Chapter XII

SENTENCE OF DEATH.
(JULY 1534.)

The judges and priests, though determined to free the Church from such a dangerous enemy by pronouncing the capital sentence upon him, resolved to make a last effort to obtain a condemnatory confession from him. The procurator-fiscal, looking at Baudichon, said: ‘Considering the arrogance and temerity of the accused, considering that he is not sufficiently attainted by the witnesses, we order that he be _constrained_ to answer _concerning his faith_, and to that end be put to the torture.’ The noble-minded citizen was to be exposed to the horrible torments practiced by the inquisitors, but there were no instructions as to the kind of torture to be employed.[578] De la Maisonneuve was imprisoned under the roof. Was the order of the Court carried out? That is more than we can tell; we have discovered nothing relative to his punishment; we can only find that he was treated in a harsh and cruel manner. Appearing before the Court on the 13th of July, he complained strongly of the indignities to which he had been exposed. ‘They have behaved tyrannously to me,’ he said, ‘and shown me much rudeness and cruelty.’ The judges answered that he had no grounds of complaint, and that if he wished any favor he had only to answer concerning his faith. ‘If I were to remain here a prisoner all my life,’ said Baudichon, ‘I would never answer you, for you are not my judges.’[579]

The Court then resolved to try if they could not obtain from him some semi-catholic formula which would authorize them to publish his recantation, or, in default of that, some very heretical declaration which would justify their burning him. A few words uttered with the lips were enough for certain judges to give life or death. Evangelical Christianity prescribes an opposite way; words will not satisfy it: truth must penetrate into the depths of the heart and abide there by means of a thorough assimilation which transforms man to the image of God. But, above all, it protests against constraint; and to those officials, those inquisitors who imagine they are helping the cause of truth, it exclaims: ‘Leave to God what belongs to God!’ This was Maisonneuve’s opinion.

[Sidenote: Charges Against Baudichon.]

The Court and the canons of St. John, having failed to obtain any confession from Baudichon, resolved to call a witness before them who, they thought, must crush him. At their request, the Bishop of Geneva, who was then at Chambéry, desired father Cautelier, superior of the Franciscan convent, to proceed to Lyons and give evidence against the prisoner. On the 18th of July the monk appeared before the Court, and declared that ‘he had preached daily at Geneva all through Lent, doing the best he could; that he had known Baudichon, notoriously reputed as a favorer of the Lutheran sect, and one Farellus, a very bad man, who preached that heresy, and others more execrable still, of which he was the inventor; that one day, being unable to obtain a license for Farellus to preach, Baudichon came up with his accomplices; that, in the presence of a very great multitude of people, he declared he would have Farellus preach; that thereupon some of his party went and rang the bell three different times, and that in the same monastery where he, Cautelier, had preached in the morning, the said Farellus preached publicly, according to his accursed doctrine, which he continued to do all through Lent, wearing a secular dress.’ Then, speaking of the visit made him by Maisonneuve and Farel, the father superior continued: ‘They asserted that the pope is the beast of the apocalypse, and that the holy see is not apostolical but diabolical; ... and Baudichon was so transported with rage and anger, that he would have set the monastery on fire.’[580]

De la Maisonneuve was then brought in. The two great adversaries met face to face and kept their eyes fixed on each other. The energetic huguenot, speaking with calmness, almost with disdain, said: ‘I know that witness; he is a bad man.... He preached several heresies at Geneva, and excited much disturbance among the people.’—‘Heresies!’ exclaimed the astonished judges. ‘What heresies?’ An heretical father superior! that was strange indeed!—‘If I was at Geneva,’ answered the accused, ‘I would tell you, but here I shall say no more.’[581]

At the same time the crafty monk had with him a weapon which, he thought, must infallibly procure Baudichon’s death. Pierre de la Baume, in his quality of bishop and prince, had given him a sealed letter addressed to the judges, praying them to send the culprit to him, or at least, to treat him with all the rigor of justice. Coutelier handed it to the Court. The bishop informed his ‘good brothers and friends’ that Maisonneuve had already been convicted of Lutheran heresy (this was five or six years back), that he had done penance, and promised him, his bishop, that he would not go astray again. ‘Cum nemini gremium ecclesia claudat,’ continued La Baume, ‘as the Church shuts her bosom against no one, I was content to pardon him, but threatened him with the stake in case of relapse.’ It is possible that De la Maisonneuve may formerly have had some conversation of this sort with the bishop, who took advantage of it. The law threatened very severe penalties against such as relapsed; they were not allowed a trial, and were delivered up immediately to the secular arm to be put to death. ‘I beg you to transfer him to me’ continued the bishop, ‘to execute justice upon him to the contentment of _God and the world_, and the maintenance of our holy faith.’ But a rivalry worthy of Rome existed between the Bishop of Geneva and the primate of France; each wished to have the honor of burning the Genevan.[582]

The struggle was natural. The affair had all the more importance in the eyes of the bishops and priests inasmuch as Maisonneuve was guilty of a blacker crime in their opinion than that of Luther and of Farel. He was a _layman_, and yet he presumed to reform the Church. The clergy believed that the intervention of the laity was the most menacing circumstance possible. A great transformation was going on: opinion was changing; as the understanding became enlightened, it condemned abuses and reformed errors. One of the evils introduced by catholicism, aggravated still further by the papacy, had been to nullify the faithful in religious matters. It was endurable that a bishop should go to war; but for a layman to have anything to say in the Church was inadmissible. This perversion of the primitive order was pointed out by the reformers: in their eyes the despotism of priests was still more revolting than the despotism of kings. A man might, they thought, give up to another man his house, his fields, his earthly existence; but to give up to him his soul, his eternal existence, ... impossible! One of the forces of protestantism was the influence of the laity; one of the weaknesses of Roman-catholicism was their exclusion from the direction of religious interests.

The Bishop of Geneva thought that, by putting that powerful layman, Maisonneuve, to death, he was dealing the Reformation a heavy blow. The officials of the archbishop-primate of France thought the same. There was no doubt what would be the fate of the proud Baudichon: it was only a question whether the flames of his funeral pile should be kindled at Lyons or Chambéry. The judges consequently asked him if he desired to be sent to Chambéry to be tried by the Bishop of Geneva; and the prisoner declared that he preferred remaining in the kingdom of France. De la Baume gave way, but insisted that the Court should make haste and punish such a turbulent man. ‘Chastise him,’ said the bishop, ‘according to the good pleasure of the king, who has shown in his letters that he is quite inclined that way. Nay, more, you will do a very meritorious work before God.’ The Court accordingly began their preparations for offering up the sacrifice.[583]

[Sidenote: Proceedings Of The Magistrates.]

The magistrates of Geneva had not remained inactive. On the 23d of June the syndics and council of the city wrote three letters: one to the king’s lieutenant, another to the burgesses of Lyons, and a third to Diesbach and Schœner, ambassadors of Berne at the Court of Francis I., declaring they thought it ‘very strange that Messieurs of Lyons should wish to give the law to Geneva.’[584] The vicars-general were not much alarmed: they hoped that the intervention of Francis I. would be limited to forbidding Baudichon de la Maisonneuve to be tried for acts committed in his own country. Still they judged it prudent to make haste.

The Court now resorted to its final, solemn, and triple summons.[585] ‘Baudichon de la Maisonneuve,’ said the president, ‘we adjure you to answer concerning your faith under pain of excommunication.’ The Genevan was silent. Thrice the same question was put, thrice there was the same silence. At last, when the president added: ‘Are you a Christian?’ he replied: ‘You are not my judges, and never will be. If I were before the syndics of Geneva, I should answer so that every one would be satisfied.’ He declared, however, that he was ready to enter into explanations immediately concerning any offence he was accused of committing in France; thus showing that he desired merely to maintain the rights of his people and of their magistrates. The Court would not consent: they no doubt understood that mere table-talk was not sufficient to cause a man to be burnt. Once more they refused him a counsel. ‘If you can write,’ they told him, ‘we permit you to set down with your own hand whatever you please, and we will hear you tomorrow.’ He declared he could not do it without access to the minutes of the proceedings; to which the Court answered, that the proceedings must be well known to him.[586]

[Sidenote: The Sentence.]

The inquiry was over; De la Maisonneuve was returned to the care of the archbishop’s procurator-general, and the next day, the 18th of July, he was taken before him. That personage rose and said: ‘Baudichon de la Maisonneuve, being manifestly convicted of the crimes and offences mentioned in the indictment, is by us pronounced heretical, a great abettor, defender, and protector of the heretics and heresies which at present swarm so greatly, and as such he is remitted to the secular arm.’[587]

They were in haste to finish. There was a rumor that the king would deliver the prisoner: they must, therefore, hurry on the sentence and execution. On the 28th of July the Court held its last sitting. Two inquisitors were on the bench, and the final sentence was pronounced:

‘Baudichon de la Maisonneuve,’ said the Court, ‘you have been fully convicted of having affirmed at Geneva and elsewhere many heretical propositions of the Lutheran or Œcolampadian faction;

‘Of having been the chief promoter and defender of that sect;

‘Of having protected the impure Farel and other persons, propagators of that perverse doctrine;

‘Of having refused to answer in our presence concerning your faith;

‘We therefore declare you to be heretical, and the chief fautor and defender of heresy and heretics;[588]

‘Consequently we deliver you over as such to the secular arm.’

This was the formula employed by the ecclesiastical tribunals in pronouncing the capital sentence. De la Maisonneuve appealed to the king, to the legate, to any proper authority, and was led back to prison.

The Church, having a horror of blood, delivered Baudichon to the civil magistrates that they might take the life of that high-minded man: the captain of the Lutherans was condemned to death.[589] For a long while people at Geneva, Lyons, and elsewhere, had been every day expecting that he would be burnt.[590] Now there could no longer be any doubt about his fate: the sentence was lawfully pronounced. The priests triumphed, and the evangelicals awaited a great sorrow.

Many burning piles had already been erected in France, Germany, and elsewhere, and Christians more earnest than Maisonneuve, but not freer or more courageous, had perished on them for their faith. Were the persecutors always influenced by cruelty and hatred? Were the vicars-general, the canons of St. John, the archbishop-primate of France—all of them thirsting for blood? No doubt there were malignant fanatics among them, but it would be unjust to form so severe a judgment of all. Some of them were upright and perhaps benevolent men, to whom the words uttered upon the cross might be justly applied: _Forgive them, for they know not what they do_. Atrocious as are the deeds of the persecutors in the sixteenth century, they easily admit of explanation. A religion convinced of the truth of its dogmas considers it to be its right and duty to combat the errors which destroy souls (as it believes); and, if it is allied with the civil power, makes it a virtue and a law to borrow the secular sword to purify the Church from contagion. The fault of such judges—and it is a great fault—is to put themselves in the place of God, to whom alone belongs the dominion over conscience; to forget that religion, being in its nature spiritual, has nothing to do with constraint, and can be propagated and received by moral convictions only. The sword, when religion determines to grasp it, easily becomes insensate and ruthless in her hands. _Put up thy sword into the sheath_, said Jesus to Peter; and those who call themselves Peter’s successors have been always drawing it. The ground is so slippery, the gulf so near, that, besides the thousands of cases in which the Church of Rome during the sixteenth century suffered that great fall, two or three instances may be quoted in which even protestants have stumbled.

Three centuries have corrected such lamentable aberrations; we no longer erect scaffolds, but tribunals, dungeons, and exile still coerce religious convictions. What must we do to destroy forever such evils in all their ramifications? The most effectual remedy would seem to be the separation of the spiritual and temporal power, the destruction of the links which still unite the ecclesiastical with the civil power. The doctrine which condemns those fanatical murders has long prevailed all over evangelical Christendom; at Rome the acts are tempered, but the principles remain. Modern civilization is waiting for the time when salutary modifications between the Church and the State will take from the former, everywhere and forevermore, the possibility of again grasping the unholy sword which has poured forth such torrents of the most generous blood.

Footnote 578:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 260-262.

Footnote 579:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 303, 304.

Footnote 580:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 324-327.

Footnote 581:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 335-338.

Footnote 582:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 345-349.

Footnote 583:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, p. 338.

Footnote 584:

Registres du Conseil des 10 et 23 Juin et 7 Juillet, 1534.

Footnote 585:

Friday, 17th July, 1534.

Footnote 586:

MS. du Procès inquisitionnel, pp. 339-343.

Footnote 587:

Ibid. pp. 350-354.

Footnote 588:

‘Hæreticæ pravitates et hæreticorum maximum defensorem et
factorem.’—The sentence is in Latin in the MS. du Procès
inquisitionnel, pp. 431-435.

Footnote 589:

See the letter of Francis I. to the Council of Geneva in the archives
of that city.

Footnote 590:

Froment, _Gestes de Genève_, p. 242.