Chapter VIII: Troubles in Geneva

(JAN. AND FEB. 1538.)

[Sidenote: AGITATION IN GENEVA.]

Six days later, December 28, Farel and Calvin appeared before the council, and stated that they were about soon to celebrate the Lord’s supper, and requested to be sustained in their _admonition to those who were leading evil lives_.[556] An exhortation to live well had nothing revolting about it. If a man is living ill, it becomes a duty to entreat him to live well. That is most of all the duty of faithful pastors, especially on the approach of the supper. But what need had the ministers of being _sustained_ by the magistrate? This request transformed a religious act into a matter of civil business, and thus totally altered its nature. The answer to be made to the reformers was put off until the return of the delegates sent to Berne. This step of the reformers was irritating to those who supposed they would be among the subjects of the admonition. Claude Sérais, who had a free tongue, that source of all debate, said daringly in the presence of a numerous company, ‘Farel is a bad man.’[557] Others took part with him in censuring the ministers. They indulged in detraction, in aspersions, in cutting speeches; they cast about in all directions for anything which might be taken amiss. It was but a small fire at first, but little by little it spread far and wide. On January 1 and 2 (1538) the council was occupied with the affair, and resolved that ‘those who had circulated insults against the preachers about the town should be taken before the lieutenant, at the instance of the attorney-general.’ ‘We shall see,’ they said, ‘who is bad, and the bad shall be punished.’[558] The preachers made no complaint; but it was their unfortunate application to the council which had given occasion to these insults. This agitation would certainly not have arisen had each pastor, in conformity with the precept of Jesus Christ--‘Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone’--addressed those who were blameworthy kindly and privately. One fact, however, exonerates the preachers: they were not at liberty to act otherwise than they did. The state had resolutely placed itself above the Church, and was intermeddling with matters which pertained only to the pastors. If the latter had rebuked some citizens without the consent of the council, they would certainly have been liable to rebuke themselves. The fault was above all with the magistrate. Geneva sailed for some years on a high tide of _Cesaropapia_ (government of the Church by the state).[559]

On January 3 the reformers presented themselves again before the council. They did not come to complain of the insults to which they had been subjected. They proposed a nobler object, the union of all the members of the Church in the same faith and the same charity. They drew a vivid picture of the discord which was increasing day after day, and of the divisions which were fomented in the republic by restless and factious spirits; and they represented that one of the best methods of applying a remedy would be to keep the disturbers away from the supper. ‘As it is determined to celebrate it on Sunday next,’ they said, ‘we are of opinion that, those persons should not be admitted. On this point we desire the opinion of the council.’[560]

[Sidenote: THE CHURCH AND THE STATE.]

This exclusion proposed to the senate is one of the gravest facts in the reformation of Geneva, and it kept up excitement in the city for nearly a whole generation. Wherein then were the reformers right, and wherein were they wrong? A society is a collection of men who, while differing on some matters, are in agreement on the subject which is the very essence of their union. A society of financiers is not composed of people who know nothing of money matters. It is not the unlearned who are admitted to a learned faculty. A regiment is not recruited with one-armed men. Men who know nothing of French are not elected to form the Forty of the Academy. It is just the same with Christian society. Its members may differ in many respects--political, literary, social, etc.--but Christian faith must actuate them all. A Jew or a Mohammedan does not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ; and a man who rejects the facts, the doctrines, and the duties of Christianity is not a Christian. ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’ says a common proverb. Ought the reformers to ignore such an elementary truth? There were still some Roman Catholics at Geneva; there were the so-called _Spirituals_, many of whom did not believe even in the immateriality of the soul; there were also a great number of citizens who did not consent to the faith as set forth in the confession made at St. Peter’s. Should such a confused mass, in which it would be impossible to know where one was, form the Church of Geneva? Should that Church be

‘De tant d’objets divers le bizarre assemblage?’[561]

Would it not in such a case remind one of certain monsters, which are spoken of by the ancients, possessing a conformation which was against nature? The reformers were with the truth when they answered No. But where they were wrong was in requiring all the citizens to take an oath to their confession. Was it possible for them to fancy that the act by which Geneva had broken with the pope had transformed, as by the stroke of the enchanter’s wand, all the Genevese, so that from that moment they all believed heartily, and ought all to make confession with their lips? _Nascitur homo, fit Christianus_, said Tertullian in the second century. One _is born_ a man, but one _becomes_ a Christian. To pretend that all those who belonged to the state belonged at the same time to the Church was irrational. To decree that those who would not take the oath to the confession should depart from the city and go elsewhither was iniquitous. What, drive from Geneva the men to whom Geneva owed her independence! Such an enormity could not fail to lead to a revolution. The fusion of the Church and the state in a single society is the origin of those blemishes which in some instances disfigured the otherwise glorious work of the Reformation. But how to settle the dilemma? how admit two contradictory propositions? How to exclude and to keep at the same time?

The early Church accomplished this. It had its ἀκροώμενοι, _audientes_, hearers. Instead of excluding those whose faith was not yet formed, it invited them lovingly to hear the preaching of the Word. They attended the service and joined in the prayers, without taking part in the mysteries of the Lord’s supper, which they shrank timidly from approaching. And when in their experience that great process of the Christian life was accomplished of which St. Paul speaks--_Faith cometh by hearing_--they shared the communion at the sacred feast. Perhaps Geneva was not yet ripe for this order of things.[562]

The council assembled the Two Hundred to consider what answer should be made to the reformers. Since the scenes which had taken place in the council of November 25, the syndics had become more timid. They dreaded whatever might provoke the people and drive them on to any rash proceeding, and they felt less inclined to support the reformers. A letter was read from Berne which bore approving testimony to the confession, and exhorted to concord. Three of the members who had not sworn the confession--De Lesclefs, Manlich, and Ameaux--were urged to do as others had done. The first two took the oath required; Ameaux alone refused. The council then believing that they had gone far enough, recoiled from a measure which might have grave consequences, and determined ‘not to refuse the supper to any one.’[563]

Thus did the magistrates give a flat refusal to the ministers. It was a lesson for Calvin and his friends. This decision was contrary to their convictions; but as they knew that the council was at heart friendly to the Reformation, they did not feel bound to oppose its will. They gave proof of moderation, conciliation, and patience. Some will perhaps say that they pushed these virtues too far. They yielded. That is not the crime of which they are commonly accused. The supper was celebrated, and there was no disturbance.

[Sidenote: DISORDERS.]

But although the communion passed off in an orderly manner, troubles arose afterwards. The opposition party looked on this general admission as a triumph for them; and as they saw that the representations of the ministers were no longer listened to by the councils, their audacity increased. Again were seen bands of men, consisting of the least respectable classes of the people, parading the city with green flowers in their hats. They indulged in acts of violence; they annoyed those who had sworn to the Reformation; ‘they drew their swords and terrified others into flight.’ The taverns were thronged with these people, who ate and drank to excess. Puns and sarcasms were showered on all sides. Even holy things were turned into ridicule. Just as St. Paul addressed his Epistles to his _brethren in Christ_, so the evangelical Christians of the Reformation gave each other that title. The wags had noticed it, and did not fail to laugh at it. ‘A party of drunken men,’ say the Registers of January 16, ‘went in the night through the town and to the wine-shops, mocking the preachers and saying to each other, ‘_Thou art one of the brethren in Christ_,’ and other things of the like kind. These mockers having come to the Lord’s supper, to which all were admitted by order of the Council, gave themselves in jest the name of _brethren_. Jean d’Orbe said to Claude Jaccard, ‘Art thou of the _brethren in Christ_?’ and swearing a great oath, he added, ‘Thou wilt repent of it.’ Many persons, alarmed at these disorderly proceedings, trembled for the general council which was to be held fifteen days later. ‘Many a sword-thrust will be given there,’ they said, ‘so that we shall not wish to go.’ The discord which prevailed in Geneva agitated also the neighboring country districts. The Council of the Two Hundred was deeply affected by all these reports, and determined to have inquiry made and to punish the guilty. The measure which the council adopted in order to prevent disturbances was precisely that which actually gave rise to them.[564]

All these things greatly afflicted Calvin, and he had at the same time other sorrows to bear. A man of mild disposition, with a spirit given to contemplation, on which the incessantly renewed struggles to which the reformer was called made a most painful impression, was at that time living in intimate friendship with him. Louis du Tillet, canon and archdeacon of Angoulême, had been first won to the Gospel by the lively piety of Calvin, whom he had followed to Switzerland, to Italy, and to Geneva. But by slow degrees a perceptible difference grew up between the master and the disciple. In Du Tillet’s view the doctrine of the Church was the essential matter, and the re-establishment of the apostolic Church ought to be the aim of the Reformation. ‘Let us protest,’ said he, ‘against the abuses of the Roman Church, but let us re-establish the Catholicism of the first centuries. It is there that lies hidden the Christian germ; let us beware of arresting its developments. The Reformation, unless it is to disappoint the fair hopes which it has excited, must re-establish in the world the one holy, universal Church. The only way open to us for accomplishing the work which the state of Christendom claims at our hands, is to go back to the beginning, and to re-establish the Church of the first ages. Alas! fatal discords are already threatening to make division in the new Church. May the hand of God recall her from this error, and establish her on the foundation of the apostles and the fathers. The Reformation must not, while highly exalting Jesus Christ, too much abase the Church. Let us take care that the torrent which we turn into the stables to cleanse them do not carry away the walls and the foundation. The reform of the Church must not become its annihilation. Assuredly the Catholic Church is the pillar of the truth, and the consent of this Church is the infallible support and the full assurance of the truth.’[565]

[Sidenote: LOUIS DE TILLET.]

Calvin was at no loss for an answer to his friend, the Old Catholic. He pointed out to him that where falsehood reigns there can be no Church; that the state of the papacy, although it might still hold some remains of truth, was such that those who abandoned it did not create a schism. He added, that we could not wait until the papacy reformed itself; that the councils assembled in the fifteenth century, and even earlier, for the purpose of working out that the reform, had all failed. He insisted that it was not to Catholicism of the first five or six centuries that we must return, but to the Gospel--to the sacred writings of the apostles--in which the truth was taught in its purity. Calvin maintained his thesis with energy, nay, as he said, with rudeness.[566] Driven from point to point, hesitating between the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and that of the councils and the fathers, melancholy and pining, Du Tillet secretly quitted Geneva, adopted the resolution of re-entering the Catholic Church, and told Calvin so.

The reformer wrote to him, January 31, 1538, with moderation and humility, but at the same time firmly. ‘What afflicts me most of all,’ he said to him, ‘is the fear of having hurt your mind by my imprudence, for I confess that I have not exhibited in my intercourse with you the modesty which I owed to you. I cannot, however, conceal from you that I was greatly astonished on learning your intention and the reason which you assign in your letters to me. This change, so suddenly made, seemed very strange, considering the constancy and the decision which you displayed. It is separation from the Church to join ourselves to that which is contrary to it.’[567] This did not prevent Du Tillet from again becoming and remaining a Roman Catholic.

[Sidenote: THE TWO PARTIES.]

However, Calvin’s attention was at this time attracted and absorbed by other objects. The disturbances which were agitating Geneva did not arise exclusively from religious doctrines. The opposition wanted to get into power; and if it succeeded, the days of the Reformation were apparently numbered. The leaders acted prudently, but they could not restrain the restlessness of their adherents. There were two entirely distinct parties in the republic. The one aimed at any cost to take the government out of the hands of the syndics and councillors who favored the reformers, and to occupy their place; the other wished to appoint magistrates who would persevere in the course on which the council had entered. The two parties were now face to face. The attacking party marched to the assault with decision and much noise, determined to come to blows if necessary. ‘Insults and outcries were multiplied throughout the town, both by night and by day.’[568] Excitement was daily becoming more intense. ‘Next Sunday syndics are to be appointed,’ it was said; ‘there will be strife; we must go to the election in arms.’ One of the most furious of the opponents, who carried leeks in his hat, cried out, ‘To-day we are wearing _green_ gillyflowers, but the day will make plenty of _red_ heads.’[569] These symptoms alarmed not only the aged and the sick, but also moderate men, who are sometimes a little timid. To make use of menaces in order to keep citizens of the opposite party from voting, is commonly enough the practice of a blind demagogy. It gained its end. These violent speeches greatly grieved the pastors. Fearing that blood would be shed, they appeared, February 1, two days before the election, before the Council of the Two Hundred, and made a wise (_belle_) remonstrance. The lieutenant of police, Henriod Dumolard, one of the champions of freedom, who enjoyed general respect, confirmed these fears ‘from good information.’ The council determined to imprison those who had threatened to shed blood, and to take other measures for the purpose of preventing on the appointed day either tumult or conflict.

But if the violent members of the opposition injured their influence, the abler men dealt effective blows at the order of things established by the reformers and the magistrates. They called to mind the ancient franchises of Geneva and the battles fought in their defence. They showed that the bishop himself had not required of them so positive an adhesion to doctrine, nor imposed on them ordinances so harassing in respect to morality. Under the pretext of aiming at the maintenance of freedom, these men acquired high esteem among the people.[570] They wished, nevertheless, so they said, for reform. Doubtless they did. But if we may judge by their opposition to the confession and to discipline, they wanted a reform without either faith or law. Such was not that of Calvin; and this alone, in the grand crisis of the sixteenth century, and in the midst of attacks so numerous and so varied, could make Geneva a strong and invincible city. The vital doctrines of Christianity, which are the salvation of the individual, are likewise necessary to the prosperity of nations. This is proved by great examples. Geneva without the Gospel, without Calvin, would not have won the sympathy of the evangelical nations, nor would she have possessed the moral force to surmount great perils. Weakened, enervated, and corrupted, this city would soon have lost her independence, as all those free cities of the Middle Ages in Italy and elsewhere did. These were one after another compelled to stoop under the sword of their neighbors and under the yoke of Rome. A free people must have a religion of high quality (_de bon aloi_). To invite the nations to cast Christianity out of their bosom, as some rash or criminal voices did, is to invite them to put to death liberty, morality, and prosperity. It is to preach suicide to them.

[Sidenote: ELECTION OF SYNDICS.]

Was Geneva, then, going to make trial of it? February 3, the day of election, at length arrived. The opposition, which was at the outset a minority, but a minority of the inflexible kind which generally wins, had succeeded in persuading the people that if they wished to keep their liberties they must change the government. The council general assembled in the cloisters of St. Peter’s, and the first syndic said, after the customary formalities--‘The election of syndics is a matter of so great importance, that it will be enough to occupy us to-day without any other business. Let everyone give his vote peaceably, and let no one be so rash as to stir up disorders, either by word or by sword. Any man who does so will be sent to prison, and will afterwards be punished according to his desert.’ The Two Hundred, according to custom, presented eight names, and the council general was to retain four of them. Two secretaries were at hand to enter the votes; and presently the citizens, coming forward group by group, gave their votes. Of the eight candidates the people chose three who had put themselves at the head of the opposition, and whom the impartiality of the Two Hundred had led them to present with the others. These three were Claude Richardet, who, with furious gesture, had declared that they would not get him to go to prison; Jean Philippe, who had proposed in the council general to name twenty-five citizens to watch the syndics; and Jean Lullin, who had accused the council of violating the franchises. These three enemies of the new order of things were named syndics. But there must be four of them. The opposition intended that the fourth should likewise be one of their party, but it did not find another set down in the list of the council. Regardless of the rule on that point, they chose a citizen who had not been proposed by the Two Hundred--De Chapeaurouge--who had greatly compromised himself by the vehemence of his speeches against the reformers. On February 4 and 5 the election of councillors as assistants to the syndics was conducted in almost the same spirit.

The victory of the opposition was complete. A great revolution had been wrought in this small city. The citizens had come to a decision of such a character as must excite disturbances and prepare the way to their ruin. This soon became apparent among the lower classes. The election was followed, especially at night, by noisy promenades, licentious songs in the taverns, insults and blasphemies. At Geneva, as in France, the song was one form of opposition. The people feasted, drank, and made songs on their enemies. Thus these lawless subjects had their triumph after their own fashion. But Calvin and Farel did not hesitate to present themselves before the council in which their antagonists sat, and to demand the suppression of these disorders. The new syndics were the most decided of the citizens in the sense opposed to the reformers; but they were intelligent men, and they had no wish that the mischief should run to an extreme. History, moreover, gives us many examples of a change effected in individuals by accession to power. Sometimes an ecclesiastic vehemently opposed to the encroachments of the Roman see has been made pope, and he has thereupon become the most thoroughgoing papist. The magistrates had no wish to compromise themselves at the outset by making common cause with the libertines; they therefore ordered that justice should be done at the demand of the pastors. The sound of the trumpet was heard in the streets, and the officer of the council cried, ‘No one shall sing indecent songs containing the names of the inhabitants of Geneva; no one shall go into the city without a candle after nine o’clock at night; no one shall create excitement or strife, under pain of being imprisoned on bread and water, for three days for the first offence, six days for the second, and nine for the third.’[571] Immediately after its election the new council had given a proof of moderation and impartiality. Jean Jacques Farel, a brother of the reformer, having replied to the threats of the opposition that he would go armed to the council general, had been sent to prison by the council formed of his own party. After the new election Farel interceded for his brother, and the new council, in its session of February 5, released him, because he had, according to the Registers, already remained three or four days in prison. The blustering fellows thought it very strange that the magistrates, who set Farel’s brother at liberty, should reward them, the men who had placed them in office, by prohibiting songs at their tables, in the midst of their cups, which were so delightful to them. But notwithstanding these appearances, the revolution was none the less profound and decisive; and it is doubtful whether, even after the trumpet-blast, the disorders ceased.

[Sidenote: MONTCHENU AT GENEVA.]

The conduct of the syndics with regard to those who had preceded them showed immediately that they did not lose sight of one of the chief objects of their election. A Frenchman, the Seigneur de Montchenu, being at Geneva, caused letters to be sent to three Genevese councillors, Claude Richardet, Claude Savoye, and Michel Sept, in which it was stated that if the Genevese would become subjects of the King of France, he would leave to them their usages and liberties, would fortify their city, and answer for them when attacked. Berne took alarm on hearing this, and cautioned the Genevese to be on their guard. When the councils met they ordered answer to be made to the French agent that Geneva would no more entertain such projects, and decreed that every Frenchman found wandering on the territory of the republic should be expelled. It was not easy to treat the letter which had been written to them as a crime on the part of the three Genevese, especially as the first to whom it was addressed was Claude Richardet, then syndic, the fierce enemy of the ministers and the priests. Nevertheless they found means of employing these letters without taking Richardet into account. He, however, was not only compromised, like the other two, in having received a letter, but there was one grave fact against him. Montchenu having presented himself by night, with some horsemen, at the gates of Geneva, Richardet, syndic at the time, went to them at their request, ordered the great gate to be opened, and introduced the Frenchmen into the city. Montchenu having proposed to Richardet to go to supper with him at the Tête-Noire, he declined. When he was subsequently called upon by Claude Savoye to explain this circumstance in the council, Richardet stated that he had thought that Montchenu was going on an embassy into Germany to bring soldiers for the king. If this adventure had happened to either of the other Genevese who had received the letter, Claude Savoye, for instance, what would not have been said? But Richardet was as innocent as his compatriots. A Genevese does not betray his country. For the rest, he assured the council that he had had no intention but to please it.

Whatever the fact may have been, on the proposition of Monathier, one of the most violent members of the party then in power, the council suspended Claude Savoye and Michel Sept from their functions until this business should be cleared up. It has been remarked that, to take advantage of their ascendency in order to get up any bad case against their antagonists, was a traditional propensity which Genevese parties had too long indulged.[572] Similarly, three of the former syndics and a councillor were suspended on account of charges brought by people of doubtful respectability. In this way the new government secured a majority in the Council of the Two Hundred.[573] A pitiful victory of party spirit! Everyone was eagerly hunting up grievances against the fallen magistrates.

[Sidenote: CONFUSION OF CHURCH AND STATE.]

It appears that Calvin blamed this proceeding, and, holding it to be contrary to justice and to truth, called it the work of him whom the Scriptures name _the father of lies_. Hereupon it was determined to warn the preachers that they must not intermeddle with the business of the magistrate, but preach the Gospel.[574] Calvin felt this deeply. Is not justice also in the Gospel? Ought not a minister to demand it? So much hostility was at that time exhibited against the reformers by the majority of the Genevese, that the Bernese themselves, when they came to Geneva to oppose Montchenu, undertook their defence. Farel was accused of having said at Berne, ‘There is strife at Geneva because one party wants the mass and another the Gospel.’--‘Farel never said such a thing,’ said the Bernese to the general council; ‘we beg you to treat him with favor, for he has freely made known the Gospel.’ Certainly Calvin, Farel, and all the pastors ought to set an example of respect for the authorities. But the state and the Church were then so closely united that they were almost confounded with one another; and as the magistrates themselves dealt with religion in their councils, it is not to be wondered at that the ministers should speak of the proceedings of the councils in their sermons. The independence of the temporal and the spiritual was as yet far off. It must not be forgotten that it was for Geneva a creative epoch. Magistrates and reformers were working at the organization of the State and the Church. Moreover, in this business morality was in question, and no wonder that the ministers of God thought that morality was within their province. But the magistrates looked on the matter in another light, and did not intend that anyone should give them a lecture. Calvin was fettered not only in his preaching but still more in the discharge of his pastoral duties. ‘In general,’ he wrote to Bullinger, February 21, ‘we are looked on here as preachers rather than pastors. We cannot have a Church that will stand unless the discipline of the apostles be restored.’ However, he had not lost hope. ‘There is much alteration which we earnestly desire,’ he further wrote to his friend at Zurich, ‘but which can be effected only by our applying ourselves to it with faith, diligence, and perseverance. Oh, that a pure and sincere agreement might at length be established among us! Would there be any obstacle in the way of the meeting of a synod, at which everyone might propose what he believed to be useful to the Churches?’[575]

Having lost all hope in the institutions of the state, the reformer turned his attention to those of the Church. So long as sincere friends of the Reformation had been in power, Farel and Calvin had displayed a spirit of concession even on important points. When the council, for instance, had determined that the supper should not be refused to anyone, they had yielded. But now, when they saw at the head of affairs men who were opposed to order in the Church, they no longer felt it their duty to yield. They will not allow the state authorities to organize the spiritual body at their will. They will contend against notions contrary, as they think, to the Word of God. They will contend against them by their prayers and efforts, and by their resistance. The moment is come for them to say with Luther, I can do no otherwise (_Ich kann nicht anders_). There was enough in such a resolution to arouse a storm. But other blasts, not less impetuous, and blowing from other quarters, were soon to assail the reformers.