Chapter VII

GENEVA.--THE CONFESSION OF FAITH SWORN AT ST. PETER’S.

(END OF 1537.)

[Sidenote: GENEVA.]

It was not only in his relations with those Christian men, Megander and Bucer, or with the wretched Caroli, that Calvin’s efforts were crowned with success. Happy presages seemed to announce to him a blessed and powerful ministry at Geneva. His reformation, as we have seen, was not only doctrinal but moral, a fact of the highest importance for the Church and for the people. But, as happens in all human affairs, a few spots sullied this beautiful aspect of his work. Rules were introduced which were too circumstantial, and a mode of repression which was too legal. Calvin found at the time a sympathy on the part of the magistrates which was pleasant to him, but which at the same time intruded the civil power into matters for which the moral influence of the Church ought to have sufficed. All his requests were complied with. He asked, together with Farel, for four preachers and two deacons, and they were granted. He represented that there was a preacher, a good man from Provence, who would fain retire to Geneva; and they gave him a place.[537] One of the most violent politicians, Janin, surnamed Colony, a great lover of novelties, after ardently embracing the Reformation, had thrown himself with his natural impetuosity into the notions of the _Spirituals_ or Anabaptists, and was uttering everywhere audacious speeches on matters of faith. The council requested him ‘not to grieve the preachers,’ and added grave menaces in case he should refuse to be corrected.[538] Another citizen, a hosier, who was suspected of holding the same views, having been exhorted by the pastors and the magistrates, declared that his doubts about baptism had vanished, and took an oath, says the Register, ‘to live as we do.’[539] On October 5, Farel and Calvin announced that they would administer the supper, but ‘that there were some who kept aloof, holding the opinions of Benoît and Herman; and others who still kept their beads, which are implements of idolatry.’ Thereupon the council determined ‘to take away all the beads.’ That was far easier than to take away the faith of which the beads were a sign.

[Sidenote: PARTIES AT GENEVA.]

Nothing could check the zeal of Calvin. On October 30 he presented himself to the council, and set forth various grievances. ‘The hospital,’ he said, ‘is very poorly furnished, and the sick are suffering in consequence. Geneva has a Christian school, and nevertheless some children go to the school of the papacy. Lastly it is to be feared that dissensions will arise between the citizens, for while some have taken the oath as to the manner of living, others have not done so.’ The sick, the young, and peace among the citizens, these were the matters which occupied the mind of the reformer, subjects well worthy of his attention. The council decreed--‘The hospital shall be supplied; all children shall be bound to go to the Christian school, and not to the papistical; and the confession shall be required of all who have not yet made it.’ This last point must inevitably be the most difficult. A conflict was about to begin, and what would be its result? We have just seen that there were in Geneva two parties, more or less considerable, who set themselves in opposition to the evangelical Reformation--the Roman Catholics and the Spirituals or Anabaptists. But there was yet a third party, more respectable and therefore more formidable. The Genevese people were naturally restless, and delighted in freedom and in pleasure. At first they had warmly embraced the Reformation, merely thinking that they should thereby be delivered from their bishop and from the practices which they disliked. But as soon as the Reformation demanded a Christian faith and life, the ardor of the Genevese rapidly diminished. The severity of Calvin and his colleagues chilled the violent ebullition of their zeal. They felt the ordinances imposed on them to be troublesome and exorbitant. Moreover, it was not only the jolly fellows, the lovers of pleasure and the libertines as they are called, who were refractory. It would be a great mistake not to acknowledge that in the ranks of the opposition there were other motives and other men.

We have already related the heroic struggles which had restored to Geneva her freedom and her independence.[540] We did so, less on account of their intrinsic interest than because they exercised a powerful influence, whether for good or for evil, on the Reformation. We have seen how political emancipation permitted and was favorable to religious emancipation. We have now to observe the obstacles raised up by those who, while they rejected popery, did not embrace the Gospel. The Huguenots (that is, as our readers will recollect, the name which was given to the partisans of the alliance with the Swiss Confederation) were divided after Calvin’s arrival. Some of them were friendly to and supported the Reformation; others pronounced themselves against him, and opposed his work. The opposition did not consist merely of men of the lowest rank, vulgar and dissolute. There were on both sides, in the great national party, some generous characters, some honorable citizens. Unfortunately, as the State and the Church were at that time not only united but blended with each other, these two parties were at the same time both right and wrong. The political Huguenots were right with respect to the State, and in error respecting the Church; and the evangelical Christians were right with respect to the Church, and in error with respect to the State. To make the confusion greater still, the true principles of Church and State were at that period very little understood. Many of the eminent citizens who had exposed themselves to famine, pillage, and death for the sake of being free, who had resolved not to have for their master either their bishop, or the Duke of Savoy, or the King of France, or even Berne; who had marched in the van for the political emancipation of Geneva; now asserted their right to enjoy in peace the liberty for which they had so long fought. We have admired them in their heroical struggles. We will not brand them in this new opposition. Politically they were right. In a certain sense they were also right religiously. The religion of Jesus Christ will not be imposed by force, and it rejects all compulsion. In the attempt to establish itself in any town, it refuses alike the intervention of the martyr-fires of the Holy Office and the decrees of a council of state. Jesus Christ said, _Wilt thou be made whole?_ This is not the place for an inquiry into the aids which this will of man receives from on high: we hold simply to the declarations of the Saviour, and we say that man ought to feel the want of the Gospel, and if he does not want it, no one has any right to impose it on him. To act as the syndics then did was to ignore the divine spirituality of the kingdom of God, and to make of it a human institution. Another motive may possibly have contributed to arouse opposition. Farel, Calvin, Courault, Saunier, Froment, and Mathurin Cordier were foreigners, Frenchmen. They had drawn around them their brothers, their cousins, and some of their friends. These foreigners appeared to be taking the upper hand in Geneva, and this hurt the feelings of the old citizens. They wished that Geneva should belong to the Genevese, as France did to the French and Germany to the Germans.

[Sidenote: FAITH BY COMPULSION.]

Calvin having pointed out to the council, October 30, the danger to which the republic was exposed by the existence within it of two opposing parties, it was decreed that those citizens who had abstained, on July 29, from swearing to the evangelical confession, should be called upon to do so without delay; and November 12 was appointed for that purpose. Calvin, Farel, and their friends, who assuredly knew the worth of a voluntary adhesion, did what they could to induce opponents to receive the Gospel with all their heart, and not to separate themselves from their fellow-citizens in a matter of such moment. They urged them with kindness to listen to the good tidings of salvation, and affectionately exhorted them to peace and union.[541] There were indeed some vexatious proceedings. A tithing man (_dizenier_) having in his district two young lads who refused obstinately to answer to the summons, gave them legal notice of the order of the council, and cited them to obey it. Thereupon these two opponents flew into a rage and assaulted him, and for this they were imprisoned. But this was the only case of the kind. Kindliness, however, had little more effect than violence. In vain mild persuasion flowed from the lips of the ministers and their friends; it repelled instead of attracting.

At length November 12 arrived. Each tithing man having called together those of his quarter who had not yet taken the oath, they were conducted to St. Peter’s in groups, tithing by tithing. The looks of the people were fixed on these late comers. They were counted, but the whole number was not large. Many did not come at all; ‘and likewise, of those who lived in the Rue des Allemands, not one came.’[542] This was a blow for the friends of the Reformation. The Rue des Allemands (of the German Swiss) was chiefly inhabited by those who had early declared themselves for liberty, and afterwards for the Reformation, and who had adhered to the Helvetic confessions. When the Genevese Catholics, March 28, 1533, had attacked this party by force of arms, it was in the Rue des Allemands that the reformed were drawn up in order of battle, five in a row. It was there that the most pious had said, ‘There is not one single drop of comfort assured to us except in God alone.’ It was there that all had exclaimed, ‘Rather die than give way a single step.’[543] And now, of all those who inhabited that street, not a single man came! Doubtless some of them had already sworn to the confession. But there were probably some also who objected to the doctrine, and others who, like Desclefs, felt the divine commandments too hard for them to pledge themselves to keep them. But what chiefly repelled these Huguenots was the fact that an act was commanded which they knew they were free to do or not to do. They were determined not to bend under that yoke. After having dared all kinds of hardship for the sake of winning their freedom, they did not intend that, when they had gained it in the state, it should be snatched away from them in the Church. They were more in the right perhaps than they imagined; for it is hardly likely that they fully understood this great principle, ‘The power of the magistrate ends at the point at which that of conscience begins.’ The difficulty was still more increased by the circumstance that ‘those who had refused to swear to the confession, whether Catholics or Huguenots, were among the most influential persons in the city.’ Such is the testimony of Rozet, the secretary of state, who is assuredly a witness above suspicion. But the syndics and their council were no more disposed to give way than their adversaries. They thought that they had as much right to impose that act as to order a military review. On the same day the council decreed ‘that those who will not take the oath to the Reformation must go and dwell in some other place, where they may live according to their fancy.’ Two days later the Two Hundred confirmed the decree, expressing themselves somewhat bluntly, ‘that they must quit the city, since they will not obey.’[544] The bow was tightly bent, and no one was willing to unbend it. The crisis became more violent; a shock and a catastrophe were inevitable. The only question was, who would be the victims.

[Sidenote: OPPONENTS OF COMPULSION.]

The citizens thus lightly banished from their native land by the council could hardly believe their own ears. What! they had delivered Geneva, ‘and will Geneva drive them away?’ Is it resolved that they must forsake their homes, their families, their friends, to go and eat the bread of the stranger? They murmured aloud and stoutly stood out against this strange edict, confident in their strength and their number. ‘There was no obedience at all;’ no one thought of packing up. ‘The hostile band was of such a character that the lords dared not execute their own decree.’ Complaints and threats grew louder from day to day. The most influential men exclaimed--‘The present syndics were elected by means of underhand dealings and intrigues. They have violated our franchises and made an attack on our liberties. There are three or four among them who do just as they will with the ordinary council, and even with the great council. We must take the government of the republic out of the hands of these two councils, and henceforth everything must be managed by a general council. These gentlemen want to reign over us as princes; but it is the people, it is we ourselves, who are princes.’ These powerful malcontents, among whom De Chapeaurouge distinguished himself, sought even to gain over those of their friends who had already taken the oath, and addressed to them the most vehement reproaches. Many of the latter were shaken, and sought to excuse themselves. They laid the blame on the secretary of the town. They reprimanded him (_l’impropéraient_) and blamed him for getting them to swear without knowing what they were doing. Some even of those who had sworn ‘adhered to the rebels.’ All these malcontents excited one another more and more, and they thought of nothing but of securing for themselves at the next election the place of the syndics. The authoritative act of the council was to bring about the revolution.

Ambassadors of Berne were at Geneva at the time on some question of jurisdiction, and the opposition party endeavored to gain them over to their cause. This was not difficult. Calvin and Farel had adhered to the confession of Basel, which was likewise received at Berne. Now adherence to another confession was in their eyes a violation of the first oath. One day, at an entertainment at which the Bernese deputies were present with the magistrates and the notabilities of Geneva, one of the ambassadors said with a loud voice that all those who had taken the oath to the confession of Calvin and Farel were perjured persons. One of the leaders of the opposition, Jean Lullin, who was there, was delighted to hear it and did not fail to publish the rash remark. It seemed to be a giving up of the cause to the opposition, which, proud of finding the Bernese on its side, believed its victory secured. The people began to be restless; and many, whom the council registers call _the mutineers_ cried out in the streets that ‘everything was to be settled in a general council.’ These signs of resistance greatly afflicted the reformers and, says a chronicler, ‘put Calvin about (_pourmenait_) in a strange way.’ Within the walls of Geneva the agitation increased. The day grew dark, and a storm appeared ready to burst forth.[545]

[Sidenote: THE GENERAL COUNCIL.]

The council was deeply moved. Its members were accused of having obtained their seats by illegal practices, and appeal was made to the people. It seemed indeed as if it would be needful for the general council to decide between them and their adversaries. The syndics therefore, on November 23, convoked the Two Hundred to deliberate on the matter. The latter showed themselves determined to support the government. The magistrates in office must not think of resigning, they said, nor attach so much importance to these clamors. ‘All this noise is made by certain people who have no mind to amend their ways and who want to take the place of the syndics.’ Nevertheless, everyone perceived that it was impossible to refuse the convocation of a general council. It was necessary, besides, to name a deputation to Berne to treat of important business. The day fixed was Sunday, November 25. It was agreed to prepare some fair ordinances to be read to the assembled people. The opposition were aiming at getting rid not only of the magistrates but of the reformers. What took place in the council is therefore of great importance. It was the beginning of the counter-reformation.

On the day appointed, the Two Hundred, in order to impart more solemnity to their proceedings, assembled at the Town Hall and thence accompanied the syndics and the council to St. Peter’s church. These magistrates felt keenly the accusations which were spread abroad against them by the opposition; and having a good conscience they wished the people to decide between them and their calumniators. Consequently, when the assembly had been formed, the following _remonstrance_ was addressed to the people in the name of the syndics and the councils.

‘Magnificent, discreet, most dear and honored lords,--

‘The lords syndics whom you have elected according to your custom, as likewise their ordinary council, that of the Sixty and that of the Two Hundred, feel hurt by the talk of some private persons, who speak as if they had charge of the general council, alleging that the said councils were elected by intrigues and have violated the franchises; that it is they (the opponents) who are princes, and that they wish that for the future everything should be transacted in a general council. The syndics and councils desire to learn from you, gentlemen, before they proceed further in the investigation of the matter, whether you allow that. You know whether or not your magistrates were elected by the intrigues of three or four citizens, as they are alleged to have been. You know that the four syndics were chosen by you in general council; and while in time past the ordinary council was chosen by the four syndics, this election, since 1530, has been made by the Council of the Two Hundred.

[Sidenote: PROCEEDINGS AT THE COUNCIL.]

‘Elected thus, the councils ask you whether you will not acknowledge them as your magistrates, that they may continue to exercise the power which God has given them by your general election. They are prepared to submit to punishment with all legal rigor, if it be found that they are in fault; but if it be otherwise, they demand that those who defame them should suffer chastisement, so that God may not be angry with us, nor take away the spiritual lordship and liberty which he has given us by his Son Jesus Christ. Assuredly he has shown us more favor than he ever did to the children of Israel. But it might happen to us as it did to the Romans, who by civil discords of this sort lost little by little the empire which they had acquired over the world, and fell into the bondage in which they still remain.

‘We ought to pray God to send us well-instructed and Godfearing men to administer justice. But if we will treat them with contempt, we shall by-and-by find no one to serve us. Well may the heart of a citizen ache when, after laying aside his private affairs to serve the community, he gets for his reward the censure of those who dread correction and will not obey the lawful authorities.

‘Come then, gentlemen, one after the other, peaceably to give your opinion, _yes_ or _no_, in order that all things may be done well and orderly, to the glory of God and our own great benefit.’[546]

One might have expected that, after this declaration, the leaders of the opposition, De Chapeaurouge and his adherents, would state in due form their alleged grievances. They remained silent. This was an acknowledgment that their accusation was unfounded. They would have found it difficult to assert that the election of the magistrates had been due to the intrigues of a few individuals, in the presence of the people who had themselves made that election freely and honorably. Moreover, ten weeks only had to elapse before the regular renewal of the council; and the opposition did not think that they ought to unmask their batteries so long beforehand. It would be better to employ the time in preparing the change which they wished to bring about. Thus, therefore, after the address of the syndics there was a long silence. After some time De Chapeaurouge rose; but instead of speaking as a tribune who seeks to draw the people after him, he made a remark on acoustics; ‘We cannot hear well,’ said he, ‘the place gives a dull sound.’ There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. In fact, the chief of the opposition pretended that the challenge and invitation of the council had not reached his ears, and that this excused his making a reply. ‘Is a second reading desired?’ said the first syndic; no one demanded it. As the leaders were silent, the youngest and most blustering of their followers began to speak. The opportunity was too tempting not to cry out, and instead of the great piece which was looked for, a little one was produced. Men destitute of culture and acquirements attacked the chief magistrates. One man, who had just come out of prison, flung in the face of the reformers the most absurd accusations. There was an ebullition in the assembly; a tempest in a teacup. The young people caused this first outbreak of excitement, which they show in their pursuit of pleasure and which they easily transfer to public affairs. Claude Sérais, a tailor, one of those who in February had played at _Picca-Porral_, came forward and laid a complaint against Ami Perrin, who enjoyed great respect. It was he who had accompanied Farel the first time that he preached (in 1534) in the convent of Rive. He had not heartily embraced the Reformation, but he was still associated with the reformers. ‘Perrin,’ said Sérais, ‘said that there are traitors at Geneva, people who speak ill of the preachers. He said that Porral was a good man.’ As Porral was a great friend of the Reformation, he was at least as hateful to these people as Farel and Calvin. ‘I replied to him,’ said Sérais, ‘that if he were so, he had no occasion to bring Farel to the prison, to preach to us as if we were thieves who were to be prepared for death.’ ‘Yes,’ cried one of those who had been in prison with Sérais, Jacques Pattu, ‘yes, they brought Farel to prison and he told us that he would sooner drink a glass of blood than drink with us.’ Scarcely had he let fall these strange words, when Pierre Butini mounted on a bench and cried out, ‘The franchise has been taken from us by the Porrets (Porral’s friends), for we were seized, many good men, without informations and without plaintiffs.’--‘I complain,’ resumed Pattu, ‘that they gave me the halter without cause,’--‘I complain,’ said Sérais, further, ‘that Claude Bernard told me that I would not go to hear Farel preach.’--‘Let the others speak now!’ cried Baudichon de la Maisonneuve, annoyed at Sérais beginning over again. But the friends of Sérais cried, ‘And we, we will have Baudichon hold his tongue.’ Then Etienne Dadaz, resuming the series of grievances, said, ‘I complain that I have been sent to prison and accused of meaning to sell the town.’--‘Thou oughtest to be silent,’ said the syndic Goutaz, ‘for thou hast brought from France articles designed to make us subjects of the king.’ On which Dadaz replied, ‘It is not I who made them, it is M. de Langey who gave them me.’ This was certainly not justifying himself, for Langey was a minister to the king.[547]

[Sidenote: CONFUSED COMPLAINTS.]

The most reasonable of the leaders saw that they must put a stop to these turbulent complainings, which were ruining their interests. The former syndic, Jean Philippe, a friend of freedom and courageous, but also rash and leading a loose life, began to speak, and, addressing the secretary of the council, Rozet, accused him of having caused the confession to be sworn which he declared he had not sworn. This was not escaping from the question, but plunging into it. This was the master grievance of the opposition, and the matter to be investigated. ‘We did ill to swear it,’ said Jean Lullin. ‘The ambassadors of Berne have told us that we were perjured.’ De Chapeaurouge himself, who at first had kept silence, getting enraged with the secretary of the council, Rozet, who had caused the confession to be sworn, accused him of being ‘a witness of Susanna’ (that is to say, a false witness). ‘Gentlemen,’ said the respectable Rozet, with much feeling, ‘I have served you long, and I have neither done wickedly nor borne false witness; and here is De Chapeaurouge making me out to be a _witness of Susanna_!’ Chapeaurouge replied, ‘You told me, before the syndic Curtet, that you had no conscience at all.’ Curtet answered, ‘I never heard that;’ and everyone began to laugh. Jean Philippe, a clever man, then made a proposition which he thought likely to satisfy the opponents. He wished to place the syndics under guardianship. ‘Gentlemen,’ he said, ‘it would be a long task to listen in this place to all these plaintiffs and to provide for them. It seems to me better that we should choose, in general council, twenty-five men.’ These were twenty-five superintendents whom he wished to set over the syndics and the council, as representatives of the people. ‘That done,’ continued Philippe, ‘these gentlemen will hold their Little and Great Councils, and the plaintiffs shall be heard before all.’ Naturally, Philippe wished these twenty-five to be of his party. The syndics understood and were indignant. ‘Do you mean, then,’ said they, ‘to have men set over us?’ The crafty Philippe did not lose the thread. ‘Not _men_ over you,’ he said, ‘but the general council is over all.’ Then, like a very tribune, he turned boldly to the people. ‘Gentlemen,’ said he, ‘do you not intend that the general council should be supreme over all?’ Instantly the cry was heard from all sides, ‘Yes, yes!’ The opposition succeeding thus in getting the people on their side, the days of the party in power were numbered. The syndics hastened to cut short. ‘Now then,’ said the syndic Curtet, let us talk of business.’[548]

It then occurred to them that the general council had to appoint deputies to go to Berne. The three leaders of the opposition, Jean Philippe, Ami de Chapeaurouge and Jean Lullin, were proposed by the council itself, which would much rather see them at Berne, where they might support the cause of the republic, than at Geneva, where they were making war on the government. But the three opponents saw through the trick. ‘For my part,’ said Lullin, ‘I have an excuse which prevents my going.’ ‘I hold to what was decreed,’ said Philippe, ‘that those who have begun the business should go thither to complete it.’--‘I say the same,’ added De Chapeaurouge. The three conspirators (if we may give them such a name) will therefore spend the winter at Geneva, and they will not be idle there.

[Sidenote: VINDICATION OF THE REFORMERS.]

The angry recriminations, the rash charges, and the turbulent movements of this council came to the ears of the reformers, and the report gave them much pain. The next day therefore, November 26, when the Council of the Two Hundred assembled, Farel and Calvin appeared before them. The former said, ‘Sérais accuses me of having said that rather than drink with him, I would drink a glass of _his_ blood. Now what really passed was this. One of them having said to me, You wish us no good, I answered, I wish you so much harm that I would willingly _shed my blood for you_.’ Then coming to the essential point; ‘I have heard,’ continued Farel, ‘that they call those _perjurers_ who have sworn the confession. If you examine carefully its contents, you will find that it is made in conformity with God’s Word, and is adapted to unite the people. You have not sworn to anything else than to hold fast faith in God, and to believe in his commandments.’ One of the members said, ‘It is not we, it is the deputies from Berne who spoke of perjury.’--‘We should very much like to know when they did so,’ replied Farel, astonished. ‘They spoke of it at table, in the presence of people,’ said the syndics Curtet and Lullin. ‘We offer to maintain this confession at the cost of our lives,’ replied the reformers. The syndics, beginning to fear lest the murmurs of the people should be excited, entreated the preachers to be careful that this business might end well.

The discovery that the lords of Berne blamed them in the affair of the confession was a very heavy blow to the reformers. If that powerful city should unite with the party of the opposition, the Reformation would be in great danger. They were not long in finding that their fears were not unfounded. The Bernese, who intended to act as if they had the superintendence of the Church of Geneva, wrote to Farel and Calvin--‘It has come to our knowledge that you, Calvin, have written to certain Frenchmen at Basel that your confession has been approved by our congregation, and that our preachers have ratified it, which will not be proven (_ne constera pas_). On the contrary, it is you and Farel who have been consenting parties to sign our confession made at Basel, and to hold to it. We are amazed that you should attempt to contravene it. We pray you to desist from the attempt, otherwise we shall be compelled to have resource to other remedies.’[549]

It was supposed at Berne that the two confessions differed, while in fact they were fundamentally the same; and the lords of that city believed that if Geneva had a confession of her own, their ascendancy would be risked. That young Frenchman, who had arrived only the year before, had a soul, as they thought, too independent. He was ready to break the ties which bound Geneva to the Swiss Churches. Calvin saw how matters stood. He felt that it was necessary to enlighten the Bernese about the confession of Geneva, and therefore set out immediately with Farel for Berne. The two reformers represented to the council that the confession which they had prepared, so far from making them perjurers, confirmed the confession of Basel. At the same time they presented it to the Bernese senate. That body had it examined, and it was pronounced to be very good. ‘We are going to send ambassadors,’ said the Bernese lords, ‘and they will declare to your general council that the words spoken by our deputies were not uttered in our name.’ The satisfaction made was brilliant. The reformers had gained their cause.[550] They returned to Geneva without delay; and having been received, December 10, in the ordinary council, they communicated to it the happy issue of their journey.[551] But there were at Berne certain persons who desired to see the Church of Geneva placed in subordination to that of Berne. The projected embassy might baffle their schemes, and they resolved to prevent it. For that purpose they did not shrink even from blackening the reformers. They asserted that the Genevese preachers had said in their sermons that _all the mischief_ came from Germany! (that is to say, from German Switzerland, from Berne). The Bernese changed their mind, and wrote to Geneva, ‘that they would not send ambassadors.’[552]

[Sidenote: THEIR VINDICATION AT BERNE.]

Calvin and Farel were struck with astonishment. The letter from Berne had arrived on December 13. On the morning of the 14th they went to the council and asked that the Two Hundred might be convoked for the afternoon. Before that assembly they repeated that after having heard them, the Bernese magistrates had declared that ‘the thing (the confession) had been well done.’ As to the charge of having said that _all the mischief came from Germany_, they pointed out, that as ambassadors were about to be sent to Berne, they ought to be instructed to ascertain who it was that had reported such things. The council determined that Farel himself should go to Berne with the ambassadors, and should make inquiry.[553]

The deputies of Geneva, charged with the defence before the Bernese government, of certain interests of state, were Claude Savoye, Michel Sept, Claude Rozet, secretary of the council and father of the chronicler; all of them true friends of the reformers and the magistrates; and Jean Lullin, who had at last consented to form part of the embassy, and who was the only member of the opposition.[554] They went to Berne with Farel; and the latter having given satisfactory explanations, the Bernese magistrates wrote, December 22, to Geneva, ‘that they and their preachers had found the Genevese confession to be according to God’s will and the Holy Scriptures, and thereby in conformity with their own religion.’ They added, ‘Set then these matters in good order. May dissensions cease, and may the sinister intrigues of the wicked be confounded.’[555]

Would the passions which actuated one part of the Genevese people allow them to follow such good counsel? They were not to wait long for an answer to this question.