Division Of The Religious And Civil Authorities
On The Question Of The Lord's Supper.
But however sincere a reconciliation may be, it is seldom so
thorough as to put an end to the difficulties which first caused
the quarrel. When Calvin proposed that the past should be
forgotten, and that there should be peace on the approach of the
Lord's Supper, he raised that question which offered precisely
the most serious difficulty to the members of the two hostile
parties. They were still divided as to whether the religious or
the civil authorities had the right of refusing the sacrament to,
and pronouncing sentence of excommunication upon, those whom they
deemed unworthy. Such a difficulty could not arise in any free
country in our own time, or indeed in any country where the
meaning of faith and religious liberty are known. The Lord's
Supper is administered by the religious authorities under a sense
of religious responsibility, and in the name of the religious
belief common to the pastors and their flock. It is for them
alone to decide those cases in which, for religious reasons, they
think it their duty to refuse it; and the civil power has no
right to interfere in this close communion of the conscience of
the priest with that of the believer.
{279}
It is true that ecclesiastics have often abused the right of
excommunication, and have thus provoked tyrannical intervention
on the part of the civil power--like that of the 'Parlement' of
Paris, for example, which occasionally compelled a priest, in
olden times, to administer the Lord's Supper to those to whom he
had refused it. The magistrates of Geneva, from motives of
prudence and to avoid what they called scandal, claimed the same
right; and a short time after Calvin's return they maintained
that they, and not the Consistory, ought to pronounce sentence of
excommunication, and that it was the duty of the pastor to
administer the sacrament to all those authorized by the Council
to receive it. Calvin immediately declared that he would
sacrifice everything and return into exile rather than admit such
a claim. Not that he held any fixed and preconceived doctrine on
the subject; his point of view was not that of a fanatical
theologian, but of a religious ruler. He wrote to Bullinger:
'Since my return to this church we have instituted a kind of
religious discipline which is not perfect in itself, and leaves
much to be desired, but which, on the whole, accomplishes its
aim. A Consistory has been established for the supervision of
morals; it has no civil jurisdiction, and can only restrain
evil-doers in accordance with the Word of God, and as the chief
representative of God,--that is, it can exclude from the Lord's
Supper. ... I know that our friends are not all of one mind upon
this subject; there are some learned and pious men who think that
excommunication is not necessary under a Christian government,
but no sane person would be so infatuated as to condemn and
abolish it where it is already established.
{280}
So far as I am concerned, the teaching of our Lord on this point
seems to me perfectly clear, and I believe you will allow that,
for us at least, it would be a great disgrace and a fatal defeat,
if the edifice of which our Lord has appointed us the guardians
was to be destroyed beneath our eyes.' [Footnote 97] The
Libertines at once saw the advantage which they might derive from
this disagreement between the Council and the Pastors; they
ranged themselves on the side of the Council, and Berthelier, one
of their most violent partisans,--a man whose incredulity and
immorality were known to all,--presented himself at the Lord's
Supper, and was excommunicated by the Consistory. He complained
to the Council, which declared that it would not ratify the
sentence, and that 'if Berthelier had no impediment in his own
conscience which hindered him from approaching the table of the
Lord, the Council authorized him to do so.' 'Gentlemen,' said
Calvin, 'as for me I would rather suffer death than allow the
table of my Lord to be profaned in such a manner.'
[Footnote 97: Stähelin, i. 459, 460.]
The magistrates knew him well enough to feel that these were not
mere words. They were intimidated, and sent a private message to
Berthelier, saying: 'If you can stay away for the present, you
will do well.' But, unlike the magistrates, the Libertine and his
friends had no desire to avoid an open rupture. On Sunday the 3d
of September, 1553, St. Peter's church was filled by a large and
excited crowd; the pastors and elders filled the benches of the
Consistory; the Libertines thronged in the vicinity of the
communion table.
{281}
Calvin mounted the pulpit, and preached with great calmness upon
the state of mind and heart necessary for those who would
approach the table of the Lord; he ended his sermon by saying:
As for me, so long as it shall please God to keep me here, since
he has given me resolution and I have derived it from him, I
shall not fail to exercise it when there is need; and I will rule
my life in accordance with the will of my Master, which is quite
clear and well known to me. ... We are now about to receive the
holy sacrament; and if any one who has been excommunicated by the
Consistory tries to approach that table, at the risk of my life I
am prepared to do my duty.' He descended from the pulpit, and
approached and blessed the table of the Lord's Supper. The
Libertines drew near, and several among them made a movement
forward as if to seize the bread and wine. Calvin spread his
hands over the sacred elements, and cried out: 'You may break
these limbs, you may cut off my arms, you may take my life! Shed
my blood if you will; it is yours! But never shall any one compel
me to give things that are sacred to the profane, and to
dishonour the table of my God.' The Libertines hesitated; they
looked at each other, and looked around them; a murmur which
threatened danger was spreading throughout the hitherto silent
assembly; they drew back from the table, the crowd opened for
their passage, and the sacrament was then administered in silence
to the excited and agitated believers.
{282}
In the afternoon of the same day Calvin preached again: 'I do not
know,' he said, 'if this is not the last sermon I shall ever
preach in Geneva; not that I leave by my own wish, or that I
desire to depart from this spot and to give up the authority
which I hold. But I take that which has been done to signify that
Geneva will receive my services no longer, and will seek to
compel me to do what God does not permit. So long as I am free to
preach and to serve you, I will do it in the name of the Lord;
but if I am forced into an intolerable position, I will not
resist the constituted authorities, and I must go.' Calvin's
conduct had been energetic, but his language was guarded. He laid
claim to his own liberty, asserted his right to act in accordance
with the dictates of his conscience, did not urge others to
insurrection, and limited his resistance to voluntary exile. He
showed himself obedient to the law, and at the same time a
faithful pastor. But the people pronounced in his favour. The
Libertines drew back. The civil magistrates recognised the
difficulty of their position, and did not insist on carrying out
their decision. The discussion between the civil and religious
powers as to the right of pronouncing sentence of excommunication
lasted some time longer; it was occasionally diversified by
tumultuous outbreaks, and there was always a tendency towards
hesitation on the part of the civil rulers and their compromising
allies. At length, on the 25th of October, 1554, the Council
induced Berthelier 'to make peace with the pastors;' and on the
24th of January, 1555, the assembled Councils agreed that it was
the Consistory which ought to pronounce sentence of
excommunication. [Footnote 98]
[Footnote 98: Gaberel, vol. i. p. 425]
{283}