life at Geneva, constantly in the presence of violent
adversaries, they had probably experienced a kind of moral tension. But
the loyal affection of the Swiss allowed their minds to unbend, and
their souls expanded in the sunshine of charity. After being engaged
on matters relating to the _Concordia_ of Wittenberg, the synod passed
on to the subject of rites, and decided that with respect to them the
Churches ought to retain full liberty--a resolution favorable to Calvin
and Farel. After settling this point, the synod took into consideration
the state of Geneva. Calvin laid before it the divisions and troubles
which afflicted the Church, the forlorn condition to which the good
Christians were reduced, and the dangers to which the Reformation was
there exposed. He displayed no obstinacy with respect to subordinate
points, but immovable firmness on those which he believed to be
indispensable to the prosperity of Geneva. He readily assented to the
use of baptismal fonts; and also, he added, the introduction ‘into
our Church of unleavened bread; but,’ said he, ‘we desire to request
of the Bernese that this bread should be broken.’[669] The act of
_breaking bread_, according to the institution and the practice of the
apostles, appeared to him essential to the symbol which was intended to
commemorate the body of the Lord offered in sacrifice. He felt somewhat
perplexed about the question of the festivals; but he gave his consent
to four of them, on condition that any persons who might desire it
should be at liberty to work after the service. He was anxious not to
open the door to the uproar and licentiousness which characterize the
Roman populations during the latter part of those festival days.[670]
He continued: ‘If there be any thought of reëstablishing us at Geneva,
we demand first of all that we should be allowed to clear ourselves
of the calumnies which have been heaped on us. We have been condemned
unheard, and that,’ said he, ‘is an inhuman, a barbarous proceeding,
not to be tolerated.[671] Next, it will be essential to establish
discipline, for want of which all that we may restore would soon be
overthrown. We demand that the town should be divided into parishes,
for no order is possible in the church unless the flock be near its
pastor, and the pastor near his flock. We demand that a seasonable use
of excommunication should be allowed; and that, for this purpose, the
council should select in the several quarters of the town upright and
wise men to whom, by common consent, its control should be intrusted.
We demand that in the institution of pastors legitimate order should
be maintained, and that the authority of the magistrate should not
supersede the laying-on of hands, which ministers ought to receive. We
demand a more frequent administration of the supper; that it should be
celebrated, if not according to the custom of the early Church,[672]
at least once a month. We demand that with the public preaching should
be joined the singing of psalms. Finally, we demand that, as our own
townsmen bring forward the example of the countries which are subject
to Berne in justification of lascivious songs and dances,[673] the
Bernese should be entreated to put an end to such profligacy in their
own states, in order that our people may not take advantage of it to
justify themselves in similar excesses.’
[Sidenote: THEIR MODERATION.]
The above articles, fourteen in number, were in Calvin’s handwriting,
but they were read to the synod by Bucer.[674] Calvin and Farel were
probably unwilling to put themselves too forward, and preferred to have
the question settled on its merits, independently of their personal
leaning; and they selected the most moderate of the theologians of
the period to be its exponent. Calvin was not a man to exalt himself
in the feeling of his own righteousness; he knew by experience that
‘in many ways we offend all.’ ‘We know,’ he said afterwards to Farel,
when speaking to him of what had just taken place, ‘we know that
our adversaries cannot calumniate us to any further extent than God
permits, and we know the end which He has in view in permitting it at
all. Let us therefore humble ourselves; unless we choose to contend
with God because He humbles us;[675] but let us not cease to wait on
Him. “The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden
under foot,” said the prophet (Isaiah xxviii. 3). Let us acknowledge
before God, and before his people, that it is to some extent owing to
our incompetency, indolence, carelessness, and mistakes that the Church
committed to our care has fallen into so lamentable a condition. But
let us also maintain, as it is our duty to do, our own innocence and
purity against those who by their fraud, malignity and wickedness have
certainly caused this ruin.’[676] Calvin, in charging himself with
indolence, assuredly went too far. But it was not to his colleague only
that he spoke in this way; he did not hesitate to express the same
views before the synod. While depicting the dangers of Geneva, ‘the
destruction which seemed to threaten’ the edifice reared by Farel and
himself, ‘We openly acknowledge,’ he said to the deputies of the Swiss
Churches assembled at Zurich, ‘that in some things we have perhaps been
too severe, and on those points we are ready to listen to reason.’[677]
The synod did not censure the reformers. It advised them, indeed,
to use ‘moderation and Christian gentleness, necessary with that
uncultivated people;’[678] but it acknowledged that, far from
displaying obstinacy in unimportant matters, the reformers in their
fourteen articles demanded only what is just, legitimate and important.
It is true that a Christian ought not to be appointed minister by the
mere decree of a council of state, but, after examination, by the
laying-on of hands of the elders or pastors. It is true that a more
frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper was according to the Word of
God. The subject of greatest delicacy was excommunication. But could
not the Genevese commit the management of it _to upright and discreet
laymen_, elected by the councils, themselves an elected body? The good
sense of the Swiss told them that men entirely destitute of Christian
character ought not to form part of a Christian society.
[Sidenote: THE JUSTICE OF THEIR CAUSE.]
Not one of the theologians present at the synod seems to have taken
the cause of Calvin more to heart than the man who, with Melanchthon,
was perhaps the most cautious of the reformers, Capito. A man of
naturally gentle spirit, he had nevertheless displayed courage in
recalling Luther to moderation, and in doing the same afterwards with
respect to his colleague of Strasburg, Mathias Zell. He approved of
the course of Farel and Calvin; he even set himself to console them.
‘There is nothing disgraceful,’ he said to them, ‘in your banishment,
and we have no fear that it will prove hurtful to the Church. Your
enemies themselves only reproach you with too much warmth of zeal.
Unhappily, there are not wanting ministers who teach the Gospel without
discipline; who prefer to hold an office which they treat as nothing
more than an office that yields profit. This leads to license instead
of the liberty of Christ.[679] Discipline is necessary to the Churches.
Some persons fancy that what each man may do is no concern of ours;
as if Christ had not said that if a man has a hundred sheep, and only
one of them go astray he must go in search of it. What! because the
authority of the papacy has been cast off, must the power of the Word
and of the ministry be treated as likewise abolished? Some one may
say, I know enough of the Gospel; I can read; what do I want with you?
Preach to those who wish to hear you! Ah! discipline is a thing to
which our Churches are not accustomed, a thing which flesh and blood
detest. Ought we then to wonder that you have not been able, you two
alone, to reform at once a town so large?’[680]
The assembly therefore approved the fourteen articles presented by
Calvin and Farel, and then ‘declared the causes of their banishment
from Geneva to be not legitimate.’[681] In the eyes of these Swiss
Christians assembled at Zurich, these two exiles were the glory of
the Reformation; doctors whose praise was in all the Churches; two
of the prime movers in the great transformation which was being
effected in Christendom. The honor, the duty of the Christians of
Switzerland, demanded that these pious and illustrious men, victims
of passions hostile to the Gospel, should be restored to the position
in which God had set them. The synod, therefore, wrote to Geneva, and
earnestly requested measures adapted to raise the Church up again,
and particularly the recall of the pastors. At the same time, it
recommended the Bernese, and especially Kunz, to support this request;
and Kunz accepted the charge. Zurich being desirous likewise of doing
something, Bullinger wrote on the subject, May 4, to the provost de
Watteville. Farel and Calvin then returned to Berne, disposed to endure
with patience and meekness, but at the same time full of hope.[682]
A man of whose ill-will they had already had experience was soon to
disturb their joy. Kunz, who had been first a pastor at Erlenbach,
had contributed to the Reformation in the lower Siebenthal. He was,
so far as we can learn, born of a well-to-do family of peasants
of those parts,[683] and had retained a certain rusticity and
coarseness. A partisan, of energetic character, passionately earnest
for everything that concerned the cause which he had embraced, blind
and unjust towards the opposite opinions, with no kindly feeling for
his adversaries, he fell easily into the indulgence of animosities,
jealousies, and quarrels; and had sometimes as much trouble to get
on with those of his own party as to endure those who belonged to
the other side. With reference to the matter in hand, his hostility
had to his mind an excuse. If he warmly opposed Calvin and Farel,
it was because the slight interest which they felt in the question
about unleavened bread and in other analogous questions might, in
his opinion, annoy the Germans, whose indefatigable champion in
Switzerland he had constituted himself. He had appeared to share the
sentiments expressed to Calvin and Farel by the synod of Zurich, which
was unanimous in their favor. He had no wish, in the presence of so
considerable an assembly, to give way to his personal hatred. But the
reformers were to lose nothing by this reserve. He awaited them at
Berne. There Kunz would be on his own ground, and let the adversaries
of human traditions beware!
[Sidenote: HOSTILITY OF KUNZ.]
Calvin and Farel, when they reached Berne, did not find Kunz there.
They had to wait for him eight days.[684] He was at Nidau, at a meeting
of pastors before whom, forgetting the solemn promise which he had made
at Zurich,[685] he had said, ‘I have been requested to go to Geneva
to restore those exiles; but I would much rather renounce my ministry
and quit my country than assist those men who, I know, have treated
me frightfully.’ This delay, considering the present position of the
two reformers, put their patience to the proof. They waited, however,
convinced that the blame would be thrown on them if the business failed
in consequence of their departure. When at length they heard of the
arrival of Kunz, they went to his house, and found him in company with
Sebastian Meyer and Erasmus Ritter. There, in his own house, he let
himself out at his ease. He began with long complaints and finished
with violent insults.[686] Calvin and Farel, who had not anticipated
this outburst, received it, however, quietly; for they knew that if
they answered him with any sharpness, the only effect would be to throw
the hotheaded Kunz into a great fit of rage.[687] Ritter and Meyer
joined with them in the endeavor to pacify him. When he was a little
calm, he said to them, ‘I wish to know whether you ask me to interfere
in your business; for I foresee that if it should end otherwise than
as you desire, you will blame me for it.’ They assured him three times
over that they had no intention of changing anything in the mission
with which the synod had charged him and which he had accepted. But
they talked to no purpose. Kunz, who was very desirous to be freed from
that duty, went on incessantly harping on the same string. At last,
exhausted with his passion and wearied with the noise that he had made,
‘I will do,’ said he, ‘what I ought to do.’ They then parted, agreeing
to discuss the subject on the following day.
[Sidenote: HIS WRATH.]
The next day, then, at the hour appointed, Calvin and Farel went to the
Hôtel de Ville. They had to wait two hours. Then word was brought to
them that the ministers had too much business in the Consistory to be
able to attend to them. After dinner the two Genevese reformers again
presented themselves; and, the assembly having taken up the matter,
they were very much surprised to hear that the first thing to do was to
examine carefully the fourteen articles already approved by the synod
of Zurich. They suppressed the feelings which this indignity excited
in them and consented. There was hardly a syllable in the articles to
which objection was not taken;[688] and when they came to the question
of unleavened bread, Kunz lifted up his voice, and apostrophizing the
two reformers, said, ‘You have disturbed all the Churches of Germany,
which were till then at peace, by your unseasonable and passionate
innovations.’ Calvin replied that it was not they who had introduced
the use of leavened bread; that the practice existed in the early
Church, and that traces of it were found even in the papacy. But
Kunz would listen to nothing, and grew more and more violent.[689]
His colleagues, wishing to put an end to this dispute, begged that
they would pass on to the third article, which related to festivals.
Thereupon matters became much worse. Kunz did not confine himself to
loud talking; he rose violently from the table, and his whole body
shook with rage, so that his colleagues attempted in vain to restrain
him.[690] ‘It is false,’ said he, ‘that the articles have been approved
at Zurich.’ ‘On that point we appeal,’ replied Calvin, with firmness,
‘to the testimony of all who were present at the Synod.’ When Kunz had
come a little to himself, he accused the two doctors of intolerable
craft; the articles, he said, being full of exceptions. ‘We thought,
on the contrary,’ Calvin very justly replied, ‘that we gave evidence
of sincerity in thus plainly and openly making exceptions where they
ought to be made.’ The two reformers withdrew with deep feeling from
the strange scene which they had just witnessed. Two years afterwards,
Farel still wrote to his friend, ‘Every time that the recollection of
Kunz returns to my mind, I am filled with horror at that Fury who had
no consideration for the Church, but whom the devil made beside himself
with hatred against me.’[691] Kunz pretended that the two reformers
wished to withdraw, and not to keep the promise made at Zurich. Calvin,
on the contrary, said, ‘We are ready to do anything sooner than not try
all means of providing for the wants of religion, and of acquitting
ourselves of our duty towards the Church.’[692] As Kunz and his friends
declined their mission, there was no one else to take the matter in
hand but the senate of Berne.
A few days later, Farel and Calvin were received by that body. The
representations which the Bernese were to make at Geneva, in conformity
with the decisions of the synod of Zurich, could not but be very
disagreeable to those who wished to introduce the Bernese rites into
that town. Must Berne plead against Berne? Did ever any one hear of
such a thing? No state whatever voluntarily undertakes to discharge
such a duty; and least of all a state which, like Berne, had the
reputation of being positive and inflexible in its views. The council
therefore attempted to induce Calvin and Farel to renounce their
fourteen articles, but this they refused to do. They were then asked
to retire. When they were recalled the same attempt was again made,
three times over, within an hour.[693] ‘It belongs to the Church,’ they
replied, ‘to establish uniformity in a lawful manner.’ It has already
been established, said the council. ‘Yes,’ they answered, ‘but by a
handful of seditious men, who at the same time cried that we should be
thrown into the Rhone.[694] We are resolved to endure everything rather
than seem to approve the measures adopted for securing uniformity.’
Farel and Calvin could not answer otherwise: one cannot yield to evil.
The Bernese council gave way; thus displaying on this occasion an
independence and a sense of justice that were most honorable.
[Sidenote: AGITATION IN GENEVA.]
Having once more called in the reformers, the council announced to
them that two envoys from the senate should accompany them, and that
when they came within four miles of Geneva, Calvin and Farel should
stop, while the Bernese lords go on their way. The place named by the
Bernese was below the village of Genthod; this was perhaps at that time
on the frontier. The deputies of Berne were to require of the council
of Geneva the return of Farel and Calvin; and in case they obtained it
they were to conduct them into the town, and to see to it that they
were reinstated in their ministry. Farel and Calvin represented that
if this course were taken they would seem to be restored only because
they acknowledged themselves to be in the wrong, which they could not
do. They complained also that no minister formed part of the embassy.
The council, consequently, adopted a new resolution, according to
which the two reformers should immediately enter the town, and the
Bernese envoys should present to the people the fourteen articles
of Zurich, in the presence of Farel and Calvin, in order that, if
any objection should be raised, the latter might reply to it without
delay. The reformers should then set forth their cause, and, if their
justification were accepted, they should be restored to their offices.
Two ministers, Erasmus Ritter and Viret, were to accompany them. ‘We
are now setting out on our journey,’ wrote Calvin to Bullinger; ‘may
it please the Lord to prosper it. To him we look to guide us in our
goings, and it is from his wise disposal that we expect success.’[695]
The delegation set out, and was joined by Viret at Lausanne.
Meanwhile it had become known at Geneva that Calvin and Farel were
returning, under the conduct and the patronage of delegates from the
state of Berne. This news created much astonishment. What! these two
ministers were banished for having refused to adopt the ritual of
Berne, and now Berne takes them into her favor and brings them back!
Berne appreciated the grandeur of the Reformation and the worth of
the reformers. But there were some of the Genevese who could not
see beyond their own walls, and who seemed to have no apprehension
whatever of the great change which was renewing all Christendom, and
of which Calvin and Farel were two of the most illustrious agents. The
confirmation of the tidings caused a great stir in men’s minds. The
council determined to refuse the reformers permission to enter the
town, and the most violent of their adversaries resolved to oppose
their return by force. An ambush was laid at some distance from the
ramparts, and twenty gladiators, as Calvin calls them, were posted
in arms at the very gate of the city, as if the repulse of a hostile
force were intended.[696] The deputation was not more than a mile from
Geneva when a messenger of the council met them.[697] He handed to
the Bernese ambassadors a dispatch from the council, in which it was
written, ‘To prevent a scandal, do not bring back Farel and Calvin, for
it would be in violation of the decree passed by the community, and
of the will of the same.’[698] But their conscience bore them witness
that their cause was good, and they desired to get this acknowledged
on the part of those whom God had committed to their care. They were
therefore willing to pursue their journey, not suspecting what awaited
them. But the Bernese delegates, who had doubtless been informed by
the messenger of the excited state of the people, strongly urged them
to give it up. ‘We should have gone on our way calmly,’ said Calvin
to his friends, when he had heard of the violent measures taken to
stop them, ‘if the delegates had not forcibly resisted our intention;
and this saved our lives.’ The fact that their lives were in danger,
attested by Calvin in a letter addressed to Bullinger a few days after
the event, cannot be called in question. True, it is easy to invent,
more than three centuries later, contrary hypotheses; but the state of
agitation prevailing in Geneva, far from invalidating the testimony of
the reformers, confirms it.
[Sidenote: THE BERNESE EMBASSY.]
The two Bernese ambassadors, accompanied by Viret and Ritter, entered
Geneva alone, and were immediately received (May 23) by the council.
They stated that the deputies of the cantons who met recently at Zurich
had been unanimously of opinion that it was just to allow Farel,
Calvin, and Courault to re-enter the town in order to explain and
defend themselves from the accusations made against them; and that if
their justification were accepted, their restoration to their offices
could not be refused. ‘Do you not owe this mark of gratitude to them,’
they said, ‘and especially to Farel, who has undergone so much labor
and suffering for the good of this people? In short is it not essential
to deprive the enemies of the Reformation of an occasion for rejoicing,
as they would rejoice at the banishment without hope of returning of
the men who established it in Geneva?’ The council replied that it
could not accede to this demand, because the ministers had been sent
away by the decision of the Council of the Two Hundred and of the
general council; the Little Council having only required that they
should be committed to prison. In consequence of this the Council of
the Two Hundred was convoked for the next day, May 24. The attendance
was not at all numerous, only fourteen members being present, doubtless
because the meeting appeared to be a mere formality, and because
the battle had to be fought and decided in the general council. The
members present, among whom were the most thoroughgoing enemies of
the reformers, decreed that the resolutions previously taken must be
maintained; and for the rest, they referred the deputies of Berne to
the assembly of the people.[699]
On Sunday, May 26, the general council of the citizens met. Louis
Amman and his colleague, Viret and Erasmus Ritter, appeared as
advocates for the two banished ministers. Amman spoke first. He showed
the great injustice involved in the banishment of these excellent
men. They had to do with Farel, who was justly designated the apostle
of French Switzerland, and with Calvin, the greatest theologian of
the age. He earnestly requested that they should be recalled, and
that, according to the rules of equity, their justification should be
heard, for it was not usual for any man to be condemned unheard. He
reminded them of the distinguished services of Farel, of the labors
and hardships which he had undergone for the good of that people. Was
it not Farel who, in 1532, standing in the midst of the council of
priests, had seen them rush at him and knock him down with their blows,
crying, ‘Kill him! kill him!’ One of their attendants had discharged
his arquebuse at him, and he had been driven from the town with threats
of being thrown into the Rhone. Since that time to what tribulations
had he not been exposed! Was it not incumbent on the people of Geneva
to testify their gratitude to him in some other way than by exile?
Then Amman spoke of the joy which the adversaries of the Reformation,
the subjects of the pope, would feel, and did already feel, to see
Geneva banishing her reformers, and he conjured the citizens not to
give them such an occasion of triumph and exultation. Next Viret spoke,
in his own name and in the name of his colleague Ritter; and we know
how well adapted the mild eloquence of this pious pastor was to soothe
exasperated spirits. The union of the pastors and the seriousness of
the ambassador in pleading the cause of the reformers did not fail to
make an impression. A large assembly is always susceptible of wholesome
impressions: there is in it a contagion of good. Hearts were moved, and
the disposition of many was changed. It was possible for the deputies
to suppose that the battle was won. As they were not to attend the
deliberations of the general council, they went out full of hope.[700]
[Sidenote: THE GENERAL COUNCIL.]
But Kunz had spared no pains that this hope might be disappointed. It
appears that Pierre Vandel, one of the leaders of the party hostile to
the reformers, had been at Berne. Kunz had possession of the fourteen
articles proposed by Calvin and approved at Zurich, which doubtless
had been intrusted to him because the conduct of the business was
especially placed in his hands. Some expressions made use of in them
had seemed likely to irritate the people of Geneva. Kunz had placed
the articles in the hands of Vandel without the knowledge of the
council.[701] Vandel was a man of good family, and one of the most
violent opponents of the reformers. ‘I believe,’ said Bonivard, ‘that
he was possessed with a demon while yet in his mother’s womb; as is
said of St. John with regard to the Holy Spirit. He was not so tall
as a spindle when he committed homicide, not with his own hand, but
through malice. He and another man killed likewise the bastard son of
a canon. He was a great rake, a glutton and a drunkard, talking and
acting rashly in his drunken fits. His father, a highly respectable
man, had said a hundred times, “Pierre! Pierre! he will never be worth
anything; and would God that immediately after his baptism he had been
dashed against a wall, for he will bring disgrace on our house.” He was
very vainglorious, dressed himself like a nobleman, and was fond of
bragging (_usait de braveries_); for this reason his companions called
him _Bobereau_.’[702] Vandel was very proud of possessing the fourteen
articles; and when he met on his way anyone who took an interest in
the exile of the reformers, and who asked him what was likely to
happen to them, he answered boastfully, according to his wont, but
without entering further into details, ‘I have in my pocket a poison
which will be the death of them.’[703] The ambassadors of Berne were
themselves the bearers of these articles, but they had been instructed
not to read them to the people except in the presence of Calvin and
Farel, that they might have the opportunity of at once setting aside
the mischievous inferences which would be drawn from them.[704] Vandel
was at his post in the general council. Hardly had the deputies of
Berne gone out, when he rose, drew the paper from his pocket, and
began to read the articles of Zurich,[705] as an important piece of
evidence which must cause the rejection of the demand of Berne. When
he had read the document he began to comment on it, putting forward
ill-natured interpretations, and fastening especially on three points
fitted to excite hatred against the two reformers.[706] ‘See,’ said
he, ‘how, in speaking of the Church of Geneva, they dare to speak of
_our_ Church, as if it were their property. See how, in speaking of
the lords of Berne, they call them simply the Bernese, without the
honorary formula,[707] thus with the utmost arrogance putting contempt
on princes themselves. See how they aspire to tyranny, for what else
is excommunication but a tyrannical domination?’ The first two charges
were baseless and almost childish; and as to excommunication, Calvin
remarks that the general council of Geneva had allowed it, July 29,
1537, as ‘a holy and salutary proceeding among the faithful;’ and now
they were horrified at the very word. The question was constantly
arising for discussion whether the Church is not, like any other
society, a union of persons possessing certain common characteristics,
aiming at a certain object and under certain conditions, _a communion
of persons united by a like Christian faith_,[708] or whether it is a
receptacle for everything (_un tout y va_); which of all definitions
would be by far the most opposed to the word of its founder.
[Sidenote: PIERRE VANDEL.]
It had been arranged between Vandel and his friends that, when he
read or commented on the articles, they should support him with their
acclamations, in order to inflame the minds of those present.[709]
This plan succeeded. Cries of displeasure, furious and redoubled,
were soon heard; one might have thought that the harmless articles
were a statement of the blackest conspiracy. The irritation displayed
by these partisans infected the whole assembly. It is well known how
easily the crowd passes from any mood to its opposite. The lungs of a
few passionate men played the part of bellows in setting all hearts on
fire.[710] A spark was enough to kindle a conflagration. The flames
spread from place to place; nothing stood against them, at least in
appearance; and presently the assembly was in a blaze. ‘Better die,’
they shouted, ‘than hear them give us an account of the motives which
have actuated them!’[711]
As soon as order was partially restored, the first syndic, Richardet,
a hot-tempered man, as we know, put to the vote the demand made by
the ambassadors of Berne; or rather, taking a less regular but more
artful course, proposed the rejection of the demand. ‘Let all those,’
he said, ‘who wish that Farel, Calvin, and Courault should not enter
the town, hold up their hands.’ The secretary of the council said that
almost all hands were held up. This secretary was Ruffi, who had been
elected in the place of Claude Rozet on the very day of the banishment
of the reformers. His partiality was manifest in the fact that he wrote
at the same time that the fourteen articles contained some untruths;
untruths which the passionate Vandel himself had not been able to
detect. It was a piece of gratuitous falsehood, and imputations of
that kind do not inspire much confidence in anything that Ruffi might
report. After the voting, the first syndic requested that those who
wished the preachers to be readmitted to the town and to be heard
should hold up their hands. ‘A few were raised,’ said Michel Rozet, ‘to
signify that they wished for the ministers.’ The secretary named two
or three of them, amongst others Chautemps, in whose house Olivétan, a
kinsman of Calvin, had lived; but he added, ‘and certain others, few in
number.’ Timid men, in the presence of the storm which threatened to
break out, thought it prudent to be silent; some courage was required
to face it. In fact, at the mere sight of these few hands raised, a
transport of spite and wrath broke out; they could not endure an act of
independence, which was at the same time, with many there, an act of
respect for the reformers and the Reformation. _The rage was so great_,
says Rozet, _that the first two were compelled to fly_. Many pursued
them; some drew their swords; others, ‘glancing at them fiercely,’
cried out, _Kill them! kill them!_ ‘The majority of votes,’ say the
Registers, ‘decided that the preachers should not again be admitted
into the town.’ The people of Geneva thus adopted a resolution which,
if they had not repented of it, would have prevented light going forth
from that city, and would have thrown an obstacle in the way of its
greatness.[712]
Thus was the matter decided. _Alea jacta est._ The powerful party
which, in their contest with the pope, the bishop, and the princes
of Savoy, had taken for their flag liberty and the truth, and had
transformed Geneva into an evangelical republic, had quarrelled after
their victory, as very commonly happens, and those who did not wish for
the Gospel had remained conquerors. But the citizens, _few in number_,
who had made their voice heard in the general council, were not the
only ones who longed for a Christian republic. This minority gradually
increased, or rather dared to show itself. It continued united,
fervent, determined, active; and to it ultimately the victory was to be
given.