Chapter VI

A FINAL EFFORT OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
(FEBRUARY 10 TO MARCH 1, 1534.)

[Sidenote: Furbity Summoned Before The Council.]

Unequivocal tokens soon made known the change that had taken place. Every one knew that the critical moment had arrived; but that it should be salutary, it was necessary to enlighten the people and set distinctly before them the end which it was proposed to attain. In all that concerns religious questions, the first point is to understand them thoroughly; vagueness always does injury to true religion. The magistrates determined to make clear the points on which the discussion turned, and accordingly the new syndics ordered Furbity to appear before the Council. This body, which had called to their aid the deputies of Berne and the three reformers, invited the monk to prove by the Holy Scriptures, as he had promised, the doctrines he advanced. ‘In the first place,’ they said, ‘you have accused those who eat meat, _which God hath created to be received_,[476] of being worse than _Turks_.’—‘Sirs,’ answered the monk, ‘I confess that our Lord did not make the prohibition of which I spoke; I will, therefore, prove my statement by the decrees of St. Thomas.’—‘Ho! ho!’ said Farel, ‘you pretended to prove everything by the Word of God; you even consented, in the opposite case, to be burnt at the stake, and now ... you give up the Scriptures!’

They did not confine themselves to this question; the lords of Berne proved by fourteen witnesses the other errors preached by Furbity; for instance: that God will punish those who read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, and that Christ had given the papacy to St. Peter. They proved, also, the reality of the abuse uttered by the Dominican against the reformed Christians, except, however, that a _German_ (a Swiss German) was among the executioners of our Lord: it appeared that some wag had invented the story to ridicule the monk. The Bernese declared that, as the monk was, according to his own confession, only ‘a preacher of the decrees of St. Thomas’ and a story-teller, justice ought to have its course.

The Dominican began to be afraid, and offered to apologize in the cathedral for the outrage to God and the lords of Berne. ‘We accept,’ said the premier syndic, ‘and you will afterwards quit Geneva and never return under pain of death.’ The Dominican desired nothing better than to get away as soon as possible.[477]

In consequence of this decision, the Dominican attended by his guard, was led quietly to St. Pierre’s on Sunday, the 15th of February. He was much agitated, walked hurriedly, and his mind was distracted with contending emotions. On reaching the foot of the pulpit, he went into it hastily, and, casting his eyes on the crowd which filled the church, his confusion and embarrassment increased. He saw himself between two powers—the horrible Bernese and the terrible Dominicans—and felt himself unable to satisfy one without offending the other. He tried, however, to recover himself, made the sign of the cross, said the _Ave Maria_, and invoked the Virgin.... The Bernese looked surprised; but it was much worse, when, instead of reading the retractation which the syndics had given him, he began to skim it over, to wander from it, and finally to say something quite different. One of the Bernese called to him: ‘Sir Doctor, you have nothing to do here but to retract,’ and numerous voices immediately seconded the remark. But the monk rambled wider than ever from the question, hesitated, and became confused;[478] many of the huguenots left their places, a great agitation pervaded the church, and the patience of the congregation was becoming exhausted. ‘You are making fools of us,’ they cried out to the monk. ‘Do not stuff our ears with your usual nonsense. Come, a good _peccavi_!’[479] But there was no retractation. A great uproar then arose; some violent men went up into the pulpit, seized the disciple of St. Dominic, and dragged him down roughly.[480] ‘They made the chair fall after him,’ says Sister Jeanne, ‘and he was nearly left dead on the spot’ (the good sister often colors too highly). The catholics quitted the church in alarm, and the doctor of the Sorbonne, having broken his promise, was led back to prison.[481]

The Bernese ambassadors next appeared before the Council, and asked permission for the Gospel to be publicly preached in one of the churches. The syndics replied that it was just what they wanted, and that they would require the Lent preacher to conform his sermons to the Gospel.

[Sidenote: Dominicans And Franciscans.]

The fanatical Dominican, empowered to deliver the Advent lectures, having compromised catholicism, and the council having declared against every preacher who should not preach according to God’s Word, the Genevan clergy determined to make a last effort. They said they must choose a monk of another sort for the Lent course, and consequently turned to the Franciscans, who had often dreamt of a transformation of religious society. There were great differences between these two mendicant orders: the Dominicans were rich, the Franciscans poor; the Dominicans aimed at dominion, the Franciscans at humility; the Dominicans were fossilized in their doctrines and customs, the Franciscans were flexible and had a taste for innovations. They knew how to catch the multitude by their enthusiasm and flagellations, by their insinuating manners and miraculous visions. It is a man of this sort, said the oldest of the catholics, that we want after the Dominican. If Geneva had resisted the roughness of the one, it would be captivated by the flatteries of the other. In this manner the clergy hoped to lead Geneva insensibly back into the arms of Rome.

Father Courtelier, superior of the Franciscans of Chambery, renowned for his eloquence and wit, was invited to come and preach at Geneva during Lent. He arrived on Saturday, the 14th of February: next morning (it was the Sunday preceding Shrove Tuesday) he appeared before the Council. The premier syndic, assuming a duty that was somewhat episcopal, said to him: ‘Reverend father, you must preach nothing but the pure Gospel of God.’—‘I undertake to do so,’ replied the monk, who had been well tutored; ‘you will be satisfied.’ And then desiring to show how accommodating he was, he presented nine articles, saying: ‘This is what I desire to preach;’ adding, as if he was before the college of cardinals: ‘Strike out what you do not approve of.’ The Council, in great part Lutheran, finding themselves converted by the priest into a court of doctrine, ordered the paper to be read. _Invocation of the Virgin Mary_ was one of the articles; _Purgatory_ was another; _Prayer for the dead_; _Invocation of the Saints_.... The huguenots objected, and these four points were struck off the list; but he was allowed to make the sign of the cross in the pulpit, to repeat the salutation of the angel to Mary, which is recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke, and to celebrate mass. The priest returned to his convent with the revised articles.[482]

[Sidenote: Courtelier’s Sermon.]

On Ash Wednesday the reverend superior went into the pulpit and labored skilfully to retain Geneva in the orbit of the papacy. The two chiefs of the Reformation—the layman Baudichon de la Maisonneuve and the reformer Farel—with many of their _accomplices_ (as Father Courtelier styles them),[483] desirous of hearing how the monk would manage to make the pope and Luther agree, had gone to the Franciscan church at Rive (Courtelier had not been admitted to the honor of the cathedral). The monk began by repeating in a sonorous voice the invocation to the Virgin: _Ave Maria_ ..., at which Farel and the huguenots called out so that all could hear them: ‘It is a foolish thing to salute the Virgin Mary!’—‘I do it _by permission of the Council_,’ answered the monk ingenuously, and all the catholics in the congregation, desiring to support their champion, began to cry out: _Ave Maria, gratia plena_! There was such a loud and universal murmur, that Farel, Maisonneuve, and their friends were obliged to hold their tongues.[484]

Courtelier continued, endeavoring to speak at once according to the pope and the Gospel. One sentence contradicted another; what was white one moment was black the next; his sermon was a muddle of ideas without issue, a strain of music without harmony. Farel and his friends soon understood the manœuvre. ‘He is using a cloak to entrap us,’ they said, ‘and will take care not to show his teeth at starting. He gives us drink ... as they did at Babylon, poison in a golden chalice.’ Disgusted with such trimming, Farel stood up and said: ‘You cannot teach the truth, for you do not know it.’ The poor friar stopped short: resuming his courage by degrees and wishing to please the friends of the Gospel, he began to inveigh against both priests and popes. It was now the turn of the catholics; and the Franciscan, noticing their anger and desiring to regain their favor, began once more to vituperate the reformers. Without doctrine, without opinions, he fluctuated between Rome and Wittemberg, and instead of satisfying everybody, he exasperated both parties. ‘We cannot serve God and the devil,’ said Froment with disgust.

The reverend superior now changed his tactics, knowing, as all good Franciscans did, that flies are to be caught with honey, and began to praise the Genevans in extravagant language: ‘Ladies and gentlemen,’ he said from the pulpit, ‘beware how you suffer yourselves to be seduced by the people (Farel and his two friends) who teach you that you and your fathers were idolaters, and that you are being led away to hell. No! you are a noble and mighty city ... you are of good repute ... and worthy people.... Ladies and gentlemen, always preserve your glorious title, and make yourselves worthy of the great name borne by your noble city. Is it not called _Geneva, Gebenna_,[485] that is to say, _gens bona, gens benigna, gens sancta, gens præclara, gens devota_? ... a good, merciful, holy, illustrious, and devout people.... Your name declares it.’ The monk was inexhaustible in extravagant compliments, although he knew very well what he ought to think of the ‘holiness’ of the Genevese, and particularly of the monks and priests.

This final effort of Roman-catholicism in Geneva did not succeed. On the contrary, the huguenots, provoked by his fawning, said: ‘We do not desire to please either gentlemen or ladies,’[486] and moved with firm steps in the path of Reform. Farel, setting aside the manifold ceremonies with which Rome had overburdened public worship, desired to re-establish baptism in conformity with the Gospel institution, as a sign of regeneration. The news spread, and excited great curiosity even among the strangers who were in Geneva. On the 22d of February, the first Sunday in Lent, two Savoyards, Claude Theveron of the mountains of the Grand-Bornand, and Henry Advreillon of the parish of Thonon, were in the Molard, where also a number of Genevans, both catholics and Lutherans, had assembled. ‘Have you heard,’ said one of them, ‘that there is going to be a baptism at Baudichon’s house?’—‘Let us go and see what it is like,’ said the Savoyards; and, following some huguenots, they entered a large hall, which had been contrived by removing the partitions.[487] Some of the seats were already occupied; the two strangers were able to find room, but the later arrivals were compelled to stand near the door. ‘There must be three hundred and more present,’ said Advreillon to his friend. On a raised chair sat a young man with mild countenance and sharp eyes: they were told it was Viret of Orbe; right and left of him were Farel and Froment. A gentleman of the city of good appearance, who seemed to be between forty and fifty years old, showed the people to their seats and watched to see that everything was conducted with propriety. ‘That is Baudichon de la Maisonneuve,’ the Savoyards were informed, ‘the master of the house, and the greatest Lutheran in Geneva.’[488]

[Sidenote: A Reformed Baptism.]

The service then began. Viret’s gentle eloquence charmed his hearers; the two strangers, however, would gladly have seen themselves outside of the assembly into which they had impudently crept; but all the passages were blocked up: ‘We cannot get out,’ said Advreillon, ‘because of the great crowd of people;’ so they made up their minds to stay till the end. As soon as the sermon was over, the two Savoyards were about to leave, when De la Maisonneuve said aloud: ‘Let no one move, a baptism is going to be celebrated here.’ The baptism took place, and Viret added: ‘It was with pure, fair water that John baptized Jesus Christ; to baptize with oil, salt, and spittle as the hypocrites do, is wrong.’ The two strangers, offended by such language, got away as fast as they could.

As many persons had been unable to take part in the service, the huguenots, whose patience was exhausted, resolved to be no longer satisfied with narrow halls, which did not permit all who loved the Word of God to hear it. ‘Jesus Christ commands the Gospel to be preached in all the world,’ said Farel, ‘it must therefore be preached in Geneva;’ whereupon he asked for a church. The Bernese ambassadors undertook to present the petition. ‘Most honored lords,’ they said to the Council, ‘when we and our ministers pass along the streets, people shout after us: “Holla! heretics, you dare not appear in public, you preach your heresies in holes and corners like pigsties.”[489] We have long put up with this, and now we come to ask you for a church. No one will be constrained to hear our preacher; every man will go to the worship he prefers, and thus everybody will be satisfied.’ The syndics, greatly embarrassed, declared they were grieved at the _ignominies_ heaped upon the Bernese, but said it was not in their jurisdiction to assign a pulpit to a Lutheran preacher; that it belonged to the prince-bishop and his vicars. ‘Still,’ they added, ‘if you take of your own accord some edifice in which you can preach your doctrines ... you are strong ... we cannot resist you ... we dare not.’

[Sidenote: Farel And Courtelier.]

The refusal of the syndics annoyed the evangelicals; Farel resolved to have an interview with the father-superior. Did he wish to convince Courtelier, at times so accommodating, that the evangelical doctrine ought to be preached in the churches; or else, convinced, like Luther, that the papacy was a power of Antichrist which resisted the kingdom of God, did he desire to tell the cordelier his mind? We cannot say: perhaps it was partly both. Accompanied by the intrepid Maisonneuve and the wise councillor Balthasar, Farel proceeded to the Franciscan convent. Courtelier received them in his cell, and the reformer having complained that the Gospel truth could not be preached, the monk, instead of making the least concession, took refuge behind the authority of the pope, extolling his holiness’s infallibility and power. Had not Alvarus Pelagius, a Franciscan like himself, declared that the jurisdiction of the pope is universal, embracing the whole world, its temporalities as well as its spiritualities?[490] Had not another monk taught that ‘the pope is in the place of God?’[491] But Farel, instead of seeking his ideas about Rome in the writings of the monks of the middle ages, derived them from the Holy Scriptures, and particularly from the Revelation of St. John. ‘Your holy Father,’ he said to the superior, ‘is the beast whom the ignorant worship. John the Evangelist tells us of a beast with seven heads,[492] which “devoureth them which dwell upon the earth,” and makes war upon the saints, and he adds: _the seven heads are seven hills_, on which it sits. _Seven hills_, do you hear? Everybody knows that Rome is built on _seven hills_. Therefore the holy see is not apostolical but diabolical.’ Courtelier was moved. He remonstrated with Farel ‘as well as he could,’ he says; but the reformer replied, the conversation grew warm, and at last the evangelists, unable to convince the monk, took leave of him. Maisonneuve quitted the cell, annoyed at Courtelier’s blindness, and all three left the convent together.

This energetic argument, which applied the prophecies of the Bible respecting Antichrist to the pope, had already been employed by Luther. No proof excited more anger among the Romanists or inspired the evangelicals with more firmness.

Footnote 476:

1 Timothy iv. 3.

Footnote 477:

_Lettres certaines_, &c. Registre du Conseil des 11, 12, 13, 15
Février, 1534. Froment, _Gestes_, p. 87.

Footnote 478:

‘Vagans et vacillans, sententiæ satisfacere neglexit.’—Registre du
Conseil du 15 Février, 1534.

Footnote 479:

‘Nugis solitus plebis aures suspendere satageret.’—_Geneva restituta_,
pp. 6-9.

Footnote 480:

‘Impostor suggestu deturbatus.’—_Geneva restituta_, pp. 6-9.

Footnote 481:

Registre du Conseil des 15, 16, 20 Février. Froment, _Gestes de
Genève_, p. 88. La Sœur Jeanne, _Levain du Calvinisme_, p. 78.

Footnote 482:

Registre du Conseil des 15 et 16 Février, 1534.

Footnote 483:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, p. 331.

Footnote 484:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, pp. 331-332.

Footnote 485:

The word _Gebenna_ occurs frequently in ancient documents.

Footnote 486:

‘Nous ne voulons plaire, nous, ni à Monsieur ni à Madame.’—Froment,
_Gestes de Genève_, pp. 83-84.

Footnote 487:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, pp. 231, 232, 236.

Footnote 488:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, pp. 233, 234.

Footnote 489:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, pp. 235, 236.

Footnote 490:

‘Jurisdictionem habet universalem in toto mundo papa, nedum in
spiritualibus sed temporalibus.’—_De planctu ecclesiæ_, lib. i. cap.
xiii.

Footnote 491:

‘Papa vice Dei, est omnium regnorum provisor.’—Aug. Triumphus, _Summa
de potestate ecclesiasticâ_, Qu. xlvi. art. 3.

Footnote 492:

Revelation xiii.-xx.