Chapter IX

BAUDICHON DE LA MAISSONNEUVE BEFORE THE INQUISITIONAL COURT OF LYONS.
(FROM 29TH OF APRIL TO 21ST OF MAY, 1534.)

[Sidenote: The Examination.]

The tribunal of priests wished to mark distinctly at the very outset that the Romish doctrine was in question: it was necessary to proclaim anew that _in instanti_, at the very moment, at the priest’s word, there was no longer in the host either bread or wine, but only the body and blood of the Saviour. ‘What do you think of the sacrament of the altar?’ was the first question put by the court to Maisonneuve. He rejected the Roman error; but his protestantism, as we have seen, came from Germany, and the Lutherans taught that ‘in the sacrament of the altar, in the bread and wine, were the true body, the true blood of Christ;’[522] and as, according to the Lutheran doctrine, the presence was spiritual, supernatural, and heavenly,[523] Maisonneuve, who professed this faith and had taken the sacrament at Frankfort in the Lutheran church, answered: ‘I believe that the real body of Christ is in the blessed host,’[524] but knowing the axiom of jurisprudence, that no accused person is bound to criminate himself, he would not declare his faith more precisely.

If this doctrine interested the court, the connection of the accused with the chiefs of what they called _heresy_ had also a great importance in their eyes, and a doctor well known in France had given them great umbrage. ‘Do you know _Pharellus_?’ they asked Maisonneuve, who calmly replied: ‘He is from Dauphiny; he was brought to Geneva by my lords of Berne; and when I hear him, I believe as much of his sermons as seems right, and no more.’ These two answers might have led some to hope that they would exercise clemency towards the accused; but such was not the intention of the canons of St. John. The court declared that the witnesses would be examined on the following day. They were all to be for the prosecution; they might invent, add, or exaggerate, and the prisoner would not have it in his power to produce any witnesses for the defence.

The first who gave evidence was a young working-man, twenty-two years of age, by name Philip Martin, and by trade a weaver. ‘I lived three years in the city of Geneva,’ he said, ‘and during that time the Lutheran sect multiplied exceedingly. I witnessed many armed assemblies and riots, papists against evangelists, by day as well as by night. Among the most prominent of the Lutheran party was Baudichon, and after him Jean Philippe, Jean Golaz, Ami Perrin, who commonly were present at the armed meetings, directing everything and providing for the expenses. About a year ago a canon named Wernli was run through the body; Baudichon was there, armed and wearing a cuirass.’[525] De la Maisonneuve calmly interrupted him: ‘The witness does not speak the truth. When the canon was wounded, I was in this very city of Lyons. I therefore charge him with perjury, and desire that he be taken into custody.’ Martin had borne false witness; this all who knew Maisonneuve at Geneva and Lyons could declare. It was a bad beginning.

On the first of May a fanatical youth, named Pierre, brother of the two Pennets, who had been condemned for assassinating a citizen and conspiring against the liberties of the city, gave his evidence. ‘Baudichon entirely supports this Lutheran sect,’ he said; ‘he is their captain. One day last year he assembled all the Lutherans and armed them to plunder the churches, which ended in the death of four persons sons and the wounding of many others.’[526] This also was false: Vandel, a huguenot, had been wounded in a riot got up by the priests; but there had been no deaths. ‘The witness hates me,’ said Maisonneuve, ‘because one of his brothers was executed by judicial authority.’—‘Baudichon,’ continued Pennet, in greater excitement, ‘instead of fearing the syndics, constrains them to humble themselves before him.’—‘I submit to lose my head,’ exclaimed Maisonneuve, ‘in case the syndics declare that I have ever done them any displeasure.’[527] The court rose.

[Sidenote: Emotion At Geneva.]

All this time Geneva was greatly agitated: the news of Baudichon’s arrest had caused uneasiness among his friends. Men spoke about it ‘in the city and in the fields,’ everywhere, in short. When friends met one another, they asked: ‘Have you heard that Baudichon has been brought before the archiepiscopal court of Lyons for being a Lutheran?’ The devout (if we may use the words of the manuscript) ‘consigned him to Satan, as being the principal cause of heresy in Geneva;’[528] while the huguenots, agitated and alarmed at the dangers that threatened their friend, considered what was to be done. They determined to act immediately and simultaneously at Lyons, Berne, and even at Paris, if they could. Thomas, Baudichon’s brother, started for Lyons at once, and asked for an audience with Monseigneur du Peyrat, the king’s Lieutenant-general. ‘For what reason,’ he said, ‘and by what authority has my brother, Baudichon de la Maisonneuve, been sent to prison?’—‘I do not detain him,’ answered du Peyrat; ‘apply to the vicars general.’ Thomas, learning that his brother was in the hands of the priests, and his danger therefore greater, resolved to make every effort to save him.

Thomas and the Genevans were not the only persons interested in this matter. Baudichon’s imprisonment was an attack upon the rights of the foreign merchants, and compromised the fairs at Lyons. What German Lutheran would come there in future? The inhabitants, especially the innkeepers, tradespeople, and merchants, foresaw great pecuniary loss, and the princes of commerce felt the injury done to one of their number. There was, consequently, a great commotion in the city, and many merchants, ‘as well of the city as foreigners,’ determining to complain of it, proceeded to the _consulate_ (or town-council), to whom they represented, ‘with much grief,’[529] that the imprisonment of Baudichon de la Maisonneuve was an infringement of the privileges of the fairs; and that many merchants had to receive from him certain sums which it was impossible for him to pay now, because he could not collect the money which other merchants owed him. ‘We pray you, therefore,’ they said, in conclusion, ‘not to suffer our privileges to be violated.’—‘Release my brother, _à pur et à plein_, without reserve,’ added Thomas de la Maisonneuve. Four of the consuls seconded the remonstrance.[530] The municipality resolved that Jean de la Bessie, procurator-general of Lyons, and one councillor should demand Baudichon’s liberation of the inquisitional court. ‘My brother,’ said Thomas, ‘is a burgess of Berne and of Friburg, and by virtue of the treaties between the king and the lords of the League, he cannot be made a prisoner in this kingdom.’[531] The priests were determined to pay no regard to the request of the magistrates: a serious incident roused them from their listlessness.

[Sidenote: Bernese Intervention.]

A despatch had just arrived, addressed to Monseigneur the king’s lieutenant-general: it was from the lords of Berne. The lieutenant-general knew well the value of Swiss intervention. Had not four hundred of them, at the battle of Sesia, after Bayard’s death, checked, by their impetuosity and the sacrifice of their lives, the army of the allies? Monseigneur du Peyrat determined, therefore, to support the prayer of the Bernese, and gave the city secretary the necessary instructions. The effect of the despatch was still greater upon Thomas de la Maisonneuve. Now there could be no more delays! Impatient to see his brother at liberty, imagining that he would succeed better by hurrying the affair, he would not wait a day or an hour. He should have considered that haste increases the chances of failure, and that the impatient man compromises both his character and his cause; but he could see nothing but Baudichon’s sufferings and the injury done to the Genevese reformation by his captivity. He was no longer master of himself: he wanted that very instant to deliver his brother from the jaws of the lion. ‘Set him free immediately,’ he said, ‘so that we may be able to answer the lords of Berne by the courier who is ready to return.’ The vicars-general answered curtly: ‘We are in course to order it, as is right.’[532] This cold formula appeared of evil omen to Thomas, and from that hour his fears increased.

On the other hand, Baudichon, informed of what was going on, took courage; and the judges, fully aware that it would not do to condemn on suspicious evidence a man who had such powerful supporters, determined to entice Maisonneuve craftily into some heretical declaration.

On the 5th of May the sergeants once more brought in their prisoner. ‘What are your opinions in regard to faith?’ asked the court. De la Maisonneuve answered: ‘I am a good Christian; if you do not think so, deliver me over to my superiors (the magistrates of Geneva) to examine me.’ But instead of doing so, the vicars-general tried to induce him to explain his ideas on the subject of transubstantiation, feeling sure of catching him in an error. The prisoner only replied: ‘I am not bound to answer you.’ The court tried in vain to induce him to speak: ‘I will not make any reply,’ he repeated. They read to him Janin’s answer on the sacrament, which was (it would appear) very shocking to Roman ears, and asked him what he thought of it; but Baudichon did not fall into the snare. ‘I am no judge,’ he said, ‘and it is not my business to decide whether the answer is good or bad.’[533] Then taking the offensive, he added: ‘If Frenchmen were imprisoned at Geneva for cases analogous to mine, would you be pleased?’—‘You have Pharellus and other Frenchmen there,’ answered the judges, ‘and have not surrendered them to the king.’ The officials of Lyons complained to the man whom they kept in prison because people were left at liberty in Geneva. Baudichon retorted proudly: ‘Ours is a free city,’ and withdrew.[534] ‘They set their traps in vain,’ said a reformer, speaking of the attacks of the papacy. ‘God has victories abundantly in his hands to triumph over them and their chief.’[535]

The judges were greatly embarrassed: they desired, not to release Maisonneuve, but (as he had often been told) to burn him; and yet, as it was impossible for them not to reply, at least by some formalities, to such high and mighty lords as Messieurs of Berne, they gave a certain solemnity to their answer. On Wednesday, the 6th of May, the officials, vicars-episcopal, inquisitors, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, took their seats in front of the main door of the archiepiscopal palace. In public and in the open air they were about to hear the demand of the Swiss, supported by the lieutenant-general of the king. The city clerk, delegated by the councillors of Lyons, set forth the contents of the letters from Berne, and at the same time Thomas de la Maisonneuve presented two substantial merchants of the city as bail for his brother.[536] The cause of the Genevese prisoner was growing in importance: a sovereign state, which the king had every reason to treat courteously, had taken up his defence; the trial was becoming an international matter. The court knew that Francis I. was susceptible, and that it was dangerous to thwart him, as he had shown in the case of Beda. After full examination, therefore, they decreed that they ‘would amply inform the king _our sire_, in order that he may make known his good pleasure, and until his answer arrives, the said Baudichon shall not be liberated; at the same time, he shall be permitted, on account of his business, to speak with those who have dealings with him, in the presence of the jailers of the archiepiscopal prison, who are enjoined to treat him well and discreetly, according to his station.’[537]

[Sidenote: Baudichon.]

Two points were gained; Baudichon was to be treated like a prisoner of mark, and his case was to be laid before the king. The memory of the _estrapades_ of Paris was too recent for the evangelicals to entertain very lively hopes: it was, however, a gleam of light. The judges themselves, feeling that the matter was becoming difficult and success doubtful, undertook to obtain a recantation from Baudichon, which would, besides, be more glorious for Rome (they thought) than a sentence of death. On the 21st of May, therefore, the court having called to their aid two inquisitors skilful in controversy, Nicholas Morini and Jean Rapinati, summoned Maisonneuve before them; when Father Morini endeavored to prove to him out of Scripture the material presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Baudichon understood the passages quoted differently from the doctors. Refusing to stop at the material substance, the flesh (as they did, and also the people of Capernaum who are blamed in the Gospel), he held to our Saviour’s words: _It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life_.[538]—‘I understand these words as well as you, and better, but I will not enter into any discussion. I am not bound to answer inquisitors.’[539] The court, provoked by these refusals, resolved to put the grand question to him: ‘Do you yield obedience to our holy father the pope of Rome?’ To the great disappointment of the vicars-general and inquisitors, he simply replied: ‘I am not bound to answer.’—‘We are your judges in this matter,’ they exclaimed with irritation; ‘we order and summon you to answer.’[540] But he would not; and then, recovering from their emotion, they tried to surprise him by an insidious question.

Alexander, who had preached the Gospel at Lyons with such energy, had just been thrown into prison. If De la Maisonneuve acknowledged him for his friend, they might easily class them together. The judges therefore asked him insidiously, ‘whether Jacques de la Croix, _alias_ Alexander, had not in former times eaten and drunk at his house?’—‘If he has eaten and drunk at my house,’ responded Baudichon, ‘I hope it did him good.’ And that was all. It was impossible to make the prisoner fall into the trap: his good sense foiled all the plots of his adversaries.

Thus did the judges hunt down an innocent man. At that time men set themselves up between God and the soul of man. This was not only an outrage upon human liberty, it was high-treason against Heaven. Such a grave consideration imparts a tragic interest to this trial, and encourages us conscientiously to reproduce all its painful phases. The judge has no concern with the relations of the soul with its Creator. ‘The dominion of man ends where that of God begins.’[541] God does not give his glory to another. Whoever desires to exercise authority over the conscience is a madman; nay, more, he is an atheist. He presumes to move God from his throne and sit in his place.

Footnote 522:

‘Panam et vinum in cœna esse verum corpus et sanguinem Christi.’ _Ant.
Smalcad. Catech. major_, &c.

Footnote 523:

‘Intelligimus spiritualem, supernaturalem, cœlestem modum.’—_Formula
Concordiæ_.

Footnote 524:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 6-9.

Footnote 525:

‘Embastonné et muni d’un allécret.’—MS. du Procès inquisitionnel.

Footnote 526:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 34-41.

Footnote 527:

Ibid. p. 46.

Footnote 528:

‘Le donnaient au diable.’—MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 87-88.

Footnote 529:

‘Fort dolosés.’—MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 52, 53.

Footnote 530:

Henri Guyot, Benoît Rochefort, Pierre Manicier, and Simon Penet. MS.
du Procès inquisitionnel.

Footnote 531:

Ibid. pp. 47-50.

Footnote 532:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 59-61.

Footnote 533:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 62-65.

Footnote 534:

Ibid. pp. 66, 67.

Footnote 535:

Calvin.

Footnote 536:

Thomas Javellot and Loys de la Croix. MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, p.
72.

Footnote 537:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 69-76.

Footnote 538:

St. John vi. 63.

Footnote 539:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 91-94.

Footnote 540:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 95-96.

Footnote 541:

Said by Napoleon I. to a deputation from the Consistory of Geneva.