Calvin and the Independence of the Church 9783666570216, 9783525570210, 9783647570211

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 25

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Herman A. Speelman

Calvin and the Independence of the Church

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-57021-0 ISBN 978-3-647-57021-1 (E-Book) Supported by St. Afbouw Kampen and Van Coevorden Adriani Foundation, Free University Amsterdam. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: Druck und Bindung: a Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Contents

Foreword by Erik de Boer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Translator’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Chapter 1. The Church in Bern after 1528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Church in Bern after 1528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Church in Bern after 1532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 22 38

Chapter 2. Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church 1536 – 1538 and 1541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The state of the church between 1536 and 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 61 103

Chapter 3. Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church from 1559 to early 1562 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Formation of Local Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The National Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Political Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143 145 152 180

Chapter 4. “We were right to follow the Genevans”: Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands 1572 – 1578 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Motive and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578 3. Responses to the synod of 1578 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

209 211 222 236

Chapter 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

247

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

. . . .

. . . .

6

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

259

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261

Sixteenth-century Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

281

Other Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

285

Geographical Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

289

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Foreword by Erik de Boer

It is nearly twenty years ago that Herman Speelman successfully defended his thesis, written in Dutch, at the Free University in Amsterdam. Since the book was printed before the defence, as is customary in the Netherlands, no stimulus remained for publishing possibilities afterwards. However, this is a study on which the author could have written at least four important articles in the English language to disseminate his findings. Since his involvement in ministry and missions did not leave room for further studies, it is very worthwhile that an English translation of the thesis as a whole has now become available. A tale of two cities and two countries The central question of this book is what measure of independence the church should have over against the state, especially in the thought of John Calvin and his followers. Herman Speelman paints four pictures – two diptychs in fact – which help to take a close look at the question. The first painting is of the church in Bern since 1528 of which Geneva was largely dependent. Comparable with it is the second picture, that of Geneva during Calvin’s first period and in the year of his return (1536 – 1538, 1541). How did he draw the contours of the church in the city, governed by Christian men? Over against Bern, Calvin pleaded for more jurisdiction with regard to admittance to the Lord’s Supper. Yet, the tale of the two city states is basically the same: there is no vision of a church which is free of the state. The third historical picture, painted skilfully by Speelman, is of the Reformed churches in the kingdom of France. Its counterpart panel is the establishment of the Reformed churches in the Low Countries. The ecclesiastical organization, documented in the church order of Paris in 1559, has a high degree of independence. Still, Calvin held on to his ideal of the reformation of the church of France until a very late date and did not support the course of a too early choice for a minority position. The second diptych is completed with the fourth panel, showing the development of the relation between the state and the organized churches in the Netherlands. The Dutch Calvinists chose for independent gov-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

8

Foreword

ernance with support from the government bodies. This primacy of the church over the state could, however, not claim the authority of Calvin. The tale of two countries thus forms the second half of this intriguing book.

The shepherd metaphor This is a church historical inquiry which should be taken up in further studies on the ecclesiology of John Calvin, the French Calvinists around 1560, and the developments in Europe in the latter part of the sixteenth century. Speelman’s thesis can derive support from Calvin’s handling of the relation between office bearers in state and church in his biblical exposition. On the basis of the New Testament the biblical metaphor of the shepherd and the flock has been applied to Jesus Christ and his church, and also to the office of the pastor and elder over against the congregation. In preaching on the Old Testament and in line with this, John Calvin, however, first applied the image of the shepherds to princes and magistrates. He did so, for example, in the seven sermons he preached on Ezekiel 34 in the first week of January 1554.1 The shepherds of Israel, addressed by the word of the Lord, were ‘the governors who had the task to lead the people well, and who are called shepherds (pasteurs) by way of comparison (par similitude), as the word is common to all languages to point to those who have a public office, either as magistrates or as ministers. Even pagan people attribute this title to kings and princes’ (f. 372a).2 In other words, ‘We have said that he [the prophet] understands here both the magistrates and governors of justice, and the priests and prophets who have the spiritual reign over the church of God. Not without good reason this title is conferred to both of them (f. 372b). Calvin supposed that both regiments were addressed in Ezekiel 34. In church were also present the Genevans who were elected in one of the administrative or judicial offices to govern the city. In all seven sermons magistrates and ministers are addressed. ‘For if this is true in the earthly governance (la police terrienne), there is even stronger reason that in the spiritual regiment of the church only God reigns and that such pasturing comes from him’ (f. 396b on Ezek. 34:15). 1 BibliothÀque Publique Universitaire, Manuscrit franÅais 22, f. 372a – 443a. The sermons were held from Monday 1 to Friday 5 January, on Wednesday 10 and Tuesday 15 January 1554. Calvin’s sermons on Ezek. 1 – 15 and 23 – 35 have been transcribed from the manuscripts, but of the critical edition only the volume on Ezek. 36 – 48 has been published (Supplementa Calviniana, vol. X/3: Sermons sur le Livre des Revelations du prophete Ezechiel. Chapitres 36 – 48, ed. Erik A. de Boer – Barn‚bas Nagy † (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006). 2 Cf. also on f. 380a: ‘Or cependant il nous doibt souvenir de ce qui a est¦ traict¦, c’est asÅavoir, quand il nomme les pasteurs, qu’il comprend tant les magistratz que les juges, comme ceulx qui ont le regime spirituel de l’Eglise de Dieu, et ce nom se doipt approprier — tous les deux, comme il sera veu plus — plain cy apres’.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

9

Foreword

The twofold structure of God’s governance has remained the same after and through the fulfilment of the David of Ezekiel 34, verse 24. In Jesus Christ, the good Shepherd, the King and High Priest are one person. ‘For he is the King who must reign over us, this is the true Priest, unique and eternal, who reconciles us with God, his Father, this is the Prophet who declares us his will’ (f. 405b). The threefold office creeps in while Calvin is preaching on the prophecy of ‘my servant David’. It is through the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ that Calvin also applied the shepherd metaphor to the office bearers in both state and church in the era of the coming of the kingdom. The religious duty of the state It is in the context of the sermon on Ezekiel 34:20 – 25 that the one direct reference to the trial against Michael Servetus appears. The sermon happens to be dated January 5 of the year 1554. The second half of the previous year was dominated by the Servetus trial. During the trial and in the days of the final verdict Calvin had not addressed the matter of civil policy from the pulpit. Was it the Christian state which was acting in its own right or was the church the driving force? The question how to deal with heresy and this specific case would remain a matter of clashing opinions. Calvin was preaching on chapter 34 of his continuing series on Ezekiel. Speaking of the fulfilment of the prophecy in Jesus Christ, Calvin referred to what the devil has done to wipe out the article of faith that Jesus Christ is the real seed of David. Christ’s real humanity has been negated in ancient heresies ‘as if he did not have the real substance of a man’. Others have spoken of a heavenly body, different from our bodies. ‘And we see again how Satan has done his utmost to renew such abominations, such as that heretic who was punished in this city (comme ceste hereticque qui a est¦ puny en ceste ville)’ (f. 407b).3 Calvin proceded by describing Servetus’s thoughts on the (eternal) body of Jesus Christ, imprinted on the virgin Mary, thus being God in his divine essence. Then he returns to his text, stating that Jesus is the real (seed of) David, that is truly human. The rest of the sermon is dedicated to the unity and universality of the church. The executed heretic is not mentioned again. The fact that the preacher kept silent on the trial against Servetus and did not mention his execution on 27 October 1553, may stun the modern reader. The reference to ‘that heretic’ in the sermon of 5 January 1554 seems both casual and brutal. Yet to Calvin the Servetus trial was a matter of ‘la police terrienne’, to which the ministers rendered their service. The magistrates acted as they were expected to act in the legal tradition of the Holy Roman empire. Whoever denied the doctrine of the holy Trinity undermined the basis of the Christian society. 3 See my analysis in SC X/3, XLIV – XLIX.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

10

Foreword

The point of mentioning the Servetus case in this preface to Herman Speelman’s book on the historical development of Reformed ecclesiology is this the distinction between ‘la police terrienne’ and ‘le regime spirituel’ was part and parcel of Calvin’s Institutes (although the double use of the metaphor ‘pasteur’ is missing there; III 19.15; IV 20.1). Calvin’s silence in all-but-one of his sermons and his one-and-only casual reference to Servetus during one homily is another historical fact which begs explanation to help our understanding. It is a tribute to dr. Speelman’s craftsmanship in displaying the four historical scenes, related to John Calvin’s vision of state and church. Erik de Boer Chair History of the Reformation at Free University Amsterdam / Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Preface

Over the course of the last few years, I have regularly been asked whether, or when, an English translation of my dissertation Calvijn en de zelfstandigheid van de kerk (Kampen: Kok, 1994) would appear, so that the results of my research might become available to a broader audience. Although over the course of the last decades elements of Calvin’s ecclesiology have indeed regularly been treated elsewhere1, my book remained the only monograph-length study offering a new, comprehensive perspective on Calvin’s ecclesiological ideal in terms of the church’s relationship to the government. The need for such a work to be made available in the English language was similarly witnessed in my colleagues’ encouragement to pursue the possibilities for translation. This study deals with a central question in the intellectual history of the sixteenth century : to what extent can Calvin be regarded as responsible for the tendency in Calvinism or, broader, in Reformed Protestantism, to form a church which has its own ecclesiastical organization and office bearers? So far, claiming a great deal of independence for the church has been considered an important aspect of Calvin’s legacy. In this line of reasoning, it is assumed that Calvin was a strong opponent of the church as a state organization that did not have its own governing body and power of excommunication. Different from what many have argued in the preceding centuries of scholarship, Calvin’s ideal did not lie in a vision of the church as completely independent of the government or that had its own power of excommunication. Instead, Calvin advocated a very modest form of ecclesiastical independence, from which later Calvinists would diverge. The pursuit of more independence occurred first among the French Calvinists and was later adopted and further developed by the Dutch churches. Calvin’s ideas and those of his followers about 1 See, for example, Botha: 2000, Bush: 2000, Hwang: 2001, Kingdon: 2001, Wright: 2001, Kim: 2002, Selderhuis: 2002, Haight: 2005, Kingdon: 2007 f, Mentzer : 2008 and Plasger : 2009, as listed in the bibliography.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

12

Preface

the independence of the church differ in some important respects, so that by the second half of the sixteenth century two Calvinist views of the church had emerged. My hope for this study is indeed that it will be able to contribute to the increasingly global field of Calvin studies. The Dutch original of this work was dedicated in loving memory to my fatherin-law Huibert Boer, who unexpectedly passed away on the day I completed the manuscript, with the following line: ‘It is in me that Christ will find his final resting place’. This English translation I would like to dedicate to the Theological University in Kampen, in recognition of the inspiring manner in which it on the one hand seeks to balance its scholarly and ecumenical activity, and on the other hand pursues a piety rooted in church and society, directing itself in both to unity in God. Kampen, Easter 2013

Herman A. Speelman

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Translator’s Note

Translations of translations – in this case, my English translation of the author’s Dutch translation of original German, French, or Latin texts – are always subject to their own set of difficulties. For the present work, I have chosen to use existing, published translations of Calvin’s works wherever they were available – although I did silently adapt them in some cases where I deemed it necessary for the sake of accuracy, or to bring the text more in line with the author’s interpretation of it in his dissertation. Quotations were taken from the following works: BATTLES, FORD LEWIS (trans. and ed.) (1975), Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition, rev. ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. – Institutes (1536) = CO 1:9 – 248. HESSELINK, I. JOHN (ed.) (1997), Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, With a Translation of the Catechism from Ford Lewis Battles, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. – “Genevan Catechism” (1538; Latin) = CO 5:313 – 62. OLIN, JOHN C. (ed.) (1966), A Reformation Debate: John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto, New York: Harper & Row. – Reply to Sadoleto (1539) = CO 5:385 – 416. REID, J. K. S. (trans. and ed.) (1954), Calvin: Theological Treatises, Library of Christian Classics 22, London: S.C.M. Press.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

14

Translator’s Note

– pp. 26 – 33: “Genevan Confession” (1536/1537; French) = CO 9:693 – 700. – pp. 48 – 55: “Articles Concerning the Organization of the church and of Worship in Geneva” (1541) = CO 10a:5 – 14 – pp. 58 – 72: “Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances” = CO 10a:15 – 30. – pp. 88 – 139: “The Catechism of the Church of Geneva” = CO 6:1 – 134. For Calvin’s commentaries, I have made use of the nineteenth-century Calvin Translation Society series. Finally, for the French Confession of 1559, commonly known as the Gallican Confession, I have consulted: SCHAFF, PHILIP (1877), The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, New York: Harper & Brothers (pp. 356 – 82). All other translations of original quotations are my own, styled according to the author’s Dutch rendition of these passages. Spring 2013

Albert Gootjes

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

General Introduction

The question which this monograph seeks to address is the extent to which Calvin must be considered responsible for the tendency of Calvinism, or Reformed Protestantism in general, to establish a church with its own organization and office bearers, a church with a great degree of independence also with respect to the state. The general consensus has been that the church’s independence indeed forms an important part of Calvin’s legacy. This prevailing opinion is in turn based on the presupposition that Calvin was by way of principle an outspoken opponent of the church as a function of the state, and that he supported the notion of a church with its own form of government and its own power of excommunication.1 The present study will test this hypothesis by way of a concrete, historical analysis of the relationship between church and state as it existed in Bern, Geneva, France, and the Dutch Republic. The question we need to consider throughout is how much room the views of Calvin and his followers left for the church’s independence, and how they attempted to realize their ideals in the establishment of particular forms of organization. In order to achieve this end, we will first consider the position of the church in Bern’s city state. As of 1526, this powerful city entertained a special alliance with neighbouring Geneva. Early in 1536, Geneva, aided by Bern, would fight to maintain its independence against the Savoy, and in a general assembly of 21 May 1536 it publicly declared itself in favour of the Reformed cause. Only months later, in September 1536, Calvin began his ecclesiastical career there at the age of twenty-seven. Bern had already joined the Reformation in 1528, when the city council also appropriated for itself what formerly were the prerogatives of the episcopacy. The council delegated the responsibility for admonishment and discipline in matters of marriage and morals to a Chorgericht or Consistorium,2 a civil committee that was made up of four (later six) council members and two pastors. 1 See chapter 2, n.2. 2 See chapter 1, n.44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

16

General Introduction

After Bern was defeated at Cappel in October 1531, however, its reform efforts met a crisis. Nevertheless, the city council refused to relinquish control of the reigns when it came to matters pertaining to the Reformation. Bern at that time counted over two hundred preachers, the majority of whom were former priests. It is thus hardly surprising that during the crisis that followed October 1531, many pastors openly railed from their pulpits against the government’s current policies on religion and politics. The peasant population reacted in December 1531 with an act of protest and petition addressed to Bern’s city council, indicating that they had had enough of the pastors’ activities. The government called a synod that all Bernese pastors were obliged to participate in. The goal of this synod was to establish a degree of clarity on three points in particular : the leadership in the church, the duties of the pastors, and the exercise of church discipline. In January 1532, the church and government managed to reach an agreement. For the present study, an important question is whether there were significant differences between the organization of church life in Bern early in the 1530s and Calvin’s view of the church as he attempted to give it shape in Geneva – and, if there were indeed differences, how great these differences were. Did Bern or Geneva, for example, have a ‘church’ in the sense of an independent body, an institution that could form a counterbalance to the government? In the second chapter, we will consider how Calvin gave shape to ecclesiastical life in Geneva, both during his first stay there from 1536 to 1538, as well as at the beginning of his second Genevan period as pastor to the city late in 1541. In 1536, the Genevan government was faced with the task of shaping church life anew. The mass was abolished, and the “evangelical law” was adopted. Baptism and Lord’s Supper were to be administered in the evangelical way alone, and in similar fashion sermons, marriages, and funerals were to be held in line with the new doctrine. What this new doctrine implied, however, was not entirely clear, since Geneva still had no confession yet. Guillaume Farel, one of the city’s pastors, had petitioned Calvin during his passage through Geneva in July 1536 to help build its church. After Calvin decided to stay, he together with Farel wrote some proposals “concerning the organization of the church and of worship in Geneva” which the latter presented to the city council on 10 November 1536. That same year, Calvin also composed a French catechism patterned after his Institutes, which had appeared in Basel earlier that year. He intended for this catechism at once to function as the confession of faith for Geneva as well. In January 1537 the council rejected this proposal, however; this prompted Farel to draft another confession a month later. Calvin and Farel both wanted to obtain, over the course of 1537, an oath from all of Geneva’s inhabitants by which they would bind themselves to the contents of this new confession. This proposal for a binding oath failed, however. In the end, both Calvin and Farel found themselves

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

General Introduction

17

released from their office in April 1538, when in fact they were banished from the city. This raises the question whether their conflict with the government was caused by their pursuit for the independence of the church. Among Calvin scholars, at any rate, the consensus has been to present Calvin and Farel during this period as champions of the church’s freedom.3 Three years after his banishment, Calvin returned to Geneva, and once more he mobilized himself to organize the Genevan church. He introduced the consistoire to Geneva, a committee that was to treat marital and ethical matters and was composed of the city’s pastors, together with twelve members of the city council who were given the ecclesiastical title of ‘elder.’ In establishing the consistory, was it Calvin’s concern to protect the church’s independence? Was it his view that the consistory ought to consist of ecclesiastical officials alone, and that it ought to have an independent power to exercise church discipline? In other words, was there an essential difference between Bern’s Consistorium and the consistoire that Calvin established in Geneva in 1541? Over the course of the sixteenth century, Calvin’s influence spread out from Geneva throughout Europe. In France, Calvinism grew in spite of repression, and as of 1555 illegal churches began to form themselves out of the many local conventicles. With the growth of the French Calvinist movement, the government’s persecutions also increased. The persecuted churches supported each other on the local and provincial levels, and in the end plans were formed to organize the churches nationally in a structure that could operate free from government interference. The French Calvinists were at wits’ end, and looked for ways to bring changes to their critical and underground position. An independent church was therefore formed, and in the end it obtained a certain degree of recognition from the state as a second church. The question we need to address in light of our stated objective is whether Calvin effected and supported this development. Can it be maintained that the pursuit of the church’s freedom belonged to the very essence of Calvin’s view of the church, and that he himself was responsible for the establishment of an independent Protestant church in France? The French Calvinist church was very influential for the development of Calvinism in the Dutch Republic. During the time it suffered persecution, the situation of the Dutch church was comparable to that of the church in France. This changed early in 1572, when large parts of Holland and Zeeland came into Protestant hands. The government decided in these regions to recognize the Calvinist church alone as the official church, and thought it only natural for this church to become a function of the state. The refugee congregations could be 3 See chapter 1, n.3; for the authorship of the Articles of January 1537, see Frans P. van Stam in: COR 6/1, 154; see also chapter 2, n.59.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

18

General Introduction

disbanded, while the churches under the cross could finally cast off the yoke of their clandestine existence, and they no longer had to maintain a covert mechanism of church government that functioned by way of secretly held regional or synodical assemblies. The first national synod held on the soil of the Republic (1578), however, opted for an independent form of church government. This went explicitly against the wish that had been expressed by the government, which had formulated its view on the organization of church life in its 1576 “Ecclesiastical Laws” (Kerkelijke Wetten) with an emphatic appeal to Calvin. This appeal can be heard in a quotation from a document of that period which we have included in the title to the fourth chapter below: “We were right to follow the Genevans.” Thus, the government had made no attempt to express its displeasure about the prospect of a situation where “two forms of magistracy” were to exist side-by-side.4 The synods of the Reformed churches, however, refused to give up the form in which they had organized themselves. This circumstance leaves us with two questions. The first is whether the government was at all justified in its appeal to Calvin. The second is whether the Reformed synod of 1578, which met at Dordrecht, promoted a ‘Calvinist’ view of the church when it chose for an independent church. If it turns out that both views (i. e. of the government and of the 1578 synod) were at that time considered to be ‘Calvinist, ’ it would imply that the sixteenth century witnessed a number of varying ‘Calvinist’ views on the church’s independence. The goal of the present work is to bring greater clarity to these historical circumstances.

4 See chapter 4, n.34 and 68.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Chapter 1. The Church in Bern after 1528

Introduction Luther and Zwingli had widely diverging views on the place of religion in society. Luther saw the mingling of religion with politics as a departure from the Protestant doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.1 Zwingli argued that this reduced the essence of the church to an internality. In Luther’s view, he wrote, “the kingdom of Christ is not external”; but as Zwingli himself saw it, “the kingdom of Christ is also external.”2 For him the church as the corpus Christi is fully intertwined with the Christian commonwealth, the corpus christianum.3 In the introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, Zwingli wrote: “A Christian is nothing other than a faithful and good citizen, and a Christian city is nothing other than a Christian church.”4 A city’s religious life can only be renewed by reform if and when that entire society comes under the dominion of Christ. Church and government are as closely related to each other as the soul is to the body.5 1 Locher : 1979, 167. 2 For Zwingli on Luther, see: ZW 9 (= CR 96), no.720, 452, l.17, 23, 30 = Schieß: 1908, vol.1, no.118, 148, l.20, 26, 32 and for his own position, see: ZW 9, no.720, 454, l.14 f = Schieß: 1908, vol. 1, no.118, 150, l.1 f; letter from Zwingli to Ambrosius Blarer (Constance), 4 May 1528. Zwingli wanted to highlight that the kingdom of Christ is not only a matter of the conscience or the heart, but also of the world. Lavater wrote an article about Zwingli’s statement: “Regnum Christi etiam externum.” Lavater : 1981, 359, n.119, see also 355, n.103; the precise origin of this statement cannot be determined. 3 Zwingli applied the medieval notion of the corpus christianum to city states. He saw the evangelical city council as a part of the church’s life, the corpus Christi. Locher : 1979, 170 f and 218. Locher: 1969, 247 f, n.307; Locher: 1962, 1962, l.2 f; Köhler: 1942, 662 f. 4 Zwingli wrote this several months before his death. ZW 14, no.6, 424, l.20 – 22. He understood church and society to blend together in a Christian city state. At the end of his life, Zwingli expressed his support for the Christian government to rule over the church. Von Muralt: 1968, 385; Gäbler : 1983, 95 – 97; Locher : 1979, 195, n.173. 5 ZW 14, no.6, 417, l.7 f and 419, l.18 – 25; the preface to Zwingli’s Jeremiah commentary. Cf. his Fidei expositio of 1531, which was first delivered in manuscript form to king Francis I of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

20

The Church in Bern after 1528

A leading Zwingli scholar has suggested that for him, the office of the government and the duty of the preacher were both ‘ecclesiastical’ offices that represented different aspects of church life.6 Just like the people had formerly been able to make their voices heard in the government through the guilds,7 they now had pastors who stood to watch over them: “Just like the Spartans had their ephors and the Romans their tribunes, and just like in many German cities there are guild masters who speak to the leadership when it acts with too much power, so God has the officer bearers, the shepherds, who always stand on guard among his people.”8 Clerics are not to have political power as they did in the days of the episcopacy. What the preachers do have, however, is a prophetic task to keep tabs on the government and to bring their influence to bear on it. Inspired by Zwingli, Zürich established a number of political alliances to further the spread of the Reformation, also with a view to the city’s economic and military interests.9 Peter Blickle in particular has pointed to a factor that bound church and state closely to each other in Zürich, namely, the Swiss “model of the corporate alliance,” which replaced the earlier “patriarchal form of government” in the first decades of the sixteenth century. In this corporate model, villages or cities forged alliances as communities, which were then confirmed by the swearing of an oath.10 On 8 April 1524, five city states (Orte) – i. e. Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, and Zug – formed such an alliance against the territories that

6

7

8 9 10

France, and published in 1536: “For just as a person can only exist as body and soul […], so also the church cannot exist without the magistrate.” ZO 4, no.22, 60, l.6 – 8 = Niemeyer: 1840, 55, l.18 – 20 = Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol. 1, no.20, 187, l.9 – 12. Locher : 1979, 173, n.398 The pastor’s position in society is as that of the watchman in Ezekiel 3. Locher: 1962, 1966, l.48 – 51. Locher : 1979, 171 and 224. Zwingli wrote: “In the church of Christ the government and the office of the prophets are both just as necessary, if only the latter is first.” ZO 4, no.22, 60, l.4 – 6 = Niemeyer: 1840, 55, l.20 – 22 = Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol. 1, no.20, 187, l.7 – 9. About the government’s task in relation to the church in Constance Zwingli wrote the following: “I know that [the city council – HAS] is not a church in the sense in which we are speaking. […] But you have the assembly of the people, formed by the guilds, which if consulted make the approbation of the church superfluous.” ZW 9, no.720, 457, l.25 – 28 = Schieß: 1908, vol. 1, no.118, 152, l.33 – 35. In Zwingli’s view, aside from the government, also social organisations can represent the church. ZW 3, no.30 (Der Hirt), 63, l.27. The councils represent the people of the church rather than the bishop. ZW 3, no.50 (De vera et falsa religione), 741, l.7 – 8. ‘Government’ was not yet a common concept at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It was the city councils, often formed by the guilds, that governed the city. Maschke: 1966, 7 – 23. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the guilds in Bern had less influence in politics than they did in Zürich, although they still exerted a lot of influence on a broader social level. Gäbler : 1983, 106. ZW 3, no.30 (Der Hirt), 36, l.7 – 11 uit 1524. Cf. Calvin in his 1536 Institutes, OS 1, 279, l.22 – 27 = OS 5, 501, l.18 – 22 = Institutes IV.20.31. Locher : 1979, 190 – 191. Blender and Blickle devote extensive attention to the alliances of the Christian Burgrecht. Bender: 1970, 11 – 52 and 119 f; Blickle: 1985, 71 – 89. Blickle: 1981, 196 and 212.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

21

Introduction

harboured Reformation sympathies. Later these five cities states were joined by others, including Freiburg and Solothurn.11 As a result, the Protestants found themselves in isolation and were forced to cooperate closely with each other. After all, they were now in a minority position vis-—-vis the larger political block that had refused to follow the Reformed cause. Numerous confederations were formed in villages, parishes, and guilds, in the cities as well as in the countryside. The Swiss Confederation thus functioned as an inspiring example also in other contexts, and on smaller scales.12 During a disputation held in Baden in 1526, the opponents of the Reformation discussed what options they had for isolating Zürich. Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, however, refused to go along in this.13 In the case of Bern, one of the most powerful territories in the Swiss territories at the time,14 this decision represented a turning point in its history. Given the influence Bern exercised among the Swiss cities, it is worthwhile to consider this event in greater detail. By its decision not to join forces against Zürich, Bern showed itself to be a supporter of the Reformed cause. This shift in thinking was also felt in the elections. Zwingli commented on this in a letter to Konrad Sam in Ulm: “After this disputation, Bern, just like Basel, has assumed a clearer position than before.”15 Zürich, Konstanz, and Strasbourg went on to respond to the Baden disputation by forming a military alliance in 1527.16 Not everyone was pleased, however, with Zwingli’s efforts to use the Reformation movement in order to effect changes of a socio-political nature. His critics preferred to restrict themselves to the renewal of religious life itself. In cases where the Reformed cause did make the assumption of a specific political position unavoidable, they wanted to follow a policy of peace rather than conquest. The most notable proponents of this vision

11 Locher : 1979, 20 – 21; Gäbler: 1983, 102 and 134. The confederation was made up of thirteen city states or Orte: Appenzell, Basel, Bern, Fribourg, Glarus, Luzern, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, Unterwalden, Uri, Zug, and Zürich. A confessional break would occur in 1526, on account of which Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen were isolated from the remaining nine Orte. 12 Blickle: 1987, 115 and 116. 13 Locher : 1979, 177 and 187. Nine of the thirteen cantons banished Zwingli and his followers, which Johann Eck had already wanted to effect in 1524. Locher : 1979, 182 – 186; Gäbler: 1983, 103. At the disputation of Baden, which was held from 19 May to 9 June 1526, 87 of the 118 delegates in the end chose against the Reformation. Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen did not feel obliged to enforce the decisions of the disputation, since in their territories this would have been impossible without resulting in violence. 14 Although Bern as such was only a moderately large city with some 5, 000 inhabitants, around 1520 it was politically and militarily the most important city of the western part of the Swiss confederation because of the vastness of its territories. Locher : 1979, 267. 15 ZW 8, no.499 (2 July 1526), 633, l.2 – 3. 16 Locher : 1979, 190.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

22

The Church in Bern after 1528

included the Bernese statesman and artist Niklaus Manuel.17 Notwithstanding the wishes of this party, the tensions did spread from their base in Zürich and increased, and even led to two battles at Cappel. The first was fought in 1529, and a second in 1531. The defeat suffered by the Protestant forces at the second battle of Cappel, in which Zwingli himself lost his life, came as a major shock, and represented a critical blow to the Reformation movement throughout Switzerland and especially in Bern. In Bern, the power over the church was held by the magistrate. The critical situation in which the movement to renew the city’s religious life found itself only took a turn for the worse following the defeat at Cappel, since the duty and position of the ministers now came under fire. For that reason, the government demanded that the preachers meet in a large synod to reflect on their duties and on the essence and mandate of the church. In this regard, it is important to consider whether the church of Bern functioned as an independent institution, or whether it formed a part of civil life. Did the pastors have an independent authority? And did Bern’s Chorgericht, whose members also included several pastors, have an ecclesiastical power? In light of the purpose of this monograph, it is likewise worthwhile to examine the way in which the decisive synod of Bern, held in January 1532, described the powers of church and state. For that reason, the second part of this chapter will be devoted to considering who held the power over the Bernese church, how the position and task of the preachers were described, and in what way church discipline functioned. Before we turn to these matters, however, we will first consider the period immediately preceding that 1532 synod, beginning with the Bern disputation of 1528.18

1.

The Church in Bern after 1528

The beginning of the church’s renewal In Bern, as elsewhere, the civil government had accrued an increasing amount of authority over church life throughout the course of the medieval period.19 The 17 Locher : 1979, 172, n.393; Zinsli: 1980/1981, 104 – 137; Lavater: 1980/1981, 289 – 440. 18 The early history of the Reformed church in Bern in the 1520s can be treated summarily at this point, since it has been dealt with extensively elsewhere. See, for example, Rudolf Dellsperger, Hans l. Lavater, Gottfried W. Locher, Ernst Walder tc, in Aeschbacher e.a.: 1980/ 1981. 19 Already in the Pfaffenbrief of 1370 it was determined that the clergy was to swear an oath of allegiance to the civil government, and leave certain matters of admonition and discipline to the civil courts. This letter was recognised by Bern in 1393. The final outcome was that, as of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

23

church did not perceive this shift in the balance of power as a matter of concern. The bishop was in fact quite content to be relieved of some of his responsibilities, and furthermore simply assumed that the clergy would maintain their grasp on society. It was not until the third decade of the sixteenth century that a showdown took place, when the priest Jörg Brunner openly denounced the priestly office and the sacrifice of the Mass in 1522. After the tensions increased, it was the city council that finally intervened; Jörg was acquitted on 3 September 1522, however.20 This should nevertheless not be read as a choice on the part of Bern in favour of the Reformation. For, when it was invited late in 1522 to attend the Zürich disputation of 29 January 1523, it refused.21 On the other hand, it was in this context that Niklaus Manuel wrote the two carnival plays that began to stimulate the people in their conscientiousness.22 The reform movement grew quickly ; as the Leutpriest (‘people’s priest’) Berchtold Haller wrote to Zwingli on 8 April 1523: “The Lord is adding to our number daily”.23 As time passed, it became increasingly clear that Bern’s government would have to step in. The tensions continued to rise in the city as well as the country, so that the magistracy finally attempted to restore peace and order by granting some concessions to the evangelicals. Thus, from the city’s perspective, the religious controversies represented a threat to the public order. For that reason, it enacted a first reform mandate on 15 June 1523,24 in the form of an appeal to the people to remain moderate: the desire was expressed for “Christian, brotherly unity and love.” “Only the holy gospel and teaching from God” were to be preached publicly and freely, and anyone who broke this law would face the threat of severe punishment.25

20 21 22 23 24 25

1458, all citizens, including the priests, had to swear an oath of allegiance to the government. Bern’s council took over more and more functions from the bishop; it even began to appoint the priests who were not connected to a cloister (i. e. the Leutpriester). In spite of this shift in the balance of power, in Bern the resistance against the abuses in the church continued, in particular against excommunication. The deeply-rooted antipathy against this measure was one of the driving forces behind the Reformation and the desire to reorganise church life in Bern. When the council of Bern instituted the Chorgericht in 1484, it determined that excommunication could not be pronounced by the church without prior permission from the council. In this way, the judicial courts were made dependent on the secular justice system. Locher : 1979, 39 and 40; Köhler: 1932, vol. 1, 308 – 357; Feller: 1974, vol. 2, 246 – 248. Dellsperger, 1980/1981, 25 f. Jörg Brunner called the bishop “devilish and totally anti-Christian”. Müller : 1895, 20; Guggisberg: 1958, 64. Locher : 1979, 270. Guggisberg: 1980/1981, 71; Witteveen: 1977, 65 – 87. ZW 8, no.293, 57, l.7 – 8. In 1513, the young Haller (b. 1492) was named schoolmaster in Bern. In 1519 he was appointed curate, and in 1520 a canon or choirmaster. That same year, he became a follower of Zwingli. ZW 7, no.194, 484, n.1. Locher : 1979, 273. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.249, 65 – 68. This demand can be explained with the traditional as well as a new, Reformed context. Augustijn: 1967/1968, 150 – 165.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

24

The Church in Bern after 1528

In its origins, Bern’s reform movement was thus a popular movement, as it was in fact in all south German territories as well as the German-speaking parts of the Swiss Confederation.26 In 1523 the magistrate understood it to be its task to adopt a policy of moderation towards the reform movement, thereby giving concrete expression to the ius pacificandi.27 The government aimed to avoid polarization, but at the same time remained true to the old church by emphatically ordering that such established customs as priestly celibacy, days of fasting, and the cult of the saints were to be maintained.28 Yet the tensions in the Bernese territories actually grew over the course of the following years, and nothing could be seen of the climate of moderation that the government had hoped to achieve.29 Additional mandates followed from the magistrate in an effort to keep the peace. These events, it is important to remember, took place during the years of the German Peasants’ War, when large-scale insurrections were undertaken against the existing structures of power. The efforts for renewal and reform only fanned the flames of unrest. Between 1524 and 1526, Bern continually pursued a consensus; by the concessions it made to the peasant and citizen movement, the city attempted to stem the tides of disorder. In the end, the concessions only worked to further the Reformation.30 The evangelical cause announced itself increasingly during the meetings of Bern’s city council, and in the end a number of evangelicals were elected to it. In the Easter 1527 elections, the evangelicals gained a majority of seats in the large council, and the same was true in the small council following the elections held the next year.31 Bern accordingly took a first step towards the abolition of the Mass in May 1527.32 By then the times were ripe for a religious dialogue, and a disputation was organized in Bern from 6 to 26 January 1528.33 On 17 November 26 Lavater : 1988, 94, n.63; Blickle: 1989, 10 f. The Catholics argued that the Reformation had been introduced by the government, and not by the common people. Zwingli argued in response that in Constance, for example, the new Christian communities were assembled on the authority of the guilds. Gäbler: 1983, 110; ZW 9, no.720, 457, l.24 – 458, l.3. 27 Walder: 1980/1981, 483 f. 28 Gäbler : 1983, 106. 29 Lavater : 1980/1981, 93. 30 Blickle: 1987, 37 f. 31 Locher : 1979, 273 f. In 1528 the large council made use of its prerogative to appoint the members of the small council directly, something which it had not done for 24 years. In the legal year 1531 – 1532, sixteen of the 27 members of the small council were of the evangelical conviction. Lavater: 1988, 55. 32 Locher : 1979, 276. 33 Disputations resemble academic debates to the degree that they were used as a means to come closer to the truth. They can also be compared to the courts; for, whoever won the debate stood on the side of the truth. Lavater : 1988, 38. Moeller reports that 30 such disputations took place before 1536. Moeller: 1975, 643; Locher: 1979, 622. In Geneva similar disputations were held in January 1534 and in June 1535.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

25

1527, the priests Franz Kolb and Berchtold Haller were commissioned to prepare the disputation. They formulated ten theses, which were successfully defended by Ulrich Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, and others. This disputation in fact represents one of the largest manifestations undertaken by the Protestant movement prior to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. A total of 235 priests declared themselves in favour of the theses, with only 46 against – and of those 46 opponents, at least four explained that they were opposed because Luther’s voice could not be heard enough in them. This indicates that already at that time the Lutheran and Zwinglian groups stood in opposition to each other. Bern’s territories as a whole numbered some 345 clergy and 190 parishes. A week later, on 2 February 1528, the citizens swore in the cathedral that they would follow the religious policy adopted by the government, and several days, on 7 February, the council decided to join the Reformation officially.34 On Easter Sunday, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in Bern for the first time in the evangelical manner. The reform movement advanced quickly. Following the disputation of January 1528, the city council declared that Christ was “the only Head” of the church, thereby choosing unambiguously against Rome.35 For the council, the decision also meant a political choice; Bern now presented itself most consciously as a Protestant city state. The council members, most of whom were evangelicals by that time, went to work with zeal. Soon after the disputation, the council decided to found a Hohe Schule with evangelical professors, including Kaspar Grossman (Megander) and Sebastian Hofmeister.36 The council also decided that it would take the former clergy into its service as pastors and preachers. On the threat of losing their salary, these former priests were charged to live and preach in accordance with the new evangelical doctrine.37 Many of course did not have the training necessary to perform their new tasks. But since the government had neither the time nor the money to re-train hundreds of former priests, they were appointed as preachers effective immediately.38 One thing the new preachers had to get used to

34 Locher : 1979, 279. According to Gäbler, a total of some 450 clergyman were in attendance, of whom 350 came from Bern and another one hundred from elsewhere. Gäbler: 1983, 107. The ten theses drafted by Kolb and Haller were complemented by thirteen new theses that rejected obedience to the bishop, required fasting, and clerical celibacy. 35 ZW 6a, no.113, 243, l.10 = Müller : 1903, 30, l.9; Locher: 1979, 277, n.73. 36 Im Hof: 1980/1981, 194 f. 37 Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.1513, 629 – 634. 38 Feller: 1974, vol. 2, 264. At least half of the pastors had a clerical background. About one third of the pastors studied theology for two years. The new ministers were asked, where possible, to follow a good philological and theological training. Lavater: 1988, 36 f; Guggisberg: 1958, 168; Locher: 1988a, 16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

26

The Church in Bern after 1528

was the fact that the government, as their new employer, was keeping a strict watch over their doctrine and life. After Bern decided in February 1528 to join the Reformation, the government adopted no less than 102 reform mandates between then and 1531.39 These mandates were necessary because there were numerous things that had to be regulated once the decision for reform had been made. When the citizens and the ministers proved to be less than cooperative in implementing the reform, the government attempted to enforce the new laws by imposing very harsh punishments.40 In the end, however, this inflexibility only backfired; many people began to fear that they had only come under the yoke of a ‘new papacy.’ As a result, the renewal of the city’s religious life failed to take off as hoped. There was great confusion, uncertainty, and dissatisfaction in the city, and little unity could be found on matters pertaining to the church.41 Even Bern’s handful of ministers disagreed on the direction their city ought to take. While Megander and Kolb wanted the city to extend its full support to Zürich, Haller favoured a more moderate approach.42 These differences among the preachers were compounded by the fact that the inhabitants did not all support the Reformed cause. After all, the Reformation had been introduced on the authority of the government; now that the effects of this decision could be felt, opposition also grew. On top of this, the bishop still had a considerable number of supporters among the people. Furthermore, the Anabaptist movement deprived the council of the support it so desperately needed; for it, faith and politics were matters that had to be carefully separated, while the waging of war was entirely out of the question. As a final factor, the ‘common people’ in the country were beginning to unite and to make their voices heard.43 In Bern, like in other city states, the introduction of the Reformation was accompanied by changes in church practices and institutions. The Mass was abolished, as was the case for the ordination of priests and their celibacy, the robes, the processions, the pilgrimages, and the fasts. As these changes occurred, the Chorgericht, which had been established at the end of the fifteenth century, obtained a new and central function within the Reformed church now that the 39 Lavater : 1988, 56; Guggisberg: 1958, 179 – 181. See also the table in Aeschbacher e.a.: 1980/ 1981, 13 – 17. 40 The new laws included mandates on drinking and clothing, gambling and dice, playing cards and skittles for money, failure to appear in church or to attend the Eucharist. Guggisberg: 1958, 179 – 181. If a pastor were caught committing adultery, he could be deposed and deprived of his citizenship and placed in prison; if he repeated his offence, he faced banishment and even stoning (where the laws referred to the Old Testament). Quervain: 1906, 213. 41 Locher : 1988a, 17. 42 Haller did everything to try and avoid a war with the papal territories. Pestalozzi: 1861, 50. 43 Blickle: 1981, 191 – 195.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

27

four bishops – i. e. of Konstanz, Basel, Sitten, and Lausanne – had lost their jurisdiction over the Bernese territories. For, once it had taken over the place of the former bishop, the city’s council had to delegate its newfound responsibilities. Accordingly, after the opposition had been rounded up on 4 and 5 May 1528, the council established the new Chorgericht later that month (29 May 1528).44 The Chorgericht in Bern, which at that time was also known as the Ehegericht or Consistorium,45 initially consisted of six members: two members of the city council, two citizens from the large council, and two of the city’s ministers (i. e. Haller and Megander). These last two were charged with the task of drawing up a new regulation for it.46 The Chorgericht met three times a week – on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday – after the sermon. From the very beginning of its existence, the Chorgericht dealt with a variety of matters related to marriage, morals, and religious life. Its place and task in regard to these matters was to make recommendations to the council. Other tasks included the regulations for

44 Quervain: 1906, 25; Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.1705, 729 – 730. In April 1528, a rebellion in the southernmost territories of Bern was suppressed. After an agreement had been reached early in May, the army had to be called in one more time in October 1528 in order to enforce the reform measures in the Oberland. Wälchli: 1981, 111 – 112; Quervain: 1906, 24. 45 A separate seal was designed for the Chorgericht bearing the weapon of Bern together with the inscription “Consistorii Bernensis”. Köhler : 1932, 322, n.6. Haller used the term Konsistorium as early as 31 May 1528, in a letter to Zwingli. ZO 8, no.48, 191. For the term ‘Konsistorium’, see below chapter 2, n.370 – 372. 46 Haller and Megander were commissioned on 11 September 1528 to draft a new Ordnung und Satzung des Eegerichts for the new Chorgericht. The most difficult cases, as well as appeals, were to be treated by the city council. The rule did not last very long, however, because it was annulled on 18 January 1529. Quervain: 1906, 26; Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.2104, 945. The legal code was adopted on 8 March 1529. In Bern, the Chorgericht was established according to the model of Zürich’s (post-1525) Ehegericht. In both cities, this high government committee included not only council members and citizens (= members of the large council), but also pastors. The councillor Niklaus Manuel had been sent to Zürich at the end of May 1528 in order to find out more about the regulations in place as of 1525 and about the way they functioned. Bern was above all interested in the procedures, and paid to have a copy made of the Ehegerichtsordnung and of the records of the Ehegericht. Quervain: 1906, 25, n.7; Köhler : 1932, 319 f; Lavater : 1988, 50, n.92 f. When the regulations for Bern’s Chorgericht were approved on 8 May 1529, the council decided right away to have 400 copies printed in Zürich. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.2189 en no.2190, 987 – 988. The text of the regulations can be found as appendices 12 and 13 in Quervain, l.c., 208 f. Zürich was of great influence on the developments in Bern, although there was one major difference between the two. While in Bern the supervision of matters relating to morals and matters both fell under one government commission, in Zürich the Ehegericht (“Marital court”) and Sittengericht (“Moral court”) were two independent bodies. From the very beginning of its existence, the Chorgericht in Bern was charged with the responsibility for a number of organisational matters, a development that was paralleled in Zürich. Quervain, l.c., 26; ZW 4, no.70, 680 f; Köhler, l.c., 178, 320, 329 and 344.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

28

The Church in Bern after 1528

holidays, as well as the responsibility for the church’s finances, the care for the poor, and the honorarium for the church’s functionaries. In the new regulation enacted on 8 March 1529, Bern’s Chorgericht, later known as the Oberchorgericht,47 was charged with the supervision of the regional and local Chorgerichte that had been established in the city’s outside territories. Bern’s Chorgericht was therefore to oversee the purity of doctrine and morals in the entire region. Religious leadership was now centralized in the city ; from then on, all of Bern’s territories were governed from that one central basis in the city. Before that time, every village had seen to the administration of justice itself, with penalties varying considerably from one village to another.48 The new order was thus intended to achieve greater uniformity in sanctions. The Chorgericht, which was expanded to eight members in 1529, was empowered by the government to decide on punishments,49 which included fines, prison time, and the pillory. In these early years, the Protestant Chorgericht showed itself to be a strict court.50 As of 1529, the Chor- or Sittengericht in the countryside was composed of between two and twelve “old, honourable persons who are held in esteem and live a virtuous life.” The governor appointed the Ammann (i. e. mayor) as the chairman, while one of the ministers served as secretary. As a member of the Chorgericht, the pastor was a functionary of the state, and as such he stood on the side of the legislator. The pastors in the Chorgericht thus formed a part of the state structure, and were to oversee the life and conduct of the city’s inhabitants.51 Bern’s Chorgericht must therefore be seen as a body of the state. 47 Schmidt: 1989, 135. 48 Quervain: 1906, 55; Köhler: 1932, 329; Wälchli: 1981, 109; Lavater : 1988, 52 – 53; Dellsperger : 1991, 126 and 138. The city council remained the highest body. This is emphasised in the oath of loyalty that members of the city’s Chorgericht had to swear before the government. Köhler : 1932, 353. 49 On 5 October 1530, Haller reported to Zwingli about the expansion of Bern’s Chorgericht: “In our consistory there are, in the name of the whole church, two pastors, two senators [from the small council – HAS], and four members of the large council; they represent our church”. About the punitive power he wrote: “lest admonition and excommunication be ridiculed by the people who are so obstinate and rooted in their sins, the magistracy has also given these eight men a power of jurisdiction on its behalf so that according to the decrees we can punish people with imprisonment so as to convince them.” ZW 11, no.1112, 178, r.1 – 6 = ZO 8, no.131, 528, l.41 – 529, l.3. 50 The following examples will suffice to give an impression of how strict the Chorgericht actually was. In August 1528 a decision was made to punish adulterers with three days’ imprisonment, while repeat offenders faced banishment. While in 1529 drunkenness was to be punished by a fine of one Swiss gulden, councillors and pastors were to be removed from office if they were caught carousing since they had a responsibility to give a good example. In 1531 Vaandrig Isenschmied was removed from his function because he failed to attend the Lord’s Supper. Guggisberg: 1958, 179 – 182. 51 Quervain: 1906, 56 and 55. A growing resistance could be encountered among the church

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

29

Haller reported that the Chorgericht had the power of excommunication, “so that [the city council] would not … show favouritism, or on the whole keep the sword in its sheath; for, it is easily inclined to mercy where none ought to be shown.”52 In his letter to Zwingli from 5 October 1530, Haller further gave the impression that the Chorgericht included an ecclesiastical element. For, he wrote that “punishment is [effected] in the name of the magistracy, while admonition and excommunication [are carried out] in the name of the church.”53 Köhler has nonetheless argued that the Chorgericht in Bern “was a government department for matters pertaining to the church,” and “an institution in the service of the Christian city state.”54 Lavater supported Köhler’s view and considered it significant that the Ordnung und Satzung des Eegerichts of 8 March 1529, which was by and large based on a similar document from Zürich, omitted the words “in stead of the churches” (anstatt ir gmeinen kilchen).55 In a letter to Zwingli, Haller highlighted the similarities between Bern’s Chorgericht and Zürich’s Ehegericht: “You know the custom and laws of the consistory in both states” to punish a transgressor by banishing him not only “from the church” but also by excluding him “from the societies.”56 Haller thus made room in the Chorgericht for a modest ecclesiastical element. Aside from the Chorgericht, the synods played an important role as well. It was Zwingli who gave synods a new place within the Reformation movement. In Zürich a committee composed of councillors and city pastors was established in September 1527 to oversee the doctrine and life of the preachers and to support them in their work. This committee developed the idea of the annual synodical assemblies that would be held by the evangelicals.57 On 21 April 1528, after a long

52 53 54 55 56 57

members in the countryside against the pastor’s membership in the Chorgericht. The earlier abuses of the church had produced a great antipathy among the people for the measure of excommunication. Feller: 1974, 263; Lavater : 1988, 50. ZW 11, no.1112, 178, l.6 – 9 = ZO 8, no.131, 529, l.3 – 6. ZW 11, no.1112, 178, l.9 – 11 = ZO 8, no.131, 529, l.7 and 8. Köhler: 1932, 319 and 326; cf 178. Aside from its supervision over the affairs of the church, the government’s task had for many years already included the responsibility of its subjects’ marital problems and moral failures. Gäbler : 1982, 96. Egli: 1879, no.1087 (15 December 1526), 521, l.25 – 26; Quervain: 1906, 212 (8 March 1529), l.31; Lavater: 1988, 52, n.97; Köhler: 1932, 326. ZW 11, no.1112, 177, 13 – 16 = ZO 8, no.131, 528, l.37 f. Egli: 1879, no.1272, 563. This synod thus became the institution par excellence for renewing and deepening the church’s life according to the Reformed religion. It addressed in particular the practical developments within the Reformation. Oecolampadius in Basel and Dominicus Zili in St. Gallen supported the notion of one common synod involving all cities that had joined the Christian Burgrecht, but Zwingli had no interest in such uniformity. Instead, he supported the autonomy of the local churches. Zwingli’s view on the synod was accepted in Switzerland and southern Germany. The city council was responsible for the well-being of its citizens, including their spiritual life, and was for that reason to convoke a synod whenever it considered such a synod to be necessary. After Zwingli’s death in 1531, the 27–year old Bullinger brought changes to this view on the synod. According to him, the autonomy of the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

30

The Church in Bern after 1528

period of preparation, the first synod met in Zürich with some 300 participants.58 The pastors were required to swear an oath before four members of the large and small council, vowing that they would exercise their duties in accordance with the council’s mandates.59 Bern too adopted the concept of a synod as an assembly of pastors in 1530. A notable difference over against the Zürich example consisted in the function of the Chorgericht, which in Bern not only had the task of overseeing the people, but also the specific commission to exercise supervision over the ministers.60 Up until that time, the pastors had been bound by an oath, drawn up by Haller on 26 March 1528, to exercise admonition amongst themselves by the intermediary of the dean of the chapter. Only if this form of admonition failed was the city council to intervene and impose punishments.61 It became evident, however, that this form of collegial supervision did not function as it should have. For that reason, on 8 April 1530, the Bernese preachers requested permission from the government to hold a synodical assembly. The government responded very swiftly to this request, out of fear that the ministers would seek to implement further changes and try and draw special powers to themselves. The magistracy claimed the responsibility for the church as its own, and therefore made a mandate in which it emphasized that all former episcopal powers and possessions were now in its care – with the implication that all preachers were now public servants.62 The government had received very little support from the ministers in implementing its reform mandates, and for that reason was not overly inclined to grant them the right to meet in assemblies of their own. All the same, the council decided on 20 August 1530 to give the proposal the benefit of the doubt, and commissioned that a synod be held from 7 to 10 September 1530.63 The preparations for this synod were undertaken by Haller, Kolb, and

58 59

60

61 62 63

local church would still be guaranteed within one common Burgrecht. Bächtold: 1975, vol.1, 287 – 288. Lavater: 1988, 41 f. Egli: 1879, no.1391, 600 – 610. The second synod met on 19 May. Egli, l.c., no.1414, 618 – 623. Locher: 1979, 192. ZW 6a, no.119, 529 f; Locher: 1979, 192 – 193. The oath expressed allegiance to the government, which had the power over the church. Locher: 1979, 172 and 623. The government was elected by the (church-) people. ZO 4, 59, l.23 – 24 = Niemeyer: 1840, 54, l.29 – 30 = Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol. 1, no.20, 186, l.1 – 2; Lavater: 1988, 39. Köhler : 1932, 329. The synods devoted much attention to mutual censure on doctrine and life, appealing to the preachers’ mutual sense of honour. In this way, the ministers stimulated each other to devote themselves to the Reformed doctrine and life, and so together to advance the Reformed cause. Vom Berg: 1988, 129. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.2766, 1242 – 1243; Lavater : 1988. 35; Guggisberg: 1958, 154. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.2768, 1243 – 1247 Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.2861, 1285. This synod would treat a problem that represented a threat to both government and pastors, namely, the Anabaptists. For, they did not acknowledge the government, opposed the levying of taxes, refused to swear oaths, and were against the carrying of weapons, and further had great drawing power among church-goers.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

31

Megander. After it had opened, the 219 pastors in attendance made their vows before eighteen members of the council.64 The synod was a success. The unclear situation of the church, as well as the general dissatisfaction that lingered among the population, had created a pressing need for regular mutual deliberation. On 2 March 1531, the council therefore even mandated that a synod was to meet every year on the first day of the month of May.65 Eight months later, the preachers requested that they also be allowed to meet twice yearly in regional assemblies in order to “deliberate and make decisions” together with the members of the council. This request too was granted them.66

The crisis of late 1531 After Bern, also St. Gallen, Basel, and Schaffhausen joined the Reformation movement, and this heightened the level of the tensions in their territories. In June 1529, the threat from the papal territories was still kept at bay by a powerful army numbering some 30,000 soldiers, most of whom had been supplied by Zürich and Bern.67 In October 1531, however, a bloody battle took place at Cappel. Exactly a year before, Bern had still led a military campaign to free Geneva, its ally since 1526, and contributed no less than 5,000 soldiers.68 Yet when Zürich faced the papal forces in October 1531, Bern held back.69 The city refused to send any troops, although it did declare that it would join in a food blockade against the territories hostile to the Reformation. The Protestant cities went on to suffer a crushing defeat at Cappel, and Zwingli, the great inspiration behind the Swiss Reformation, suffered serious injuries to which he succumbed

64

65 66 67 68

69

See also BS, art. 32a, 125, l.18 – 22; Lutz: 1988, 251. The Anabaptists were fiercely persecuted in Bern. Between 1529 and 1539, a total of 24 Anabaptists were condemned by the Chorgericht. Lutz: 1988, 255. Gerber: 1988, 172. Lavater : 1988, 44 – 45. By way of comparison it is worth pointing out that during this time the bishopric of Constance, which included Zürich as well as the greater part of north-eastern Switzerland and some parts of southern Germany, numbered some 15,000 priests who were active in 1,800 parishes and 350 cloisters. Gäbler : 1983, 20. Lavater : 1988, 48. BS, art. 44, 166, l.7 – 8; see n.194. Gäbler : 1983, 110. Locher : 1976, 77. In 1526, when Bern, Geneva, and Fribourg formed an alliance, these cities were all still Catholic. Bern’s decision to follow the Reformed cause in 1528 had ramifications for its cooperation with these cities. Guillaume Farel, who would later become Calvin’s righthand man, wrote to Zwingli on 1 October 1531 about the situation in Geneva: “I hear that the residents of Geneva are beginning to meditate on Christ, and they say that, if Fribourg allows it, they will soon accept the gospel. Bern, however, is not as zealous for the honour of Christ as Fribourg is in its efforts to please the papal party.” Herminjard, vol. 2, no.356, 364, l.8 – 365, l.4 = ZO 8, no.82, 647. For the territories involved, see n.11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

32

The Church in Bern after 1528

on 11 October. The Reformed entered a period of great despondency, and the churches suddenly found themselves in a major crisis. On 28 November 1531, the rural officials met in Meilen, a village nearby Zürich, and this event would cause a considerable shakeup in the history of the Swiss Reformation. The population from the countryside presented a number of demands to Zürich’s city council. The peasants demanded that the government no longer be allowed to go to war without their permission; the city was to realize that they, the inhabitants from the rural areas, were the ones who continually supplied the troops.70 The opposition thus raised its voice, led by the peasants who received further backing from the conservatives in Zürich.71 Those who still sympathized with Rome were at the time also calling for a return to the old church.72 In Bern, the Reformation underwent a similar crisis following the defeat at Cappel, as the people began to show their dissatisfaction. The Anabaptists, together with those who were still loyal to the old church of Rome, never had supported the current policy to begin with. After Cappel, however, also the opposition of those who had been reluctant in their adherence to the Reformed cause began to develop into a real threat. The people were fed up with war, with confessional polemics, and with politicized preaching. They refused to let the course of their lives be governed by the ministers any longer. Although some citizens would have been most glad to see the clocks turned back to the time prior to the introduction of the Reformation, such a proposal was never actually submitted. What the government did receive, however, was an appeal signed by a group of dissatisfied subjects and submitted on 5 December 1531. The seventeen articles of this document made demands comparable to those that had been formulated by the peasants in Meilen on 28 November. The people declared that they were fed up with the preachers from city and countryside who “shout from the pulpit about revolt and bloodshed, as a result of which great disunity has arisen.”73 Politicized preaching (art. 1) was not going to be tolerated any longer, and if they had their way, the pastors would not hold any seats in the Chorgericht any longer (art. 8).74 70 Locher : 1979, 548 f. 71 The conservative guild for the nobles and the bankers (i. e. the Konstaffel), which in 1498 still held eighteen seats in the councils, six of which were in the small council, was scaled back to the level of the twelve other guilds in 1529, but never entirely lost its controlling position in the councils and Ehegericht. Locher : 1979, 177 f; Gäbler : 1983, 17. 72 Haller wrote on 22 February 1532, for example, about a rumour of which he had caught wind that Zürich wanted to re-introduce the Mass. Bächtold: 1975, vol. 1, 272, n.13 and 282 – 283. 73 Lavater : 1988, 59, l.24 – 25. 74 The people further complained that the largest part of the church’s funds was used for the salaries of ministers and for the support of their widows. Lavater : 1988, 53 and 59 – 60; Quervain: 1906, Beilage 21, 231 – 235; Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.3251, 1481 – 1482. Compare

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

33

The threat that these peasant demands represented to the pastors was only exacerbated by the breakdown in the cooperation they had once enjoyed with the government. The souring of this relationship can be attributed in particular to Megander, who publicly criticized Bern for its failure to provide adequate support to Zürich at Cappel. Then, days after Bern repealed its food blockade, Megander viciously denounced the government (11 October 1531): “You, o councillors and citizens, have acted so shamefully and dishonestly that you will never be able to justify this act before God and the world.” Megander further incited the population to prepare for war. These actions were not well received, “because the first troops are already underway, while yet others are being equipped.” In fact, so Haller complained, Megander’s actions were irritating even those who were sympathetic to the Reformed cause. Therefore, as soon as he returned from the campaign, Megander was summoned to account for his actions. He came under great fire, and the terrible outcome of the war only raised the level of animosity against him. On 20 November he was summoned before the Chorgericht, which ordered him to keep silent. For the time being, he was forbidden to preach in Bern.75 On 5 December, 120 peasants from the Bernese lands submitted a petition. The following day, on 6 December 1531, the city council had its response ready in the so-called Kappelerbrief.76 In this letter, the council of Bern distanced itself from the actions of the pastors, who had been inciting the people to war with their tirades in the preaching. Furthermore, it removed the ministers from their position in the rural Chorgerichte effective immediately. On Easter (2 April 1531), the council also agreed that structural changes to the composition of these Chorgerichte would be considered at the yearly council elections.77 These events and measures were not entirely unexpected, but came as an effect of the defeat at Cappel, which had jeopardized the success of the efforts for religious and social reform. On 9 December 1531, Zürich followed Bern’s example when it denounced the preachers’ meddling in political affairs.78

75 76 77

78

this to the 1525 demand of the German peasants to have a voice in the choice of pastors. Franz: 1963, no. 47, 190; Blickle: 1987, 37, n.14. Haller to Bucer (Jan. 16, 1532), in BS 2, 356, l.8 – 19; Lavater: 1988, 63. The Kappelerbrief can be found in Quervain: 1906, Beilage 22, 235 – 240; Vom Berg: 1988, 118. Quervain: 1906, 59. A compromise was reached on 2 February 1533, and the pastors were made to supervise the Ehegaumer (i. e. moral police). In 1536, however, the ministers once more gained a position in the Chorgerichte in the countryside. Guggisberg: 1958, 183; Lavater : 1988, 60, art. 8. In the Chorgericht of the city, in contrast, the presence of the pastors was needed because of their competences. Köhler : 1932, 353. The government’s insistence that the pastors sit on the Chorgericht witnesses of its respect for them. Bächtold: 1982, 16 – 18. Zürich’s city council promised the peasants on December 9 that they would appoint peace-minded pastors alone, check on them more frequently in the future, and forbid them from participating in any political activities. Political peace was thus ach-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

34

The Church in Bern after 1528

The peasants and citizens defended themselves against the nobility and clergy by uniting in ‘Christian societies.’79 The unrest among the Bernese population had multiple causes. Especially in the countryside, people were unhappy with the strict maintenance of the tithe. Yet what the ‘common people’ resented above all was the disorder to which the preachers were trying to incite them. Especially the ministers who were not from Bern, such as Megander, Hofmeister, and Rhellikan, supported a radical stance.80 Having come to Bern from Zürich, they defended the latter’s militant position against the territories that resisted the Reformation. For that reason, they were highly irritated by the apparent laxity displayed by the government of Bern. Megander was sanctioned because he thought Bern to be overly laid-back and complacent, a position which he could not understand. His more pensive colleague Haller was less bothered by this, but because of the conflicts surrounding Megander, he too found himself accused, “as if I out of negligence or infidelity am not living up to my task as a preacher, and do the same things as Megander.”81Haller returned to this point time and against in his letter to Bucer, as if he needed to do his utmost to vindicate himself. This is not entirely incomprehensible, since not all of his colleagues agreed with him. The decision to silence Megander aroused protests from among his supporters because, so they thought, it was the very freedom of the preaching office that was being threatened. For this reason they submitted a petition to the government.82 Haller, however, viewed things in an entirely different way. He was afraid that the disunity among the preachers, as well as the complaints that the people were raising about their behaviour, would push the government to act in a certain way. As a result, the ministers might very well be deprived of “the freedom of the preaching office” (prophetica libertate).83 The council was therefore confronted with a number of difficult decisions that it had to make. It had to ask itself whether the path of reform really was the right one for Bern, and, if so, what the place and task of the preachers was to be in the city’s church. In regard to the first question, Bern never really doubted whether its choice for the Reformation had been a good one, not even after the defeat at Cappel. On 24 November 1531, it signed a peace treaty with the enemy, but three days later, on 27 November, the council also decided to continue the reformation of the

79 80 81 82 83

ieved in the city by hemming in the church and its pastors. Bächtold: 1982, 15; Gäbler : 1983, 139. Blickle 1981, 191 – 195; Blickle: 1987, 114 – 119; Blickle: 1991, 10 f. A significant number of Bern’s pastors originated from abroad. Lavater : 1988, 36. Haller to Bucer, in BS 2, 357, l.22 – 23. Haller to Bucer, in BS 2, 356, l.19 – 357, l.3; Lavater : 1988, 63 – 64. Haller to Bucer, in BS 2, 357, l.26 – 31.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

35

city’s religious life.84 A month and a half later, the town clerk Peter Cyro would write the following: Four years ago, we as government “abjured … the papacy, and accepted the holy gospel for ourselves and for our subjects in the city and in the countryside, ”85 and now “we have once more united and have declared anew: We desire, in as far as it is in our power and God allows it in his grace, to maintain the holy gospel among ourselves and our subjects in doctrine and life.” He went on to point out that this had been demanded also by “all our delegates, who not long ago were with us, ” thereby indicating that the decision enjoyed widespread support. It is not exactly clear whom Cyro had in mind when he spoke of “all our delegates” – although they in any case were not the composers of the peasants’ petition which was presented to the meeting of the council on 5 December.86 Whatever the case may be, Bern made it clear that it intended to remain a Protestant city. The government had greater problems when it came to the second issue, namely, what place and function the preachers were to have. Even aside from the fact that the pastors were divided among themselves, there were some who openly flaunted the government. Moreover, the citizens were on the whole not overly satisfied with them. The origin for this dissatisfaction can be traced back to the seats that the preachers held in the Chorgericht. Both government as well as the dissatisfied citizens agreed that the ministers had to be shown their place. This is evident from the petition submitted on 5 December 1531, and from the prompt response that followed from the side of the government in its Kapellerbrief. The council therefore decided to call a synod immediately, rather than to await the annual synod that was scheduled for May.87 On 11 December, the Bernese council made an urgent request to Bullinger to lead the church at this synod.88 Bullinger, however, was in no position to accede to this request because of the chaos and instability in Zürich in the aftermath of Zwingli’s death. Following the defeat at Cappel, the population in Zürich and Bern began to doubt whether Zwingli’s view had been the correct one after all. Bullinger defended Zwingli, but he also steered the church of Zürich towards other, quieter 84 Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.3241, 1478; Lavater: 1988, 59, n.138; Vom Berg: 1988, 118, n.4; Locher : 1979, 546. 85 BS 1, Cyro, 19, l.7 – 14; we refer to Cyro for the government’s preface, see below n.103. 86 BS 1, Cyro, 20, l.27 – 30 and 23, l.1 – 4. 87 Peter Cyro, the town clerk, also pointed to this in the preface to the synodical documents: “For this reason, and partly also in order to prevent further disagreeable matters in the future, we have decreed a synod for all our preachers and pastors [seelsorger].” BS 1, Cyro, 23, l.5 – 7. The clause ‘For this reason’ (Da her) appears to refer to the disturbances described in the Kappelerbrief. Lavater : 1988, 61. 88 BW 1, no.48, 232 – 233; BW 1, no.49, 234 – 237; Vom Berg: 1988, 119, n.7. Haller repeated this request a little over two weeks later. Saxer: 1988, 150, n.1; Lavater : 1988, 71, n.225; BW 1, no.52, 242 – 244.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

36

The Church in Bern after 1528

waters. As he saw it, the preachers ought to exercise their prophetic influence in a more indirect manner.89 At the time, the government in Zürich was considering ways to restrict the preachers’ prophetic freedom in their duty as shepherds significantly, and hoped to find an ally for this in the young Bullinger. On 28 November 1531 (i. e. the day of the peasant rebellion in Meilen), the council appointed him to be the first pastor to Zürich’s Grossmünster as the successor to Zwingli.90 Two weeks later, on 13 December, Bullinger presented the conditions under which he would be willing to accept this appointment. The council had alerted Bullinger to the demands made by the peasants in Meilen and expected that he and the other ministers would follow them,91 and especially that they would refrain from involving themselves in “matters of secular regiment.”92 Bullinger, on behalf of his fellow pastors, formulated his conditions of acceptance most carefully. He knew that, if he gave in to the peasants’ demands, the government would have the power to censure the preaching of God’s Word. Framed in that way, it was the very freedom of the pastoral office that was at stake! In the end, the council listened to Bullinger and decided not to encroach upon the freedom of preaching, “because the Word of God will not be bound.” It therefore stipulated that Bullinger and the other pastors were not to involve themselves in matters of the state, but maintained that they could preach “without limitation or restraint” what Scripture teaches, even in regard to social or political issues.93 Bullinger’s clarifications and Zürich’s response announced a new period in the city’s history. Now that the freedom of preaching had been salvaged, the foundations were laid for a new relationship of trust between the city’s pastors and government. The oath by which the ministers swore their allegiance to the government was now formulated in stronger terms than before.94 The influence of the decisions would be felt throughout the entire Swiss and south German reform movement; in Bern, it would become evident within a matter of weeks during the synod. Each city was still given the task to give concrete expression to the freedom of the preacher’s office which Bullinger had obtained.95 Bern was the first city to draft a church order in Bullinger’s spirit.

89 Gäbler : 1983, 139. 90 The council of Zürich chose Bullinger ahead of the radical Zwinglians Leo Judae, Megander, and Myconius. Locher : 1979, 548. 91 HBRG 3, no.501, 291; Bächtold: 1982, 16, n.7. 92 In article four, the peasants demanded that only those preachers be accepted who preach God’s Word “in a Christian, pious, and amicable” manner, without politicising their preaching. HBRG 3, no.500, 287, l.18 – 19. Bächtold: 1982, 16, n.6. 93 Bächtold: 1982, 17, n.12; Locher : 1979, 547, n.362; Gäbler : 1983, 139. 94 HBRG 3, no.502, 295 – 296. Bächtold: 1982, 17; Locher: 1979, 547, n.362. 95 Bächtold: 1982, 18; Bächtold: 1975, 269 – 289.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1528

37

Earlier it was noted that Bullinger declined to chair the highly anticipated and foundational synod of Bern, which opened with its first session on 9 January 1532. Bullinger had too many other things on his mind at the time, but the ministers in Bern were similarly disqualified from presiding over the synod because they had either been too vocal in taking sides or else were deemed unsuitable for other reasons. On 30 December 1531, however, the Strasbourg pastor Wolfgang Capito arrived in Bern – entirely unexpectedly, as the documents from the period lead us to believe.96 On the day of his arrival, this celebrated and erudite theologian97 was asked to lead one of the worship services, and that very same day the city council asked him to serve as chairman to the upcoming synod. Because of his earlier Anabaptist sympathis, Capito was not an uncontroversial figure in Bern,98 but soon after the synod ended Haller already referred to him as “indeed the father to our churches.”99 Haller depicted Capito as the one who “has reconciled the church, the brothers, and the council with each other, ” adding by way of hyperbole: “so that all, even the atheists, say : ‘God sent that man our way.’”100 When the 54–year old Capito agreed to chair the synod of Bern, he immediately sought to be informed about what Haller had described as “the miserable state and confusion of our churches.” Although the government wanted to defer the Megander affair until after the synod, Capito sought an immediate solution to this sensitive issue. For that reason, he held preparatory discussions about the conflicts surrounding Megander.101 At an earlier time, on 14 December 1531, the council had already determined that the synod, which would be held from 9 to 14 January 1532, was to occupy itself among other things with the implementation of the government’s mandates, the duty of the preachers, and the Chorgericht’s power of excommunication.102

96 Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.3281, 1495: Capito arrived in Bern “about 8 days before the synod” (ungevärlich 8 tag vor dem Synodo). See also Locher : 1979, 550, n.380; it is possible that Bucer had advised Capito to pass by Bern. 97 Capito was first pastor in Bern (as of 1515), where he numbered among the friends of Erasmus, then (as of 1520) advisor in the service of the archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht of Brandenburg. In 1523 Capito became provost to the collegiate church of St. Thomas in Strasbourg. Vom Berg: 1988, 131 – 133. 98 Saxer : 1988, 151. 99 Haller to Bucer (Jan. 16, 1532), in BS 2, 357, l.33. 100 Haller to Bucer, in BS 2, 358, l. 85 – 87. 101 Haller to Bucer, in BS 2, 357, l.43 – 47. 102 Lavater : 1988, 50. Excommunication is addressed in the context of a question from the chapter of Brugg from 23 May 1531. Another factor to be taken into account is that the population on the whole resented that judicial authority was being exercised over them from outside of Bern. Lavater : 1988, 47, n.72; 50 en 95.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

38

2.

The Church in Bern after 1528

The Church in Bern after 1532

Bern’s city council therefore did not convene a synod because of any disagreement over its authority in ecclesiastical matters. Rather, the synod was convoked because the council heeded the complaints of the people, and sought to regulate the way in which the preachers were to exercise their office. The efforts for reform and renewal had brought many changes to the city’s religious life, and this had led to great unrest. All were agreed on three matters, however: (1) that the government ought to have control over the church, (2) that the preachers were public servants, and (3) that the Chorgericht represented a governmental department for treating matters of morals. In what follows, we will consider what the January 1532 synod of Bern decided on these matters, and, in light of our main question concerning the church’s independence, examine in particular whether the church of Bern had its own authoritative body, independent of the government and endowed with judicative and excommunicative powers.

The leadership of the church The 1532 synod ended with the production of a church order composed of 44 articles, which can be divided as follows: introduction (art. 1), doctrine (arts. 2 – 23), preaching and admonition (arts. 24 – 32), catechism instruction (arts. 33 – 35), and, finally, the work and life of the pastors (arts. 36 – 44). The articles are preceded by (1) a preface from the government, written by the town clerk Peter Cyro, and (2) a preface from the ministers.103 The government’s preface is entitled “Regulation which the pastors and preachers in the city and countryside of Bern are to follow in doctrine and life.”104 When the synodical acts were published, Bern therefore had its own church order, in which the position and task of the preachers was defined. The government decided that these regulations were to be read on an annual basis at the synodical assembly held in May of every year.105 In their preface, the preachers stated that it is a matter of course that the government has authority over the church. After all, the government stands in 103 The church order, together with the two prefaces, was reprinted in 1984 by G. W. Lochner in the first volume of Der Berner Synodus von 1532. In what follows, we refer to the government’s preface as ‘BS 1, Cyro’ (= BS 1, 17 – 27), while the preface of the pastors is referred to as ‘BS 1, preface’ (= BS 1, 28 – 36). On the identification of Cyro as the author of the government’s preface, see Lavater : 1988, 116; Locher : 1988a, 18. 104 BS 1, Cyro, 17, l.2 – 4. 105 BS 1, Cyro, 27, l.14 – 16. See n.65.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

39

the service of God and has the duty to change erroneous practices and abuses in the church. In other words, the state must see to it that its subjects outwardly confess their faith and live their life in conformity with the gospel.106 In support, the pastors pointed to the Old Testament times, when Moses and the kings of Judah too were leaders over the nation’s religious life.107 The preachers were convinced that this means that the government “must see to sound doctrine, prevent people from error and from being led astray, remove all blasphemy and public sins in worship and life, protect the truth and good morals, etc.”108 The synod wanted no change to be made in any of this. It stated that the magistrate has the duty to promote “Christian government insofar as it is external,” together with “the free concourse of grace.”109 For the ministers, the decision that the city had made to reform the church’s life was a decision that pertained to the external form of religion; it stood on the same level as other measures that the government imposed upon its subjects.110 The government’s preface similarly takes it for granted that church life is on the same level as other aspects of civil life. The edict of reform, so it says, was promulgated “in the same manner as any other civil measure and law.”111 From the above, it thus emerges that religious life in Bern stood under the leadership of the city council; the ministers, on the other hand, were charged with the task of helping the state to execute its decisions.112

The ecclesiastical functionaries The city council was also the one to remark that the reformation of church life in Bern was not progressing as expected. At the close of the synod, Peter Cyro, the town clerk, formulated the government’s position by pointing out “how little Christianity is found among us.”113 Cyro further noted that only months ago the 106 BS 1, preface, 30. 107 BS 1, preface, 34. It is worthwhile in this context also to point to Zwingli, who at the synod of St. Gallen in 1530 defended the position that the times in which they lived were more comparable to the days of Israel than of the apostles; this implied for him that the church did not have to be an independent organisation. Farner: 1960, 409 – 411. In 1530 Bucer in his Epistola apologetica defended the position, on the basis of Romans 13, that the New Testament recognised the authority of the government alone, making the authority of the pope and of the archbishops entirely unbiblical. Bucer : 1982, 114 – 117. We owe both of these references to Augustijn: 1988, 84 – 85, n.2 and 3. 108 BS 1, preface, 30, l.30 and 33, l.1 – 3. 109 BS 1, preface, 30, l.26 – 30. 110 BS 1, preface, 33, l.9 – 10. 111 BS 1, Cyro, 19, l.10 – 14. 112 The preachers refer among others to Romans 13. BS 1, art.32a, 125. 113 BS 1, Cyro, 20, l.9 – 10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

40

The Church in Bern after 1528

councillors had once more decided for the Reformation when they declared: “We want to maintain the holy gospel … for us and our subjects in doctrine and life.” This was in fact why “we ordained a synod for all our preachers and pastors.”114 Yet there was little hope that a synod could solve the problems. For, “many great shortcomings” could be found in the “doctrine and life” of the ministers as well.115 The government was not impressed by their behaviour, since it had “hoped for much more piety and change in style of life.” The unrest of the last period revealed the need for greater cooperation on the part of the ministers, and for wider support for the Reformed cause from within the community.116 The preachers for their part were aware that the government only had limited control over its subjects’ convictions. They expressed this during the synod of Bern when they remarked the following to the councillors: “Indeed, your efforts and authority can, insofar as the gospel is concerned, produce nothing more than hypocrites – as has indeed happened –, unless Christ himself is at work. For many stay away from the Mass as a blasphemy, although earlier they were content with this abomination and still would be if you, o gracious lords, had not abolished the Mass with your edict and mandate.”117 There is only so much that the government can do. For, it can punish transgressors and have the gospel preached in all its purity, but it cannot “produce a clear conscience before God.”118 The people themselves must be convinced. The synod recognized that this represented a significant problem, “since subjects are by nature inclined to revolt, disobedience, and aversion against the government, just as the poor are against the rich.”119 Remarkably, the ministers in this passage speak about the people in the church from the perspective of the councillors, as it were, for they refer to them as “subjects.” By doing so, the pastors placed themselves firmly on the side of the government.120 Capito121 was convinced that it was important, also for the city council, that the pastors in their preaching “point to God in the face of Christ.” For if they fail 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

See n.85-87. BS 1, Cyro, 19, l.22 – 23. BS 1, Cyro, 20, l.2 – 7. BS 1, preface, 33, l.12 – 17. BS 1, preface, 34, l.5 f. BS 1, art.32a, 125, l.6 – 9. Cf. also article 42 on the visitation and instruction of the “subjects”. BS 1, art.42, 157, l.11 and 18. Lavater : 1988, 53, n.100. 121 Capito played an important role in the composition of the synod’s articles. O. E. Strasser has argued that he had already written sixteen articles prior to the synod, to which the synod itself added another 28. Other scholars suggest that Capito composed the entire document. However, such expressions as “Act of the synod or Christian assembly,” or that it has been decided “at this synod,” seem to point in another direction. Lavater : 1988, 75 f; Vom Berg: 1988, 129, n.73. It is possible that Cyro had earlier written some of the articles for another occasion. Saxer : 1988, 156.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

41

to do so, “the people will only become more wicked and unbelieving, and will, just like the pagans, in the end find themselves without God in the world.”122 The government and the ministers clearly looked to each other as partners, and they acknowledged that they needed mutual support if the new direction Bern had decided to embark upon was to have any chance at all of succeeding. The government was highly satisfied with the outcome of the synod, and stated that it had been above and beyond its expectations.123 When the synod closed, the council wrote a letter to the magistracy of Strasbourg, dated 14 January 1532, in which it remarked: “Capito has paved a way in Bern for reforming the priesthood.”124 In spite of the synod’s positive outcome and the good intentions expressed by the preachers in their first article,125 the government at the very outset of its preface expressed concerns about “the numerous and great shortcomings in doctrine and life” that it had discerned among the preachers. Bern went on to sound a clear warning to them: those who do not wholeheartedly cooperate with the policy “will discover that this will not remain unpunished.” The city council will penalize the shortcomings of those who fall in such a way “that everyone can see how seriously we take the honour of God and the disobedience against his Word.”126 In this regard, the ministers’ obligatory attendance at the 1532 synod is illustrative. This requirement likewise indicates what the relationship between ministers and government was like in terms of their respective powers. For, any minister who failed to appear at the synod on 9 January 1532 would be dismissed by the government!127 The first paragraph of the preachers’ preface is likewise revealing for the nature of this relationship. For, we read that it was not possible for the church’s office-bearers “through external measures fruitfully to establish and maintain something without the cooperation and advancement of the secular government.”128 When Bullinger was appointed to be pastor of Zürich in 1531, he reserved for himself the right to preach in freedom.129 Similar issues circulated in the background to the 1532 synod of Bern, for the government was convinced that the 122 123 124 125

126 127 128 129

BS 1, art.3, 41, l.16 – 19. BS 1, Cyro, 23, l.10 f. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.3281, 1494 – 1495. In the first article, the preachers confessed that two things were entirely indispensable in the exercise of their office, namely, “sound doctrine and a good and honourable [besserlich/ eerlich] life.” BS 1, art.1, 38, l.1 – 3. The expression “doctrine and life” recurs six times in the government’s preface alone. BS 1, Cyro, 27, l.5 – 14; see n.115. Steck and Tobler : 1923, no.3258, 1484. BS 1, preface, 29, l.14 – 21. See n.89-95.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

42

The Church in Bern after 1528

ministers were meddling too much in the politics of the city. The ministers did continue to insist that they should have some freedom for carrying out their duty of preaching, “for it makes no sense to remain completely silent or to address sins too gently.”130 They still had to be able to criticize the government from the pulpit over matters pertaining to spiritual and moral well-being.131 But all in all, the outcome of the synod meant a significant reduction in the freedoms that the ministers had once enjoyed. Of course, the pastors were not silenced altogether, for they did receive a certain freedom for their preaching. But politicized preaching had become an issue since the battle of Cappel, and this was also evident at the synod of Bern. In article 23, the synod warned against the oversimplified application of Old Testament texts to the current situation. “We, servants of the Spirit, must declare all things spiritually” and not, as false prophets, suggest to the peasants “that they can fend off bullets with their sleeves and overcome the armies of the enemy through their faith.” Interesting about this statement is that it also occurs in a 1525 work from Luther against Thomas Müntzer, which Capito may well have known.132 In article 26, the preachers were spurred on in their admonitions to address only those who were present, for it is of no use to “address the electors and princes who have nothing to do with us, and do not want to be received by our church.” An exception was made for the pope, since he by his power is continually at work to bring our conscience on the path of error. Accordingly, so the synod stated, the pope may be addressed in his errors at all times.133

130 BS 1, art.25, 109, l.1 – 2. Article 28 warns the preachers not to pander to either the government or the ‘common man’. Ministers would no doubt have been tempted to win the grace of the authorities in their preaching, although they conversely may have felt the urge to attack them from the pulpit so as to win the favour of the rest of the population. BS 1, art.27, 114 and art.28, 114 and 117; see also art.31 and 32a; Lutz: 1988, 255. 131 BS 1, art.32a, 129, art.30, 122 and art.32b, 133; Meyer : 1988, 264; Lutz: 1988, 157. 132 BS 1, art.23, 101, l.11 – 13 and 5 – 9. The quotation from article 23 runs as follows: “[…] das sy der büchsenstein inn ermel stossen, unnd gegen irem bussen durch iren glouben tryben wolten”. Luther uses the image of a sleeve in his Eine schreckliche Geschichte und ein Gericht Gottes über Thomas Müntzer from 1525. He writes there that Müntzer had said: “Sie weren Gottes volck, Gott stritte für sie, eyner würde hundert erschlahen, ia, mit eym viltzhut würden sie funffe tod werffen, Und die büchssen steyne würden zu rücke keren ym schiessen und die feynde treffen? Wo ist nu Müntzers ermel, darynn er wollt alle büchsen steyn fahen, die widder seyn volck geschossen würden?” WA 18, 373, l.13 – 18. This expression is also recorded from Müntzer himself, so that it may be a common expression: “er wolt alle pfeil vnd geschoß des widerteils in sein ermel vff fahen, vnd den vienden wider zu rück in ir gezelt treiben.” Elliger : 1975, 777, n.169. The synod of Bern most probably wanted to condemn the movement surrounding Thomas Müntzer with this expression. Article 23 consciously addressed the problem of the “spiritualistisch-chiliastische Flügel des Täufertums” and their “anarchistische Haltung”. Gerber : 1988, 190 and 192. 133 BS 1, art.26, 109, l.21 – 23 and 110, l.18 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

43

While it insisted that the freedom of preaching may not be curtailed, article 28 pointed the preachers to the dangers inherent in politicized sermons. There are preachers, so it noted, who “speak out much too sharply against the government.” They do so especially when no one from the government is actually present. In fact, whenever a government representative is present, “they clumsily tell them exactly what they want to hear, ” even though it is their task “to witness to the truth.” But when such representatives are absent, the ministers sternly admonish them “in order to ingratiate themselves before the commoner.” And “the commoner is all ears when accusations of evil and shame are made against others, and especially against the government. The task of Christ’s servant is, on the contrary, neither to submit himself to subjects or governments, nor to elevate himself.” The preachers ought “to lead the hearts of believers fully to Christ, without respect of person.” The article acknowledges that pastors too are out for approval: “We, however, want – alas! – to be loved, and to be hated by none.” Yet, so it adds, “this was not what Paul was after.” In the end, “the preachers should pay greater attention to the eternal counsel of God and declare upon the authority of God what will stand firm on the last day, ” rather than proclaim “what pleases and delights the world in which we live, and what most delightfully tickles carnal, wanton ears.”134 Conversely, the synod demanded of the councillors that they remain calm, even when they were being accused and admonished from the pulpit. God sometimes uses “a simple and uneducated man, like a village preacher of small repute, ” in order to break our worldly wisdom.135 In article 32, the synod used an example to demonstrate what does and does not count as politicized preaching. “At times taxes are levied without moderation. It is the government’s task to correct this. The pastors ought not to meddle too quickly in this matter, since it does not properly belong to their office and since it implies a change in the general order of the land, which cannot be effected without the good experience and lengthy consideration of wise and experienced men.” The only rule is “that love is the measure for every act, and that everyone does to another what he in that same situation would himself also gratefully receive.”136 Capito was able to convince the synod that it was potentially dangerous for ministers to meddle in political affairs, and that external coercive measures hardly had any effect on a person’s inner life or piety. Capito’s view was also adopted by the synod: “the gospel relates to the conscience alone.”137 But as soon as the kingdom of Christ

134 135 136 137

BS 1, art.28, 117, l.2 – 24. BS 1, art.30, 121, l.8 – 11. BS 1, art.32a, 129, l.7 – 12 and 18 – 21. BS 1, art.32a, 129, l.26 – 27; Guggisberg: 1958, 149 – 151.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

44

The Church in Bern after 1528

comes to external expression, it is the government that bears the responsibility.138 The particular responsibility of the pastors, so the synod stipulated, lies in the formation of a person’s internal, spiritual life.139 On this point, the preachers agreed fervently with the government. The people must be motivated to renewal from within, for the righteous live “by their faith.”140 The preachers should therefore stir the people up to do what is good, without “external coercion.”141 The government and citizens further expected from the preachers that they would excel morally and spiritually, and thereby give a good example of the evangelical life. Within a short span of time, the ministers were to adapt themselves in their work, in their conduct, as well as in their personal circumstances to the renewals that were taking place in the church.142 The government complained that a deficiency in the ministers’ abilities, persistence, and sense of duty threatened the success of its policy of reform. Any shortcomings on the part of the pastors would bring dishonour to God, hinder the piety and good morals among the subjects, and damage the reputation of the ministers and call down God’s wrath “upon us and our people.”143 In fact, if no improvement is made, the opponents of the Reformed cause will have every reason to calumniate the holy gospel because they “perceive hardly any discipline and sincere righteousness among our subjects.”144 The preachers acknowledged that the government was right to complain, and in this context pointed to the words of the prophet Hosea: “Like priests, like people, and like people, like priests.”145 If the people are re138 On several points the synod’s theological perspective seems to approach that of the Anabaptists, although it does not advocate the renunciation of the world or the denial of the civil government. Locher : 1988a, 32 f. 139 BS 1, art.28, 117, l.26 – 28. 140 BS 1, art.27, 114, l.13 – 14. This was even applied to the Lord’s Supper. For, the goal is that “the sacraments might incite us to perfection, rather than stimulate us to carnal sensuality”. BS 1, art.19, 74, l.27 – 28; Vom Berg: 1988, 135. This is not an isolated view on the sacraments, but forms a part of the tradition that existed among the adherents of the devotio moderna. Capito further found support for his position in someone like Erasmus. If people still believe in the sacrifice of the Mass, this is no reason for us to admonish them. For, our concern must be for the internal strengthening of their faith, for God and for their conscience. Locher : 1988b, 222. Augustijn summarises Erasmus’s view as follows: “Het is de weg van de verinnerlijking: het objectieve is onbelangrijk, het institutionele helpt niet, de al te massieve hulpmiddelen die de kerk biedt baten niet, slechts het hart, de gezindheid telt.” Augustijn: 1986, 50; see also Heussi: 1971, 267, par.72p. 141 BS 1, art.32a, 130, l.9 – 12. 142 Many of the pastors married once celibacy was no longer required. The combination of family life and pastorate was new to many of them, and among other things added financial concerns. Feller : 1974, 262 – 265; Locher : 1988a, 25 – 26. 143 BS 1, Cyro, 19, l.22 – 25. The last point may allude to the defeat at Cappel. 144 BS 1, Cyro, 19, l.26 – 20, l.1. Lavater : 1988a, 57, n.122. 145 BS 1, art.36, 138, l.23 – 25; see Hosea 4: 4 and 9; Lavater : 188a, 57, n.125.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

45

bellious and disregard the truth, we will have no one to blame for this but ourselves as pastors. We must be “zealous cultivators and helpers of God.”146 The government accepted this admission of guilt on the part of the ministers, and offered them its support and protection so that they “might preach Jesus Christ alone, reject the errors,” and without fear address “the sin and occasions for offense on the part of both government and subjects, ourselves included.”147 We can conclude that the government attempted to renew the impetus for reformation, and that the ministers offered themselves as loyal subjects to achieve this end. Neither the government nor the preachers thought it necessary that there be some kind of independent ecclesiastical power. According to the view of the ministers, it was the government that had the power over church life, while they as its ecclesiastical functionaries were wholeheartedly committed to obeying and supporting it without having any external means of power at their disposal. The task of the ministers was to incite the people to do what is good, “without external coercion,” as we saw above.148 In article one, the preachers agreed that they would be zealous, from within “the office entrusted to us, which is spiritual, internal, and heavenly, ” to shape the church’s life in the spirit of these stipulations.149 The same is evident in the stipulations regarding the institution responsible for exercising supervision and discipline, namely, the Chorgericht: “We want to supervise more the internal … than the external things. That is why we are content with the Chorgericht … and do not yet seek to extend our power to the exercise of discipline” (art. 22).150 But what did the synod of Bern decide on church discipline itself ?

Church discipline The way church discipline was exercised in Bern by the Chorgericht demonstrates once more that church and government worked together in one line. In order to develop this point, we want to consider whether the pastors – either in themselves, or through the Chorgericht – had a power to discipline the members of the church. Did the 1532 synod of Bern attempt to gain a more independent

146 147 148 149

BS 1, art.36, 141, l.6 – 7; see n.122. BS 1, Cyro, 24, l.15 – 19; see BS 1, art.27, 113 – 114. BS 1, art.32a, 125, l.15; Locher : 1979, 193; Guggisberg: 1958, 148; n.141. This is why, so the article continues, above all “a sound doctrine and an exemplary [besserlich] and honourable [eerlich] life” are needed. BS 1, art.1, 37, l.27 and 38, l.1 – 2; Meyer: 1988, 264. 150 BS 1, art.1, 37, l.26 – 28 and BS 1, art.22, 93, l.15 – 19. The last part of the citation reads as follows in the original text: “unnd wellend nit bald yemant wyter zu bannen fürnemen.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

46

The Church in Bern after 1528

form of church discipline for the ministers, or did this power reside entirely in the hands of the government? Protestant theologians in the Swiss territories are known to have held different views on the place of church discipline. What position did Bern adopt in January 1532? On 28 December 1531, shortly before the synod opened, Haller gave an indication as to how he thought about church discipline and how he wanted the synod of January 1531 to rule on it. He wrote “that the preachers are striving to obtain the right of excommunication from the government.” “But,” he added at the end of this passage, “I for my part hope that the council will not change anything before we receive the advice of the brothers and of the other churches.”151 Earlier on in this chapter we saw how Haller in his letter to Zwingli from 5 October 1530 explained what the position of the Chorgericht in Bern was.152 Here he had made it clear that some kind of distinction had to be drawn between the civil and ecclesiastical aspects of the Chorgericht: “punishment is [effected] in the name of the magistracy, while admonition and excommunication [are carried out] in the name of the church.”153 Haller did indicate that church and state cooperated closely in the Chorgericht; the council left excommunication to this body with a “mixed ecclesiastical and secular character.”154 After October 1531, however, the situation changed considerably within the Protestant camp. By the time the synod took place, the Protestants had lost the war, and the peasants in Bern and Zürich refused to put up any longer with the control that the ministers were exercising over them by their politicized sermons and their execution of justice in the Chorgericht. For that reason, the ministers of Bern and Zwingli deliberated whether an independent form of church discipline was at all necessary. This question came to be focused on the narrower issue as to whether or not the ministers could have the right to keep people from the table of the Lord’s Supper. 151 BW 1, no.52, 242, l.19 – 20 en 243, l.6. In this letter to Bullinger, Haller pointed to their earlier correspondence on the issue, as well as to the meetings with Oecolampadius. On 27 September 1530, this issue was treated at a Burgrechtstag in Aarau at which Oecolampadius from Basel was one of the speakers; on 1 August 1531, Haller discussed church discipline with Oecolampadius. BW 1, 242, n.8 and 207, n.7. Oecolampadius wrote to Zwingli on 27 September 1530 that he was worried about the situation in Bern. He wrote that the Bernese government had too much power over the church, and that this had also come out at the synod from earlier that month. In his opinion, matters ought to be regulated better in Bern. ZO 8, no.125, 521. Earlier, on 17 September 1530, Oecolampadius had written to Zwingli about the same issue. In explaining Matthew 18:17, he remarked that Christ had given remedies to the church, and that he “did not say, ‘If someone does not listen, tell it to the government’ but ‘to the church’.” ZO 8, no.118, 510, r.25 – 26. 152 See n.52-56. 153 ZW 11, no.1112, 178, l.9 – 11 = ZO 8, no.131, 529, l.7 and 8; see n.53. 154 Guggisberg: 1958, 177.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

47

In Zürich, there were clear differences of opinion. Bullinger opposed any form of censure related to the Eucharist; the Lord’s Supper was for everyone, for all sinners, and no selection of persons was to be made. For, as he noted, even Judas was not kept from the table.155 On 15 March 1532 he wrote to his Zürich colleague Leo Judae that we must be content to have the opportunity “freely to proclaim the truth, freely to confess Christ and to associate with all who are in the church.”156 Leo Judae, however, had a rather different view, for he did support an independent form of church discipline.157 Early in March 1532, he poured out his heart in a lengthy letter to Bullinger. He was convinced that excommunication was a right that Christ had entrusted to the church, rather than to the government. “It is certain that Christ entrusted the sacraments to the church. The bread of grace (panis gratiarum) is intended as food for those who believe and for those who are in Christ’s church.”158 Although he did not want to express himself on the question as to whether or not excommunication should consist especially in exclusion from the Lord’s Supper table, he did argue that the holy supper must not be administered to those who are not worthy of it. In Zürich the situation had become so terrible that “the most holy body and blood of Jesus Christ are administered to the unworthy and godless, while they with mouth, heart, and life resist Christ, which is something that deeply grieves me.”159 In a later chapter we will see that the connection between discipline and Lord’s Supper was also an important one for Calvin. Like Leo Judae, he too was most concerned to prevent the profanation of this sacrament. Judae was a clear proponent of an independent form of church discipline. But did Calvin also share this view of Judae? Or did he incline towards the position of Bullinger as a proponent of a form of church discipline that was to be administered under the leadership of the government? Haller too occupied himself with the question of church discipline. As Köhler has pointed out, he pleaded for the Chorgericht to have the power to forbid people to participate in the Lord’s Supper in the name of the church, where this exclusion from the table was to be entirely separate from the regular forms of 155 BW 1, no.39, 213. 156 BW 2, no.74, 74, l.120 – 121. After the defeat at Cappel and the peasant rebellion late in 1531, it was not at all certain in December of that year whether the pastors would retain this right. It was through the intervention of Bullinger that the ministers did manage to retain the freedom of preaching. Quervain: 1906, Beilage 21 and 22, 231 – 240. See n.74 and 76. 157 The Basel preachers Oecolampadius and Grynaeus, as well as the Zürich pastor Leo Judae, were on the whole agreed on an independent form of church discipline. Pestalozzi: 1860, 34 f; Bächtold: 1982, 19 – 24. 158 BW 2, no.70, 62, l.195 – 197. Excommunication in the form of exclusion from the Lord’s Supper was less debated than the question as to what party should actually have the right to apply that excommunication. See n.172 and 175. 159 BW 2, no.70, 64, l.259 – 262.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

48

The Church in Bern after 1528

punishment that were doled out against those who break the law. Bullinger responded to Haller on 6 July 1531 by writing a long and detailed letter to him.160 According to Bullinger, “public and offensive crimes must be punished with excommunication if it is clear that brotherly admonition is of no effect.”161 Bullinger argued “that the power to punish criminals and to place them in custody – and this is what I [= Bullinger] understand the meaning of the word ‘excommunication’ to be – is entrusted to the venerable magistracy.”162 In this context, he also referred to Matt 18:17; for Bullinger, the leadership of church and Christian government thus amounted to one and the same thing. He further expressed his disgust at the Anabaptist claim that “the magistrate is not the church.”163 For Bullinger, the power of excommunication was in good hands if it was held by the government. It would not be a good thing for the church to have its own body of government aside from the city council in order to oversee its affairs and to administer church discipline.164 In his conception of a Christian city state, church and state were fully entwined. Leo Judae, in contrast, maintained a distinction according to which the church was to be given its own power of excommunication. As we saw, attempts were made to appoint Bullinger as chairman to the 1532 synod of Bern.165 The choice for him is already indicative of the way the government viewed the prospects of the church having an independent form of discipline available to it. Several of the city’s pastors did in contrast want such a form of discipline for the church, although they certainly were not unanimous in this. Haller, for example, showed his preference for the position also held by Bern and by Bullinger when he stated his wish that the Chorgericht be maintained as it was.166 It is remarkable that only one of the articles of Bern’s synod mentions the Chorgericht. Not surprisingly, this is the article devoted to the Lord’s Supper, which addresses the topic most carefully : “Given that the matter is one of great 160 Köhler : 1932, 354. Haller’s letter to Bullinger on this matter is, unfortunately, no longer extant. BW 1, no.39, 205, n.2. 161 BW 1, no.39, 208, l.6 – 7. Köhler: 1932, 354 f. 162 BW 1, no.39, 208, l.12 – 14. 163 BW 1, no.39, 208, l.15 f and 209, r.29 f. 164 See n.88. 165 Bullinger summarised Haller’s objection as follows: “In this way you are lending support to the position of the pope’s followers.” BW 1, no.39, 209, l.29. Bullinger countered by saying that an assembly of bishops does not constitute the church. Moreover, members of the council can be dismissed, while this is not so for bishops. He further added that division in the church is not good for it, and that arbitrariness on the part of the church in regard to its customs and to the norms of punishment will be regarded as “a hypocritical display.” BW 1, no.39, 214, l.6 – 11. 166 See n.151. Just like the Bernese government, Haller urged Bullinger to come to Bern on multiple occasions in December 1531. See n.88.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

49

delicacy among us and still in its infancy, we want to focus more on what will serve internal edification … than the external matter.” The synod then gave its conclusion in a single sentence: “For that reason, we wish to be satisfied with the Chorgericht” – although it also added: “as long as it acquits itself of its task with zeal.”167 The synod thus maintained the status quo. The Chorgericht in Bern was to remain a modest mixture of representatives from church and state, just as it had been when it was first established after the example of Zürich’s Ehegericht in the early years of the Reformation. The Chorgericht was charged with the task of “addressing sinners who cause offence,” and so “to protect the congregation from bad examples, and by way of punishment to give the guilty party the opportunity to abandon his wrong practices.”168 This “brotherly censure,” which the Chorgericht was to apply “zealously without respect of persons,” thus has a dual purpose: to see to the purity of the church, and to bring the sinners to admit their wrong-doing and to change their ways.169 From a number of elements it emerges that the synod appears to have striven for compromise. On the one hand, it approved of the Chorgericht, provided that it carry out its duties with the required zeal. On the other hand, the synod also stated that it had no desire to “extend our power to the exercise of discipline.”170 The resulting compromise was one of greater zeal, but less severity.171 The passage on banishment in article 22 pertains to the punishment and eventual exile from the city of those who persistently resisted the new teaching and life, as some Anabaptists were doing, for example. For the time being, the preachers were to be tolerant towards those who held different convictions. The passage in article 22 on ‘banishment’ can in theory also be read as a prohibition on participation in the Lord’s Supper.172 Nevertheless, what makes this reading 167 BS 1, art.22, 93, l.14 – 18. 168 BS 1, art.22, 93, l.19 – 22. 169 BS 1, art.22, 93, l.22 – 24. Calvin gave the same two motives for discipline, but added the additional motive that Christ’s name might not be blasphemed and profaned. See chapter 2, n.232. 170 See n.150. 171 Haller had earlier already showed his concern about the fact that the government had not been sufficiently strict in exercising church discipline, while the people complained to the government about the exaggerated severity of the Chorgericht due especially to the presence of the pastors. See n.58 and 74. 172 Zwingli understood excommunication as a means to remove the wicked influences from society. ZW 4, no.52 (the preface by W. Köhler to Zwingli’s Ratschlag betreffend Ausschliessung vom Abendmahl für Ehebrechter, Wucherer usw. of 12 April 1525), 25 – 30. ZW 3, no.50 (“Commentarius de vera et falsa religione” of March 1525), 807, l.25 – 808, l.11, where Zwingli in passing draws a connection between excommunication and the Lord’s Supper. Gäbler : 1983, 96. See also ZW 2, no.20 (Auslegung und Gründe der Schlussreden, the commentary on the 67 theses of 15 July 1523), 276 – 91. Thesis 32 reads: “That only those

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

50

The Church in Bern after 1528

unlikely is the fact that the following lines explicitly address the relationship between discipline and Lord’s Supper, and assign the task of keeping people from the table to the pastors. For where a person “shows himself in word and deed to be an enemy of the gospel but still wants to participate in the Lord’s Super, every zealous and conscientious pastor … will himself know how to apply every appropriate measure necessary so that he may not be punished for his negligence.”173 With this, the connection between discipline and the Lord’s Supper was taken out of the juridical sphere, and placed in a pastoral context. After January 1532 Bern therefore no longer had a separate institution charged with the task of fencing the table of the sacrament. Haller will hardly have been impressed with these developments, nor will his friend Farel who, together with Calvin, would later face the same issues in Geneva.174 As we will see, the Genevan government did not allow the pastors to prevent people from coming to the table of the Lord, leading Calvin and Farel to the conviction that the state was doing too little to prevent the Holy Supper from being defiled.175 The Chorgericht in Bern was a committee dedicated to matters of morals, similar to what could be found in other states, whether Protestant or Catholic. It was a state institution in which also several ministers had a seat; thus, in giving several seats in the Chorgericht to the pastors, the state implicitly acknowledged that social life did indeed include an ecclesiastical element. In January 1532, the council decided, at the recommendation of the synod, to permit the ministers to keep people from the table of the Holy Supper in serious cases, although it who give public offence may be excommunicated.” According to thesis 31, the power of excommunication belongs to the church. Matthew 18:15 – 18 has a central place in these articles. Zwingli’s main concern is to argue that the church’s power of excommunication does not reside with one person (i. e. the bishop), but with the church as a whole. ‘Excommunication’ progresses gradually, beginning with private admonition and ending with the sinner’s removal from the community. 173 BS 1, art.22, 93, l.26 – 94, l.1. 174 Farel, who worked in the Bernese territory as of November 1526 first without an official appointment and later as a ‘civil servant’ to the government, was a good friend and associate of Haller. As pastor in Bern he attended the synod of 1532, and lodged during that time with Haller. Since he died on 25 February 1536, it seems that Haller never did meet Calvin. Nauta: 1978, 32 – 56; Wälchli: 1981, 114. For Haller’s view on excommunication in 1530, see n.153; for his view in 1531, see n.160; finally, for Bullinger’s view in 1532, see n.162. From this comparison it emerges that the precise meaning of ‘excommunication’ was still a matter of some debate. 175 In Zürich’s marriage laws from 15 December 1526 we see a repeated mention of punishment in the form of abstinence from the Lord’s Supper table (Egli: 1879, no.1087, 521, l.32 and 522, l.1), which may well have been introduced to Bern in Haller’s Ordnung und Satzung des Eegerichts (8 March 1529) following the Zürich example. In his discussions with Bullinger, Haller after all showed that he supported the discipline of the Lord’s Supper ; see n.160 and 153. The acts of the Chorgericht prior to 1532 never mention anybody being kept from the table. Köhler : 1932, 354.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Church in Bern after 1532

51

admonished them to be most reserved in the exercise of this right. Accordingly, the Lord’s Supper was no longer seen as a matter for the Chorgericht, a res mixta, a common responsibility of state and church. Instead, the Lord’s Supper was from then on to be treated as a matter purely of the church. The discipline of the Holy Supper was considered to be the prerogative of the church alone, and as such it fell under the jurisdiction of the ministers. At the same time, the ministers were not given any special powers or coercive measures for exercising that discipline. The Lord’s Supper had become a matter of the conscience alone.176 Even after the synod of January 1532, the Chorgericht in Bern continued its zealous pursuit to fight against sin.177 Over the course of time, however, the specifically ecclesiastical element of this discipline was reduced more and more. As of 8 April 1532, the preachers no longer had to be present at every meeting. From then on, their presence was only required whenever mandates were being treated, or else matters that pertained to the Reformation.178 The civil-juridical character of the Chorgericht was emphasized once more on 24 April 1532 when it was given its own prison and clerk (Chorweibel).179 The duties of this state institution gradually increased with the later mandates,180 so that the government eventually had to step in and call the Chorgericht to order out of fear that it would lose its power over it.181 One reason why the council decided in December 1531 to convoke the ministers in an assembly was to point them to their proper place. They were to stand 176 Seen.188. Compare Calvin’s attempt, as pastor to the refugee church in Strasbourg, to initiate a kind of ‘confession’ in regard to the Lord’s Supper following his failed attempt to have the government oversee the discipline connected to the Lord’s Supper in Geneva. See chapter 2, n.231. 177 The day after the synod, on 15 January 1532, the town messenger was admonished for failing to attend the Lord’s Supper ; on 2 July 1532 a couple was admonished for having participated in the Mass. The Chorgericht also looked to see whether all children were baptised. If any parents failed to present their children for baptism, this was reported to it. Köhler: 1932, 346. On Easter Monday 1534, an ensign and three members of the large council were deposed over their marital infidelity. Quervain: 1906, 42. 178 Quervain: 1906, 25, n.6. 179 The members of the Chorgericht swore an oath before the city council. It is remarkable that the pastors who sat on the Chorgericht in the countryside complained on 3 April 1530 that they could not perform their functions well because they had not been given the occasion to swear their oath before the government. Quervain: 1906, 56; Köhler: 1932, 353; see chapter 2, n.363. 180 The Chorgericht’s proper field concerned matters related to marriage, the supervision of morals, and the battle against Anabaptist influences. It further occupied itself in filling the pastoral vacancies and the examination of new pastors, and looked after the care for the poor and the schools. Köhler : 1932, 322; Dellsperger : 1980 – 1981, 43. 181 On 28 July 1535, the city council decided that the Chorgericht “shall not punish anything else […] except those matters that pertain to adultery and prostitution.” All other matters were to be reported to the council. Three days later the council repeated its order, pointing to a legal battle with the pastors. Quervain: 1906, 28, n.1 and 2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

52

The Church in Bern after 1528

in the service of the government, making their function an executive one rather than judicative. Early in 1532, the ecclesiastical element of the Chorgericht was reduced in order to make this point even clearer. Bern did not have an institution that belonged specifically to the church, not even in order to maintain oversight and to exercise discipline. We can therefore conclude that in the city of Bern, it was the council that held the leadership over the church.

Concluding remarks After the crisis of December 1531, the church of Bern remained a Reformed church, under the leadership of the city council, with ministers in the service of the government, and a governmental body responsible for maintaining supervision and discipline. Following the defeat at Cappel earlier that year, the ministers of Bern were commissioned by the government to reflect on the essence of the church and on their task with a view to its reform. The new shape given to church life was such that the internal peace and unity of the city were protected.182 Under the leadership of Capito, the relationship between the government and the preachers was improved at the synod of January 1532, and the two parties were brought closer together. In contrast to the Anabaptists, who resisted every form of interference from the government which they perceived as ‘a new papacy, ’ the synod showed that it supported the full responsibility for ecclesiastical matters to be given to the government. The preachers considered it a task of the state to see to it that “the truth be preached in its purity, that piety [frummkeyt] be encouraged, and that sin be punished among subjects and government without fear.”183 The government for its part declared that it needed upright pastors who could provide a good example for its subjects.184 The synod urged the preachers to give that good example.185 The government and the synod opted for a less radical approach than had 182 The events of the first years following the 1528 edict of reform and the clear presence of different religious currents left a mark on the ambiance in which the synod was held and on the decisions it made. Over the preceding four years, disputes, reform edicts, and governmental mandates had failed to effect unity in the doctrine and life of Bern’s church. Vom Berg: 1988, 123, who supplies many supporting references. In this context, Vom Berg points among others to the text mentioned on the title-page, namely, 2 Corinthians 5:16. BS 1, 16. The synod attempted to unite the various currents by pointing to Christ’s indwelling in believers. Locher : 1988a, 21 f; Vom Berg, l.c., 119. 183 BS 1, preface, 37, l.3 – 5 and 34, l.24 – 28. The old Swiss term ‘Frummkeyt’ is in modern German best translated with ‘Rechtschaffenheit’. BS 1, 18, n.a. 184 BS 1, Cyro, 18, l.15 – 19. 185 BS 1, art.25, 109, l.5 – 11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Concluding remarks

53

been maintained in the first years after 1528.186 Radical, politicized preaching and an overly strict ethical policy were rejected, for the bottom line was “for us to place [God’s] love above everything else and thereby to receive Christ Jesus without any external coercion. The love of God begins in the heart and then expresses itself in deeds,187 and is not imposed from without as it was in the days of Moses.”188 But wherever religion becomes visibly and externally concrete, the government was responsible for taking action. The government was itself also to set a good example, and not only to point an accusing finger at the preachers, as Haller wrote in a letter to Bullinger from 16 November 1534 in which he discussed the cause of the abuses in the church. Haller, who on the whole was quite moderate, wrote that it should surprise no one that the commoner, who “sees among the members of the council and the leaders so much wealth, luxury, and greed, as well as a lack of respect for God and a neglect of the Word of God,” can easily be led to think that “our ruling magistracy is not Christian.”189 At the synod of 1532, the preachers promised to improve their lives and not to frustrate their own work by living unchristian lives. They understood that they stood in the service of the government, and that their primary task as public servants was pedagogical – this in contrast to the priests from before the introduction of the Reformation, whose task was above all liturgical.190 This gave the ministers a heightened level of responsibility, also in moral matters. The preachers were allowed to keep their freedom in preaching the Word of God, provided that they remained moderate and restricted themselves to the proclamation of law and gospel.191 Preachers led the worship services, administered 186 BS 1, preface, 33; BS 1, art.22, 93, r.15 f and art.29, 121 – 122. 187 This is how we interpret the words “der uß dem herzen ins wreck flüsset”. 188 BS 1, art.32a, 130, l.9 – 12. Capito and the synod of Bern appear in the dispute between Luther and Zwingli to have chosen the side of Luther, namely, that the kingdom of God is purely internal and not external. See also BS 1, art. 32a, 125, l.23 – 28 and Saxer: 1988, 401 – 406, especially the words ‘innerlich’ and ‘inwendig’. 189 BW 4, no.475, 402, l.41 – 44. With this were meant among others the Anabaptists, who saw no reason why they should obey the so-called ‘Christian’ government. After all, the government demanded that they obey mandates and swear oaths that went against their convictions. Furthermore, the leaders gave the people a bad example, and hardly imposed fitting punishments on the real wrongdoers. Furthermore, it was a mystery to the Anabaptists why children had to be baptised if they were hardly raised in a Christian way. Müller: 1895, 24. 190 Meyer: 1988, 261, n.3. 191 BS 1, Cyro, 24, l.15 – 21; BS 1, art.28, 117, l.10 – 12. This decision was meant to prevent the politicised preaching of certain pastors who, seeing themselves as Old Testament prophets who had a responsibility to speak out on social issues, were feeding the unrest among the population. The ministers were for that reason ordered to restrict themselves in their preaching to the field of the conscience. BS 1, preface, 30. The preachers are to address each person according to the measure of his faith in his conscience, “in the heart, […] as if for

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

54

The Church in Bern after 1528

the Word and the sacraments, instructed the members, and saw to pastoral work.192 Furthermore, they in word and deed stood firmly at the side of the government in its fight against sin. As members of the local Chorgericht, they formed a link in the state’s system of social control.193 The ministers, as functionaries of the government, can be said to have helped the city council to acquit itself of certain tasks pertaining to religious life, while they also supported each other in this work.194 The assemblies in which the pastors met did not constitute an independent organism, but formed a part of the city’s public life.195 In the following chapter, we will consider what position the preachers had in Geneva, in order to compare it with the situation in Bern. As we have seen, the Chorgericht of Bern maintained supervision over morals and marriage, and from the very beginning was more an institution of the state than of the church. This latter tendency only increased after 1532. The civil character of the Chorgericht was evident, among other things, in the composition of its members, six of whom came from the council, compared to only two appointed from among the ministers. In the following chapter on Geneva, we will also pay attention to Calvin’s view on the composition of the Genevan consistory as it came to expression in the 1541 church order. In Bern, the Chorgericht supervised doctrine and life; the discipline of the Lord’s Supper, on the other

192 193

194

195

God.” BS 1, art.25, 106, l.5 – 10 and art.27, 114, l.23 – 27; Lutz: 1988, 255. Locher: 1979, 218. This calls to mind the ideal entertained by Erasmus, where a godly person is in the end moved only by God and by his own conscience. Augustijn: 1986, 50. This emphasis on personal devotion meant that there were less objections in Bern to a co-existence with those who had other convictions. Capito was seen on some points of his theology as a disciple of Schwenckfeld, especially in his Christology. Lavater : 1988, 92 – 93; Vom Berg: 1988, 128, n.72; Saxer: 1988, 158 – 164. Baptism and Lord’s Supper were viewed as particularly ecclesiastical matters. BS 1, art.20, 82 and art.22, 89; Saxer: 1988, 156. As of 1 February 1532, marriage was no longer seen as such. Köhler: 1932, 338. Dellsperger : 1991, 138. Also the synod of Bern in article 32b listed the sins that were liable to punishment: e. g. prostitution, pimping, drunkenness, gambling, cursing, swearing, entering the service of foreign princes, waging war for money and thereby adding to the widows and orphans. BS 1, art.32b, 130 and 133; see n.148. As will become evident in the following chapter, the Genevan government in its reform of the city’s church life enacted all kinds of mandates similar to those of Bern. See n.40. The pastors promised on 1 May to support each other by holding mutual Bible studies, visitations, and bi-annual chapter meetings, as well as an annual synod. BS 1, art.44, 165, l.30 – 166, l.3 f. The government agreed, which should not be taken for granted given the incidents that had occurred prior to the synod. Locher: 1988a, 29; Lavater: 1988, 48. The government saw a synod as a deliberative body of pastors and an advisory body for the government, without legislative power. Thus, the pastors could bring proposals to the government, which would then evaluate whether or not these proposals would bring one “closer to Christ” and whether “Christian love” would be increased in Bern. BS 1, Cyro, 27, l.18 – 21. The mutual interaction among the pastors was to serve to stimulate the good in the other, for “if someone finds in another something of Christ and his gifts, as slight as it may be, must thank God for them.” BS 1, art.38, 149, l.15 – 17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Concluding remarks

55

hand, was left to the responsibility of the ministers, who nevertheless were not given any additional powers or coercive measures for exercising that responsibility.196 Earlier we already noted that Calvin, like Leo Judae in Zürich, held there to be a close relationship between discipline and the Lord’s Supper.197 Bern’s preachers showed how important they considered an atmosphere of respect for the Eucharist to be when they requested the council in July 1532 to forbid the dancing after the Lord’s Supper ; when the council immediately acceded to this request, it showed that it fully supported the ministers in this.198 All the same, in the city of Bern discipline and Lord’s Supper were disconnected from each other, just as they were in Zürich under Bullinger. In the following chapter, we will have to determine whether Calvin similarly understood the discipline of the Lord’s Supper to be the responsibility of an independent ecclesiastical body, or to be a matter for which the government was responsible.

196 The Chorgericht did have the task to see to it that people did faithfully attend church, and until 4 April 1533 the same was true for the Lord’s Supper, which was up to then required of all the inhabitants of Bern. Even after the mandate of 31 July 1531, the obligation to attend worship services remained in force, especially with a view to the Anabaptists, under the threat of imprisonment. In 1534 and 1535 the obligation was temporarily reduced to a monthly attendance. Quervain: 1906, 27 and 36 – 37. 197 See n.159 and 174. 198 Ayear later the council even made the law stricter when it decided that on days on which the Lord’s Supper was celebrated there was to be no dancing at all, at the risk of spending a full day in prison. Quervain: 1906, 116, n.6 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Chapter 2. Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church 1536 – 1538 and 1541

Introduction Did Calvin attempt to establish an independent church in Geneva, which had its own power of excommunication? In this chapter, we will consider two separate periods: 1) Calvin’s first stay in Geneva from 1536 to 1538, which also coincided with the earliest years following the official introduction of the Reformation to the city ; 2) the first months of his second Genevan period in 1541, after he returned from exile in Strasbourg. On Sunday, 21 May 1536, the Genevan general assembly enacted a decision to abolish the Mass and to follow the ‘evangelical law.’ Up until that point in time, the care for the poor had been in the hands of the ecclesiastical instances for many years, and education had similarly been something with which the church largely occupied itself.1 The decision to join the Reformed cause meant that this far-reaching social structure suddenly crumbled. All the powers and functions of the episcopacy now came into the hands of the city’s council, which soon found itself burdened with new responsibilities in practical, legal, and moral matters. Church life had to be rebuilt from its foundations. The Mass was to be replaced by the Lord’s Supper, and the preaching, baptisms, marriages, and funerals were also to be performed according to the evangelical way. But what was this ‘evangelical way’, and what exactly was the evangelical doctrine? The situation was one of utmost confusion. As a result, the conviction grew among the members of the city council that they needed to introduce structure and unity to the life of the Genevan church. The evangelical preacher Farel, who had already been preaching in Geneva for some years, was asked to draft proposals to this end. Shortly after mid-July 1536, Farel met the 27–year old Calvin as he passed 1 For the care for the poor and the sick, see n.344. In the late medieval period, the doctor of theology not only had a task at school, but was also charged with preaching. The doctores were often supported financially by the church, and bound by oath to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The sixteenth-century Reformation therefore introduced significant changes to the way church and education had formerly been mixed. Posthumus Meyjes: 1982, 7 – 8 and 22 – 23.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

58

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

through Geneva on his way to Strasbourg. At Farel’s recommendation, the council requested Calvin to stay in the city with a view to instructing and establishing the new church there. The Genevan government did not abdicate its responsibility for renewal to others, but merely solicited the aid of educated men like Farel and Calvin. After the Reformation was introduced in May 1536, it would take another five years before a somewhat satisfactory and well-defined regulation was achieved to organise the church within Genevan society. In the Swiss Reformed cities, including Zürich and Bern, the government’s adoption of a similar role had led to the establishment of a ‘state church.’ In the case of Geneva, however, Calvin scholarship has generally assumed that the developments took a different turn under his influence. For, it is thought that the clear distinction between church and state, as well as the independence of the church, which would both become defining marks of the later Calvinist movement, were from the very beginning principial choices for Calvin. Calvin, so it is argued, wanted Geneva to have a church that had an independent position vis-—vis the government.2 For that reason he is said to have opposed the notion of a church that functioned as an organ of the state, without its own power of excommunication.3 2 Köhler considers the situation in Geneva from the perspective of supposed tensions between ‘church’ and ‘state.’ He argued that Geneva from the very beginning saw in Calvin a “new bishop” who pursued the attribution of power and authority to the church. In Köhler’s view, this was also the reason why Calvin was forced to leave the city in 1538. In September 1541, the councils were urged to see to it that Calvin’s latest attempts to gain an independent ecclesiastical power were foiled. He thus considers the councils’ final proposal to have been a compromise, a cooperation between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and therefore “the bankruptcy of ecclesiastical discipline.” Köhler : 1942, 555 and 619. Nauta similarly interprets the events from within the framework of supposed tensions between ‘state’ and ‘church’. When he addresses the events of Easter 1538, which resulted in the banishment of Calvin, Farel, and others, he speaks of a “most principial question.” Nauta argues that the point was “the freedom of the church to act independently in its own affairs.” The church threatened to lose its freedom through the government’s rule over it. Nauta: 1965, 140. Van Ginkel is of the opinion that Calvin intended “the supervision of the members of the church” to be “entirely independent of the government”. He was, in other words, after a “truly independent, presbyterial” church – that is, a “purely ecclesiastical body” and a complete separation between church and state. Van Ginkel: 1975, 122, 123 and 143. When Dankbaar treats Calvin’s dismissal and banishment at the end of his first Genevan period, he too assumes that the critical issue was “the freedom of the church in strictly ecclesiastical matters”. Dankbaar: 1987, 48; Dankbaar: 1982, 53. 3 Weber assumes that Calvin claimed a power of excommunication for the church in the articles of 1537. He thus explains the conflict that took place around Easter 1538 as a battle for the pastors’ independent power of excommunication. After his return to Geneva in 1541, so Weber continues, Calvin pursued “an independent power of excommunication for the consistory”. Weber: 1968, 121 – 122. When he deals with the period in question, Balke suggests that Calvin did everything he could to try and obtain a power of discipline that was “inde-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

59

Introduction

This second chapter intends to test this assumption in Calvin scholarship. Did Calvin from the very beginning really hold to the ideal of a church that was free from the government? Did he see the new Genevan church as an independent association, which the citizens of Geneva could join at will? To put it very concretely : did Calvin consider it possible for a Genevan resident not to belong to the church?4 Leading Calvin scholars like W. Köhler,5 J. Plomp,6 and E. A. McKee7 have all addressed this issue, albeit from different angles. Although I have benefited greatly from their studies, the following will also make clear that I have arrived at different conclusions on a number of points. Köhler analyzed the bodies devoted to the treatment of marital issues in the Protestant city states, and compared them with Geneva’s consistory. He argues that the Genevan consistory was a mixture between a state institution and an organ of the church. Plomp focused specifically on Calvin’s view of church discipline in Geneva, and stated that the Reformer from the very beginning sought to obtain an independent, ecclesiastical power of excommunication for the church. Finally, McKee has examined the exegetical history behind the office of the elder. In this, she focused on the development of Calvin’s view on the ecclesiastical offices, rather than on the practices that were being maintained in Geneva. She concluded that Calvin, in contrast to Zwingli and others, supported the elder’s status as an ecclesiastical functionary. Our first stop will be to examine Calvin’s view on the independence of the Genevan church in the early years following the city’s decision to join the Reformation. After that, we will consider the beginning of Calvin’s second Genevan stay in September 1541. Each period could be treated in a chapter of its own, were it not for the fact that Calvin’s view on ‘the church of Geneva’ runs through them both as a common thread. For this reason, we will begin each section with an examination of what the word ‘church’ means in Calvin’s 1537 articles and in the church order of 1541, respectively.

4

5

6 7

pendent of the civil government.” Balke thinks that the government was wrong to “impose its will on the church, which was something that Calvin could never accept.” Balke: 1973, 94 – 95. In his dissertation, Plomp explicitly pointed to “the voluntary element in church membership” that he thought to detect in Calvin’s view on the church. Calvin from the very beginning wanted “a church made up of consciously confessing members”. Finally, in 1541 he is said to have pursued “an assembly of pastors and elders who would judge matters independently and therefore have a purely ecclesiastical character”. Plomp: 1969, 65, 150 and 186. Walter Köhler, Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, vol. 1: Das Zürcher Ehegericht und seine Auswirkung in der Deutschen Schweiz zur Zeit Zwinglis. 1932, vol. 2: Das Ehe- und Sittengericht in den Süddeutschen Reichsstädten, dem Herzogtum Württemberg und in Genf. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1942. Johannes Plomp, De kerkelijke tucht bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok, 1969. Elsie A. McKee: 1988: The Role of Exegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin’s Theology, Gene`ve: Droz, 1988.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

60

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

A hotly debated issue in the establishment of Geneva’s new church was whether or not the people should be required to bind themselves to the confession with an oath. Calvin wanted every resident in the city to be required to swear such an oath. As he saw it, swearing allegiance to the confession functioned as a constitutive moment for the institution of the church. One of Calvin’s closest friends, the priest Louis du Tillet,8 disagreed with him on several points of his vision on the shaping of the Genevan church. He opposed Calvin’s radical ‘oath policy,’ and indeed was not the only one in Geneva to harbour such misgivings. What is more, he disagreed fundamentally with Calvin’s position on the offices, in which consecration by the church was no longer considered necessary. By following du Tillet’s criticism and Calvin’s response, we will be able to come to a better understanding of Calvin’s view. For understanding Calvin’s position on the seat of power in the church, it will be helpful to consider the conflict of April 1538. Calvin and Farel allowed the tensions between them and the government to run so high that the magistracy in fact had no choice except to submit to them, or else to banish them. But why did Calvin and Farel act as they did? Against the backdrop of this quarrel, we will seek to determine the actual position and task of the government and preachers on matters pertaining to the organisation of religion in Geneva. The church order that Calvin composed in 1541 will allow us to examine his view on the position of Geneva’s church. With this church order, Calvin introduced two things: a church structured around four ecclesiastical functions, and the consistory. Taking our point of departure in these four functionaries, we will ask whether, or to what degree, Calvin’s newly devised structure made room for independent ecclesiastical offices. The Genevan consistory as it was instituted in the fall of 1541, composed of elders and pastors, can be considered a part of Calvin’s heritage. But what was his intention in establishing the consistory? Did he seek to give the Genevan church a form of independence? Did his wishes stand in tension with those of the city council?

8 Louis du Tillet was born ca. 1508 and became priest as pastor to Claix in the Poitou region in 1523. Until his departure from France, he was also canon of AngoulÞme. Herminjard: 1883, vol. 5, no.742, 106, n.9 and 108, n.11; Herminjard: 1878, vol. 3, no.457, 157, n.3. According to Crottet, while he was at AngoulÞme he likewise assumed the function of an archdeacon. Crottet: 1850, 5 and 9. Like Calvin, du Tillet was forced to flee France in the 1530s because of the criticism he had uttered on the state of the French church and ended up in Geneva.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

1.

61

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

The establishment of a new organization for the church As Calvin lay on his deathbed, he looked back to the very beginning of Geneva’s Reformed church and remarked: “When I first came to this church, there was next to nothing. There was preaching, but that was all. Images were indeed hunted and burned, but there was no reform. Everything was in a state of tumult.”9 By the time Calvin arrived in Geneva in the summer of 1536, there was indeed little more than preaching. Soon after his arrival, he showed his conviction that preaching alone was hardly sufficient for a good organisation to church life. In November 1536, he posited in some articles on the organisation of the church that the government had the task to “guard the church in its entirety.”10 With the words “in its entirety”, Calvin alluded to the many facets that church life could have in the city of Geneva. Early in 1538 he reiterated this thought when he wrote: “For however others may appraise it, we certainly do not think our function confined within such narrow limits that, having assembled for preaching and as it were having discharged one’s duty, one is allowed to be idle.”11 Preaching stood central in the Reformed church, and accordingly, the people were required to attend the preaching services.12 However, the life of the church as a whole also had to be shaped anew, because the structures that had once been in place under the bishop were now no longer existent. Prior to the Reformation, the official staff that looked after spiritual life in the seven parishes of the city numbered at least 245 clerics.13 And if we also include the lay members who participated in various ways, the number of those who were active for the 9 CO 9, 891, l.37 – 892, l.3 = OS 2, 401, l.30 – 33. Compare the Ordonnances or Articles of 1536/37: “As for the trouble and confusion which existed in this city at the beginning, before the gospel was with one accord received and recognised, it is not possible to reduce everything to good order in a moment.” CO 10a, 7, l.5 – 7 = OS 1, 370, l.1 – 4. 10 CO 10a, 14, l.15 = OS 1, 376, l.43. 11 CO 5, 319, l.25 – 29 = OS 1, 428, l.35 – 38. 12 Anyone who secretly participated in the Mass was punished; in some cases, people were even banished. See the city council registers of 21 – 24 July 1536. In the preceding years, it had been left to the freedom of the citizens to attend either the Catholic Mass or the Reformed preaching; this evidently was a compromise in view of the increasing influence which the Reformed were able to exercise among the Genevan population. See the council registers from 10 January 1534. Rilliet: 1878b, xiv ; RC, vol.12, 425, l.6 – 15; on 24 March 1536 a decree was enacted by which it was forbidden to attend the Mass in another place. RC, vol. 13, 503, l.20 – 24. Obligatory church attendance was maintained in 1537, even for those who were banned from participation in the Lord’s Supper. CO 10a, 10, l.47 – 48 = OS 1, 373, l.41 – 42; this regulation also continued to apply in 1541. CO 10a, 29, l.26 = OS 2, 358, l.25. 13 Naef: 1936, 9 – 13. Prior to the Reformation, Geneva had been divided into seven parishes. A letter from 15 January 1527 even mentions that there were 700 priests. Herminjard: 1878, vol. 2, no.193, 10, l.2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

62

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

church at the beginning of the sixteenth century numbered more than one thousand, or around ten percent of the population.14 But after 1536, the church was served by no more than a small handful of pastors, whom the government had taken into its service as civil servants. Under the pressures of Geneva’s changing spiritual climate, most of the clergy of the old church had left the city between 1533 and 1535.15 When the Reformation was introduced, there was great unclarity regarding the position and task of the new clergy in Geneva’s destabilised society. In Geneva, as in all other evangelical city states, it was the government that led the process of renewal.16 The council had in fact already been busy for some years with the question of renewal in a gradual process that had begun well before 1536. As early as 30 March 1533, when a compromise between the city’s different religious streams was reached, the possibilities for drafting a new regulation were being discussed.17 Once the new religion became the official religion in August 1535, the Genevan government had to address the question of the organisation of the city’s church life. In a general assembly held on Sunday, 21 May 1536, the ‘citizens’ of Geneva swore by oath that they fully supported the new course that the city had set out upon.18 The Mass, the papal ceremonies and abuses, images and idolatry 14 Naef: 1936, 22 – 35. Kingdon arrives at a different conclusion, arguing that the ratio was one to twenty. Kingdon: 1984, 53. There are no precise figures available for 1536 – 1542. 15 Kingdon: 1984, 57. For the period after 1535, see n.99. 16 Weber: 1968, 121, n.2; Blickle: 1991, 23, n.54. Geneva’s governmental structure included four syndics, who ruled the city and imposed punishments; the Small Council, composed of twenty citizens, which assisted the four syndics in the daily affairs and every year chose the members of the Council of Two Hundred; the Council of Sixty, known as the Council of Fifty prior to 1526, which met to decide on matters that were not important enough to warrant the convocation of the general council, and was only called in on specific occasions; the so-called Council of Two Hundred (it had some 300 members), which enacted legislation, decided on matters of common interest, and chose the members of the Small Council. The syndics and Small Council reported to the Council of Two Hundred. Finally, there was the General Council, which was made up of the city’s citizens, chose the four syndics at the beginning of each year, and later on in the year set the price of wine. The Council of Two Hundred assembled the General Council when there were matters of particular importance. Werner: 1926, 8 – 54. 17 Rivoire: 1930, vol. 2, 542; Naef: 1968, 406, l.20 – 21. 18 The population was divided into several classes. There were two classes of people with citizen rights, namely, the bourgeois and the citoyens. The former had obtained their citizenship by buying it or were given it at the special request of the government, while the latter were the descendants of the first group and therefore had their citizenship rights by birth. A third class in the Genevan population were the habitants, or residents without citizen rights. Only those who had the rights of a citizen could be elected to the city council. Until 1536, the habitants formed a minority within the city, and usually were foreigners who settled in Geneva on a temporary basis. After the edict of reform had been enacted, many people came to live in Geneva according to the “evangelical religion”, so that the number of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

63

were all renounced, and the citizens promised to live in agreement with the gospel and the Word of God.19 After Geneva had joined the Reformed cause, Farel was given the mandate to take the appropriate measures for the formation of a new ecclesiastical organisation and “a unified religion.”20 That summer he first worked to establish a school21; the following year a hospital was founded.22 Farel was brought into contact with Calvin through Louis du Tillet, and asked him in July 1536 to stay on in Geneva, which he agreed to do in August. In the months that followed, Calvin, most likely together with Farel, drafted a work on the organisation of the church. On 10 November 1536, Farel presented the proposal, composed of articles of a church political nature, to the city council.23 For the present study on Calvin’s view on the place of the church within Genevan society, it is worthwhile to consider how the word ‘church’ was used in this document.

The ‘church’ in the 1537 articles In the articles “concerning the organisation of the church and of worship in Geneva, ”24 Calvin closely followed the predominant view on the church as it had been received from the medieval tradition. This comes to the fore in particular in the way the church is considered in these articles from the perspective of who holds the power in it, as well as in the important place occupied by the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Calvin used the word church in the 1537 articles in two different ways. He used it primarily for the organisation required to give expression to Geneva’s religious life. At times, however, he also used the concept of ‘church’ in reference to the most essential element of this organisation, namely, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. According to the articles, the leadership of the church must above all pay attention to the Lord’s Supper, because it is at the Holy Supper that the ‘church’ becomes most visible.

19 20 21 22 23

24

habitants quickly increased, especially after 1542. Between 1549 and 1560, some 5, 000 habitants came to live in Geneva. Geisendorf: 1957, vii-ix. On 1 September 1537, the Genevan ministers wrote to the consistory of Bern: “Many are coming here on a daily basis, but they are destitute.” Herminjard: 1878, vol. 4, no.655, 288, l.12. Because the General Council consisted of citizens alone, the habitants had no say in political matters. Kingdon: 1970, 85. RC, vol.13, 576; see also CO 21, 201. Rilliet: 1878b, xiii. The council minutes from 4 September 1536 note that fierce protests were raised against this decision. Rilliet: 1878b, x. Kingdon: 1970, 82; see n.344. Farel offered the “article concerning the regiment of the church” (de regimine ecclesiae) to the council on behalf of the pastors, CO 21, 206; Beza and Colladon attributed them to Calvin. CO 21, 30 – 31 and 59, l.2 – 4: “il dressa un bref formulaire de confession et de discipline pour donner quelque forme — ceste Eglise nouvellement dressee.” Herminjard 1878, vol. 4, no.602, 165 – 166, n.17; Balke: 1973, 76, n.16. CO 10a, 5 = OS 1, 369.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

64

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

The word ‘church’ is therefore not used in the articles to point to the church in its ideal expression, that is, as a community of believers or of the elect.25 Calvin used other words or descriptions in reference to the religious community in a more abstract sense, such as the communion in one body and one spirit,26 the gathering of believers,27 and the community of Christians.28 In Geneva, religious life had become entirely derailed as a result of the bishop’s departure, and the church’s entire organisation was uprooted. Religious life therefore had to find expression in new forms. Because church and religious life formed an element of the life of the community, the care for the church came to rest as it were ‘automatically’ in the hands of the city council. It was the council that had the leadership over every facet of the city’s political and social life; the council was the body entrusted with the city’s care in military, economic, and legal matters. To these was now added a new responsibility for the city’s religious life. The 1537 articles address the nature of all aspects of the city’s religious life. In a section devoted to the division of the city into three parishes, for example, Calvin remarked that the Lord’s Supper may not be administered in just one of the city’s districts, but was intended for “all the church.”29 Calvin repeatedly requested for the city to be divided into parishes.30 The city council was responsible for overseeing church life in the entire city31; this was why Calvin considered it necessary to advise the government on problems involving “several inhabitants in this city, ”32 who he thought were “in everything contrary to us 25 The ideological and more abstract use of the word ‘church’ is encountered in Calvin’s 1536 Institutes, the catechism of 1537, and the confession of 1537. These documents speak of the church as the sum total of the elect, CO 1, 72 – 75 = OS 1, 86 – 88 and CO 22, 56 – 57 = OS 1, 400 – 401; the people of God, CO 5, 311 = CO 1, 72; the communion of believers, CO 22, 92 – 93 = OS 1, 424; and the communion of saints, CO 5, 311 = CO 1, 77. In the articles from January 1537, a comparable expression was sometimes used to point to the ideological aspect of the church: the Lord’s Supper “joins the members of our Lord Jesus Christ with their Head and with one another in one body and one spirit”, CO 10a, 8, l.43 – 45 = OS 1, 371, l.34 – 35. Calvin did not, however, actually use the term ‘church’ in the articles to convey this notion. Cf. Farel’s Sommaire (1528/1529; a second, slightly revised second edition appeared in 1534) on the church in article sixteen. For a recent English translation of the Sommaire, with an introduction; Jason Zuidema and Theodore Van Raalte, Early French Reform: The Theology and Spirituality of Guillaume Farel, Surrey : Ashgate, 2011. 26 CO 10a, 8, l.43 – 45 = OS 1, 371, l.34 – 35. 27 CO 10a, 9, l.54 = OS 1, 373, l.2 28 CO 10a, 10, l.40 = OS 1, 373, l.35. 29 CO 10a, 8, l.22 = OS 1, 371, l.15 – 16. 30 CO 10a, 8, l.21 = OS 1, 371, l.15 and CO 10a, 10, l.23 = OS 1, 372, l.21. This request returned in the articles from May 1538, especially in article seven; CO 10b, 191 and 192. We also encounter it in Calvin’s letter to Bullinger from 21 February 1538, Herminjard: 1878, vol. 4, no.685, 368, l.12 – 13 = CO 10b, no.93, 154, l.12 – 14. 31 CO 10a, 7, l.21 f = OS 1, 370, l.15 f. 32 CO 10a, 11, l.21 – 22 = OS 1, 374, l.19 – 20.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

65

in religion.”33 The articles take it for granted that “religion” in Genevan society belonged to the responsibilities of the city’s council. In this document which Calvin composed, the ‘church’ forms a part of the life of the city. The Reformed tradition shaped by the thought of Zwingli and Calvin thus stood in an age-old trajectory that viewed the church from the perspective of power. The established, medieval church was not defined in terms of its members, but in terms of those who held the leadership. In the sixteenth-century Reformed churches, the ‘church’ was similarly identified with its leadership. On this point, the Protestant churches and the established church out of which they had grown were agreed.34 In his 1537 articles, Calvin followed the existing tradition of understanding the ‘church’ as the organisation and the leadership of religious life. It was taken for granted that the city’s entire population belonged to the church. Calvin thus used the term ‘church’ in general as a synonym for ‘religion’ in the city, focused in particular upon the organisational side of religious life and upon the role of leadership assumed by the city council.35 The council was made up of Geneva born residents who enjoyed special rights on account of their birth. As a rule, the council met three times per week in the city hall,36 although meetings were held more frequently when special cases were being tried.37 The government could delegate certain of its responsibilities and tasks to other people or institutions, however.38 The tasks pertaining to the city’s religious life were transferred in part to the pastors whom the city council had 33 CO 10a, 11, l.40 – 41 = OS 1, 374, l.35 – 36. 34 McKee: 1988, 34 – 37. Farel: 1980, 1 – 105. 35 The word ‘church’ occurs not so much in a dogmatic, but rather in a practical-institutional context. The following passages speak of the ‘church’ in the context of the regulation of the city’s religious life: CO 10a, 7, l.27 – 30 = OS 1, 370, l.19 – 21; CO 10a, 7, l.32 = OS 1, 370, l.23; CO 10a, 9, l.28 = OS 1, 372, l.24; CO 10a, 10, l.6 – 8 = OS 1, 373, l.7 – 8; CO 10a, 10, l.11 – 12 = OS 1, 373, l.12; CO 10a, 14, l.14 – 15 = OS 1, 376, l.43; for the use of the word ‘church’ in connection with the organisation of discipline: CO 10a, 6, l.6 – 7 = OS 1, 369, l.11; CO 10a, 10, l.29 – 31 = OS 1, 373, l.26 – 27; CO 10a, 11, l.10 – 12 = OS 1, 374, l.9 – 10; CO 10a, 11, l.12 – 13 = OS 1, 374, l.11; CO 10a, 11, l.39 – 41 = OS 1, 374, l.34 – 36; for the organisation of the unity of the church: CO 10a, 11, l.50 – 52 = OS 1, 374, l.43 – 375, l.1 (the members of the council must profess their faith with a view to the unity of the church) and CO 10a, 12, l.4 – 6 = OS 1, 375, l.6 – 8 (there must be clarity regarding the city’s confession). CO 10a, 12, 36 – 38 = OS 1, 375, l.34 – 35 (children have to profess their faith after receiving catechetical instruction); CO 10a, 13, l.2 – 5 = OS 1, 376, l.5 – 8 (parents must raise their children in the new doctrine because a lack of knowledge cannot be tolerated in the church of God). 36 Plomp: 1969, 140. The Council of Sixty on the whole assembled on a much less frequent basis, while the Council of Two Hundred (which came into existence in 1527) met every month. Plomp, l.c., 140. 37 Balke: 1973, 81 f. Until 1541, the Small Council functioned as the court of appeal for important matters. Plomp: 1969, 140. 38 We should think here of such judicial courts as the Chambre des comptes and the courts of appeal, of committees for military or economic affairs, and, as of 1536, of the council of procureurs. Kingdon: 1970, 85.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

66

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

named. The preachers thus stood in the service of the council. As a result, although one cannot on the whole insist on a clear distinction between the life of the church and the life of the city, for the purposes of the present study it is worthwhile to try and consider the degree to which the pastors were free from government control in exercising their function. In the 1537 articles, the word ‘church’ is at times associated very closely with the Lord’s Supper ; this too is entirely understandable against the tradition from which Calvin had come.39 There are times when ‘church’ is in fact used as a virtual synonym for ‘Lord’s Supper community.’ When the articles distinguish between those who wanted to “belong to the church of Jesus Christ” and those who did not have this desire, it seems to refer to those who do and do not want to partake of the Lord’s Supper.40 When they state that there are “several inhabitants in this city who have not fallen in with the gospel”41 and that these inhabitants therefore ought not “to be tolerated within the church,”42 we propose that the word ‘church’ must be understood as ‘the Lord’s Supper community.’ This is confirmed by the intervening passage, which discusses the possibility, where necessary, of “expelling [church members] by excommunication from our assembly.”43 Just before that, however, the articles had remarked that those who 39 The church was seen above all as a Lord’s Supper community. The following articles connect the church directly to concerns regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper : CO 10a, 5, l.4 – 6, l.1 = OS 1, 369, l.6 – 7; CO 10a, 7, l.34 – 35 = OS 1, 370, l.25 – 26; CO 10a, 8, l.1 – 5 = OS 1, 370, l.43 – 371, l.2; CO 10a, 8, l.21 – 22 = OS 1, 371, l.15; CO 10a, 9, l.9 = OS 1, 372, l.7. This description of the church as a community of believers, especially when they are united at the table of the Holy Supper, can also be found at the end of the article on discipline in the confession of 1537. It speaks of “the communion of believers” (la communion des fideles) from which someone could be removed temporarily because of sin; CO 22, 93, l.35 = OS 1, 425, l.4. Cf. Augustine, for whom the ‘church’ as the body of Christ – understood as the “universal church” – came to expression in particular at the Eucharist. PL 33, no.40, 206, l.17 – 21. Tavard: 1979, 103, n.37. Calvin extended this line of thought to the local church. 40 CO 10a, 11, l.27 = OS 1, 374, l.25. See also CO 10a, 10, l.40 = OS 1, 373, l.35. 41 CO 10a, 11, l.21 – 22 = OS 1, 374, l.19 – 20. 42 CO 10a, 11, l.39 – 40 = OS 1, 374, l.35. 43 CO 10a, 11, l.29 – 30 = OS 1, 374, l.26. “For if there is need to expel by excommunication from our assembly those who truly with good reason would have been taken as members of it, how much more necessary to discern those who ought to be received as members from those who should not be accepted.” CO 10a, 11, l.28 – 34 = OS 1, 374, l.25 – 30. Cf. Farel, Sommaire (1528/ 1529), whose chapter on excommunication (excommuniement) begins as follows: “Excommuning [excommuniement] or excommunication [excommunication] is barring from the table of our Lord.” Farel: 1980, 216. Later on in the chapter on excommunication, Farel states that church members ought to avoid unrepentant, obstinate sinners: “If after all this he does not want to do anything, then we ought not to converse with him, but only as an unbeliever [ung infidele] with whom you would not want to come to the table of our Lord, nor converse with, nor approve his life or his faith [sa foy]. For the rest, however, you can drink and eat with him to win him and pull him back. So must one converse with the excommunicated in all charity.” Farel, l.c., 220.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

67

were forbidden to participate in the holy supper through excommunication had the obligation of “coming to sermon.”44 This implies that the expression “expel from our assembly” does not mean that people were to be banished from the city or not allowed to come to the meetings of the church. Instead, only an expulsion from the Lord’s Supper appears to be in view.45 The same phenomenon can be observed when the articles discuss the punishment of those who disobey the church’s leaders. Such men were to be expelled from the “community of Christians.” Once again this refers to a prohibition on attending the Lord’s Supper, for the “community of Christians” was described as “the communion of the Supper.”46 These passages from the 1537 articles are repeatedly, but mistakenly, appealed to as evidence to demonstrate that Calvin wanted to distinguish between members of the church and “those who should be not be accepted as members.”47 However, the word ‘church’ is not used to point to a specific group of people. For Calvin, a ‘church’ was not a denomination, an ecclesiastical federation aside from and in addition to other bodies. The concrete, visible community of the church was “a mixed church.”48 As Calvin saw it, there were both believers and unbelievers in the church; all of the city’s inhabitants belonged to the ecclesiastical city community. All the same, the believers alone were to participate in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

44 CO 10a, 10, l.47 – 48 = OS 1, 373, l.41 – 42. Someone who was excommunicated was expected to keep attending church services. Excommunication was meant as a temporary punitive measure by which someone was kept from the Lord’s Supper for some time, but still remained a part of the church community. Wiley : 1990, 101 45 The obligation to participate in the Lord’s Supper applied to all citizens and residents of Reformed cities. CO 10a, 6, l.2 – 3 = OS 1, 369, l.7 and CO 10a, 7, l.34 – 35 = OS 1, 370, l.25. See, for example, the decision of Basel’s city council in 1530 when all citizens were required to celebrate the Eucharist. Roth: 1941, 1945 and 1950, vol. 4, no.540, 479 f and vol. 4, no.547, 483 – 495; Roth: 1945, vol. 5, no.217, 194 f and Roch: 1950, vol. 6, no.273, 262. Van ’t Spijker: 1991a, 51, n.15 and 53, n.25. Calvin would return to this issue on several other occasions, such as in his catechism of 1542. CO 6, 131, l.16 – 18 = CO 6, 132, l.16 – 19 = OS 2, 142, answer 363. A good citizen was someone who faithfully attended the Lord’s Supper. Excommunication was seen as a severe measure of punishment, which also led to a loss of reputation. 46 CO 10a, 10, l.40 – 41 and l.44 – 45 = OS 1, 374, l.35 f and l.39 f 47 CO 10a, 11, l.33 – 34 = OS 1, 374, l.29 – 30. Plomp argues that the term ‘excommunication’ in the 1537 articles does not refer only to “exclusion from the Lord’s Supper community, but also from the community of the church.” Plomp: 1969, 105. He further supposed that the articles sought to create an entirely independent church made up of consciously believing members. Plomp, l.c., 150. When he addresses the purpose of the articles, Plomp speaks of the church as “a community of those who confess the received doctrine.” Plomp, l.c., 174. See also Pont: 1991, 107 and 116. 48 Wiley : 1990, 100. Wiley appeals to CO 1, 72 – 76 = OS 1, 86 – 90. In this passage, Calvin noted that we judge ourselves and each other in the community of the church with a judgment of love. CO 1, 75 = OS 1, 89.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

68

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

The Genevan Confession (1537) Calvin shared Farel’s opinion that the decision taken on 21 May 1536 to abolish the Mass and to adopt the “evangelical law” did not suffice as a foundation for the church’s new organisation. The assembly had indeed sworn by oath to follow the evangelical faith, but Calvin wanted even more. For him, “the proper startingpoint of a church” (le droict commencement dune esglise)49 was that there be material unity, a unity in confession. Calvin saw the unity of the Genevan church as something for which the government was responsible: “It would be then an act of Christian magistrates” (Ce seroyt doncq ung acte de magistratz crestiens).50 This is why Calvin, on behalf of the pastors, first stated in the articles that it was necessary to know “what doctrine each holds to, ”51 and then proposed that “you, gentlemen of the council, each for himself, would make in your council a profession, by which it would be shown that the doctrine of your faith is really that by which all the faithful are united in one church.”52 Calvin observed that there were “several inhabitants of this city” who had no desire to accommodate themselves to the gospel.53 “The remedy for this which we have thought of is to suggest to you that all the inhabitants of your city have to make confession of and give reason for their faith, in order to recognise those in harmony with the gospel, and those loving rather to be of the kingdom of the pope than of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.”54 But even if all inhabitants were to be asked what they believe, “it has not at all been settled yet what doctrine each holds, which is the proper starting-point of a church.”55 This was why the first thing that needed to be established was what doctrine it was that the Genevan church would hold to. In other words, the church of Geneva needed a confession. Although the articles, composed in the fall of 1536 shortly after the Reformation had been introduced to the city, do not yet mention an oath of confession, it seems that Calvin and Farel soon looked upon such an oath as a fitting solution to the problem of the Genevan church. Late in 1536, Calvin composed a confession in the form of a catechism. Then, early in 1537, a petition was made to the council to give all inhabitants an occasion publicly to express their agreement with that new confession. Led by Calvin, as emerges from a statement he made early in 1538, the ministers pro-

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

CO 10a, 12, l.5 – 6 = OS 1, 375, l.7 – 8. CO 10a, 11, l.47 = OS 1, 374, l.41. CO 10a, 12, l.4 – 6 = OS 1, 375, l.6 – 8. CO 10a, 11, l.47 – 52 = OS 1, 374, l.41 – 375, l.1. CO 10a, 11, l.21 – 23 = OS 1, 374, l.19 – 21. See n.33 and 46. CO 10a, 11, l.41 – 46 = OS 1, 374, l.36 – 40. CO 10a, 12, l.4 – 6 = OS 1, 375, l.6 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

69

posed that every inhabitant be required to bind himself to the new confession with an oath.56 The confession that Calvin composed late in 1536 was written with a view to multiple ends, namely, the instruction of the children and the expression of unity in faith.57 This catechism-confession was a non-polemical work, and structured after the 1536 Institutes, with the exception of the final apologetic chapter on the five false sacraments which Calvin dropped entirely. In January 1537, the councils approved this work for the purposes of catechism instruction, but they did not consider it suitable as a confession.58 It was too comprehensive, so they argued. For that reason, a new document had to be composed. The confession that Farel subsequently crafted, however, was indeed accepted by the council in May 1537.59 By this time, the tone of the confession had changed to become more 56 CO 5, 319, l.9 – 10 = OS 1, 428, l.21. 57 The title is: “Instruction et confession de foy, dont on use and leglise de GenÀve” Rilliet & Dufour: 1878a = CO 22, 25 = OS 1, 378. The articles remark that it was a long-standing tradition for children to make a confession of their faith in the church after they had received some form of catechetical instruction. CO 10a, 12, 36 – 40 = OS 1, 375, l.34 – 38. This was why Calvin composed a catechism immediately upon his arrival in Geneva. In his Institutes of 1536 he had already pointed to the necessity of “a Christian catechising, in which children or those near adolescence would give an account of their faith before the church. But the best method of catechising would be to have a manual drafted for this exercise […]. A child of ten would present himself to the church to declare his confession of faith […]. Thus, while the church looks on as witness, he would profess the one true and sincere faith, in which the believing folk with one mind worship the one God.” Calvin in this passage also reveals his conviction that the summary of the faith in the form of a catechism ought to be agreed upon by the whole church: “[…] containing and summarising in a simple manner nearly all the articles of our religion, on which the whole believers’ church ought to agree without controversy.” CO 1, 147, l.10 – 26 = OS 1, 169, l.9 – 23. 58 Calvin quoted from this catechism in a letter to the ministers of Bern from 20 February 1537 and called it “our confession”, while he spoke of “our catechism” in a letter to Megander from the same date. Herminjard: 1878, vol. 4, no.610, 185, l.4 – 5 = CO 10b, no.49, 83, l.21; Herminjard: 1878, vol. 4, no.611, 189, l.22 = CO 10b, no.50, 86, l.29 – 30. 59 Rilliet: 1878b, xxxii. Aside from the Instruction et confession de foy (= ‘catechism’; see #2 below), which Calvin probably composed at the end of 1536 and was probably printed in February 1537 after it received the approval of the council, there also was the Confession de la foy (= ‘confession’; see #3 below), which Farel most probably drafted late in February 1537, and which was then approved by the council in April and distributed from house to house. A year later, in March 1538, both of these documents were published in Latin (see #4 below). For the sake of clarity, the following is an overview of the various documents treated in the first part of this chapter : 1. Articles concernant l’organisation de l’¦glise de GenÀve et du culte — GenÀve, propos¦s au conseil par les ministres. CO 10a, 5 – 14 [published in: 1871] = Herminjard: 1878, vol. 4, no.602, 154 – 166 [1872] = OS 1, 369 – 377 [1926]. Written by Calvin and/or Farel; it was presented to the city council on 10 November 1536, and discussed in its session of 16 January 1537. 2. Instruction et confession de foy dont on use and leglise de GenÀve. In: Rilliet & Dufour: 1878a, 1 – 99 = CO 22, 25 – 74 [1880] = OS 1, 378 – 417 [1926]. The French text was not found

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

70

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

polemical. It states, for example, that there are churches that dare to “slander and tarnish the name of the Lord through their sacrilege.” For this reason, marks needed to be given by which a false church could be identified: “where the gospel is not proclaimed, heard, and received, there we do not we acknowledge the form of the church.”60 At the end of this article on the church, the confession goes so far as to note that “the churches governed by the ordinances of the pope are rather synagogues of the devil than Christian churches.”61 The sharper and stricter tone of the confession may have been occasioned by the allegations that Caroli had made against Geneva’s pastors, with the resulting tensions reaching their peak in February 1537.62 Calvin reported that Caroli had said: “Away with the new confessions, let us rather sign on to the three ancient symbols!”63 And Megander, pastor in Bern, was not the only one who suspected these “Frenchmen, stationed in the region that was recently brought under our subjection, of holding a hardly orthodox view” on certain points of doctrine.64 It

60 61 62

63 64

until 1877 in the Collection Dupuy, after which it was published late in 1878 by Albert Rilliet and Th¦ophile Dufour. The catechism was probably composed by Calvin late in 1536, but not published until after the confession (#3). Peter & Gilmont: 1991, vol. 1, 46. 3. Confession de la foy laquelle tous bourgeois & habitans de GenÀve & subiectz du pays doibvent jurer de garder & tenir, extraicte de l’Instruction dont on use de l’Eglise de la dicte ville. CO 9, 693 – 700 [1870] = Rilliet & Dufour : 1878a, 101 – 124 = CO 22, 75 – 114 [1880] = Müller : 1903, 111 – 116 = OS 1, 418 – 426 [1926]. Dufour has demonstrated in his “Notice” that the edition of Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss in the CO (1870) contains a number of errors. Rilliet & Dufour: 1878b, cix. This confession was composed by Farel, and appeared in print early in 1537. Peter & Gilmont: 1991, vol. 1, 45 – 46 and 49. 4. Early in 1538, Calvin produced a Latin edition of both catechism and confession with a preface of his own. It was printed in March 1538: Catechismus sive christianae religionis institutio communibus renatae nuper in evangelio Genevensis ecclesiae suffragiis recepta, et vulgari quidem prius idiomate, nunc vero latine etiam, quo de fidei illius sinceritate passim allis etiam ecclesiis constet, in lucem edita. Ioanne Calvino autore. Basileae, Anno MDXXXVIII. CO 5, 323 – 354 [1866] = translation of no.2. And: Confessio fidei in quam iurare cives omnes genevenses et qui sub civitatis eius ditione agunt, iussi sunt: exscripta e catechismo quo utitur ecclesia genevensis. CO 5, 355 – 362 [1866] = translation of no.3. The Latin translation of the catechism and confession are prefaced by : Omnibus Christi evangelium religiose colentibus ministri genevensis ecclesiae gratiam et pacem, veraeque pietatis incrementum a domino precantur. CO 5, 317 – 322 [1866] = OS 1, 426 – 432 [1926]. Rilliet and Dufour [1878] translated this preface into French, 125 – 143. Peter & Gilmont: 1991, vol. 1, 47 – 48. CO 9, 698, l.21 – 22 and l.29 – 30 = OS 1, 424, l.17 – 18 and l.25 – 26. CO 9, 698, l.31 – 33 = OS 1, 424, l.26 – 27 = Rilliet: 1878a, 118. This passage was omitted from the international, Latin edition of the catechism, perhaps for diplomatic reasons. CO 5, 360. On 17 February 1537, Caroli accused Calvin of Arianism at a meeting in Lausanne, and repeated this accusation a short time later at an assembly held in Bern from 28 February to 1 March 1537 in the full presence of the council. Nijenhuis: 1960 – 1961, 24 – 47 = Nijenhuis: 1972, 73 – 96. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.610, 185, l.24 – 25 = CO 10b, no.49, 83, l.45 – 46. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.616, 200, l.1 – 3 = CO 10b, no.52, 89, l.14 – 16. Caroli’s accusations had made an impression on such cities as Bern, Zürich, Basel, and Strasbourg. On 14 May

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

71

was therefore Geneva’s very reputation that was at stake.65 Unity in the doctrine of the city’s church needed to be achieved as quickly as possible. The decision taken by the council in January 1537 to request another confession most probably came after it had accepted Calvin’s catechism on the sixteenth of that month for the purposes of instruction. That new confession was composed towards the end of February, and approved by the council in March. By that time, the troubles involving Caroli were threatening the good reputation of the Genevan church, which did not leave the pastors cold. Looking back upon the situation in his March 1538 preface to the Latin edition of the catechism and confession,66 Calvin likewise hinted that his proposal of requiring all inhabitants to bind themselves to the confession was related to the Caroli affair. In the beginning of this preface, Calvin alludes to Caroli’s allegations when he speaks of “accusations”67 as well as attempts “not only to divide the minds of otherwise good men, but also to uproot churches themselves”.68 In February 1537, Calvin and Farel sought a means to achieve “mutual peace” in the battle against the “prince of hatreds, factions, and schisms.”69 It was in this context that they approached the council with the request to impose an oath of confession on all of the city’s inhabitants. Calvin wrote: “Driven, therefore, by such great need, we appealed to our city council on this matter, and having offered a formula of confession, earnestly requested that in professing his truth they should not be reluctant to give glory to the Lord.” With these words, Calvin referred to the proposal to have all of the city’s inhabitants swear an oath of allegiance to the confession.70 Early in 1537, Calvin, as the spokesman for the ministers, presented this “oath formula” (sacramenti formula) to the council.71

65

66 67

68 69 70 71

1537, a synod met in Lausanne to discuss the matter, and the same was true for Bern on 31 May. Bähler: 1904; Nijenhuis: 1972, 73 – 96. That this was a Genevan matter is evident from the fact that Calvin did not appeal to the Confessio Helvetica prior, which had been composed in Basel in January 1536 and was also accepted by Geneva. That the matter concerned more than just Calvin personally came out in his choice not to defend himself by appealing to his Institutes of 1536. Instead, Calvin referred only to the catechism of Geneva which had been accepted a short time before in January 1537. In August of that year, he explained this course of action in a letter to the ministers of Zürich when he wrote that he had done so “in order not to abandon the affair of Farel.” Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.654, 285, l.2 = CO 10b, no.74, 122, l.17 – 18. CO 21, 206. The confession was published by Calvin in March 1538 together with the catechism. CO 5, 319, l.2 = OS 1, 428, l.15. He wrote, for example: “When therefore troubled at various times by empty accusations, we have learned we must fear them very much: insofar as permitted we prefer to cut off the occasion for these until the next day, rather than wait for them.” CO 5, 317, l.43 – 46 = OS 1, 427, l.16 – 19. CO 5, 317, l.30 – 31 = OS 1, 427, l.4 – 5. CO 5, 321, l.31 and l.37 – 38 = OS 1, 431, l.4 and l.10 – 11. CO 5, 320, l.3 – 7 and 319, l.9 = OS 1, 429, l.21 – 24 and 428, l.21. CO 5, 320, l.45 – 46 = OS 1, 430, l.13. See n.56.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

72

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

Louis du Tillet The priest du Tillet came to Geneva as a political refugee around the same time as his friend Calvin. The two had much in common. Both had left France in favour of another country as a result of persecutions in their homeland. Both had been deeply shocked by the many abuses in the established church back home. Both had, out of a common religious conviction, concluded that they could no longer live and work in that church. On many points, therefore, du Tillet shared the same ideals as Calvin. But in spite of their shared religious and political backgrounds, du Tillet expressed fundamental criticisms on the way in which Calvin was shaping the reform of Geneva’s church. For the present investigation on Calvin’s view on the church, it will therefore be helpful to consider the position of du Tillet in greater detail. The point of departure for du Tillet’s view was his conviction that there still were many good things in the old church, and that not everything was to be rejected. As examples he mentioned baptism and the offices of the church. Du Tillet did not share Calvin’s conviction that an entirely new church had to be established.72 He was convinced that the many abuses within the established church could be rooted out with reforming measures. He therefore wanted no share in Calvin’s radical demand that all inhabitants, without exception, be required to swear an oath binding them to the Genevan confession. In the eyes of du Tillet, one could legitimately speak of the renewal of the church if only one part of the city swore such a binding oath. Du Tillet did not oppose a binding oath of confession altogether. In March 1538 he described the oath as an “opportunity” for the inhabitants of Geneva to show that the new church “really does listen to the Word of the Lord.”73 It was to be admired, as du Tillet wrote, that the people were being instructed and that the church was being newly organised; for, in Geneva’s church the Word of God had to be preached and the sacraments administered.74 All the same, he did oppose the idea of requiring each and every person without exception to bind themselves to the new confession with an oath, as if there would be no church in Geneva without this formal starting-point. “Let it be God’s church, ”75 even if not everyone agrees on the course of events and even if there are numerous abuses and a great lack of knowledge. After all, it is not biblical to speak of the existence of a church only once all “shortcomings and errors”76 have been rooted out.77 Du 72 See the somewhat nuanced position of Ganoczy [1966], Calvin avait-il conscience de r¦former l’¦glise? 73 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391, l.21 – 24 = CO 10b, no.99, 169, l.48 – 170, l.2. 74 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391, l.27 – 28 = CO 10b, no.99, 170, l.6 – 7. 75 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391, l.26 = CO 10b, no.99, 170, l.5. 76 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391, l.30 – 33 = CO 10b, no.99, 170, l.10 – 13. 77 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391 – 392 = CO 10b, no.99, 170 – 171. Du Tillet there pointed

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

73

Tillet did not think it necessary for everyone – that is, for the entire city – to swear an oath binding them to the confession. Why would “a substantial part of the population that truly calls upon God” not suffice for there to be a church?78 Calvin, however, did not want “a part of the population” to have the chance to follow another faith. Calvin wanted more than the reformation of the city’s religious life. He wanted a radically new beginning that would involve the entire population. In the mind of du Tillet, Calvin had gone too far when he lumped the established church together in one category with the synagogues of the Jews.79 He pointed out to his friend that he had earlier depicted “the nation of the Jews as the people of God” until the time when Christ instituted “his new church.”80 One could not simply compare the Christian churches to the “synagogue of the Jews,”81 because the Jewish churches refused to accept the Christ.82 Du Tillet also asked Calvin whether he denied “the efficacy of the baptism of Jesus Christ” in the established churches.83 In January 1539, Calvin would address this issue in a letter to Pignet: “Since baptism is a sacrament of the church, it cannot be administered anywhere except the church. And yet we ourselves were included by the baptism of those who had fallen away from the gospel of the Lord into idolatry and into all kinds of superstition. Accordingly, our baptism must have been in vain, or else it must be that something is left of the church even where not all elements of the church are apparent. And why would it not be so?”84 Similarly, Calvin recognised in various editions of the Institutes that baptism remained in the old church as a remnant of the work of God.85 Du Tillet therefore pointed out

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

to the New Testament churches and all their problems. In a letter to Farel from late in December 1538, Calvin returned to this point by pointing to the Old Testament church. The Jews had lived for centuries and carried on in shameful sins, “but these sins did not have as consequence that the sacrifices were no longer holy for the believers.” Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.762a, 451, l.6 – 7 = CO 10b, no.200, 437, l.44 – 46. See also the following notes for statements in regard to Calvin’s view on the Jewish church. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 391, l.28 – 29 = CO 10b, no.99, 170, l.8 – 9. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 389, l.7 = CO 10b, no.99, 167, l.27 – 28. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 394, l.36 – 39 = CO 10b, no.99, 173, l.11 – 16. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 395, l.30 = CO 10b, no.99, 174, l.3. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 395, l.38 – 396, l.1 = CO 10b, no.99, 174, l.13 – 14. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 389, l.19 = CO 10b, no.99, 167, l.44 – 45. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.746, 212, l.31 – 213, l.2 = CO 10b, no.156, 308, l.33 – 40. In 1536 Calvin insisted on the validity of this baptism if it was performed according to the old rites. He defended this position against the Anabaptists by pointing out that “we have been initiated by baptism not in the name of some or another person, but in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In 1539, he would add a separate section on infant baptism to his Institutes in order to prove to the Anabaptists that it is “in no way a human invention.” In 1543 he further added that God’s covenant with Israel and circumcision as a sign of that covenant remained valid, even in times when Israel showed itself to be unfaithful. Calvin refused to invalidate the baptism of the Roman Catholic church. The additions to his Institutes reflect Calvin’s discussions on this point with du Tillet, and in his letter to Farel from

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

74

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

to Calvin that he had defended the validity of the baptism of the old church in 1536.86 This had considerable consequences. For, if God was active in the old Roman Catholic church in the sacrament of baptism, it meant that he had not abandoned it altogether. And if God still works through baptism and comes to us in it, must we not maintain the same in regard to the preaching of the Word? After all, wherever God is active, this never happens “entirely without fruit.” Du Tillet pursued his reasoning when he pointed out to Calvin that we believe in “the testimony of the Holy Spirit, ” who confirms the Word and the sacraments “to the hearts” of those who receive them with the right intention.87 Both of us received our “rudiments of the Christian faith” in the old church, so du Tillet wrote.88 For du Tillet, the existing Roman Catholic churches remained churches of Christ, something which Calvin himself had maintained in his open letter to cardinal Sadoleto from September 1539: “We indeed […] deny not that those over which you preside are churches of Christ.”89 Calvin acknowledged God’s work in the baptism of the old church, and he never denied in so many words that the work of the gospel did not continue in it. Yet he also indicated where the dividing line lay : the Word of God is to be proclaimed purely and faithfully. The Genevan confession expressed this same point and concluded, as we saw above, that wherever no pure preaching can be found, there “we do not acknowledge the form of the church.”90 For Calvin, the essence of the church had been so disastrously damaged in the established church of old that one could no longer build on its remnants. He wanted a new church in Geneva, an entirely new beginning. Another topic that du Tillet had touched upon in his correspondence with Calvin was the rather sensitive issue of one’s calling to and confirmation in an office of the church. Could a church that had broken all formal bonds with the old, established church still have lawful offices? In October 1538, Calvin wrote a letter to convince his friend that he was certain in his conscience of his calling.91 Du Tillet, however, considered it indisputable that the ecclesiastical offices were to be rooted in the apostolic tradition: “I cannot see in any way that you were ever called” in a lawful manner.92 He added that those whom Calvin had asked to serve as pastors were not officially qualified, either.93 Your argument, so du Tillet wrote in letter to Calvin early

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

December 1538 as cited above. CO 1, 116, l.2 – 3 = OS 1, 134, l.6 – 7; Inst. 4.16.8 (1539) = OS 5, 311, l.27; Inst. 4.2.11 (1543) = OS 5, 41. See n.77. CO 1, 116, l.2 – 3 = OS 1, 134, l.6 – 7 (1536) = Inst. 4.15.16 = OS 5, 296 – 297. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.692, 390, l.36 – 391, l.5 = CO 10b, no.99, 169, l.16 – 28. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.742, 104, l.19 = CO 10b, no.139, 242, l.18. CO 5, 403, l.31 – 32 = OS 1, 476, l.5 – 6. CO 9, 698, l.29 – 30 = OS 1, 424, l.25. See n.60-61. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.754, 162, l.24 f = CO 10b, no.147, 270, l.19 f. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.759, 193, l.3 – 4 = CO 10b, no.153, 295, l.40 – 42. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.759, 193, l.24 f = CO 10b, no.153, 296, l.13 f

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

75

in December 1538, has not done anything to take away “my doubts,” for you know just as well as I do that calling to and confirmation in an ecclesiastical office must be “legitimate and from God.”94 Du Tillet understood there to be a great difference between someone who places his gifts in the service of God of his own accord, and someone who has truly been confirmed in his office.95 For him, a legitimate calling and confirmation consisted in the official, apostolic laying on of hands as instituted by God.96 Both Calvin and du Tillet considered the apostolic tradition to be constitutive. For Calvin, however, the inner conviction of his conscience sufficed when it was combined with an external call from God as it had come through his appointment by the government; for du Tillet, however, this did not suffice. In his 1536 Institutes, Calvin addressed this issue when he wrote that ecclesiastical ordination was not necessary “to appoint the overseer and pastor of a church.”97 Calvin had not been ordained, but he also did not consider ordination to be necessary. Du Tillet could not have disagreed more with him. In his eyes, Calvin had claimed something that went against God’s intentions.98 Calvin, however, thought that the power to appoint pastors was held by the government. Du Tillet left Geneva in 1537 and returned to France the following year, where he rejoined the old church of Rome. Calvin, on the other hand, remained in Geneva until his banishment from the city in 1538. During the period of his exile in Strasbourg he would once again reflect on the offices. The results of this reflection would become visible in the new Genevan church order of 1541. Calvin’s ‘Oath Policy’ But what was Calvin’s deeper motive for instituting an oath of allegiance to the confession? Did he see this campaign as a means to form a church of consciously confessing believers in Geneva? Did he seek to create, among a mixed population of papal sympathisers,99 Anabaptists, and Reformed believers, a group that consciously chose for the Reformed confession, and thereby to exclude the other 94 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.759, 194, l.2 f and l.34 = CO 10b, no.153, 296, l.33 f and 297, l.19. Du Tillet accentuated the wide historical support for his view by pointing to “the writings of the apostles and the evangelists, and from all the ancient writers”, as well as to “the decrees and constitutions of the councils or other writings of the teachers and shepherds of the church.” Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.759, 194, l.30 – 33 = CO 10b, no.153, 297, l.14 – 16. 95 Herminjard: 1838, vol.5, no.759, 190, l.38 – 191, l.3 = CO 10b, no.153, 293, l.38 – 43. 96 Herminjard: 1838, vol.5, no.759, 192, l.7 – 8 = CO 10b, no.153, 294, l.44 – 46. Among other things, he pointed to the well-known texts pertaining to the laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6. 97 CO 1, 186, l.44 – 45 = OS 1, 213, l.12 – 13. 98 Herminjard: 1838, vol.5, no.759, 197, l.36 – 198, l.3 = CO 10b, no.153, 300, l.12 – 22. 99 Cahier-Buccelli lists a total of 54 Roman Catholic clergymen who lived in Geneva in 1536 or later. Cahier-Buccelli: 1987, 389.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

76

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

groups from Geneva’s new church community? Did Calvin attempt to take the power to keep people from the Lord’s Supper out of the hands of the government, and place it in those of the pastors? Was Calvin’s ideal the formation of an ecclesiastical organisation composed of like-minded people in Geneva? Calvin and Farel wanted all residents, even the habitants (i. e. those without the rights of a citizen), to become involved in the search for greater ecclesiastical unity. We can hear this already in the opening words of the Genevan confession: “Confession of Faith which all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva and the subjects of the country must swear to keep and hold.”100 The difference between the oath sworn in May 1536 by the General Council on the occasion of its decision to join the Reformation, and the oath proposed by the pastors in 1537, was that now all inhabitants of the city would be required to swear it, and not only the members of the General Council (i. e. the inhabitants with citizen rights). The confession was adopted by the council in March 1537, and, at the end of the next month, the council began a campaign that included the door-to-door distribution of more than 1500 copies of the confession in order to prepare the people for the oath ceremony that was scheduled for 29 July 1537.101 In the sixteenth century, the swearing of oaths was a practice common to the Swiss and south German territories, and we already encountered it in the previous chapter on Bern.102 Various groups, villages, and city-communities made military, economic, and religious alliances, which they confirmed by means of a public oath. The Reformed movement in the Swiss territories and in south Germany had adopted this custom as well. In Basel, for example, it was put to use in a plenary assembly of the council on 21 January 1534. Every member of Basel’s council had to swear to the Reformed confession. Marx Bertschi, a pastor from St. Leonhard, reported about this occasion: “First of all a short summary of the main points of our current faith convictions, that is the truly catholic faith, was provided; similarly, the renewal of our church life was summarised and read aloud in a special assembly of the full council. After that, each and every man was asked by the mayor whether there was anyone who could not fully agree with this confession of faith and was not wholeheartedly ready to defend this confession with his blood.” No one registered any objections. After this, it was decided that the confession would be read in each of the city’s fifteen guilds. “It is wonderful and unbelievable! In the entire city, no more than five were found who did not assent.”103 The city council was thus the first to decide to follow the Reformed cause, and afterwards the guilds were given the opportunity to reflect on this 100 CO 22, 85 = OS 1, 418. 101 Rilliet: 1878b, xxxiii and lx. Dufour: 1878, cvii-cviii. CO 21, 210 – 211 (27 April 1537). 102 See n..10-12; see Wilhelm Ebel, Der Bürgereid als Geltungsgrund und Gestaltungsprinzip des deutschen mittelalterlichen Stadsrecht, Weimar : Böhlau, 1958. 103 Staehelin: 1929, no.70, 250, l.33f – 251, l.2 and 251, l.11 – 13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

77

decision and to witness their agreement with it. Decisions that were confirmed in this way were valid for the entire city. The same applied for the requirement to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.104 On the face of it, it seems as if Calvin was following a long-standing practice of the nearby Reformed cities when he proposed to have all Genevan inhabitants swear an oath binding them to the confession. Later on he defended this demand by arguing that it was nothing new.105 In one sense Calvin did indeed join a tried and true tradition; all the same, there still was a new element in his proposal. As has been noted, in Basel it was only the people’s representatives who swore the oath.106 Calvin, in contrast, demanded an oath from each and every one of Geneva’s inhabitants – yet, even on this score, the city did have a precedent available for involving all of the inhabitants. On Sunday, 30 March 1533, the government had presented a decision to the Genevan inhabitants after they had been assembled by the decurions. The issue concerned the peaceful coexistence of Catholics and evangelicals in the city.107 Everyone was required to swear a solemn oath by raising their right hand. The evangelicals were given the freedom to preach, but only after they had received permission from the council, and only as long as their preaching was in accordance with “the Holy Scriptures” and did not denigrate the “holy sacraments.”108 The nature of this decision made by the city council was more political than it was religious. The government hoped that it could keep the unity of the city by means of this decision, but it did not actually seek a solution to the 104 In 1530, all citizens of Basel were required to attend the Lord’s Supper. The leading Basel jurist Amerbach resisted, in the name of academic freedom. His efforts failed, however, since the government had the final say at the university of Basel. In the university regulations from 1539, it was decided that no one was allowed to teach who “does not belong to our religion and does not have communion with us at the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.” See n. 45. 105 CO 5, 319, l.8 = OS 1, 428, l.20. Calvin was forced to give an account of himself on this point to the surrounding cities since it had been decided in 1536, with a view to Bern’s new territories, “that no one may bring anything that has not been received or is unfamiliar to the people, except after consultation with several others.” Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.611, 188, l.25 – 27 = CO 10b, no.50, 85, l.32 – 86, l.1. 106 See n.103. 107 Ayear earlier, on 30 January 1532, shortly after the meeting of the synod, Bern and Fribourg effected a compromise in order to stem the tides of unrest in Geneva. Nauta describes the compromise as follows: “Our subjects, of both religions, will live together in peace. There will be complete freedom of conscience. The Reformed will be granted a church building for the preaching the Word of God. The Mass will remain abolished in places where that has been done by majority vote; but it will remain in places where people have maintained it, with permission also for the Reformed to hold their sermons.” Nauta: 1988, 16. In January 1533, Viret wrote a letter to the council of Bern in which he pled with it to intervene in the tense situation between the “Catholics” and “evangelicals” in Geneva. This was followed by the decision of 30 March 1533; see n.17. 108 RC, vol.12, 250. Rivoire: 1927 f, vol.2, 542, l.35.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

78

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

religious differences in terms of their contents. This compromise was entirely understandable in the situation. The “preaching of the gospel” was, after all, a generally accepted phrase in both the established church109 and in the rising movement of reform.110 All of the city’s inhabitants were involved in the making of this decision; the government demanded that all inhabitants swear on oath that they would follow the edict of toleration. In this respect, Calvin and Farel’s proposal from early in 1537 was entirely in line with the method that the council had followed in March 1533. All the same, on this earlier occasion, the goal which the government had in view was the maintenance of peace and concord. Calvin and Farel’s main concern with their proposal from the spring of 1537, on the other hand, was not to try and introduce a form of coexistence acceptable to all, but rather to achieve religious unity. It was thus with the goal of achieving religious uniformity that Calvin requested the state to assemble all the inhabitants without exception in “groups of ten” to swear an oath to the new Genevan confession.111 For Calvin, such binding to the confession represented the proper starting-point for Geneva’s new church. Yet his radical approach immediately met with great opposition. This is not surprising, since their demand to have every Genevan resident bind himself to the confession on oath was much weightier than the 1533 decision had been by which the magistrate required the inhabitants to express their agreement to conform to its decisions on specific religious issues. Up to that point in time, the Reformed cities in Switzerland had always practised this latter, less imposing means.112 But in Geneva each and every resident was now being asked to testify to his complete adherence to the new faith.113 The city resisted this decision fiercely. After all, the proposal from Calvin and Farel appeared to have been undertaken to counter those who had different religious convictions. 109 Augustijn has demonstrated that the prescription that the gospel be preached in the established church came up beginning with the Fifth Lateran Council in particular. With this, the established church envisioned above all the exposition of the gospel in following the four great church fathers Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great. Augustijn: 1967 – 1968, 154, 160 and 163. 110 In Switzerland a compromise was formulated in Zürich in 1522 to appease the supporters of both the old and the new religion by stating that the preaching could only be according to the Word of God. Furthermore, on 29 January 1523 the council of Zürich decided after the first disputation that all ministers had to preach the gospel. Egli: 1879, 85 and 114 f; Augustijn: 1967 – 1968, 153, n.4 and 6, 165, n.4. 111 CO 5, 320, l.11 = OS 1, 429, l.27. Rilliet: 1878b, lix-lx. 112 Bern’s government, for example, demanded late in 1535 that all inhabitants swear to have their children baptised. This decision was directed against the practices of the Anabaptists, since they not only opposed the swearing of oaths, but also resisted the baptism of infants and refused to submit in obedience to the government. Feller: 1974, vol. 2, 278. 113 Rilliet has described the oath as “proof of adherence to the church and to its teaching”; Rilliet: 1878b, lviii.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

79

Late in April 1537, the council began a campaign to drum up support for its decision. As has been noted, some 1500 copies of the confession were delivered from house to house during this campaign.114 Yet the distributors encountered so many negative reactions from the population that the council considered stopping the project, although it in the end did continue it at the insistence of the pastors. Nevertheless, the resistance continued to increase over the course of the year, especially because a number of groups felt that they were being cornered. The opposition could be felt on every level of the population, and among different religious confessions.115 Some people opposed the oath because they considered it unnecessary for those who already were Christians.116 Others objected because they thought that the oath required them to live in total agreement with the law of God, which was impossible.117 Yet other inhabitants refused to approve the confession because they still loved the Mass, while the confession stated that the “Mass of the pope was … an idolatry condemned by God.”118 Another group refused to cooperate in protest to the lack of freedom in religious matters they saw reflected in this campaign.119 Yet others did favour the oath in part because they too wanted renewal for the church, but still thought that the confession went too far when it compared the churches from which they had come to the “synagogues of the devil.”120 The members of this last group included the priest Louis du Tillet. Three main groups can be distinguished among all of those who opposed Calvin’s oath policy : those who sympathised with the old faith, those who were not opposed to the renewal of the church but were not convinced of the new doctrine as Calvin and Farel had formulated it in the new confession, and – as a category that has not been mentioned yet – those who as a matter of principle refused to swear oaths out of their Anabaptist convictions. A manifestation that took place on 29 July 1537, at which all inhabitants were to have bound themselves on oath to the confession in St. Peter’s cathedral, can hardly be called a success. And yet, the government had done everything within the means at its disposal to bring the people to cooperate; it even threatened to banish those who refused.121 On 19 September 1537 the council decided once more that those who did not plan to cooperate would have to go and live else114 115 116 117 118 119 120

See n.101. Rilliet: 1878b, lxv-lxvi. CO 10a, 9, l.22 – 24 = OS 1, 372, l.19 – 20. Rilliet: 1878b, lxi. Rilliet: 1878a, 116, l.11 – 12; Rilliet: 1878b, lxii. Rilliet: 1878b, lxii. Rilliet: 1878a, 118, l.18 – 19 = CO 22, 93, l.15 = OS 1, 424, l.28; see also CO 10a, 11, l.46 = OS 1, 374, l.40. 121 CO 21, 213, l.43 (29 Juli 1537).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

80

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

where.122 It appears as if the state was forced to resort to such coercive means, although it should be noted that banishment was never actually exercised and always remained a threat and nothing more. Neither Calvin nor Farel ever spoke of banishing from the city those who refused to cooperate, but they also did not oppose the government’s use of coercive measures to move the people to swear their allegiance to the confession.123 The government thus forced the city’s inhabitants to conform to the new ecclesiastical practices, and the inhabitants never had the choice to make a free decision, a conscious confession.124 Severe consequences would follow if someone refused to swear to the confession. Even if no one was banished for this, anyone who failed to cooperate would still end up a second rate citizen and no longer qualify to hold an official function in the city. In spite of everything, the government did not succeed in breaking the resistance. From the very beginning, the fires for this resistance were fuelled by Anabaptist sympathies. This is entirely understandable. The swearing of oaths may have been a regular phenomenon in the Swiss tradition, but it also functioned as a weapon against the Anabaptists – a fact of which Calvin was no doubt conscious.125 The councils were not tolerant to them, either ; in 1537, people who harboured Anabaptist convictions were regularly tried and condemned.126 Led by Calvin, the ministers looked upon the Anabaptists as “Satan’s tools.”127 But was it also possible to keep them from the table of the Lord’s Supper? On 5 October 1537, the preachers asked the council whether people with Anabaptist or Roman Catholic sympathies who refused to swear the oath ought to be kept from participating in the Lord’s Supper. Several days later, on Oc-

122 Rilliet: 1878b, lxvi. 123 The ministers Calvin and Farel had not requested the banishment of those who refused to swear the oath, as Rilliet assumes when he writes that the confession was intended by the pastors as a means to force from the city those “who for one reason or another refused to swear an oath to the confession” in order to achieve religious unity among the people. Rilliet: 1878b, lix. Balke has similarly claimed that the ministers did insist on banishment. Balke: 1973, 78. 124 Balke appears to hold another position when he writes: “Nevertheless, this is a far cry from Rome’s coercion of the conscience. Banishment is not the death penalty.” Balke: 1973, 79. 125 Calvin remarked in his 1536 Institutes, which he composed in Basel in 1535, that oaths could only be used “if required by the honour of God or the good of one’s neighbour.” CO 1, 35, l.19 – 20 = OS 1, 45, l.28 – 29. In the Basel confession of 1534, with which Calvin may have been familiar, the same expression is encountered in the article against the errors of the Anabaptists: “That children are not baptised. That oaths may not be sworn on any occasion, not even when demanded by the honour of God or the love of the neighbour. And that the government cannot be Christian.” Müller : 1903, 100, l.8 f = Roth: 1950, vol. 6, 409, l.12 f. In the 1536 Institutes, the Anabaptists are not mentioned in the section on the swearing of oaths; in the 1539 they are indeed named, however. Balke: 1973, 58 – 59 and 109 – 110. 126 Balke: 1973, 79 – 93, 363 f and 371. 127 Balke: 1973, 41. Cf. Calvin’s letter to Francis I from 1535, CO 1, 23 = OS 1, 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

81

tober 8, the council decreed that the pastors did not have the right to do so.128 However, it did make some concessions when it decided on 11 November 1537 that those who visited the parishes were to be ordered for the second time to begin preparing for an oath ceremony.129 Once again the campaign failed to deliver the intended outcome, so that there still was no unity in Genevan society. A considerable part of the population was and remained opposed to the policy of reform that had been enacted upon until that point in time. At the council’s meeting of 25 November 1537, the state suffered such fierce attacks from the opposition that it was forced to set out on a different course.130 The mood had shifted considerably. This was reflected in the elections of February 1538 as well, when the four incumbent syndics all lost their seats at the same time, which was highly unusual.131 For Calvin, this was hardly a good harbinger. Yet, in spite of everything, he remained convinced that the proper starting-point for Geneva’s church was to demand of all inhabitants that they swear an oath binding themselves to the confession. Following the defeat at the elections of February 1538, Calvin expressed his desire to deliberate with the surrounding Reformed cities. In a letter to Bullinger from 21 February 1538, he pleaded for a large public synod “where everyone can state what he considers to be most important for his church, and where communal deliberations can be held to discuss how this can be achieved.”132 After his banishment from Geneva in April 1538, he revealed in a letter to du Tillet, written from Strasbourg on 10 July 1538, that it would be good to initiate a widespread and “precise investigation” to evaluate the exercise of “our office.”133 Now that Calvin’s vision on church polity had been rejected by Geneva’s church, he sought support from the surrounding churches. He did this when he, early in 1538, published a Latin edition of the Genevan catechism and confession, to which he prefaced an overview of the events that had taken place in Geneva in the two

128 129 130 131

CO 21, 215; Rilliet: 1878b, lxxii-lxxiii; Balke: 1973, 93. Rilliet: 1878b, lxix. Rilliet: 1878b, lxxi-lxxii. The elections were structured in such a way that the most important decisions were made in the Small Council, since it was the body designated with the responsibility of drawing up the list of candidates. The other councils could only approve the nominations. For the election of the syndics, two candidates were proposed for each position. Kingdon: 1972, 7, n.10. In February 1538 the Great Council in an unusual event refused to be content with the replacement of a single syndic; instead, it proposed candidates to replace multiple incumbents. 132 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.685, 368, l.19 – 20 = CO 10b, no.93, 154, l.21 – 23. 133 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.722, 43, l.7 – 44, l.1 = CO 10b, no.127, 220, l.13 – 26. Calvin envisioned an assembly with representatives from Zürich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, and Biel. Early in 1539, he – in view of the situation in Geneva – still favoured a synod with participation from a broad delegation including Zürich and Strasbourg. Nauta: 1965, 154 – 155.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

82

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

preceding years.134 Calvin carefully addresses the question whether pastors bear a responsibility for who may and may not partake of the Lord’s Supper, now that the required oath to the confession had been dropped: “Yet ought one not to consider that the pastor who exercises no selection in communicating it is himself profaning this great mystery?”135 Nothing suggests that Calvin sought to have a church that was independent of the government, or even an independent power of excommunication for the church. But now that an obligatory oath to the confession for all of Geneva’s inhabitants could no longer be realised, Calvin turned to his colleagues from the surrounding cities for a solution. In his letter to Bullinger from 21 February 1538, Calvin wrote: “We have not been able to achieve the restoration of the pure and holy exercise of excommunication.”136 Also this passage does not suggest in any way that Calvin sought an independent ecclesiastical power of excommunication; and yet, it is regularly cited as proof in support of such a thesis.137 The very opposite seems to be true, in fact. A little further down in this letter, Calvin describes what he had in mind: a public synod where, among other things, “the governments can support each other through mutual admonition.”138 From similar remarks in this letter it becomes clear that Calvin spoke as a functionary of the government, and not as someone who was out for war with the government over specific powers for the church in an attempt to gain greater freedom for it. During this first period, Calvin presented himself in word and deed as an advisor and servant to the government. It is not entirely clear when the pastors submitted their request to the council to have all the inhabitants swear an oath to the confession.139 It is most likely,

134 CO 5, 317 – 322 = OS 1, 426 – 432. 135 CO 5, 319, l.38 – 40 = OS 1, 429, l.2 – 4. The Geneva ministers, and especially Calvin and Farel, felt themselves to be responsible for the situation that had been created because it was at their insistence and advice that the oath policy had been introduced (“[…] because we were the advisors for our government in demanding this oath”; CO 5, 319, l.9 – 10 = OS 1, 428, l.21 – 22.). 136 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.685, 368, l.10 – 12 = CO 10b, no.93, 154, l.10 – 12. 137 Balke assumes that Calvin did everything possible to obtain a power of discipline that was “independent of the civil government.” However, so he reports, “the Reformers in Geneva did not succeed in obtaining this power.” In this context, Balke points to the passage quoted above. Balke: 1973, 94. With an appeal to the same passages, Weber even speaks of “a consistory’s power of excommunication” which Calvin hoped to attain. Weber: 1968, 121, n.4. 138 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.685, 368, l.22; see also l.18 and 23 = CO 10b, no.93, 154, l.25; see also l.19 – 20 and l.26. 139 In November 1536 he wanted to know who exactly recognised “the church of Jesus Christ”. This point was developed more concretely some time later in the plan to have all inhabitants of Geneva swear an oath to the confession. In March the Genevan confession was approved, after a first draft had been rejected in January. See n.59. The new version of the confession

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

83

however, that they made this request early in 1537; for, the confession appeared in print at the end of April and was distributed from door to door soon thereafter. In Calvin’s report of these events we read: “we appealed to our council, and having offered a formula of confession, earnestly requested that in professing this truth they should not be reluctant to give glory to the Lord.” The senate was to provide an example to the people in this “holy act”; Calvin further requested “that the common people, called together in groups of ten, might subscribe to this confession.”140 In this part of his report, Calvin appealed to Old Testament examples of covenant making and renewal undertaken by Israel’s leaders such as Moses, Josiah, and Asa. As Calvin explained afterwards, the pastors’ proposal was intended to join an existing Swiss and Genevan tradition. He hoped that none were “thoughtlessly circulating rumours about us as if we are innovators” because of the fact that he had urged the council to require the entire population to swear their allegiance to the confession.141 Calvin further showed that he was aware that the deficient understanding of the average Genevan inhabitant concerning the meaning of the new confession had played a role in the failure of the pastors’ initiative. In this context, he referred to the well known text from Hosea about the people’s “lack of knowledge.”142 Of course, their lack of familiarity with the new doctrine had been an important reason that motivated Calvin to compose a catechism in the French language during the first months of his stay in Geneva. It was for this same reason that he during that very same period also occupied himself with the production of a French translation of his Institutes.143 Calvin was well aware that everyone in Geneva had been raised from youth “in the papal schools,”144 and, furthermore, that people are by nature inclined to stay true to “what they once learned.”145 Because of the “confusion in this city”, few were sure as to what should be done.146 As a result, Calvin was faced with the task of trying to bring greater uniformity to this situation in which there was so little clarity. His intention was not to try and form a separate community of believers within the Genevan population as a whole147; religion was not a private matter for

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

was not only an exposition of Reformed doctrine, however, but had also become a statement condemning the papal and Anabaptist idolatries. See n.120 and n.125-127. CO 5, 320, l.3 – 12 = OS 1, 429, l.21 – 28. CO 5, 319, l.8 – 10 = OS 1, 428, l.19 – 22. See n.105. OS 1, 370, l.4 – 5; Hosea 4: 6. We appeal once again to Calvin’s letter to King Francis I from August 1535. CO 1, 9, l.12 = OS 1, 21, l.12 – 13. CO 10b, no.34, 63, n.8 = Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.573, 88, n.8. Rilliet: 1878b, lxix. CO 5, 412, l.22 f = OS 1, 485, l.20 – 21. CO 10a, 7, l.5 = OS 1, 370, l.1. Köhler is of the opinion that Calvin in the 1537 articles was indeed thinking of a church in terms of a Christian community with confessing members. In that line, he interprets Calvin’s policy to have all inhabitants swear to the confession as a personal confession of faith. Köhler: 1942, 512. A similar position was defended by Ganoczy : 1966, 111.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

84

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

him, but one that concerned all the members of society as they stood under the leadership of the government.148 In fact, his demand that every single inhabitant be required to swear to the confession is what leaves no doubt that Calvin had no intention of forming a separate ecclesiastical community. He was most consciously aware that the lack of knowledge and insight on the part of the average city resident meant that they would not be making a conscious and voluntary choice for the confession. As he later looked back on the situation, Calvin would point explicitly to the renewal of the covenant under Josiah, remarking that not every person individually, but “all the Jews together, not without oath-taking, bound their faith.”149 The inclusion of all parties involved in the formation of an alliance, and the confirmation of that alliance by an oath, are two elements that we also encountered above in the Swiss customs. However, the Genevan pastors did not succeed in getting the entire population to support their ideas. Many inhabitants did not consciously support the renewals taking place in religion, and few understood at all what these measures were actually intended to accomplish.150 A large group of people seems to have thought that the oath which the ministers were demanding from them represented a vow to live in perfect obedience to the law of God. Calvin addressed this misunderstanding in his 1538 account of the events, writing that he had not intended to bind the people to a perfect obedience by means of this oath, but rather to bring the people of Geneva to measure themselves according to the high demands of God’s law. In this way, he wrote, “deprived of their own righteousness, they will be clad with Christ’s righteousness.”151 While few understood what the pastors had really intended to accomplish with the oath, what they did see was that it was being imposed on them under serious threats from the side of the government. Even some of Calvin’s faithful followers did not understand his plans.152 Even for us, who attempt to account for the events from our present vantage point, it is not easy to gain a clear view on them.

148 The last part of the 1536 Institutes dealt with the government’s responsibilities in regard to the religious life of the people. Calvin ends a long passage on this point with the words: “[…] that a public manifestation of religion may exist.” In other words, Calvin understood life in a religious society to be an undivided whole. Van Eck in this context draws a connection from Calvin’s view on church and society to the “Stoic notion” by which human life is viewed as an interrelated unity. CO 1, 230, l.14 – 15 = OS 1, 260, l.22; Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.6 – 7; Van Eck: 1992, 210. 149 CO 5, 320, l.22 – 24 = OS 1, 429, l.37 – 38. 150 CO 10a, 11, l.21 – 22 = OS 1, 374, l.19. Bohatec: 1968, 342. 151 CO 5, 320, l.55 – 321, l.1 = OS 1, 430, l.20 – 22. 152 In January 1539, Calvin had to explain even to his friends in Geneva what his intentions had been in the preceding years. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.764, 213, l.26 – 30 = CO 10b, no.156, 309, l.31 – 35.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

85

After the spring of 1537, Calvin refused to abandon his plan to require every inhabitant to bind himself to the confession by oath. While his oath policy may have been occasioned by the attacks which threatened the reputation of the Genevan church during the Caroli affair,153 his persistence in it can only be accounted for as a pursuit for uniformity within the city’s church.154 As we saw, Calvin used the term ‘church’ in the 1537 articles in its most proper sense as ‘Lord’s Supper community.’155 In order to try and explain his insistence on the oath requirement, we will therefore do well to consider his view on the church as a community of the Lord’s Supper. Immediately after he arrived in Geneva, Calvin did everything in his power in the spring of 1536 to make sure that the Lord’s Supper was not being profaned. In the 1537 articles, which had already been prepared in November 1536, Calvin appealed to “those who have the power” to ensure that those who partake of the Eucharist “be approved members of Jesus Christ.”156 Earlier, in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, Calvin had stated that the government was charged with the task of keeping “God’s law from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity.”157 The articles begin by stating that “it is certain that a church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented, and this under such good supervision that no one dare presume to present him self unless devoutly, and with genuine reverence for it.”158 Furthermore, Calvin requested the magistracy not only to require the people to attend the preaching, but also to make sure that they attended the Lord’s Supper faithfully.159 It is against this background that one can explain why he was so persistent in his demand to have every inhabitant swear an oath to the confession. In his mind, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not to be defiled; for that reason, it also could not simply be administered to everyone. It was up to the government to act wherever necessary, but it would hardly be able to distinguish true from false believers as 153 See n.62-65. 154 When he looked back on these events in 1538, Calvin pointed to this pursuit of uniformity ; see, for example, CO 5, 317, l.16 – 27 = OS 1, 426, l.30 – 427, l.1, and the rules CO 5, 322, l.37 – 40 = OS 1, 432, l.12 – 15, on the necessity of unity among the churches and a bond of mutual peace in the battle against false accusations; the passage from CO 5, 321, l.29 – 33 and OS 1, 431, l.3 – 6 discussed the godly concord of the Genevan inhabitants in their common fight against Satan. Calvin similarly emphasised the importance of mutual unity by regulating things well in his 1536 Institutes; for unity and mutual peace are sustained best under a wellordered constitution. “Without unity, they become no churches at all.” CO 1, 226, l.1 – 3 = OS 1, 255, l.38 – 40 = Inst. 4.10.27 = OS 5, 189, l.35 – 190, l.2. 155 See n.39-46. 156 CO 10a, 9, l.5 – 7 = OS 1, 372, l.4 – 6. 157 CO 1, 230, l.22 – 24 = OS 1, 260, l.29 – 30 = Inst.4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.13 – 14. 158 CO 10a, 5, l.1 – 6, l.5 = OS 1, 369, l.5 – 10. 159 CO 10a, 6, l.2 – 3 = OS 1, 369, l.8. CO 10a, 7, l.34 – 35 = OS 1, 370, l.25.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

86

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

long as it had no idea as to “what doctrine each holds”.160 This was why Calvin thought some form of selection had to be maintained in regard to the Lord’s Supper. In the 1537 articles, Calvin noted that disciplinary measures were sometimes needed, such as when people clearly broke the law. What remained unclear, however, was who “ought to be received as members” and who “are contrary to us in everything in religion.”161 According to Calvin, it ought to be evident “who desire to belong to the church of Jesus Christ and who do not,”162 and this was to become visible at the Lord’s Supper in particular. Moreover, he understood Genevan society as a whole to be a religious community.163 For that reason the church was to be preserved “in its entirety.”164 The government was to see to “the maintenance of your people in good order,” and all of Geneva’s inhabitants counted as members of the church.165 This was why Calvin insisted that the Genevan confession must be accepted by everyone. It would not suffice for this document to be composed by the city’s councils. It would not even be enough if the General Council gave it its approval. No, the entire population had to accept it.166 This was something Calvin emphasised continually with a view to the Lord’s Supper. When many of the inhabitants in Geneva refused to cooperate, Calvin’s plans were brought to a downfall. Those who continued to hold to Roman Catholic teaching or were sympathetic to the Anabaptist program persisted in their refusal to swear the oath. According to Calvin, they and all others who refused were to be barred from the Lord’s Supper. His intention in this conflict was not, however, to achieve “the chimera of absolute holiness” pursued by some of the Anabaptists, who lived “as if they had already become some kind of spirits that float through the air.”167 Given the dynamics of the new situation in which Geneva found itself in 1538, it became increasingly unpalatable to Calvin that the ministers of the city were administering the Lord’s Supper to those who sympathised with “the synagogues of the devil” (i. e. those who inclined to the papal theology) and to “the instruments of Satan” (i. e. especially the Anabaptists).168 Calvin’s primary 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

CO 10a, 12, l.5 = OS 1, 375, l.7. CO 10a, 11, l.40 – 41 = OS 1, 374, l.35 – 36. CO 10a, 11, l.27 – 28 = OS 1, 374, l.24 – 25. Bohatec: 1968, 630 – 631. CO 10a, 14, l.15 = OS 1, 376, l.43. The text here reads “conseruer lesglise and son entire”, while another passage speaks of the undamaged maintenance of the church “en son integrite”; CO 10a, 6, l.6 – 7 = OS 1, 369, l.11. CO 10a, 14, l.18 – 20 = OS 1, 377, l.2 – 3. Rilliet speaks in this context of a one-time “required identification of one’s religious convictions.” Rilliet: 1878b, lx. CO 5, 320, l.14 f = OS 1, 429, l.30 f Inst. 4.1.13 (1539) = OS 5, 17, l.2 – 3 and Inst. 4.12.12 (1543) = OS 5, 223, l.11 – 14. See n.120 and 127.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

87

concern was for “those whose blood is required of us.”169 The wicked “were even devouring God’s wrath rather than partaking in the sacrament of life.”170 The refusal on the part of the city’s inhabitants to cooperate in establishing this covenant by means of an oath to the confession placed the ministers before a great predicament, since the profanation of the Lord’s Supper was simply allowed to continue unabated. Calvin expected of the government that it would not tolerate the “sacrilege against God’s name [and] blasphemies against his truth” but would punish it.171 This applied in particular to the Holy Supper. When the government did not fulfil its duty as it ought to, Calvin and Farel decided that they would push for an open confrontation. By way of summary, we can say that Calvin’s ‘oath policy’ was formally in line with the customs that existed in southern Germany and in the Swiss Confederation. Moreover, it had many parallels with an Old Testament tradition.172 For Calvin, the only proper way to start the new church was to hold a collective oath ceremony. This was how the people could receive God’s grace: “The people grasp the grace offered to them … by binding themselves.”173 For that reason, he had urgently petitioned the government not to block the demand to require everyone “to come out for God’s truth.” The fact that all had been baptised – Calvin speaks in this context of “their baptismal profession” – did not suffice as a starting point for the new church, since “all had defected.”174 The requirement of the oath thus applied to everyone; it was to be a collective event. In these early years of the Reformation in Geneva, Calvin and Farel were not after a power of excommunication that was independent from the government. In this respect, they differed from Johannes Oecolampadius in Basel and from Leo Judae in Zürich.175 The power of excommunication was in the hands of the government, and Calvin and Farel considered that this was also where it ought to be. At the same time, they were convinced that the magistrate was not acting in a sufficiently decisive manner in its exercise of this power. This worried them 169 170 171 172

CO 5, 319, l.29 – 31 = OS 1, 428, l.38 – 40. CO 5, 319, l.36 – 38 = OS 1, 429, l.1 – 2. CO 1, 230, l.8 – 11 and 21 – 24 = OS 1, 260, l.16 – 18 and 28 – 30. Köhler : 1942, 511. The passage on Israel’s covenant renewals in the preface to the Latin edition of the catechism runs from CO 5, 319, l.51 = OS 1, 429, l.14 to CO 5, 321, l.1 = OS 1, 430, l.22. 173 CO 5, 320, l.43 – 45 = OS 1, 430, l.10 – 12. 174 CO 5, 319, l.45 – 47 and 320, l.3 – 5 = OS 1, 429, l.8 – 10 and l.22 – 24. 175 One could say that Calvin assumed a mediating position between Oecolampadius and Leo Judae on the one side, who thought that Christ had given the discipline of the Lord’s Supper to the church, and Bullinger on the other side, who opposed any form of discipline connected to the Lord’s Supper. Calvin may have been a fervent proponent of a discipline pertaining to the celebration of the Eucharist, but he saw it as a common responsibility for the government and the ministers, with the power itself residing with the state. For the positions of Bullinger and Judae, see chapter 1, n.155 – 159, for Oecolampadius, see Staehelin: 1939, 506 – 527.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

88

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

especially in connection with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. For this reason, Calvin proposed that all of the city’s inhabitants be made to swear an oath to the confession; after all, they all belonged to the church. In order to understand the significance of such an oath, we have to remember that Calvin’s main concern was for the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper. When he wrote in the articles of 1537 that he wanted to determine “who belong to the church of Jesus Christ,” “who are opposed in everything to us,” and “who ought to be received as members,”176 he referred to the responsibility of the government to ensure that those to whom the Lord’s Supper was being administered were “approved members of Jesus Christ.”177 The confrontation between the government and the pastors ended in the banishment of Calvin and Farel from the city of Geneva. In January 1539, more than half a year after he had been expelled, Calvin lamented that some have “never understood what I actually wanted. My problem concerned the office.” The problem was that no distinction was being recognised between an office bearer and a “regular member of the church, ”178 while the ministers actually had a greater responsibility than the regular members did. Calvin would return to this point later on, not because he was trying to wrest a certain power out of the hands of the government, but because “it is fitting that the common people be ruled […] by a gentler and laxer discipline; that the clergy practise harsher censures among themselves and be far less indulgent toward themselves than toward others.”179

The power in the new church As we have seen, Geneva’s religious life was in these years embedded within society as a whole, so that the duties of church and government were closely related. For this reason, we do well to try and determine whether Calvin sought to establish the new religious community as an independent organ, or else as an organ that functioned as an extension of the government. To this end, it is necessary to consider who Calvin thought should hold the power in or leadership over the church, namely, the pastors or the government. We will begin by paying attention to the relationship between the city council and the ministers in 176 See n.63, 161 and 162. 177 See n.62 and 156. 178 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.764, 213, l.26 – 30 = CO 10b, no.156, 309, l.31 – 35. Cf. Calvin’s remark to du Tillet on 10 July 1538 regarding an inquiry into the exercise of ‘our office’; see n.133. 179 Inst. 4.12.22 (1543) = OS 5, 232, l.6 – 8. Cf. the 1541 church order in CO 10a, 18, l.38 f = OS 2, 333, l.4 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

89

the leadership over matters pertaining to religion. Who decided when it came to admonition and discipline, for example? The Genevan confession of 1537 stated that the idolaters must be “separated from the communion of the faithful,”180 while the 1537 articles similarly remarked that “those who were disorderly in their life and unworthy of the name of Christ, and who, after being admonished, despise coming to amendment […] should be expelled from the body of the church.”181 The question that must be addressed is whether in Calvin’s view in this early phase of Geneva’s new church the power of excommunication ought to belong to the pastors, or whether it was the prerogative of the government. Framed more widely, the question can be stated as follows: who was to rule the church in Geneva? The pastors’ conflict with the government The immediate occasion for the conflict that broke out around Easter 1538 was the introduction of a number of liturgical changes. The ministers refused to cooperate with some liturgical changes proposed by Bern and adopted by the Genevan council, in particular in regard to the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. A number of Calvin scholars have concluded from the fact that the pastors had not been consulted before these liturgical changes were implemented by the government that it was “the freedom of the church to regulate its own affairs independently” that was at stake.182 In March, however, Calvin had emphatically explained that liturgical practices were not a matter of principle.183 What is more, the conclusions drawn by these scholars find no support in the report submitted by Calvin and Farel at the end of April before the Bernese council concerning the events that had taken place in Geneva.184 Their conclusions are similarly not supported by the articles that Calvin

180 CO 9, 699, l.1 – 2 = OS 1, 425, l.4. 181 CO 10a, 9, l.8 – 14 = OS 1, 372, l.7 – 12. 182 Nauta: 1965, 140, l.22 – 23. Plomp thinks along the same lines, arguing that the cause of the conflict was the fact that the government sought to draw to itself power “over the church’s internal life”. Plomp: 1969, 154, n.89. Is it not rather the case that there hardly was any such thing as “the church’s internal life” in Geneva, let alone ministers who had some form of jurisdiction? 183 “And yet when that last judgment-seat will have been reached, where once for all an account of our performance will have to be made, it will not at all be a question of ceremonies nor conformity in external matters, but the lawful use of freedom will be strictly reckoned: lawful at last will that be considered which has contributed most to edification.” CO 5, 322, l.43 – 50 = OS 1, 432, l.18 – 23. 184 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.705, 422 – 426 = CO 10b, no.110, 188 – 190. It is not necessary to consider Corault (Maystre Coreau) at this time. He was a colleague of Calvin and Farel, and was forbidden to preach on Saturday, 20 April. On Easter Sunday (21 April) he nevertheless did ascend the pulpit, and was then arrested. Like Calvin and Farel, he had to leave the city

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

90

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

and Farel composed after their banishment, and delivered to Geneva early in May 1538 with the approval of the synod of Zürich.185 In these articles, Calvin and Farel expressed themselves on the issues they considered most urgent. They did not reproach the government for involving itself too deeply in the rule of the church, but rather for having been too lax in the implementation of the reforms to the church. In their eyes, the government had failed to be sufficiently thorough especially in regard to the profanation of the Lord’s Supper. The disagreement between the government and the pastors grew to such an extent that, in April 1538, the latter refused to administer the Lord’s Supper in this way any longer. As has already been noted, Calvin and Farel consciously pushed the friction between them and the government into a confrontation. They did not themselves resign from their post, but forced the government to dismiss and banish them. With their acts of protest, they made it clear that they considered the government to be responsible for the situation that had arisen. On 27 April 1538, Calvin and Farel addressed a letter to the council of Bern to explain what they had done. They had had insurmountable objections which had prevented them from administering the sacrament on Easter Sunday (21 April), “because we would be defiling such a holy mystery, […] given the disorder and abominations that are currently reigning in the city, both with a view to the terrible blasphemy and mockery of God and his gospel, as well as with a view to the commotions, sects, and divisions. For the Word of God, indeed even the Lord’s Supper [et mesmement la CÀne] are publicly being ridiculed a thousand times over with impunity.”186 In order to account for their actions, Calvin and Farel thus referred to the failures of the government in exercising discipline. It was the honour of God that was at stake with the defilement of the Lord’s Supper! They thus pointed an accusing finger at the government which had been too lax in its involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. By April 1538, the measure was full for Calvin and Farel, who refused to administer the Lord’s Supper on the 21st of that month. With this act of civil disobedience, the entire congregation was deprived of the Lord’s Supper. Viewed as such, the ministers’ course of action had some similarities with the medieval disciplinary measure of the ‘interdict,’ a punitive measure that was applied to an entire city or country. Bishops could even go so far as to shut down religious life altogether, including the holding of church funerals.187 Köhler describes the refusal of Calvin and Farel in a rather exaggerated fashion as “the most impressive excommunication known in history : an entire city was excluded from within three days of the decision rendered by the general council on 23 April. He passed away on 4 October 1538. Herminjard, l.c., 423, n.2 and 3. CO 21, 225. Nauta: 1965, 138 – 139. 185 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.708, 3 – 6 = CO 10b, no.111, 190 – 192. 186 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.705, 425, l.6 – 12 = CO 10b, no.110, 189, l.39 – 47. 187 Feine: 1964, 438.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

91

the Lord’s Supper by two pastors. Had such a thing ever been tried?”188 It was an act of provocation by a number of the city’s pastors against the authorities, “whom we consider as vicars and lieutenants of God, whom one cannot resist without resisting God himself,” as Calvin and Farel themselves had stated and confessed in the Genevan catechism.189 At that time, however, the Genevan pastors did not have the power of excommunication, and they certainly could not deprive the entire congregation of the right to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Calvin and Farel were dismissed that very same week, and several days later they would be called to account for their irresponsible actions before their colleagues at the synod of Zürich.190 At the very beginning of the synod, on 28 April 1538, Calvin and Farel confessed their guilt. They acknowledged that they had acted unwisely, and were prepared to offer their apologies.191 The synod admonished the banished preachers to exercise Christian charity in the future. Moreover, it decided to write a cordial letter to the council of Geneva, asking it to “be patient with the preachers.”192 Calvin and Farel presented a document containing fourteen articles to the synod, indicating that they were willing to make a number of concessions. The synod expressed its approval of these articles. On 4 May 1538, the last day of the synod, Bullinger looked back on everything that had taken place and wrote that his Genevan colleagues had acted in an overly zealous manner.193 The Genevan council was asked to allow the pastors to return; however, the government showed no desire at all to overturn its earlier decision to banish the rebellious pastors. Calvin and Farel thus admitted that they had not acted properly when they disobeyed the government. However, everything suggests that the synod was unable to bring the two actually to change their thinking, and that Calvin and Farel were still convinced that they could not have acted any other way under those circumstances. In that situation, they simply could not have administered 188 Köhler: 1942, 512, n.62. The fact of the matter is that the Lord’s Supper was actually administered on that Easter Sunday in two of the city’s three churches by the remaining pastors Bernard and de la Mare. They had no objections to celebrating the sacrament in those circumstances. Nauta: 1965, 141. 189 Rilliet: 1878a, 121, l.18 – 21 = CO 22, 94, l.37 – 95, l.3. The confession (Confession de la foy), which was published in April 1537 and to which the inhabitants were required to swear an oath, stated in its final article that the government is to be obeyed in as far as that is possible “without offending God” (sans offenser Dieu). Rilliet, l.c., 121, l.16 – 17 = CO 22, 94, l.36. 190 The synod of Zürich assembled from 28 April to 4 May 1538, and consisted of delegates from Zürich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, St. Gallen, Mühlhausen, and Bienne. 191 CO 10b, no.112, 193, l.12 and 17. 192 CO 10b, no.112, 193, l.37 – 38 and l.14 – 15. 193 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.710, 9, l.5 = CO 10b, no.114, 195, l.14. Köhler remarks that the difference in Calvin’s approach compared to that of other Reformers was the zeal with which he worked. Köhler : 1942, 512. Calvin himself: Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.743, 111 = CO 10b, no.140, 246 – 247.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

92

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

the Lord’s Supper. Even after he had testified to his remorse in the synodical act, so Calvin wrote to Pignet in January 1539, he stood by his earlier position: “I have declared earlier that it would have been more a profanation than a sacrament if I had administered the Supper of the Lord among them. And at the present time, I neither think nor write differently in this respect.”194 Calvin never challenged the government’s power in religious matters; instead, he sharply criticised its failure in regard to the protection of the sanctity of the sacrament. One cannot rightfully conclude from these events, as some have nevertheless done,195 that Calvin attempted in these years to move the government to attribute to the pastors a power of excommunication of their own with a view to the independence of the church. The position and task of the government and pastors In the context of our study we must now consider the government’s position in ecclesiastical matters more broadly. How did Calvin view the position of the government vis-—-vis the church, and how did the government view its own place in Genevan society when it came to the organisation and leadership of the church? When Calvin arrived in Geneva, the power or leadership over church life rested in the hands of the city council. The government was seen by all, including Calvin, as the “vicar” and “representative” (lieutenant) of God.196 Calvin left no doubt about this at the beginning of his chapter on the “civil government” in the 1536 edition of his Institutes. Those who hold a governmental office are after all called “gods” in Scripture [Ex. 22:8 Vg.; Ps. 82:1, 6; John 10:35]. This means “that they have a mandate from God, having been invested with divine authority, and are wholly God’s representatives, in a manner acting as his vicegerents”. They excercise judgment “not for man but for God”.197 Calvin considered it to be a part of the government’s task to prevent “idolatry, sacrilege against God’s holy name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed […]. In short, it provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity may be maintained among men.”198 According to Calvin, the government derives its power from God, and in 194 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.764, 213, l.15 – 17 = CO 10b, no.156, 309, l.16 – 18. Calvin in this context pointed to the statement that he had made from the pulpit on Easter Sunday, 21 April 1538. Herminjard, l.c., 213, n.7. 195 See n.2-3. 196 Bohatec: 1968, 185 and 626 f; Weber: 1968, 120; see also n.189. 197 CO 1, 230, l.43 f = OS 1, 261, l.f = Inst. 4.20.4 = OS 5, 474, l.31 f. 198 CO 1, 230, l.8 – 15 = OS 1, 260, l.16 – 22 = Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.1 – 7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

93

the judgments that it pronounces, it pronounces “the very judgments of God.”199 Calvin therefore observes that no one ought to be surprised that he commits “to the civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion […]. For, I approve of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion […] from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity.”200 In this chapter, Calvin emphatically stated that the government acts in society on behalf of God, and that the care for religious life insofar as it has a public character forms a part of its responsibilities. The Reformed view on the government, based from the very beginning on the exegesis of Romans 13, was developed under the influence of a shifting balance of power when the former responsibilities of the bishop were taken over by the state.201 Things were no different for Calvin.202 The fact that the city council exercised the power over the religious side of Genevan society was seen as a matter of course for him. The government has been “ordained by God,” as he wrote with an appeal to Romans 13.203 This view on the position of the magistrate was similarly reflected in Calvin’s letter to the king of France from August 1535, written as the dedication to the Institutes.204 Similarly, the 1537 articles pointed to the government as the institution that had the power to shape Geneva’s church life and to apply the discipline of the Lord’s Supper.205 The proposals that Calvin made to the Genevan council in November 1536 did not represent an attempt to take certain powers away from the government. The ministers were simply not trying to obtain an independent, ecclesiastical “power of the keys” for themselves.206 It is thus clear that Calvin did not challenge the government’s power to act in matters pertaining to religion. As a concrete illustration, we can refer to the appointment of ministers. In his 1536 Institutes, Calvin wrote that he could not give a fixed, general rule for the appointment of pastors. He was ready, however, to give some advice, which he left essentially unchanged in later editions of the Institutes until 1543. It seemed best to him that “either the magistrate or the 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

CO 1, 234, l.19 = OS 1, 264, l.39 = Inst. 4.20.10 = OS 5, 481 CO 1, 230, l.16 – 24 = OS 1, 260, l.23 – 30 = Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.8 – 14. Maschke: 1966, 7 – 23. See n.157; Inst. 4.20.22 = OS 5, 493 – 494; Bohatec: 1968, 192; Köhler : 1942, 513; McKee: 1988, 32, n.50; De Kroon: 1991, 147, n.11. For the views which Zwingli and Bucer defended in 1530, see chapter 1, n.107. CO 1, 231, l.12 – 13 = OS 1, 261, l.25 = Inst. 4.10.4 = OS 5, 475, l.22. Cf. CO 1, 232, l.39 = OS 1, 263, l.7; CO 1, 233, l.53 = OS 1, 264, l.21 etc. CO 1, 9 – 26 = OS 1, 21 – 36. CO 10a, 7, l.21 – 22 = OS 1, 370, l.14 – 15; CO 10a, 9, l.3 – 4 = OS 1, 372, l.3 – 4; OS 1, 373, l.1 f; CO 10a, 11, l.13 f = OS 1, 374, l.12 f; CO 10a, 14, l.7 and l.14 = OS 1, 376, l.36 and l.42. Contra: Doumergue: 1910, vol. 5, 95; Köhler : 1942, 662, n.27; McKee: 1988, 32, n.50; Wiley : 1990, 101.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

94

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

council or some council members” settle the appointment of pastors, with several pastors serving in the capacity of advisers.207 Even after his banishment from Geneva, Calvin in the 1539 edition maintained his preference for the appointment of pastors by the civil government. In 1541 as well, Calvin thought that the magistrate or council was the institution that should be designated to see to this matter.208 The position and powers held by the government represented no issue for him. It was the government that appointed,209 and the ministers were to serve in an advisory role. The general understanding at the beginning of the sixteenth century was that the government in Reformed cities would oversee admonition and discipline in ecclesiastical affairs. This view was also behind the decision taken by Geneva’s council on 27 July 1537 to maintain its responsibility for admonition and discipline.210All the same, the Genevan ministers at times took the liberty of pointing out to the government where there were issues that demanded their attention. Accordingly, the pastors noted to the government that some people refused to swear an oath to the confession, but were still participating in the Lord’s Supper. There were two occasions in particular on which the pastors addressed the council in regard to the excommunication of certain people or groups.211 On both occasions, they did so shortly before the Lord’s Supper was to 207 CO 1, 187 – 188 = OS 1, 214, l.35 f; Inst. 1539: CO 1, 1090. 208 Doumergue: 1910, vol. 5, 101; Plomp’s commentary on this passage is worth noting. He suggests that Calvin had no objection “against a certain amount of government involvement in the appointment of office bearers”, since it was “not necessary to give encourage them all too much on this point”. However, the opposite is in fact true. In the advice he gave, Calvin was in fact trying to obtain some involvement from the side of the pastors. Plomp: 1969, 87, n.175. 209 For Calvin, a minister’s appointment by the government was the equivalent of ordination and investiture in the established church. CO 1, 186, l.43 – 47 = OS 1, 213, l.11 – 14. 210 CO 21, 213. The responsibility for discipline over the pastors resided with the Council of Two Hundred. CO 21, 213 (July 28). For examples of admonition and censure on the part of the government, see Naef: 1936, 229 – 234 and Kingdon: 1972, 6, n.3 – 5. Plomp sees in the decision from late July 1537 “exactly the opposite of what the ministers had proposed in January, and the government accepted!” Plomp assumes that Calvin pursued an “independent discipline” to be carried out by “specific people” appointed to exercise this discipline. Plomp: 1969, 153. 211 On 5 October 1537, Calvin and Farel appeared before the council in connection with the Lord’s Supper that was to be celebrated on the following Sunday, reporting their misgivings about the Anabaptists and about those who still used rosaries. CO 21, 215; Rilliet: 1878b, lxxii; Balke: 1973, 93, n.67; Plomp: 1969, 153. On 3 January 1538, they once more approached the council in regard to the approaching celebration of the Lord’s Supper. They noted that there still were people who had not sworn to follow the confession, and who for that reason were to be kept from the sacrament. CO 21, 219; Plomp: 1969, 153, n.85. From the fact that the council determined that the pastors did not have the power of excommunication, Plomp concludes that this was “nothing other than a deathblow to Calvin’s ideal”. Plomp: 1969, 154. In a separate case, Calvin and Farel threatened a colleague with excommunication if he

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

95

be celebrated, and both times Calvin and Farel reported their concerns about some people who still had not sworn their allegiance to the confession. In both instances, the government emphasised in its decision that the pastors did not have the duty or power to exclude people from participation in the Lord’s Supper.212 Because the Lord’s Supper formed the visible core of religious life for Calvin, and because the government failed to do anything about the profanation of the Holy Supper, he grew in the conviction that it would be good for the preachers to be given some form of supervision in regard to the Lord’s Supper. After all, a minister was not only a teacher, but also a pastor or shepherd. On 21 February 1538, Calvin complained about the fact that the people looked upon the ministers “more as preachers than as pastors.” Earlier we already saw how Calvin wrote in this same letter about the necessity of restoring discipline to the way it had been exercised in the past.213 In fact, it was shortly after he had first arrived in Geneva – i. e. in his 1537 articles – that Calvin pointed to the necessity of excommunication “in order to maintain the church in its entirety.”214 It was necessary for “certain persons of good life and witness” to be elected by the council in order to maintain supervision over “the quarters of the city.”215 The ministers proposed that these deputies would inform them of what was going on whenever that was necessary, and that they themselves, upon the approval of the report of the deputies, would relay the information to the city council.216 The deputies were to be appointed by the government; after all, its office was the only one that was not a matter of debate. The deputies to be given to the pastors were there to support them. Calvin most probably envisioned that the deputies would be chosen from among the members of the council. With them, the new church would gain greater respect and authority from among the population.217 We therefore see how Calvin was more inclined to seek cooperation with the government, than to try and win a position of independence for the city’s ministers. In these early years, the pastors actually had very little power for steering the course of religious life in Geneva. In word and deed they stood at the

212 213 214 215 216 217

failed to cooperate in the boycott of the Lord’s Supper which they were planning for Easter (Sunday, 21 April 1538). This was an empty threat, since they did not have the power to excommunicate him to begin with. Rilliet: 1878b, lxxiii; CO 21, 224, l.21 – 28. CO 21, 215 (Oct. 5, 1537) Balke: 1973, 93 and CO 21, 220 (Jan. 4, 1538); Plomp: 1969, 154, n.86. Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.685, 368, l.11 – 15 = CO 10b, no.93, 154, l.11 – 16. See n.136. CO 10a, 6, l.6 – 7 = OS 1, 369, l.11; see also CO 10a, 9, l.9 – 10 and l.14 = OS 1, 372, l.8 and l.12; CO 10a, 11, l.11 = OS 1, 374, l.10 and Köhler: 1942, 509. CO 10a, 10, l.18 – 20 and 23 = OS 1, 373, l.17 – 18 and 21. Köhler : 1942, 510. CO 10a, 10, l.25 – 31 = OS 1, 373, l.23 – 27. We have seen that as of 1529, six of the eight members of Bern’s consistory (Chorgericht) were members of the council; as we will see, in Calvin’s 1541 church order, the twelve ‘elders’ of the Genevan consistory (consistoire) were also members of the city council.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

96

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

government’s side in acquitting itself of its responsibility for all matters pertaining to religion. Before we go on to examine the position of the ministers, we first want to offer a number of general observations. The place of the preachers in Genevan society was, among other things, a political problem. This has been clearly perceived by Rilliet, who placed “the party of the confession” over against the party of the old Roman church. The policy of the former party was rejected in a vote on 3 February 1538, and Calvin, the brains behind it, was forced to leave the city in April of that same year. Rilliet described the oath of confession as “an instrument of war against the church of Rome.”218 This rather strong statement helps us to better understand the situation in Geneva. The city had seen the rise of an influential party sympathetic to the Reformation, aside from the considerable groups of people who were more inclined to Rome or to the Anabaptists. The Reformed party wanted official proof from each and every inhabitant, in the form of an expressed acceptance of the new confession of faith, that they were committed to the cause. As such, the oath turned into a political weapon for the council, “a means to drive out of the city those who for one reason or another refused to swear to the confession.”219 Rilliet is correct to point out that the Reformation was a matter of social order. In the 1530s, a power vacuum had been created when the former ecclesiastical authorities departed. The clergy had been sent packing, and the Mass was abolished. All those who continued in 1536 to meet in secret and to celebrate the Mass became subject to severe punishments.220 Kingdon describes this radical change in Geneva’s church life as an “anti-clerical revolution.”221 With the introduction of the Reformation, the city council had taken over the former episcopal responsibilities, while the ministers as functionaries in the government’s service could, just like any other civil servant, be dismissed by the council at any time.222

218 219 220 221

Rilliet: 1878b, lv. Rilliet: 1878b, lix. Rilliet: 1878b, xiv. Kingdon: 1984, 51. See Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, Anticlericalism in late medieval and early modern Europe, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 1993. 222 As an example we can point to the dismissal of Calvin, Farel, and Corault in April 1538. Several months later, some of the followers of Farel and Calvin were dismissed; the same happened with two teachers from the city’s school in September 1538, and with another four teachers in December. Nauta: 1965, 144 – 146. Kingdon remarks that these dismissals were considered entirely normal by Calvin. Kingdon: 1984, 57. Moreover, in his 1541 church order Calvin did make provisions for the appointment of the church officers, but not for their eventual dismissal. From his perspective as a trained jurist, it apparently was not necessary for this to be regulated church-politically.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

97

Another observation that can be of help as we consider the position of the pastors is that Geneva’s leading ministers had come from abroad.223 They did not have the rights to which those with citizenship were entitled.224 In the interest of this study’s central question, it is further significant to note that the pastors in Geneva were never appointed by an independent ecclesiastical instance; this applied also to Farel225 as well as to Calvin.226 We have seen that du Tillet was troubled by the fact that the ministers had not been legitimately chosen and established in their office. Du Tillet felt that he could not condone this. In Geneva, the pastors were servants who stood in the service of the government, and had not been given an ecclesiastical office through their ordination or some other process of validation from the side of the church. In December 1536, the council commissioned the Genevan pastors to begin administering the Lord’s Supper.227 Farel and Calvin had no problem with this decision. Both understood themselves to have been appointed by virtue of the government’s authority, and it was on the authority of this same government that the holy sacrament was now to be administered. This sufficed for Calvin, since in his view the office of the government was one given by God, and since no ecclesiastical priestly office was needed for someone to administer the Lord’s Supper. In the 1536 edition of the Institutes, Calvin described “consecration and ordination” as nothing other “than the appointment of the bishop and pastor of a church, ” without identifying which particular instance was to make that appointment. The established church, in contrast, insisted that its officers were to be consecrated not “to the episcopate, but to the priesthood.”228 Calvin did not hold such a consecration to be necessary ; for him it was enough if someone were appointed as an overseer and minister by the government. Religion was after all a public matter for which the government bore the responsibility. After his attempt to institute an obligatory oath to the confession had failed, Calvin began to plead for the pastors to be confirmed in their office by the laying 223 Kingdon found only one pastor of Genevan descent, namely, Jacques Bernard. Kingdon: 1984, 54 – 55, n.16. 224 Foreign pastors had no legal or economic power. Kingdon: 1984, 56 and 58. 225 Later on, Farel would look back on the way he had entered the pastorate: “I obeyed as if to God, petitioned and called by the people, with the approval of the sovereign who had come to know the gospel, and I accepted the office of preacher.” In this, Farel was inspired by Oecolampadius. In 1525, Farel administered the sacrament “without having been ecclesiastically ordained in the customary manner”. Nauta: 1978a, 21. The same can be said of Viret, who first administered the Lord’s Supper in 1532 without having had “any ordination or solemn investiture to office”. Early in 1534, Farel, Viret, and Froment all worked in Geneva as commissioned by the Bernese council. Nauta: 1988, 14 – 20. 226 Calvin was probably appointed pastor late in 1536, without undergoing any ordination. Ganoczy : 1966, 109, n.440. Dankbaar, Calvijn, 49. CO 21, 58 – 59. 227 Herminjard: 1878, vol.4, no.596, 145 = CO 10b, no.45, 80. 228 CO 1, 186, l.43 – 50 = OS 1, 213, l.11 – 17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

98

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

on of hands. Now that it was clear that the citizens would not all be required to swear their allegiance to the confession,229 Calvin saw more and more that ministers ought not only to be teachers and preachers, but also shepherds (or : pastors) and bishops (or : overseers). For the pastoral side of the preaching office, it was absolutely imperative that there be some kind of a bond with the church’s members. This was why it bothered him that the city had not been divided into parishes. If the city were not divided, the distance between the ministers and the people would remain too great. It was around the same time that the Strasbourg preacher Bucer encountered the same problem. On 4 April 1538, he noted that the notion of the communion of saints and of mutual care was increasingly disappearing, and that even the ministers no longer knew what pastoral care meant.230 Significantly, when Calvin himself became the pastor to the French refugee church in Strasbourg, he would attempt to give greater shape to the supervision and discipline of the Lord’s Supper as a part of the overseer’s office when he in 1540 introduced a form of confession of sin that people were to exercise prior to the celebration of the Eucharist.231 In the 1537 articles, Calvin had brought three motives for exercising discipline to the attention of the government.232 It was only in 1543, in the revised Institutes published that year, that he added to these three motives another observation, namely, that the minister’s pastoral duties included the admonition of his people in connection with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. “For it is very true certain that he to whom its distribution has been committed, if he knowingly and willingly admits an unworthy person whom he could rightfully turn away, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord’s body to dogs.”233 For Calvin, religion was not a purely internal matter : “It is a mockery to say that it suffices for a person to glorify God within his heart without worrying 229 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.708, 5 – 6, art.10 = CO 10b, 192, art.10. 230 Schieß: 1908, no.806, 873, l.7 – 9. The absence of pastoral work, which Bucer reported on to Ambrosius Blarer in a letter from 4 April 1538, motivated him to write a treatise on pastoral care in that same year: Von der waren Seelsorge und dem rechten Hirtendienst. Schieß, l.c., 873, n.2. Stupperich: 1964, in DS 7, 90 – 246. 231 Calvin complained on this occasion that “the greatest difficulty will be to change the idle ambition with which some Frenchmen are so occupied.” Herminjard: 1883, vol.6, no.857, 200, l.9 – 11 = CO 11, no.214, 31, l.7 – 9. 232 “First, that Jesus Christ be not blasphemed and dishonoured as if his church were a confederation of evil persons, dissolute in all vices. Second, that those who receive such correction, being ashamed and disturbed by their sin, should come to know and amend themselves. Third, that others be not corrupted and perverted in their way of life, but rather by their example be turned from manifesting like faults.” CO 10a, 9, l.32 – 41 = OS 1, 372, l.27 – 34. The same three elements can be found in the Institutes, CO 1, 76, l.5 – 12 = OS 1, 89 – 90; catechism, CO 22, 72 – 73 = OS 1, 415 – 416; and confession CO 22, 93 = OS 1, 424. See chapter 1, n.169. 233 Inst. 4.12.5 (1543) = OS 5, 215, l.21 – 24.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

99

about the external matters because God does not pay attention to them. […] Saint Paul demonstrates this when he connects the faith of the heart with the confession of the mouth.”234 This was the very reason why Calvin insisted on the government requiring from all inhabitants that they publicly accept the new faith. When the government fell short, however, Calvin had to resign himself to this fact. This is why he would write in 1540: “Yet I do not demand a public confession from everyone.”235 But the failure of his ‘oath policy’ did have consequences, not only for the religious unity of the city, but also – as an important point for our present purposes – for the position and task of the ministers in Geneva. For, the matter had still not been resolved. In Calvin’s eyes the Genevan government had proved incapable of protecting the ministers in its service from cooperating against their will in the defilement of the holy sacrament by allowing everyone to partake of it indiscriminately. Another solution therefore had to be found. If all the inhabitants were required to take an oath to the confession, the basis on which each person participated in the Lord’s Supper would be clear. At the same time, there would be no doubt as to who should be kept from the table – namely, those who did not confess that doctrine. Calvin’s main concern was to ensure that the pastors would be able to administer the sacrament with a “lawful practice.” It was to this end that he had presented his confession to the council of the city.236 For, a most necessary element for rebuilding the life of the church was to safeguard the Lord’s Supper against its defilement. But who was to see to this, and who would perform the required tasks? The council of the city, which was actually charged with the responsibility, had failed in this. Moreover, it had not given the pastors, as its functionaries in matters pertaining to religion, a key to prevent the holy sacrament from being profaned. For Calvin, the failure of the ‘oath policy’ meant that the new church had returned to the situation of its opaque and obfuscated beginnings. He had fought against the lack of clarity in this regard from the very outset of his stay in Geneva, as is evident from this evaluation he gave: “Even though, after the abomination of papalism had been laid low here by the power of the Word, a decree has been published to the effect that, removing superstitions and their tools, the religion of the city be composed to the purity of the gospel – still that form of the church seemed not to exist among us which lawful administration of our office required.”237 For the church to be rebuilt, there had to be more than just a decision to remove “the superstitions and their tools” and to direct the “religion of the city 234 Herminjard: 1883, vol.6, no.888, 298, l.35 – 299, l.3 = CO 6, 580, l.15 – 23. Calvin here referred to Romans 10:9. 235 Herminjard: 1883, vol.6, no.888, 299, l.4 – 5 = CO 6, 580, l.23 – 24. 236 CO 5, 319, l.24 – 25 = OS 1, 428, l.34 – 35 and CO 5, 319, l.9 – 10 = OS 1, 428, l.21 – 22. Cf. n.178. 237 CO 5, 319, l.19 – 25 = OS 1, 428, l.29 – 35.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

100

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

[…] to the purity of the gospel.” Calvin wanted the inhabitants to be required to bind their names to Christ “by public profession.” In this way they would “be reckoned among his people,” and “be admitted to that spiritual and most sacred banquet.”238 Calvin’s account of his actions gives us insight into his primary motive for requiring an oath of confession from all of the city’s inhabitants. It was in this way alone that the pastors could be freed in their conscience and “obtain peace and repose.”239 In this passage, Calvin directs his readers’ attention to the problem that the consciences of the pastors posed to them. He thus draws a clear connection between his demand for a binding oath and the burdening of the minister’s conscience. The crisis of conscience came from the prospect of having to cooperate in the defilement of the holy sacrament, and so to dishonour God.240 Calvin was from the very beginning convinced that the Lord’s Supper was not just a matter of one’s private choice, and that it had to be safeguarded by the authorities.241 As we have seen, in his 1537 confession he insisted that idolaters must “be separated from the communion of the faithful until their repentance is known.”242 The care for the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper was a responsibility that rested with the leaders of Genevan society ; it was government that had the foremost responsibility. In his 1537 articles on the church and worship, Calvin wrote: “It is then necessary that those who have the power to frame regulations make it a rule that they who come to the Lord’s Supper be approved members of Jesus Christ. For this reason, our Saviour set up in his church the correction and discipline of excommunication.”243 As was evident in the above, Calvin understood this to mean that the government was responsible for preventing the true religion “from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity.”244

238 239 240 241

CO 5, 319, l.42 – 45 = OS 1, 429, l.6 – 8; Rilliet: 1878a, 133. CO 5, 319, l.40v. = OS 1, 429, l.4v. CO 10a, 8, l.48 – 52 = OS 1, 371, l.38 – 41. CO 10a, 9, l.3 – 7 = OS 1, 372, l.3 – 7. See also what Calvin writes earlier in the articles: CO 10a, 8, l.40v. = OS 1, 371, l.31v. 242 CO 9, 699, l.1 – 3 = OS 1, 425, l.4 – 5; Rilliet: 1878a, 118. We have already pointed to the articles of 1537, which state that an obstinate sinner must be removed “from the body of the church”. This meant that this person was no longer allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. For, our Saviour desires that “those who were disorderly in their life and unworthy of the name of Christ, and who, after being admonished, despise coming to amendment and returning to the right way, should be expelled from the body of the church.” CO 10a, 9, l.8 – 14 = OS 1, 372, l.7 – 12. See n.181. 243 CO 10a, 9, l.3 – 10 = OS 1, 372, l.3 – 8. 244 CO 1, 230, l.22 – 24 = OS 1, 260, l.29 – 30 = Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.13 – 14 = CO 2, 1094, l.33 – 35. See n.200.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The state of the church between 1536 and 1538

101

Some concluding remarks Calvin’s efforts in the early years of the establishment of Geneva’s new church were not meant to try and obtain from the government the power of excommunication. And especially after his attempt to institute an obligatory oath failed, it became increasingly clear to Calvin that the ministers ought to support the government in censure and discipline as they related to the Lord’s Supper. From the very beginning, Calvin looked upon the preachers as “advisers to our council,” especially when it came to the implementation of the oath to the confession.245 However, the government-based policy failed. In the preface to the Latin edition of the catechism and confession written early in 1538, Calvin emphasised that the responsibility for the defilement of the Lord’s Supper lay with the government. At the same time, he pressured the government in Geneva by bringing the situation there to the attention of the surrounding cities and regions, extending well beyond the borders of the francophone territories.246 With this, he implicitly raised the question as to whose responsibility it was in the Reformed churches to safeguard the sanctity of the sacrament. It appears as if Calvin wanted to make the responsibility for the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper, as a pastoral issue, at least in part a duty of the pastors. From the very beginning of his stay in Geneva, he brought the matter of the Eucharist to the government’s attention.247 This conviction only increased in the course of the political changes that took place in Geneva in the first months of 1538. Calvin was not at all happy to see the task of the pastors limited to the preaching alone.248 It was in this context that he, early in 1538, expressed his view that the ministers as overseers of the flock had a pastoral responsibility in regard to the Lord’s Supper, since the sanctity of this holy sacrament had to be protected. In Geneva’s church in the year 1537, this implied that only those who had confirmed the new faith with a binding oath to the confession would not be defiling the Lord’s Supper if they participated in it. There were people of whom “we might have doubts”

245 CO 5, 319, l.9 – 10 = OS 1, 428, l.21 – 22. Cf. CO 5, 319, l.19 – 25 = OS 1, 428, l.29, in which Calvin explains “how firm our reason for this plan” of the oath really is. 246 Calvin wanted to account for himself “more widely, […] especially among Latin speakers” (praesertim inter latinos homines). CO 5, 317, l.8 and l.11 = OS 1, 426, l.22 and 25. 247 In the articles we read the following: “But the principal rule that is required, and for which it is necessary to have the greatest care, is that this Holy Supper […] be not soiled and contaminated by those coming to it and communicating […]. For in this profanation of his sacrament our Lord is gravely dishonoured.” In this passage, Calvin charges the government to ensure that the Lord’s Supper is not being profaned. CO 10a, 8, l.39 – 51 = OS 1, 371, l.31 – 40. 248 CO 5, 319, l.25 – 29 = OS 1, 428, l.35 – 38. The preface to the Latin edition of the catechism was published in March 1538, and was therefore probably composed around the turn of the year.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

102

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

concerning their faith.249 For this reason, Calvin was convinced that “those whose blood is required of us if it should fail through our idleness ought to be cared for much more closely and with more vigilant effort. If this solicitude in other respects kept us anxious, then as often as the Lord’s Supper was to be distributed it burned and tormented us. For even though we might have doubts and even grave mistrust of many, yet all were rushing in indiscriminately. And they were even devouring God’s wrath rather than partaking in the sacrament of life.”250 It was in such a context that Calvin began in the spring of 1538 to ask himself whether exclusion from the Lord’s Supper was also a pastoral responsibility of the church’s shepherds: “Yet ought one not to consider that the pastor who exercises no discrimination in communicating it is himself profaning this great mystery?”251 With the words “no discrimination,” Calvin alluded to those who refused to swear the oath to the confession, and from there he immediately turned to the problem of the pastors’ conscience: “For this reason we could obtain peace and repose with our own conscience on no other condition than that they who wished to be reckoned among Christ’s people and admitted to the spiritual and most sacred banquet give allegiance to Christ by public profession.”252 Calvin’s main concern was that the Genevan church would show all respect “for the gospel of Christ and for his sacraments.”253 Moved by a deep respect for the Holy Supper, Calvin had on multiple occasions proposed that the preachers should be involved in mutual admonition and discipline, especially in connection with the Lord’s Supper. The government kept the supervision of the doctrine and life of the entire population in its hands, and was not at all ready to cooperate with the ministers in this. Yet the government’s policy had become a failure, first in regard to discipline but then also in regard to the oath. Nor could Calvin expect any improvement from the recently elected government on this point. This circumstance only increased his difficulties in regard to the Lord’s Supper. He was vexed by the government’s laxity in sacramental discipline, and in the end, he aimed for a public showdown with the government. Calvin’s most important contribution to the rebuilding of the church’s new life in Geneva was formed by his efforts to convince the council and population how important it was to maintain the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper. The ministers had presented themselves to the government as its advisers and servants. In Calvin’s eyes, the power of excommunication and the overall leadership of the church rested primarily with the government. But in 1538 he found himself in a 249 250 251 252 253

CO 5, 319, l.34 – 36 = OS 1, 428, l.43 – 44. CO 5, 319, l.29 – 38 = OS 1, 428, l.38 – 429, l.2. CO 5, 319, l.38 – 40 = OS 1, 429, l.2 – 4. CO 5, 319, l.40 – 45 = OS 1, 429, l.4 – 8; Rilliet: 1878a, 133. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.764, 213, l.30 – 33 = CO 10b, no.156, 309, l.36 – 40.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

103

quandary when the government in his opinion did not sufficiently support the Genevan pastors. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the pastors’ position in Geneva in general was not entirely clear yet in those years. Calvin’s criticism of the government over its exercise of discipline in connection with the Lord’s Supper should not be understood to mean that he sought to take the right of excommunication away from the state. This conclusion is confirmed by advice Calvin gave to Farel in December 1538 in a letter on the power of excommunication. He advised Farel, who had by that time become pastor in Neuch–tel, to bring the government and the pastors to cooperate in discipline issues, with the decisive voice belonging to the government. “If they harden their heart, they are to be excommunicated. You [sing.] deny that you [pl.] have this much power. But why should one not desire of the council that it, against the custom, delegate two or three members of the council who summon the guilty before the assembly of the brothers by the authority of the state and are present as arbitrators? After all, it is to the interest of the magistrate itself that people not boldly flout what it has decreed by its own power and what was subsequently adopted and accepted by the church.”254 We thus see that, even after his banishment from Geneva, Calvin did not change his mind on the close cooperation between the government and the pastors on matters of church discipline. In the 1537 articles, Calvin’s proposal was for a number of councillors – Calvin refers to men of outstanding reputation255 – to work together with the pastors in exercising admonition and discipline.256 Later, in the 1541 church order, he would return to this point, and once more aim to achieve cooperation between the pastors and the members of the council.

2.

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

Introduction The above analysis of Calvin’s first Genevan period revealed that it was not his goal to establish an independent church of which people could freely choose to become members. He also did not pursue an independent power for the church. In his view, it was the government that was charged with the responsibility for reorganising the church. This leaves us with the question whether and, if so, to what degree, Calvin’s view on the church changed by the beginning of his second

254 Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.762a, 448, l.1 – 7 = CO 10b, no.200, 435, l.25 – 33. 255 CO 10a, 10, l.18 – 20 = OS 1, 373, l.17 – 18. 256 See n.175.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

104

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

stay in Geneva. Did he in 1541 harbour the ideal of an independent church that had its own authority? This question will be addressed primarily on the basis of the church order Calvin which composed in September 1541 immediately upon his return.257 Before he came back, he had insisted that he be allowed to draft a model for the organisation of the church; for, he knew how to strike while the iron was still hot.258 Just as with the 1537 articles, it is worth examining how Calvin used the word ‘church’ in the new church order. Did he still use it to refer especially to the institutional side of ecclesiastical life, and is his usage once more concentrated on the Lord’s Supper as the most essential manifestation of the church? The first part of this chapter had revealed how important it is to consider the way in which Calvin treated the defilement of this most holy sacrament. From the very beginning of his first stay in Geneva, Calvin showed that he had a broad understanding of what counted as ecclesiastical work. In 1537 he refused to reduce the church to an institution for handing down the faith. As we will see, in his 1541 church order Calvin similarly located the church within social life as a whole, with the implication that much of the responsibility for the church fell in the hands of the government. Geneva was a theocracy in which civil and ecclesiastical matters were fully intertwined, just as they were in Bern and Zürich.259 Calvin wanted the organisation of the church to be cast as broadly as possible. To this end, he upon his return to Geneva introduced four ecclesiastical functions or offices (ordres d’offices): “There are four orders of office instituted by our Lord for the government of his church. First, pastors; then doctores; next elders; and fourth deacons.”260 These four offices represented a range of provisions, as becomes clear from the very beginning of the church order where we find – without surprise – a preface from the civil government. Here the state expressed its conviction that it is very important for Genevan society “that the 257 Plomp devotes an entire paragraph to the question of the authorship of the church order. He does not consider it to have been a work of Calvin’s composition alone, especially because the draft is on several points not in line with what he understands to have been his view on the church’s position vis-—-vis the government. Plomp: 1969, 188 – 190. However, there are indications that lead us to believe that Calvin fully supported this draft for the church order, even if it was composed in close cooperation with others. See, for example, Calvin’s letter to Bucer from October 1541 in which he enthusiastically reports the following: “We hope all the more that they will agree with us.” Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1053, 292, l.21 = CO 11, no.363, 298, l.29 – 30. Several months later he writes explicitly, and with a similar enthusiasm, that he had made this draft. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1090, 409, l.12 = CO 11, no.384, 364, l.18. 258 CO 21, 282; CO 9, 894, l.7 – 10 = OS 2, 403, l.32 – 34. Kingdon reports that this was “a part of the deal which persuaded him to return from Strasbourg to Geneva.” Kingdon: 1984, 59, l.11. 259 Köhler: 1942, 662v. 260 CO 10a, 15, l.1 – 3 and 16, l.1 – 2 = OS 2, 328, l.3 – 7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

105

doctrine of the holy gospel (sainct Evangile) be well preserved in purity and the Christian church be duly maintained, that the youth be in the future faithfully instructed.” The government’s preface further insists on the importance of a well functioning hospital “for sustaining the poor.”261 The question that must now be addressed is what Calvin intended to achieve with this new ecclesiastical structure in which he introduced four ecclesiastical functions or offices, as well as a consistory made up of elders and pastors. How did he view the relationship between this council dedicated to ecclesiastical matters and the council of the city? Did these two councils differ in their approach to the position of the church? The remainder of this chapter will treat the following issues in order: how the term ‘church’ was used in the 1541 articles, how the Genevan church was organised, the composition of the consistory, and the government’s position on Calvin’s proposals regarding the place of the church in Genevan society.

The word ‘church’ in Calvin’s church order (1541) The 1541 church order frequently used the word ‘church’ in terms of its organisation. The institutional side of the church pertained to liturgical practices, to discipline, or to matters related to the body of the church such as education and the care for the sick.262 For the present study, it is further important to ask 261 CO 10a, 16, l.24 – 43 = OS 2, 328, l.19 – 34. 262 The word ‘church’ occurs in the church order in the context of the organisational structure of the local church in the following places: CO 10a, 15, l.2 – 3 = OS 2, 328, l.4 (“the government of his church” requires ecclesiastical offices); CO 10a, 16, l.3 = OS 2, 328, l.8 (“the church” must be ordered well); CO 10a, 17, l.10 – 11 = OS 2, 329, l.1 – 2 (confusion must be avoided “in the church”); CO 10a, 17, l.25 – 26 = OS 2, 329, l.14 (“the church” approves the doctrine); CO 10a, 17, l.36 = OS 2, 329, l.23 – 24 (“the order of the ancient church”); CO 10a, 19, l.22 – 23 = OS 2, 333, l.23 (no one is allowed to leave “the church without lawful leave or just calling”); CO 10a, 19, l.34 – 35 = OS 2, 333, l.34 (the dismissal of a pastor “from the church”); CO 10a, 19, l.41 = OS 2, 334, l.3 (“in the church” certain views and practices may not be tolerated); CO 10a, 20, l.17 = OS 2, 334, l.26 (“the church’s judgment” on certain, less serious sins); CO 10a, 21, l.21 = OS 2, 338, l.11 (“the church” needs a sufficient number of shepherds); CO 10a, 21, l.26 = OS 2, 338, l.15 (“the government of the church”); CO 10a, 21, l.33 = OS 2, 338, l.20 (on passing down “the church” to the next generation); CO 10a, 22, l.21 = OS 2, 339, l.20 (on “the current situation in this church”); CO 10a, 23, l.10 – 11 = OS 2, 340, l.25 (“in the ancient church” there are two kinds of deacons); CO 10a, 26, l.16 – 18 = OS 2, 345, l.1 – 3 (newcomers are to report “to the church” in connection with the Lord’s Supper); CO 10a, 27, l.25 – 26 = OS 2, 355, l.29 (the work of the pastoral office “in the church”); CO 10a, 28, l.18 – 19 = OS 2, 356, l.28 (on professing one’s faith “in the presence of the church”); CO 10a, 29, l.2 = OS 2, 357, l.22 (on regulations for maintaining good censure “in the church”); CO 10a, 29, l.6 = OS 2, 358, l.8 (on disturbances “in the church”); CO 10a, 29, l.26 = OS 2, 358, l.25 (on the obligation to come “to church”); CO 10a, 29, l.32 – 33 = OS 2, 358,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

106

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

whether Calvin’s 1541 church order like his 1537 articles on worship used the term ‘church’ also in reference to the Lord’s Supper. Soon after his first arrival in Geneva, Calvin already expressed his conviction that each and every inhabitant’s obligations included the regular and faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper, just as they were all required to attend the worship services.263 This was a standpoint that Calvin maintained upon his return to the city after his banishment. Thus, in his catechism from late 1541 or early 1542, he asked how someone who does not want to partake of the Lord’s Supper should be called. The catechism responds that such a person at any rate should not be considered a Christian.264 Calvin saw the church community above all as a Lord’s Supper community. In the 1541 church order, just as in the 1537 articles, the word ‘church’ appears at times to be used in the narrower sense of ‘Lord’s Supper.’ Even when an obstinate sinner was to be kept from the table of the Lord265 due to concerns in doctrine or life, that sinner still was required to attend the worship services. This was expressed in the 1541 Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques,266 as well as in the 1537 articles.267 Those who were to be kept from the Lord’s Supper still belonged to the church in the other, broader sense. This perspective likewise emerges from the end of the church order, which speaks about “sins notorious and public which the church cannot dissimulate.”268 If those who had committed such offences repented, no further measures would be needed. As for those who persisted in their sins, even if they were excluded from the Lord’s Supper table for some time, they were still expected to attend the preaching in church since the goal was to observe “a change in life in them.”269

263 264

265 266 267 268 269

l.30 (on being separated “from the church”); CO 10a, 29, l.39 = OS 2, 359, l.2 (sinners must be reported “to the church”); CO 10a, 30, l.2 = OS 2, 359, l.7 (on admonition “by the church”); CO 10a, 30, l.8 = OS 2, 359, l.11 (sinners should not be mixed “with the church”). CO 10a, 29, l.18v. = OS 2, 358, l.19v.; CO 10a, 36, l.2 – 3 = OS 1, 369, l.4; CO 10a, 7, l.33v. = OS 1, 370, l.24v. CO 6, 131, l.15 – 17 = CO 6, 132, l.16 – 19 = OS 2, 142, answer 363. Calvin’s view that the church is above all a Lord’s Supper community was already evident in the wish he expressed in the 1537 articles, as well as in his 1536 Institutes: “It would be well to require that the communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be held every Sunday at least as a rule”; the city, however, thought that four times per year sufficed. CO 10a, 7, l.33 – 35 = OS 1, 370, l.24 – 26. CO 1, 130, l.29 – 30 = OS 1, 150, l.17 – 18. Calvin once more emphasised the primary position of the Lord’s Supper in his catechism of 1541 or 1542: “For as much as Jesus Christ is communicated to us in baptism and the gospel, this is always in part and never in full.” CO 6, 125, l.24 – 29 = CO 6, 126, l.22 – 26 = OS 2, 139, answer.346. CO 6, 133, l.11 – 13 = CO 6, 134, l.10 – 11 = OS 2, 143, answer 368. CO 10a, 29, l.18 – 25. = OS 2, 358, l.19 – 24. CO 10a, 10, l.47 f = OS 1, 373, l.41 f. CO 10a, 30, l.8 – 9 = OS 2, 359, l.11 – 12. CO 10a, 30, l.32 – 33 = OS 2, 361, l.1 – 2. CO 10a, 30, l.17 and l.23 = OS 2, 359, l.19 and l.23. CO 10a, 29, l.24 – 25 = OS 2, 358, l.21 – 24 and CO 10a, 29, l.31 – 33 = OS 2, 358, l.29 – 31; see also CO 10a, 10, l.47 – 48 = OS 1, 373, l.41 – 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

107

The church order also stated that, if somebody no longer attended services and persevered “in his evil way, ” he was to be “separated from the church and reported to the council.”270 The Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques of 1541, in contrast to a later addition,271 did not mention banishment as a measure of punishment. The final punishment referred to in this article on the obligation of church attendance is “separation from the church.” But what does this phrase mean? The serious nature of someone’s failure to attend the worship services was expressed in the article’s description of non-attendance as “a contempt of the communion of the faithful”272 that cannot go unpunished. As a last resort, after repeated evidence that a person was unwilling to repent, he was to be “separated from the church.” Here ‘the church’ means ‘the Lord’s Supper.’273 For the present purposes, it is interesting to consider whether the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques also used the term ‘church’ in the sense of ‘city council’ or ‘council committee for ecclesiastical affairs.’ Wherever the church order speaks of “the doctrine received in the church,”274 the word ‘church’ can perhaps be understood as ‘city’ or ‘city council.’ This is actually not an unlikely reading at all. In Reformed cities it was the city council that had the power over ecclesiastical and religious life. The council did delegate certain tasks to members of the council or to the public servants, but it retained the final responsibility. Whenever the church order uses ‘church’ to refer to the body that makes decisions of leadership, that word appears to be intended as a designation for the city’s council, or, more specifically, for the council committee for ecclesiastical affairs that acted on its behalf. This is true, for instance, when the church order speaks of the church’s judgment,275 of the doctores who cooperate with the church’s government,276 of the baptismal promise that is made before the 270 CO 10a, 29, l.31 – 33 = OS 2, 358, l.29 – 31. 271 In 1557 an article would be added to address a person’s failure to attend the Lord’s Supper. A sinner who persisted in his absence from the Eucharist was to be “banished from the city” for one year. CO 10a, 118, l.51 – 119, l.1 = OS 2, 360, l.11 – 12 and CO 10a, 119, l.11 – 12 = OS 2, 360, l.21. 272 CO 10a, 29, l.27 = OS 2, 358, l.26 The expression “the holy communion of the faithful” in the addition of 1557 could refer to either church attendance or the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, although the latter is more likely because the heading indicates that this added passage was intended to prevent people from staying away from the Lord’s Supper. CO 10a, 118, l.38 – 39 = OS 2, 360, l.1 – 2. 273 When all children of “all citizens and inhabitants” were required to attend catechetical instruction, the goal was to prepare them for their first communion or Lord’s Supper. This too reveals Calvin’s view that attendance at the Lord’s Supper was obligatory for the entire Genevan population; CO 10a, 28, l.7 – 8 = OS 2, 356, l.18. 274 CO 10a, 17, l.25 – 26 = OS 2, 329, l.14; cf. CO 10a, 19, l.41 = OS 2, 334, l.3. ‘Church’ is at times used nearly synonymously for ‘city’ in the article on good discipline “in the church” and the prevention of disturbances “in the church”. CO 10a, 29, l.2 and 6 = OS 2, 357, l.22 and 358, l.8. 275 CO 10a, 20, l.16 – 17 = OS 2, 334, l.26. 276 CO 10a, 21, l.25 – 28 = OS 2, 338, l.15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

108

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

church,277 of newcomers who must first present themselves to the church,278 of reporting someone to the church,279 or of admonition by the church.280 The 1537 articles mentioned no separate committee of the government for seeing to ecclesiastical matters. In his 1541 draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, Calvin proposed to the council that it appoint one or two committees with specific responsibilities for matters pertaining to the church. The committee that was eventually created came to be called the consistoire, ‘consistory.’ Accordingly, the church order as it was finally approved sometimes used the word ‘church’ to refer to this consistory. The use of ‘church’ by the 1541 Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques as a reference to the city council’s committee for ecclesiastical affairs (i. e. the consistory) indicates that Calvin strove for a clearly defined structure for organising Geneva’s religious life. This is confirmed by the catechism from late 1541 or early 1542. There it is stated that the “judgment of the church” is necessary for excluding someone from the Lord’s Supper, and that a person must be kept “from the communion […] on the authority of the church.” The word ‘church’ appears here to be used in the sense of ‘consistory.’281

Organising the structure of the church In order to consider whether, or to what degree, Calvin aimed for an independent church, it is essential to examine how he depicted the organisational structure of the church in his church order. As has been noted, the church order was based on the recognition of four ecclesiastical functions: pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons282 – where, as an aside, Calvin appears indeed to have 277 CO 10a, 25, l.24 – 25 = OS 2, 343, l.19. The article also speaks about making a confession of one’s faith before the church (en presence de lesglise); CO 10a, 28, l.18 f = OS 2, 356, l.28 f. The caption to this article refers to “the little children” (les petis enfans). The intention was for children to recite the main contents of the catechism. It is not entirely clear whether the word ‘church’ here – i. e. in the context of the baptismal promise, or confession of faith – refers to a meeting of the congregation or a meeting of (a delegation from) the consistory. See n.57. 278 CO 10a, 26, l.16 = OS 2, 345, l.1. 279 CO 10a, 29, l.38 – 39 = OS 2, 359, l.2. 280 CO 10a, 30, l.2 = OS 2, 359, l.7. 281 CO 6, 133, l.38 and l.46 = OS 2, 144, answer 372 and 373. The later Latin translation from 1545 differs somewhat from the original French text in that it in the last question and answer omits the reference to “the authority of the church”, and replaces the more general term ‘persons’ (personnages) with ‘elders’ (seniores). CO 6, 134, l.38 – 47. 282 “Il y a quatre ordres d’offices” CO 10a, 15, l.3 = OS 2, 328, l.3; see n.260. In what follows, we will follow the order used by Calvin himself. He first mentioned the office of pastor. In the Reformed camp, the office of pastor was on the whole the most important and most properly ecclesiastical function. After this, Calvin treated the following in order : doctor,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

109

thought more in terms of ‘functions’ than ‘offices.’283 The first two functions were at that time commonly accepted in the Reformed world, while the latter two, as ecclesiastical functions for lay people, were new. Calvin in fact introduced them to Geneva before he had thought through them systematically yet.284 It was not until the year 1543 that he gave a biblical account for the ecclesiastical functions held by non-professionals. This makes it very unlikely that Geneva’s councils and citizens in the fall of 1541 perceived those who held the ‘lay offices’ as independent functionaries of the church. What is more, the city’s councils will hardly have been inclined to approve and implement new practices lacking a solid theological basis at a time when the situation of the church in Geneva was already overly burdened with confusion.285 The office of pastor For the present investigation on the position of the church and the ecclesiastical offices in Genevan society, it is necessary to consider whether it was the ministers who held the leadership of the church. The pastor was the best known and most widely accepted church officer in the Reformed world of the time. Although they stood in the service of the state, the pastors were free in their preaching. Heinrich Bullinger had explicitly insisted on and obtained the freedom of preaching when he accepted his office in the church of Zürich in 1531. Other churches in the Swiss Reformation followed him on this point.286 The question that needs to be considered, however, is the degree to which the Genevan pastors enjoyed an independence in matters other than the preaching, such as the exercise of discipline.

283 284

285 286

elder, and deacon. Special attention will be given to the ‘lay office’ of the elders, because of the position of leadership they held within the Genevan church. McKee: 1988, 31 and 36. McKee: 1988, 190. Calvin would provide a more extensive biblical foundation for this fourfold division in the offices of the church in later editions of the Institutes: teachers explain Scripture; pastors do the same, but also administer the sacrament and maintain discipline; elders exercise discipline together with the pastors; deacons see to the care for the poor. Inst. 4.3 = CO 2, 776 – 787 = OS 5, 42 – 57. Around 1540 Bucer had in his Vom tag zu Hagenaw already defended the legitimacy of the place that lay members had in the councils from the very beginning, not only for regulating practical matters, but also for deciding on matters of faith. For this he appealed to Romans 13. In the past, sovereigns in particular had had a most important place in providing leadership to the councils. See Augustijn: 1988, 87, n.8. Calvin would expand on this distinction between clergy and laity, especially with a view to the irreproachable life that members of the clergy were to lead, since more was demanded of them than of others. McKee does suggest this, however, when she refers to the circumstances in which the church order of 1541 was developed as “one of the clearest instances of political influence on theology.” McKee: 1988, 220, n.1. See chapter 1, n.93 – 95.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

110

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

The articles of the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques are not entirely clear in this regard. When we examine the articles on discipline,287 we find that they use the French indefinite subject pronoun ‘on, ’ which in English is often rendered by way of a passive construction. But how significant was the conscious choice for this vague pronoun? In regard to the admonition and punishment of an obstinate sinner, for example, the church order reads: “If he be opinionative, he is to be admonished several times, until it is seen that measures of greater severity are needed. Then he is to be interdicted from the communion of the Supper and reported to the magistrate.”288 But who actually does the admonishing and interdicting? Is it the elders, the pastors, or perhaps a combination of the two? Plomp is convinced that Calvin had in mind the assembly of elders and pastors; after all, so he argued, Calvin wanted “no interference on the part of the government” in exercising church discipline.289 It is highly questionable whether Plomp is correct in his position, however. Calvin proposed that “elders […] are to assemble once a week with the pastors” for matters pertaining to the rule of the church. Because the elders “have no compulsive authority or jurisdiction,” Calvin suggested that the consistory should be supported by an officer or police constable.290 This section thus describes the consistory as an assembly of elders and pastors, which has no jurisdiction for imposing any coercive measures. The church order lists the kind of people “whom the elders ought to admonish,” and explains “how one is to proceed.”291 Remarkable about this passage is that it only mentions ‘the elders.’292 In light of this, it seems most natural to understand the decisive power in matters of discipline to have been attributed not to the pastors or a combined assembly of pastors and elders, but to the elders alone who throughout the 287 CO 10a, 29, l.16 – 30, l.18 = OS 2, 358, l.17 – 359, l.24. 288 CO 10a, 29, l.20 – 25 = OS 2, 358, l.20 – 24; cf. CO 10a, 29, l.31 – 33 = OS 2, 358, l.29 – 31; see also Speelman: 2010, 286 f. 289 Plomp: 1969, 179, l.16 – 17. Plomp here refers to the 1553 Latin translation of the church order. In this translation of the original 1541 text, Calvin in several instances replaced the French impersonal subject pronoun ‘on’ with ‘consistoire’. CO 14, no.1859, 678. However, the translation dates from more than a decade later, and it does not deny that the consistory’s final authority on this point rests in its government office. Plomp, l.c., 177, n.209. 290 CO 10a, 29, l.3 – 12 = OS 2, 358, l.6 – 13. Calvin’s draft here read: “ung de leurs officiers”; the council changed this to “ung de noz officiers”. According to Huguet’s French dictionary, at that time the word officier was preferred in Geneva to the word sergent; ‘sergent’ could mean ‘judicial officer’ or ‘bailiff ’, while the combination ‘sergent de ville’ meant ‘police officer’. Huguet: 1961, vol.5, 503. 291 CO 10a, 29, l.16 – 17 = OS 2, 358, l.17 – 18. 292 A comparable passage can be found in the catechism of 1541/1542, which was translated into Latin in 1545. When the catechism asks who is responsible for “a certain order of government established in the churches”, it only speaks of ‘elders’ (seniores) who “preside as censors of morals”. It was also the elders who, if necessary, could keep people “from the communion” of the Lord’s Supper. CO 6, 134, l.38 – 47; cf. CO 6, 133 = OS 2, 144, answer 373.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

111

Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques are consistently referred to as the “assistants” or “officers”293 – telling terms indeed! – who sat in the consistory in the name of the city council.294 It is further significant that the city’s various councils, which never overlooked anything in Calvin’s proposal that possibly implied an infraction upon their authority, did not see the indefinite subject pronoun ‘on’ as an ambiguous referent. None of the changes they introduced to the articles on discipline in Calvin’s draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques pertained to it; the articles were approved in their entirety.295 This implies that in the fall of 1541 it must have been entirely clear to the councils and to the ministers to whom the word ‘on’ referred, that is, to the city council’s representatives who held a seat in the consistory. In other words, the indefinite subject pronoun ‘on’ referred to the elders. No one felt the need to specify the referent, which to us today has become rather unclear. Calvin further appears to have aimed consciously at giving the government representatives a dominant place in the consistory as the committee charged with responsibility for matters of marriage and morals in Geneva. For, according to his draft, the majority of the consistory was to be made up of elders. Unlike the ministers, the elders did not always attend the meetings of the consistory because they often held many other responsibilities. However, in the end the elders still had the decisive voice. In that the elders were at once members of the council, the consistory had an optimal guarantee that it could act with authority. In the last part of the church order, the city councillors on their part highlighted once again that the consistory was not to encroach upon the magistrate’s authority in any way : “All this is to take place in such a way that the pastors have no civil jurisdiction, nor use anything but the spiritual sword of the Word of God, as Paul commands them; nor is the consistory to derogate from the authority of the magistrate or ordinary justice.”296 In the exercise of discipline, the spiritual sword of the consistory had no more than an advisory power,297 and it 293 CO 10a, 16, l.2 (= n.2): “anciens aultrement nommes commys pour la seigneurie”; 17, l.8 – 9 (Calvin’s draft): “anciens et comys”; 18, l.34 (= n.7): “anciens et comys par la seigneurie”; 22, l.14 (= n.4): “anciens que ce dyront estre comys ou deputes par la seygneurie au consistoyre”; 23, l.30 (= n.5): “anciens et comys au consistoyre”; 24, l.22 (=n.6): “ministres et les comys avecqz l’un des seygneurs sindicques”; 28, l.37 and 41 (= n.7 and 9): “anciens ou comys” and “anciens commys susdictz”; 29, l.3 and 16 (= n.1 and 5): “anciens commys susdictz” and “anciens ou comys”; 30, l.10 – 11 (= n.7): “anciens comys” = OS 2, 328, l.6 and 16; 332, l.29; 339, l.13 – 14; 341, l.15; 342, l.10; 357, l.15 and 19; 358, l.6 and 17; 359, l.13. A ‘commis’ is a ‘d¦l¦gu¦’, that is, a ‘delegate’ or ‘representative’. Huguet: 1932, vol.2, 369. 294 See, for example, CO 10a, 16, n.2 = OS 2, 328, l.6: “pour la seigneurie”. 295 Plomp: 1969, 177 and 203. 296 CO 10a, 30, l.50 – 55 = CO 10a, 119, l.40 – 43 = OS 2, 361, l.29 – 32. 297 This is evident, for example, in a summary of this article: “All this is to take place in such a way that the ministers have no civil jurisdiction […]. But having heard the parties and used such remonstrances and admonitions as are good, [they] are to report the whole matter to

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

112

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

could not in anything take away from the authority of the magistrate or of the judicial powers. The church order continued: “Even where there will be need to impose punishment or to constrain parties, the pastors with the consistory having heard the parties and used such remonstrances and admonitions as are good, are to report the whole matter to the council.”298 This position was entirely in line with Calvin’s own view; for, he did not think that the church had the power to exercise punishment or to use coercive force.299 This final part of the church order may have been included due to the unrest which three of Calvin’s colleagues created among the councillors when they suggested that Calvin was attempting to transfer some of the government’s power to the side of the ministers.300 There is no doubt that Calvin tried to obtain a moderate amount of independence for the consistory in his draft for the church order – more, in any case, than the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques in their definitive form would attribute to the consistory. All the same, Calvin did not depart from the general conviction of the Reformers in those days that the spiritual keys ought not to be in the hands of the pastors as when the clergy of the old Roman Catholic church had wrongly drawn all power to itself. Calvin fully supported that conviction,301 and the same was true of the Protestant governments. The conviction generally held within the Protestant camp had resulted from its negative experiences with the clerical powers of the established church, especially in regard to the abuses surrounding moral censure and discipline.302 At that point in time, the Genevan preachers could not even claim any juridical powers at all. For, most were political refugees without citizen rights. Furthermore, the pastors stood into the service of the city council. The status of the Protestant pastors was very clear in this period: they were “powerless public servants, without citizenship or secure juridical status, without property or financial resources, without any military power. All these attributes of Catholic clerical status had been irrecoverably

298 299

300 301 302

the council, which in their turn will advise sentence and judgment according to the needs of the case.” CO 10a, 29, n.8 = OS 2, 361, l.3 – 6. CO 10a, 30, l.56 – 60 = CO 10a, 119, l.45 – 49 = OS 2, 361, l.34 – 42. Later in 1553, Calvin would explain this sentence when he described the imposition of punishment and the coercion of the parties as “a judicial inquiry [cognitio], which demands civil punishment or correction.” CO 14, no.1859, 679, l.43 – 44. For Köhler it is clearly problematic that Calvin expressed his approval of this passage. Köhler : 1942, 565, n.365. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 439, l.28 – 31 = CO 11, no.389, 379, l.4 – 8; see n.391. McKee: 1988, 30 – 32; see also CO 10a, 9, l.53 – 10, l.1 f = OS 2, 373, l.1 f, where Calvin in the 1537 articles explicitly argued that the power of excommunication did not belong to the bishops. McKee: 1988, 31; see Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, Anticlericalism in late medieval and early modern Europe, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 1993.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

113

lost.”303 In Geneva, the pastors were paid functionaries in the service of the government without any responsibility of rule.304 The office of doctor In the introduction to his draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, Calvin mentioned four offices, including the function of the doctor or teacher.305 For him, the office of the doctor pertained to the city’s theological and general education. In the city of Geneva, government, church, and school were all closely intertwined. The government was in charge, however, also in the way Calvin saw things.306 In its origins, the term ‘doctor’ did not refer to a title or office, but was a general term for anyone who taught. In the late medieval period, the concept of ‘doctor’ came to be applied in particular to those who explained the Bible. When the universities began to attribute certain rights to the title of a doctor in theology in the thirteenth century, it was still the church that bestowed permission to teach on those whom it deemed capable.307 It was early in the 1540s that Calvin developed his thinking on the function of the doctor or docteur.308 The Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques of 1541 stated: “The office proper to doctors is the instruction of the faithful in true doctrine, in order that the purity of the Gospel be not corrupted either by ignorance or by evil opinions.”309 The catechism instruction that Calvin had set up in 1537 to be undertaken under the guidance of the parents never really got off the ground. The office of doctor in a restricted sense was thought by Calvin to consist in 303 Kingdon: 1984, 58, l.18 – 22 When the pastors in the 1550s had obtained a more respected and independent position with “more effective authority than their Catholic predecessors”, this resulted among others from the fact that these French intellectual leaders through their abilities and prevalence exercised greater influence on the common opinion regarding religion, morals, and foreign affairs. Kingdon, l.c., 58. This does not mean that Calvin in the 1550s consciously sought to obtain more power with a view to increasing the church’s independence. The ministers did their utmost to obtain some influence as refugees, and they succeeded in this as their authority increased. 304 Kingdon: 1972, 8, l.23 and 24. 305 Calvin’s Strasbourg colleague Bucer also considered the office of the doctor to be an ecclesiastical office. Dankbaar: 1978, 157 – 158. Bucer was of the opinion that the university was “the most important part of the church”. Van ’t Spijker: 1991a, 59. That Calvin did not share this strong view is evident from the oath which Beza as rector swore at the establishment of the Genevan Academy on 5 June 1559, vowing to exhort the students to be subject and obedient to the Genevan government. CO 10a, 89 = OS 2, 379. Beza in fact did not mention the church at all, but frequently referred to the government which had established this school and had authority over it. CO 17, no.3066, 543 f = OS 2, 380 and 384; Dankbaar: 1978, 176. 306 Van ’t Spijker: 1991a, 62, n.59. Doumergue: 1917, vol.5, 111 – 112 ; see n.1. 307 Du Cange: 1678 (sub voce Doctor); Dankbaar: 1978, 170; Posthumus Meyjes: 1982, 22. 308 The word ‘didaskalos’ was rendered as ‘doctor’ or ‘docteur’ (e. g. in Eph 4:11) in the Latin and French translations of the Bible that were in use at that time. Dankbaar: 1978, 170, n.53. 309 CO 10a, 21, l.15 – 17 = OS 2, 338, l.6 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

114

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

instruction “in true doctrine,” but more broadly it pertained to “the services and instruction” given with a view to the future of church and state.310 Calvin thought education to be necessary in order to “prepare [the children] for the pastorate as well as for civil government.”311 The schools were thus not intended for theological instruction alone. Calvin aimed to establish an “order of the schools” on a broader level, similar to what we call primary and secondary education. To this end, there was a need for school masters to instruct the small children, and for instructors to teach the languages and philosophy.312 Calvin had no room for private education: “There may be no other school in the city for the little children.”313 For the unity of the church it was most important that there be agreement on the doctrine that was taught in the schools. Schools thus had a significant function in maintaining true religion and religious unity. This is why Calvin wrote in his order for the regulation of Geneva’s ecclesiastical affairs that all teachers “are to be subject like the pastors to ecclesiastical discipline.”314 The CollÀge Versonnex already existed as an institution of the civil government prior to the introduction of the Reformation. In May 1536, the council decided to establish the CollÀge de Rive to replace the aging CollÀge Versonnex. Antoine Saunier was the rector of the new college, while Mathurin Cordier was added to the teaching staff at the urging of Farel. The school was overseen by the city council. This is clear from the events of 23 and 26 December 1538, when Saunier and Cordier, together with a number of others, were dismissed from their post by the council and banished because they refused to assist the pastors in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.315 In 1541 Calvin similarly saw the city’s education as a responsibility of the civil government.316 This can be demonstrated by the regulations in place for the appointment of teachers. Before they were appointed by the council, the teachers, “for fear of difficulties,” first had to be approved by the pastors.317 This examination took place “in the presence of two men from the Small Council”318 ; nobody could assume a teaching post without first being approved by the council. Calvin’s 1541 church order was structured around four functions. This implies that he understood there to be a distinction between the office of the pastor 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318

CO 10a, 21, l.15 – 24 = OS 2, 338, l.6 – 14. CO 10a, 21, l.35 – 36 = OS 2, 338, l.21 – 22. CO 10a, 21, l.24 = OS 2, 338, l.13 and CO 10a, 22, l.1 – 4 = OS 2, 338, l.27 – 339, l.1. CO 10a, 22, l.7 – 8 = OS 2, 339, l.5. CO 10a, 22, l.5 – 6 = OS 2, 339, l.3 – 4. Cf. the 1539 university regulations in Basel, Van ’t Spijker: 1991a, 53. CO 21, 240. CO 10a, 21, l.19 = OS 2, 338, l.9. CO 10a, 22, l.10 – 12 and l.49 (= n.g) = OS 2, 339, l.8, 11 and 34 (= n.b). CO 10a, 22, l.47 – 51 (= n.g) = OS 2, 339, l.31 – 36.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

115

and that of the teacher. But a further distinction can also be observed among the doctores. As a rule, those who taught non-theological subjects and were not ministers were referred to as lecteurs or professeurs publics, while the teaching ministers were called lecteurs or professeurs de th¦ologie.319 Only the last category – i. e. the teachers who were also pastors – were ecclesiastically ordained by the laying on of hands in following the tradition of the apostles and the early church, and this by virtue of their role as pastors.320 The office of ‘doctor’ therefore cannot be understood as a ‘specifically ecclesiastical’ function. The office of elder Of all four offices mentioned in the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, the office of the elder was most heavily debated.321 In contrast to the deacons, elders were entirely new to Geneva.322 In the institution of the Kirchpfleger Strasbourg had a kind of elder,323 whom the government looked upon as civil servants.324 Before that time, Zwingli had suggested that, according to 1 Timothy 5:17, the members of the council are to be considered as ‘elders’ aside from and in addition to the pastors.325 Following in Zwingli’s spirit, Calvin connected the function of the elder to the existing function of the council members. Two of the twelve elders were to come from the Small Council, four from the Council of Sixty, and six from the Council of Two Hundred.326 Calvin made this connection between eldership and government office explicit in the process of election and appointment. A significant point for the present purposes is the fact that the church order placed even greater emphasis yet on this in the changes introduced to Calvin’s draft by the council when it replaced the word ‘elder’ with ‘officer of the council’ or 319 Dankbaar: 1978, 177 – 178. Up until that time, Calvin had held the two positions of pastor and teacher in Geneva and Strasbourg. Dankbaar, l.c., 155 – 156. 320 CO 10a, 18, l.3 f = OS 2, 330, l.35 f. Calvin’s advice to do away with the practice of the laying on of hands in ordination because of the superstitions prevalent in the past was discarded. The city council decided that it would suffice for one of the pastors simply to explain prior to this symbolic act what it actually represented; this can be compared to the form for ordination which is currently in use in Reformed churches. CO 10a, 18, n.4 and n.g = OS 2, 330 – 331. 321 Kingdon: 1984, 59. 322 Neuser: 1971, 59. 323 The Kirchenpfleger – one for each ward (Kirchspil) – were appointed by the magistracy on 30 October 1531. Van ’t Spijker: 1988, 119. 324 Van ’t Spijker: 1988, 120. 325 In a letter to Ambrosius Blarer from 4 May 1528, Zwingli mentioned two kinds of elders: pastors and council members (senioren). ZW 9 (= CR 96), no.720, 456, l.5 – 8. Calvin would develop his view on the office of the elder in the following years on the basis of his exegesis of 1 Timothy 5:17. The results of his theological reflection were not evident until the publication of the 1543 edition of his Institutes, however. McKee: 1988, 67, 88, 97 f and 219. 326 CO 10a, 22, l.22 – 23 = OS 2, 339, l.21 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

116

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

similar expressions.327 These additions left no doubt as to how the work of the elders was to be viewed. The elders were representatives of the government, and every inhabitant recognised the offices of the government as offices given by God. According to Calvin, in order for the elders to be invested with authority in and to have leadership over the church, they had to be members of the council at the same time. This conviction found further confirmation in his exegesis of three New Testament texts central to his view on the office of ruler or elder in the church: Romans 12:8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, and 1 Timothy 5:17. In 1536, Calvin wrote in his Institutes, with an appeal to Romans 12:8, that the government held the power in matters pertaining to the church and to religion. The authority over “all things on earth is in the hands of kings and other rulers […] by divine authority and holy ordinance. […] Paul also plainly teaches this when he lists ‘ruling’ among God’s gifts (Rom. 12:8).” These gifts “ought to be used by Christ’s servants for the upbuilding of the church.”328 Protestant exegetes did not typically appeal to Romans 12:8 in order to identify the government as the one and only institution that had power over the church. Luther, Oecolampadius, and Bullinger, for example, explained this verse in another way.329 When he treated this verse, however, Calvin did explicitly count authority over the church to be one of the tasks with which the government was charged, regardless of the other interpretations that circulated within the Reformed camp. When he explained Romans 12:8 in his commentary (1540), Calvin noted that Paul referred to those with power as those “to whom the ministration of the church was committed, as there were elders [seniors], who ruled and governed others, and exercised censure.” What Paul writes about them, however, “may be generally applied to all kinds of rulers.” It was not until 1556, in the third edition of his Romans commentary, that Calvin added the following to this passage: “Yet the situation of that time shows that Paul did not speak of all rulers (because at that time there were no godly magistrates), but of the elders who supervised morals.”330 Calvin’s point of departure late in the 1530s and early in the 1540s was that the church was to be ruled by the government. This emerges from both his Romans commentary, as well as his Institutes. For, in the second edition of the 327 E.g. CO 10a, 16, l.2 = OS 2, 328, l.6 and CO 10a, 22, l.14 = OS 2, 338, l.13; see n.293. 328 CO 1, 231 = OS 1, 261 = Inst. 4.20.4 = OS 5, 475, l.5 – 13; see also Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.7 – 14 = CO 2, 1094, l.41 – 59. McKee: 1988, 40, n.4. 329 In 1525 Luther applied the phrase “he who leads” from Romans 12:8 to church government. McKee: 1988, 48 and 49. Oecolampadius explained this passage similarly in his 1525 commentary, specifying that this leadership applied “in every church”. McKee, l.c., 49. What is more, in the church of Basel an independent form of discipline exercised by lay members was already in place before 1536. McKee, l.c., 50. With a reference to 2 Chronicles 19:6, Bullinger in 1533 applied the ruling office to both world and church. McKee, l.c., 18. 330 CO 49, 240, l.19 – 24 and l.27 – 30.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

117

Institutes (1539), he added to his exegesis of Romans 12:8 a reference to 1 Corinthians 12:28, without diminishing in any way the authority over the church’s affairs that had come to the government by divine appointment. In line with this addition, Calvin joined to his original explanation of Romans 12:8 a reference to “a council of sober men, who were appointed in the primitive church to preside over the ordering of public discipline.”331 Yet in those years Calvin maintained that “every kind of righteous government” served the upbuilding of the church. As McKee has noted, it is remarkable that Calvin made this remark after the government had banished him from Geneva!332 He apparently did not understand the Genevan government’s actions in 1538 to have been unlawful. Even in 1539, that is, after the events of April 1538, Calvin still treated Romans 12:8 in the section on the “civil government,”333 and as yet did not give a specifically ecclesiastical interpretation of this verse.334 The second key text for Calvin’s view on the authority in the church is 1 Corinthians 12:28. At that time, Protestant commentators predominantly understood the ‘rulers’ (gubernationes) mentioned in this verse as the functionaries in charge of censure. This group of people formed a category separate from the pastors.335 We first encounter a reference to this passage in the 1539 edition of the Institutes, in the chapter on the civil government.336 Calvin did not, however, address who was actually responsible for that rule. Zwingli was the first to describe the ‘rulers’ of 1 Corinthians 12:28 as “mature and sober men who aid the overseers, so that in the church all things may be done in good order.”337 McKee has noted that Calvin’s contribution to the exegesis of this verse was to distinguish the elders not only from the pastors and overseers, but also “from the Christian magistracy.”338 However, her argument does not apply to the period that we are now examining, because she refers to a passage from Calvin’s commentary on the first letter to the Corinthians, which first appeared in 1546. Thus, in the earliest phase of his view on the government of the church, it was most likely the members of the city council that Calvin had in mind in the 331 332 333 334

335 336 337 338

Inst. 4.20.4 = OS 5, 475, l.14 – 19 = CO 4, 1130, l.4 – 12. McKee: 1988, 41. Inst. 4.20.4 = OS 5, 475 = CO 4, 1130. McKee: 1988, 52. It was in the 1543 Institutes that a purely ecclesiastical interpretation was first given to Romans 12:8, with Calvin arguing that Paul could only have been thinking of the elders of the church because there were no Christian governments at the time of writing. McKee: 1988, 43 and 26, n.30. McKee also observes that it is remarkable how Calvin in this context omitted the classical Zwinglian proof text for identifying the lay elder’s office with the magistrate (i. e. 2 Chron 19:6 f). McKee, l.c., 53 and 54. McKee: 1988, 76. Inst. 4.20.4 = OS 5, 475, l.17 = CO 2, 1095, l.47 – 48. ZO 6b, 174, l.26 – 27. For this reference, see McKee: 1988, 73, n.63.. McKee: 1988, 76.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

118

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

context of his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12:28. Zwingli’s commentary on the first letter to the Corinthians, it should further be noted, appeared in 1539, and Calvin presumably was familiar the exegesis of his colleague in which he seemed to identify the ‘rulers’ as the magistrates.339 The third key text for Calvin’s view on the office of elder is 1 Timothy 5:17. Calvin used this verse to substantiate his conviction that there are two kinds of elders: teaching elders, and ruling elders. In other words, Calvin distinguished between those who preached, and those who were appointed “to deal with the censure of morals […] and to be charged with the exercise of the office of the keys.”340 Calvin used 1 Timothy 5:17 for supporting his distinction between preachers and elders, and for illustrating the ecclesiastical status of the elder’s lay office; for Paul “is not addressing the magistrates (not any of whom were then Christians).”341 It was not until the 1543 Institutes, that is, well after the time we are considering in this chapter, that 1 Timothy 5:17 was given a central place. In 1541 Calvin in the Genevan church order still consciously connected the function of the elder to citizenship and to the authority of the government.342 This means that he in that year still understood the elder to be a government functionary appointed to deal with the affairs of the church. The office of deacon The 1541 church order mentions two kinds of deacons: there were to be four procureurs, and one hospitallier. The former were to administer the means which were available for caring for the poor and the sick, while the latter saw to the actual care for these groups.343 These diaconal functions already existed before Calvin arrived in Geneva. In 1535, eight existing instances had been transformed into a city hospital (i. e. the Húpital-G¦n¦ral).344 Those who were in charge of the direction of the city hospital did not yet have the title of ‘deacon,’ but practically speaking they did already exercise the function of the later deacons. According to the church order, the pastors and elders were to check on the work of the deacons on a quarterly basis. This model for the division of labours 339 340 341 342

McKee: 1988, 72, n.62. Inst. 4.11.1 = OS 5, 195, l.25 – 26 = CO 2, 892, l.8 – 9. Inst. 4.11.1 = OS 5, 195, l.19 – 20 = CO 2, 892, l.1 – 2. McKee: 1988, 88. A proposal to change the church order on this point did not come until 1560. In that year, the government decided to open the ruling offices in the church also to those citizens who had not obtained their citizenship by birth. Kingdon: 1972, 8, n.16. 343 CO 10a, 23, l.10 f = OS 2, 340, l.25 f. The government added to the draft that one of the four procureurs was responsible for the hospital, and that he would receive suitable wages so as to be able to carry out his task properly. CO 10a, 23, n.1 = OS 2, 341, l.1 – 3. Calvin adopted the existing task division among the deacons, and only provided a biblical basis for it later on. Kingdon: 1970, 82, n.5. 344 Kingdon: 1970, 82, n.6 and 83, n.7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

119

was not followed, however. In practice, the college of deacons was a true government committee. The procureurs and hospitallier were chosen in the same way as members of similar government committees, including the auditors, the consistory, certain legal bodies, the council for military defence, and the committee for food supplies.345 The procureurs were thus nominated by the city council, and chosen by the General Council from among its own members. The hospitallier was chosen in the same way as special government officials like the syndic.346 Beginning in 1552, a syndic presided over the ‘board of procureurs’ in order to give their work greater weight and authority. As a result, the authority of the ‘board of procureurs’ came to be on the same level as that of the other council committees. What, then, was the specifically ecclesiastical element in the office of the deacons? How did the ministers and deacons interact with each other? Studies have shown that the pastors were rarely involved in the election of the deacons.347 Although the pastors in theory had the same prerogatives in the nomination of new deacons as they did for the elders, in practice they hardly ever exercised that prerogative. The involvement of the pastors in the ‘board of procureurs’ appears to have been minimal, for the reports of the Húpital-G¦n¦ral hardly ever mention any participation on the part of the ministers in the affairs of the deacons.348 The procureurs themselves did not see their task as a church function, either, for the title ‘deacon’ never occurs in the reports of the ‘board of procureurs.’ The ecclesiastical character of these functions came out only in that Calvin in his church order applied the ecclesiastical title of ‘deacon’ to those who cared for the poor and sick, and to the director of the city hospital. Calvin thus impressed an ecclesiastical seal upon this existing institution, as was in fact more common in the Reformed cities.349 But in practice the Genevan ‘office of deacon’ formed a typical example of a lay function that fell under the leadership of the govern345 The process for electing and appointing elders and deacons as proposed by Calvin in his draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques was equivalent to the process by which the members of the other government committees were elected and appointed: two members were to come from the Small Council, four from the Council of Sixty, and six from the Council of Two Hundred. Moreover, the members were to represent the different city quarters equally. The one difference between the election of elders and deacons over against the other government committees was that the church order included a clause specifying that the ministers of the city had the right to give advice for the annual elections for elders and deacons. CO 10a, 22, l.26 – 28 and l.32 = OS 2, 339, l.20 – 340, l.4. RCP, vol.1, 7 The reference to the registers was taken from Kingdon: 1972, 7, n.11. 346 Kingdon: 1970, 85. 347 Kingdon: 1970, 85, n.15. 348 Kingdon: 1970, 86 – 87. 349 For the meaning of the term ‘deacon’ in the sixteenth century, see McKee: 1984, 129 f. In the Reformed churches, the ‘deacon’ was seen as the “church’s representative charged with benevolence.” McKee, l.c., 130.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

120

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

ment. In this period, therefore, the deacons in Geneva can hardly be considered functionaries of the church. Pastors and doctores received a permanent appointment, but elders and deacons were to be nominated, (re-)elected, and appointed by the councils on a yearly basis. This took place in the same session during which the members of the council were chosen.350 Elders and deacons could only be nominated if they were Genevan citizens.351 This followed from the fact that they had to have a seat in one of the city’s councils. Aside from their responsibility as a council member, they could also have their own work and/or public functions. Elders and deacons were occasionally reimbursed, but aside from the procureur who was in charge of the city hospital, none of them were salaried employees.352 Financially they were independent. The pastors and doctores, in contrast, were economically entirely dependent. They received their function by virtue of their special competences, and were paid by the state.353 The pastors were more independent in the exercise of their function than the other ecclesiastical functionaries were, since they had the freedom of preaching – as long as they did not aggressively attack the government, of course.354 The ecclesiastical character of the ministers was emphasised in their confirmation by the laying on of hands, something that, as has already been pointed out, went against the advice that Calvin had given.355 It was the government that retained all power in the proceedings surrounding the election and appointment of all four ecclesiastical offices.356 From a practical perspective, one would be hard pressed to find an ecclesiastical element in it. The function of the pastor and doctor was above all a matter of professional competences, while eldership and diaconate were in the first instance about membership in one of the city’s councils. The one exception to the lack of involvement from the side of the church appears to have been the clause in the church order stating that the council could seek the advice of the pastors in drawing up the provisional list of candidates for eldership by deciding whether an elder ought to be replaced or else qualified for re-election. The pastors could furthermore be

350 Kingdon: 1972, 6 351 Later on, in the changes that were introduced to the church order in 1560, this point would be modified. The only new element was that from then on it would be possible also for the new citizens (i. e. the bourgeois) to become members of the consistory. CO 10a, 122 = OS 2, 363; see n. 342. 352 The elders received “2 solz” for every meeting they attended. CO 21, 289 and 307 (Registres du Conseil, Dec. 12, 1541 and Febr. 12, 1543); see n.343. 353 See Jean-FranÅois Bergier’s 1970 article Salaires des pasteurs de GenÀve au XVIe siÀcle. Salaires des pasteurs de GenÀve au XVIe siÀcle, Lausanne: Payot, 148 – 169. 354 See n.286. 355 See n.320. 356 CO 10a, 17 – 18 and 22 = OS 2, 329 – 332 and 339.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

121

consulted in the nomination of new elders.357 These exceptions further appear to have been more a matter of principle than reality. The article was not exercised until 1546, and then in regard to the nomination of elders alone and in most sparing cases.358 The four ecclesiastical functions that formed the backbone to the church’s structure in the 1541 Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques did not have a sacramental basis, and were not bound to the Genevan confession. In his draft for this church order, however, Calvin did refer to those who will “take the special oath, whose form will be readily drawn up.”359 Calvin apparently felt a binding oath to be necessary. What strikes one is that the definitive church order of November 1541 does not include such a reference to the oath, although it was to become obligatory as of 17 July 1542.360 Likewise remarkable is Calvin’s wish that the oath required of two of the four church functionaries (i. e. the pastors and the elders) be made “in front of the city council,” and not in a worship service or before an assembly of pastors or before the consistory.361 The oath that Calvin would have wanted to see thus did not accentuate the ecclesiastical aspect of the four ecclesiastical functions, but rather the close connection of these offices with the government. All the same, this observation is not entirely satisfactory as an explanation for this oath, since the ecclesiastical functions were already closely tied to the government. The government did not need this bond to be confirmed by an oath. So what was Calvin’s reason for including it? The oath formula drawn up by Calvin362 placed all the emphasis on the requirement of obedience to the city council. Each of the four articles expresses this binding to the government quite forcefully : the church functionaries are to

357 Kingdon: 1970, 85 – 86; CO 10a, 22, l.32 = OS 2, 340, l.2; see n.345. 358 The ministers were first involved in the nomination of deacons in 1562. Kingdon: 1972, 7, n.14 and 15. 359 CO 10a, 31, n.1. 360 CO 10a, 31, n.1. This meant that it was in practice Calvin’s proposal that functioned. For, he had proposed that the ministers would have to swear an oath in a “prescribed form, suitable to what is required of a minister.” CO 10a, 18, l.11 – 14 = OS 2, 331, l.1 – 3. Calvin had proposed that this form was to be prepared quickly. CO 10a, 31, l.25. In his draft, Calvin also spoke explicitly of the necessity of an oath for the elders. CO 10a, 23, l.1 = OS 2, 340, l.3. 361 CO 10a, 18, l.11 – 12 = OS 2, 331, l.1 – 2. In the process for appointing pastors, the pastoral candidate was in the end indeed presented to the congregation after he had been approved by the council and the Company of Pastors. Special attention was devoted to the arrival of the new minister in the worship service in which he officially received his function. CO 10a, 17, l.43 – 44 = OS 2, 329, l.29 – 31 and CO 10a, 18, l.4 f = OS 2, 330, l.36 f. 362 The oath drafted in 1542 for the installation of ministers and teachers was also used for elders until 1561. Plomp: 1969, 190 – 191 and 196. It is generally assumed that the oath formula of 1542 was written by Calvin. Köhler has argued, however, that it could hardly have been composed by Calvin, since he considers the Genevan Reformer’s ideal to have been for the oath to have been sworn in the presence of the consistory. Köhler: 1942, 574, n.405.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

122

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

exercise their office in obedience to the government.363 In contrast, the formula is all but silent on a binding to the Genevan confession.364 From Calvin’s wish that the functionaries of the church be required to swear this oath in front of the government, we see that he on the one hand wanted these ecclesiastical functionaries to work in the service and under the leadership of the government, while the oath binding them to the government on the other hand offered them the greatest guarantee for a modest form of independence. Van ’t Spijker sees in this a parallel to one’s ordination to office.365 Calvin’s demand that the members of the consistory (i. e. the elders and ministers) be made to swear their oath before the senate confirms our suspicion that he in 1541 envisioned close cooperation between the consistory and the government, while he at the same time pursued a moderate form of independence for the consistory. That Calvin required no oath on the part of the teachers and deacons probably suggests that he saw these existing functions as being already under the authority of the city council.

The consistory Four ecclesiastical functions were at the core of the new structure for Geneva’s church, which in turn found its heart in the consistory. In order to examine Calvin’s view on the position of the church in Genevan society, it is therefore necessary to understand what he understood the consistory’s place to be in his new structure for the organisation of the church. On the very day of Calvin’s return to Geneva, on 13 September 1541, the council passed several resolutions, including one to draw up a ‘consistoire’ – a word that the council itself used in the minutes for that session.366 But what exactly did the city council mean with the ‘consistoire’? During the medieval period, the church used the term ‘consistorium’ to refer in a general sense to an ecclesiastical assembly,367 and in a more restricted sense to an ecclesiastical court.368 In Swiss Reformed city states like Zürich and Bern, a government committee had come in the place of this former episcopal judicial 363 Compare to Bern, where the rural pastors emphatically asked to be allowed to swear the oath before the government. See chapter 1, n.179 and chapter 4, n.111. 364 CO 10a, 31 – 32 = OS 2, 331, l.4 – 332, l.12. The binding to the confession would be formulated more strictly later on through the addition of the words “especially as contained in the catechism.” Augustijn: 1971, 33. 365 This is the suggestion van ’t Spijker makes when he says that the members of the consistory “were to be ordained with an oath.” Van ’t Spijker: 1990, 156, l.31 – 32. 366 CO 21, 282. 367 Köhler: 1942, 553; Plomp: 1969, 2, n.14; Du Cange: 1678 (sub voce Consistorium) 368 Holböck: 1961, 477; Pfisterer: 1949, 78, n.8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

123

college. The new governmental organ was known as the Ehegericht or the Chorgericht.369 As Guggisberg has noted, “The Bernese Chorgericht is an organ of the state, not an ecclesiastical institution. It does not have the power of excommunication. All the same, it is not a purely civil court for moral matters either, for it still has some vestiges of ecclesiastical punishment.”370 The attribution of the power of excommunication to a church body “would have been an infringement upon the authority of the government, and would have recalled to mind the Catholic, spiritual courts.”371 The Reformed Ehegericht or Chorgericht did not limit itself to marital issues, but handled a wide variety of matters.372 Geneva’s city council used the word consistoire in the definitive Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques more often than Calvin’s draft had, and probably envisioned something like the Ehegericht or Chorgericht as it existed in other cities that had joined the Reformed cause.373 It is not unimportant in this regard that Calvin, after a draft for a Genevan church order had been composed under his leadership over the course of several weeks in September 1541, advised the city council at the end of the month to follow in the footsteps of the surrounding German speaking cities,374 such as Zürich and Bern. This suggests that Calvin was not thinking of anything that differed essentially from what could already be found elsewhere. In his draft, Calvin proposed that “a consistory” might be set up for marital issues, “to which, if it seem good to [their lordships], there could be joined some pastors as advisors.”375 Calvin used the word consistoire only in reference to the committee that was to treat matters related to marriage. In addition to this committee, Calvin had wanted there to be another committee for matters of morals. In his draft Calvin thus introduced two government committees: a ‘consistory’ as a committee for treating marital issues, and a committee for issues pertaining to morality. After the councils revised his draft, only a single committee was left. It was this committee which was to treat both morals and

369 For the history of Zürich’s Ehegericht, see Walter Köhler, Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, 2 vol., Leipzig: Heinsius, 1932 and 1942; for Bern’s Chorgericht, see Kurt Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte, Bern: Haupt, 1958. 370 Guggisberg writes: ”Das Berner Chorgericht ist staatliche Behörde, nicht kichliche Institution. Es fehlt ihr die Banngewalt. Es ist jedoch niet ein bloß bürgerliches Sittengericht, denn es existierte in ihm ein Rest kirchlichter Strafe.” Guggisberg: 1958, 178. 371 Guggisberg: 1958, 179. 372 Bloesch: 1898, 818 (Chorgerichte); see chapter 1, n.46. 373 Cf. CO 10a, 97, l.44; 100, l.32 – 33 (= CO 10a, 21, l.54); 102, l.12 (= CO 10a, 23, l.52) = OS 2, 334, l.36; 339, l.14; 341, l.15; see chapter 1, n.44. 374 Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1053, 292, l.23 = CO 11, no.363, 298, l.33. 375 CO 10a, 26, l.36 – 38 = OS 2, 345, l.24 – 26. Plomp: 1969, 182. See also Michael A. Screech, Quelques aspects du mariage au XVIeme siÀcle: Misogynie et Misogamie – Droit romain et Droit canon, Montpellier, 1978, 81 – 93.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

124

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

marriage that was given the name ‘consistoire’ in Geneva’s new church order.376 The definitive version of the article on marriage reads as follows: “Nevertheless we have advised leaving to the consistory the duty of hearing the parties, in order to report their advice to the council.”377 The Genevan government thus gave a wider task description to this one government committee. The consistory received a double commission from the state: to oversee matters of marriage, and to judge issues involving morality. With the changes as reflected in the definitive version of the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, the Genevan government placed itself in a tradition that already existed in the German speaking cities of the Swiss Confederation. After all, in Zürich, Bern, Schaffhausen, Glarus, and St. Gallen there already was a connection between the Ehegericht (literally : “marriage court”) and the Sittengericht (literally : “court for morals”).378 Calvin’s advice to the city council to consider the situation in the surrounding Reformed cities when it evaluated his draft allows us to conclude that he will have had no great objections to the changes made to his draft. The main point is that there now was a judicial college for moral matters as well as for marital issues, which had a modest ecclesiastical status with a view to the Lord’s Supper.379 We could consider Calvin’s added emphasis on this ecclesiastical status to be his specific contribution, that is, the new element that he introduced to the Genevan church order. All the same, there was only a minimal difference vis-—-vis the situation in the churches of the other Swiss cities. The consistory was one of Calvin’s essential contributions to the structure of Geneva’s church. Just like the Ehegericht in Zürich and the Chorgericht in Bern, this Genevan institution was to prepare certain tasks for the government or to take them over from it. Calvin had at first not wanted to leave marital matters to this ecclesiastical committee for moral matters. For such issues pertaining to marriage, he had wanted to create a separate body. Marital issues were primarily a responsibility of the government, although the church had a stake in this area as well. In the church order, Calvin used the expression rex mixta to indicate that he 376 Plomp: 1969, 186; Köhler: 1942, 564. 377 CO 10a, 26, 52 – 56 (cf. 105, l.12 – 16) = OS 2, 345, l.33 and het vervolg hierop 346, l.34 – 36. Calvin had proposed: “With regard to differences in matrimonial cases, because it is not a spiritual matter but involved with civil affairs, we remit these to their lordships, desiring them nevertheless to be willing to set up a consistory without delay to judge in such matters.” CO 10a, 26, l.32 – 36 = OS 2, 345, l.20 – 24. Plomp remarks that there appears to be no change in this article aside from the indefinite (“a”) to the definite article (“the”); however, more changes were introduced, because we now find the word ‘consistoire’ inserted also in other places of the church order. Plomp: 1969, 185. See also CO 10a, 30, n.l = OS 2, 361, l.29 f and CO 10a, 20, n.f = OS 2, 334, l.36. 378 No connection existed between the Ehegericht and Sittengericht in the German imperial cities. Köhler: 1942, 564. 379 See n.265-269.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

125

considered marriage not a purely spiritual issue, but one “mixed with civil affairs.”380 Köhler understands the introduction of this expression to be highly significant for insight into Calvin’s views. For, according to him, it implied a new form of cooperation between church and government in Geneva. After the new church order was introduced, so Köhler supposed, the government of Geneva assumed a relationship to church life that diverged considerably from the order in place in the surrounding cities. The Genevan government now no longer acted in the name of the church, as it did in Zürich where the church had left the power to the government.381 The introduction of the concept of res mixtae introduced two distinct bodies; two bodies – that is, two parties that cooperated in some way – came to stand alongside each other in some degree of independence. For Köhler this implied that the consistory and government in Geneva decided from then on to cooperate closely in such matters as marriage and morality.382 Köhler seems to be correct in light of Calvin’s comment in January 1542 that it was his intention “for spiritual power to be distinguished from worldly justice.”383 After all, he proceeds from the assumption that Calvin aimed for the government and the church to be two entirely independent institutions that only cooperated on a limited number of specific issues. On further reflection, however, Köhler’s view appears to be entirely debatable. The fact that Calvin determined that there were ‘mixed’ matters that required input from both church and state does not per se imply that he envisioned an independent church that only sought cooperation with the civil government on certain, specific matters. Köhler depicts the definitive church order of 1541 as a sort of compromise on the part of the government, with Calvin too having to abandon a part of his ideal. According to Köhler, Calvin was willing to cooperate with the government in marital matters, for example, because “it does not concern a spiritual issue”; yet, so he argued, in other matters Calvin refused to allow any cooperation at all with the government. For Köhler this represented the reason behind Calvin’s requirement that there be two separate committees: one for the rex mixtae, the other for truly spiritual matters. Köhler thus supposed that Calvin’s real goal was to obtain an independent, ecclesiastical power of excommunication. This ideal of an independent consistory was, so he argued, something that Calvin was forced to surrender. With the council’s emendations to Calvin’s draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, the consistory was turned into a mixed committee of the civil government and of ecclesiastical function380 381 382 383

CO 10a, 26, l.23 = OS 2, 345, l.21. Köhler: 1942, 663. Köhler: 1942, 558 and 662. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1090, 409, l.14 – 15 = CO 11, no.384, 363, l.21 – 22.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

126

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

aries. For Köhler, this amounted to “the bankruptcy of ecclesiastical discipline.” The council itself spoke in this context of “things that are inseparably tied together” (choses conjointes et inseparables).384 He therefore concludes that the regimes of church and state in Reformed cities like Zürich and Geneva could no longer be separated. “Both Zürich and Geneva are theocracies […]. This is typically Reformed.” The only difference between them was located in the way discipline was actually practised.385 Köhler thus argued that the historical reality was indeed that the only difference was found in the actual practice of discipline, but he added that Calvin had actually been harbouring another ideal in which the church functioned as an independent body. The model of a mixed form where government and church cooperated was therefore a compromise necessitated by the situation. Köhler was not the only one to argue this way. A number of other Calvin scholars are likewise of the opinion that it was his ultimate goal to establish a fully independent church governed by the consistory. Calvin, so they argued, envisioned a consistory that dealt exclusively with spiritual matters, and did not cooperate with the government in any way.386 In Köhler’s opinion, Calvin’s rex mixta had provided the magistrate with an opening to give his draft an “entirely different character” with several minute changes.387 Upon closer reflection, however, it would seem that Köhler departed overly from the assumption that Calvin had pursued a separation of church and state, and thereby sought a structure that differed in an essential way from what was found in the surrounding Swiss Reformed cities. Yet Calvin’s draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques gives no reason to admit this assumption. Instead, his church order makes it clear that Calvin strove for a modest form of independence from the Genevan government. Rather than giving an “entirely different character” to the existing model of the church, Calvin’s proposal is more fittingly described as an adjustment or modification of that existing model. Calvin did not intend to change the structures of Geneva’s church in any principial or radical way at all. Calvin showed from the very outset that he was a proponent of good cooperation between the civil authorities and the ministers, especially when it came to the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. This emerged already from his 1537 articles. The model for the consistory as it was given shape in November 1541 384 Köhler: 1942, 619; CO 10a, 122, l.7 – 8 = OS 2, 362, l.14. 385 Köhler: 1942, 663. 386 Pfisterer has argued that for Calvin the rules regarding marriage had no place at all in the church order. He also calls the 1561 addition pertaining to matrimonial matters a “Fremdkörper”. Pfisterer : 1949, 87, n.25. Plomp together with Köhler considers marital matters a res mixta for Calvin, or, an issue “meslee avec la politique” – albeit in a very modest measure. Plomp in the end agrees with Pfisterer that the articles on marriage represented a “corpus alienum” in the church order, and not a matter exclusive to the church. Plomp: 1969, 184. 387 Köhler: 1942, 561.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

127

was no compromise in which he had to sacrifice something of his ideal, but was on the whole the elaboration of the essence of his very own proposal. He had pursued “something like a judicial college of elders” (presbyterorum judicium), so he would write to Myconius in Basel in March 1542.388 Calvin did not try to call to life a body that was completely independent from the government, but an organ that saw to the supervision of the Lord’s Supper and of the members of the church, and that – as a careful reading of this passage suggests – was to a degree separate from the city council, but for the rest was still to function entirely under its umbrella.389 Calvin had showed that he had no problem with the elders also being members of the council. Moreover, once his draft had been prepared, he advised the government of Geneva to consult the surrounding German speaking territories regarding their practice. They would find that things worked in much the same way there.390 Calvin wanted the consistory to have some powers of discipline with a view to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A number of his colleagues understood this as a pursuit of power on his part that could simply not be tolerated; the consistory and the ecclesiastical functionaries were not to have any power. Three of his Genevan colleagues secretly contacted “some of the gentlemen of the council” after the draft had been approved by these same pastors. They warned the council above all not to relinquish “the power entrusted to them, lest they throw away what is in their hands […], so as not to abdicate the power that God has apportioned to them so that they might not give an occasion for rebellion.”391 In other words, when Calvin sought to shape the church in such a way that the consistory would receive some degree of power, it was already being perceived as a threat. How then would the city have reacted if he had proposed for the church to have a power that was entirely independent from the government? If that had been the case, the tensions between Calvin and the city council would no doubt have reached enormous heights. Yet there is no indication at all that such tensions ever existed between Calvin and the councils in the fall of 1541. As we will see, the very opposite was in fact true. Two months after Calvin’s return, the Genevan church had a church order, and, several weeks after the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques had been prepared, its 388 Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 439, l.35 and l.26 – 27 = CO 11, no.389, 379, l.13 and l.2. 389 In the aforementioned letter to Myconius, Calvin wrote that he would not have had a principial objection if church discipline were left entirely to the government, although it would then have to act in accordance with God’s law. Because the state so easily fell short in this regard, he opted instead for the consistory as an ecclesiastical judicial college composed of its elder members. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 440 = CO 11, no.389, 379 390 See n.374 and 385. 391 Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 439, l.28 – 31 = CO 11, no.389, 379, l.4 – 8. For the identification of these three colleagues of Calvin, see Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1090, 410, n.12 and 13.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

128

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

consistory met for the very first time.392 The consistory dealt with a variety of moral issues. In the beginning, most of the consistory’s attention was devoted to rooting out old customs such as praying in Latin, participation in the forbidden sacraments, and the use of water with healing powers.393 Furthermore, as an Ehegericht or ‘marriage court,’ the consistory performed so exceptionally well that it was regularly consulted from abroad.394 The consistory functioned as it was indeed intended, namely, as an instance that served ecclesiastical and religious life, an institution with a limited amount of responsibility and power of its own. The modest independence of the consistory gave the Genevan church a slightly different form of government compared to the churches in other Protestant cities like Zürich and Bern.395 All the same, the difference between Geneva and the other Swiss cities should not be exaggerated since it was not that great. Calvin did not seek a complete separation of church and state, but tried rather to introduce some form of distinction between them. The consistory received a modest independent power, while it at the same time continued to operate on the authority of and in cooperation with the government. A number of points that were agreed upon emphasised the consistory’s function as above all a governmental body. It was decided, for example, that it would be presided over by one of the four syndics.396 The church order was not the first to establish this rule; it in fact came from an existing Genevan tradition.397 Furthermore, the city council placed a secretary at the disposal of the consistory,398 together with an officier (i. e. a servant of the court, or policeman).399 The four ‘ecclesiastical’ functions and the consistory were in numerous ways inseparably tied to the civil government. Calvin did not perceive the Genevan church as a body that enjoyed complete independence from the state, nor did he pursue such independence for it at this time. 392 393 394 395 396

Dec, 6, 1541 ; Doumergue: 1917, vol.5, 169. Doumergue: 1917, vol.5, 189 – 197; Köhler : 1942, 580 – 588 Köhler: 1942, 644. Köhler: 1942, 663. As late as 9 November 1541 the Council of Two Hundred decided to make several changes to the church order, but they were never introduced into the text. It decided that “a syndic must be present in the consistory” (Unq syndique doive assister au Consistoire) and that “of the four syndics, one would always be the consistory’s judge and chief” (Que des quattre sindiques, l’un seroit tousjours juge du Consistoire et le chef). In 1543 this decision was included in the Ordonnances sur les offices et offiziers. Calvin later affirmed that the consistory was to be presided over by one of the syndics. Doumergue: 1917, vol.5, 169, n.9 – 11. Köhler: 1942, 572, n.392. CO 14, no.1859, 679, l.51; cf. Cornelius: 1899, 383. 397 Kingdon: 1972, 7, n.12. Monter : 1987, 469. 398 Pfisterer: 1957, 102; see chapter 1, n.179. 399 CO 10a, 29, l.10 = OS 2, 358, l.12. Failure to appear before the consistory was punished with imprisonment. Plomp: 1969, 216, n.411; see n.290.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

129

McKee has noted that Calvin first spoke of the church as “a distinct, though (ideally) not separate society from the earthly community” in the 1543 Institutes.400 She arrives at this conclusion on the basis of an addition Calvin made to the text in 1543. Calvin wrote that the consistories were established “to deal with censure of morals, to investigate vices, and to be charged with the exercise of the office of the keys.”401 In this context, he appealed to Paul who “is not addressing the magistrates (not any of whom were then Christians), but those who were joined with the pastors in the spiritual rule of the church.”402 This textual addition cannot found in the French translation of the Institutes which Calvin published in 1541. In 1541 he showed that he wanted to structure the government of the church around a number of offices, as well as the consistory. He wanted a consistory that was on the one hand a governmental body, but on the other hand also enjoyed a certain amount of independence. Regardless of the way in which the relationship between the consistory and the city council developed in later years, in 1541 Calvin clearly understood both sides to be necessary and brought that conviction to concrete expression in his draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques.

Some concluding remarks If in 1536 – 1538 and in the fall of 1541 Calvin had openly pursued a church which was to have an autonomous and independent position over against the government and which could also exercise a power of its own, his ideal would have encroached directly upon a number of the government’s powers and thus have elicited tensions in the city of Geneva. In the first part of this chapter we attempted to demonstrate that the tensions that developed between Calvin and the state from 1536 to 1538 had nothing to do with an ostensible pursuit on his part for an independent church. In fact, nearly the very opposite was true, since the tensions in fact resulted from what Calvin perceived to be an overly weak intervention on the part of the government in its supervision of Geneva’s church life. In the second part of this chapter we saw that there was no difference of opinion between Calvin and the city council on this point. There is no indication that Calvin lashed out against the government in the fall of 1541, and similarly the government responded to his proposals in a positive and appreciative manner. That Geneva’s city council did not find itself in a tension with Calvin suggests that he did not envision radically overturning the ecclesiastical sit400 McKee: 1988, 42, n.11 and 12. 401 Inst. 4.11.1 = OS 5, 195, l.14 – 16 = CO 2, 891, l.40 – 43. 402 Inst. 4.11.1 = OS 5, 195, l.19 – 21 = CO 2, 892, l.1 – 3. McKee: 1988, 88. Cf. p. 118, n.341 above.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

130

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

uation state in the city. The ‘independentisation’ of the church that Calvin had in mind apparently differed in minor points alone from the ideal that was held by the government. Of course, the renewal of the relationship between Geneva and Calvin which followed upon the request that he return represented a favourable starting point for him. Moreover, Calvin had done the city a great service in the battle with Cardinal Sadoleto, while the Genevan government on its part had failed in his absence to shape the life of the church in a satisfactory manner. The city’s request to Calvin that he return proves in any case that the majority of the city council had expressed a confidence in him.403 Late in 1541 the relationship between the council and Calvin was still good, as appears from the council’s request from several weeks after the reception of the church order that he join the drafting committee for a constitution to organise the structure of the city’s councils.404 The councils thus appear to have been duly impressed by the way in which Calvin proposed to organise the church. This realisation seems to justify our conclusion that the council looked to Calvin as someone who thought and acted in its spirit.405 Calvin and the government thought along the same lines, implying that Calvin did not present himself as a proponent of an independent church. The councils which were elected annually by the General Council of the citizens after all represented the view commonly held in the city. According to the prevailing opinion in the Reformed cities, the ecclesiastical bodies responsible for social and spiritual matters were in fact government bodies. Accordingly, also in Geneva the church found itself under the power and leadership of the city council. There is nothing to suggest the council was in any way suspicious of Calvin’s ideas. If Köhler were right in arguing that Calvin attempted to wrest control over ecclesiastical affairs away from the city council, there would no doubt have been much greater tension between the two. In this context it is worthwhile to consider what changes the government introduced in Calvin’s draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques. After all, some of its changes weakened the consistory’s independent position as it had been formulated in Calvin’s draft. For that reason, we need to ask ourselves whether these alterations conflicted directly with Calvin’s intentions.406 Köhler concluded that the changes introduced by the council gave the draft of 403 CO 21, 282. 404 Kingdon: 1984, 59. 405 Calvin in the end drew up the entire draft for the city’s council structure, and did not in this document attempt to increase the independence of either the church or the ministers. Kingdon: 1984, 60. 406 Plomp sees them as an attack on Calvin’s ideal of “an assembly of pastors and elders which would render judgments independently and thus bear a purely ecclesiastical character”. Plomp: 1969, 186.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

131

the church order an entirely different character. As he saw it, there were three changes in particular that were fatal. First, the elders were now explicitly identified as “officers of the council,” which meant for Köhler that the elders had a seat in the consistory as deputies of the council. The second change concerned the prescription that pastors could only proceed with the examination of a proposant after his name had been “made known to the council.” The council thereby retained for itself the right to turn a candidate for the ministry down, even if he had successfully completed the examination. The council achieved this right by adding: “as [the council] will see to be expedient.” In the third place, with a view to discipline of the clergy, every form of “independent ecclesiastical censure” (privilegium fori) was suppressed by the addition of the words “which shall belong to the council.” Köhler draws the conclusion that there was no longer any room for independent discipline, and that the government now held all power over the affairs of the church.407 The conclusion he drew on the basis of the council’s emendations appears to be incorrect, however. For, the changes did not contravene Calvin’s goals in any essential way. The added qualifier ‘officer of the council’ for the title ‘elder’ did indeed accentuate the fact that the elders had a place in the consistory as deputies of the council, but this did not undermine Calvin’s goal as he only pursued a modest form of independence for the consistory. It is true that Calvin nowhere in his draft explicitly noted that the elders are representatives of the council. At the same time, after the changes had been made, he never indicated that he did not agree with them. Moreover, Calvin himself had clearly stated that all elders and deacons were to be chosen from among the members of the councils: two from the Small Council, four from the Council of Sixty, and six from the Council of Two Hundred.408 With regard to Köhler’s second point, we note that the slight change in the appointment of pastors did not directly conflict with Calvin’s intentions. For, in his draft we already read that it was the council which ultimately appointed the pastors. Pastors stood in the service of the council, and they could be released from their service by the council at any moment. Calvin did not object to this anywhere. In the last place, the government in the articles on the discipline of the ministers indeed attributed a greater role to itself than in the articles on the discipline of regular church members. Köhler erroneously assumes, however, that Calvin had intended with these articles to establish an independent ecclesiastical court for pastors.409 407 Köhler: 1942, 561 – 562. 408 See n.326 and 345. 409 Plomp: 1969, 273. Plomp is correct to note that Calvin intended mutual censure among the ministers to maintain “sound doctrine and a pure life” among them. It was not Calvin’s

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

132

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

The changes that the council introduced to Calvin’s draft do not warrant the conclusion that its view on the position of the church in Genevan society differed essentially from Calvin’s view. Some councillors were – mistakenly, so Calvin thought – afraid to lose something of the “power that God has apportioned to them,” as he wrote to Myconius in March 1542.410 Yet Calvin never indicated that he disagreed fundamentally with the changes. The church order designed by Calvin together with six council members within the space of twenty days had not, to his mind, been essentially changed by the amendments of the councils. This is what Calvin suggested in a letter from January 1542, where he reported his drafting of the church order and its acceptance in a vote of the general assembly. In this context he did not mention any principial changes that the councils had introduced to his draft.411 In Calvin’s mind, the changes did not concern weighty points and had not given his draft an “entirely different character,” as Köhler has argued.412 The government’s changes may indeed have reduced the modest independence that Calvin had in mind for the church, but that is something entirely different. The changes did not structurally change the design for the organisation of the life of the church in Geneva. Likewise notable is the fact that Calvin from the very beginning attributed an important place to the government in his church order. If Calvin had really been in pursuit of an independent church as Köhler supposed, he in his draft for the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques would clearly have indicated that also non-council members should be able hold an ecclesiastical function or office. Calvin did not do so, so that the path he opted for differed somewhat from what we find in other Reformed church orders. The 1539 church order of Hessen established by Bucer, for example, included the provision that only some of the elders were to come from the council.413 The election of the members of Geneva’s consistory largely followed the election regulations for government committees and for members of the various councils.414 As a result, the lay offices of the elders and deacons that Calvin’s 1541 church order in-

410 411

412 413 414

intention to withdraw the pastors in any way from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. In his 1543 Institutes, Calvin wrote that the clergy had to exercise “sharper censure” among themselves. Inst. 4.12.22 (1543) = OS 5, 232, l.6 – 8. In 1546 such mutual censure among the ministers was given a more fixed form in Geneva. Plomp: 1969, 290, n.244. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 439, l.31 = CO 11, no.389, 379, l.8 – 9; see n.391. Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1090, 409, l.12 – 13 = CO 11, no.384, 363, l.18. Calvin first remarks that he drew up the church order together with six councillors, and then that “it may not be complete yet, but is an acceptable piece given the problems of our time. It was received by popular vote.” Herminjard, l.c., 409, l.10 – 13 = CO 11, l.c., 363, l.15 – 18. Köhler: 1942, 561. Stupperich: 1964, 263, l.2 – 4.; this reference has been taken over from McKee: 1988, 98, n.42. According to van ’t Spijker, the idea of eldership first came from Oecolampadius in Basel. Van ’t Spijker: 1970, 207 f; cf. Jahr : 1964b, 263, n.19; Köhler : 1932, 289. Kingdon: 1972, 7, n.11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

133

troduced to Geneva were connected to government offices. In his model, elders and deacons had to be members of the councils. This view was based on the Reformed conviction regarding the government’s investment with divine authority according to Romans 13. Among the Reformers it was generally accepted that the government’s task and calling included the supervision over the church and the care for the spiritual well-being of the people. As we saw above, this was a basic conviction which the government shared with Calvin.415 Connected to this view in the sixteenth century was the general conviction that censure and discipline were not specifically ecclesiastical responsibilities.416 The lay offices, especially the elders who were charged with the supervision of doctrine and life in the church, derived their status in Calvin’s model from their membership in one of the councils.417 The conclusion that the consistory was a government instance must be further qualified by the observation that the consistory’s authority in Calvin’s draft was based on the elders’ governmental position. This is emphasised all the more by Calvin’s understanding of discipline as a task for which the elders were responsible.418 It is further remarkable that Calvin, as noted above, spoke in this context of a “judicial college of elders,” although in 1541 he had not yet drawn the distinction between two kinds of elders that he would make in 1543.419 On a practical level, Calvin and the Genevan government saw eye to eye in their pursuit to improve the supervision of morals as well as the manner in which this supervision was to be carried out. Each pursued essentially the same thing. The city had for many years already been filled with discontentment over the laxity of the bishop, and later of the government, in their response to abuses. At that time, Geneva did not have a specific institution for overseeing moral issues. It was the city council, composed of lay members, that saw to the supervision of morals, although in theory the final responsibility resided with the bishop. Prostitution was allowed to go unpunished, and adultery was only addressed on rare occasions. With the coming of the Reformation, the government decided to 415 See n.202. 416 McKee: 1988, 17; see n. 148, 157, 171, 196-206 and 244. 417 An ecclesiastical office for the laity was entirely unknown among the people. Furthermore, the exact task description for the office of elders, aside from their membership in the consistory, still needed to be filled out in 1541. Were the elders, for example, to assist the ministers in the administration of the Lord’s Supper? In his 1541 church order, Calvin wrote that both elders and deacons were to assist the ministers at the Lord’s Supper. In the church book drawn up by Calvin in 1542, we no longer find both offices mentioned as the ministers’ assistants for the Eucharist, while a 1543 revision of this book mentions the deacons alone. CO 6, 200, l.16 f. = OS 2, 49, l.1 f; Dankbaar: 1987, 51 – 52. For other relevant statements from Calvin on the task of the deacons in his commentaries and elsewhere, see McKee: 1984, 227 – 262. 418 CO 10a, 29, l.16 = OS 2, 358, l.17; see n.291f and 439. 419 Herminjard: 1886, vol.7, no.1100, 439, l.35 = CO 11, no.389, 379, l.13; see n.388.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

134

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

enact new measures. In March 1536, for example, it outlawed prostitution.420 However, the city council proved to be unable to maintain supervision in a satisfactory manner. Not only the council, but also the population increasingly appealed for greater structural leadership on this point. When Calvin in September 1541 proposed a model in which the behaviour of Geneva’s inhabitants could be systematically supervised by elders who at the same time were members of the council, he provided a solution to an existing problem. Calvin’s proposal to establish a consistory composed of council members and ministers as a government committee devoted primarily to moral matters421 met with ready acceptance from the city council. Calvin and the state agreed on the main points of the new organisational structure of the church within Genevan society. Calvin had pursued a certain independent form of government for matters pertaining to the church by proposing a consistory that enjoyed some freedom from the interference of the city council. This represents only a minor change from his view on the church from 1536 to 1538. On the whole, it can be concluded that he both in this initial period as well as in 1541 understood the proper place for the church to be to function under the authority of the government. Geneva and Bern As we have seen, in both Bern and Geneva it was the city council that took the leadership in the church’s reform. In Bern the councils decided to join the Reformed cause in February 1528, and Geneva made the same decision some eight years later in May of 1536. The synod of Bern assembled in January 1532 to discuss particularly the position and task of the pastors. This meeting was necessary because a large contingent of the city’s several hundred priests had decided to join the Reformation in 1528. No one expected of these former monks and priests, many of whom were untrained, that they would suddenly turn into convicted and suitable preachers of the gospel. It became clear to the city council that, in order for the reforms to succeed, the preachers would at times have to be strictly censured. Moreover, the pastors had a need to equip and censure each other mutually in their assemblies in chapters and synods and by way of visitations.422 Before then, 420 Naef: 1968, 229 – 230. 421 Kingdon: 1972, 4 – 6. 422 Both in Bern as well as in Geneva, mutual censure was exercised among the pastors (censura morum pastorum). In Bern this mutual censure took place in the context of synods and chapters and by means of visitations, while in Geneva this occurred as of 1541 in the Company of Pastors. The Genevan Company of Pastors was more active in this regard, since it met on a weekly basis, while Bern’s chapter met twice yearly and the synod on an annual basis. In Bern it was in practice the Chorgericht that exercised supervision over the pastors, while in Geneva the consistory only became involved if the pastors were unable to solve the matter among themselves. In both cities, the council had the final say. Similarly, a conflict

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

135

the priests had hardly had a good reputation among the people. Through their devout and Christian living, the pastors were to try and win acceptance from them.423 The 1532 synod of Bern sought to aid the preachers in acquitting themselves of their tasks. In this way, to the delight of both the ministers and the government, an increasing amount of clarity was created in the newly created and confusing situation. Materially there was hardly any difference between Bern and Geneva in the pastor’s function.424 Although the synod of Bern emphasised the pedagogical side of the pastoral office,425 the ministers were also entrusted with some ecclesiastical supervision and were exhorted to apply admonition and discipline in connection with the Lord’s Supper in a most careful manner.426 In Geneva, a significant portion of the clergy had already left the episcopal city before the council decided to join the Reformation. The council of this French speaking city appealed for the aid of several trained refugees, among them Farel, who had for many years been active as an evangelist in the francophone regions of Bern’s city state, as well as the young lawyer Calvin, who had just completed and published his Institutes in Basel. As was the case in Bern, the pastors in

423

424

425

426

would be sent on to the council if and when the consistory was unable to come to a solution. CO 10a, 18, l.31 f = OS 2, 332, l.27 f; see chapter 1, n.60 – 66, 76 and 142 – 146. For the ministers this meant among other things that they had to improve their lives by being faithful in their prayers, in the reading of Scripture for their own devotions and for their sermons, in their studies, and in maintaining good collegial relations with each other. BS 1, art.37, 142 – 147. The synod of Bern observed in this context that it was necessary that “Christ first find access to and dwell in our own hearts”. BS 1, art.33, 134, l.7. The pastors’ main task in both Bern and Geneva was the preaching of the Word and their preparations for it. In both cities, the ministers were required to preach not only at the Sunday assemblies, but also three times during the week (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays), even if only a single person showed up. These weekday services replaced the Mass that used to be held at the beginning of the day, usually at six o’clock in the morning. Aside from their duties in preaching, the pastors were also to administer the sacraments, to offer catechism instruction, to solemnise marriages, and to perform home visits and visits to the sick. BS 1, art.7, 49; art.21, 82 f; art.33, 133 – 134; art.39, 150; art.41, 154; art.42, 157; art.43, 157 f; Guggisberg: 1958, 153; De Quervain: 1904, 34 – 35; Dellsperger : 1980 – 1981, 53, n.104. For Geneva, see CO 10a, 5 – 14, 20 – 21 and 25 – 28 = OS 1, 369 – 377; OS 2, 337 – 338, 343 – 345 and 355 – 357. We have already pointed to Calvin’s fervent wish for the Lord’s Supper to be administered on at least a weekly basis by the preachers, thereby giving this sacrament a more prominent place in church. See n.264. The ministers in Bern were, in addition to their preaching, to catechise “the common people and especially the growing children so that they might fear God and love Jesus Christ.” This requirement was moved by the conviction that the younger they are, the quicker they learn. Vom Berg: 1988, 142. BS 1, art.33, 133, l.28 – 134, l.2. “The Bible of the laypeople and children consists in the twelve articles, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. This is a summary of the whole Christian faith.” BS 1, art.35, 138, l.1 – 3. The administration of the sacraments was also placed above all in a pedagogical context with a view to a Christian walk of life. BS 1, art.19 – 22, 75 – 95. Se chapter 1, n.172.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

136

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

Geneva were admonished by the government whenever they encroached upon its territory and interfered in its affairs.427 It can be established that there was no essential difference in the Reformation’s beginnings in Bern and in Geneva. The city council decided to join the Reformed cause, and thereupon assumed the former episcopal powers. The pastors entered the service of the government as civil servants in order to perform certain specifically ecclesiastical tasks, among which the preaching was the most important one. Early on, the position and precise task of the pastors was not very clear. There likewise was an absence of clarity on the actual contents of the new doctrine. Calvin was more conscious than his Bernese colleagues in his attempt to involve the entire population – all inhabitants, in fact, with or without citizen rights – in the Reformation. This was evident in the “Articles concerning the organisation of the church and of worship in Geneva proposed by the ministers to the council” in 1537, as well as in his so-called ‘oath policy.’ In the 1537 articles, Calvin involved the parents in the reforms above all by their task in raising their children in a Christian manner. Baptism was to be followed by catechesis, which was in turn capped off by an examination of sorts. The children were involved in the reform efforts by teaching the congregation to sing the Psalms in the vernacular.428 The articles saw the supervision of morals as a responsibility of the family and neighbourhood as well. After little more than a year had passed, Calvin saw that little had been done with the original proposals. Only some of the advice had been taken over and executed by the council. The catechism that he had composed late in 1536 was indeed published. However, his plan to have the parents instruct their children in doctrine with this catechism proved not to have been feasible. Similarly, a committee for marital issues had 427 In Bern, as we have seen, politicised preaching was one of the main issues that the synod of 1532 dealt with. This was a result of the tense situation of the time, shortly after the second battle at Cappel, and of the troublesome actions of such ministers as Megander. In Geneva the question of the political involvement of the pastors reached a high point in 1538. After the party that supported Calvin lost the elections of February 1538, Calvin from the pulpit declared himself for the party of his supporters. The council then forbade the ministers from involving themselves in political matters in their preaching. Shortly thereafter, three pastors were dismissed and banished. Nauta: 1965, 173 f. 428 The introduction to the articles from 1537 mentions the transmission of the evangelical teaching “from father to son”; CO 10a, 6, l.24 = OS 1, 369, l.26, while the section on catechism instruction makes parents responsible for the instruction of their children; CO 10a, 13, l.2 = OS 1, 376, l.5.. Parents furthermore had the task to admonish their children when they sinned, just like neighbours had a responsibility towards each other ; CO 10a, 11, l.4 = OS 1, 374, l.3 – 4. Children were to lead the older members of the church in practising the rhymed Psalms and in singing them for them. CO 10a, 12, l.25 – 32 = OS 1, 375, l.24 – 30. In Bern catechism instruction was seen as a responsibility of the ministers. BS 1, art.33, 133 – 134.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

137

not been instituted as proposed by Calvin either, and in July 1537 the city council resolved that it would itself, without the cooperation of the ministers, continue to exercise censure and discipline on moral behaviour, also as it related to the people’s attendance at the Lord’s Supper.429 In his articles, Calvin had shown himself to be a proponent of the weekly celebration of the Eucharist,430 but by way of compromise he proposed a monthly celebration instead. However, the city council still rejected his proposal and decided that the Lord’s Supper would only be held four times per year. Another one of Calvin’s demands was the institution of a binding oath to the confession. The city council initially supported him, but in the end this plan met with failure as well. We saw how Farel in February 1537 composed a confession to which, at Calvin’s suggestion, all inhabitants would be required to swear their allegiance. As Calvin and Farel looked upon the situation, the May 1536 decision of the General Council to join the Reformed cause did not suffice for a foundation to Geneva’s new church. Therefore, over the course of 1537 a great amount of attention was devoted to the execution of this law requiring each and every person to swear to the confession. Calvin looked upon the oath as the only proper way to give shape to church life in Geneva. The primary concern of Calvin and his colleague Farel for this act of church establishment, in which all inhabitants without exception were to be involved, was to avoid the profanation of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.431 The articles of 1537, and later on the 429 Rilliet: 1878b, xv-xviii and xxix-xxx. 430 In his 1536 Institutes, Calvin had written: “It should have been done far differently : the Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians.” CO 1, 130, l.29 – 31 = OS 1, 150, l.17 – 19 = Inst. 4.17.46 = OS 5, 412, l.18 – 20. Cf. the 1537 articles, CO 10a, 7, l.33 f = OS 1, 370, l.24 f. 431 The ministers were responsible for administering “all that pertains to the mysteries of God”; CO 10a, 8, l.28 – 29 = OS 1, 371, l.21 – 22. In the end, after their banishment from Geneva in April 1538, Calvin and Farel relinquished their demand that every inhabitant be required to swear an oath to the confession. It is not found in the fourteen articles that Calvin and Farel composed early in May as a condition for their return to Geneva. In his letter from 29 December 1538, Calvin wrote to Farel that there still was “some form of the church” in Geneva, and that the Lord’s Supper could for that reason still be celebrated, although he was at the same time of the opinion that the Genevan church had “no lawful ministers”. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.762a, 451, l.19 = CO 10b, no.200, 438, l.5 – 6. Calvin remarked in the same letter that it could not be denied that “there still is some appearance of the church there, so that the sacraments of the Lord can still be celebrated lawfully”. However, it was a church in which “the godless and believers” were overly mixed with each other. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5, no.762a, 451, l.14 – 16 = CO 10b, no.200, 437, l.54 – 56). In a letter from January 1539, Calvin stated that a distinction had to be maintained between ministers and “regular members”. The pastors would be guilty of profanation if they administered the Lord’s Supper in the current situation in Geneva. He thought that it “would be more a profanation than a sacrament if I were to administer the Lord’s Supper among them”. In January 1539, he wrote: “I do not think or write differently on the matter” than a number of months ago at my banishment from Geneva. Herminjard: 1883, vol.5,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

138

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

church order of 1541 as well, on several occasions used the word ‘church’ in a restricted sense to refer specifically to the Lord’s Supper.432 Every inhabitant in Genevan society belonged to the church, and thus fell – also in regard to religious matters – under the responsibility of the city council. In this respect, there was no difference between Geneva and Bern. The difference that did exist lay in Calvin’s attempt to involve all inhabitants consciously in the Reformation by way of an oath, a tried and true custom in Switzerland. This oath was not intended to create a distinction between church members and those who did not want to belong to the church. Calvin did not perceive the church as a group of people who consciously assembled themselves behind a certain confession.433 Geneva as a whole was a Christian society with a Christian government. For Calvin, church life was a broad social matter that was integrated into the city’s very society. The church was above all not to be reduced to a pedagogical institution. When, three years after his banishment, Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, he developed a new organisational structure for the Genevan church in which the ministers were to be involved not only in preaching and liturgy, but also in mutual censure, in the care for the sick and poor, and in the treatment of matters related to marriage. The Genevan government supported him wholeheartedly in his new setup for the church.434 This new setup under the leadership of the city council was largely similar to what could be found in Zürich and Bern. In his new Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques for Geneva, Calvin had taken account of the city’s existing political and social regulations. Following the pattern of Zürich and Bern, Calvin in 1541 introduced to Geneva a ‘consistoire’ consisting of council members and ministers. After Zwingli’s example, he gave the ecclesiastical title ‘elder’ to the members of the council who also sat on the consistory. This custom did not exist in Bern. With this name, Calvin attempted to give the consistory something of an ecclesiastical character. The emphasis on the ecclesiastical side of the consistory was above all a practical motivation for Calvin. With it, he attempted to forge a certain independence for the consistory in its exercise of supervision and discipline. How his proposal differed vis-—-vis Bern comes out in the fact that the primary task of no.764, 213, l.26 – 30 and l.15 – 17 = CO 10b, no.156, 309, l.31 – 35 and l.16 – 19; see n.178, 194 and 253. 432 See n. 39f and 264f. 433 With the word ‘church’, Calvin in the 1537 articles and the 1541 church order meant especially the organisation of the religious side of Genevan society broadly understood. He did not see the church as an independent body of which citizens could freely choose to become members or not. Yet when Plomp discusses Calvin’s view, he emphasises that for him a person had to become a member of the church, and accordingly speaks of an “aspect of voluntariness in church membership.” Plomp: 1969, 65; see also Plomp, l.c., 71, n.61, 147, n.61 and 149, n.69. 434 CO 10a, 16, l.24 – 43 = OS 2, 328, l.19 – 34 The Reformers on the whole developed a view with multiple ecclesiastical offices. McKee: 1984, 133 – 137.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

139

the Genevan consistory was to exercise supervision and discipline with a view to the Holy Supper, while Bern’s Chorgericht lost the right to keep people from the Lord’s table in 1532. Geneva’s new church order was structured around four offices. In addition to the offices of the minister and teacher, Calvin introduced the lay offices of eldercouncillors and of deacons to the city. The pastor was the church functionary par excellence, and was charged with the responsibility for specifically ecclesiastical tasks such as the administration of the Word and the sacraments. To emphasise the ecclesiastical character of their function, the pastors underwent some form of ecclesiastical ‘ordination’ in a worship service. The remaining three offices can hardly be called ‘ecclesiastical’ offices in our sense of the word. These office bearers were not confirmed in their office by the church, but were received in their function by the government alone. Two of the four functions – i. e. the pastors and doctores – were assumed by people who stood in the permanent service of the government; the two remaining functions were held by members of the city’s councils, who were elected every year in following the existing system. The pastoral office was occupied with the most specifically ecclesiastical functions; the office of the doctor was instituted for the education in the one and only government-funded school in the city ; the elders were charged with the responsibility for censure and discipline; and the deacons looked after a number of the city’s social services. Calvin thought that the office of the ministers was to be characterised above all by pastoral care. Their responsibility as overseers for the congregation became visible especially in connection with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. For Calvin, the Holy Supper was the place where the church becomes most concrete and visible. Yet this did not imply that the ultimate authority in the church and in church discipline ought not to belong to the government, as some other Reformers indeed claimed.435 Calvin did not intend to make the church an independent body in either his 1537 articles, or even in his 1541 draft for the church order. The close connection which Calvin envisioned between discipline and the Lord’s Supper meant that the pastors could not claim to have finished with their tasks as soon as they stepped down from the pulpit.436 Together with some of his colleagues, Calvin pushed for a confrontation with the government because they thought that they themselves were responsible for the way in which the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. In his mind, the government had the power over the organisation of the church in every facet of its life. But when the government failed to acquit itself of its task as it should, especially in regard to the “spiritual and most sacred banquet” Calvin could no longer condone the way 435 See n.174. 436 CO 5, 319 = OS 1, 428, l.36 – 38.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

140

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

things were going in Geneva.437 Over the course of his first Genevan stay, Calvin increasingly insisted that the city’s pastors be given the right to keep people from participating in the Lord’s Supper. Calvin’s ideal with respect to the discipline of the Lord’s Supper appears to have differed somewhat from the ideal evident in the decision made in Bern in January 1532. During his first Genevan period, his preference was for cooperation between the government and ministers on this issue that pertained particularly to the church, and, in contrast to the situation in Bern after the synod of 1532, he favoured the ministers being given a power to keep from the Lord’s Supper table anyone whom they judged not to be upright in his desire to participate in it. However, in 1537 the government of Geneva was hardly prepared to make such concessions to the pastors, most of whom had come from abroad, and to grant them any function or power to this end. In Bern the Chorgericht had had a power to keep people from the table during the early years of the Reformation and up until the synod of 1532, but it never used this right. The synod of Bern determined that the ministers had the task of seeing to the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper, and of barring people from participation whenever they deemed this to be necessary. However, the Bernese government did not give the pastors any legal powers or means to carry this task out properly. In fact, there were no provisions in place at all to regulate the way the ministers could keep people from participating in the Lord’s Supper ; in terms of practice, therefore, one can hardly maintain that the table was fenced in Bern. The pastors could appeal to the people’s conscience alone. Moreover, it is worthwhile remembering that the ministers in Bern were at that time not respected by the people, and therefore had little authority and weight among them. All the same, in Bern the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was without a doubt viewed as a purely ecclesiastical matter for which the ministers were responsible. Calvin was a convinced proponent of a close connection between discipline and Lord’s Supper. When the city council of Geneva asked him in 1541 to return, he made his demand that a church order be composed under his leadership. The council acceded to this request. In September 1541, only weeks after he had returned to Geneva, Calvin proposed his draft to the city council. By this time, the time appeared to be ripe for the formation of a consistory, to be composed of both councillors and ministers. The consistory was to be a government committee with certain derived powers, especially with a view to the censure and discipline connected to the Lord’s Supper. The governmental character of this institution was emphasised by the fact that one of the four syndics was to preside over the consistory,438 and by Calvin’s decision to give the power of admonition and discipline to the elders who, in addition to this ecclesiastical function, also 437 CO 5, 319, l.34, 37 and 44 = OS 1, 428, l.42 – 43 – 429, l.1 – 2 and 7. 438 See n.396.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The ecclesiastical situation late in 1541

141

held a position in one of the councils of the city. Calvin thought it to be the task of an elder to admonish sinners who publicly committed sin (vices): “If they persevere in doing wrong, they are to be admonished repeatedly ; and if even then there is no result, they are to be informed that, as despisers of God, they must abstain from the Lord’s Supper until a change of life is seen in them.” As for offenses (crimes) that require not only verbal admonition but also “correction or chastisement,” the perpetrator must be warned to “abstain for some time from the Lord’s Supper, to humble himself before God, and to acknowledge his fault.” If the wrongdoers remain obstinate and “wish to intrude against the prohibition, the task of the pastor is to turn them back, since it is not permissible for them to be received at the Lord’s Supper.”439 Both in Calvin’s draft for the church order, as well as in the definitive form that this church order would receive when it was adopted by the council, the power over the city’s religious life was placed in the hands of council. The Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques of 1541 contained an organisational model for the church’s work in every one of its facets. Calvin’s point of departure in this was the government, rather than some separate ecclesiastical body that could operate more or less independently of the government. The church structure that Calvin devised was as a whole framed by the one, all-determining principle of the authority with which the government has been invested by God. The government was to lead all religious matters, just as it was responsible for the city’s military and economic affairs. The ecclesiastical functionaries and the consistory were charged with the task of supporting the government in the exercise of this power. In this respect there was no difference between Calvin’s model and the model that operated in Bern. In 1541, Calvin introduced to Geneva a consistory that was quite similar to the Chorgericht of Bern (especially prior to the decisions made by the 1532 synod), although he did structure it in a more rigorous and tightly ordered manner. As a result, Geneva’s consistory was more like a judicial college of the church than Bern’s Chorgericht was, especially because of the link the former maintained between admonition and discipline and the Lord’s Supper.440 439 CO 10a, 30, l.10 – 28 = OS 2, 359, l.13 – 24 – 360, l.38 – 40; cf. n.291f. 440 It is sometimes thought that ecclesiastical admonition and discipline were stricter in Geneva than in Bern in the early years of their Reformed existence. This has been claimed by Dellsperger, for example, who refers in that context to the Genevan catechism of 1537. Dellsperger : 1991, 133. When one considers the punitive measures applied in Bern, however, one finds that they were not any milder than in Geneva. People could be removed from their functions, or punished with imprisonment and even banishment. Article seven of the Ordnung und Satzung des Eegerichts of 8 March 1529 allowed for the stoning of a person caught in adultery for a fourth time. Quervain: 1904, 213; see chapter 1, n.40. The 1532 synod of Bern likewise drew up a long list of sins in article 32b. Furthermore, up until 1532, Bern’s Chorgericht had the power to keep people from the Lord’s Supper table, although this never actually happened during this time; the same was true for the Genevan

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

142

Calvin and the Independence of the Genevan Church

Another difference over against Bern was Calvin’s introduction of the office of the elder-councillor. These two features – namely, the consistory and the eldercouncillor – not only improved the cooperation between the government and ministers in regard to the exercise of censure and discipline, they also served to boost the ecclesiastical element in this governmental committee, and created greater room for the church to operate somewhat independently.

city council in the early 1530s following the departure of the bishop. It was not until 1541 that Calvin improved the structure of church discipline, especially as it related to the Lord’s Supper.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Chapter 3. Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church from 1559 to early 1562

Introduction In this third chapter, we turn our attention to the Calvinist churches in France. Over the course of the 1550s, the Calvinist movement grew into an illegal organisation spread out across the entire kingdom, and directed from the city of Geneva which can be considered its ‘command centre’. The Genevan strategy for the French churches was marked by a double focus: first, an attempt was made to keep the events that took place on a local level shrouded in secret; second, efforts were undertaken to win followers from among the noble class.1 As a result, the Calvinist movement developed into an impressive organisation, in spite of the oppressive measures that were taken against it. Members met in secret meetings to study the Bible and to pray together. Local churches or congregations were formed out of the existing French Calvinist Bible study groups beginning in 1555. Two years later, in 1557, an organisational structure could be detected also on the regional level, when a church order known as the ‘Articles polytiques’ was drafted for the region of Poitiers.2 Then, late in May 1559, representatives from 72 French churches met in a synod at Paris in order to make agreements on church political matters that had a nation-wide interest.3 With this, a national confederation of Calvinist churches had become established in the kingdom of France. Prior to 1559, the French Calvinist movement was commanded in particular from a distance in Geneva. To illustrate the significant place occupied by this city, we can point to the way it supplied pastors to the newly established local churches in France. Because the ministers received their theological education in 1 Kingdon: 1956, 57 f; Heussi: 1971, 318, par. 83o. 2 Articles politiques pour l’Eglise R¦form¦e selon le S. Evangile, fait — Poitiers, 1557 (1956) = Philip Benedict and Nicolas Fornerod (ed.), L’Organisation et l’action des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France (1557 – 1563): Synodes Provinciaux et autres document [Archives des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France no III], GenÀve: Droz, 2012, 1 – 7. 3 Pannier : 1936, 99 – 100.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

144

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

Geneva, a certain unity was effected in France with regard to doctrine and life. Between 1555 and 1558, Geneva managed to send a total of 37 ministers to France.4 As the Calvinist churches grew and a large number of local congregations was established, however, Geneva gradually began to lose its grip on the reins.5 The increasing number of Calvinist churches in France also meant that their illegal existence represented a growing problem. Up to that time, Geneva’s mother church worked in particular by encouraging the formation of small, clandestine groups. A change to this approach was effected when, in May of 1559, the French Calvinists convoked a national synod in the kingdom’s political centre of Paris. This synod also turned out to be a major turning-point in the history of French Calvinism. With the organisation of this large-scale assembly, the underground character of the French Calvinist movement was blown wide open. The synod drew up a confession and church order of its own to meet the new situation in which the church now found itself. In this way, the French Protestants announced themselves as an ecclesiastical unity. The ranks were closed, and local churches sought to support and build each other up. The uniting of powers stimulated the unity of the church at a time when a growing group of French Protestants were beginning to show themselves. They refused to sit back any longer and accept their martyrdom. At the national synod of Poitiers (1561), the new Protestant church decided to send delegates to the royal court as well as the political assemblies. According to the Calvinists, it was time for their voice to be heard. By the end of 1561, an estimated fifteen percent of the French population counted itself as members of the new, Calvinist church.6 The government perceived that it could no longer ignore such a large portion of the population. When it promulgated the Edict of Saint-Germain on 17 January 1562, it expressed its willingness to protect the Calvinists. As a condition for this form of recognition, however, the new church was required to abandon its illegal character.7 The purpose of the present chapter is to consider whether the French Calvinist leaders, by forming their churches in a national synod, consciously sought a way to live peaceably with the government. Beginning in 1559, they appear to aim at a compromise in which the new church could accept a modest yet independent place in France in exchange for some religious freedom. The second and related question that needs to be addressed is the degree to which Calvin, together with the city of Geneva, was involved in the changes that took place. Did this process in the Calvinist movement of France take place under Geneva’s 4 L¦onard: 1961, vol.2, 91. In 1559 and 1560, Geneva supplied another 44 ministers. L¦onard, l.c., 91; Duke et al.: 1992, 71 – 72. 5 Kingdon: 1956, 62 f. 6 Augustijn: 1966, 103; Kingdon: 1956, 79, n.2. 7 Beza: 1883, 761.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Formation of Local Churches

145

leadership, or were there signs of friction between the French leaders in Paris and Calvin in Geneva?

1.

The Formation of Local Churches

The very first French Calvinist church was instituted in September 1555 in Paris.8 Up to that time, numerous meetings were held throughout the French kingdom that looked quite similar to worship services. All the same, prior to September 1555, no churches had been established yet where, in addition to (1) the preaching of the Word, also the (2) sacraments were administered, and (3) church political regulations were in place. Calvin was rather reserved when it came to the establishment of local churches. He addressed the matter in a letter he sent to the “believers” (not the ‘church’!) in Poitiers in September 1555. Calvin wrote that the believers there were first to show that they were faithful and committed to the Protestant cause and to practise sanctification in life. Only after a number of believers in one place had turned their back on the established church, could they begin to use the sacraments “in the manner of Geneva”. Before that could happen, however, some church political regulations had to be established, especially in regard to the discipline exercised with a view to participation in the Lord’s Supper.9 Following the establishment of the first church in Paris in September 1555, independent local churches began to grow out of the existing Bible study groups throughout the entire country.10 The local churches stood each on their own, although they did attempt to help each other as much as that was possible. After some time it became clear that there was a need for an overarching organisation to ensure unity in confession and life. In what follows, we will attempt to outline the degree to which the three constitutive elements for the formation of a church were present in this early phase of the French Calvinist movement.

Preaching As has been noted already, most of the new churches grew out of the existing Bible study groups. Within the evangelical movement, such meetings at which

8 Beza: 1883, 139 f; Stauffer : 1980, 156. 9 CO 15, no.2287, 755; see also CO 15, no.1977, 174. 10 In the Poitou province, for example, churches were established in Poitiers, Ch–tellerault, and Loudun in that same year.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

146

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

prayers were said, Psalms were sung, and passages from the Bible were explained had already been held for many years. In private households and in the clandestine meetings, the explanation of the Bible stood central. In places where a church was established under a consistory, services began with a Bible study to promote unity in doctrine as well as knowledge of the Scriptures. In this way, the Bible impressed its stamp on the meetings as the highest source of authority, and functioned as the binding factor within these gatherings.11 The preaching was looked after by a small group of ministers. From the very beginning, the reading of Scripture and its explanation in sermons formed the nucleus of the worship services held in the newly established churches.

Sacraments Another element that was important in the new churches from the very beginning was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. When the persecuted believers assembled at the table of the Lord, they felt a powerful force that united them.12 One such occasion at which the Eucharist was celebrated was the illegal assembly held in the Rue Saint-Jacques on the evening of 4 September 1557. However, the hundreds of people in attendance were crudely interrupted by a raid, which occurred near the end of the meeting, shortly after the Lord’s Supper had been celebrated.13 Because the Lord’s Supper came to be celebrated commonly in the new churches, a need was felt to draw up mutually agreed upon measures for it. The 1557 church order of Poitiers, for example, regulated who could and could not be admitted to the table. The necessity for such regulations arose from a practical problem that the new Calvinist movement had to face. For, someone who had been excommunicated in his or her own church was not to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in another church. Elders and deacons were to ensure that those who had been excommunicated “do not go to the neighbouring churches in order to receive the Lord’s Supper there.”14 The church of Poitiers decided to draw up measures for regulating admission to the sacrament because of the many students who came from all over the country to attend the university there. 11 Neale: 1963, 19 f. 12 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1959, 5 13 Hundreds of Calvinists were rounded up on this occasion. Beza: 1883, 139 f; Corr. de BÀze 2, PiÀce annexe no.V, 238 f. Another incident that comes to mind is the meeting held in Poitiers late in 1558 at which the ministers celebrated the Lord’s Supper prior to its opening. Beza: 1883, 200, l.2. 14 Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.2, l.12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Formation of Local Churches

147

The 1557 Articles polytiques included the following stipulation: “The ministers are to receive no strangers to the Lord’s Supper without a good attestation [bon tesmoignage] from the consistory of the church to which they belong; and if no church has been established there, they must present sufficient evidence [suffisant tesmoignage] of good conduct from the place where they live.”15 Churches were therefore required to provide an attestation to believers who left for another congregation.16 At the same time, guest members had to be able to produce an attestation for the consistory of the church in which they wanted to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The members of the consistories were also called to exercise mutual censure every time before the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. It was in the celebration of the Eucharist that the differences with respect to the established church became most visible. For the Calvinists, participating in the Mass was an act of disobedience against God. In 1559 they determined that, if believers did attend, they were defiling themselves with “all kinds of superstition and idolatry”.17 The Calvinists obviously felt it necessary to sound a warning on this point. Some people could not or did not want to make a radical choice by definitively breaking with the established church in regard to the Mass. Pierre Viret, for example, noted that some went to both churches in order to seek double alms, while others did not officially transfer to the new church for the sake of their bond with their family members.18 In May 1559, the delegates of the French Protestant churches found it necessary to warn such people who went only half the distance. In article 26 of the new French confession (i. e. the ‘Gallican Confession’), believers were called to maintain “the unity of the true church”, while article 27 noted that hypocrites could also be found in the true church, although their presence did not undermine its claim to the title of ‘church’ in any way. As article 28 demonstrates, the ‘hypocrites’ were those who did not break completely with the false church: “We hold, then, that all who take part in these acts, and commune in that church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Jesus Christ.”19 By the end of the 1550s, it had become acceptable to celebrate the Lord’s Supper within the illegal Calvinist churches of France as an act in which the new church manifested itself most visibly. In the established church, the parishioners commonly partook of the spiritual food of the Eucharist by their presence as believers alone. Only once a year, on Easter Sunday, did the lay members too 15 Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 4, c.1, l.56 – 60. 16 Dez: 1958, 6 17 See article 28 of the 1559 French Confession, as well as Calvin’s preface in letter form to the published version of this confession. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, art. 28, l.11 – 12; CO 9, 735, l.32 – 34 = OS 2, 307, l. 11 – 13. 18 Viret: 1565, 166 f; Dufour: 1980, 120. 19 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, art. 28, l.12 – 15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

148

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

receive the host; for them, the sacrament was primarily a religious spectacle. When the Reformed celebrated the Lord’s Supper, in contrast, all believers participated. Every member of the congregation ate of the bread and drank of the wine each and every time, and this contributed positively to their involvement in the sacrament. Furthermore, the communion among believers also came to better expression in the Lord’s Supper than it did in the Mass. The administration of the Lord’s Supper soon came to be viewed as a kind of act of rebellion. This emerges from a document which Calvin wrote in 1559 to the French people about the administration of the Lord’s Supper in “our private homes”: “it is the least thing, that we may assemble in a private place, without causing any commotion or unrest, in order to receive the food of life […] and to strengthen ourselves in the doctrine of the gospel by the use of the Holy Supper. In that way, we do not attempt anything that could make us suspect of sedition.”20 We have seen how the administration of the Word and the sacraments was generally accepted within the new churches of France by 1559. This was less true in regard to baptism, however. Calvin did not explicitly address baptism in the aforementioned document, although he did speak generally of the use of “the sacraments” in the new churches. This, of course, referred to both the Lord’s Supper as well as to baptism.21 In May 1559, the first national synod of the French Reformed churches had made a clear pronouncement on baptism in articles 35 and 37 of its new confession. All the same, baptisms were not held universally among them. Baptism, it is worthwhile noting in this context, had a broader social function at the time. The Calvinists maintained that, in contrast to the Mass, baptisms administered by Roman Catholic priests retained their validity. In 1555, the believers in Paris were only ready to move ahead with the administration of baptism once a consistory was established. In their view, there first had to be a body by whose authority the sacrament of baptism could be administered. This was the beginning of the first Calvinist church, and of the Protestant practice of baptism, in the kingdom of France. The direct occasion for these events lay in the request made by a nobleman that his sick infant child not be deprived of the sacrament of baptism. The ensuing discussions led to the decision to establish a number of church political regulations and to appoint a consistory composed of elders and deacons. Once established, the first consistory in Paris went ahead and elected a minister. Finally, this minister baptised the child upon his official installation.22 On the whole, however, the baptism administered in Paris appears to have been an exception in the French Calvinist world of the time. 20 CO 9, 736, l.6 – 13 = OS 21 CO 9, 736, l.24 and 738, l.1 = OS 22 Beza: 1883, 120

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Formation of Local Churches

149

Most people simply continued to present their children to the established church in order to have them baptised. The number of baptisms administered in the first years of the Calvinist churches is difficult to gauge because they were illegal, and official registers were not maintained. According to a 1539 decision of the government, however, baptisms were only legally valid if such registers were kept.23 This was why the ecclesiastical meeting held at Poitiers in 1557 decided that the new churches ought to keep baptismal registers.24 In 1559 the French synod repeated this prescription in the order it established for all of the nation’s churches. In article 34 of the 1559 French church order we similarly read that “baptisms are to be registered and carefully kept in the church, together with the names of the fathers, mothers, and godparents of the baptised children.”25 In article 28, the 1559 Gallican Confession officially recognised the baptisms administered in the established church, while, at the end of this article, it also warned against the practice of presenting children for baptism in the established church because of “its corruptions.” The article stated that it was impossible to have one’s children baptised there “without incurring pollution.”26 The confession made it clear what the leaders of the French church were after, namely, that Calvinist parents would have their children baptised in their own churches, while maintaining at the same time that the members of the new church did not have to be rebaptised. This article was not intended to approve the practice of having children baptised in the established church. All the same, the new church’s own baptismal practice remained rather unclear. For example, was a baptism administered by a layperson lawful if he were a deacon?27 This was the question that the church of Metz presented to Beza. The Genevans responded that there was a difference between baptisms administered by a deacon who acted in the name of the church, and baptisms administered by other, random people. Geneva’s response was most carefully formulated and quite pastoral in its tone, for it pointed out to the church of Metz that certain things would simply

23 24 25 26

Pannier : 1936, 116. Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.1. Niesel: 1945, 78, l.36 – 37. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 126, art.28, l.8 – 10. In the papal assemblies, there are “all superstitions and idolatries.” Bakhuizen van den Brink, l.c., 124, art.28, l.11 f; According to article 28, the sacraments were “corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed” in the established church. According to the catechism this did not mean, however, that everyone had to be rebaptised. The synod declared this to be unnecessary because “some trace” of the church remained in the papal religion, especially in regard to “the substance of baptism. For the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it”. Bakhuizen van den Brink, l.c., 126, art.28, l.1 f. 27 See the letter of the church of Metz from 26 October 1561. Corr. de BÀze 3, PiÀce annexe no.VI, 275 – 278. An earlier letter from Metz on this question was dated 25 May 1561. CO 10a, 214; Beza: 1889, 554 – 559.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

150

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

have to be tolerated while the church still lived in a period of infancy.28 Two years later, the synod of Lyon would be asked whether someone baptised by a person who did not hold any office had to be rebaptised. Geneva’s Company of Pastors advised that such baptisms were indeed to be repeated.29 The limited information available allows us to formulate little more than a careful conclusion, namely, that the Calvinist churches in France were only slowly beginning to administer the sacrament of baptism during the late 1550s and early 1560s.

Offices Aside from the administration of Word and sacraments, another element that was typical to Calvinist churches was the matter of the offices and their assemblies. The local assembly or ‘consistory’ had a most important place.30 The first consistory was established in Geneva, and functioned as a body which represented the local church. Yet the Calvinist churches in France were forced to operate without the support of the government. As a result, the consistory of the French churches had a different function than it did in Geneva.31 In the elders and deacons, Geneva introduced to the new churches in France two lay officers aside from the ministers. In the many vacant churches that were scattered throughout the kingdom, deacons assumed the function of lay preachers. As a result, the deacons in the French Calvinist movement had a more important place than they had been assigned in the Genevan Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques.32 What is more, members of the local nobility and other leading citizens were often put up as deacons, especially in places where there were no pastors. Through this, the deacons of noble blood gained an increasing amount of power over the congregation. The local Protestant nobility often had con-

28 Corr. de BÀze 3, PiÀce annexe no.VI, 277. 29 Corr. de BÀze 3, PiÀce annexe no.VI, 278, n.5. Compare the decision of the Genevan council from 16 January 1537 no longer to allow midwives to administer baptisms. CO 21, 206. 30 Kingdon: 1967, 39, n.3. The Calvinist movement was distinguished from other, similar Protestant churches in its tightly defined structure. Kingdon, l.c., 37. 31 See Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 215 – 227; Lechler: 1854, 64 – 86; L¦onard: 1961, vol.2, 115 – 123; Kingdon: 1967, 37 – 42. Kingdon sums up the differences between the French and Genevan consistory in three points: (1) the way in which elections were held, (2) the task of the pastor, and (3) the structure of the ecclesiastical assemblies. 32 Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.1, l.1 – 26; Niesel: 1945, 77. According to Jan N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, the more common French word for ‘Polytique’ is ‘discipline’. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1962, vol.2, 81.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Formation of Local Churches

151

siderable influence they could exercise in elections; for example, they had the prerogative to veto the appointment of a particular minister.33 The French churches had three offices from the very beginning. This is clearly illustrated in the 1557 church order of Poitiers in that its entire first section is devoted to these three offices. Pastors were to give a good testimony of their doctrine and life, and be lawfully called (arts. 1 – 4). Deacons were to visit the sick and the prisoners, to give catechism instruction to recent converts, and to instruct the youth. They were also called to lead the intercessory prayers or Bible readings in the place of the ministers when they were absent. Moreover, the deacons were charged with the responsibility of keeping records of the pastoral acts, and of making minutes for the consistory meetings (arts. 5 – 10). Elders supervised the life of the church members, collected the offerings, and looked after the accommodations for the minister. Furthermore, they were to stand up for those who had been imprisoned for their faith.34 The French confession of 1559 stated that the church’s regulations ought to be inviolable; for that reason, “the church cannot exist without pastors for instruction, whom we should respect and reverently listen to, when they are properly called and exercise their office faithfully.”35 It is remarkable that article 29 of the confession speaks about the three ecclesiastical offices, immediately after an article on the marks of the true church. This was not really necessary since the church order, which the 1559 synod had already approved, already contained certain determinations in connection with these offices.36 Article 29 speaks about the government of the church through three offices connected to doctrine, discipline, and the care of the poor.37 Both the church order and confession thus mention the three offices: pastors (ministres, or pasteurs), elders (anciens, or surveillans), and deacons (diacres). This extra emphasis on the offices in the confession as well as the church order no doubt resulted from the practices of the Anabaptists, who “destroy the ministry and preaching of the Word and the sacraments.”38 In their infancy, it took the first French Calvinist churches some time to get used to the lay offices of the elders and the deacons. Beza wrote that the same

33 34 35 36

Kingdon: 1967, 40. Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 2, c.2 and 3, c.1. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 120, art.25, l.5 – 10; see n.72. Pannier : 1936, 130; Kingdon: 1967, 37. The confession of Geneva (1537) dealt with the office of the pastor and of the government alone. The other offices were mentioned in the Genevan Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques (1541), however. CO 9, 699 – 700, art.20 and 21; Cf. the Confessio Augustana; Gassmann: 1979, 25 – 26, art.5 and 30 – 31, art.14 – 16 = BSLK, vol.1, 57 – 58, art.5 and 66 – 68, art.14 – 16. 37 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 126, art.29. 38 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 122, art.25, l.2 – 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

152

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

people often served as both elders and deacons.39 Whenever a new church was established, a minister was supplied by another church, preferably by Geneva.40 As early as 1557 do we see attention being devoted in the growing French Calvinist churches to the broader assemblies. The church order of Poitiers (1557) already spoke of “lawful synodical assemblies” attended by delegates from the consistories, at which matters of common interest were to be discussed.41 Two years after the establishment of the first Reformed congregation in France, the organisational structure was already operating on a fairly broad scale. There were bi-weekly assemblies of deputies from neighbouring churches, semi-annual provincial synods, as well as annual national synods. Beza would remark in retrospect: “At first it was not possible to institute churches in France because of the most bitter persecutions.” And, somewhat further down: “Slowly, however, after synods were held, a certain form [of churches] was established.”42 Together with the offices, the administration of Word and sacraments formed the basic framework for the new organisational structure of the developing Calvinist church in France.

2.

The National Church

Over the course of the 1550s, local churches pursued common church political agreements on the regional and national levels. As of 1555, a number of different draft proposals for a church order were already found to be circulating.43 To mention one example, as of 1557 a number of church political articles (i. e. the ‘Articles polytiques’) were enforced in Poitiers, the capital of the province of Poitou.44 The acts of the synod of Dauphin¦, which met several years later in Mont¦limar, alluded to a synod held in Poitiers in 1557. It is likely that the ‘Articles polytiques’ in their original form were nothing other than the decisions which this first provincial synod had taken for the churches in the region.45 The 39 Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 220, l.36 – 38, n.22 = Kingdon: 1967, 212, l.18 – 19. Regulations had been made on this point at the synod of May 1559. Aymon: 1710, vol. 1 (second pagination) 5, art.27; Quick: 1692, vol.1, 5, art.26; Kingdon, l.c., 40, n.2. 40 In regard to the earliest beginnings of the French churches, Beza wrote: “The pastors were often drawn from elsewhere, rather than being chosen by the churches.” Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 220, l.29 = Kingdon: 1967, 212, l.11; see n.4. After a church was instituted, the consistory chose the new office-bearers with or without the deacons. Kingdon, l.c., 40, n.3. Article 6 of the 1559 church order. Lechler: 1854, 73 – 75. 41 Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.2, l.54. 42 Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 220, l.27 and l.30 = Kingdon: 1967, 212, l.8 and l.12. 43 Arnaud: 1877, 7 – 17. 44 Pannier : 1936, 84; L¦onard: 1961, vol.1, 93 – 94. See n.14. 45 Dez: 1958, 1, n.1; Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 2, c.1, n.5. Doumergue sees the articles as a

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

153

content of some of these articles lends further support for this hypothesis. The articles speak, for example, of a “lawful synodical assembly”, and mention people who have been excommunicated “in a certain congregation”. They likewise refer to those who “come from other churches to stay among us”, and to “the preachers of neighbouring churches” who are not permitted to admit anyone to the Lord’s Supper except the church’s own members. The articles reveal that the new churches were interested in agreeing upon mutual measures, yet without losing their autonomy. One church could not claim leadership or power over another church, “as one sees in the papacy”.46 Around New Year’s Eve 1558 – 1559, a meeting was held at which the possibility was raised of holding a national synod in the capital of Paris. One purpose for convoking such a synod would be to establish a common church order and confession of faith for all the churches in France. The assembly at which these preparations for a national synod were made appears to have been a kind of ‘provincial synod’, involving the deputies of the churches in the Poitou. This may in turn shed some light on the reference to a synod held in Poitou in 1557 by the synod of Dauphin¦ noted above. For, this makes it likely that the assembly that was held at the turn of the year 1559 was actually the second provincial synod of Poitou. The Roman Catholic historian Florimond de Raemond similarly reported of such a meeting: “I know that at the synod of Poitou, which was the second clandestine synod held in the year 1559, at the house of sieur de Beauss¦, […].”47 The Histoire eccl¦siastique similarly refers to an assembly held in preparation for the first national synod in Paris, but it does not use the word ‘synod’ in this context: “The pastors […] discussed the doctrine as well as the order and discipline observed among them. […] They began to see that it would be a great good if it should please God that all the churches in France should establish with common accord a confession of faith and a church order.”48 The Parisian minister Antoine de la Roche-Chandieu, who attended the meeting in Poitiers as an advisor, was commissioned to discuss the convocation of the first national synod with the church of Paris. In the end, this synod was convoked to be held at Paris beginning late in May 1559.49

46 47 48 49

regulation for the consistory of Poitiers. Doumergue: 1899, vol.1, 451. Pannier assumes that the articles came from a set of rules that was in use in Poitiers. He further suggests that this document was composed in 1557 with a view to functioning as a church order for the surrounding churches, while in 1558 the idea arose to create a regulation that, on a broader level yet, would apply for all churches in France. Pannier : 1936, 84. Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.2, l.51. This notion was adopted by the synod of May 1559 in the first article of its church order. Niesel: 1945, 75. Raemond: 1648, vol.7, 931, l.7 – 9 = Remond: 1690, vol.2, 252, k.2, l.25 – 28; Dez: 1958, 4, n.2. Beza: 1883, 200, l.3 – 8. The difference in the date arises from the use of different systems. Up until 1564, an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ style was in use in France for the first months of the year ; the assembly will therefore have taken place around the turn of the year from 1558 to 1559.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

154

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

The formation of a synodical structure It was in the greatest secrecy that the first, long-awaited French national synod50 was prepared and held. The synod knew that it was acting wilfully against the religious policy maintained by the French court, and everyone was highly aware of the fact that this assembly could meet with a sharp response if the plans were to become known. Yet the churches also harboured the intention of presenting themselves on the public stage in the near future with a confession of faith. Such a confession was meant to prove to the whole kingdom that the Calvinists were not heretics, and that the persecutions they were suffering for their faith were unjust. The confession was not only to be a summary of their faith, but also a proof of their orthodoxy. The synod of Paris would go on to make history, and have far reaching implications for the entire kingdom’s religious and social life. A new body of churches was being formed, against the wishes of the state, in addition to and alongside the established church that enjoyed recognition from the government. It was a bold undertaking. Until then, no Reformed church had ever organised itself into a structure against the will of a government that was hostile to it. At the time, the French Protestants had not yet succeeded in establishing themselves firmly on the national level and in turning the tides of a harsh policy of repression. In fact, the French court was striving harder than ever to try and root out the Calvinist movement. This also became evident when Henry II, on 3 April 1559, signed a peace treaty with Phillip II of Spain, ending a war between their countries that had raged for many decades. The French king enacted numerous edicts aimed at exterminating the heretics in his land. Furthermore, the laws and the courts were such that the Calvinists could be punished as heretics. As Morel reported on 17 May 1559, the persecutions were increasing on a daily basis.51 The French Calvinists saw no other option except to work for a peaceful confrontation. For this reason, they decided to meet together in a first national synod at Paris. In the years leading up to the synod of 1559, the Calvinists had held peaceful manifestations in Paris as signs of their existence. Psalm-singings were held at the Pr¦-aux-Clercs, and other, similar meetings were organised outside the gates of Saint-Antoine and Saint-Victor as well. At times, as in May of 1558, as many as three- to seven-thousand people flocked together to sing Psalms in the French 50 The synod probably met from Thursday, 25 May, to Monday, 29 May 1559. Pannier : 1936, 98. There were delegates from eleven churches present at this synod; most represented multiple churches, for a total of 27 churches. There were fourteen ministers, and some twenty lay delegates. Pannier, l.c., 99 – 100. Chandieu would later speak of “a great and sizeable assembly of ministers of this kingdom.” Chandieu; L¦onard: 1961, vol.1, 98 – 103. 51 CO 17, no.3055, 525.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

155

vernacular.52 As an act, the convocation of a synod in May 1559 was no less confrontational, albeit better prepared and more carefully organised. Calvin, who was himself a Frenchman, did not agree with the course that the events were taking in his home country. He maintained a close bond with the evangelical movement in France, and had supported it in the formation of churches from his base in Geneva. Now, however, his former students were giving the movement a new direction, and one that did not please him. Calvin’s main problem was his conviction that the movement should remain underground until the government should eventually change its mind. Until that happened, the Calvinists were to continue operating secretly in small local groups or churches. For this reason he opposed the establishment of a national church federation, and this conviction made him an opponent of a national synod that was intended to draw up a confession for the French churches. Calvin thought that if the Calvinists were to hold such a synod, they would be taking the reins into their own hands and no longer be able to control the movement any longer. The convocation of a synod also exposed the Calvinist movement to accusations of rebellion or sedition against the government, so that they ran the risk of being lumped together with the Anabaptist fanatics. As we will see, Calvin’s reactions were continually motivated by these concerns. Formally, however, Calvin only complained in his letter of 17 May 1559 that he had been informed of the plans for a synod too late, which circumstance had left him with insufficient time for reflection.53 The fact of the matter was, however, that FranÅois Morel, one of Calvin’s former students who by then was serving the church in Paris as pastor, had earlier already asked him for his advice regarding the scheduled synod, but had received no response! Morel complained of this in a letter from April 1559 in which he asked for two deputies to be sent to Paris in order to assist at the upcoming assembly.54 On 8 May, Morel turned to Calvin’s right hand man, Nicolas Colladon. He asked for a deputation, for a draft confession from Geneva, and for advice “in order that your view might be made known.”55 The letter to Calvin from earlier that spring appeared to have been lost somewhere along the way.56 It is entirely possible, however, that Colladon intentionally did not show the letter to Calvin in order to spare him, since he was seriously ill at the time.57 52 53 54 55 56 57

CO 17, no.2869, 167 and CO 17, no.2875, 177 – 179. CO 17, no.3056, 525 – 526, l.1 – 2 = Pannier : 1936, 147. CO 17, no.3056, 526; Pannier : 1936, 88, n.3. CO 17, no.3045, 506, l.1 – 9. Beza: 1883, 200, n.1. Calvin was absent from the consistory meetings between 13 April and 1 June 1559 due to his illness. He in fact did not write a single letter between 27 March and 12 May of that year. CO 21, 714.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

156

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

All the same, it is all but inconceivable that Calvin, who received numerous reports from France on a daily basis, had been unaware of the preparatory meeting held in Poitiers at the turn of the year, as well as of the subsequent developments. It is more likely that Calvin simply acted as if he knew of nothing. After all, he did not support the holding of a national synod since the plans did not agree with his conviction that the French Calvinists ought to wait until the king should finally decide to reform the church. In his mind, no group of people could bypass the government and declare itself to be the church. Not only was this simply unheard of, it could justifiably be understood as an act of sedition. Calvin wanted the Calvinists to be patient and to remain calm, and not to undertake anything that could provoke the state. For the French Calvinists, however, the measure was full. Against the advice of Calvin, they made a stand for themselves with their own confession, and thought that they had every right to do so. On 17 May 1559, Calvin wrote his response to Morel.58 By this time, he could no longer act as if nothing was happening. The plans for the synod were continuing, and it was clear to him that the very least the Calvinists wanted from him was a confession. The only thing he could do was to warn against the dangers that their actions could arouse. Calvin responded with a last-minute letter, stating that he was no proponent of a new confession, although he had conceded to providing his co-religionists with a draft.59 He used rather sharp expressions when he discussed the plans of the French Calvinists: “While some are being fired up with great zeal to publish [or : “to present”; the original reads edendae] a confession of faith, we nevertheless witness before angels and men that this desire displeases us.”60 Such a course of action, he was convinced, would only provoke the enemy unnecessarily. On top of this, it was a sign of fear. Calvin used the word trepidare, which in this context pointed not only to ‘impatience’ or 58 CO 17, no.3056, 525 – 527. 59 On 17 May 1559, Calvin wrote to Morel that he in the given circumstances would write a confession, although he had heard too late of the approaching synod in Paris. His words ne essemus asymboli cannot refer to the French church or the synod of Paris; he is, after all, speaking in the first person. Pannier incorrectly suggests in his translation of Calvin’s wordplay (“afin que nous ne restions pas sans formuler une confession de foy”) that he stated his agreement with the synod. The situation was rather such that Calvin did not want to fail in his position as an adviser. Pannier : 1936, 147; cf. Benoit: 1959, 113, n.32. 60 CO 17, no.3056 = Pannier : 1936, 147, l.10 – 12. The word edere does not only mean ‘to print’ or ‘to publish’, but can also mean ‘to display’, ‘to deliberate’, ‘to present’ (produire). Benoit: 1959, 114, n.33. The synod, at which members of the French low nobility were present, expressed that it was willing to follow Calvin and not publish or present the confession. The Calvinists of high noble stock, however, appear to have had another intention with the confession. See n.91 and 92. Earlier, in 1557, the church of Paris had drafted a letter to the king, accompanied by the “confession of faith of the church of Paris”. Beza: 1883, 146; CO 9, 715 – 720; Pannier, l.c., 83.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

157

‘haste’ but also to ‘concern’ and ‘fear.’61 He pointed his French brothers to the example of Isaiah instead, who had given a different kind of advice: “Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way” (Isa 35:3).62 Calvin thought the French Calvinists were acting out of fear for the ever increasing persecutions. But fear is a bad councillor, and it is not wise to begin provoking the government so soon. By the time this letter arrived, the synod was already in full swing. The church order had already been drawn up and approved, and the synod was ready to move on to the next matter. A confession was drafted, although the synod did not plan to present it to the king or to publish it. On this point the synod followed the advice which Calvin had given.63 Significantly, Calvin’s draft, which he had drawn up without much enthusiasm, was only adopted in part. The synod remained convinced that the confession was to be a document that it could eventually present to the outside world as a proof of orthodoxy. The French Calvinists therefore went their own way and departed from the policy of their mother church in Geneva. The first national synodical assembly was a unique event. Without the cooperation of the state, a group of people formed a church that had its own polity and confession. This act was founded on the synod’s own authority alone – all the more so, given the fact that the church in Geneva, led by Calvin, did not fully support the French churches in it.64 With the synod of May 1559, the French Calvinist churches not only wanted to bring order to the churches scattered throughout the kingdom; instead, this illegal and perilous assembly also sought to make it clear that the French Protestants had been exhausted in their patience. They were no longer going to wait for the established church to be reformed. It was on this point in particular that they disagreed with Calvin. Yet the leaders in Paris were decided on the course they had embarked upon, and were set on continuing in it. Both a confession and a church order were drawn up, although for the moment these two documents were intended for internal use alone. It was a kind of compromise. The growing Calvinist movement chose to unite itself organisationally in order to survive these times of heavy persecution. The result was a church political system in which the government played no role. The polity of the French Calvinist churches was thus adapted specifically to the situation in France, where the Calvinist churches were not recognised and often suffered persecution to boot.65 61 62 63 64 65

CO 17, no.3056 = Pannier : 1936, 90, n.1 and 147, n.5. CO 17, no.3056 Augustijn: 1971, 35. Jahr : 1964a, 14. The 1559 church order is printed in Beza: 1883, 215 – 220; Pannier : 1936, 164 – 167; Niesel: 1945, 75 – 79. For the different editions, see Knetsch: 1982, 32 f. The church order did not appear in print until 41 years later, in 1596. Pannier, l.c., 106.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

158

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

What the synod did not know, however, was how the government would react. For that reason, the French Calvinists sought to cover themselves by keeping records of baptisms and marriages, for which the 1559 synod gave extensive prescriptions because of the official status that these rites had in society. Article 34 of the 1559 church order treats the baptismal register. Marriages, too, were to be registered officially ; article 33 prescribes that, when a marriage request is made, “the marriage certificate drawn up by the public notary” must be presented. Article 35 discusses marriages with blood relations, with the synod keeping the right of decision for itself.66 Article 36 stipulates that the churches are not to annul marriages, “so as not to encroach upon the authority of the magistrate”. We further read that “marriage vows that have been lawfully made cannot be dissolved” (art. 38).67 The punishment of those who broke the nation’s laws sometimes lay in a grey area between the church and the state. The synod therefore discussed the admonition and discipline of those who on account of their life “are a great scandal to the whole church” (art. 28). Other measures in the 1559 church order concern the censure of books (art. 26) and the banishment of heretics (arts. 27 and 28). A church that faced a plethora of false accusations for debauchery and libertinism was served well by a careful definition of lifestyle and by meticulous internal supervision.68 The new church profiled itself in a careful way. Some articles leave the impression that it took into account a future situation where it would receive official recognition from the government, although to be fair this is evident only in the determinations concerning the baptismal registries and the church’s involvement in the celebration of a marriage. Yet at the time when the church order was composed, the church was suffering under persecutions. Traces of the church’s clandestine existence are evident throughout the church order. On multiple occasions the articles refer to the persecutions to which the church was being exposed. Article fourteen makes a provision for a regular rotation among local pastors in times “of overly harsh persecutions”. Article 31 refers to those “who denied their faith during persecution.” Article 32 speaks about the “times of heavy persecution”, while article 39 alludes to the difficulties faced by an underground church in meeting together in provincial assemblies.

66 In March 1561, the synod national synod would – against the laws of the kingdom – approve of marriages between full cousins, because “it is not forbidden by the Word of God, but by the magistrate alone.” Later in January 1562, this decision was reversed in article ten of the Edict of Saint-Germain. 67 Articles 34 – 38 in Niesel: 1945, 78 – 79. 68 Beza later wrote that the French churches are “much stricter than we are” in the exercise of discipline. Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 220, l.33 – 34; Neale: 1963, 19 f. See also article fifteen in the 1557 church order. Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.2, l.9 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

159

The new church order used the term ‘church’ for the national federation of churches. Article 40, for example, speaks about the possibility of introducing changes to the church order “if it is to the interest of the church […], but not without the advice and consent of the general synod”. Similarly, article 28 refers to “betrayal against the church”, and sins that cause great offence “to the whole church”.69 It is also possible that the word ‘Eglise’ refers to the national church as it is used in article seventeen. We encounter the plural ‘Eglises’ in article seven: “That the ministers shall not be sent from other churches without authentic letters”70 ; this is a reference to the churches of the national organisation. The synod consciously used the word ‘church’ not only for the local church,71 but also for the church on the national level, that is, for the synodical confederation of local Calvinist churches.72 It is clear that the synod chose its words carefully in this regard, since it at one point warned against an overly loose use of the title of ‘church’.73 The synod’s use of the word ‘church’ to refer to the national organisation of churches conflicts with Calvin’s usage; as will be seen below, he consciously avoided using the word ‘church’ in reference to the national federation.74 The church order was meant exclusively for internal use alone, with the implicit understanding that the Protestant church, even if it was not recognised by the government, was indeed a lawful church. For that reason, the church order did not engage polemically with others by insisting that the established church was not worthy of the title ‘church’, or in any other way. On this point, the confession differs with the church order. As we saw, the synod of Paris had to reflect on what the goal or intention of the confession of faith was to be. Was it to be a document for internal use alone, or was it also to be suitable for outsiders, that is, a document that could be presented in public? From a letter that Morel sent to Calvin, it emerges that the synod decided in a general vote to keep the confession for internal use, and to show it “to the

69 Beza: 1883, 220, art. 40 and 218 – 219, art. 28. 70 Beza: 1883, 216. 71 The church order used the word ‘eglise’ also in reference to the local church; see articles 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, and 39. The word is also occasionally used for the consistory, as in article 35. The word ‘peuple’ is used for the (members of the) congregation, as in articles 6, 11, 19, 21, 28, and 31. 72 Think, for example, of the opening of article 25 of the confession: “We believe that the order of the church, established by his authority, ought to be sacred and inviolable”. Article thirteen of the church order deals with the invisible church, “the church for which Jesus Christ has died.” 73 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, art.27, l.4. 74 See n.78.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

160

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

governments or the king” in a situation of “extreme need” alone.75 For some members of the synod, this amounted to a concession on their part to Calvin. The tone of the French 1559 confession is more polemical than it is in the church order; the confession was clearly more apologetic in character. This is why it denounces the established church. In article 28 of the confession we explicitly read: “Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them.” The synod stated that the essence of the church could hardly be found in the established church anymore. This judgment is softened somewhat at the end of article 28, which refers to baptism and notes that “some trace of the church is left in the papacy”. In article 31 the term ‘church’ is used for the established church: “the state of the church has been interrupted”. The church is “in ruin and desolation,” and must be rebuilt from its foundations. However, these remarks take nothing away from the synod’s judgment that the institution led by Rome is not worthy of the title ‘church’.76 The French Calvinists no longer considered the reform of the established church to be a feasible goal, because the church’s situation in “our days” had become such that the essence of the church “has been interrupted.” Accordingly, the church was to be “restored.”77 In regard to this same point, a difference can be found between Calvin’s draft and the confession as it was drawn up by the synod. As has been noted, Calvin opposed the creation of a French national Calvinist church. He wanted to build the church by establishing local churches (cf. pour dresser les Eglises de nouveau), while the Gallican Confession envisioned the establishment of a national church (cf. pour dresser l’eglise de nouveau).78 Calvin consistently avoided speaking about a French national church, as for example in a letter to the French dating most likely from the end of September 1559.79 In it, he referred only to the establishment of local churches.80 Reading between the lines, one occasionally finds evidence of Calvin’s debates with his former students who were by then in France. The distance between them on the course that was to be adopted had steadily increased. In the years leading up to the synod, Geneva had still directed 75 CO 17, no.3065, 540, l.14 – 15 = Pannier : 1936, 149, l.15 – 17; Poujol: 1959, 52; see n.60. Morel used the verb ‘offerre’, which means ‘to display’, ‘to offer’, or ‘to present’. This letter does not refer to the publication of the confession. 76 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, art.28, l.6 – 11, 126, art.28, l.2 and 128, art.31, l.8 f. The Calvinists defend themselves in the confession in the first place over against the Roman Catholics, although on some points they similarly distances themselves from the Anabaptists. 77 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 128, art.31, l.8 and 10. 78 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 128, n.138. 79 See n.131. 80 CO 9, 736, l.15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

161

the course of the French Calvinist churches. With help from Geneva, a synodical structure had been developed for the new church, fashioned around a hierarchy of representative ecclesiastical bodies. On the local level it was the consistories that guided the churches in the newly devised structure.81 The churches met regionally in a kind of classis, provincially in provincial assemblies, and on the national level there was the national synod.82 Against Calvin’s wishes, the 1559 synod declared itself to be the church, even though the local churches it represented did not at that time have any realistic prospects for improvement. The French Calvinists were convinced that they no longer could do anything else; they refused to continue in the course of martyrdom they had been suffering under during the time of Calvin’s leadership. They had faced the opposition of the French king for many years, and in 1559 the persecutions had reached an entirely new level. It was in these hostile circumstances that the synod of Paris established a new national church alongside the existing church and against the government’s will. Its decision was not limited to religious consequences alone. In these circumstances, the bold step taken by the French Calvinists also had political consequences, and it was these that Calvin feared above all. Morel noted to Calvin early in June 1559 that “many members” of parliament had reservations concerning the king’s policy of repression because a number of passages from Scripture convinced them that capital punishment should not be exacted from heretics. With these parliament members, Morel had in mind particularly the jurists who served the parliament in Paris.83 After the matter was first raised in April 1559, it became subject to further discussions on 10 June. Through the personal intervention of the king, this latter round of discussions led to the arrest of five of the jurists, ending in the death of the renowned jurist Anne du Bourg on 23 December 1559. Morel was convinced, as he admitted to Calvin, that it would be unbiblical to prohibit the killing of heretics or to enact an edict of toleration. In his eyes, freedom in religious affairs was just as undesirable 81 Looking back, Beza would write: “The consistories rule the churches according to regulations that were established by the general synod. Whenever there is a matter of common interest (such as the election or deposition of ministers, the refutation of erroneous teaching, or else the excommunication or reception of a person), nothing happens without it being made known to the people. If someone does not agree, he frankly informs the consistory of this, which will weigh and decide on whatever is brought before it. It is also possible to bring appeals to the classis or colloquy, and from the classis to the provincial synod, and then to the general synod.” Beza to Johannes Sturm, 1 July 1572, in Corr. de BÀze 12, no.926, 147, l.8 – 148, l.1 = Beza, Tract. Theol. 3, no. 68, 282, l.23 – 29. In a 1571 letter to Ramus, he wrote the following about the organisation of the church: “Nowhere do I read that the church’s form of government on earth is democratic; indeed, it is monarchic.” Corr. de BÀze 12, no.871, 253, l.2 – 3 = Beza, Tract. Theol. 3, no.83, 306, l.2 – 3. 82 Kingdon: 1967, 42, n.1. 83 CO 17, no.3065, 541, l.6 – 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

162

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

as the tyranny under which the Calvinists now found themselves.84 Calvin shared this viewpoint as well.85 This may well be the background to his comment in a letter from June 1559 addressed to the believers in France in which he wrote that he feared a lack of discipline among the French churches more than all unfettered tyrannies.86 In the aforementioned letter, Morel similarly remarked that the current martyrdom was preferable to the acceptance of lies as truth. At the same time, he indicated to Calvin that he would support the organisation of a sober “theological debate” or religious colloquy between the different parties. This passage not only alludes to a debate held in parliament in April regarding the religious conflicts in the French church, but also reflects how he views the possibility of a religious colloquy – a matter that would be raised more often in the coming years.87 As we have seen, Morel argued emphatically in his letter to Calvin that the synod did not intend to publish a new French confession except “in extreme need”; such a confession actually belonged in the church’s archives.88 This was how Morel attempted to reassure Calvin. In reality, however, rumours were circulating at that time within and outside of France regarding plans to present a French confession to the king. On 7 June 1559, Villarochius, pastor at Berg¦rac, reported to Calvin that there were rumours “in the churches about a plan to present a confession to the king,”89 and on 13 June Nicholas Throckmorton, the English ambassador, sent Queen Elizabeth a specimen of the new French confession.90 On the same day, Throckmorton reported to the English queen that

84 CO 17, no.3065, 541, l.9 – 14. 85 Later on, in April 1561, the traditional Calvinist standpoint on heresy would prove determinative at the provincial synod of Montauban in the discussions over the position that Reformed magistrates in France were to hold towards the Roman Catholic heresies. Kingdon: 1956, 86; Lecler : 1955, vol.2, 298 – 346. 86 CO 17, no.3081, 571 – 573; see n.60. 87 CO 17, no.3065, 541, l.14 – 23. The letter was probably written prior to the ‘Mercurial’ of 10 June 1559, the special parliamentary debate in continuation of the ‘Mercurial’ or disputation on ‘mercredi’ in April 1559. This letter refers to this event in CO 17, no.3065, 541, l.5. Earlier, on 8 May, Morel had written extensively about this debate on the religious question in France. CO 17, no.3045, 502 – 506. 88 CO 17, no.3065, 540, l.14 – 16 = Pannier : 1936, 149, l.16 – 17; see n.75. 89 CO 17, no.3062, 535, l.13 – 18. 90 As early as 15 May 1559, Throckmorton wrote to “William Cecill Knight, the Quene’s majeste’s principall secretary” about a confession that thousands of French Calvinists would subscribe to, as well as about the plan to present it to the king: “I Am certainly enformid, that about the number of fifty thousand persones in Gascoigne, Guyen, Angieu, Poictiers, Normandy, and Main, have subscribed to a confession in religion conformable to that of Geneva; which they mind shortly to exhibit to the King. There be of them diverse personages of good haviour.” Forbes: 1740, 92, l.1 – 5. The rumours about a confession were therefore already circulating before the synod held at the end of May. Poujal: 1959, 52; Poujol: 1973, 162.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

163

“a nobleman” had attempted “to exhibit to the King their confession”.91 Throckmorton had met with admiral Gaspard Coligny, a high-ranking Calvinist nobleman, in Paris on 30 May.92 In his letter of 17 May to the chairman of the synod, Calvin had uttered serious warnings against the plans harboured by some Calvinist noblemen to present the confession to the king; this was not an approach that he supported. The synod was attended by some ministers of noble stock, but unlike Coligny they did not belong to the upper echelons of the French nobility.93 Who exactly attempted to present the confession to the king is of secondary importance for the moment. The most significant thing to note is that, shortly after the synod had ended, the confession was no longer a secret document but circulated in the upper crust of society. As we have seen, Calvin did not want to disappoint his former students in France completely. For that reason, in spite of his misgivings, he at their emphatic insistence drew up a draft confession within a short span of time. Calvin’s decision to compose this draft must be considered more carefully in order to gain a clear perspective on the differences separating Calvin and the leaders of the French church in Paris. Calvin consciously drafted a document for internal use.94 With this goal in mind, he adapted the confession of Paris (1557) that had been composed two years earlier by one of his former pupils, Antoine Chandieu, pastor to the church in Paris. This confession had a traditional medieval structure with a view to facilitating discussion with the established church.95 Hannelore Jahr has demonstrated that Calvin was the only one to adopt the 1557 confession of Paris as the basic pattern for his confession.96 The synod in turn adapted Calvin’s draft so thoroughly that it in fact became a different piece altogether. The synod changed 91 It was not until 13 June 1559 that Throckmorton sent a copy of the confession to Knight, the Queen’s secretary, from Paris: “that forasmuch as the multitude of Protestantes, being spred abrode in sundry partes of this realme in diverse congregations, ment now amiddes of all these triumphes to use the meane of some nobleman to exhibit to the King their confession, (wherof your Majest¦ shall receive a copie herwithal) to th’intent the same mighte have bene openly notified to the world.” Forbes: 1740, 128, l.8 – 12; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 332, n.1. 92 Throckmorton wrote about this meeting with Coligny on 30 May 1559 in a letter he sent to Knight from Paris: “The said Admyrall, in conducting of Mr. Wotton and me to the churche of Nostre-dame, toke occasion to question with me toching the state of religion in England”; he had been absent at the Mass, but “was ready after to bring us home againe.” Forbes: 1740, 115, l.14 – 20; Poujol: 1959, 50 and 51. 93 Pannier : 1936, 99 – 100. 94 CO 17, no.3056, 526, l.11 f; Augustijn: 1971, 35 – 36. 95 For the authorship of the confession of Paris (1557), see Pannier : 1936, 83 and 92; Jahr : 1964a, 19. Some, including the editors of the CR and Doumergue, suppose that it was written by Calvin (CO 9, LV; Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 203). 96 In his 1936 monograph, Pannier still proceeded from the assumption that both the Geneva and Paris confession of 1559 used the Paris text of 1557 as their point of departure. However, this was refuted in 1964 by Jahr. Pannier : 1936, 120 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

164

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

certain things, and also made considerable additions to the version it had received from Geneva. Biblical references, absent in the Genevan version, were also added.97 The most significant of the changes is found at the beginning. The synod of Paris changed the confession which had been sent from Geneva structurally, because it wanted the beginning of its own confession to follow in the traditional pattern of the medieval church.98 In contrast to Calvin in Geneva, the synod took account of the possibility that this document would not only be for internal use, but also come under the scrutiny of people outside of the Reformed camp. Calvin had removed that traditional opening of the confession of Paris (1557) and inserted another several paragraphs in its place in order to make the Reformed ‘sound’ more pronounced with a view to the interests of the Protestant camp itself. The first line of Calvin’s confession read: “Because the foundation for faith is laid, as Paul says, by the Word of God, we believe that the living God reveals himself in his law and through his prophets and finally through the gospel.”99 The old confession of Paris, whose opening Chandieu had consciously styled in following the medieval pattern, had many similarities with the 1530 Augsburg Confession: “We believe in the first place in one God of a simple essence, in whom there are nevertheless three persons, according to what Holy Scripture teaches us and what the councils of old have determined.”100 This opening statement amounted to a testimony to its orthodoxy. Similarly, the confession agreed upon at Paris in 1559, in line with medieval theology, moves on immediately from its opening to a list of divine attributes. In article five the confession clearly placed itself in the line of the three ecumenical confessions. The Genevan version drafted by Calvin combined the knowledge of God and his essence in the first two articles, without really addressing any other issue besides. The synod that met in the residence city of Paris had another purpose with a view to the situation in France. It wrote a confession not only for internal use within the Reformed camp itself, but also kept the doors open to the possibility

97 98 99 100

Jahr : 1964a, 24, n.29. Jahr : 1964a, 26 f. CO 9, 739 – 740 = Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 70. CO 9, 715 – 716. The beginning of the Ausburg Confession also refers to the doctrine of the Trinity : “In the first place, it is with one accord taught and held, following the decree of the Council of Nicea, that there is one divine essence which is named God and truly is God. But there are three persons in the same one essence, equally powerful, equally eternal: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are one divine essence, eternal, undivided, unending, of immeasurable power, wisdom, and goodness, the creator and preserver of all visible and invisible things.” Gassmann: 1979, 23 = BSLK, vol.1, 50; translation taken from Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, ed., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 36. Stauffer: 1980, 132.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

165

that it would soon be used as a means to convince the French king that the Reformed churches had a right to exist alongside the established papal churches. In the articles on the church and on the civil government there is remarkable agreement between the Genevan and Parisian versions of the new French confession. As will be demonstrated, the differences in the respective views regarding the place of the French Calvinists would come out especially in the letters written later on to accompany the published Genevan and French editions of 1559 and 1560, respectively. In the articles of the church and the government in the confession itself, Calvin and the French Calvinists are entirely agreed on what the place of the church should be. The new church confesses that one “must not only submit to the governments as superiors, but also honour and hold them in all reverence.”101 The view on the government represented a significant difference between the Reformed movement and that of the Anabaptists. According to the former, the sword is placed in the hands of the government in order to restrain sin “against the first as well as the second table of the commandments of God.” Even if the government is not Christian, it is considered to be of God, “provided that the sovereign empire of God remain intact.”102 There should be concord between church and state; for that reason, the article speaks out against anything that may disturb this concord and “the order of justice.”103 The government is responsible for society in every facet of its life, including the places where the church manifests itself externally. This view on the civil government is characteristic of different traditions within the Protestant camp,104 and gives the Calvinist churches an entirely different place in society than the Anabaptist movement. All the same, the position assumed by the persecuted Reformed believers in France does show some tension. The confession speaks about obedience to the government, and the church order similarly takes as much account as possible of the existing laws. All the same, the believers are called to “submit to the public teaching of the church and to the yoke of Jesus Christ” by meeting together “even if the magistrates and their edicts forbid it.”105 In May 1559, the composers of the confession were highly conscious of the fact that King Henry II was still fiercely opposed to them. The church order does, however, consistently confess that the office of the government is an office given by God. In the articles on the church, the confession at times uses sharp language when it 101 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 140, art.39. 102 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 142, art.40, l.7 – 8. Cf. a nearly identical phrase in the 1559 Confession des escoliers; CO 9, 729 – 730; Pannier : 1936, 130 – 131. 103 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 142, art.40. 104 For the Lutheran view, see article 16 of the Confessio Augustana; Gassmann: 1979, 31 = BSLK, vol.1, 67 – 68. 105 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 122, art.26, l.6 – 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

166

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

distinguishes itself from the established church, which enjoys the support of the government. The assemblies of the pope’s followers are even denied the title ‘church’, “as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed.”106 Both Calvin in Geneva as well as the French Calvinists in Paris were concerned to maintain unity among the Reformed believers. This was why the French church wanted a national confession of faith. At the time, there was a great amount of division and uncertainty, also within French Protestantism.107 The local churches were often independent, dispersed throughout the entire kingdom, and isolated from each other.108 This was why the confession emphasised that no one ought to remain on his own, “but all jointly should keep and maintain the union of the church.”109 The synod was convinced that, in order to achieve unity in doctrine among the Protestants scattered throughout France, it was absolutely necessary to create a common confession as well as a church order, stating that “if they do not take part in it […], they do contrary to the Word of God”.110 The practical ecclesiastical measures to be agreed upon therefore had to conform to the criterion of being conducive “to concord”.111 Calvin and his French co-religionists at the synod of Paris were fully agreed on the necessity of unity. Where they disagreed, however, was on the question as to whether the first national synod was also to serve another goal besides. Was the purpose of the confession merely to create greater unity and harmony for the Reformed within and among the different churches? Or did the confession serve a purpose that extended well beyond the borders of the Protestant camp? The synod assumed from the very beginning that the confession should also be able to serve as a testimony of unity to the world outside – although, if Morel is to be believed, it decided unanimously, in the spirit of Calvin, to keep the confession as an internal document for the time being, and to move ahead to publication only if it became absolutely necessary. However, within a matter of months the confession appeared in print. On the face of it, one would assume that the leaders of the French church in Paris were responsible for this first printing. Yet whether this was actually the case is entirely questionable.

106 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, art.28, l.8 – 11. 107 The 1557 church order issued a call to unity and warned against the many forms of heresy. It mentioned eight different kinds of heretics: “Articles Politiques: 1956, no.3, 3, c.1, l.52 – 54. 108 See also the title to the Genevan edition. CO 9, 739 – 740. 109 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 122, art.26, l.3 – 4 and l.4 – 5. 110 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 122, art.26, l.10 – 11. 111 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 130, art.33, l.6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

167

The publication of the confession As we saw, the French synod struck out on a course of its own, that differed from the policy that had been maintained up to then by the Genevan church under the leadership of Calvin. In a letter from 17 May 1559, Calvin had impressed upon the French Calvinists that they should above all not provoke the opposition by their boldness, as had indeed been done at Tours. It would be dangerous for the Reformed to gain a reputation as rebels.112 Morel and his colleagues indeed did not plan to publish their confession any time soon, even if attempts were made to present this confession to the king.113 No one could have foreseen that the situation at the French court would suddenly change by the unexpected death of the French king little more than a month after the synod ended. The death of King Henry II was described by the leaders of Geneva’s church as a “wonderful example” of God’s government of the world, by which he wanted to show what he can do and also wills to do for his church. Calvin encouraged the French Calvinists to sit out the current storm and to wait patiently.114 The leaders of the French church in Paris, however, appear to have had a different perspective on the new situation in which they found themselves. Calvin had a deeply rooted distrust toward Catherine de Medici, the widow of Henry II, who assumed the role of regent for her son Francis II, at that time still a minor. Calvin was afraid that the French Calvinists had misdiagnosed the consequences of the situation, and decided to intervene himself by publishing the French confession in the text of the draft that he himself had written.115 He published the confession “in the name of the churches scattered throughout France, and who abstain from the papal idolatries.”116 Calvin prefaced this edition of his confession with a letter to the “wretched believers who are unjustly

112 CO 17, no.3056, 526, l.8 – 11. 113 See n.89-92. 114 CO 9, 731, l.11F; cf. CO 17, no.3114, 638 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 378, n.2; Naef: 1922, 80. 115 The Genevan version appeared in 1559 in three separate editions, which noted the year of publication and included Calvin’s preface. Two were published by Conrad Badius in Geneva, of which one was in French and the other in Latin. Jahr: 1964a, 94, no.48; Chaix, Dufour and Moeckli: 1966, 38; Jahr, l.c., 95, no.51, l.c. = Peter : 1972, 117. A Genevan version of the French language confession was also published in 1559 by Christian Mylius in Strasbourg; Jahr, l.c., 94, no.50; Peter : 1979, 30 – 31. The Latin version of the Confession des escholiers of 1559 (CO 9, 722 – 730) was published in the 1559 bundle Crudelitas gallica under the erroneous title Formula confessionis Gallicarum Ecclesiarum. Adams: 1967, no. C 3000. This text thus does not represent a printing of the French confession after either the Geneva or Paris model. The Genevan text would not be published in 1560, while in 1561 an Italian edition (by Jacques Bourgeois) alone appeared. Jahr, l.c., 95, no.52 and 30, n.47. 116 CO 9, 739 – 740.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

168

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

being defamed and afflicted throughout the kingdom of France”,117 and declared that he had been forced to publish the confession due to the “extreme necessity” of the situation. With this, Calvin seems to allude to the aforementioned decision of the synod of Paris regarding the eventual publication of its confession.118 But what was the “extreme necessity” that led Calvin to publish the confession? The full sentence reads as follows: “We were constrained by extreme necessity to give priority to our defence in order to purge ourselves before those who are willing to accept it.”119 Calvin thus addressed himself to those “who are willing” to receive his plea, but who were they? The salutation of Calvin’s letter, addressed to the “wretched believers”, suggests that they were also the ones who he thought would be willing to listen to him. Calvin thus wanted first of all to warn the Reformed believers in France and to encourage them. They ought rather to suffer “all the injustice of the world” than to “undertake any kind of self-defence,” and to “bow down their heads” just like the apostles did, notwithstanding the fact that “the poisonous raging of the enemies” has not been calmed at all. These citations clearly indicate that Calvin was thinking of the situation that had arisen after the sudden death of King Henry II in July 1559.120 However, Calvin in his letter also addressed himself to those who “fear God and who have a drop of human blood” in them. He asked them to “initiate a closer investigation”,121 and requested that they, “to whom we are strangers, not consider it below their dignity to read our present defence. For although we are at a great distance from each other in the land, the name ‘Christian’ […] ought to be a sufficient bond for uniting those who appear to be widely separated from each other”.122 Here Calvin appears to have addressed the well-meaning “God-fearing Frenchmen” who empathised with the reform of the 117 CO 9, 731 – 732. The preface to the Genevan version of the French confession was, both in content and style, truly a work from Calvin. Baum and Cunitz, the editors of the Corpus Reformatorum, judged otherwise, although it is worth noting that they also erred when they did attribute the 1557 Confessio ecclesiae Parisiensis to him. CO 9, LX and LV; see n.95. 118 CO 9, 732, l.17 – 18. Calvin used the expression “par extrÞme necessit¦” here, which may well allude to Morel’s report regarding the 1559 synod in which he spoke of “in extremis rebus”. Pannier translated this latter passage from Morel’s latter as: “un cas d’extrÞme difficult¦”. CO 17, no.3065, 540, l.14 = Pannier : 1936, 149, l.17. 119 CO 9, 732, l.17 – 20. 120 CO 9, 731, l.11 – 12 and l.19 – 23; CO 9, 732, l.14 – 17. Calvin reacted similarly following a bloody attack on the church of Paris in September 1557, warning the Protestants at length not to act in sedition. He wrote: “It is certain that He only allowed what has happened in order to prepare something great that completely surpasses our understanding.” CO 16, no.2715, 630, l.6 – 9. And when King Henry II intensified the persecutions against the Calvinists in June 1559, he wrote: “We desire nothing other than that these dark clouds pass by, and we wait for God to cause his light to shine once more.” CO 17, no.3081, 573, l.1 – 13. 121 CO 9, 733, l.49 – 50. 122 CO 9, 733, l.37 – 44. ‘Excuse’ had the connotation above all of ‘apology’ or ‘defence’. Huguet: 1946, vol.3, 769 – 770.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

169

church, yet without actually numbering themselves among the Calvinists. We can thus conclude that Calvin addressed his letter both to his Reformed coreligionists, as well as to those who harboured a certain amount of sympathy for the Calvinist cause. As I see it, however, Calvin also had a third target audience in addition to these first two groups. For if Calvin had sought merely to warn the “wretched believers” not to engage in acts of rebellion, and to petition the “Godfearing Frenchmen” (including a number of intellectuals and nobles, of course) to investigate the Calvinist cause more closely, he could simply have written a letter or treatise. However, what he published was a confession. And, what is more, he may even have moved ahead to the publication of this French confession before the representatives of the French church in Paris themselves did so. In the preface Calvin noted that “extreme necessity” had forced him to stand up for the cause of the Calvinists in France by publishing this confession. The motive he gave was his desire to clear the name of the Calvinist movement before those who were willing to listen to his defence. Calvin noted that there was a sizeable group of people who held certain sympathies for the cause of the Calvinists. Yet, he was also convinced that a great danger threatened them, especially from the side of those who had newly been entrusted with power. After the death of Henry II, the power in the kingdom came into the hands of Catherine de Medici. She gave the French Calvinist leaders the impression that she was seriously thinking about bringing the persecutions to an end. Her proposal to them came with the condition, however, that they would no longer meet in secret assemblies. Calvin’s motive for publishing the confession may well have to be explained against this background.123 No other scholars have pointed to this circumstance

123 An additional motive for Calvin to publish the confession may have been that in the summer of 1559 the Augsburg Confession was being recommended to the European courts. Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, count Wolfgang von Zweibrücken, and duke Christoph von Württemberg in a letter from 12 August 1559 written from Augsburg to the French king Francis II appealed for intercession for those Christians who sought to live “according to the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, and according to the confession of Augsburg which is based on it, and who confess the true Christian religion.” On the same day, these same princes called Catherine de Medici to move her son so that “the Christian religion, which agrees with the confession of Augsburg, be taught and tolerated in France.” Kluckhohn: 1868, vol.1, no.68, 90 and no.69, 91. The wide distribution of the French confession in both French and Latin was then likely intended to draw the attention away from the Augsburg Confession. This suggestion seems all the more plausible in light of the fact that the colloquy of Poissy of September 1562 between papal and Calvinist theologians was undertaken at the hand of the Augsburg Confession rather than the French confession. See n.238. Calvin’s negative position towards the Augsburg Confession in the French context did not prevent him from expressing himself positively on it in other circumstances. CO 16,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

170

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

to explain the fact that he published it. The general assumption has been that Calvin was in agreement with the new developments that had been taking place within the French church since the meeting of the synod in May 1559. For the same reason, scholars have never really asked why Calvin published the French confession so soon after the synod in the first place. I propose that there is a close relationship between the regent’s assumption of power and her first political appearance in August 1559, and Calvin’s sudden decision to publish the French confession of faith. The issue will be treated further below, but it is already worthwhile at this point to highlight the fact that Calvin’s motive for making the confession public has on the whole not been addressed in scholarship yet. Calvin wanted the Calvinist cause to be taken seriously, and could not understand why the French Calvinists would ever enter in upon the proposals of the regent Catherine de Medici. As he saw it, there are limits to what one can endure. It is good to obey as citizens, but not if such obedience would impede the progress of a movement that has already been set in motion. Catherine should not be allowed to bring the reform of the church to a grinding halt by her cunning propositions. Calvin, in short, simply did not trust the queen.124 Calvin in his letter focused especially on the persecutions against the heretics, thereby seeming to allude to the background of the queen’s proposals for compromise. Catherine had, after all, offered to stop the persecutions. In Calvin’s mind, this was not a correct view on the situation, since the Calvinist movement simply was not heretical. This was the point he wished to make by the confession of faith he published.125 Moreover, he thought that it was absolutely necessary to keep meeting in independent meetings held at private homes.126 Believers were not being fed spiritually in the “papal synagogues”, while the ceremonies of the established church likewise conflicted with “the Word of God, like fire with water.”127 Calvin was not only irritated. He in fact feared that the entire Calvinist movement was threatened by the apparently conciliatory posture of Catherine de Medici, and for that reason he felt obliged by the extreme necessity to speak out in favour of the right of existence of the French Calvinist movement, which up to then had remained underground under his leadership. It was absolutely necessary for Catherine and the French Calvinists to know how he thought about the whole situation. Calvin at the same time wanted to sound a warning to the Calvinists and to encourage them to remain faithful in holding

124 125 126 127

430, l.48 – 50; Augustijn: 1971, 31; Nijenhuis: 1960 – 1961, 420 and 428 = Nijenhuis: 1972, 101 and 109. CO 17, no.3122, 652 – 653, A year later, Calvin would derogatively refer to the queen “as a widow and foreigner of Italian origin.” CO 18, no.3302, 282, r.28 – 29; Amphoux: 1900, 161, n.1. CO 9, 734, l.8 – 9. CO 9, 735 – 738. CO 9, 734 – 735, l.2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

171

their meetings around the Word and the sacraments. The letter therefore not only warned the Reformed, but called them above all not to give up on their meetings. This appeal returns time and again in Calvin’s letter. The papist idolatry was to be avoided, and “the secret gatherings […] in our private homes” were to continue. After all, the Calvinists should expect from the government that it would acquiesce in their request to hold their own gatherings.128 Calvin saw no difference between the policy maintained under Catherine de Medici and that of her husband, the late King Henry II. She may have appeared to be somewhat more open to the Calvinists in the sympathy she showed towards them, as when she expressed an interest in their confession. But in Calvin’s eyes this was a feigned openness that actually made her more dangerous and treacherous than ever. Catherine’s regent rule represented a great danger to the French Calvinists! It was being rumoured among the Calvinists that Catherine was ready to discuss changes to the religious policy of the kingdom. The persecutions would end under the condition that they would abandon their secret assemblies. Calvin was convinced that agreeing to the proposal of the queen mother would have disastrous consequences for the Calvinist movement in France. On 4 October 1559, Calvin expressed his displeasure towards Catherine in a letter he addressed to his friend Peter Martyr Vermigli. He only saw the persecutions increasing under the rule of the new regent, as when the Paris goldsmith Russanges was betrayed in the summer of 1559. Russanges had been deposed as elder by his consistory over sin. He responded to this act by delivering over to the enemy a complete list containing the names of the pastors, elders, and other leading people in the new church, which up to that time had been acting in the strictest secrecy.129 Heavy persecutions broke out as a result. Under Catherine’s religious policy, so Calvin wrote despondently to Vermigli, everything was moving towards “a horrific and bloody persecution”.130 For the rest, he was deeply disappointed that the Protestant king of Navarre, Antoine de Bourbon, had not ascended to the throne as the lawful successor to Henry II.131 Yet another factor that moved Calvin to this view on the situation was the fact that Catherine had not kept her promise to a Parisian minister. This pastor was to have delivered a copy of the confession to her on 18 September 1559, the day 128 CO 9, 736, l.7 and l. 19 – 20. 129 CO 17, no.3122, 653; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 360; CO 17, no.3114, 636, n.1. Naef even suggests that it was a complete list of church members. Naef: 1922, 80. 130 CO 17, no.3122, 653, l.3 – 6; cf. CO 17, no.3124, 655, l.50 f. In this context, we may think of the delicate issue involving the jurist Anne du Bourg and his colleagues. Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 152, 28, n.1. 131 CO 17, no.3085, 594 – 595; CO 17, no.3122, 652, l.10 – 12. For the presentation of the confession, see Beza: 1883, 262.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

172

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

on which her son Francis II was crowned. This event as such was not all that significant. Yet in the present context, it does help us to understand why Calvin decided at that point in time to go ahead with the publication of the confession. For, the pastor was not given the promised opportunity to meet Catherine and to present her with a copy of the confession as requested.132 Accordingly, this quite likely places the date for the publication of the Genevan version of the confession, together with the accompanying letter, sometime after 18 September 1559, since Calvin wrote in his preface that he had considered whether “the poisonous raging of the enemies of the truth can still be appeased”.133 If we assume that Calvin had hoped until then that Antoine de Bourbon, the king of Navarre, would succeed Henry II, these words in the preface may well have been alluding to Catherine’s accession to the French throne.134 By now Calvin was certain that Catherine de Medici represented an “enemy of the truth” who could not be trusted and against whom his co-religionists in France had to be warned.135 A number of prominent leaders in the French Calvinist church, including the prince de Cond¦ who was the younger brother of the king of Navarre, as well as his mother-in-law Mme. de Roye, and admiral Gaspard Coligny, had met to discuss the situation with Catherine de Medici in August 1559. It was on this occasion that the queen mother had shown her interest in the French confession, and that the aforementioned appointment for 18 September 1559 was made with the minister of Paris. But was Catherine seriously ready to seek a solution to the religious conflict? Was she interested in forging an agreement with the Protestants?136 The Calvinist historiographers of the time insisted that this was indeed the case. The queen promised to them that she would “put an end to the persecutions, if they were to stop their gatherings and live peacefully and without causing scandal.”137 Current historiography, however, passes over this detail in silence. Since in the end no agreement was reached, for today’s scholars there was no political historical fact worthy of note. The fact of the matter remains, however, that the change of climate at the royal court was not ignored within the Calvinist camp at this early period within the history of the French Protestant church, even if no actual agreement or any other concrete change ever resulted from this climate change. Calvin in Geneva and the French Calvinists in Paris 132 CO 17, no.3122, 652 – 653. 133 CO 9, 732, l. 14 – 16. 134 The question regarding the legitimate successor would remain a sensitive one in the coming years. The young king Francis II would pass away on 3 December 1560, and be succeeded by his nine-year old brother Charles IX. Beza: 1883, 453 f. 135 CO 17, no.3122, 652 – 653, l.6; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 364; Beza: 1883, 259. 136 CO 17, no.3114, 637, l.33 f – Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150, 21, l.13 f; see n.143-145. 137 Beza: 1883, 258, l.4 – 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

173

each had a different take on the rumours that were circulating regarding Catherine de Medici’s intentions, and came to different conclusions as a result. In the summer of 1559, the consistory of Paris came to the regent with their request that the renowned jurist Anne du Bourg be set free. He had been taken into custody in June by her husband Henry II for his faith convictions. This detail too allows us to infer that the atmosphere at the French court had changed somewhat – in the estimation of the consistory of Paris, at least. There was reason for a degree of optimism, for the queen had earlier already shown some signs of openness toward the Protestants.138 A letter dating from 26 August 1559, written to a Calvinist officer from the house of Navarre named Villemadon, confirms this. Calvinists could afford to be confident in the way they communicated their thoughts to Catherine. In his letter, Villemadon asked her to consider the time when she appeared to be barren. During that period she had found great strength in the Calvinist rhyming of the Psalms, which had nevertheless been banned from the royal palace under the reign of her husband. Villemadon further asked the queen to raise her children in the spirit of the pious king Josiah.139 Calvin was not at all impressed with the prospect of an amicable relationship with Catherine de Medici, and even less with her feigned attempt at reconciliation and her proposal for a compromise. He saw in it nothing less than a cunning design to bring the entire French Calvinist movement to a fall. He was shocked and highly indignant, largely because of the positive reactions from the side of the French Calvinists; this was what immediately led him to sound a warning. Everyone had to know that he did not agree with the course events were taking, and that he would resist it to the utmost of his capacities. The powerful Calvinist movement was not to be derailed from its tracks by a sly political manoeuvre on the part of the regentess. This was the reason why, so I would suggest, Calvin published the confession, together with a preface written in a sharp, nearly aggressive tone. At the end of his preface to the confession, Calvin seems to allude to the queen’s proposal to live “in peace and without causing scandal”. It is as if he wants to say that such behaviour should simply be expected from the Calvinists, and that their opponents have an erroneous perception of the Calvinist movement. In his letter, Calvin addressed the reproach launched against the Calvinists that they would not have to go into hiding if the case they represented had been a 138 This was at the time of the arrests following the raid on the nightly assembly in the Rue Saint-Jacques in Paris in September 1557. Beza: 1883, 257 f; Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150, 23, n.10; see n.13. 139 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he led a religious reform in his kingdom. Villemadon did not shrink back in his letter to the queen mother from hinting that the throne actually belonged to Antoine de Bourbon, the king of Navarre. CO 17, no.3105, 611 – 619, esp. 619; Beza: 1883, 258 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

174

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

legitimate one. A number of people, including some of the Calvinists themselves, associated the clandestine nature of their gatherings with the suggestion that they met in secret because of the repulsive nature of the things they were doing. “But why do they not turn to those who have deprived us of our freedom to show ourselves to everyone?” The Reformed are not ashamed to stand up for their faith. “But since God does not command us to throw ourselves knowingly and willingly into the jaws of wolves, and indeed warns us to walk prudently so as not to provoke them to wrath, why are we not permitted to stay in hiding and hold our meetings in a tranquil setting and without giving anyone an occasion for entering into a skirmish with us?”140 Calvin insisted above all that the Calvinists wanted to feed their souls with the Word and the sacraments in their private homes as long as they could not do so in public. This point recurs time and again on nearly every page of his letter. In her compromise proposal, Catherine seemed to try and make the assemblies of the Calvinists a point of negotiation, but Calvin fiercely resisted this. He had no interest in a compromise, and certainly not with Catherine. He sought in advance to take the wind out of the sails of the Huguenots’ highest nobility, who had indeed shown themselves to be open to Catherine’s concessions. On the other hand, Calvin also opposed the use of any form of violence, even in the present circumstances, as he wrote to Vermigli in a letter from 4 October 1559: “We must quietly wait until our avenger appears from heaven, and I know that he will come at the right time.”141 Calvin remained true to his old standpoint. He hoped for a radical and complete reversal on the part of the government, as had also happened in some of the cities in Switzerland as well as elsewhere in Europe. Calvin’s position was clear, and it remained unchanged. For the time being, the Calvinist movement in France had to remain an underground movement. Two years later he repeated the same view when he compared the Calvinists in France to the boulder in the book of Daniel that destroyed the ancient kingdom.142 Calvin’s right hand man, Theodore Beza, who probably came from a minor noble family in France and had been appointed as professor to the new academy in Geneva upon its institution, appears to have been a little more receptive to the new developments. In a letter to Bullinger from 12 September 1559, which has already come up above, he alluded to the meeting between the queen and the French Calvinists, and displayed greater positivity than Calvin towards the regent and the new state of the French royal court when he spoke of “a certain hope” that the queen mother had offered to the French Calvinists.143 Among the 140 141 142 143

CO 9, 737, l.4 – 18. CO 17, no.3122, 653, l.6 – 9. CO 18, no.3485, 618 f; see 244-249. CO 17, no.3114, 638, l.33 – 34 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150, 21, l.13 – 14; see n.114.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

175

things that Beza discussed in this letter, he considered “whether it is lawful to cause a rebellion” or a coup d’¦tat.144 Beza was of the opinion that “the storm” in France would have to be weathered “by prayer and patience”, and until that happened the French Calvinists were to “present themselves as obedient citizens”.145 In this letter, Beza thus provides us with a glimpse on the way he viewed the changes that had taken place in France. He did not think that the Calvinists should reach for their arms in protest against the persecutions and against the accession of Francis II, who at that time was only a child. Beza and Calvin appear to have been fully agreed on this particular point, although Beza’s appeal to the Calvinists to continue in their obedience could also constitute a concession towards the leaders of the new church in Paris who sought closer ties with the new government. Beza seems to have been more willing than Calvin to give the queen mother the benefit of the doubt, and not to discard out of hand the prospects of an agreement with the government. The Calvinist leaders in France had an entirely different view on the situation. They were ready to close on a deal with the government if it were to give them a degree of religious freedom, even if that freedom were to come at a price. Furthermore, the French Calvinist leaders estimated the prospects for the new church to be attributed a place in society to be politically more feasible than Calvin did. In May 1559 they already showed that they were going to embark on a course of their own when they convoked a national synodical assembly, which would go on to draw up a confession of its own and reject the draft that had been sent to it from Geneva. As we have seen, the French confession in the version created by the synod of Paris was intended as a proof of orthodoxy with a view to contact with the outside world. The French churches no longer wanted to be a clandestine movement that only had to account for itself internally. The French churches struck out on this course in May of 1559, and remained fixed in their determination to continue in it. This is evident in that they published their own edition of the confession – and this quite possibly after the Genevan version had already appeared in print.146 Understandably, the French church in those circumstances did not want to give the impression that it meekly followed Geneva in everything, and appears in that very same year to have seen to the printing of its confession by publishing the text with 40 articles which had

144 CO 17, no.3114, 638, l.1 f = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150, 21, l.19 f. 145 CO 17, no.3114, 638, l.7 – 12 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 150, 21, l.23 – 26, n.11 and 12; Naef: 1922, 80. 146 The Paris version can be found in Beza: 1883, 201 – 215. The Genevan text, consisting of 35 articles, is printed in CO 9, 731 f. Bakhuizen van den Brink printed the French edition as the main text, although he noted the differences with respect to the Genevan edition in the text critical apparatus. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 70 – 146.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

176

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

been established by the synod of Paris.147 In this context, it is worthwhile pointing out once more148 that in 1559 as many as three printings of the Genevan 35–article version were effected, of which two were published in the city of Geneva itself. The relative order between the first edition of Calvin’s confession and the version for which the French churches were responsible cannot be determined. In a personal letter on the matter, Jean-FranÅois Gilmont remarked: “On the basis of typography, I do not see how it is possible to decide which version – that of Paris, or that of Geneva – was the first to be printed. […] External evidence will be necessary for settling the question.”149 Such evidence has, however, not yet been found. On the other hand, it is clear that Calvin published the French confession using the text of the draft that he himself had composed in 35 articles. His decision to publish it brought him into conflict with his own advice to the synod, as well as with the tenor of the unanimous decision of the synod, as reported to Calvin by Morel, that the confession was for the time being to be kept in the church’s archives. The exact reason that moved Calvin to publish the French confession according to the Genevan text is not entirely clear. It is, of course, possible that he did not have the French version available to him when he made the decision to move ahead to publication.150 However, this does not explain why even the Genevan version of the text continued to be printed later on as 147 The Paris version was published twice in 1559, in French, without indicating the name and place of publication, or even the year. As a result, we cannot be entirely certain on the date of publication. Jahr : 1964a, 94, no.45 and no. 46 = no. 47. As Dr. Gilmont indicated to me in private correspondence, Jahr lists the same edition twice: “Je dois absolument attirer votre attention sur le fait que … H. Jahr d¦crit la mÞme edition sous deux num¦ros distincts, une fois pour les no 46 et 47 et de nouveau pour les no 48 et 49.” For Jahr no. 48 = no. 49, see n.115. In contrast to Jahr, both Pannier and Gilmont consider no. 45 to have been published in 1559. Pannier : 1936, 150; Jahr, l.c., 20, n.18 and 94, no.45; Dr. Jean-FranÅois Gilmont in a letter dated March 10, 1993. The Strasbourg Bible to which Baum and Cunitz refer did not include the French confession of faith as of 1559. CO 9, LIX; Jahr, l.c., 53 – 54, n.151 and 123 – 124, no.139 = 124, no.140; cf. Pannier, l.c., 156. In 1561, two editions of the Paris text were printed by Jean Saugrain (Lyon) and Abel Cl¦mence (Rouen). Jahr, l.c., 95, no.53 = Baudrier : 1895 f, vol.4, 328; Jahr, l.c., 103, no.78 = Gilmont: 1972, 176, n.2. Both the Paris and Geneva versions of the confession were published dozens of times prior to 1571. See n.183. 148 See, n.115. 149 Dr. Gilmont: “Pour les deux ¦ditions genevoises, j’aurais tendance — supposer que la version franÅaise a pr¦c¦d¦ la latine. Peut-Þtre qu’un examen attentif pourrait d¦terminer quelle ¦dition ‘parisienne’ a la priorit¦, mais cela ne r¦pond pas — votre question. En fait, il faut trouver des arguments ext¦rieurs … Mais c’est l— l’objet de votre recherche et je serais trÀs int¦ress¦ par votre argumentation.” Dr. Jean-FranÅois Gilmont in a letter dated March 10, 1993. 150 Baum and Cunitz proceed from the assumption that Calvin did not have the Paris version of the French confession at his disposal. Beza: 1883, 202; Pannier : 1936, 120, n.1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

177

well. The Latin edition, published in 1559 in addition to the original French edition, shows that Calvin considered it important that his view on the course events were taking in the French Calvinist movement should have a wider audience outside of the francophone territories as well. As has been noted, it cannot be determined with certainty whether Calvin or the French church was the first to bring the confession into print. The Genevan editions with Calvin’s preface provide us only with the year – not the date – of publication, while the Paris edition does even not contain the year of publication. It is thus not even entirely certain whether the first Paris edition appeared in 1559 or in 1560. Of course, if the French church was the first to publish the confession, it would be difficult to explain why Calvin had any reason at all for publishing his 35–article version after the French church had already published its text. Whatever the case may be, it remains somewhat baffling that Calvin published the confession after he had emphatically warned the synod not to do so in May 1559. The French Calvinists decided to present a confession of their own publicly as well, although it is not entirely clear whether they took this step before or after the appearance of Calvin’s edition. If they went ahead with the publication of their text after Calvin had already printed his, it would emphasize all the more that they were determined to set out on a course of their own. The letter that the French Calvinists sent to the king in March 1560, together with the confession, allows us to see clearly how they viewed the place of their new church in France. The scope of this letter is an entirely different one from that of the letter which Calvin wrote, presumably in September 1559, as his preface to the Genevan version of the French confession. There are considerable differences between these letters in both form and content. Calvin and the leaders of the French church each envisioned a different goal, and this comes to expression in their respective letters. Calvin composed a fiery and spirited argument to urge the believers to continue meeting in their clandestine assemblies and to accept no compromise from the government. The French Calvinists, in contrast, addressed the king with the kindest words. They sought the king’s grace, and wanted to make him favourable towards them. The letter of the leaders of the French church is a diplomatic document written in the expectation that the regent, on behalf of the king, would be ready to work towards a diplomatic solution to the growing religious conflicts in her kingdom. At the advice of Coligny, the regent proclaimed an edict of toleration early in March 1560. This was the moment for which the French Calvinists had been waiting! Their patience had finally been rewarded in that, with this first edict of toleration, the queen herself gave clear signs of seeking a rapprochement. The time had come for them to make their wishes known. In their letter they asked for some religious freedom and for the convocation of a religious dialogue. To

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

178

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

prove their orthodoxy, they appended their confession to the letter. It is entirely possible that such hopes for the future were already in the background when the French Calvinists were making preparations for their synod of May 1559, as well as the synod itself.151 In any case, the new French church responded immediately to the government’s initiatives – admittedly in a disguised manner, as we will see later on, and yet with clear determination. The letter addressed by the French Calvinists to their king began with a subdued triumphal cry : “Sire, […] the time has now come,” because you “are ready to give heed to the merit of our cause, as is evident from your last edict of March of this year in Amboise.”152 This was why, right after the first edict of toleration had been promulgated, they addressed their request and confession to the king. In the opening salutation we hear not only a difference with respect to Calvin’s letter from September 1559, but even a certain criticism of it. Calvin’s letter was not only a poor choice in terms of the tone and contents, but it also came at the wrong time. The French churches had chosen to wait for a better opportunity, and this opportunity now finally presented itself. In the beginning of his letter, Calvin appealed to the French Calvinists not to allow themselves to be forced into a defensive posture. He continued with a fiery plea demanding that the Calvinists be given the right to assemble in their own houses.153 At the end he addressed the erroneous perception of the ruling government on the Calvinists, as they were being treated like rioters and did not receive permission “to meet in a tranquil setting”.154 To Calvin it must have seemed as if the French Calvinists’ letter to the king from March 1560 denied the very cause of the Lord. Their letter was very modest, and gave the impression that the Calvinists were willing to accept any form of compromise. After all, they only asked that they “might be allowed to meet every once in a while”.155 The leaders of the French churches had a specific goal in mind, and their letter breathes an entirely different spirit than Calvin’s letter does. Their approach was characterised by a sombre view of reality, devoid of any idealism. They knew how the cards were stacked, and were careful not to push too far in their petition to the government. They weighed their chances, and took account of the situation in which they found themselves when they asked the king for a modest amount of religious freedom and “a place where everyone can see what happens in our 151 It is possible that Calvin felt this from the beginning when he wrote to Morel on 17 May 1559 that he knew nothing of the plans to hold a synod, and then expressed his disagreement with the prospect of composing, presenting, and published a confession of faith. See n.60; Poujol: 1959, 52; see n.90. 152 CO 9, 737, l.1 and l.6 – 9. 153 CO 9, 736 f. 154 See n.140. 155 CO 9, 739, l.35 – 37.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The National Church

179

gatherings”.156 The latter point regarding a place where they could be heard is probably a carefully formulated request for the organisation of a national council or religious dialogue. Elsewhere in the letter they made a similar request of the king when they asked him “to take note of their case” and to judge their cause in which “not even the slightest heresy or rebellion” can be found.157 The desire that a council or religious dialogue be held was not an entirely new phenomenon in France among papal and Calvinist theologians.158 In June 1559, Morel had written to Calvin that he was in favour of the organisation of a theological dispute to be attended by those competent to judge matters of faith.159 Since then, the synod of Paris had met with Morel as its moderator. The thought behind his remark to Calvin appears to have guided the synod’s thinking on the matter, for nine months later, in March 1560, the French Calvinists approached the king with a similar petition. Beginning in March 1560, they increasingly took initiatives in which they pled for the convocation of a religious dialogue.160 They hoped by way of such a colloquy to gain recognition for themselves and religious freedom. The French churches thus resigned themselves to the situation, and proceeded from the assumption that two churches would have to exist in the kingdom alongside one another. At the time, there hardly was any other alternative available to them. Their view was a realistic assessment of the political possibilities in the situation. The persistent request to hold a religious dialogue, presided over by the king, would lead to the convocation of the colloquy of Poissy in September 1561, and culminate in an edict of toleration promulgated in January 1562.

156 CO 9, 740, l.1 – 3. 157 CO 9, 739, l.17 – 19 and 26 – 29. 158 Years before, in 1542, the desire had already been expressed for a council. After the first assembly in Trent, however, this changed into a general call for a national assembly. Dufour : 1980, 125. The established church had even expressed the desirability for the convocation of a council a year earlier, in early April 1559, when France entered in upon the Peace of Cateau-Cambr¦sis with the king of Spain. It was agreed at that time that a “sacred, general council” had to be held in order to discuss the Protestant heresy, which was spreading rapidly throughout the kingdom of France. Baird: 1879, vol.1, 324. After March 1560, the ‘third estate’ similarly made a request for a national council. On 6 December 1560, the pope wrote a bull declaring a sacred, general council that was to begin on Easter, 6 April 1561; however, this session of the Council of Trent eventually began on 18 January 1562. Buisson: 1950, 185; L¦onard; Reinhard: 1980, 94 f. The French government found itself in a position where it was forced to renounce the plans for a national council, and for that reason decided to make preparations for a religious colloquy. Buisson: 1950, 189. The French Calvinists had similarly waited for many years for a platform where they would be heard and taken seriously. Dufour : 1980, 117. 159 CO 17, no.3065, 541; see n.87. 160 Dufour : 1980, 125, n.18.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

180

3.

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

Political Pressure

In the sixteenth century, church and state were not separated. By the early 1560s, the French Calvinist church was forced by the situation to develop a vision of its own that accounted for the developments that were taking place in the political sphere. These developments had created a new situation, and this necessarily led to a certain amount of confusion. The front running Calvinists gave leadership to the new church, and at the same time functioned as the spokesmen of French Calvinism in political matters. They skilfully adapted to the new political situation, and showed that they were conscious of their political responsibility. They understood that their cause was not only religious, but also political.161 This can be seen in the motives they presented for their requests to the court in Amboise (March 1560), at the assembly of the French nobility in Fontainebleau (21 – 26 August 1560), and at the meeting of the Estates General in Orl¦ans (13 December 1560 – 31 January 1561).162 The French Calvinists let it be known repeatedly that they thought they shared in the responsibility for the rest and peace of the kingdom. This was one reason for them to try and seek a solution to the religious controversies. In the second part of the present chapter on France, we will consider the aims of the French Calvinists or ‘Huguenots’ in the years following May 1559 in the political-religious realm, and the degree to which the approach they maintained differed from Calvin’s.163 The approach of Calvin, as laid out above, was motivated by his desire for the Calvinist movement to continue operating in secret until the tides should turn. The Huguenot leaders, in contrast, thought that they had already waited and suffered long enough. For them, the time had come to seek a solution to the kingdom’s religious controversies along diplomatic lines. Led by Coligny, they sought a position of independence for the Calvinists in French society alongside the established church. At the French court, the importance of the question regarding a policy of reconciliation gradually increased. The former policy of persecution ended in March 1560, and under the leadership of the new chancellor Michel de l’Húpital a new policy was introduced. L’Húpital soon showed himself to be the leading spokesman at the court for the moyenneur-party. Like the Huguenots, the ‘moyenneurs’ were ready to meet with the different parties; both parties favoured a peaceful solution to the conflict. In contrast to the Huguenots, however,

161 Nürnberger : 1948, 100 – 101. 162 Nürnberger : 1948, 73 – 136; Lecler : 1955, vol.1, 36 – 58. 163 The term ‘Huguenots’ refers to the movement of French Calvinists as it, under the leadership of such men as Coligny, manifested itself in French society in a diplomatic but militant way.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

181

Political Pressure

the moyenneurs were intent to keep the different groups, at all costs, within the one established church. The following will trace the developments by considering in order: (1) the conversation held by Coligny with the queen mother in March 1560; (2) the attitude of the moyenneurs under the leadership of l’Húpital at the assembly of nobles at Fontainebleau, and of the Estates General in Orl¦ans; (3) the decision of the Huguenots at their second national synod of Poitiers in March 1561 to form a political organisation; (4) the religious colloquy of Poissy in September 1561; and (5) the final outcome of the meetings of the Estates General at Saint-Germain in January 1562.

The Huguenots address the king Between 7 March 1560, the day on which a Protestant conspiracy was thwarted at Amboise, and 11 March 1560, when the crown enacted the first edict of toleration, the queen mother Catherine de Medici met to discuss matters with a number of leading Huguenots, among them Coligny.164 Coligny was in the queen mother’s confidence; the policy of toleration that was being maintained by the regent had partly been inspired by him.165 During this conversation, the Huguenots asked through their spokesman Coligny and others for “a holy and free council, general or national, at which all will be able to account for themselves”.166 This request alluded to the request that had been made by the Roman Catholics for the convocation of a council.167 With a ‘council’ the papal theologians understood an assembly of the church’s representatives called together by the pope and led by him,168 while the Huguenots looked upon such a ‘council’ more as a religious dialogue or theological disputation presided over by the government. As the Huguenots envisioned it, Roman Catholics and Calvinists would hold discussions on an equal level.169 The 164 Beza: 1883, 302. On this conspiracy, see Lucien Romier : 1924, 196. n.1, La conjuration d’Amboise: L’Aurore sanglante de la libert¦ de conscience, le rÀgne et la mort de FranÅois II, Paris: Perrin, 1923; cf. Baird: 1879, vol.1, 381 f; Kingdon: 1956, 68; L¦onard: 1961, vol.2, 104 f. 165 Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 355; Romier : 1913 – 1914, vol.2, 74. 166 Beza: 1883, 302, l.2 – 4; Nürnberger : 1948, 88, n.49. 167 We should think here of article three of the Peace of Cateau-Cambr¦sis agreed upon in April 1559. Sutherland: 1977, 268, n.1; see n.158. 168 For the Roman Catholics, it was the council alone (in addition to the pope) that had official power to make decisions; for, religious colloquies have no basis in canon law. Sutherland: 1977, 266; Reinhard: 1980, 95, n.45; Geisendorf: 1949, 160, n.4. 169 Sutherland: 1977, 266, n.2. The Calvinists were not consistent in their use of terms. In the church order of 1559, we read in article two about the convocation of a “synod and council”.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

182

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

motive for a religious colloquy or council was not to level a judgment on the established church, but rather to try and obtain recognition from it.170 The Huguenots hoped that, until such a council was held, a modest amount of religious freedom would be given to them. They wanted a law to be decreed to the effect that everyone would have the freedom to exercise his religion in his own home. Coligny succeeded in convincing the queen, who herself knew little of the debated religious matters, of the firm footing the Huguenots had managed to carve out for themselves in French society by that time. Catherine de Medici realized that both in numbers and status, the French Calvinists had grown to a population group that could no longer be eradicated and had to be taken seriously in her political strategies.171 De l’Húpital later repeatedly noted that the argument regarding the Huguenots’ large number had been decisive.172 The Huguenot request for permission to meet on occasion until such a council should bring clarity to the situation was denied, however. The queen mother only gave the order that complete amnesty was to be shown to the “criminals by virtue of their religion” who had been imprisoned. The edict of toleration from 11 March 1560 was a milestone in French Calvinism; from the side of the government, it was the beginning of the end to the religious persecutions.173 The edict of toleration further implied a certain amount of recognition for the Calvinists. The presence of the Calvinist movement in France was no longer seen by the royal court as a purely religious matter, but also as a complicated political issue. For the Calvinist movement, the first edict of toleration meant that it had to change its clandestine character and, where possible, to support the government’s policy on religious matters. The queen mother stated that the Calvinists would have to keep to the “customs and rules of the Roman church, just like the other subjects”.174 It is not entirely clear what she had in mind with this. Perhaps it referred to the observance of such public ecclesiastical customs as baptism,

170 171 172 173

174

Aymon refers to the synod of Paris as a “concil g¦n¦ral”, while the Histoires eccl¦siastiques used the term “synode g¦n¦ral”. Pannier : 1936, 101; Aymon: 1710, vol. 1 (second pagination) 16, art.6. Stauffer : 1980, 249. Beza: 1883, 302. Nürnberger : 1948, 96, n.66. The last edict of persecution was enacted in February 1560; the first had been from 1551. Sutherland: 1977, 269, n.4. King Henry II had given a determinative stimulus for the form in which persecutions were going to take place, among others by establishing a separate parliamentary chamber for them known as the chambre ardente. The Edict of Romorantin was enacted early in May 1560, which determined that the state was going to return the persecution of heretics to the responsibility of the ecclesiastical courts. Nürnberger : 1948, 96, n.67; Beza: 1883, 313; Romier : 1913 – 1914, vol.2, 273. Beza: 1883, 302, l.28 – 29 and 303, l.1 – 3. The edict did not apply to the ministers or to those who were held in custody for their involvement in the conspiracy of Amboise.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

183

Political Pressure

marriage, burials, and the religious holidays. Earlier we already saw that Catherine at her accession in August 1559 was ready to prevent the Calvinists from being persecuted any longer. At that occasion, as the Calvinist historians would write, the queen demanded that the Protestants no longer meet together in their independent conventicles.175 In March 1560 her tone was milder and her stipulations for a more flexible policy on the part of the government were probably kept consciously vague so that the authorities could turn a blind eye to the Calvinist gatherings. A short time after the first edict of toleration was enacted on 11 March 1560, the Huguenots addressed a letter to King Francis II.176 This letter was presented to him by a delegation under the leadership of admiral Coligny, and accompanied with the French confession. The letter to the king did not simply fall from the sky, but must be seen as the official French Protestant reaction to the new law, and as the Huguenot response to the royal decision by which they let it be known – albeit disguisedly – that they accepted his offer. This explanation also suggests why the Huguenots, several days after the king had enacted a decree for greater toleration and a certain amount of religious freedom, once more referred to these points in a letter to the king. As they saw it, the king had made a small opening for resolving France’s religious controversies. This is evident from the beginning of the letter : “Sire, we give thanks to God because, while in former times we had no access to Your Majesty at all […], he has now shown us that you are ready to give heed to the merit of our cause, as is evident from your last edict of March of this year”.177 In a letter that emphasized that the king hears “the cries and groaning of an infinite multitude of your wretched subjects”,178 the same two points that Coligny had discussed with the queen earlier that month on behalf of the Huguenots come to the fore once again. The Huguenots were eager for a certain freedom to assemble, and showed themselves to favour the convocation of a national council. By alluding to the king’s new policy in this careful and disguised manner, the Huguenots showed that they were willing to negotiate about their position with the current government. They were ready to accept a modest place in a predominantly Roman Catholic society. In return for this degree of religious free175 Beza: 1883, 258; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 363. 176 The letter itself was not dated, but referred in the first paragraph to the Edict of Amboise from 11 March. The year ‘1559’ comes up, but then in the old French system. According to this old system, the new year (i. e. 1560) began on 25 March 1559. Since the letter mentions “the edict of the month of March in the present year 1559” (l’an present 1559), the letter must be dated to between 11 and 25 March 1560. CO 9, 737, n.2; see n.49. 177 CO 9, 737, l.1 – 9; see n.152. 178 CO 9, 740, l.15. As we have seen, admiral Coligny had earlier already drawn the queen’s attention to the large number of the Protestants. Beza: 1883, 302, l.6 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

184

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

dom, they would accept a minority position in ecclesiastical and political life in French society – although they did insist on political guarantees in this matter. This was the beginning to a battle among the various government instances over the way political power was going to be divided.179 It became increasingly clear that the leading Huguenots, in contrast to what Calvin wanted of them, refused to resign themselves to martyrdom any longer.180 This came out especially in their letter to the king. The Huguenots had abandoned the hope that the whole French church would be reformed, and gave up on this ideal. As has been noted, their letter to the king was also accompanied by the printed confession of the new French church. This edition of the confession was a separate printing; in the year 1560, the Huguenot did not yet include the confession of faith with their Psalter.181 It was not until 1561 that the first edition would appear in which the confession was combined with the Psalter,182 while after 1562 – i. e. after the Calvinist churches had obtained a certain legal status – the French confession was almost always printed together with the Psalms.183 In 179 Early in 1561, the Catholic politicians proposed that all of the king’s civil servants be made to swear an oath to the Roman Catholic religion. Sutherland: 1977, 279. However, by that time the Huguenots had too many connections at the courts and had grown into a too strong political factor for this proposal to be given serious consideration. 180 Earlier, in September 1559, Calvin had published the confession, together with his instructions. As has been noted above, he wanted to make it clear that the illegal assemblies of the Calvinists were a non-negotiable point. He had no plans for coming to an agreement with the current government and the established church. 181 Jahr : 1964a, 47 – 48. In the Low Countries, the Calvinists followed the French church on this point. 182 In 1561 the French confession, with the Paris text, first appeared at the back of a Psalter. Jahr : 1964a, 103, no.78; Gilmont: 1972, 176, n.2. However, the Belgic Confession was never combined with a Psalter and hymnal. Heijting: 1989, vol.1, 51, n.44. 183 A list of combined editions (of the Genevan version) with the Psalms, prayers, and/or catechism can be found in Jahr : 1964a, 105 – 106, no.86 = 95, no.78 [GenÀve, A. Davodeau et L. de MortiÀres] 135 – 136, no.168 [GenÀve, J. Bonnefoy]. For the Paris version, see Jahr, l.c., 95, no.55 [s.l., s.n.] 103 – 104, no.80 [Paris, J. le Preux], 104, no.81 [Paris, J. du Puys], 106 – 107, no.89 [Paris, l. Breton], 107, no.90 [Paris, A. le Roy]. Dr. Jean-FranÅois Gilmont pointed me to a number of combined editions of the confession together with the Psalms, prayers, and/or catechism in 1562 that were not mentioned by Jahr : in Moulins, in the BibliothÀque municipale, shelfmark: R 24899 [Rouen, A. Cl¦mence]; in the BibliothÀque wallonne, shelfmark: 62, cf. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 54 [s.l., s.n.]; and a third edition is mentioned in P. Aquilon & A. Girard, Bibliographie normande 7 (1990), 135 [Caen, S. Mangeant]; Dr. Gilmont referred to this in the aforementioned letter to me dated March 10, 1993. Moreover, the confession (with the Paris text) was printed in 1562 at least one time together with a Bible; Chambers, French Bibles, no.301 [Lyon, B. Angelier; now in Montpellier]. Earlier (see n.147), I already noted a Bible that was printed together with the Paris edition after 1559. Jahr, l.c., 123 – 124, no.139 [Straatsburg, N. Barbier & T. Courteau], which could represent a second combined edition with a Bible. Eleven of the twelve editions from 1562 that we have listed are therefore not separate editions. Jahr further notes a separate German edition [Jahr, l.c., 95, no.56], but this is not a translation of the French confession.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

185

Political Pressure

this period of transition, the Huguenot leaders opted to combine their confession with the familiar medieval Psalter, so that it would remain accessible to a large audience.184 The inclusion of the confession in the Psalter of course gave the whole work a polemical character. Because the inclusion of the confession could undo the sympathy which the Huguenots had obtained with the greatest of difficulties in the broader circles of society among those who had not actually joined their movement, in 1560 they still refrained from combining their Psalter with the confession. Aside from the cautious attempts for rapprochement on the part of a number of high-ranking Huguenots, other facts similarly indicate that their party had become a factor to reckon with in French society. The first edict of toleration had given an enormous stimulus to French Calvinism.185 To this was added the victory of the Protestants in Scotland in March 1560.186 The knife cut both ways. These events encouraged the French Calvinists to stand up for the Protestant cause, while forcing the French government to open its eyes to the potential of a large scale and well organised reform movement. In those days, polemical pamphlets began to appear, contesting among other things the legitimacy of the ruling government in France.187 These pamphlets witness of a growing sense among the Protestants of their own worth, and of their steadily increasing self confidence. The Huguenots continued to exercise political pressure on the government. In May 1560 they submitted a new appeal in which they asked that the edict from March be enforced, so that those who had been imprisoned for their religion would indeed be set free. They also asked once more for a holy and free council, general or national, to be held under the presidence of the government. The government responded with the edict of Loches, where renewed promises of amnesty were made.188

The moyenneurs The more tolerant civil and ecclesiastical leaders were rather open to the Huguenot proposal for the convocation of a national council. They sought ways to 184 Protestant devotional books could be found as of 1549, and contained primarily the Psalms of Marot, a number of prayers, and the Genevan catechism. In 1561 the Dutch Calvinists followed the French church when they produced a similar Calvinist devotional book containing the Psalms and the catechism. Jahr : 1964a, 40 – 41, Heijting: 1989, vol.1, 39, n.41. For the history of the Psalms, see Theodore de BÀze, Psaumes mis en vers franÅais (1551 – 1562): Accompagn¦s de la version en prose de Los Bud¦, Pierre Pidoux (ed.), 1984. 185 Baird: 1879, vol.1, 367 f. 186 Baird: 1879, vol.1, 362. 187 Baird: 1879, vol.1, 444 f; Buisson: 1950, 178. 188 Sutherland: 1977, 271 – 272.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

186

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

promote religious unity, and envisioned a meeting between the leading spokesmen of the established church and the Calvinist church, as well as the assembly of the Estates General. At the great assembly of the French nobility in Fontainebleau in August 1560, the moderate bishop of Valence, Jean Montluc, proposed that, under the leadership of the crown, a national council be held with erudite Protestants in order “to dispute with each other and to deliberate whether there would be a way to come together.”189 At Fontainebleau, Charles de Marillac, the archbishop of Vienna, showed himself like Coligny to support the convocation of the Estates General.190 Accordingly, it was decided that the Estates General would assemble at Orl¦ans in December 1560. The significance of this decision can hardly be underestimated; for by that time, the estates had not met in over fifty years. In Orl¦ans, chancellor Michel de l’Húpital presented himself as one of the leading spokesmen of the moyenneur party. For him it was unthinkable for two opposing religions to be able to live together in peace.191 He is well known for his remark that a Frenchman and an Englishman with the same religion can understand each other better than two citizens of the same city but a different religion. L’Húpital’s use of France and England to illustrate a matter of religious unity was not motivated by the close ties between French and English Protestants alone.192 His statement also confirmed the commonly held view that a kingdom ought to be united in religion. At that time, France was not a real political unity. France was, after all, partly in British hands, and further included a number of independent kingdoms. The maintenance of religious unity was thus of prime importance with a view to the unity of the French nation as a whole. What is more, France would be the first kingdom or empire, whether small or large, that had two officially recognised churches.193 In the great German empire, which was made up of many small states, every prince had been free since the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to choose between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. But the ruler did have to make a choice between one of the two. The chancellor’s statement at the assembly of the Estates General in France, in which he highlighted the importance of religious unity for the entire kingdom, must be understood among others against this background. The French government did

189 Sutherland: 1977, 275. 190 In Fontainebleau, admiral Coligny expressed the wish on behalf of “those who want to live according to the gospel” for religious freedom, and the right to meet as Calvinists, in part with a view to the nation’s interests through the rest and peace it would create throughout the entire kingdom. Beza: 1883, 323 – 324; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 422; Buisson: 1950, 175. 191 Baird: 1879, vol.1, 455, n.2. 192 Beza: 1883, 465; Buisson: 1950, 181 – 182. 193 Dufour : 1970, 137.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

187

Political Pressure

not want the kingdom to crumble along the lines of religious confession as had happened in the German empire. In Orl¦ans, the moyenneurs therefore attempted to bring the various groups together in order to seek unity in the church and to restore the kingdom. This position of reconciliation and toleration assumed by the moyenneurs found many supporters among the nobles, politicians, and intellectuals. In their ranks we even find some leading members of the French court such as the queen mother, Catherine de Medici, and the king of Navarre, Antoine de Bourbon. The supporters of religious unity likewise included representatives of the established church, including the aforementioned bishop of Valence, Jean Montluc.194 The moyenneurs on the whole felt quite involved in the situation of the French church. They took notice of the problems experienced by the church in those days, and felt internally compelled to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. They recognised that there were many abuses in the established church, and wanted to renew it according to the norm of Scripture and the early church, albeit with the least amount of change possible. The moyenneurs favoured a moderate reform of the church, and sought to infuse new life into the French church accordingly.195 The wrongs had to be eradicated, but it would be a mistake to set up the more radical Reformed convictions in their place.196 The moyenneurs opposed the radicalism of both Catholics and Calvinists. They strove for a single national church in which people with different convictions could peacefully co-exist. Differences of opinion on certain points were to be allowed to live side by side, including the celebration of the Eucharist under one or both species. It is not really necessary to pay much attention to the view maintained by the hardline Calvinists and the more traditional supporters of the established church. Both were marked by an implacability, as they were both fundamentally oriented to a national religious monopoly. The religious climate in France was increasingly being set from a basis in Paris, rather than Rome and Geneva, by a group of moderates composed of moyenneurs and a number of leading Calvinists. It is important in this context to remember that there were differences not only between papal theologians and Calvinists, but also internally among the different members of each party. There were redoubtable conservatives on both sides, but there were also moderate Catholics who were willing to co-exist with the Calvinists in a single church, as well as moderate Protestants who were ready to find a solution for living together with the Catholics within a single kingdom. Further distinctions can be drawn within each of these groups, but on the whole the leaders of both the moyenneurs and the Huguenots favoured a more mod194 Dufour : 1980, 122, n.8, 195 Dufour : 1970, 129; Viret: 1565, 62. 196 Dufour : 1980, 120 – 121.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

188

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

erate position on the religious question.197 Both groups were ready to seek a solution to the religious conflict in France with a view to maintaining the public order of the land. L’Húpital proposed in Orl¦ans that “a free and holy council” should be held under the leadership of the crown. It was called a ‘free’ council in light of the request made by the Reformed, a ‘holy’ council because of the Roman Catholic church.198 L’Húpital further remarked that the condition for its success was that the representatives of the two groups would no longer treat each other as heretics. He himself thought that this lay within the range of possibilities, “since the entire difference is that they want to reform the church in the spirit of the early church”.199 Yet, in January 1561 l’Húpital also opposed the notion that two churches could exist side by side within one kingdom. The court still assumed that there was a single French church, and it expected that it would remain as one church regardless of its precise form. The Calvinists would more or less have to rejoin the established ecclesiastical customs. It was on this specific point that the moyenneurs and Huguenots continued to differ.

A political organisation Early in 1561, the Huguenots were quite popular among the people and enjoyed a good reputation at the court.200 Full of confidence, they struck out on a course for their goal. This was evident not only in January 1561 in Orl¦ans, where their requests included their own church buildings, but also from the fact that they held a second national synod in Poitiers in March of that year. At this synod, they formed a political organisation that was to defend their interests. From a po197 The moyenneurs were not a clearly distinguished group; see Alain Dufour, Das Religionsgespräch von Poissy : Hoffnungen der Reformierten und der ’Moyenneurs’, 1980. For a discussion of Dufour’s argument that the moyenneurs did not form a unity, see Kerner : 1980, 155 f. Note also Mario Turchetti, Concorde de tol¦rance? Les Moyenneurs — la veille des guerres de religion, 1986. 198 Buisson: 1950, 183, l.29 f. At the meeting of the states in Orl¦ans, Coligny asked for a “free and general council” or religious colloquy, and for the freedom to meet until such a dialogue was held. The Huguenot leaders sought a diplomatic solution to the religious problem of both the Huguenots themselves as well as of the whole kingdom. Their proposals were intended with a view to the restoration of peace in the kingdom. The request for some religious freedom was postponed and referred to the next meeting in Pontoise, which had been scheduled for May but did not actually begin until the end of June. This delay was due to the intervening crowning of Charles IX. The assembly of Orl¦ans once more declared that all those who were imprisoned for their faith were to be set free. CO 18, no.3323, 332 – 337; cf. CO 18, no.3218, 119 – 122. 199 Buisson: 1950, 189, l.29 – 30. 200 CO 18, no.3397, 465 – 468; Sutherland: 1977, 282, n.3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

189

Political Pressure

litical perspective, therefore, this second synod was at least as important as the first. Just as a national church was instituted at the first synod of 1559, a national political organisation was formed at the second synod in 1561. There were now two bodies that represented the French Protestants: the synod, and the provincial deputies to the court. The provincial deputies, who were paid by the churches, were to exercise influence at the court. Yet because the Huguenot deputies did not represent a recognised political party, they had to deliberate and report back to their constituencies in secret.201 The mother church in Geneva, led by Calvin, was not involved in the appointment of these Huguenot political representatives.202 After the organisation of the first national synod, the Huguenots grew not only in confidence, but also in the numbers and in their awareness that they had indeed chosen for the right course of action at the first national synod in Paris. The road that they had embarked upon was consciously followed in March 1561 by a decision to exert pressure on the government in a more professional and better organised form. A month later, the provincial synod of Montauban reflected the existing situation when it said that it would be desirable for the power over the church to be restored to the civil government in places where the power was in the hands of a Reformed government.203 With the explosive growth of the Calvinist church, the political tensions, both internal and external, reached a new level.204 As a result, the opponents to the Reformation felt themselves under threat. On Easter 1561 (6 April), they joined hands and formed an anti-Protestant triumvirate composed of the duke FranÅois de Guise, the conn¦table Anne de Montmorency, and the marshal Jacques d’Albon de Saint-Andr¦. The most visible result of this act was the organisation of activities to disturb the peaceful manifestations of the Huguenots at which 201 202 203 204

Aymon: 1710, vol. 1 (second pagination), 21 and 22. Kingdon: 1956, 86. Kingdon: 1956, 86. The number of Reformed believers grew quickly, on nearly every level of the population. By the end of 1561, there were nearly three million Protestants in France out of a total population of twenty million. In the fall of 1561, there were 2150 churches. On the number of churches, see Philip Benedict and Nicolas Fornerod, “Les 2150 ‘¦glises’ r¦form¦es de France de 1561 – 1562, ” Revue Historique, 311, 529 – 560. All of these churches required pastors. Geneva did everything it could, and supplied no less than 142 ministers in 1561, a considerable increase over the preceding years. However, in the end it could no longer keep up with the growing demand. De Beaulieu reported from Geneva on 3 October 1561 that some five- to six-thousand pastors were needed in France, wondering how such a large flock could be guided without shepherds. In the summer of 1561, for example, rebellions broke out in Tours, Montauban, and Sauve close to N„mes. Calvin, who was confronted with this problem on a daily basis, complained repeatedly of the intemperate behaviour of the Huguenots. Beza: 1883, 745 and 836 f; Kingdon: 1956, 79, n.2 and 89, n.82; Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 346 – 348; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 479 and 561 f; CO 18; see n.242-244.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

190

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

they listened to sermons and sang the Psalms of Cl¦ment Marot.205 Early in April 1561, fierce opponents of the Calvinists carried out a massacre in twenty different places, including Beauvais and Longjumeau.206 The situation became increasingly grim, and less and less favourable to a peaceful diplomatic solution. The negative position vis-—-vis the Huguenots came out in the edict proclaimed on 11 July 1561, the last day of the meeting of the Estates General in Pontoise, when their request for permission to assemble in freedom until the convocation of a council or religious colloquy was voted down.207 Every assembly that did not follow the Roman Catholic tradition was forbidden, and transgressors faced the prospect of banishment.208 The Huguenots did not have a majority backing them among the members of the estates that met in Pontoise, in spite of the moderate leading members at the French court. Regardless of this July edict, Catherine continued together with her advisers to make plans for a religious colloquy. The highest members of the court, including the queen mother, Catherine de Medici, and the king of Navarre, Antoine de Bourbon, maintained the hope that the sting of the religious controversies could be removed in a peaceable manner. The prelates, however, announced that they were not ready to meet with the Protestants as equal conversation partners.209 The assembly that met at Pontoise, where a process of selection had ensured that a smaller number of representatives would gather than in Orl¦ans,210 would impress its stamp on the colloquy of Poissy to be held in September 1561.

205 At the synod of Poitiers of 10 March 1561, it was asked whether public meetings could be held in places where the civil government had not given permission for them. It was decided that, in view of the exceptional times, the main concern was to maintain public peace; nothing was to instigate further disturbances. Duke et al.: 1992, 77, art. 27. 206 CO 18, no.3396 (Beza to Bullinger 24 May 1561), 463 – 465. 207 Buisson: 1950, 191. In June 1561, shortly before the opening of the assembly at Pontoise, the Huguenots presented a petition to the government in which they requested a chance to defend their confession at a free and national council. They further petitioned the king to end the persecutions, to offer protection against violence, and to free those who were imprisoned for their religion. The petition also included the request to be allowed to meet in public, and to have church buildings of their own. The Huguenots also proposed to the government that the king’s representatives attend their worship services so that everyone could see that nothing of a rebellious spirit was being said or prepared in the Protestant services. Sutherland: 1977, 284. Baudrier summarises four petitions from the Protestant deputies: two are from 8 and 17 June, the final two are undated. Baudrier : 1895 f, vol.4, 329. 208 Soldan: 1855, vol.1, 428; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 483; Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 183, 128 and 129. For the text of the edict of Orl¦ans, see Bulletin Historique et Litt¦raire, no.23 (1874), 78 f. 209 Sutherland: 1977, 288, n.1. 210 Nürnberger : 1948, 115.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

191

Political Pressure

The colloquy of Poissy The long-awaited religious dialogue took place in the Dominican priory at Poissy, and passed through three phases. First, plenary discussions were held from 9 to 17 September 1561. When these failed to achieve a result, the dialogue was continued with a smaller circle of twelve representatives from each side. This phase ended in failure as well. From 26 September to 1 October a number of “learned and tractable people”, as Beza would describe this group of ten theologians, finally succeeded in formulating an agreement on the Eucharist.211 In the end, however, this agreement was rejected by the constituencies of the established church. Theologically, the colloquy of Poissy was a failure, and it is entirely possible that the conservative Roman Catholics consciously aimed to effect such a failure.212 All the same, Poissy was not without effect for the Calvinists. In the course of these weeks, much national and international attention had been directed to their cause. They were given an opportunity to plead their case before a forum of high-ranking nobles and bishops, and the speeches held by representatives of both sides were immediately published. Both sides turned Poissy into a large scale propagandistic campaign. For the Calvinists, Poissy meant that their cause received the attention for which they had been longing. In their perception, the entire world was tensely awaiting its outcome. Beza witnessed of this perception in his oration before the queen on 26 September 1561, when he remarked that he 211 Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 197, 178, l.31 – 32; Beza: 1883; Geisendorf: 1949, 161 f. The document was first prepared by a group of four theologians. The Roman Catholic delegation included two ‘moderate’ theologians: Montluc, the bishop of Valence, and the doctor d’Espence, a student of Erasmus. The Calvinists were represented by Beza and des Gallars. The confession formulated by them was then polished a number of times by a group of ten theologians. Henri O. Evennett, Claude d’Espence et son ‘Discours du Colloque de Poissy’, 1930; Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 198, 181. Not all members of this group agreed with the course of events, however ; one example of a dissenter is Peter Martyr Vermigli. CO 18, no.3541, 762; Geisendorf: 1949, 164, n.2; see n.238. Beza proposed that a “friendly conference” be held after the plenary sessions and the meetings in smaller circles all failed. Several days later, the queen mother invited the parties to formulate an agreement on the Lord’s Supper in a small circle, based upon Scripture and the church fathers. Beza: 1883, 659, l.16 – 21; Cf. the report from Beza to Calvin from 27 September 1561 in CO 18, no.3535, 739 – 748 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 195, 161 – 172; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 535 – 536. 212 It is possible that Rome sent a special delegation to Poissy – consisting of four Jesuits, and one renowned Italian preacher, led by the superior general of the Society of Jesus J. Laynez – in September 1561 with the purpose of breaking off the colloquy while it was still in session. Romier : 1924, 228; Beza: 1883, 666 f. On 15 August 1561 the conservative cardinal Tournon expressed the reservations of the conservative Roman Catholics in a letter to the queen. The French Calvinists, so he stated, were out to shape the French kingdom “after the model of the Swiss cantons”, an ideal that had to be fiercely resisted. Romier : 1924, 206, n.2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

192

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

spoke “in the name of a million people in this kingdom, in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, England, and Scotland, who are all waiting in expectation for a good outcome from this assembly.”213 At the request of the Huguenots, the debate was presided over by the French king Charles IX.214 Also present were the queen mother, the king and queen of Navarre, as well as high-ranking representatives of the French court, a number of cardinals, bishops, and other theologians on the part of the established church, and more than a thousand Calvinists. Twelve leading figures, from France and Switzerland in particular, represented the Reformed camp during the debates. This group of twelve can be considered the official delegation of the national church.215 Their leading spokesman was Beza, who had come from Geneva specifically for this occasion. The court was represented by the chancellor Michel de l’Húpital. Throughout the last four-and-a-half centuries, French historiography has devoted much attention to the colloquy of Poissy. This national assembly represented a final attempt on the part of the political leaders and representatives of the established church, together with the Calvinists, to seek a common solution to the existing religious conflicts and, if at all possible, to maintain the unity of the French nation. Well-known is an engraving of the colloquy of Poissy by Tortorel and P¦rissin from 1569. It depicts the twelve Calvinists on the outside, while the Catholic participants are seated within the official meeting place.216 The question we need to address is whether, and if so, to what degree, the Huguenots saw the colloquy as a means to come one step closer to their goal of recognition from the government and a certain degree of religious freedom. Were the Huguenots prepared to accept a place within the existing ecclesiastical structures as envisioned by the moyenneurs, or would Poissy make it clear that the ideal of a single French church was no longer feasible? It is worthwhile in this context also to pay attention to Calvin’s position with respect to the events at Poissy, so as to keep the main question of the present monograph in view. The colloquy of Poissy, organised by the moyenneurs, was typically French in its orientation. The moyenneur-party had a clear position: it was out for peace in, and unity of, church and state. By the forging of an agreement on selected, fundamental theological issues, they hoped for peace and concord within the French church, and so to unite the parties in a single national church, with the

213 Beza: 1883, 659, l.16 – 30; Romier : 1924, 218. 214 According to the established church, however, the king had no authority in matters of faith. For, such a religious colloquy did not have the status of a council. Reinhard: 1980, 90, n.8; see n.168. 215 Reinhard: 1980, 89; Dufour: 1980, 119; Kingdon: 1956, 85 f; Baird: 1879, vol.1, 509. 216 It can be found in L¦onard: 1961, vol.2, 113.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

193

Political Pressure

relationship to the pope being a matter of secondary importance.217 To that end the government invited the opposing parties to seek a way to restore unity within the church “in order to reunite them to the church of Rome” (de les reunir — l’Eglise Romaine).218 It was the nation’s interests that stood central. The French government, whose thinking was on the whole in the same line as that of the moyenneurs, guaranteed the Huguenots not only safety, but also the freedom to participate in the colloquy of Poissy on an equal footing with the Catholic party. The engraving by Tortorel and P¦rissin thus gave a distorted view of the actual relationship. The official spokesman of the moyenneurs, Michel de l’Húpital, observed on the first day of the colloquy that all means – with or without violence – for preserving the unity of the French church had been exhausted. But the nation was “so terribly divided by the diversity of views” that it threatened to fall apart into two separate groups and to tear church and state apart. The final outcome could be the “complete ruin and subversion of this state”.219 As the initiating party in the organisation of the colloquy of Poissy, the French government thus took a calculated and substantial risk when if officially invited the representatives of the separated church as equal conversation partners. Over the course of the years, it had become more and more clear that the state could no longer pretend that the steadily growing Calvinist movement did not exist. An attempt to come to an agreement on certain theological matters was among the last peaceful solutions that the French government had available to it. If the disputation failed, it could mean that the prospects of reconciliation between the established church in France and the French Calvinist movement were further removed than ever before. This would in turn imply that the Huguenots had been right when they claimed that the government had no other feasible option than to give the Calvinist church some degree of religious freedom, and to recognise it as a second church in France in addition to the established church. The moyenneurs wanted to avoid such a break at all costs. They were most anxious for the Huguenots to lend their full cooperation, and for a peaceful solution to France’s religious problems with the unity of the church remaining intact. But were the Huguenots prepared to do follow suit? Considered from this perspective, it would seem that the colloquy of Poissy would benefit the Huguenots regardless of the outcome, even if the theological disputation were to end in failure. Such a conclusion is a little premature, however. 217 The discussion centred around the authority of the church, the councils, and Scripture, and the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Romier : 1924, 19, n.1. 218 Beza: 1883, 521 = CO 18, no.3441, 554, n.3. 219 Beza: 1883, 557, l.5 – 11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

194

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

The room that Poissy gave to the Huguenots was in effect the next step in the policy of toleration maintained by the government over the preceding few years. After all, at Fontainebleau, Orl¦ans, and Pontoise the Huguenots had already been given the opportunity to present and defend their ideas. These years had made it clear that they, just like the moyenneurs, were seeking a diplomatic solution to the religious controversy both with a view to their own constituents as well as the situation in the kingdom as a whole. The Huguenots showed that they were more than willing to lend their cooperation for a peaceful solution, but they also wanted justice to be done to their right to hold public religious exercises as well as recognition for their doctrine as one form of Christian truth.220 The Genevan council too was ready to support the French government by – in the words of Antoine de Bourbon, in his letter to the council from 12 August 1561 – “supplying a contribution for the formulation of a good agreement”, so that a solution might be found to France’s growing religious problems.221 In the days leading up to the colloquy, Beza wrote to Calvin from Poissy (30 August 1561) indicating that he still hoped for a theological debate, so that “the truth of the Word will prove itself”.222 Coligny had expressed himself similarly a month earlier when he wrote that it would emerge in Poissy “which of the two views was the best”.223 The notion that the truth of Scripture could win over the opposing party in a disputation, as a kind of intellectual contest, had led the governments of Bern and Geneva 30 years ago to introduce the Reformation to their respective cities.224 In September 1561, however, the conservative Catholics were unwilling to give the Calvinists any room, and closed the door to the traditional road of debate.225 On several occasions they even attempted to take down the Calvinist leader, Theodore Beza, in a rather less than courtly manner.226

220 The request to be allowed to meet in peace had already surfaced a number of times in the past years, among others at the meeting of the estates in Orl¦ans in January 1561. In the end, the estates still turned it down in their July edict. 221 CO 18, 3477, 606, l.29 – 607, l.1. 222 CO 18, no.3497, 652, l.31 – 32. 223 Romier : 1924, 197; Cf. the letter from MaÅon to Beza from 10 August 1561. CO 18, no.3474, 603, l.50. 224 This was expressed by Morel in his report on the synod, which he sent to Calvin early in June 1559. CO 17, no.3065, 541. In Bern a first disputation was held in January 1528; the first one in Geneva was held in January 1534. See chapter 1, n.33. 225 In July 1561 it emerged at the assembly of the estates that the conservative Roman Catholics were in the majority. Moreover, this anti-Calvinist lobby had united itself into a powerful political force, namely, the Roman Catholic ‘triumvirate’. 226 On 26 November, this negative position of the prelates led Beza to remark that the only reason that the ministers were present was “in order to speak about their teaching; otherwise it would be the beginning of their trial.” Beza: 1883, 657, l.8 – 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

195

Political Pressure

At the time of the colloquy of Poissy, Beza was only 34 years of age.227 It would not have been easy for him, as a Frenchman of low nobility, to preside over the Huguenot party, whose leaders included several high-ranking nobles. By the summer of 1561, he could also hardly have been fully aware of the intentions of these leaders, or understood the complex political ramifications of their strategy.228 In any case, the Huguenots thought they had a better chance to convince Beza of their ideals than Calvin. The Calvinist leaders in France had specifically asked Geneva to send Beza, not Calvin, to the colloquy as their leader.229 The official reason they gave was that Calvin was much too controversial a figure. The fact of the matter was, however, that he had not been all too avid in his support of the ecclesiastical politics maintained by the Huguenots; he did not favour a meeting with the French prelates. The leading Huguenots considered Calvin’s position to be overly conservative and insufficiently realistic. Beza responded to the request from France that he was only prepared to come together with Calvin, but the Genevan city council refused to accede to this request.230 Beza was to be the spokesman of the Huguenots at the colloquy of Poissy. At the end of the famous speech which Beza gave on the first day of the religious dialogue (9 September 1561), he expressed his hope that an agreement would be reached.231 For the rest, however, he remained rather vague on the nature of this agreement, just as he did throughout the rest of his speech.232 227 Evennett: 1930, 60. 228 The French Protestant nobility, which was led by Coligny, strove for some degree of religious freedom; however, what this freedom was to look like throughout the entire kingdom was a complex political problem with which Beza was suddenly faced. 229 The brother of the king of Navarre (i. e. the prince de Cond¦) and admiral Coligny, together with the king of Navarre Antoine de Bourbon, directed a request to Geneva on 15 July 1561 in which they requested Beza to represent them in Poissy. Baird: 1879, vol.1, 494, n.2. The Paris pastors as well clearly expressed their preference for Beza in a letter dated 14 July 1561. CO 18, no.3441, 555. Several weeks later, the pastors’ request was repeated in two letters from the Paris pastor MaÅon. CO 18, no.3459, 577 – 589; CO 18, no. 3474, 602 – 604. The letter of the pastors of Paris reveals that they were not convinced that Calvin shared their view; in contrast to him, they had high hopes for a religious dialogue. CO 18, no.3441, 554. On 12 August 1561, Antoine de Bourbon, the king of Navarre, in a second letter emphasised on behalf of the French king Charles IX to the council of Geneva how important it was that Beza should come. CO 18, no.3477, 606 – 607; Romier : 1924, 196, n.1. The response from the Genevans can be found in CO 18, no.3484, 613 – 614; see n.221. 230 This was evident from the report of the council meeting on 21 June 1561. CO 21, 755. Calvin had little use for a religious dialogue, although he did support such a meeting if it were to be held under the leadership of the king. CO 18, no.3533, 738 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 194, 159; Dufour : 1980, 117. Calvin revealed himself to be rather sceptical towards the colloquy of Poissy. His scepticism was so strong that he was forced to explain to Coligny that his negative attitude did not arise from a jealousy for having passed over for participation in the colloquy of Poissy by the French churches. CO 19, no.3542, 3 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 196, 173. 231 Beza: 1883, 578, l.6 – 7. 232 Beza mentioned, for example, the way the Huguenots were perceived in society. Some saw

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

196

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

The Huguenots for their part stayed true to their intentions of making a positive contribution to the colloquy. In his speech from 26 September, Beza gave two reasons why the Calvinists were present in Poissy : “in order to give an account of our faith before God, you, and the entire world,” and, secondly, to support “God, the king, and you” in seeking a solution to the religious disagreements. When a mutual agreement on the Eucharist was reached on 1 October 1561, Beza was delirious with the success and flattered by all the compliments he received. Several days after the accord had been drawn up, he wrote to Calvin on 4 October : “The joy that has come about is unbelievable, everyone is raised up in the hope of concord! The queen herself embraced me publicly, and encouraged us to continue. I responded to her : with the greatest zeal we are committing ourselves to two causes, namely, truth and peace.”233 A day later he wrote to the German elector Frederick III of the Palatinate: “Nothing pleases God more than that we seek the truth and concord of the churches”, and later on: “people can be assured that we from our side are pursuing all the means available to us.”234 Such reports give us an impression of what the Huguenot expectations were like following the colloquy of Poissy. In their experience, a peaceful solution was closer at hand than ever. The hopes for recognition in the form of an agreement with the government were increasing. Beza expected that “at the very least the justice of our cause” will be recognised.235 We want the return of rest, and, “with a view both to the peace of the church as well as the serenity in the kingdom, we long for the comfort of our young king, a prince for whom there are great expectations, and the satisfaction of the queen, his mother, who is exceptionally well inclined to these matters, together with the leading lords and princes of this kingdom.”236 In this quotation, Beza not only announces the hope harboured within the Huguenot camp, but also gives us insight into the good relationship between the Huguenots and the court together with the high-ranking officials

233 234 235 236

them as “rebels”, “enemies of all concord and peace”, others do admit that they are not “enemies of peace” but still seek peace at conditions that simply cannot be met. This last category of people insists that “we are laying a claim on the whole world, want to impose our ways on others, and even deprive certain people of their possessions and freedoms so as to appropriate them for ourselves.” Beza: 1883, 563, l.15 – 22. In the rest of his first oration, Beza continued this vague tone, noting that there were some who thought that the French Calvinists and the Roman Catholics did not agree on anything, while others were of the opinion that they did not really differ “in the essential points of faith”. Beza, l.c., 565, l.22 – 28. The Huguenot position did not come out all too clearly either when Beza posited that the point was to gather the scattered flock “in the sheepfold of the one Chief Shepherd. That is what we intend; that is the only thing we desire and aim for.” Beza, l.c., 564 – 565. CO 19, no.3546, 12, l.9 – 12 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 198, 181, l.11 – 14. Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 197, 178, l.33 – 35 and 179, l.3 – 4. Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 197, 178, l.32 – 33; Beza: 1883, 606 f; Giesendorf, Th¦odore de BÀze, 163 f. Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 197, 179, l.8 – 11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

197

Political Pressure

(i. e. the moyenneurs). In the prayer included at the end of his letter, Beza placed the desire of the Huguenots into the foreground once more: “May God at one time grant us the grace to receive an agreement and some freedom after we have endured so many tribulations and persecutions, which have never been as serious as they are now.”237 It was only the distant music of the future, but in the fall of 1561, after the colloquy of Poissy, the situation appeared to be becoming increasingly favourable to the Huguenot ideal of a certain independence for their church by way of government recognition and (some degree of) religious freedom. Not all Calvinists were as happy as Beza was, however. This is evident from the reaction of Peter Martyr Vermigli, one of the twelve representatives of the French Calvinists in Poissy. Martyr was professor in Zürich, an Italian by origin and like the queen mother a native of Florence. He did not agree with the course of events in Poissy because the government leaders had indeed expressed their sympathy for the Lutheran confession, but not for the French Calvinist confession.238 In his mind, the Calvinists had not been taken sufficiently seriously at Poissy.239 Among the twelve French Calvinist representatives who attended the colloquy, it was Martyr’s standpoint that came the closest to that of Calvin. Like Peter Martyr Vermigli, Calvin announced that he was not pleased with the developments at Poissy. He informed Beza of this as soon as the news of the agreement had reached his ears: “I would not be all too upset if the colloquy were in some way broken off by our opponents. For the time is not yet ripe for the pure religion to flourish with their assent.”240 Calvin was convinced that the Calvinist movement had to continue operating clandestinely for the moment. He was no proponent of a religious dialogue, and had no interest in a compromise with the established church or the ruling government.241 237 Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 197, 179, l.4 – 6. 238 CO 19, no.3547, 14, n.6. In a letter to Beza dated 10 September 1561, Calvin made no efforts to hide what he thought about the fact that the colloquy was based on the Augsburg Confession. It can light a fire “that will cause all of France to go up in flames […]. It is absurd to drop the French confession and to adopt the Augsburg Confession.” CO 18, no.3513, 683, l.37 – 684, l.3 = Meylan; see n.211. 239 Peter Martyr was not impressed by the diplomatic intentions from the side of the queen mother and the king of Navarre, also in their attempt to mollify the prelates somewhat by using the Augsburg Confession. Their reason for doing so was, of course, that this confession was not the confession of the Catholic prelates’ direct opponents, and for the rest came closer to the Roman Catholic positions – especially in regard to the Eucharist – than the French confession did. Dufour : 1970, 131; Reinhard: 1980, 96. 240 CO 19, no.3573, 56, l.16 – 18 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 201, 189, l.9 – 10. 241 CO 18, no.3346, 376 – 378. Calvin had no use for talks with the French prelates, and in the spring of 1561 advised the Calvinist leaders not to participate in the Council of Trent which was set to open on Easter, 6 April 1561 (although it did not actually begin until 18 January 1562). CO 18, no.3346, 376 – 378. The leaders of the French Calvinist church persisted in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

198

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

In the time leading up to Poissy, Calvin complained about the way the Calvinist movement in France was rolling along without restraint, as well as its incessant appeal for new pastors. At the end of May 1561 he wrote to Bullinger : “We are completely exhausted. […] [I]t is most difficult to temper them”.242 The summer of 1561 saw unrest throughout the French kingdom. Calvinists were usurping church buildings by violent means because their private homes were becoming too small for their gatherings, and even the recently enacted, strict edict of the king no longer held them back. Calvin complained to Bullinger : “If only they had followed what always seemed to us to be the right thing”.243 When iconoclastic activities were undertaken in Sauve, Calvin pointed them to the example of “Daniel and his companions […], and many others who were most zealous […]. As long as they were in captivity in Babylon they resigned themselves to the offence of the idols without usurping for themselves a power that was not theirs.”244 In the preface to his commentary on Daniel, written shortly after Beza had left Geneva for Poissy on 16 August 1561, Calvin pointed the French Calvinists to the prophet as an example. In the dedicatory epistle to “all the pious worshippers of God […] in France”, Calvin showed how he viewed the situation and what moved him in his work: I constantly exert myself for “the inhabitants of France all together”.245 Like Daniel, we too must not allow our-

242 243

244 245

their request for a meeting with the representatives of the established church, however. With this, they took on a viewpoint that differed from that of Calvin. The convocation of the Council of Trent on 29 November 1560 to meet later on that year in the end closed off the possibility for a national French council. The pope did not want his prelates to enter into discussions with the Calvinists. It is entirely possible that he feared that another schism would take place as in the church of England under Henry VIII. On 23 June 1561, it came became known that Philip II of Spain had indeed agreed on a general council to be held in Trent; with that, the hopes of the French prelates for a national council were dashed. Beza: 1883, 429 f. The court persisted, however, and decided that a colloquy should still be held. The moyenneurs and Huguenots both agreed that a compromise had to be sought for the growing religious problem in France. CO 18, no.3397, 467, l.3 – 16. CO 18, no.3397, 467, l.16 – 20. The ‘strict edict’ – CO 18, idem, l.20 – 27 – perhaps referred to the decisions of the assembly of the states at Pontoise from 11 July 1561, where the request for freedom to hold religious assemblies was rejected and numerous harsh anti-Huguenot measures were once more enforced. This seems to imply that this letter was written after 11 July, in the summer of 1561. On 11 July 1561, Calvin emphasised to Coligny the importance of patience with a view to the advance of “the kingdom of God in your land […]. The situation is one of utter confusion.” CO 18, no.3436, 546, l.2 and 26 – 27; Buisson: 1950, 191. CO 18, no.3461, 581, l.19 – 25. CO 18, no.3485, 615, l.17 – 18; I translate publicÀ as ‘all together’, although it literally means ‘literally’ or ‘commonly’. Daniel had met great resistance during the 70 years that he lived in exile with the people, but his concern was for “the general welfare of the church” rather than “his own rest”. In what he wrote to the people of France, Calvin also stood up for himself after it became known that he would not receive an invitation to participate in the colloquy of Poissy. He wrote that he would not leave his post, and that he had “no desire” to return to France. CO 18, no.3485, 616, l.49 – 51; idem, 617, l.7; idem, 624, l.3 – 4; 615, l.7 – 8; see n.230.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

199

Political Pressure

selves to be detracted from coming out for our faith. The prophet did not try to escape from the lion’s den “by perfidious dissembling”;246 in just the same way, we have a “free and peaceful confidence in Christ”247 that the “pure religion” might flourish without unrest and violence.248 The kingdom that raises itself up in battle against God will be destroyed by “a stone” not made with human hands, as the prophet reveals to us. And God caused this “unpolished stone” to grow slowly but surely into a “great mountain”.249 This development follows from the courage and piety of “sacred men”, not the eloquence of philosophers.250 In the days leading up to Poissy, Calvin thus once more expressed his fear to the French people that a great danger threatened their Calvinist movement if it were to be sacrificed in the interest of a handful of theological concessions. As his correspondence during the days of the colloquy suggests, Calvin was not at all sure that his followers would take these warnings to heart.251 For Calvin it was entirely unthinkable that a Roman Catholic government would recognise two churches within a single kingdom and allow them to exist side by side. However, this was one of the few remaining solutions to the French dilemma that had not been attempted yet. The French Calvinists had found themselves confronted with this realisation for a number of years already. In the fall of 1561, a radical change occurred at the French court under the leadership of l’Húpital. When the colloquy of Poissy was still in session, it was not clear whose ideal would be implemented. Would l’Húpital win or Coligny, the moyenneurs or the Huguenots? When, several months after the close of the colloquy, l’Húpital came back from his earlier insistence on the impossibility of the parallel existence of two churches within one kingdom, the way was finally paved for an agreement with the Calvinists. In January 1561, l’Húpital stated that “a person is a Frenchman regardless of his confession.”252 On the same occasion he proposed that the solution to the religious controversies in France was not to

246 247 248

249 250 251

252

Calvin wrote the preface on 17 August 1561, but the commentary on the book of Daniel would not appear from the press until December. Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 190, 150, n.10. CO 18, no.3485, 616, l.20 – 26. CO 18, no.3485, 623, l.13 – 20. “It will be no fault of mine if the kingdom of Christ does not present itself calmly and without violence.” Calvin was of the opinion that the French Calvinists must “continue to hope” even as dangers threatened, just as our Saviour continually urged the disciples “to persist in their patience”. CO 18, no.3485, 619, l.52 and 620, l.1 – 2 and 8 – 15. CO 18, no.3485, 620, l.9 – 13. CO 18, no.3485, 616, l.26 – 30 and l.34 f. Even before the religious colloquy had officially begun, Calvin warned Beza not to allow himself to be roped in or discouraged by the moyenneurs. After the disputation had ended, he returned to this point on 7 October by warning Beza not to go over to the moyenneur camp in his desire to achieve peace through an agreement. CO 18, no.3507, 674 – 675 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 189, 146; CO 19, no.3555, 30, l.32 – 34 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no. 200, 187, l.22 – 23. Nürnberger : 1948, 132, cf. 131.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

200

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

be sought “in a religious measure, but in a political one”.253 L’Húpital had made a radical turn in his thinking on religious policy, and now inclined to the position of the party of Coligny. In the wake of the colloquy of Poissy, it had become clear that the original pursuit by the moyenneurs to keep the different religious currents together within a single church was no longer feasible. Thus, after Poissy they were ready to seek a solution to the religious conflict that was more in line with the Huguenot proposals. This solution implied that the government would have to recognise the Calvinist church, and that two churches would exist side by side in the kingdom of France. The new edict of toleration, which followed soon after, would be an important step on the way to this religious pluralism.

The recognition of the Calvinist church On 17 January 1562 the Edict of Saint-Germain was signed. In this agreement, the Reformed could remain Reformed in a Roman Catholic country. This final agreement clearly differed from what the moyenneurs had initially envisioned, for there would no longer be just a single church in the kingdom of France. The January edict was an agreement allowing two churches to exist side by side under one government. It was a unique arrangement, because nothing like it could be found in any other European country ; in Germany and in certain Swiss regions, some territories had gone over to the Reformation, while others did not.254 In France the people could, as of January 1562, go to different churches without fear of persecution. A citizen remained a citizen even if he were excommunicated by the church, as l’Húpital remarked. The way was now open for citizenship to be unhinged from membership in a church. Immediately after the decision of 17 January 1562, the Calvinist representatives at the court of Saint-Germain informed their churches of the agreements that had been reached. The edict consisted of fourteen articles.255 To this text, the leaders of the Calvinist church appended a letter together with a commentary on the articles.256 They wanted the decisions, which often concerned rather sensitive 253 254 255 256

Buisson: 1950, 196; Nürnberger : 1948, 131; Amphoux: 1900, 240. Dufour : 1970, 137. Beza: 1883, 752 – 762; Amphoux: 1900, 241 – 244. The advice of the “Ministres et Deputez des Eglises de France” of 17 January 1562 has been printed in Beza: 1883, 762 – 766. The Histoire eccl¦siastique devotes two notes to the problem of the dating of the letter and of the advice on the articles. Beza: 1883, l.c., 762, n.q and n.1. In the M¦moires de Cond¦, the original act is dated to 21 January 1561 – where one should read ‘1562’, due to the two different systems of dating for the first months of the year. See n.49 and 176. For the Articles contenus en l’edict sur lesquels a est¦ deliber¦ au conseil and the Lettre et avis des ministres et d¦put¦s — la cour aux ¦glises de France, see also: Philip Benedict and Nicolas Fornerod (ed.), L’Organisation et l’action des ¦glises r¦form¦es de

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

201

Political Pressure

issues, to be acceptable to the church membership, and hoped to convince their constituents to cooperate. The letter of the ministers and the Calvinist deputies in Saint-Germain was addressed to the “most beloved brothers”.257 The content of the letter dealt with the promise that the king and the governments would protect all who subscribed to the confession. This protection was the greatest single gain for the Calvinist churches that resulted from this edict.258 The French Protestant representatives had come to an agreement with the government in which a number of concrete points were settled on paper. The Calvinist church was to fall under the protection of the French civil government, and it would no longer be persecuted. By virtue of this new agreement, the new French church would receive a modest place of its own within society. Beza and Coligny were not at all unhappy with the agreement, although “some will be of the opinion that it was possible to obtain more freedom than that which we have, and indeed that it will be difficult for those who already have church buildings […] to surrender them.”259 A modest form of religious freedom had thus been won. The members of the new church received permission to hold prayer meetings at their homes in the cities, on the condition that their gatherings would not become too big and that they take place in peace. In the countryside, they were allowed to meet in church buildings. The churches further received permission to use their “freewill offerings […] for the subsistence of the pastors and the care for the poor”, and to meet as consistory or in synods as long as a royal representative was present.260 But what did the Calvinists have to give up in return for these favours? In the first place, they had to return the church buildings, with treasures and relics intact, to the established church.261 In the mind of the Calvinist representatives, giving up the church buildings was an acceptable price to pay for the freedom of religion.262 In practice, however, this proved to be a considerable stumbling block for many churches, for over the course of the past years the Protestant had exerted great amounts of energy in order to obtain these buildings. The issue of church buildings had already proved to be extremely sensitive a year earlier at the meeting of the Estates General in Orl¦ans. Following the colloquy of Poissy, the king proclaimed a so-called ‘edict of restitution’ in Oc-

257 258 259 260 261 262

France (1557 – 1563): Synodes Provinciaux et autres document, no. 26, GenÀve: Droz, 2012, 156 – 164. Beza: 1883, 760 – 762. Beza: 1883, 760. Beza: 1883, 761, l.20 – 23. Comment about Edict, art. 3, 7 and 9; Beza: 1883, 763 – 764 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 160 – 162. Edict, art. 1; Beza: 1883, 762 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 159 – 160. Beza: 1883, 761.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

202

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

tober 1561. The Reformed responded in November when they accompanied the results of their church count, for which the queen had asked, with a petition that they might be allowed to have their own buildings. The pastors and deputies of the Protestant churches therefore had to pressure the church members particularly in regard to the enforcement of the first article about the return of ecclesiastical possessions to the established church. As the instructions to the churches indicate, those who failed to return certain things could no longer be counted as true members “of the body of the church”.263 It was further determined that the images had to be left alone. The deputies remarked in their commentary that God alone could place the conviction in the king’s heart to break with the idolatry. It was not up to them to try and do this themselves.264 Iconoclasm was to be a thing of the past. Furthermore, the Reformed were to fight the good battle with “spiritual weapons” alone, as the deputies observed regarding the article on the bearing of weapons. With the exception of the nobles, the Calvinists were forbidden to carry weapons during their gatherings.265 For “the gospel must not be spread with weapons and violence, but through the pure and holy preaching of the Word of God alone”, and by servants who have a legitimate calling – that is, by pastors whose appointment was to be approved by the local government.266 The Reformed spokesmen attempted to keep their constituents in check. In the appendix to the agreement, they repeated a number of times that the good battle was a spiritual one. The emphasis on this element of the agreement should come as no surprise, for by the time of the Edict of Saint-Germain the Reformed churches had grown into a military force to be reckoned with. As has been mentioned, the local churches were inventoried in the fall of 1561. The count had been carried out with “great accuracy”, as Reformed historiography reported.267 At the same time, the hierarchical structure of the Reformed churches was assessed in terms of its military employability. In a state of war, a parish pastor would become a captain, a leader of the regional assembly a colonel, and the representative of the province a ‘chef de province’. On 6 January 1562, Beza asked for Calvin’s advice on the matter.268 Calvin responded several 263 264 265 266 267 268

Beza: 1883, 760, l.18. Comment about Edict, art. 2; Beza: 1883, 763 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 160. Comment about Edict, art. 4; Beza: 1883, 763 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 161. Comment about Edict, art. 13; Beza: 1883, 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 164. Beza: 1883, 745; see n.204. CO 19, no. 3688, 238 = Corr. de BÀze 4, no. 229, 17 f. The third national synod of Orl¦ans, held in April 1562 after the Wars of Religion between Catholics and Huguenots had broken out in March, would deliberate on the problem of the mingling of church and politics. The Huguenots then decided that a distinction would have to be drawn between an ecclesiastical and a military-political element in being ‘Reformed’. The synod of Orl¦ans determined that the respective decisions would no longer be made by the same persons.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

203

Political Pressure

months later (13 May 1562), and countered that it did not fit the office of a pastor to have a military position at the same time.269 The churches had obligated themselves to cooperate with the existing governments; this implied that the Huguenots would have to abandon every form of illegal activity. They would no longer be able to meet and make decisions in secret, behind the backs of the local ecclesiastical and political authorities. There is no evidence at all suggesting that Calvin agreed with the accord that was hammered out in January 1562. He was not directly involved in the formation of this pact, and only saw it after the fact.270 Calvin was ready to surrender the underground character of the illegal Calvinist movement on the one condition that the established church in France were to be reformed. Accordingly, in December 1560, after the death of Francis II, Calvin had declared that he was willing to abandon the clandestine character of the new church if the Protestant Antoine de Bourbon, king of Navarre, came to power. Calvin persisted in this ideal of reforming the whole French established church, for he hoped that the accession of Antoine de Bourbon would bring about a change in the church’s situation throughout the entire kingdom.271 He had little interest in cooperation with Catherine de Medici and the house of Guise. In his mind, such cooperation would at the very most give the Calvinists a little room within the established church, for which he had little interest. Another possible outcome of cooperation with the regentess was that the Calvinists would be attributed a modest place in the kingdom apart from and alongside the existing church, which for him was simply unheard of. For that reason, Calvin wanted the Calvinist churches for the time being to remain an illegal movement. Clandestine meetings represented a threat to the government, especially now that the Huguenots had grown into a force to be reckoned with. In the compromise forged between the government and the Protestant churches, the government therefore wanted information regarding the members of the new church to be relayed to it. No one was to be admitted as a member without being examined in doctrine and life, and the details of this membership were to be passed on to the state upon request.272 To this end, the magistracy’s assistants were given access to the church’s meetings, something that the Huguenots themselves had already proposed in June.273 They were for that reason very positive on the demand that the magistrate’s representatives be received at their meetings, as illustrated by the observations from the pastors and deputies on this article of the accord: “We ought to desire the magistrates to be present at our 269 270 271 272 273

CO 19, no. 3785, 409 – 410. Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 359. CO 18, no. 3302, 281 – 285. Art. 5; Beza: 1883, 763 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 161. See n.207.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

204

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

assemblies and to be given a place of honour, which may not be occupied by any private individual whether they be absent or present.”274 The pact further forbade “consistory meetings, assemblies, or synods to be held without the presence or approval of one of the king’s officials.”275 The official motive given for this measure was to forestall traditional holidays being used for Protestant meetings. The real reason for this measure was not doubt that the French court wanted a way to be able to check on what the Huguenots discussed at their assemblies. The delegates of the French churches expressed their readiness to comply with these articles. Consistories were to pass their decisions on to the government, and to inform it of the time and location for their synods. They were further required to report it when a pastor left.276 Cooperation with the government also implied that the churches would have to report anyone who broke the laws to the government. It was forbidden, for example, to “hide those who are being prosecuted or have been condemned for sedition”.277 Such things did happen illegally. The deputies only commented in a general way on this article. The Calvinist churches were not to protect an “instigator to evil”, for the Reformed are “enemies of all those who act against the will of God”.278 Now that the new French church was to cooperate with the government, hardly any restrictions were placed on the freedom of the preachers who had been working in secret until then. Only, the Reformed churches were expected to be loyal towards the Catholic government. The pastors had to promise that they in their preaching would strictly follow “the confession of Nicaea and the canonical books of the Old and New Testament”,279 and the consistories were charged not to take the place of the civil government; that would mean a mixing of “ecclesiastical and political callings”.280 Obedience to the government became concrete in the articles on required military service, taxation, observance of Roman Catholic holidays, and marital laws.281 With regard to marriage, degree of consanguinity was a sensitive issue, and had earlier been discussed at the synod of Poitiers in March 1561. At that time, the synod had decided that marriage between full cousins could be allowed because “it is not forbidden by the Word of God, but by the magistrate alone”.282 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281

Art. 6; Beza: 1883, 764 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 161. Art. 7; Beza: 1883, 764 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 162. Comment about Edict, art. 7; Beza: 1883, 764 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 162. Art. 14; Beza: 1883, 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 164. Comment about Edict, art. 14; Beza: 1883, 766 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 164. Art. 11; Beza: 1883, 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 163. Comment about Edict, art. 8; Beza: 1883, 764 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 162. Art. 8 and 10; Beza: 1883, 764 – 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 162 – 163; see also Beza, l.c., 761. 282 Aymon: 1710, vol. 1 (second pagination), 21, art.24, l.4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

205

Political Pressure

In that decision from 1561, the synod thus played the Word of God out against civil laws. The new church came back on this decision now that it hoped to live in peace with the government and the established church. The Calvinist church was to live in peace with the established church. This also meant that its representatives were not to speak or act in a manner that was provocative or insulting toward those who held other religious convictions. The delegates wrote: “no one should in any way act provocatively or insult people”.283 The pastors were explicitly forbidden to make negative comments on the Mass or on other ceremonies of the Roman Catholic church.284 Beza had written that his desire was to achieve “an agreement and some freedom” for the Reformed church in France.285 He feared that anarchy would result if an agreement was not reached.286 Calvin, in contrast, had little faith in a model of compromise. He insisted that one kingdom could only have one church, and that it was up to the highest authority in France alone to decide to reform the whole church. In his opinion, the Reformed believers were to remain in quiet and to wait patiently. They in any case had no right to take the bull by the horns by creating room for their own church alongside the Roman Catholic church.287 On Sunday, 1 March 1562, the soldiers of the Duke de Guise attacked a group of Huguenots in Vassy during a worship service. More than thirty of the Calvinists lost their lives, and many more were wounded.288 Shortly thereafter – and partly as a result of this massacre – the first French war of religion broke out. The accord of 17 January 1562, for which Beza had mobilised himself in order to prevent the very anarchy that now broke out, expired within a short time due to these catastrophic events. And yet, the unique accord that had been reached on that day was not without importance for the French churches and for Europe as a whole. For the first time in history, there was a government that recognised two churches more or less alongside each other ; the Calvinist church was tolerated aside from and in addition to the established state church. In the end, after several wars of religion, the Edict of Nantes would be promulgated in 1598 without essential differences over against the edict of toleration from January

283 284 285 286 287

Comment about Edict, art. 12; Beza: 1883, 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 163. Art. 12; Beza: 1883, 765 = Benedict and Fornerod: 2012, 163. Corr. de BÀze 3, no.197, 179. l.5. CO 19, no.3546, 13, l.6 = Corr. de BÀze 3, no.198, 182. l.9. One can only speculate as to whether the position which Calvin defended for France in those years was realistic. Trocm¦ reproaches Calvin for having insisted too long on his position to ‘wait-and-see’. Trocm¦: 1959, 160 f; Reinhard, in contrast, suggests that the aggressive Huguenots failed to see that the passing of time would only benefit them. Reinhard: 1980, 94. 288 Beza: 1883, 809 – 810.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

206

Calvin and the Independence of the French Calvinist Church

1562. Also in the Edict of Nantes, the Calvinist church would not receive full recognition, but still be accorded a place of exception that was legally defined.289

Conclusion In the first part of this chapter on France, we saw how the French Calvinist movement, at the first national synod of Paris held in May 1559, established its own church order and confession without any help from the side of the government. Such a situation, in which a church established itself without the involvement of the government, was entirely unique. The Anabaptists may indeed have done so, but their movement constantly placed itself outside of society. This was a situation for which the French Calvinists had no interest at all. Calvin did not support a situation in which the government were to allow a second church to exist aside from the existing church. On this point, however, his followers in France struck out on a course of their own. After the political climate underwent certain changes in light of the death of Henry II in July 1559, Coligny asked the new king in March 1560 on behalf of the Reformed believers to grant them some religious freedom and to organise a religious dialogue. The queen mother, Catherine de Medici, as well as the chancellor, Michel de l’Húpital, together with many others who numbered among the moyenneurparty, were open to the proposals of the Huguenots. The moyenneurs and the French Calvinists were both interested in seeking a solution to the growing religious controversies in France along the path of dialogue. However, while the moyenneurs wanted to bring the differing religious currents together so that they could continue to function within a single ecclesiastical structure, the Huguenots no longer considered this a feasible option. Concretely this meant that the Huguenots sought some form of recognition on the part of the government, that is, a modest place in society alongside the large state church. In the second part of the chapter we saw how, under the leadership of the statesman l’Húpital, the policy of persecution against the Calvinists and heretics was brought to an end. L’Húpital attempted to win the Huguenots over to the moyenneur vision by way of dialogue. The Estates General was assembled in Orl¦ans in December 1560. The estates continued their meeting in the summer of 1561 at Pontoise. And, in September 1561, a large-scale colloquy was held in Poissy. The final outcome of all of these discussions was that l’Húpital came to 289 The place of the Calvinist churches in France would be defined definitively on 8 April 1598 in Nantes under Henry IV. A structural religious freedom was granted to them on that day, guaranteed by the power of government which the Protestants held in the parliaments and courts. Heussi: 1971, 339, par.89 h. See articles 27 and 34 of the Edict of Nantes. Duke et al.: 1992, 122.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

207

Conclusion

realise that church unity was no longer possible. Both at Orl¦ans as well as at Poissy he had failed to bring the different groups together. The unfeasibility of ecclesiastical unity in a single church represented a political reality for him. After Poissy he therefore opted for another foundation to his religious policy. It had to be possible “to live in freedom with those who do not observe the same ceremonies as we do”.290 L’Húpital made a radical turn in his thinking within a short span of time, and now no longer sought a solution to the religious conflicts “in a religious measure, but in a political one”.291 He did not think in terms of a religious compromise anymore, but a political one. He thus proposed a modus vivendi, a feasible agreement that would make it possible for the two churches to live alongside one other in peace.292 On 17 January 1562, the Edit of SaintGermain offered the Reformed some space, a modest form of religious liberty.293 The Huguenots had thus been able to convince l’Húpital of their vision.294 Accordingly, an exception was created for the new church in the laws of the French nation. The Calvinist churches now enjoyed the protection of the state, and this protection included some form of official recognition. From then on, French society would tolerate a second church in addition to the official state church.

290 291 292 293 294

Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 272. See n.253. Nürnberger : 1948, 131, n.154a; Louis Cond¦-Bourbon, Prince de Cond¦:1743, 606 f. Nürnberger : 1948, 133; Baird: 1879, vol.1, vol.1, 576; Doumergue: 1927, vol.7, 272. Chatherine was not convinced and, late in January 1562, she made one final attempt to realise the position of the moyenneur-party by trying to arrange for a continuation of the colloquy of Poissy. However, she failed in these plans. Kingdon: 1956, 89, n.80. On 18 February, the Paris parliament refused to cooperate in trying to reach an agreement. Buisson: 1950, 198.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Chapter 4. “We were right to follow the Genevans”: Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands 1572 – 1578

Introduction In the Netherlands, the Reformed began to look actively for a way to organise their new church in 1572. By this time, parts of Holland and Zeeland had come into the hands of the rebels, so that the Calvinists were no longer forced to operate as an underground movement. There was much discussion on the precise form that the Dutch church order ought to have, with both church and governments producing a variety of concept versions. These church orders have already been the subject of an extensive body of secondary literature, so that there is no need to describe them in detail once more in the present study. Instead, our purpose will be to consider whether the differences between Calvin and the Huguenots that emerged from the preceding chapters were also reflected in the situation of the Netherlands, or whether the Low Countries show themselves to have been taken up with an entirely different set of problems. The pertinence of the question addressed in this chapter can be illustrated by reference to the speech Calvin held before the Genevan council late in November 1561 when the city’s church order had been published. He stated that the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques were “a light” and “an example” for all the Reformed churches, and a testimony to the churches of other confessions.1 Within a period of two years, the Genevan church order was printed as many as three times.2 In 1 CO 21, 766, l.26 – 30 = CO 10a, 92, l.31 – 34. Two days earlier, the city council had decided that the Genevan church order “ought to be published”. The council gave the reason that its church order “could serve as instruction to other nations, and as a testimony of our reformation”. CO 21, 766, l.12 – 14 = CO 10a, 92, l.20 – 21. 2 Niesel counts at least three editions of the Genevan church order published in 1561 and 1562. Niesel: 1945, 42. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss mention two editions – both in French, and published in Geneva by Artur Chauvin, the one in 1561 and the other in 1562. The titles are almost exactly the same: ”Les ordonnances ecclesiastiques de l’Eglise de GenÀve. Item, l’ordre des Escoles de ladicte Cit¦”. The first version has 92 pages, the second 119. CO 10a, X. A copy of a third edition can be found in Munich. Niesel: 1945, 42. In 1579 the Leiden magistracy quoted from an “extract from the ecclesiastical ordinances of Geneva, published in Geneva in the year

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

210

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

light of Calvin’s speech and the immediate demand for the church order evident from its multiple printings, one is indeed justified to ask whether Calvin’s church order also influenced the development of the Reformed church of the Low Countries in the 1570s. As we have seen, it became clear that the Genevan church order no longer sufficed for the churches in France because their leaders saw themselves forced to organise the church independently of the government, and aside from and alongside the established church. As of 1572, the Prince of Orange, together with the rebels, gradually gained control over large parts of Holland and Zeeland. Although initially the Reformed and the Catholics both had the freedom to exercise their religion, as time passed the Roman Catholic faith lost its status as the public religion. In Holland and Zeeland, it was the Reformed church alone that received the government’s official permission for existence, and it thereby supplanted the established Roman Catholic church. In France, the situation had been entirely different. There the Reformed church had been forced to cooperate with the Catholic government, while the Catholics retained their position as the established church. Thus, whereas earlier – i. e. at the time when the Calvinists met illegally as churches ‘under the cross’ and as refugee churches – the situation in the two countries had been quite comparable, beginning in 1572 the situation of the Reformed church in Holland and Zeeland could no longer be compared to that of the Reformed church in France. For that reason, it is worthwhile considering whether, or to what degree, the Calvinist church in the Netherlands decided to follow the ecclesiastical model of either Calvin or of the Reformed churches in France. In order to address this question, we will examine the first Kerkelijke Wetten (“Ecclesiastical Laws”) drafted by the States of Holland and Zeeland in 1576, as well as the church order established by the first national synod of the Calvinist churches held in the Netherlands in 1578. While at a later period there would be some recognition of the wishes of the church, in these documents from the early history of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands a sharp contrast is evident between the respective views of the states and of the churches. The Kerkelijke Wetten of 1576 were never introduced or enforced, and they were in fact not even published until 1617. All the same, they do provide good insight into the position of the government at that time. This is also evident from their official publication 1562 by Artur Chauvin” (Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 82, n.25); this probably refers to a hand-written extract, and not a published Dutch translation. This supposition is further confirmed by the fact that the two oldest Dutch editions of Calvin’s church order known to us today, both of which were published in Amsterdam in 1617, do not mention an earlier Dutch printing. The title of these Dutch translations is: Kerckeliicke Ordonnantie der Gemeente van Geneven: eertijdts ghemaeckt daer nae vermeerdert ende eyntelyck bevestight by de seer eerwaerdighe heeren bourghemeesteren […] op Donderdagh den 13. Novembris 1561, by het leven vanden hoogh-gheleerden Johannes Calvinis, overgheset in Nederduytsch uyt de Fransche copie, Amsterdam: Broer Jansz., 1617.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

211

40 years after the fact, and the distribution of these laws to all city magistracies (vroedschappen) of the “States of Holland and West-Friesland”.3 For what follows, the 1617 text has been used. It cannot be determined with certainty whether the churches actually saw the 1576 Kerkelijke Wetten prior to their synod of 1578. All the same, one can safely assume that the government’s views reflected in this document were well known at the time when the synod met. At this time, there were great tensions and uncertainties, and the lines had not been clearly drawn yet. It was not certain, for instance, whether the Reformed churches would actually maintain their newly gained position as the ‘established’ church in Holland and in Zeeland.

1.

Motive and background

Up until 1572, the Reformed in the Netherlands modelled themselves after the example of the French churches, which had organised themselves into a synod during times of heavy persecution in the 1550s. During this same decade, as well as in the 1560s, many Calvinists in the Netherlands were likewise persecuted for their faith. In the fall of 1571, the representatives of the refugee churches and of the churches ‘under the cross’ met together in Emden in order to organise themselves into a synodical structure.4

3 Hooijer: 1865, 117. The Kerkelijke Wetten of 1576 were added under the title Extract uytte Vnie ghemaect tusschen Hollandt ende Zeelandt op den 25. April 1576 to the Ivstificatie vande Resolvtie. Der H.M.Heeren de Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vrieslandt ghenomen den 4. Augusti 1617 op hare H.M.Name inghestelt ende aende Vroetschappen der Steden overghesonden, 19 – 31. In 1671 they were also printed by Geeraert Brandt in his Historie der reformatie, and in 1865 Cornelis Hooijer included them in his Oude kerkordeningen. 4 A French synod met earlier that year (i. e. in April 1571) in La Rochelle, where the brother of the Prince of Orange, Louis of Nassau, represented the Reformed in the Netherlands. The synod of Emden alluded to the tight bond between the Dutch and French Calvinist churches in article two of its acts: the “confession of the churches in France” was subscribed “in order to witness to the bond and unity with these French churches” Nauta: 1973, 76 – 94. This was a conscious decision, as is evident from the fact that the synod of Emden did not mention a German confession, although this would have been entirely natural since Emden lay in Germany and since both the prince, as well as the delegation from Holland (i. e. the two Amsterdam ministers Petrus GabriÚl and Jan Arentsz.), had asked for this. Tukker: 1973, 68; Van ’t Spijker: 1991b, 152. Similarly, no special connection was drawn to the Swiss churches, although in 1566 the Second Helvetic Confession had been presented to the Diet of Augsburg by Frederick III of the Palatinate as a sign of the unity among the Calvinist churches Hollweg: 1964, 148 f; Augustijn: 1971, 47 f and 59; see also Hooijer: 1865, 60 f; Van ’t Spijker: 1991b, 162 – 166. Knetsch has demonstrated that the agreement between the church political resolutions of the French and Dutch churches at times extended to the smallest of details. Knetsch: 1978, 55 – 60 and idem: 1982, 29 – 44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

212

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

Not long after the synod of Emden had been held, the Prince managed to effect a policy of pacification. On 20 July 1572, the States of Holland and Zeeland during the first independent assembly of the states held in Dordrecht also made decisions regarding their religious mode of existence. They decided “that the freedom of religion was to be maintained for both Reformed and Catholics, and that each person was to apply the free exercise of it at home, in public, and in churches or chapels […] without being impeded, hindered, or obstructed.”5 This agreement never really achieved stable enforcement, however, and would not apply for long. The ecclesiastical and political situation of the time was one of extreme confusion. The battle lines divided Holland itself, as Hollanders could be found on both sides of the religious divide. One gets the impression that, following the rebellion, church and society entered a time of chaos and were governed in an improvisatory manner, even in cities that had chosen for the side of the prince. On the whole, people with different religious convictions were treated with respect, although in 1572 as many as 49 people were still martyred for their faith in Holland, including the five Franciscans who were killed in Enkhuizen in June 1572 and another nineteen priests who met their end in Gorkum shortly thereafter.6 As of 1572, the Reformed not only received a legal status in large parts of Holland and Zeeland, but in practice they also began to take over the place of the established church.7 All the same, it is striking that the Reformed churches made 5 Bor : 1679, vol.1, b.6, fol.283, 389; Hooijer: 1865, 85; Duke: 1990a, 203. It was in Dordrecht that the first meeting of the states would be held in 1572, as well as the synods of 1574 and 1578. The reason for this choice was that it was “the oldest of the Dutch cities”, and for that reason could be reached most safely and easily. Hooijer: 1865, 89. In July 1572, the prince further determined that no one could become a minister without permission from the government, while the government promised from its side that it would not refuse any minister except in exceptional circumstances. With this, the government gave the churches some room to manoeuvre. The formation of consistories was permitted; when several consistories complained about the fact that Anabaptists were given the rights of citizenship, the government considered a moratorium on all consistories. Woltjer: 1971, 48, n.43 and 44. 6 Duke: 1990a, 200 and 203, n.27. Late in July 1572, after the religious peace of 20 July, the bailiff, who wanted to remain true to the Catholic church, made a petition that “everyone should be allowed to keep his possessions and religion”; he was arrested in April 1573, and forced in the end to leave the town of Naaldwijk. Duke, l.c., 216 – 217. Duke: 1990c, 238. During these turbulent years, it was still dangerous to express one’s faith openly. The danger also applied to the Reformed, for during this period as many as four of their city preachers were executed. Duke: 1990a, n.78. 7 In the course of the 1570s, the Reformed church in the Netherlands continued to orient itself toward the French church, which had secured a certain amount of independence for itself. In a request from 22 June 1578, for example, the synod of Dordrecht requested the States General to grant freedom for the exercise of both religions and for a dialogue so that, “through a good and free general, or at least a national, council, the diverging views that we see in our lands in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

213

no attempt to achieve a monopoly on the rule of those cities whose government had chosen to join the side of the prince. On the whole, no drastic measures were taken once the transition to the side of the prince had been made. During this early period, the Reformed believers in the cities were often content to worship in small church buildings or chapels, and laid no claims on the city’s main church.8 This is remarkable, and reveals what the Reformed were really after. They wanted to be an institution with an organisational structure of its own, rather than an organ of the state. In the new situation that followed from the successes achieved by the Prince of Orange, the Reformed church therefore continued to present itself as a ‘church under the cross’. In spite of its advantaged position, it sought to remain a church as in the days of the refugee churches. This basic orientation is illustrated, for example, in the formation of consistories9 in the Reformed cities, and in the fact that people were required to register themselves officially in an entirely voluntary act if they wanted to join the Reformed church as members.10 From the time when the Reformed were forced to meet as an underground church, the custom had arisen for all new members to announce themselves to regard to religion might be compared.” Bor: 1679, vol.1, b.12, fol.39, 971; the request can be found in Bor, l.c., fol.37 – 40, 968 – 971. This request was remarkably similar to the proposal which the Huguenots made to the Estates General in France early in the 1560s. The synod of Dordrecht pled for the two religions to be allowed to exist alongside each other, and appealed to “the example of our neighbours”: “as we see around us, the two most powerful nations that surround our fatherland (i. e. Germany and France) have, after much bloodshed, found no other means to stem or soothe this than to agree to and allow the exercise of both religions.” Bor, l.c., 970 and 971. 8 Duke: 1990a, 209, n.50. 9 Within a year of the transition to the side of the prince, many consistories were formed, including first the consistories in Enkhuizen and possibly in Schiedam in the fall of 1572, and then in Alkmaar, Gorkum, Leiden, and Dordrecht in 1573. In Leiden, the court confirmed the election of six elders and five deacons after they had first been approved by the burgomasters and aldermen, “provided that these elders and deacons will not enter in upon […] any political affairs.” On 14 June 1573, the ministers in Dordrecht managed, in cooperation with the magistrates who belonged to the Reformed church, to present a list of twelve names for election to the city council. In 1580, there were at least five consistories among the forty villages belonging to the classis of Dordrecht. In 1574, the churches of The Hague, Gouda, Leerdam, and Den Briel received their consistories. Most members of the first generation consistories were veteran believers whose commitment to the new Reformed church had been tested. By ca. 1600, the consistories were composed primarily of leading citizens from the regent families; by that time, consistories as such were also a more commonly accepted phenomenon. Duke: 1990a, 209 and 210; idem: 1990c, 247; Woltjer: 1985, 4 and 8; Jensma: 1981, 1. 10 Enno van Gelder has argued that the change in the relationship between the church and the state in the Netherlands was the “entirely new” thing that was introduced by Reformed church polity. “The change consisted in this, namely, that the subjects of the civil government (i. e. all inhabitants, by virtue of their residency) were no longer expected to cooperate in the religious acts of the community, or to conform to the decisions pertaining to religion.” Enno van Gelder: 1968, 450.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

214

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

the consistory, to profess their faith, and to promise to submit to the consistory’s authority.11 That the church had such strict entry requirements in place at a time when it existed illegally is entirely comprehensible in light of the possibility of infiltration and betrayal from the side of the enemy. However, after Holland and Zeeland made their transition to the side of the prince in 1572, the Reformed church retained this admission process, and thereby distinguished between ‘fidÀles’ (ie. those who had enrolled) and ‘prudents’ (i. e. those who were more careful and waited to see how things would develop). Now that the Reformed religion was the official religion in many cities of Holland and Zeeland, this distinction was not just superfluous, but also stood in the way of the reformation of the existing church and therefore of society as a whole. It was at this point in time that the Reformed began to maintain a distinction between ‘members’ (lidmaten) and ‘lovers of the Reformed religion’ (liefhebbers van de gereformeerde religie). The ‘liefhebbers’ were people who did not join the church as members, but still did attend the services12 ; in number they far outnumbered the members who were officially enrolled.13 The Reformed church 11 In 1558 the consistory of Antwerp thought that a distinction ought to be maintained “between the children of God and of the world, which [distinction] resides primarily in the confession of faith and that they submit themselves [ende dat se hen geven] under the discipline of Christ.” Jelsma: 1970, 51. On 3 December 1565, the synod of Vigne decided that those who expressed an interest in the Reformed religion and attended the preaching for some time had to be kept from the assemblies “in order to make room for others in whom the Word of God might find a better place.” Hooijer: 1865, 22, art.1; Woltjer: 1971, 27. 12 Van Deursen: 1974, 128 f; Duke: 1990b, 291. 13 On 15 May 1587, the president of the Court of Holland remarked at a meeting between the States of Holland and twelve leading Calvinist ministers that the Reformed religion alone was to be allowed in Holland as the public religion; “this is to be considered a great benefit in view of the fact that there are so many and varied opinions that ten percent of the population in the land does not belong to the Reformed religion, such that it is to be considered a great act of welfare on the part of God that those who are by far the greatest majority have no public exercise [of their religion], while those who are least in number can hear God’s Word publicly and exercise their religion without fear.” The ministers did not call the accuracy this statement into question. Bor: 1680, vol.2, b.22, fol.88, 976. This quotation from 1587 reveals that the largest part of the population did not belong to the Reformed church; in fact, not even ten percent of the people did consider themselves to belong to it. That less than ten percent of the population had officially joined the Reformed religion is confirmed by local and regional statistics. In fact, Decavele has even suggested that not even five percent of the people in the 1570s belonged to the Reformed church. In general, more people in the city than in the rural areas joined the church as members; levels of membership were also higher among the middle class, than in the upper echelons of society or among the poor. Van Deursen: 1974, 129 – 134; Duke: 1990b, 269 – 270; Decavele: 1986, 54. To compare these statistics to the northern regions: in 1587 some ten percent of the population in Kampen were either members or liefhebbers of the Reformed church. Van der Pol: 1990, 245 and 261. From a study of the ‘Provintiale Raden and Rekenkamer van Holland aen den Grave van Lycester’ on 18 September 1587, it emerged that the majority of people still counted themselves as part of the Roman Catholic religion: “Even if the king were to do away with ‘all kinds of warriors’,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

215

paid a considerable price for this form of independence, since the outcome meant that the church turned into a separate group within society. Anyone who wanted to become a member of the church had to bring an attestation, or else to report to the consistory accompanied by two witnesses who themselves were members of the church. The candidates were examined in regard to their knowledge and view of Reformed doctrine at the hand of the catechism, after which they were asked whether they intended to remain true to this doctrine, to renounce the world, and to lead a new Christian life under the supervision of the consistory. The members who accompanied the candidates then testified to their good life, after which the candidates made a profession of their faith. After the person in question was presented to the church and no lawful objections were made, the new members were enrolled and, finally, received the right to participate in the Lord’s Supper.14 This stringent procedure was relaxed to a degree over the course of the 1570s,15 although the principle remained that people were not considered members of the church by virtue of their residence in a Reformed city as was the case in Geneva, but that a specific group of people within a city instead became members of the church through the the aforementioned perils would not be taken away ; for since everyone who has the slightest knowledge of these lands, it is commonly known that the majority of people in every city and place is still devoted in his heart to the Roman religion.” Bor: 1681, vol.3, b.23, fol.33, 50. Earlier, on 31 March 1577, Marnix of St. Aldegonde wrote to Gaspar van der Heyden about the fact that the Reformed church was so unpopular : “Nothing is more common than that the leading nobles and members of the States, as well as countless men from among the population, avoid our gatherings for this one reason that they fear a new dominion and yoke of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” Marnix van St. Aldegonde: 1860, vol.1, 226 – 233, 228. 14 Rutgers: 1889, 250, art.64 and 270, q.30 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 156 and 174; Roodenburg: 1990, 96; see also ”Een corte undersouckinghe des gheloofs ouver de ghene die haer tot de Duytsche Ghemeunte die te Londen is begheuen willen,” in: Nauta: 1974, 49 – 64. Duke: 1990b, 273. For the discussions on the enrolment of members at the synod of 1574, see Rutgers, l.c., 139, art.7 = Hooijer: 1865, 98 and at the synod of 1575, see Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 167. According to canon law, members were required to celebrate communion only once per year, on Easter. The Calvinist church in the Netherlands did not allow everyone to partake of the Lord’s Supper : the select group of people who did, joined the church and participated in the sacrament voluntarily. In what follows, we will use Rutgers’s text edition for the acts of the synods of Dordrecht in 1574 and 1578. Since Van ’t Spijker has observed that the Rutgers edition of the 1578 synod hardly needs correction, we can safely assume that the same applies to the text of the 1574 synod. Hooijer’s edition is indeed a good reference work, although he reproduced the texts less literally. Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 140. 15 After the 1574 provincial synod of Dordrecht had complained about the high requirements for membership, the provincial synod of Rotterdam decided in 1575 that anyone who was too embarrassed to “present himself to the church” only had to appear before the consistory. Similarly, the names of those who would participate in the Lord’s Supper were only to be announced in the consistory. A year after the 1574 synod, the consistory of Dordrecht decided that new members could choose to profess their faith before a pastor and two elders, or before the entire consistory ; this decision was made after it emerged that many people did not dare to become a member of the church because of their fear of having to make a public profession of their faith. Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 169 – 170; Duke: 1990a, 212.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

216

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

aforementioned procedure. As a result, the church became a kind of ecclesiastical ‘organisation’ or ‘community’ within society.16 The Reformed in the Netherlands could not claim to follow Calvin when they distinguished between members and liefhebbers in the church, between those who could participate in the Lord’s Supper and those who had no permission to partake of the sacrament. Instead, the Reformed in the Low Countries followed the example of the French Reformed churches, albeit under differing circumstances. The end result was that yet another change was introduced into the ecclesiastical structure that Calvin had originally devised for Geneva. The Dutch Reformed wanted to realise two ideals at once: to maintain their independence, and at the same time to be the established church. They sought above all to form a group of their own, to set apart “a people and church […] without wrinkle or blemish”.17 In order to accomplish this, they sought the protection and support of the civil government. After the transition to the side of the prince had been made in 1572, the Reformed at first continued in their earlier modesty.18 This changed the following year, however. At that time it was determined that the new established church was to use the public church buildings, which were accessible to the entire population, for its religious exercises,19 and that the Reformed pastors were to be paid from the state coffers.20 Furthermore, 16 According to the jurist Fockema Andreae, the ‘synodalen’ had come to view the church as an ecclesiastical institution in addition to and aside from other ecclesiastical societies, so that the totalitarian character of the church was lost: “Here there was no ‘Parochialzwang’, no forced church membership as in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran states, or in Scotland or Geneva, or other Calvinist and Zwinglian states.” He further argued that the government saw the church “not so much as an institution of the state, but as a public institution that was there for the public benefit and cooperated closely with the government.” Fockema Andreae: 1952, 147. 17 Van Dooren: 1978, 187; Woltjer: 1971, 26. 18 See n.8. 19 The buildings of the Reformed churches were public buildings, and accessible to everyone also throughout the week. The nave functioned as a large square in which the people could freely gather, and during the worship services children and dogs wandered about throughout the church. For building a new church, special taxes were levied upon all citizens. The church building was also a place where public announcements were made, such as the sale of real estate. The 1574 synod of Dordrecht spoke out against this practice in article 48. Rutgers: 1889, 169 = Hooijer: 1865, 103 – 104; the synod of Gelderland similarly mentioned this practice on 31 May 1580: “In regard to announcements of renting and leasing, buying and selling, which are made in the churches [in den tempelen] following the sermon, every consistory shall appeal to its government to abolish this practice.” Van Swigchem: 1970, 14, 17 and 28 – 29. 20 On 20 July 1572, the States of Holland and Zeeland appropriated the ecclesiastical possessions for the state. The resulting funds were used among others in order to pay the salary of the Reformed ministers. In 1574, the States set the honorarium for city pastors at 300 florins, while country pastors received 200 florins. On 10 July 1577, the States of Holland determined that “all income from the parsonages [pastoryen]” was to be collected by the receiver general.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

217

the representatives of the new public church could make their voices heard on every level of government. The government also looked to the training of pastors, for which a university was established in Leiden in 1575. No one at the October 1571 synod of Emden could have foreseen that the position of the Reformed churches would change so quickly and radically. But in just the same way, no one in 1572 could predict the more distant future. To the civil governments, the independent governing bodies of the Reformed church, which were organised on not only a local but also a regional and national level, represented a certain threat. Things were further complicated by the great instability in the political and military situation, as well as the realistic uncertainty harboured by many as to whether the Reformed church in Holland and Zeeland would be able to maintain its current advantaged position. This may well explain why, even after the transition of 1572, the churches continued to fight in order to maintain their independence. Whatever the case may have been, the Reformed at any rate wanted to continue to support each other in these dangerous times, with their support network extending to include those Dutch churches outside of the provinces of Holland and Zeeland in Brabant, Flanders, Gelderland, Friesland, Utrecht, and Overijssel.21 Although the Reformed churches in Holland and Zeeland indeed took advantage of the government’s favour towards them, their primary concern was to maintain their independence. This implied that the Reformed church, although it was the only church that was officially allowed to exist in Holland and Zeeland, exercised toleration towards other Protestant groups as well as the Roman Catholic church, even if it did at times also speak out against certain ‘heresies’ and ‘superstitions’.22 Even in its newfound position of favour, the Reformed De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 157 and 181; Enno van Gelder : 1968, 451 f; Van Dooren 1978, 186. For the “Ordre op de betalinge der Predikanten in de Steden and Dorpen” of 26 November 1574, see Hooijer: 1865, 88. 21 On 31 March 1573, the churches of the province of North Holland suggested that “a provincial synod” should not be held yet because of the dangerous circumstances, Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.1, 10, art.18; and when the synod of Dordrecht met in June 1574, the churches of the northern part of the province of Holland (i. e. the Noorderkwartier) had to absent themselves due to the war. This was confirmed by the later synod of Holland on 25 March 1582, which remarked that it had been considered “advisable and necessary” to convoke a synod due to the threat of war. Rutgers: 1889, 230, n.1 = Coolhaes: 1582, 5. This synod, which was held at Dordrecht in June 1574, accordingly decided to continue building upon the foundations of an independent church as they had been laid at the synod of Emden in 1571. Officially the 1574 synod of Dordrecht was a provincial synod, but its decisions were of import for the entire country, even where the Reformed were unable to assemble in freedom. 22 In 1574, the synod of Dordrecht challenged the Anabaptists’ right to citizenship. Rutgers: 1889, 160, q.3 = Hooijer: 1865, 109; cf. Hooijer, l.c., 94; Woltjer: 1971, 48. As for the Roman Catholics, on 16 August 1572, the first provincial synod of Edam had raised the question as to “how to reform the Catholics who want to devote themselves to the ministry of the holy

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

218

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

church continued to hold to the same policy regarding its existence as it had when the Reformed believers were meeting as churches ‘under the cross’. The Reformation in Holland and Zeeland was not a ‘reformation’ as in parts of Switzerland and in Scotland, where all of society was changed, or – as the Dutch government described the reformation to the “Reformed religion” – in the sense of “a worship of God purified of all gross abuses, yet without being determined all too narrowly on disputable points”.23 The governments were not at all happy with this course of events. While they may have hoped that the Reformed church would gradually adapt to the new situation in which it found itself, it soon became apparent that the Reformed were not going to give up their position of independence. At the synod of Rotterdam held in June 1575, the delegates knew of the government’s discontentment, in particular regarding the way they viewed the church’s relationship to the state. For that reason, the synod tried to reassure the government in a statement that it drew up. The synod drafted a remonstrance to the States of Holland and Zeeland in which it declared that it belonged to the task of the government to maintain supervision on the people’s religious life: “The magistrate ought by virtue of the power of its office to supervise and apply itself to the fortification, conservation, and preservation of pure religion and of the church’s government.”24 This was the entirely traditional standpoint of the Reformed.25 The synod at the same time defended the position that “Holy gospel.” Between 1572 and 1578, roughly one in four ministers in Holland were former priests and monks. The prince and the States of Holland and Zeeland had forbidden official assemblies of the Roman Catholic church in February or April 1573. Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.1, 1; Duke: 1990c, 241 and 242. From then on, only the Reformed religion was accepted. All priests were required to swear an oath of allegiance to “the king, the prince, and the new Reformed religion”, or else to leave the city within three days. Following this decision, some 700 or 800 Roman Catholic clergymen requested permission to depart, which was granted them “most liberally” (fort lib¦ralement). Bremmer: 1984, 80, n.7 and 8; he refers to a letter from the Prince of Orange from 6 May 1573. 23 Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 551. The government wanted “to bind religion to the doctrine of Christ alone, that is, to the gospel, and not to all kinds of faiths and interpretations.” Brandt, l.c., 552. 24 Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol. 2, 162. 25 This was in agreement with the Belgic Confession, which stated that “our gracious God […] has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates […] not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the things of the church”. A synodical assembly held in Antwerp in 1566 limited the extent of the expression les choses eccl¦siastiques (“the things of the church”) by replacing it with de maintenir le sacr¦ ministere (“to maintain the sacred ministry”). In 1618, the Dutch translation was adapted to the 1566 text: de hant te houden aen de Heyligen Kercken-dienst (“to maintain holy worship”). Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 140(o) and 141, art.36; De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 132 – 136 The original French text of the confession, which was officially in force until the synod of Middelburg in 1581, listed a number of biblical references below the text of the article. The first passages listed were Ex 18:20, where Moses as the political leader of the nation of Israel was also in charge of its religious life, and Rom 13:1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

219

Scripture teaches that God has instituted for the godly and proper government of his people a twofold regiment: the one political or civil, the other ecclesiastical or spiritual.” With this statement, the church referred to its own, independent power of government over purely ecclesiastical matters that was to be exercised in purely ecclesiastical assemblies.26 The government perceived such independent ecclesiastical gatherings as a threat. For, in practice it would mean that every city and town would in the end have two governments (i. e. one civil, another ecclesiastical) in the magistracy of the city and in the consistory of the church. On 20 July 1575, the States of Holland and Zeeland intervened. They declared that the authority of all secular officers, magistrates, and governments was not to be infringed upon in any way. This implied that no other college or consistory would be tolerated in any town or city without the advice, nomination, and appointment by the local magistrate.27 Ten days later, the States appointed a committee of four men28 who were commissioned to bring order to the religious situation of the cities because of the “confusion of religion, and the troubled state of our republic.”29 This committee formulated its position in the 1576 Kerkelijke Wetten ingestelt op den naeme des Prinsen van Oranje en der Staeten van Hollandt en Zeelandt (“Ecclesiastical Laws drawn up in the name of the Prince of Orange and of the States of Holland and Zeeland”), to which it added the Redenen der voorschreve Kerkelijke Wetten (“Reasons for the prescribed Ecclesiastical Laws”). Hooijer assumes that it was due to the Prince that these Ecclesiastial Laws were not adopted. All the same, the Kerkelijke Wetten remain an excellent source for gauging what it was that the civil government was after.30 In what follows, we will first examine the Redenen, which functioned as an introduction to or commentary on the Kerkelijke Wetten. The reason on account of which the States “felt obliged, following the disposition of our members, to draw up laws for the regulation of religion” is given 26 Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 160. Cf. the demand made by the government of Leiden in 1574: see n.9. The Reformed church, however, did not limit itself to purely ecclesiastical matters, but involved itself in sensitive political matters on the highest level. When Pierre de Villiers, the court preacher to the Prince of Orange, appeared at the synod in the month of June, he asked the synod in the name of the prince to urge all Dutch provinces to request the States General in Antwerp to allow the free and public exercise of the evangelical religion in provinces other than just Holland and Zeeland. Van der Heyden, Datheen, and Taffin composed a request together with de Villiers on 22 June, which was most probably delivered to the States General on 27 June 1578. These events are important because they illustrate that the synod sometimes allowed itself to be used as a political instrument. For the request, see see n.7; Bremmer: 1978, 92 – 100. 27 Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 131. 28 Jonker Willem van Zuylen van Nyevelt, Leonard Casembrood, Nicolaas Camerling and Willem Jan Reyersz. Hooijer: 1865, 117. 29 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 131. 30 Hooijer: 1865, 117 – 118; see n.3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

220

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

right away in the first sentence of the introduction: “It is undisputable that a godly government has always appropriated for itself the right to establish laws concerning religion.” In this context, they pointed to the example of Moses and of the kings of the Old Testament, as well as the Christian emperors who came after Constantine. Only the severe persecutions of the first centuries forced the church for some time to organise itself in secret, as was true also for the Reformed over the past several years.31 The committee proposed to follow the early church and “the governments which in these times have publicly adopted the purified religion, [and] which have all even prescribed a rule and manner according to which that religion ought to be governed.”32 For its new ecclesiastical regulation for the cities and towns of Holland and Zeeland,33 the government committee decided above all to follow the example of Geneva: “In their ecclesiastical laws the Genevans have paid particular attention to the churches that have their government [i.e. through the city council, HAS] upon their territory. We were right (‘met goet recht’) to follow them, and little separates us from agreement with them in both form as well as practice.” The next line observes that those who drew up the Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques in Geneva could not have taken account of the specific problems that the Reformed in the Netherlands were encountering: “there are still some things that our situation still does not allow.”34 The Kerkelijke Wetten do not mention any classes or synods. The local government was given the power over ecclesiastical life, and at times had to take into account that there were differing ecclesiastical currents. For that reason, the magistracy was to have room for governing the churches as it saw fit, since the situation could differ from one place to the next. The government did not support a synodical organisation of the church; furthermore, in the eyes of the government, the church did not need any power of government on the local level. Every “appearance of two kinds of magistracies” in cities and towns, one for

31 Justificatie: 1618, 25 and 26 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 572 – 573 = Hooijer: 1865, 126 – 127. It is striking that the synod of Rotterdam held in June 1575, in a remonstrance addressed to the States of Holland and Zeeland, also appealed to “the customs of the ancient Christian churches as in the time of Constantine the Great, etc.” in order to defend the synodical structure of the Reformed churches. By itself referring to Constantine and to the early church in the first paragraph of the introduction to the Kerkelijke Wetten, the state committee may have been questioning the legitimacy of the Reformed appeal to the tradition of the church. 32 Justificatie: 1618, 26 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 573 = Hooijer: 1865, 127. 33 Bouwsma remarks that Calvin equated “separate churches” with “cities and villages”. Bouwsma: 1988, 215 – 216; with an appeal to Inst. 4.1.9 = CO 2, 754, l.10 – 13 = OS 5, 14, l.1 – 4. 34 Justificatie: 1618, 27 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 574 = Hooijer : 1865, 128: “Die van Geneven hebben in hunner Kerkelijcke Wetten voornaementlijck ghelet op de Kercken, die op haren gront hare Overicheyt hebben, ’t welcke wy met goet recht hebben naeghevolcht, waer van niet veele en scheelt oft wy en comen schijnelijck ende datelijck over een.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Motive and background

221

spiritual matters and the other for political matters, was to be avoided.35 The pastors were in the service of the magistrate, and were for that reason also to be appointed by it. Similarly, the magistracy was to see to it that “all other offices” were filled; accordingly, elders, deacons, and schoolmasters were to be appointed by it.36 It is clear that the government’s Kerkelijke Wetten on this point closely follow the situation in Geneva.37 The government could not tolerate it if someone were to “penetrate to any office on his own, without authorisation”. The new laws determined that the city government could seek the advice of its pastors when new pastors were to be appointed, but that the advice of a classical assembly was not necessary for their appointment or dismissal. According to the Kerkelijke Wetten, this was “something which is so evident that it requires no explanation”.38 According to the committee appointed by the States, the view that the Reformed churches in Holland and Zeeland were attempting to maintain had originated from a time when they predominantly faced a hostile government. In the current situation, however, the Reformed could return from their exile and form “public congregations that enjoy freedom under the magistrate of the land”.39 After 1573, the Reformed church was the only church in Holland and Zeeland that was officially allowed to exist and enjoyed the favour of the government. Both the leaders of the new church, as well as the government, had a view on the church that left room for those with divergent religious convictions, including the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Mennonites. The only restriction placed upon these groups was that they were not permitted to hold religious gatherings in public buildings. The Reformed church’s newly acquired position as the ‘public church’, however, brought with it certain obligations that actually 35 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 131; it would be strange if every city were to have a “twofold magistracy”. Justificatie: 1618, 26 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 573 = Hooijer: 1865, 127. 36 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 131. 37 As in Geneva, the Kerkelijke Wetten placed the power over church life in the hands of the magistrate, with the further implication that the appointment of ministers and the election of elders belonged to the responsibilities of the city council. The ministers were to be ordained “before the magistrate” with the solemn words of an “oath”. The Kerkelijke Wetten state that it is difficult to understand how anyone could have “any public office […] except under an oath” sworn before the government. Ministers who served in territories where the Reformed had no more than partial control over the magistracy still had to swear their oath of allegiance to the government, because it was instituted by God. Justificatie: 1618, 21 and 28 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 568 and 575 = Hooijer: 1865, 122 and 128; the text of the oath can be found in article eight. 38 Justificatie: 1618, 27 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 574 = Hooijer: 1865, 127. 39 Justificatie: 1618, 27 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 574 = Hooijer: 1865, 128; vgl. Hooijer, l.c., 118. The state commission petitioned that “we ought to tolerate the public exercises of the papal religion as well.” Justificatie: 1618, 29 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 576 = Hooijer: 1865, 129; Van Deursen: 1974, 226.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

222

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

jeopardised the independence that it had gradually won for itself. The government first put its view on paper in the Kerkelijke Wetten of 1576. For the government, the Reformed church’s ‘public status’ meant, among other things, that it was to be possible for all children to be baptised in the newly established church, and that every Christian should have access to the Lord’s Supper. The Reformed felt threatened by the determinations of the Kerkelijke Wetten, for they feared that “the States of the country […] will make themselves our master.” On 20 September 1577, Gaspar van der Heyden wrote that he was waiting for an occasion to draw up “another church order”.40 Early in 1578, the Reformed appealed to the support of William of Orange, who promised to cooperate in a letter dating from 6 March 1578. He urged the States of Holland and Zeeland to allow “some meetings […] in order to bring good order to the matters pertaining to the Christian church.”41 Several months later, on 1 June 1578, the first national synod of the Reformed churches met on Dutch soil. By this time, the struggle over the relationship between church and state was in full swing, a fact which the government had attempted to obscure. For, in its Kerkelijke Wetten from 1576, it had stated that there only “appeared to be some considerable differences […] between these our Wetten and their synodical decrees”, and suggested that it was no more than a side issue “consisting especially in external matters, but even then is not that serious”.42

2.

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

The following will compare the two church orders – i. e. the order drawn up by the state in 1576, and the synodical acts of 1578 – on a number of points, and then consider the reactions from the side of the magistrates and of the ministers to the decisions made by the synod of Dordrecht (1578). The main purpose will be to consider the degree to which the example of Geneva’s church order as drafted by Calvin played a role in these Dutch church regulations, and the degree to which attempts were made, after the pattern in France, to form a structure in which the church would remain an independent institution. The analysis will be limited to the following illustrative points: the administration of (1) baptism and (2) the Lord’s Supper, (3) the exercise of discipline, (4) the process for electing office

40 Van Lennep: 1884, 238. This reference was taken from Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 127, n.4. 41 Rutgers: 1889, 286 – 287. The States gave their permission on March 15. Rutgers, l.c., 285 – 286. 42 Justificatie: 1618, 27 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 574 = Hooijer: 1865, 128.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

223

bearers, (5) regulations concerning marriage, (6) the care for the poor, and (7) education.

1.

Baptism

The issue to consider in regard to baptism is whether the 1578 synod of Dordrecht wanted this sacrament to be limited to the children of members of the church alone, or to extend it to others as well. It should come as no surprise that the government in its Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) had insisted that baptism should be administered to all children without exception: “as often as children are presented, baptism shall not be refused to anyone.”43 For the synod, this was not a given. The issue was addressed concretely in the question “whether the children of all kinds of people including prostitutes, the excommunicated, papists, and the like are to be baptised without discrimination?” The synod responded as follows: “Given that baptism belongs to the children who are in God’s covenant, and that it is certain that these children are not outside of the covenant, they will not be withheld from baptism.”44 In 1572 the provincial synod of Edam had shown its preference for baptism to be administered to children of its own members in places where they had formed a congregation of their own, separate from the Catholic church. However, if this could not be done “without causing great disruption”, the preferred course of method was for children to be “received to baptism without discrimination”.45 The Reformed church thus preferred to remain a separate group, but in practice this was not always attainable. The provincial synod of 1574 held in Dordrecht likewise focused particularly upon the children of the members of its own churches. It approved the practice of baptismal witnesses “in order to maintain the mutual communion and bond of friendship among believers.”46 However, the committee that drew up the Kerkelijke Wetten in 1576 favoured a different view, pointing to the baptismal practice maintained in Bern around 1560 where Reformed and Catholics “made the witnessing of baptism a common matter ; 43 Justificatie: 1618, 13 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 570, art.22 = Hooijer: 1865, 124; Tukker: 1965, 167; Tukker: 1983, 313. 44 Rutgers: 1889, 270, q.27 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 173. Because “baptism is a general testimony of the covenant of God”, someone who has only been baptised – in contrast to a real member – can only be admonished in a general way. Rutgers, l.c., 274 – 275, q.47 = Van ’t Spijker, l.c., 177. It was not until 30 years later, in 1608, that a child was refused baptism because his father did not live a godly life. In 1618, the synod of Dordrecht decided that infant baptism could not be administered to indigenous children in the Indies because they did not belong to the Christian faith by birth. Van Deursen: 1974, 136 – 139. 45 Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.1, 2. 46 Rutgers: 1889, 146, art.62 = Hooijer: 1865, 106.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

224

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

they did this with a view to maintaining friendship among those who have been separated.” The drafters of the ecclesiastical laws saw an important example in this Bernese custom “so as to maintain and increase unity among those who are mixed.”47 The Swiss Reformation was thus held up as an example for the church in the Netherlands. In 1578 the Dutch church adapted itself on this point, and embraced its position as the public church. In Amsterdam, the old baptismal registers of the Roman Catholic church were taken over by the Reformed church immediately after the Alteratie (“Alteration”) of 1578, thereby illustrating that it was the legitimate continuation of the established church.48

2.

Lord’s Supper

Did the synod of 1578 consider that every baptised person ought to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper table in his or her place of residence? The committee that drafted the Kerkelijke Wetten pointed out that, in composing rules concerning religion, one ought to take account of what can and cannot be realised in the given circumstances: “so also our cities, as well as many of our towns, cannot apply an all too strict order on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” This was true in particular of “the examination of all those who wish to partake of the Holy Supper, their confession of faith, their registration and the announcement of their names, the presentation of witnesses, and the like.” If the people (i. e. a large group) are to receive the Lord’s Supper, such an examination prior to the celebration of the sacrament would be unfeasible from a practical perspective. The governments were convinced that such an examination process could be omitted, and stated – with another reference to Calvin’s Geneva – that this was “confirmed by the customs observed in regard to the Lord’s Supper in Geneva”. It would be sufficient for the people to be exhorted, in line with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, that they should examine themselves in preparing for the Lord’s Supper.49 The 1578 national synod held in Dordrecht, however, insisted 47 Justificatie: 1618, 29 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 576 = Hooijer: 1865, 129 – 130; Guggisberg: 1958, 277. 48 In Amsterdam, the last Roman Catholic baptism in the register of the Oude Kerk was administered on the day of the ‘Alteration’; the names of those who were baptised in the Reformed church were recorded immediately below that last Catholic baptism. Roodenburg: 1990, 85, n.71. 49 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 577 = Hooijer: 1865, 130. With this, the Kerkelijke Wetten responded to the synod of Dordrecht of 1574; Rutgers: 1889, 149, art.71 = Hooijer: 1865, 106 – 107. Compare this to the 1563 church order of the Palatinate, whose form for the “administration of the Holy Supper” (dat heilige abendmal zu halten) exhorted the members with the words of 1 Corinthians 11 to prepare for the Lord’s Supper by way of self-examination. The unrepentant were warned and admonished to abstain from the table of the Lord;

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

225

that the Lord’s Supper ought to be for the confessing members of the church alone.50 Calvin, too, thought that “strangers and newcomers” should first present themselves before the consistory in order to be informed of the way things were done, so that none would partake of the Eucharist to their condemnation.51 All the same, the 1578 synod of Dordrecht envisioned something entirely different. For, in Geneva everyone had the right to participate in the Lord’s Supper, unless he were because of sin, and “for only a short amount of time”, to be kept from the table by the ministers so as to reflect on what he had done. If the sinner did not repent, Calvin wanted him or her to be brought before the city council. The city council could then withhold someone from the sacrament for no more than a year. In short, in Geneva someone could only be kept from the communion of the Lord’s Supper for a limited period of time, and his or her name could never be erased from the church’s membership list.52 The public Reformed church in the Netherlands opted for another road at the synod of 1578, however. The regulation maintaining that someone had to be a member of the church before he or she was admitted to the Lord’s Supper stemmed from the time of persecutions, but the national synod of 1578 did not abandon it. Through this measure, the greatest majority of the population was in fact denied communion with Christ at the Lord’s Supper by being withheld from in this way, so the church order continues, we declare to them that “they have no part in the kingdom of Christ”. The responsibility was therefore placed with the participants themselves. Sehling: 1969, vol.14, 384. Dankbaar: 1987, 76. 50 Rutgers: 1889, 250, art.64 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 156. 51 CO 10a, 26, l.15 – 18 = OS 2, 344, l.29 – 345, l.3. 52 CO 18, no.3272 (Calvin to Olevianus, 9 November 1560), 236, l.43 – 49. Cf. the Genevan church order (1541), CO 10a, 30, l.19 – 24 = (1561) CO 10a, 118, l.18 – 23 and OS 2, 359, l.20 – 24. For Calvin, the Lord’s Supper was a communal happening. In line with this conviction, he wrote that there is only the Lord’s Supper when “all believers” come to the table “to break bread together”. CO 49, 485 (at 1 Cor.11:24) and CO 5, 443 (where Calvin alludes to 1 Cor 10:17). Dankbaar: 1987, 51. Cf. Calvin’s letter to Viret from 23 August 1542 Herminjard: 1893, vol.8, no.1150, 110. According to Calvin, however, the prime concern in the Lord’s Supper is to have communion with Christ: as he confessed together with the French church in article 37 of the French confession, “All who bring a pure faith […] to the sacred table of Christ, receive […] the body and blood of Christ”. Cf. Beza, 1 October 1571: n.114. The Belgic Confession restricted this in 1561, for it states that “this life is not common except to the elect of God” (ceste vie n’est commune sinon aux esleus de Dieu). Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 136 and 137, art.35. It became increasingly clear that not all adult residents in a Christian city or town who had been baptised could receive the Lord’s Supper ; only a select group among them had the right to do so. Although the Reformed churches, like Calvin, supported the notion of discipline connected to the Lord’s Supper, the present issue is somewhat different. For the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, the Lord’s Supper became an internal event for the members of this Reformed ‘society’ or ‘club’ alone. The reference to “members of one body joined in true brotherly love” (als glieder eines leibs in warer brüderlicher lieb verbunden) was interpreted in the public churches of Holland and Zeeland as a reference to people who shared the same convictions. See chapter 2, n.40 – 47, 264 f and 439.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

226

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

the table. This even applied in cities where the government was in Reformed hands.53 The States of Holland and Zeeland had wanted to avoid this very thing, especially with a view to “the multitude of our people”, and supported its position by appealing to “the customs observed […] in Geneva”.54

3.

Discipline

Another important consideration is the party whom the national synod of 1578 held to be responsible for maintaining discipline. The 1578 church order dealt with “ecclesiastical admonition and punishment” in a sixth chapter that treated in particular the discipline connected to the Lord’s Supper. Unrepentant sinners were to be withheld from the Lord’s Supper by the consistory, and if they persisted in their obstinacy, the next steps were to be taken “to their excommunication”.55 53 It is not entirely clear what the ratio between members and ‘liefhebbers’ was. Coolhaes reported in 1579 that 23 of the 28 Leiden vroedschappen attended church regularly every Sunday, although none of them actually celebrated the Lord’s Supper. In Alkmaar, ten of the 24 vroedschappen belonged to the Reformed church in 1587; that same year, the ministers expressed their disappointment at the fact that few members of the States regularly attended the worship services, and that even less of them had officially joined the church. Bor: 1680, vol.2, b.22, fol.88 – 90, 975 – 978; Duke: 1990a, 214, n.82; see n.13. Beginning in 1572, the Reformed were given the chance to develop and organise themselves in an increasing number of regions in the Netherlands. It remains uncertain why the synod refused to admit all people as members of the church, and instead opted to receive people on an individual basis and under strict conditions of membership. 54 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 577 = Hooijer: 1865, 130. Lord’s Supper attendance in the Netherlands did not increase dramatically in the 1550s. In East Friesland, where the Protestant cause was not hindered, the Reformed churches reported in 1576 that in many villages the Lord’s Supper was never held at all or perhaps on rare occasions alone; moreover, they noted that if the sacrament was indeed celebrated, no more than four or five people participated in communion (aut quam rarissime idque cum quatuor aut quinque communicantibus). Sehling: 1980, vol.7, 437, art.14. In 1606 the rural ministers in the province of Utrecht reported to the provincial synod that the Eucharist was being celebrated in no more than one half of the 41 villages, often with no more than a dozen communicants present. Duke: 1990b, 270, n.7. In 1573, Dordrecht counted 570 communicants. Nieuwe Niedorp reported an increase of nine communicants in 1578, after it had counted a total of 36 communicants in 1574; on Saturday, 15 March 1578, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in secret in fourteen services in Antwerp. Bor: 1679, vol.1, b.12, fol.37, 968; Tukker: 1965, 76; Van Dooren: 1978, 193; Bremmer: 1984, 80 – 81; Duke: 1990a, 211. Also in places where the Lord’s Supper was attended faithfully, the number of communicants remained rather small and often amounted to much less than ten percent of the local population. See n.13. 55 Rutgers: 1889, 259, art.95 and 96 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 163 – 164. Chapter six of the synod’s acts was not the only one that dealt with matters of discipline. The fourth chapter, for example, mentions a censure on books for which “the ministers of the Word or the professors of theology” were responsible. Rutgers, l.c., 247, art.53 = Van ’t Spijker, l.c., 153.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

227

While the Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) did not speak of a discipline of the Lord’s Supper, the church order of Dordrecht (1578), like the Genevan Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques, did.56 The difference between Dordrecht and Geneva was that the former did not require the Christian magistrate to be consulted if someone refused to repent. In the situation of the Dutch church, someone’s church membership could end when he or she was ‘excommunicated’. Of course, the connection with the church could only be ended officially with the erasure of someone’s name from the church records if that person had earlier been officially registered to begin with. This official enrolment took place after admission was granted to membership in the church. In such a situation, the word ‘church’ therefore comes to have the connotations of an ecclesiastical ‘community’ or ‘society’. In other words, residents of a city or town voluntarily joined the ‘society’ of the church. For, even in Reformed cities, there was no automatic or obligatory church membership.57 As a consequence, Reformed discipline could not be exercised only on people who were not members of the church. The church could exercise censure only the people who had joined it as its members, had voluntarily submitted themselves to the discipline of the consistory, and had been admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In Calvin’s Geneva, on the other hand, no distinction was made between baptised members and confessing members; every resident was a member of the Reformed church community. In Geneva, therefore, every resident was subject to discipline, with the final word belonging to the government. With the 1578 synod of Dordrecht, the Reformed church in the Netherlands began more and more to limit itself to the exercise of discipline on its own confessing members.58 It will be clear by now that the Reformed in the Netherlands went in their own direction, one that differed from Calvin in Geneva. This difference in direction rose out of a difference in their respective views on the church and on church life. It was in fact the Kerkelijke Wetten and its articles on admonition and discipline in respect to the doctrine and life of the ministers (arts. 13 – 19) and the life and church attendance of the people (art. 20) that were more similar to the view entertained by Calvin, especially in that they stipulated that it was the government that had a central role. The government was charged with the task, where necessary, to “punish more severely” the pastors – who were, of course, in a 56 The state’s church order only addressed an admonition to those who wanted to participate in the Lord’s Supper: “each person shall examine himself and see to it that he does not come to the table of the Lord unworthily”. Justificatie: 1618, 23 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 571, art.28 = Hooijer: 1865, 124; see n.49. The church order of Dordrecht states, for example, that “excommunication will not be applied except against those in whom God’s covenant is sealed again through the Lord’s Supper.” Rutgers: 1889, 275, q.47 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 177. 57 See n.10 and 11. 58 Tukker: 1965, 45, n.240. Cf. the example of the classis of Dordrecht. Tukker, l.c., 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

228

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

position where they could impose punishment on others and perhaps be more lenient on themselves – since they were supposed to set a good example. That is why “no one shall take this authority away from the magistrate”.59 If a pastor committed a transgression “concerning which the law has set no punishment, although it still does give offence” – what follows is a lengthy list of examples, including incompetent exegesis of biblical texts, negligence in study, lying, greed – “the elders (upon discovering the matter) will report it to the government and at the same time give their sentiment on it, although in each and every case the judgment of punishment itself always remains with the magistrate.”60 The Kerkelijke Wetten state that the government has been endowed with the power to impose punishment; “the authority that they ought to exercise with respect to the morals of each private individual shall be generally recommended to them by the Magistrate, so that they may restrain all intemperateness as much as possible.”61 The government wanted to limit the independence (onghebondentheydt) of the church as much as possible. Church discipline was to be carried out on the authority of the government in order to prevent every city from having two separate judicial systems. For the state, the ‘two-headed monster’ of an independent ecclesiastical judicial system managed by the consistory aside from, and in addition to, the regular civil court was nothing less than a frightening prospect.62 In our reading of the Reformers, the establishment of such an independent church organisation endowed with its own punitive powers was something they had never envisioned, either. As evidence, we can point to a letter from Bullinger to Peter Datheen dating from 1 June 1570. Bullinger warned him above all not to pursue an independent ecclesiastical power : “Brother Datheen, I wish that you [sing.] were a little more modest, and perhaps did not give us much cause to think that, if you [pl.] in the church were at some time to receive the power of excommunication, everyone who does not admit all of your views would perhaps be condemned as atheists.”63 Bullinger and Calvin may have had different 59 Justificatie: 1618, 28 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 575 = Hooijer: 1865, 129. 60 Justificatie: 1618, 12 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 569, art.16 (cf. idem, 570, art.19) = Hooijer: 1865, 123. 61 Justificatie: 1618, 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 131. 62 In 1561, the Dutch church confessed in the Belgic Confession that church discipline was “for correcting one’s shortcomings” (pour corriger les vices); in later editions this was changed to: “in order to punish sin” (om de sonde te straffen). As the church assumed an independent position, it appropriated a power for itself and changed the language of the confession accordingly. Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 124, l.21 and 125, l.24 – 25, art.29. 63 Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 513 – 514. Bullinger’s letter is printed in Erastus: 1589, no.5, 355 – 367 and available via www.prdl.org. Bullinger wrote that in Zürich, the Lord’s Supper was not connected to discipline. Ruys: 1919, 94 – 95. Van Schelven: 1908, 259 – 260. He further pointed out that those who did not fully agree with the Reformed could still be their brothers and sisters.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

229

views on the place of Lord’s Supper in respect to discipline, but both of them thought that the government was to have the leading role in exercising ecclesiastical discipline.

4.

Election of office bearers

A fourth relevant issue is the way the responsibility for the election and appointment of ecclesiastical office bearers was apportioned. Calvin’s church order had determined that the Company of Pastors was to present a new pastor to the city council for its approval, and, once that was granted, to present him to the church. The new minister was then to pronounce an oath of loyalty before the magistrate, since he stood in the service of the city council. As to the elders and deacons, they were to be chosen not only by the city council, but also from among the members of the different councils.64 The Kerkelijke Wetten follow the same line in their first article: “The magistrate […] shall elect […] pastors.”65 After a pastor had been elected and then examined by the elders on his learning, eloquence, and doctrine and life, he would be presented “to the magistrate”. Then, after his name had been announced on three separate Sundays, he was to swear an oath before the magistrate that expressed above all his loyalty to the government.66 As to the elders, they were to be chosen from among the members of the council: “The magistracy of every place will, according to its number, elect many or few [members] from its own numbers.” Once again, every hint of “two kinds of magistracies” was to be avoided; moreover, the elders “receive more than enough authority from the side of the magistracy, and gain greater respect in that they are chosen from the magistracy.”67 The elders were commissioned to support the pastors, to attend their meetings, and to inform the government “if there was something that the governments ought to know”. In regard to the care for the poor, the governments were responsible for “competent and pious dispensers to be found” (i. e. deacons).68 The magistrate was thus to see to the appointment of

64 65 66 67 68

The Dutch government, as we have seen, held to this same view. According to it, the established church ought to serve the entire population. See n.115. CO 10a, 22, l.21 – 35 and 23, l.29 – 32 = OS 2, 339, l.20 – 340, l.2 and 341, l.14 – 16; CO 10a, 17, l.34 – 18, l.2 = OS 2, 329, l.22 – 330, l.34; CO 10a, 18, l.12 – 14 and 31 – 32 = OS 2, 331, l.1 – 332, l.12. Justificatie: 1618, 20 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 567, art.1 = Hooijer: 1865, 121. On 6 September 1578, the States of Holland made regulations on the right of patronage or collation which in the long run would restrict the autonomy of the local governors. Tukker: 1965, 129. Justificatie: 1618, 20 – 21 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 568, art.5 – 8 = Hooijer: 1865, 122; see n.37. Justificatie: 1618, 25 and 30 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 572, art.39 and 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 125 and 131. Justificatie: 1618, 25 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 572, art.39 and 40 = Hooijer: 1865, 125 – 126.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

230

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

deacons as well. The deacons were allowed to take offerings as long as the war continued, but as soon as a situation of peace were to arise, the government was convinced that it could see to the care of the poor itself.69 The national synod of Dordrecht (1578) responded that ministers were to be chosen by the consistory “together with the deacons and the judgment of the classis,” after examination by the calling church.70 The synod considered the election of elders and deacons a purely ecclesiastical affair as well, fully in line with the decisions that had earlier been made at the synods held in Emden in 1571 and in Dordrecht in 1574.71 The election of elders and deacons was thus in the hands of the consistory, which could propose as many candidates as there were vacancies, or else a double number.72 In contrast to the synods of 1571 and 1574, the synod of Dordrecht of 1578 did give the government a role in the election of pastors. While it had been decided in 1574 that ministers were to be chosen by the “consistory of the place where they will serve […] with the advice of the classical assembly”,73 the 1578 synod involved the government in the calling of pastors: “The ministers, once they have been examined and elected, will be announced to the Reformed government and then presented to the congregation for a period of fourteen days.”74 When a pastor was to be deposed, the government had to be asked for “its consent”, while conversely the state was not allowed to depose or appoint a pastor without the knowledge and permission of the consistory.75 In these regulations from 1578, the synod showed itself to be more in line with the government’s Kerkelijke Wetten and with Geneva’s Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques; they clearly represented a change in perspective from the earlier regulations that had been established in the church order of 1574. The 1578 synod thus made several concessions in regard to the election of office bearers. It is 69 Justificatie: 1618, 31 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 131. 70 Rutgers: 1889, 235, art.4 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 143. Those who “have been judged to be competent by the university of Leiden or by another university of our religion will not be examined anew”, except on doctrine. Rutgers, l.c., 235, art.4. 71 The synod of 1574 decided that two diaconal candidates for every vacancy would be proposed for election to the government. Rutgers: 1889, 62 (1571), art.14, 136 – 137 (1574), art.27, 28 and 150, art.29 = Hooijer: 1865, 69 and 101 – 102. The 1575 synod of Rotterdam judged that, because the magistrates “do not allow any other public exercises except for our true Reformed religion, it is reasonable that deacons should be chosen only from among those who are members of the churches.” Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 168. 72 Rutgers: 1889, 238 – 239, art.12 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 146, art.12. See the example of the church of Dordrecht in 1573; see n.9. 73 Rutgers: 1889, 61 – 62 (1571), art.13 and 136 (1574), art.12 = Hooijer: 1865, 68 – 69 and 98. 74 Rutgers: 1889, 235, art.4 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 143. Van ’t Spijker has argued that the synod was thinking of Reformed magistrates alone. Idem, l.c., 133 – 135. This was a debated and sensitive issue, as was evident from the above. See n.37, 115 and 125. 75 Rutgers: 1889, 264, q.5 and 6 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 168.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

231

important, however, to realise that the changes did not arise out of a change in the synod’s view on the church. Instead, it was all too much aware that it could not bypass the government, and that the churches could not continue without some kind of compromise on this rather sensitive point.76 The fact remains that the changes adopted by the synod were not voluntary, nor did they flow out of a new vision on the matter in question. The churches continued to pursue as much independence as possible, and the synod remained convinced that the ecclesiastical assemblies had to have some powers at their disposal, regardless of the opposing sentiments held by the state.77

5.

Marriage

Church and state were almost entirely agreed on matters relating to marriage. Here the Reformed church accepted its role as the ‘public church’. The drafters of the Kerkelijke Wetten reported in their Redenen that they placed “every responsibility (kennisse) for matters pertaining to marriage in the hands of the civil magistrate” in order to spare the pastors burdened with their “manifold labours and occupations”. “The magistracy of every place will judge all kinds of matters pertaining to marriage according to the applicable laws that have recently been drawn up by us.” The pastors “shall announce from the pulpit, on three Sundays, […] the names of all those who have indicated their intention to enter into the married state [allerley ondertrouwde personen].” If no lawful objections are made, they will “solemnise the marriage in the assembly of the congregation, whether on Sunday or on any other day when there is preaching.”78 The phrase ‘all who have indicated their intention to enter the married state’ 76 The synod thought that, with a view to their enforcement, it would be useful if the government were to express its agreement with the articles of the church order. The church needed the support and authority of the government, as in cases when a minister who refused to follow the classical church order had to be called to order. Rutgers: 1889, 263, q.2 and 3; cf. 264, q.5 and 235, art.4 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 167, 168 and 143. 77 Rutgers: 1889, 239 – 246 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 147 – 152; Kamphuis: 1970, 51 f. On a regional level, delegates from the consistories met in a classis, while delegates from the different classes met in provincial synods, and delegates from the provincial synods in a national synod. Decisions were made by a majority vote. Rutgers: 1889, 241, art.23 = Van ’t Spijker, l.c., 148. Beginning in 1578, the Reformed supported the presence of government delegates at their assemblies. De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 146 and 182. 78 Justificatie: 1618, 30 and 24 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 577 and 571, art.31 and 30 = Hooijer: 1865, 130 and 124 – 125. As of 1572, a number of requirements were laid down in marital laws, including the obligatory reading of marriage banns. In order to prevent an increase in secret marriages, a decision was made in the Rhineland on 15 May 1576 to allow marriages to be solemnised in the public church as well as before the civil courts. Van Apeldoorn: 1925, vol.1, 142 f; Enno van Gelder: 1968, 450 and 451.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

232

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

appears to make room for the public church to solemnise marriages in as wide a circle of society as possible.79 The acts of the 1578 national synod deal with marriage in chapter five. After the sermon, the names “of those who will be married” will be “announced”,80 with the synod not specifying any further who ‘those who will be married’ may be. Marriages could be performed on any day that there was preaching the church, except for “days of prayer and fasting”, and preferably not on days when the Lord’s Supper was celebrated.81 There is no hint in these articles on marriage of a pursuit by the church for independence; the same is true of the corresponding articles from the 1574 provincial synod of Dordrecht.82 The Reformed church was ready to cooperate with the government on marriage, and to follow the trajectory of the existing tradition by allowing ministers, as successors to the Roman Catholic pastors, to carry out the two acts (i. e. the actual marriage ceremony, and the service in which God’s blessing on the marriage was requested) by which a marriage was solemnised.83 Thus, in marriage ceremonies, the Reformed pastors came to function as “public personalities” (publijke personen) on the government’s behalf.84

79 In contrast to Holland, in the provinces of Drenthe, Groningen, and Zeeland marital banns were made in churches alone, because these provinces only allowed the solemnisation of marriages in the church under the jurisdiction of the state. Van Apeldoorn: 1925, vol.1, 145 – 146, n.2. Roodenburg: 1990, 91 – 92. 80 Rutgers: 1889, 255, art.86 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 161. A marriage was officially solemnised by the vows. Rutgers, l.c., 253, art.78 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 159 – 160. 81 Rutgers: 1889, 255, art.88 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 161: ”het welcke oock te wensschen ware dat het op den dagh des Auontmaals niet and gheschiede”. 82 “If a serious problem is encountered in marital matters, the government will be petitioned to send two or three of its members to examine it together with the ministers of the classis.” Rutgers: 1889, 256, art.91 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 161; cf. KO 1574: “But as to the things that are partly ecclesiastical and partly civil, as is so often the case in matters pertaining to marriage – whenever any difficulty is encountered in them, the judgment and authority of the government is to be sought out.” Rutgers, l.c., 149, art.5 = Hooijer: 1865, 97 – 98. The provincial synod of Edam, held in 1572, even thought it desirable for “these matters of marriage to be taken up in the political regiment in order to unburden the churches.” Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.1, 4. 83 The only difference with respect to the earlier marital practice was that the couple had to agree to the marriage. Rutgers: 1889, 156, art.83 = Hooijer: 1865, 108. The 1578 synod of Dordrecht did not speak of a “confirmation” of the marriage, as the synod of Hoorn had done in 1576 (Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.1, 40, art.7), but of the two parties “marrying” and “being given to each other”. Rutgers, l.c., 255, art.86 and 88 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 161; cf. the synod of Hoorn: Reitsma & Van Veen, l.c., 21, art 10; Van Apeldoorn: 1925, vol.1, 151 – 152. 84 See the new Politieke Ordonnantie of 1 April 1580, which determined that those who cohabitated were considered as “wed persons”, just as much as if they had “publicly given and declared their fidelity before the magistrates or before the ministers of the church or before other civil servants.” Van Apeldoorn: 1925, vol.1, 143. For a similar situation in Amsterdam, see Roodenburg: 1990, 92.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

233

That the Reformed church indeed presented itself as the established church is confirmed by the fact that, following the ‘Alteration’ of 1578, it took over the marriage registers of the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam.85 In the Netherlands, both church and state understood marriage to be a mixed matter ; marriage had a civil as well as an ecclesiastical side. In the days of Calvin, the situation in Geneva was quite similar.

6.

Care for the poor

Another point to consider is which poor the church was to look after. In April 1574, classis Dordrecht had determined that the church was to look after both members and non-members, “but to see especially to the ‘housemates in faith’ [huysgenooten des geloofs], and to share with the other poor to the degree that this is possible.”86 The national synod of 1578 made no distinction in this regard: “The office of the deacons” was to give alms according to the circumstances of those in need, and “to visit and comfort the oppressed.”87 The Kerkelijke Wetten of 1576 spoke in general of “the poor” who were to be aided by the deacons according to their need. The task that the Kerkelijke Wetten give the churches to care for the poor was only meant to be temporary, that is, until the peace was restored, so that there might no longer be any begging and the needs of the poor might be met.88 At the insistence of Charles V, a new policy regarding beggars had been instituted in the Southern Netherlands, which was intended to counter the medieval mendicant practices and to regulate matters publicly under the leadership of the magistracy. However, nothing had come of such a government established general regulation yet.89 In these early years, the Reformed church could have left the care for the poor entirely to the government, but it did not do so because it saw the care for them as one of its own tasks. In an earlier chapter we saw that Calvin too understood the church to have a diaconal responsibility. 85 Roodenburg: 1990, 90, n.100. 86 20 April 1574, 2e sessio, art.3; Van Dooren: 1980, vol.1, 13. The church of Den Briel proposed at the synod of 1574 that it would “from then on not serve anyone except the ‘housemates in faith’ [Huysgenoten des geloofs].” Rutgers: 1889, 205, art.5. The synod of 1574 gave room to the local diaconate to decide: “Concerning the distribution of alms, to whom they are to be given and how much, that will left to the discretion of the deacons.” If, in addition to the collections, the deacons also received government money, they had to account for the way it was distributed “before the government”. Rutgers, l.c., 151, art.34 and 150, art.36 = Hooijer: 1865, 102. 87 Rutgers: 1889, 239, art.14 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 147. 88 Justificatie: 1618, 25 and 31 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 572, art.40 and 578 = Hooijer: 1865, 126 and 131; see n.69. 89 Tukker: 1965, 182 and 87.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

234

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

The 1576 and 1578 Dutch church orders both promoted cooperation in diaconal matters, so that the church could witness its social involvement publicly and direct its efforts not only to its own members, but also to the broader population.

7.

Education

A final point to consider is whether the acts of the national synod of 1578 saw education as a task of the church. The entire third chapter of the acts was dedicated to the question of the schools. The synod wanted schools to be established everywhere, in which children “were educated not only in the languages and arts, but in particular also in the Christian catechism, and guided to the preaching”.90 The churches would provide both material and spiritual support to the children in their studies.91 Like the schoolmasters, professors of theology were to subscribe to the confession of faith and to attend classical or synodical gatherings “whenever the classis or synod assembled in the place of the university”.92 The synod held itself to be partly responsible for the organisation of and care for education, including elementary schools, Latin grammar schools, as well as universities. The Kerkelijke Wetten addressed education as well, in that it mentioned professors of theology who were appointed by it. Their task was to form “learned and worthy shepherds” by “explaining Holy Scripture in a pure manner”.93 Both church orders proceeded from the assumption that the professors would be paid by the government, and both church orders expressed the wish for schoolmasters who confessed the Reformed faith. The Kerkelijke Wetten spoke of “God-fearing schoolmasters” commissioned to implant in the youth “the true religion” as well as “learning”, and to “teach them to sing the Psalms in the manner agreed upon”. The government further decided that “those who were not well disposed toward the true religion will not be allowed to teach anymore.”94 The state’s ecclesiastical laws also refer to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, although not in connection with school education but 90 Rutgers: 1889, 246, art.47 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 152. The provincial synod of 1574 had decided that Reformed schoolmasters were to subscribe the confession, to submit to the discipline of the church, and to instruct the youth in the Heidelberg Catechism. Rutgers, l.c., 154 – 155, art.22 = Hooijer: 1865, 100 – 101. Cf. the request to “his Excellency” to establish schools in all cities and towns. Acta classis Dordrecht 9 nov.1574, art.8; Tukker: 1965, 89 – 90, n.207. 91 Rutgers: 1889, 246, art.48 and 49 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 153. 92 Rutgers: 1889, 247, art. 50 and 52 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 153. 93 Justificatie: 1618, 24 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 571, art.36 = Hooijer: 1865, 125. In 1575 the government of Leiden established the first Reformed university. 94 Justificatie: 1618, 25 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 571, art.37 and 38 = Hooijer: 1865, 125.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

The Kerkelijke Wetten (1576) and the Acts of the Synod of 1578

235

rather in the context of preparation for the Lord’s Supper.95 The Kerkelijke Wetten were entirely silent on an exposition of and subscription to the catechism or confession. The significant attention that both the 1576 Kerkelijke Wetten and the 1578 acts of the national synod of Dordrecht devoted to the question of schools96 testifies that education was perceived as something that closely integrated matters of both church and state. It was seen as a matter of general interest that old and young “would be well disposed toward the true religion and confess it”; it concerned, after all, the office of teachers, and the Reformed thought that it was necessary “that the government not admit anyone to these offices except those who are well disposed toward the true religion and confess it”. The synod of Rotterdam, which stated the above in its remonstrance to the States of Holland and Zeeland in June 1575, noted at the same time that uniformity in religion would guarantee the unity of the provinces, “given that good schools are necessary for the good government of republics and churches.”97 In the 1570s, church and state acted in close cooperation when it came to education. Their views on education were in large agreement with each other, and did not differ in any essential way from the practices in Geneva. The one difference was that the Dutch church insisted on subscription to the confession of faith by the members of the teaching staff. The acts of the national synod held at Dordrecht in 1578 allow us to view the Reformed church in many ways as an integrated element of society. This applies in particular to its function in regard to baptism and marriage, diaconal care for the poor, and education. In these areas, the Reformed church did not restrict itself to its own members, but stood in the service of the entire population and, with the exception of baptism, cooperated closely with the government. The situation is radically different when it comes to the Lord’s Supper and discipline, and the manner in which pastors, elders, and deacons were elected and appointed. In these respects, the Reformed synod conceived of itself as an independent ecclesiastical organisation which may have enjoyed a privileged position and worked in cooperation with the government, but at the same time 95 Justificatie: 1618, 23 = Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 570 – 571, art.28 = Hooijer: 1865, 124. 96 This synod of 1578 was the only one to come with regulations for schools, schoolmasters, and education. This topic did not reappear on the synodical agendas later on. 97 Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 166. The 1574 synod of Dordrecht decided that former priests had to abandon their ties to the papal church in all things. There were considerable differences in the background and education of the ministers. The churches attempted to counterbalance this by tightening the rules for admission to the ministry ; the synod of Alkmaar decided on 31 March 1573 that the ministers were to attend weekly pastoral conferences for discussing doctrine in order to promote unity among them. Rutgers: 1889, 141, art.20 = Hooijer: 1865, 100; Reitsma & Van Veen, l.c., 13 – 14, 28, 39 – 40; Duke: 1990a, 222 – 224; Bremmer : 1984, 83.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

236

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

pursued as much independence as it could possibly obtain. This is illustrated above all in the conditions stipulated for membership in a Reformed church and admission to the Lord’s Supper, and the offices. In this regard, the Reformed in the Netherlands opted for a setup that differed considerably from the one devised by Calvin, while the organisation of church life reflected in the state’s Kerkelijke Wetten showed greater similarities to the Genevan church order. Up to this point, we have only seen the spokesmen of the government appealing to Calvin and Geneva in order to support their view in the conflict that pitted it over against the Calvinist churches regarding the new structure that was to shape ecclesiastical life in the Netherlands. Calvin was used to counter the position of the Calvinists, and materially the Reformed churches of the Netherlands hardly objected to this strategic move that was made by the state.

3.

Responses to the synod of 1578

In the present section, we will consider the reactions to the 1578 national synod’s far reaching proposals. On 27 May 1579, the States of Holland requested the cities with voting privileges to submit their advices regarding the newly created situation. In other words, they wanted the cities to formulate a response to the synod of the Reformed churches held in 1578. The Leiden magistracy reacted at the end of June 1579 with its Advies van Burgemeesters en Gerecht van Leiden aan de Staten van Holland over de Acta van de in 1578 te Dordrecht gehouden synode (“Advice of the burgomasters and court of Leiden to the States of Holland regarding the acts of the synod held in 1578 at Dordrecht”).98 According to the government of Leiden, it would not be right for the churches in the present circumstances to assume a part of “the magistrate’s power”.99 The churches act, in the minds of the Leideners, “as if all the churches are still hidden under the cross, and have no protection from the government.” The Leiden magistrates thought that the churches had taken no account of the changed situation, with the result that the role of the government had been “entirely 98 Overvoorde: 1912, 119, n.1; De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 191. 99 Overvoorde: 1912, 142 (at q.6). Education, the solemnisation of marriages, the giving of attestations, and the use of a seal belonged to “the work of the government”, and were not within the church’s jurisdiction. Overvoorde, l.c., 121. Two months earlier, on 4 April 1579, the Leiden magistrates expressed their concern about the increasing amount of power that the church was appropriating for itself: “[…] they think that they have been freed from the old tyranny, only to find themselves under a new tyranny that is even worse”. In 1582, Leiden decided “not to open the door and gates for the clergy to have a new jurisdiction and mastery over the government, its subjects, women, and children.” I found this reference in De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 203 and 210.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Responses to the synod of 1578

237

forgotten”.100 The Leiden magistracy considered that the government, “representing the community”, ought to have leadership over the church.101 Moreover, the Reformed synod was not to think itself “wiser than the church of Geneva” in these matters.102 The Leideners considered it “entirely unreasonable” that the synod had not found it necessary to support the articles of their Reformed church order with “testimonies from the Scriptures”, having claimed that its view was “grounded on the authority of the Holy Scriptures”.103 The Leiden government also reacted to the synod’s stipulation that nonmembers were not to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Leiden thought that everyone “who confesses the Bible alone to be the Word of the Lord ought not to be withheld.”104 The government insisted that the church and the ‘services’ it performed were not intended for one small group within the entire population alone, but were “for all Christians of an unquestionable life”,105 and that this applied in particular to the administration of the sacraments. This June 1579 response was in fact not the first time that Leiden’s magistrates showed themselves to be unhappy with the course of events within the Reformed church. For, earlier that same year, Leiden’s council had had a run-in with the consistory in the city. The consistory of Leiden’s Reformed church had thrown the gauntlet down before the city council when it, against the existing stipulations, appointed twelve elders and twelve deacons for the coming year in December 1578, and on 1 January 1579 announced their names to the congregation from the pulpit without first placing this list in the hands of the magistrates.106 The magistracy responded by asking the consistory what the function of the elders was. The Leiden minister, Caspar Coolhaes, who himself was inclined to the position of 100 Overvoorde: 1912, 131 (at art.12). 101 Overvoorde: 1912, 130 (at art.5); cf. 129 (at art.1). The election and appointment of office bearers, the regulation of days of fasting and prayer, the organisation and meetings of the classis, the decision on the time, place, and topic for the preaching, the regulating of offerings, etc., were all counted by the magistracy as matters that belonged to the responsibility of the government. Overvoorde, l.c., 122. 102 Overvoorde: 1912, 145 (at q.26). 103 Rutgers: 1889, 263, q.1 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 167 = Overvoorde: 1912, 141; see n.124. Leiden observed the following regarding the synod’s appeal to the apostolic church: “We Leideners find it strange that preachers want to imitate the apostolic church in all things, while they themselves fail to do so in regard to the matter of departing from one place [to another].” On this specific point the churches had drawn no parallel to first century practice, although, as the government pointed out, they had expressed their desire to follow the apostolic church “in all other matters”. Overvoorde, l.c., 130 – 131 bij art.7; cf. the comments on article 23; Overvoorde, l.c., 134. 104 Overvoorde: 1912, 146, art.35. 105 Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 552. 106 Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 88 f; De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 188.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

238

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

the government, drew up a response in the name of the church, but the consistory refused to approve it. On 15 February 1579, the consistory decided “not to be obedient” to the government, as Coolhaes would formulate it in January 1580.107 The magistracy – “bailiff, burgomasters, and court” (schout, burgemeesteren en gerecht) – forbade the prospective elders from accepting their offices, and itself appointed three elders and six deacons in their place.108 On 13 April and 7 May 1580, the magistrates also appointed two new pastors.109 In addition, the Leiden magistracy had a Justificatie (“Justification”) drawn up on 4 April 1579. In this Justificatie, the Leiden government pointed out that the position it held agreed with that of such Reformed cities as Zürich, Bern, and Geneva.110 It appealed to Calvin in particular for his position that it was up to the civil government to appoint the ecclesiastical office bearers. The Justificatie referred to Geneva’s church order, as well as the oath which the Genevan pastors were required to swear before the magistracy. For, so the Justificatie stated, in Calvin’s church order things were arranged such “that the ministers first choose the one to be installed in office, having informed the council of this and then presented him to it; and, once he has been found worthy, he will be received and adopted. After he has been elected, he will swear his oath” before the magistrate. This oath included a promise to remain faithful to God and government. The Justificatie further pointed out that the introduction to Geneva’s 1561 church order stated that it had followed the “rule of the early church” and the “Scriptures.”111 107 Coolhaes: 1580a, fol.26v and 27r ; Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 651 f; Kamphuis: 1970, 25 – 26. 108 Woltjer: 1985, 5; see n.9. 109 Overvoorde: 1912, 128. The conflict continued to escalate until a committee of arbitration reached an agreement a year and a half later (29 October 1580) as commissioned by the higher government. Woltjer: 1985, 5. 110 Leiden’s government appealed to the Hausbuch of Heinrich Bullinger in Zürich; the Loci communes of Wolfgang Musculus, professor of theology in Bern from 1549 to 1563; and the church order of Geneva, which circulated partly in the Netherlands. Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 81 f; De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 197 – 204; Hollweg: 1956, 242 f; see n.2. In his widely read sermon collections, which had also been translated into Dutch, Bullinger clearly showed himself a proponent of an open Lord’s Supper table. The government of Leiden knew that it could appeal to Bullinger in order to bolster its position. Hollweg, l.c., 259 – 260. 111 De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 203; CO 10a, 92 – 93 = OS 2, 328 (noot a); see n.64. Rogge has printed – in Dutch translation – an extract from the oath which ministers were required to swear before the Genevan government: “I promise to maintain the Ordonnances Eccl¦siastiques, as they will be applied by the Small, Great, and General Council of this city. I promise to protect the honour and well-being of the government and of the city, being diligent in teaching the people to live in peace and unity under the leadership of the government. I promise to submit to the policies and statutes of the city, subjecting myself to the laws and the magistrate as much as my office allows, that is to say, without compromising the freedom which we have to teach as God commands us and to perform the tasks that pertain to our office.” Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 82 – 83; CO 10a, 95 – 96 = OS 2, 331 – 332. (The oath sworn

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Responses to the synod of 1578

239

In order to support his position that council members are “patrons (voedsterheeren ende voedstervrouwen) of the church of God”, Caspar Coolhaes likewise appealed to the Reformers: “Wolfgang Musculus in his Loci communes. The same for the godly and learned Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, Beza, and, in short, all godly teachers I have ever read.” The Leiden pastor continued by observing that there are people who “say that these same godly men and teachers are speaking of governments that belong to the church (van sodanighe Ouerheyt die vande ghemeynte zijn), and not of those that are outside of it; further, that they [= the council members, HAS] are from outside of the church; therefore, that it is not necessary to be obedient to them in ecclesiastical affairs. […] This is the greatest blindness that the world has ever known: for […] it is certain that they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This is what Coolhaes wrote in his Apologie of January 1580.112 Another book from Coolhaes appeared several months later, in May 1580, under the title: Breeder bericht van die Scheuring der kercken (“Longer account of the schism of the churches”). In this work, he juxtaposed a letter which Beza had written ten years earlier to the Antwerp pastor Thomas van Til to the 1578 synod’s view on the church, where a division was maintained in regard to the Lord’s Supper in that not every baptised Christian in a city or town was allowed to partake of it. Coolhaes asked whether it was not after all the mark of every Christian that he or she formed a part of the body of Christ through communion with him in the holy sacrament. And was the church not above all a community of the Lord’s Supper? According to Beza, a Christian was someone who embraced Jesus Christ as “his Redeemer and Saviour”, and could celebrate the Lord’s Supper with a clear conscience, even if he had “some shortcomings in doctrine or life”.113 Coolhaes argued that Beza had clearly showed himself a proponent of a church of which everyone was a member, without any selection being exercised in regard to the Lord’s Supper, except in cases of censure on by the elders in Geneva can be found in CO 10a, 101 = OS 2, 340). The Leiden government also appealed to the church of Emden. For Menso Alting, the leading Reformed pastor of in Emden, had argued that the ministers did not have the power “to call or receive pastors […], which belongs to the government and churches.” Rogge, l.c., 81, n.22 and De Visser, l.c., 202. Later on, at the so-called ‘eternal peace’ of Antwerp enacted on 12 June 1579, a compromise was accepted also on this point, with the key responsibility going to the government: “that those who belong to the Reformed and Catholic religion will be obliged to present their preachers and ministers in person before the bailiffs [schouten]”. Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 83. 112 Coolhaes: 1580a, fol.23v. That baptism is referred to is not at all strange. As of 1566, the first question to the parents in the Reformed form for baptism described the child “as a member of his church”; prior to that time, the child was referred to as “a seed of the church”. Olthuis: 1908, Appendix 4, 257 and 258; Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 231 f. 113 Coolhaes: 1580b, fol.31v ; through a printer’s error, this page in this booklet is found facing fol. 26r.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

240

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

serious sins. According to Beza, no one should stay away from the table of the Lord because of another person’s view on life or doctrine, “for the unclean conscience of another person cannot defile my conscience which is clear on that point. And for that reason, one and the same Lord’s Supper can be pure for me, while it defiles the one who is unclean.”114 Like Beza, Coolhaes thus pled for a view on the church that made room for other Protestant groups. We ought to “receive as brothers those who agree with us in the foundation of our faith and seek to live in peace with us, regardless of whether they know and understand everything that we understand; otherwise we would reject that precious man Luther and many other pious [and] godly men like him, as well as Zwingli, Hus, and the like.” What is more, we would “reject so many Reformed churches in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, England, etc. […] and not regard any of them as brothers, given that they do not share our view in all matters.”115 When he looked back thirty years later, Coolhaes repeated what the Reformers had envisioned with the renewal of the Swiss churches and what they had managed to accomplish: “there always was and remained rest, peace, and unity from the time of their reformation until the present day.” Coolhaes upheld the Swiss approach to the reform of the church as an example to the Reformed in the Netherlands. The Swiss churches had wanted nothing to do with any other governing body except “the council and congress of the lawful government, nor of elders unless they were Christian magistrates or could only be instituted on the authority of the magistrates, so as to maintain good supervision on the morals of the people.”116 In their responses to the 1578 synod of Dordrecht, Coolhaes and the Reformed civil governments pointed to Calvin, the Genevan church, and the other Swiss Reformed cities, because they were convinced that the relationship between church and state as the synod had envisioned it differed from the latter. The 1578 synod had spoken out in favour of an independent ecclesiastical structure in which the pastors and consistories took over certain powers from the government, and in which the civil government no longer was the one, unifying instance that also had authoritative power over religious life in a Reformed society. “These Reformers and their Reformation are like the unrest of a clockwork [uyrwerc] that never stands still, whether by day or by night, being compelled by the lead or weight that hangs from it.” With the ‘lead or weight’ Coolhaes meant “the authority which they in the year 1574 took over at Dor114 Corr.de BÀze 12, no.865, 199, l.9 – 11 (1 October 1571); Coolhaes: 1580b, fol.26v. 115 Coolhaes: 1580b, fol.3r ; Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 652. Coolhaes regularly referred to Calvin and the Genevan church order. C. P. Hooft also pointed the churches to the fact that their view conflicted with Calvin, as when he noted that the elders in Geneva were not elected and appointed by the consistory. Hooft: 1871, vol.1, 131, 157, 207 and 296. 116 Coolhaes: 1610, 185.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Responses to the synod of 1578

241

drecht from the lawful government and appropriated for themselves,” thereby departing from the practice of “the Reformed churches in Switzerland”.117 The government posited that the church’s assemblies ought to stand under its leadership.118 The position of the government thus differed radically from the position defended by the synod. In the government’s eyes, the church was not an independent institution, a society of which everyone could freely choose to become a member ; instead, it was a body dedicated to matters of religion, whose reach extended into every corner of society. In its conflict with the Reformed, the state was concerned above all to preserve the concord and unity of society. For, in the 1570s, the ecclesiastical sphere threatened to fall into pieces with “two, three, or four different religions being preached”. In some cities, one person could be “Martinist, another Calvinist, a third Mennonite, and a fourth I-don’t-knowwhat”. It would be better if the Word of the Lord were “preached […] uniformly” and “also heard consistently by the majority of the citizens.”119 The Reformed churches did not respond to this criticism, although the synod of Middelburg would grill Coolhaes in June 1581 over the fact that his “writings were subject to the classes and synods”.120 The synod did not view the structure of the church in the same way as Calvin had. Instead, they found their inspiration in the example of the Calvinists in France. The Reformed in the Netherlands thought that the latter view on the church was the more biblical one, and for that reason considered it unnecessary to bolster their defence with an appeal to the Scriptures or the writings of the Reformers. In light of the preceding chapters, it should not surprise us that the leaders of the Reformed churches did not appeal to Calvin in support of their view on the independence of the church. What does

117 Coolhaes: 1610, 184 – 185. 118 According to Coolhaes, the consistory was to be presided over by a member of the magistracy ; after all, the church was represented by the government. A consistory was an “assembly of the church’s servants for discussing and treating ecclesiastical matters”, as he wrote in 1580. Coolhaes: 1580a, fol.61v, 28v and 29r. Coolhaes thought that the power over the church belonged to the government. Coolhaes, l.c., fol.51r and 74r sq. If the church were to be given responsibilities independent of the government, the end result would be a new papacy. Coolhaes, l.c., fol.23v and 42; Coolhaes: 1610, 62 and 140. Coolhaes further considered consistories to be unnecessary in Christian cities; as he wrote in 1582, in “places where a Christian government fulfils its office as patrons to the church of God, […] consistories are not needed”. Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 230. The ministerial assemblies were intended for mutually equipping the pastors. And if purely ecclesiastical matters were discussed, the ministers and ecclesiastical assemblies needed no governing power. Coolhaes: 1580a, fol.61v and 63r ; see n.101. 119 Coolhaes: 1580a, Foreword A 2 – 3. 120 This quotation is taken from the letter which the synod of Middelburg addressed to Coolhaes on 1 June 1581; it is printed in Kamphuis: 1970, 66 – 67 (quote 67). Rogge has drawn up a list of 23 works by Coolhaes that appeared between 1580 and 1610. Rogge: 1858, vol.2, 231 – 232.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

242

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

remain somewhat surprising is their decision not to provide any biblical support for their position.121 The 1578 synod of Dordrecht remarked that the matters it treated were “founded on the authority of the Holy Scriptures, but if anyone wishes to add it [i.e. scriptural evidence – HAS], he will have to do so himself.”122 This exasperated the opponents of the synod, because it meant that the pastors were going to “advise, preside, and conclude” without having to account for themselves before any instance.123 The Reformed were rather late in formulating their response, but in 1582 finally published the Antwoorde der dienaren des Woordts ende ouderlinghen der kercken van Hollandt (“Response of the ministers of the Word and elders of the churches of Holland”). In this work they wrote that they could not appeal to the “very words of Scripture,” but remained convinced that their vision did not conflict with it: “for that reason we confidently dare to insist in regard to the church order that there is nothing in it that conflicts with the Holy Scriptures.”124 With a view to their wish for the church to be organised as an independent synodical body, the Reformed ministers regularly repeated their wish for a clear distinction between church and state, so that “the regiment of the church, insofar as it is spiritual, remain wholly and entirely with the pastors and overseers of the church.”125 As we have already seen, the Reformed began from the basic assumption that there is a “twofold regiment: the one political or civil, the other ecclesiastical or spiritual”.126 Among the activities that pertained specifically to the church, the Reformed included not only the preaching and the administration of the sacraments, but also “the spiritual government” of the people “so that they may testify of the required obedience to God and government”.127 At 121 See n.103. 122 Rutgers: 1889, 262, q.1 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 167, q.1. 123 Rogge: 1856, vol.1, 83. On 24 May 1579, the ministers responded to the Leiden Justificatie with their own remonstrance entitled “Kort and schriftmatig gevoelen der Kerken Christi van de gemeinschap and het onderscheit d’welk tusschen die Politise ende Kerckelijke regeringe is,” in which they laid out their position, yet without citing the Scriptures or the Reformed tradition in support. Bor : 1680, vol.2, b.14, fol.169 – 171, 143 – 145; De Visser: 1926, vol.2, 204 f. 124 Antwoorde der Dienaren: 1582, B3 v and B4 l. Examples provided of the “church discipline” for which the government was not needed included the examination of ministers, the assemblies of the elders, and the power to take away from those who were “not fit” (onbequaem) the right to attend the Lord’s Supper. 125 Antwoorde der Dienaren: 1582 (second pagination) C4r; cf. B2v. 126 See n.26. 127 Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 162. In 1580, after he had described his view on the consistory as an “assembly of the church’s servants for discussing and treating ecclesiastical matters”, Coolhaes also explained what exactly he understood by ‘ecclesiastical matters’: “only those things that pertain to the well-being and salvation of the soul, such as instruction in the Word of God, admonition, punishment, comfort, administration of the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Responses to the synod of 1578

243

times, however, the Reformed churches appear to have been more inclined to disobedience than to obedience, as when the church of Leiden at the turn of the year 1579 failed to leave the choice of office bearers to the local government. The churches frequently complained that in this way, the government would have the chance to appoint pastors who were actually unsuitable for their task. For that reason, it was necessary to watch out “that the way is not paved for the politicians […] to have an unfitting jurisdiction and mastery over the church.”128 The 1582 Antwoorde further insisted that the charge against the Reformed that they were overly strict and imposed “a new dominion and yoke of ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (in the words of Marnix of Saint-Aldegonde, in a letter to Gaspar van der Heyden from 31 March 1577129) was not fair : “We testify that we have never endeavoured […] to reintroduce a coercion of the consciences, but instead teach and preach against such a coercion on a daily basis, and hope to advocate the true freedom of the conscience.”130 It remains unclear what moved the Reformed in those years not simply to welcome all church goers into its fold, and instead to set up obstacles that made it more difficult for many members of the population to join their new church. For many residents in the Netherlands, also those from the lower ranks of the population, these obstacles indeed proved to be too high. The Reformed church stuck to its principles, however. This did little to improve its popularity, and throughout the sixteenth century it remained numerically rather small. As a result, the process for the renewal of religion in the Netherlands could only advance at a slow pace.

sacraments, visitation of the sick and comforting them with the Word of God, good supervision over the church and on each person individually.” Coolhaes: 1580a, fol.61v. 128 Antwoorde der Dienaren: 1582 (second pagination) C4 l. 129 Brandt: 1671, vol.1, 589 – 590; Marnix van St. Aldegonde: 1860, vol.1, 226 – 233, 228; Hooijer: 1865, 116; Enno van Gelder: 1968, 446, n.2a; Duke: 1990a, 212, n.75; see n.13. 130 Antwoorde der Dienaren: 1582, C2v. The June 1575 synod of Rotterdam had defended itself several years earlier against the criticism that it was establishing a new papacy : “And given that the ministers and overseers of the church, because of their custom to meet in their own assemblies, are being accused of introducing a new Spanish inquisition and of usurping the office of the magistracy, we have been forced to argue in our defence and innocence that our ecclesiastical government does not include any of the above or impose itself on the office of the government.” Reitsma & Van Veen: 1892, vol.2, 160 and 166; see n.97. The freedom in doctrinal issues was clearly being limited by the end of the 1570s. The synod of 1578 demanded of the ministers, elders, and professors of theology that they subscribe to the Belgic Confession “in order to testify to the unity in doctrine”; three years later, the motive for subscription was amended to read: “not only in order to testify to the unity in doctrine, but also to its soundness.” Rutgers: 1889, 247, art.53 = Van ’t Spijker: 1978, 153; Reitsma & Van Veen, l.c., 196 – 197, synode of Zuid-Holland in 1581. Augustijn: 1971, 60.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

244

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

Conclusion As we have noted, two views on the organisation of the church circulated in the Netherlands during the 1570s: the first was defended by the government, the other was maintained by the Reformed church. They could agree on many points, but on the relationship between church and state they never saw eye to eye. The difference separating their views is similar to that which set Calvin’s view in Geneva apart from the Huguenots in France. Briefly stated, the difference between them concerned the vision on the church as an organ of the state in Calvin’s view, and the independent church model defended by the French Calvinists. The Calvinists in the Netherlands opted to follow the French example, while the government of the States of Holland and Zeeland was drawn to the example of the Swiss Reformation with some adaptations in view of the Dutch situation. For, the Dutch governments did not support the notion of the established church as an organ of the state to which all citizens de facto belonged, nor were they convinced that the civil governments and councils were to consist exclusively of members of the Reformed church.131 Both the churches and the governments wanted to leave room for those with divergent opinions to exercise their religion, while nevertheless maintaining the Reformed church in its position as the one and only official, public church. The position of privilege which the Reformed church obtained in the course of time implied a drastic change for the believers, and it took some time for them to get accustomed to it. Their view on the church had after all developed in the years of their illegal existence, when they met secretly as underground and refugee churches, led by a consistory. On the whole, church and state in Holland and Zeeland agreed that the Reformed church ought to be the established church, while the other groups – e. g. the Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Roman Catholics – were still to be given some degree of freedom. The adherents of these alternative confessions were in any case not to be persecuted. In spite of their agreement on these new issues that resulted from the changed milieu of 1572, the two parties failed to agree on the precise position and shape which the established church was to take on in a Reformed society. The church was not entirely certain in its new position, and was acutely aware of the threat which the absence of stability in the current political milieu posed to this position. It preferred to keep as much freedom as it could find. The Re131 After the rebellion of 1572, the composition of the governments changed only minimally. In Amsterdam, the vroedschap and college of Burgomasters were appointed by the militias. But even after the ‘Alteration’ of 1578, the militias, which had earlier chased the former leaders and clergy out of the city, still appointed ten Roman Catholics to the new vroedschap, in addition to thirteen members of the Reformed church, and another thirteen who supported the Reformed cause in different degrees. Enno van Gelder: 1968, 457, n.28.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

245

Conclusion

formed church did not want to be fused together with the government, especially because it feared that one day it could very well lose out against the Roman Catholic church and forfeit the position of privilege that it now enjoyed.132 The new church also had a reputation for being strict, which made it more unpopular yet in the eyes of both government and citizens. As a result, the Reformed church did not have a large following. It nevertheless did leave room for other Protestant groups as well as for the Catholics, and did not want the adherents of these alternative religions to suffer persecution or banishment. The new position of the Reformed church as the privileged church forced it into a position where it had to cooperate with the government. It showed that it was indeed willing to do so at the June 1578 synod of Dordrecht. This emerges, for example, from the decisions it made concerning baptism, the solemnisation of marriage, the care for the poor, and education. At the same time, the Reformed church attempted to retain as much of its independence as possible. It wanted to remain an ecclesiastical institution, clearly separated from the state and from the other churches. In other words, it sought to be a church with its own governing body, on the local level, as well as on the regional and national levels.133 The churches therefore attempted to appropriate for themselves a position of power on different levels of government, a move which Coolhaes depicted as party formation.134 The formation of a separate church ‘society’ was evident especially in the distinction it drew between ‘members’ and ‘liefhebbers’, the internal process of election, and the church’s exclusive focus on its own members for the exercise of discipline and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. As a result of these factors, the greatest majority of the baptised members in the public church did not have access to communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The government was unhappy with a church model in which the Lord’s Supper was intended for registered members alone. In its eyes, the public church was not to be a church for one part of the population alone, but a church for the entire nation, for all citizens. For that reason, the church ought really to stand under the civil government. The government envisioned a church for the entire population, embracing different Protestant groups. In spite of the unstable political situation in the Low Countries, the government saw insufficient reason for the Reformed to persist in their adherence to a church model that stemmed from the time of persecutions. The States of Holland and Zeeland recalled that they had decided to join the Reformed cause, and further appealed to the example of Calvin. In the Swiss territories the church was, 132 Duke: 1990a, 226. 133 See n.17. 134 Coolhaes: 1610, 152: “the one party” seeks to “bind the other to its views and convictions, but in this way the cart is not drawn straight [so en gaet de waghen niet recht]”. Kamphuis: 1970, 16 f and 35, n.165.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

246

Calvin and the Church in the Netherlands

after all, seen as a part of society, and in its organisation the church was considered a governmental body commissioned to shape the city’s religious life. Calvin’s view on the place of the church, as we sketched it out in the second chapter above, was not only known in the Netherlands in the 1570s, but also represented a point of friction between state and synod. Aside from the vision of Calvin, another significant role in the organisation of the church in the Netherlands was played by the view that the Calvinists in France defended on the church. The edict of January 1562 had created a situation in France where two churches would be tolerated alongside one another within a single state, with the one receiving the status of the official, established church, while the other was only tolerated. In the Netherlands, church and state not only adopted such a model of toleration, but the Dutch churches also structured themselves after the example of the churches in France. To the government of Holland and Zeeland, this was entirely incomprehensible. After all, in the Netherlands – in contrast to France – it was the Reformed rather than the Catholic church that had obtained the status of the established, public church. In order to counter the view of the Dutch Reformed churches, the States of Holland and Zeeland therefore appealed to the authority of no one less than Calvin. On the whole, it must also be said that the Dutch magistrates were entirely correct in this appeal. In 1576 it was still thought that it would be possible to find a solution to the conflict, and that the differences between the government’s Kerkelijke Wetten and the “synodical decrees” were not overly significant.135 This observation was as such correct. On many points, the Reformed church’s position indeed agreed with that of the States. On the one matter of the church’s independence, however, the two parties failed to see eye to eye. In the end, this turned out to be the breaking point. The Reformed church developed itself into an independent organ, against the government’s wishes. It knew that it depended on the state in many respects, but for the rest it continued to insist on its independence. This battle between church and state would drag on into the seventeenth century, in the course of which both sides drew up a variety of different church orders. After 1618, the government never again granted the Reformed church permission to assemble in a national synod.

135 See n.42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Chapter 5. Conclusion

This study considered to what degree Calvin is to be held responsible for the formation of a church that enjoys a considerable amount of independence, also vis-—-vis the state. This independence has become characteristic of Calvinism, as well as of Reformed Protestantism more generally. But in what measure did Calvin himself actually influence this development? The point of departure for our study was not so much Calvin’s writings or theories, but rather the concrete relationships that existed between church and state in Bern, Geneva, France, and the Dutch Republic. In this final chapter, I would like to set down in short order some of the most important conclusions that were reached. This will be done by highlighting the commonalities and differences in the organisation of the church first in Bern and Geneva, then in France and the Netherlands, with constant reference throughout to Calvin’s view on the church.

Bern and Geneva The most important conclusion in regard to Bern and Geneva is that the organisational structure of their churches largely coincided. In Bern, the church was structured in 1528 according to the Swiss-Zwinglian model. In this reorganisation, the former episcopal powers were transferred to the city council. The church thus became a function of the government; in other words, the power and leadership over religious and ecclesiastical life was now placed in the hands of the state, aided by the pastors who entered its service without receiving any other kind of confirmation from the side of the church. In Geneva, Calvin,1 unlike his good friend Louis du Tillet,2 was quite content with this arrangement. 1 See chapter 2, n. 209, 225 – 228 and 319 – 320. 2 See chapter 2, n. 98.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

248

Conclusion

The departure of the bishop or his representative had far reaching consequences in both Bern as well as Geneva. In Geneva, about one thousand people – i. e. nearly ten percent of the population – had worked for the church prior to the introduction of the Reformation, and this situation contrasted sharply with the handful of pastors who served the church after that time.3 It was in these newly created circumstances that a way had to be found for defining the relationship between church and state. In his 1536 Institutes, Calvin had already observed that no one should be surprised that he committed “to the civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion […]. For, I approve of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion […] from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity.”4 When he was appointed in Geneva later that year, Calvin made some proposals for organising the city’s church life. Just like in Bern, he wanted the government to be the party to oversee it. For example, Calvin advised that “certain persons of good life and witness” be appointed by the city council in order to supervise the celebration of the Lord’s Supper together with the ministers.5 Similarly, Calvin did not envision an independent ecclesiastical institution in the new Genevan church order that he drafted in 1541. Calvin introduced the office of elder and deacon to the city, and joined these functions to the office of the council members when he proposed that two of the ecclesiastical office bearers be chosen from the Small Council, four from the Council of Sixty, and six from the Council of Two Hundred.6 As a second conclusion, we can note that Geneva’s church structure was not equivalent to that of Bern in every respect, and that the differences concerned above all the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. Both cities had a separate body for regulating issues that pertained to the church. Bern had a Reformed Chorgericht or Consistorium as of May 1528, while the Genevan consistoire came into existence in November 1541. Although also the pastors were given a seat in these bodies, both were governmental committees charged with overseeing matters of morals and marriage. In Geneva, the consistory even stood under the presidence of one of the syndics. In both cities, moral discipline was seen as a mixed matter (res mixta) with a civil as well as an ecclesiastical element to it. By the inclusion of several pastors in this governmental body, the state recognised that social life also included an aspect of the church. The consistory, which Calvin introduced to Geneva in 1541, can be 3 See chapter 2, n. 13 f and 75 f. 4 CO 1, 230, l.16 – 24 = OS 1, 260, l.23 – 30 = Inst. 4.20.3 = OS 5, 474, l.8 – 14; see chapter 2, n.200; cf. n.157 and 115 f. 5 See chapter 2, n.215. 6 See chapter 2, n.326, 345 and 408.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

249

Conclusion

compared to the Chorgericht in Bern especially as it existed prior to the Bernese synod of 1532, while the notion of an ‘elder-councillor’, something unknown to Bern, had already been proposed by Zwingli in his commentary on 1 Timothy 5:7.7 Together the consistory and the ‘elder-councillors’ ensured that the Genevan consistory gained a more pronounced ecclesiastical ‘look’, and these two features further improved the cooperation between the government and the pastors in regard to the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. The Genevan consistory could now perform as it should in matters of supervision and discipline, and among its opponents it in fact soon gained a reputation as a strict, ecclesiastical judicial college. In Calvin’s own words, he had pursued “something like a judicial college of elders” (presbyterorum judicium), a body that maintained supervision over the Lord’s Supper and the churchgoers and had a small degree of independence from the city council.8 The synod of Bern, which met in January 1532, changed its course when it decreased the ecclesiastical element of the Chorgericht. This is evident, for example, in the new regulations that were made regarding the discipline of the Lord’s Supper. Eucharistic discipline was no longer counted as a responsibility of the Chorgericht, but was placed in the hands of the pastors. The pastors did not receive any new authority or power to keep someone from the Lord’s Supper table; they were limited to using verbal admonitions alone. All the same, the celebration of the Eucharist in Bern was from then on a matter of the ecclesiastical side of social life alone, and was not connected to discipline. With this, the Lord’s Supper was taken out of the public, legal sphere. Calvin wanted to avoid such a situation when he drafted the Genevan church order (1541), and for that reason he located the responsibility for the discipline of the Lord’s Supper with the consistory, in particular the ‘elders-councillors’, but in the second place with the council as well, namely, in cases where a sinner refused to repent.9 This meant a change from the disciplinary regulations that existed prior to 1541, when the Lord’s Supper discipline had been entirely the responsibility of the city council. Now that the Genevan pastors were included in the consistory, they received some say in the matter of church discipline. In Bern, the Lord’s Supper discipline had become a responsibility of the ministers alone in 1532, although they at that time received no coercive powers to enforce this discipline. As a result, in Bern the sacrament became a matter that pertained purely to the conscience. Calvin saw the Lord’s Supper as not only personal and

7 ZW 9, no.720, 456, l.5 – 8; see chapter 2, n.325. 8 See chapter 2, n.388 – 390 and 419. 9 See chapter 2, n.322ff and 439.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

250

Conclusion

internal, but also communal and external, with the government bearing the responsibility for the latter, public side.10 Calvin mobilised himself from the very beginning against the defilement of the sacrament. He wanted the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated regularly, although he did not view participation in it as a matter of course, without any form of supervision and discipline. This was emphasised in his November 1536 articles “concerning the organization of the church and of worship in Geneva”. The very first paragraph reads: “it is certain that a church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented, and this under such good supervision that no one dare presume to present him self unless devoutly, and with genuine reverence for it.”11 Calvin developed this vision further in his proposal to the city council. He wanted only those who are “approved members of Jesus Christ” to be allowed to participate.12 This formed the background to the ‘oath policy’ introduced to Geneva in 1537, which Calvin and Farel had devised among other reasons in order to ensure that they could exercise their pastoral office properly.13 The oath policy, in which at first the council and then every Genevan resident without exception was required to swear an oath to the confession, confirms that Calvin did not see religion in general or the Lord’s Supper in particular as a purely individual choice. The government had a God-given task in this regard, and was to see to the maintenance of the Reformed religion in its territory. However, the Genevan government fell short in fulfilling this task, particularly when it failed to supervise the Lord’s Supper and exercise discipline in regard to it. This was why Calvin and Farel set out for an open confrontation with the government in the spring of 1538, by refusing to administer the Lord’s Supper on Easter Sunday because, as they would explain to the council of Bern later on, “we would be defiling such a holy mystery […]. For the Word of God, indeed even the Lord’s Supper [et mesmement la CÀne] are publicly being ridiculed a thousand times over with impunity.”14 As a result, the city council decided that Calvin and Farel could no longer stay in Geneva. After he had been banished from Geneva, Calvin became a pastor to the French refugee church in Strasbourg, and in the course of these years he came up with a solution for maintaining the discipline of the Lord’s Supper in cases where there was no involvement from the side of the government. In 1540 he established a practice of ‘confession’ connected to the Lord’s Supper, where the

10 11 12 13 14

See chapter 2, n.148 and 198; chapter 4, n.52. CO 10a, 5 – 6 = OS 1, 369, l.1 – 12; see chapter 2, n.158. CO 10a, 9, l.5 – 7 = OS 1, 372, l.4 – 6; see chapter 2, n.156. See chapter 2, n.118 ff. See chapter 2, n.185 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

251

Conclusion

members of the church were required to come to the manse for a brief conversation with the pastor prior to the celebration of the Eucharist. When the Genevan government recalled Calvin in 1541 and gave him the opportunity to reorganise the structure of the city’s ecclesiastical life, he consciously gave the government a central place in the supervision of the church and in the discipline that was maintained for the Lord’s Supper.15

France and the Netherlands A third conclusion that has emerged from this study is that Calvin’s followers in France introduced a change to the structure of Reformed church life when they created an ecclesiastical organisation with a considerable degree of independence as well as its own ecclesiastical office bearers and assemblies. The pursuit on the part of the French Reformed for the independence of their church was not something that agreed with Calvin’s own vision. Forced by the persecutions which they suffered at the hands of the civil government, the French Calvinists looked for a way to organise a national bond of churches with a church order of its own as well as a confession, being well aware ahead of time that their plans could not count on the government’s favour in any way. Especially the French Calvinists who stemmed from the higher ranks of the nobility, such as admiral Gaspar de Coligny and the prince Louis de Cond¦, were convinced that the Reformed movement would have to join forces and seek a diplomatic solution to their situation. This was the strategy they favoured for ending the persecutions they were suffering for their faith, and, as a final goal, for obtaining religious freedom. These changes in the strategy of the Calvinist movement in France were not supported by Calvin. Under the leadership which he exercised from his base in Geneva, a network of conventicles had been developed within the French kingdom. A large number of churches in turn grew out of these conventicles over the course of the 1550s. French Calvinism became a large scale albeit illegal reform movement, and Calvin’s wish was for this movement to remain clandestine until the tides should turn – that is, until the government should decide to follow the Reformed cause. As time passed, however, the Calvinist movement in France became more and more French, and less and less Genevan. This is evident, for example, when Calvin in the winter of 1558 – 1559 did not cooperate in the preparations for the first general synod held in Paris, even though that synod would prove to be a most important moment in the history of the French Reformed churches. At the time when the synod met, as well as in the years that 15 See n.6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

252

Conclusion

followed, Calvin in his correspondence and through his representatives revealed over and over again that he did not agree with the course that events had taken in the French kingdom. He was no supporter of the diplomatic strategy decided upon by the Huguenots when they sought to forge an agreement with the moderate politicians or ‘moyenneurs’, who formed a substantial party within the French government. Aside from the fact that Calvin did not trust some of the leaders of this moderate party, including the queen mother Catherine de Medici, it was simply unthinkable for him that two churches should be able to exist side by side within a single state. Calvin hoped to reach all “the inhabitants of France”, as he wrote in August 1561.16 All the same, he was unable to stem the French Calvinists’ pursuit for a form of religious freedom in which they would be content to have a modest albeit secondary place in the kingdom, aside from the large Roman Catholic church. By the end of the 1550s, the French Calvinists refused to suffer under the government’s persecutions in silence any longer. Because the Reformed church in France had experienced enormous growth, the government was increasingly forced to take it into account. The conviction grew among the Huguenots that they had indeed chosen for the right course of action, and in March 1560 they in a bold move presented their confession of faith to the king as a proof of their orthodoxy, asking him for an opportunity to defend themselves in a religious dialogue. This colloquy finally took place in Poissy in September 1561. After the colloquy of Poissy ended in failure, the French government realised in January 1562 that it could do little else but resign itself to the facts, and simply accept that there were two churches in France that could not agree with each other. The statesman Michel de l’Húpital, chancellor and at the same time one of the leading spokesmen for the moyenneurs, stated that someone was a Frenchman regardless of his confession.17 The government offered the Calvinist church its protection by making an exception for it, and defined this exception legally. The Calvinists thus received what they had asked for, and their church now gained some form of recognition as a second church within the kingdom of France, aside from the established Roman Catholic church. Another implication of this 1562 Edict of Saint-Germain was that the Calvinists would in the future have to cooperate with a Catholic government. This was an entirely unique situation, a historical starting point to ecclesiastical plurality. As a fourth conclusion, we can note that, when the Calvinists in the Netherlands shaped the ecclesiastical life of the Republic, they followed the model of the French Calvinists more than the example of Calvin. 16 See chapter 3, n.245. 17 See chapter 3, n.252.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

253

Conclusion

It is easy to understand why the Reformed in the days of persecution followed the French example, meeting in illegal churches ‘under the cross’ and as refugee churches, and the same is true of their reaction after 1572 in those territories that had rebelled against king Philip II of Spain. Whenever a city declared itself for the House of Orange, the Reformed believers banded together to form a consistory and requested a church building for their worship services. Soon, however, the Reformed church gained the status of the established and only officially recognised church in Holland and Zeeland. The remarkable thing is that, even then, they held fast to their ideal of a church that enjoyed as much independence as possible vis-—-vis the state. By this time, the independence of the church had been raised to the level of a principle. The Reformed could not, however, legitimately appeal to Calvin in support of this newfound principle. In the Republic, even after the transition to the prince in 1572, the Reformed maintained their refugee church organisation, patterned after the tried and true example of the French. This form of the church’s existence, in which every citizen was free to enrol as a member of the church, now presented itself as the most essential one to them. The greatest difference over against Calvin’s view on the organisation of the church was that the unity of church and nation was now effectively undone. In Calvin’s understanding, all inhabitants in a Christian community belonged to the church just as much as they belonged to that same Christian community. Calvin’s (failed) oath policy of 1537 implied that every resident without exception was required to swear an oath of allegiance to the confession, so that the profanation of the Lord’s Supper might be avoided. Furthermore, church discipline as Calvin had prescribed it in 1541 was not intended for one part of the Genevan population alone, but extended to include all residents of this city state. A fifth conclusion offered by this study is that two different ‘Calvinist’ views on the church circulated in Europe in the second half of the sixteenth century : one from Calvin, the other from his former disciples. It was in France that the seeds for this divergence were sown. A defining change occurred in the kingdom when the church turned from an organ of the state into a church that was independent, also from the state. This change went against Calvin’s intentions. In the Netherlands a long and fierce battle was fought over these two Calvinist views on the church beginning in 1572. In 1575, the States of Holland and Zeeland commissioned the Kerkelijke Wetten, which on the whole corresponded with the Genevan church order. According to these laws, it was the magistracy that ought to lead, and exercise power over, religious life. The States further showed that they did not support the regional and national synodical church structure according to which the Dutch churches had organised themselves in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

254

Conclusion

following the French model. Another basic understanding in the state’s ecclesiastical laws was that the official church of the Netherlands ought to be a public church. In other words, the official church was to be accessible for everyone, so that every baptised person belonged to the church and as such had the right to partake of the Lord’s Supper. In June 1578, at the first national synod held on Dutch soil, the Reformed refused to allow their church to be transformed into an organ of the state. They were not willing to abandon their independence, or to incorporate their organisation seamlessly into the policy of the state. Of course, since it enjoyed a position of privilege as the one and only officially sanctioned public church, the Reformed synod did have to be somewhat flexible toward the government. In matters that belonged less specifically to the provenance of the church, such as marriage, the care for poor, and education, the synod showed a willingness to make concessions and to cooperate with the government. The Reformed synod also decided to adopt a broad baptismal practice, so that every child could receive this sacrament in the public church. All the same, matters that belonged more closely to the terrain of the church, such as the Lord’s Supper, the discipline connected to it, and the election of office-bearers, were conscientiously safeguarded against government interference, lest the church lose its organisational independence as it had been expressed in the form of its own assemblies and offices. Just as the Lord’s Supper and discipline were for members of the church alone, so also church members alone could be appointed to office. Throughout the sixteenth century, and especially in the 1570s, the members of the Reformed churches amounted to considerably less than ten percent of the population in almost all parts of the Dutch Republic. The close connection between discipline and the Lord’s Supper can be seen as characteristic of Calvin’s view of the church, as well as that of the 1578 Reformed synod in Dordrecht. On this point, the Kerkelijke Wetten of the States followed the spirit of Calvin to a lesser degree. Had these laws been enacted, the discipline of the Lord’s Supper would quite probably have received less attention than it actually came to have in the small Reformed churches. In general, it can be said that the synod did not envision a ‘reformation’ in the traditional Reformed sense, that is, a transformation of the entire established church and with that of society as a whole. The synod looked differently upon the renewal of the church than Calvin did. In the Republic, admittedly still within the framework of the church’s organisation as Calvin had conceived of it, an independent ecclesiastical institution was formed which sought to achieve a certain amount of independence for itself over against the state. As the public church, the Reformed church was ready to cooperate with the governments, while still retaining a significant part of the independence that it had won for itself. The synod thus allowed for every inhabitant to be baptised in the estab-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

255

Conclusion

lished church, so that the greater majority of the population could consider himor herself to belong to the Reformed church. However, the Reformed church also maintained some aspects that gave it the appearance of a ‘club’ or ecclesiastical ‘society’ of which someone could become a member, in this instance by way of a public profession of faith. The practical result was a situation where many people in the Dutch population were not confessing members of the very church in which they had been baptised, and for that reason did not belong to the Lord’s Supper community. For Calvin, in contrast, the church was above all a Eucharistic community, of which every adult inhabitant of the city formed a part.18 Moreover, in the Dutch churches the people who had not enrolled as members were not subject to church discipline; for Calvin, however, this discipline had a public character. The results that emerged from this study are remarkable in several respects. Calvin, as it turns out, accepted the system already in place in the Swiss territories and introduced it to Geneva with greater persistence than scholars have generally assumed. His vision did not differ essentially from that which Zwingli had formulated in 1531: “A Christian is nothing other than a faithful and good citizen, and a Christian city is nothing other than a Christian church .”19 In Calvin’s view, ecclesiastical life formed part and parcel of the Christian commonwealth, and was included among the Christian government’s responsibilities. It is well known that church and state in the sixteenth century did not represent isolated spheres, and that in territories that had joined the Reformed cause the question arose as to how the church might be separated from the state. Calvin himself pursued a very modest form of independence for the church. The pursuit for a greater independence first manifested itself among the French Calvinists, and was later adopted and further developed by the Reformed church in the Netherlands. On several important points, Calvin’s followers would begin to diverge from his ideas on the amount of independence the church was to have. As a result, two separate ‘Calvinist’ views on the church circulated in the Protestant world of the latter half of the sixteenth century.

18 See chapter 2, n.43. 19 ZW 14, no.6, 424, l.20 – 22; see chapter 1, n.4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Abbreviations

BS BW CO COR CR HBRG Inst. OS RC WA ZO ZW

Berner Synodus [see Locher et al.] Heintich Bullinger Werke [see Bullinger] Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia [see Calvin] Ioannis Calvini opera omnia [see Augustijn, Van Stam and De Boer] Corpus Reformatorum [see Calvin and Zwingli] Heinrich Bullinger Reformationsgeschichte [see Bullinger] Institutes of the Christian Religion [see Calvin] Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta [see Calvin] Registres du Consistoire de GenÀve au temps de Calvin [see Kingdon] D. Martin Luthers Werke [see Luther] Huldrici Zwinglii opera [see Zwingli] Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke [see Zwingli]

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Afterword

Now that the present translation has appeared in print, I would like to take the opportunity to thank profs. Bram van de Beek, Erik A. de Boer, Martien E. Brinkman, Wim Janse, and Kees van der Kooi for their encouragement. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to dr. Albert J. Gootjes for producing this fine translation, and to Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for including it in the Reformed Historical Theology series edited by prof. dr. Herman Selderhuis. This project was made possible with generous grants from Stichting Afbouw and the Greijdanus-Kruithof Fonds (Theological University, Kampen) and the Van Coeverden Adriani Stichting (Free University, Amsterdam). To them, I am deeply indebted. Herman A. Speelman

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Literature

Adams, Herbert M. (1967), Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe, 1501 – 1600, 2 vol., Cambridge: Cambridge libraries. Aeschbacher, Gerhard et al. (1980 – 1980), 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein. Allen, William J. (1928), A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, London: Methuen [reprint 1967]. Amphoux, Henri (1900), Michel de L’Húpital et la libert¦ de conscience au XVIe siÀcle: R¦impression de l’¦dition de Paris. Antwoorde der Dienaren des Woorts ende Ouderlinghen der Kercken van Hollandt onlancks vergadert gheweest zijnde tot Haerlem: aen […] de Staten desseluen Landts: Op de Remonstrantie by de Ouericheyt van Leyden […] ghedaen aengaende ‘t verhandelde der Dienaren des Woordts end Ouderlinghen der Nederlandtsche Kercken in het Synodus tot Middelburch (1582), Delft: Meinardus van Dreunen. Apeldoorn, Lambertus J. (1925 – 1937), De historische ontwikkeling van het recht omtrent de huwelijkssluiting in Nederland, in: Christendom en historie: Lustrumbundel uitgegeven vanwege het Gezelschap van Christelijke Historici in Nederland, 3 vol., Amsterdam: Kok, 67 – 182. Articles contenus en l’edict sur lesquels a est¦ deliber¦ au conseil le 21 janvier, 1561 et Lettre et avis des ministres et d¦put¦s — la cour aux ¦glises de France, Saint-Germainen-Laye, 22 janvier 1562, in: Philip Benedict and Nicolas Fornerod (ed.), L’Organisation et l’action des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France (1557 – 1563): Synodes Provinciaux et autres document, no. 26, GenÀve: Droz, 2012, 156 – 164. Articles politiques pour l’Eglise R¦form¦e selon le S. Evangile, fait — Poitiers, 1557, in: Arnaud, EugÀne (1872), Documents protestants in¦dits du XVIe siÀcle synode g¦n¦ral de Poitiers, 1557 etc., Paris: Grassart = in: Bulletin d’information de l’Êglise Reform¦e de France 18 (oct. 1956), 2 – 4 = Philip Benedict and Nicolas Fornerod (ed.), L’Organisation et l’action des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France (1557 – 1563): Synodes Provinciaux et autres document, no.1, GenÀve: Droz, 2012, 1 – 7. Arnaud, Eugène (1877), Synode G¦n¦ral de Poitiers 1557, in: Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’histoire du protestantisme franÅais 12, 7 – 17. Augustijn, Cornelis (1966), Calvijn, Den Haag: Kruseman. – (1967/8), “Allein das heilig Evangelium.” Het mandaat van het Reichsregiment 6 maart 1523, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 48, 150 – 165.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

262

Literature

– (1971), Kerk en Belijdenis, 2e ed., Kampen: Kok. – (1986), Erasmus, Baarn: Ambo. – (1988), Secularisatie in de zestiende eeuw, in: Gerard Dekker/Karl Ulrich Gäbler (ed.), Secularisatie in theologisch perspectief, Kampen: Kok, 82 – 96. – /Stam, Frans P. Van (2005), Ioannis Calvini opera omnia. Denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata. Series VI Epistolae, vol.1: 1530–sept.1538, GenÀve: Droz [COR 6/1] Augustinus (1865), Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, Opera Omnia etc., Patrologia Latina, Jacques P. Migne (ed.), Tomus 33: Epistolae, (1865) Parisiis: Garnier. Aquilon, Pierre/Girard, Alain R. (1990), Bibliographie Normande, bibliographie des ouvrages imprim¦s — Caen et — Rouen au seiziÀme siÀcle [vol. 7 de Bibliographie Normande et vol. 118 de Bibliotheca bibliographica Aureliana], Baden-Baden/Bouxwiller : Koerner. Aymon, Jean (1710), Tous les synodes nationaux des eglises reforme´es de France, 2 vol., La Haye: Charles Delo. Bächtold, Hans U. (1975), Bullinger und die Krise der Zürcher Reformation im Jahre 1532, in: Ulrich Gäbler/Erland Herkenrath (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger, 1504 – 1575, Gesammelte Aufsa¨ tze zum 400. Todestag [Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte] vol. 1, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 269 – 289. – (1982), Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat: Zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531 bis 1575, Bern/Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. Baird, Henry M. (1879), History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, vol.1: From the Beginning of the French Reformation to the Edict of January 1562, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Bähler, Eduard (1904), Petrus Caroli und Johannes Calvin: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Kultur der Reformationszeit, in: Jahrbuch für Schweizerische Geschichte 29, 41 – 168. Bakhuizen Van Den Brink, Jan N. (1959), La Confession de foi des Eglises reform¦es de France, de 1559, et la Confession des Pays-Bas, de 1561, in: Bulletin de la commission pour l’histoire des Êglises Wallonnes, 5, 3 – 28. – (1962), Protestantse Pleidooien uit de zestiende eeuw, 2 vol., Kampen: Kok. – (1976), De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften: In authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2e ed., Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Balke, Willem (1973), Calvijn en de Doperse radikalen, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Balke, Willem et al. (1984), Zwingli in vierderlei perspectief, Utrecht: De Banier. Baudrier, Julien/Baudrier Henri-Louis/Tricou, Georges (ed.) (1895 f), Bibliographie Lyonnaise: Recherches sur les imprimeurs, libraires, relieurs et fondeurs de lettres de Lyon au XVIÀme siÀcle, 12 vol., Lyon: Librairie ancienne d’Auguste Brun [= reprint Mayenne, J. Floch 1964 – 1965] Bender, Wilhelm (1970), Zwinglis Reformationsbündnisse: Untersuchungen zur Rechts- und Sozialgeschichte der Burgrechtsverträge eidgenössischer und oberdeutscher Städte zur Ausbreitung und Sicherung der Reformation Huldrych Zwinglis, Zürich [etc.]: Zwingli Verlag. Benedict, Philip/Fornerod, Nicolas (2009), “Les 2150 ‘¦glises’ r¦form¦es de France de 1561 – 1562, ” Revue Historique, 311, 529 – 560. – (ed.) (2012), L’Organisation et l’action des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France (1557 – 1563):

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

263

Literature

Synodes Provinciaux et autres document [Archives des ¦glises r¦form¦es de France no III], GenÀve: Droz. Benoit, Jean-Daniel (1959), L’Ann¦e 1559 dans les annales calviniennes, in: Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 39/2, 118 – 149. Bergier, Jean-François/Kingdon, Robert M. (ed.) (1964), Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, vol. 1: 1546 – 1553, Gene`ve: Droz [= RCP] Bergier, Jean-François (1948), Salaires des pasteurs de GenÀve au XVIe siÀcle, in: idem, HermÀs et Clio, essais d’histoire ¦conomique, Lausanne: Payot, 148 – 169. Berg, H.G. Vom (1988), Der Gang der Gnade: Lehre und Leben nach dem Berner Synodus, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 2, 118 – 149. Beza, Theodore (1556 – 1571 = 1962 – 1988), Correspondance de The´odore de Be`ze, par Hippolyte Aubert, Alain Dufour, Henri Meylan et al. [Travaux d’humanisme et renaissance no. 49, 61, 74, 96, 212 et 229], vol. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 et 13, GenÀve: Droz. – (1582), Theodori Bezae Vezelii volumen primum [-tertium] Tractationum theologicarum, 3 vol, GenÀve: Anchora Eustathii Vignon. – (1883 – 1889; 1e ed. 1580), Histoire eccle´siastique des E´glises Re´forme´es au Royaume de France [Attribu¦e souvent — Beza], Johann W. Baum, August E. Cunitz et Rodolphe E. Reuss (ed.), 3 vol., vol.1: 1883, 2: 1884, 3: 1889), Paris: Fischbacher. – (1984), Psaumes mis en vers franÅais (1551 – 1562): Accompagn¦s de la version en prose de Los Bud¦, Pierre Pidoux (ed.), GenÀve: Doz. Blickle, Peter (1981), Die Revolution von 1525 [Studienausgabe], 2e ed., München/ Wien: Oldenbourg Verlag. – /Lindt, Andreas/Schindler, Alfred (ed.) (1985), Zwingli und Europa: Referate und Protokoll des Internationalen Kongresses aus Anlaß des 500. Geburtstages von Huldrych Zwingli vom 26. bis 30. März 1984, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1987), Gemeindereformation: Die Menschen des 16. Jahrhunderts auf dem Weg zum Heil [Studienausgabe], München: Oldenbourg Verlag. – /Kunisch, Johannes (ed.) (1989), Kommunalisierung und Christianisierung. Voraussetzungen und Folgen der Reformation 1400 – 1600 [Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft 9], Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. – (1991), Kommunalismus: Begriffsbildung in Heuristicher Absicht, in: Peter Blickle (ed.), Landgemeinde und Stadtgemeinde in Mitteleuropa, ein struktureller Vergleich [Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft 13], München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 5 – 38. Bloesch, E., Chorgerichte (1898), in: Realencyclopädie für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 24 vol., Leipzig 3, 817 – 820. Boer, Cornelia (1952), Hofpredikers van Prins Willem van Oranje: Jean Taffin en Pierre Loyseleur de Villiers, ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Boer, Erik A. De/Stam, Frans P. Van (2009), Ioannis Calvini opera omnia. Denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata. Series IV Scripta didactica et polemica, vol.4: Epistolae duae (1537) Deux discourse (Oct. 1536), GenÀve: Droz [COR 4/4] Bohatic, Josef (1968), Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche: mit besonderer Beru¨ cksichtigung des Organismusgedankens, Aalen: Scientia. Boisset, Jean et al. (1980), Les Êglises et leurs institutions au XVIe siÀcle: Actes du 5e Colloque du Centre d’histoire de la R¦forme et du protestantisme, Universit¦ Paul

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

264

Literature

Val¦ry, Montpellier [27 – 30 sep. 1977], recueillis par Michel Peronnet: Hommage solennel — la m¦moire du professeur Jean Boisset, Montpellier : Centre d’Histoire de la R¦forme et du Protestantisme. Bonnet, Jules (1854), Lettres de Jean Calvin/recueillies pour la premie`re fois et publie´es d’apre`s les manuscrits originaux, 2 vol., Paris: Meyrueis. Bor, Pieter C. (1679 – 1684), Oorsprongk, begin, en vervolgh der Nederlandsche oorlogen, beroerten, en borgerlijke oneenigheden, 4 vol. (1: tot 1578, 2: tot 1587, 3: tot 1594 en 4 tot 1660), Amsterdam: De weduwe van Joannes van Someren, Abraham Wolfgangh, Hendrick en Dirck Boom. Botha, Schalk J. (2000), Calvyn se leer oor die kerk, in: Hervormde Teologiese Studies 56, no. 2, 3, 572 – 584. Bouwsma, William J. (1988), John Calvin: A sixteenth-century portrait, New York [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Brandt, Geeraert (1671 – 1704), Historie der Reformatie, en andere kerkelijke geschiedenissen, in en omtrent de Nederlanden, 4 vol., Amsterdam: Johannes Brandt. Bremmer, Rolf H. (1978), De nationale betekenis van de synode van Dordrecht van 1578, in: Doede Nauta/Johannes P. van Dooren (ed.), De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: Gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland, 68 – 117. – (1984), Reformatie en Rebellie: Willem van Oranje, de calvinisten en het recht van opstand: Tien onstuimige jaren: 1572 – 1581, Franeker : Wever. Bucer, Martin (1960 f.), Martin Buceri Opera Omnia: Deutsche Schriften, Robert Stupperich (ed.), Gütersloh: Mohn/Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. – (1982), Martini Buceri Opera Latina, Franc¸ ois J. Wendel/ Cornelis Augustijn/Pierre Fraenkel/Marc Lienhard (ed.), vol. 1, Leiden: Brill. Buisson, Albert (1950), Michel de l’Hospital 1503 – 1573, Paris: Hachette. Bullinger, Johann Heinrich (1838 – 1840; repr. 1985), Heinrich Bullinger Reformationsgeschichte, Johan J. Hottinger/Hans H. Vögeli (ed.), 3 vol., Frauenfeld: Beyel/ Zürich: Theologische Buchhandlung [HBRG] – (1972 – 1989), Heinrich Bullinger Werke (1: 1524 – 1531, 2: 1532, 3: 1533, 4: 1534 etc.) Zürich: Theologischer Verlag [BW] Busch, Eberhard, Die Ekklesiologie bei a Lasco und Calvin, in: Christoph Strohm (ed.), Johannes — Lasco (1499 – 1560) Polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 126 – 143. Cahier-Buccelli, Gabriella (1987), Dans l’ombre de la R¦forme: Les membres de l’ancien clerg¦ demeur¦s — GenÀve (1536 – 1558), in: Bulletin de la Socie´te´ d’histoire et d’arche´ologie de Gene`ve 18/4, 367 – 389. Calvin, John (1863 – 1900), Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, Johann W. Baum/August E. Cunitz/Eduard W.E. Reuss (ed.), 59 vol., Brunsvigae etc.: Schwetschke [CO 1 – 59 = CR 29 – 87] – (1926 – 1936), Joannis Calvini Opera selecta, Peter Barth/Wilhelm Niesel (ed.), 5 vol., Monachii: Kaiser [OS] – (2006), Supplementa Calviniana, vol. X/3: Sermons sur le Livre des Revelations du prophete Ezechiel. Chapitres 36 – 48, Erik A de Boer and Barnabas Nagy † (eds.), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

265

Literature

Cange, Charles Du (ed.) (1678 = 1883 – 1887), Glossarium mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis, 10 vol., Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Typis Gabrielis Martini/Niort: L. Favre et Londres: Nutt. Carpi-Mailly, Olivia (1998), Jean Calvin et Loius du Tillet, entre foi et amiti¦ un ¦change r¦v¦lateur, in: Olivier Millet (ed.), Calvin et ses contemporains. Actes du colloque de Paris 1995, 7 – 21 [Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance 53], GenÀve: Droz. Chaix, Paul/Dufour, Alain/Moeckli, Gustave (1966), Les livres imprime´s a` Gene`ve de 1550 a` 1600, GenÀve: Librairie Droz. Chambers, Bettye T. (1983), Bibliography of French Bibles: Fifteenth- and sixteenth century French language editions of the Scriptures, Gene`ve: Droz Chandieu, Antoine De La Roche (1566), La confirmation de la discipline eccl¦siastique, observ¦e es ¦glises reform¦es du royaume de France: avec la r¦ponse aux objections propos¦es alencontre, S.l.: Estienne, 1566. Coertzen, Pieter (1983), Presbyterial Church Government: Ius Divinum, Ius Ecclesiasticum or Ius Humanum?, in: Willem van ’t Spijker (ed.), Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, Kampen: Kok, 329 – 342. Condé-Bourbon, Louis (1743), Memoires de Cond¦, servant d’¦claircissement et de preuves — l’Histoire de m. de Thou: contenant ce qui s’est pass¦ de plus m¦morable en Europe, vol.2, Paris: Chez Rollin. Coolhaes, Caspar (1580a), Apologia. Een Christelycke ende billycke verantwoordinge, daerin hy hem nootsakelijck sonder eenighe blamatie met der waerheyt ontschuldicht teghen eenighe quaetwillighe ende onverstandighe, die hem van valscher leer, ende onchristelijcken leven beschuldighen. Een christelycke ende billycke verantwoordinge Caspari Coolhaessen, Leiden: C. Sylvius [= Apologie] – (1580b), Breeder bericht van die scheuringe der kercken Christi tot Leyden, Leiden: Jan Paets Jacobszoon/Jan Brouwenszoon [= Breeder bericht] – (1582), Cort eenvoudich ende waerachtich verhael, waaromme Caspar Coolhaes: Predikant gheweest zijnde binnen Leyden: eyntelick 25 Martii 1582 by den Synode Provinciael van Hollandt van der Kercke Christi is gheexcommuniceert etc. Dordrecht: Jan Canin [= Eenvoudig verhael] – (1610), Een cort waerachtich verhael van tsorgelicke vyer der hatelicker van God vervloecter oneenicheyt in religions saken, ontsteecken zijnde in Hollandt anno 1574. Door wien het selve ontsteecken ende smoockende gheleghen heeft tot int jaer 1579. Door wien, ende wat plaetsen in Hollant, tselve op gheblasen, dattet brandende geworden is, etc. Leiden: Jan Brouwenszoon [= Tsorgelicke vyer] Cornelius, Carl A. (1899), Historische Arbeiten vornehmlich zur Reformationszeit, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Crottet, Alexandre (1850), Correspondance franÅaise de Calvin avec Louis du Tillet, chanoine d’AngoulÞme et cur¦ de Claix: Sur les questions de l’¦glise et du ministÀre ¦vang¦lique, GenÀve: Cherbuliez. Dankbaar, Willem F. (1977), Geloof en revolutie: kerkhistorische kanttekeningen bij een actueel vraagstuk: aangeboden aan Professor Dr. W.F. Dankbaar op zijn zeventigste verjaardag, Cornelis de Bruin (ed.), Amsterdam: Bolland. – (1978), Het doctorenambt bij Calvijn, in: idem, Hervormers en humanisten: een bundel opstellen, Amsterdam: Bolland, 153 – 183. – (1982, 1e ed. 1957), Calvijn: zijn weg en werk, Nijkerk: Callenbach.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

266

Literature

– (1987, 1e ed. 1986), Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Instituut voor liturgiewetenschap. Decavele, Johan (1986), Ontstaan van de evangelische beweging en ontwikkeling van de protestantse kerkverbanden in de Nederlanden tot 1580, in: Henri L.M. Defoer, Ketters en papen onder Filips II: Het godsdienstig leven in de tweede helft van de 16e eeuw, Utrecht: Het Catharijneconvent, 41 – 57. Delaborde, Jules (1874), Les protestants — la cour de Saint-Germain, lors du colloque de Poissy, Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, and in: Bulletin de la socie´te´ de l’histoire du protestantisme FranÅais 8 (1873), 385 – 400, 481 – 505, 529 – 545, 9 (1874), 49 – 63. Dellsperger, Rudolf (1980/1981), Zehn Jahre Bernischer Reformationsgeschichte (1522 – 1532): Eine Einführung, in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 25 – 59. – (1991), Staat, Kirche und Politik im Kanton Bern von der Reformation bis in die Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts, in: idem (et al.), Kirche: Gewissen des Staates?: Gesamtbericht einer von der Direktion des Kirchenwesens des Kirchenwesens des Kantons Bern beauftragten Expertengruppe über das Verhältnis von Kirche und Politik, Bern: Verlag Stampfli, 117 – 186. Deursen, Arie Th. VAN (1974), Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldebarnevelt, Assen: Van Gorcum. Dez, Pierre (1958), Les Articles Polytiques de 1557 et les origines du r¦gime synodal, in: Bulletin de la socie´te´ de l’histoire du protestantisme FranÅais 104, 1 – 9. Dooren, Johannes P. (1978), Gegevens over de toestand van de Gereformeerde Kerk in 1578, in: Doede Nauta/Johannes P. van Dooren, De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland, 185 – 196. – (1980), Classicale Acta (1573 – 1620): Particuliere synode Zuid-Holland, vol. 1: Classis Dordrecht (1573 – 1600), ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. – (ed.) (1981), De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen. – (1981), Enige bijzonderheden over de afgevaardigden en over de door hen vertegenwoordigde gemeenten buiten de Noordelijke Nederlanden, in: idem (ed.), De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 128 – 138. Doumergue, Emile (1899 – 1928), Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps, 7 vol., Lausannne: Bridel. Dufour, Alain (1970), Le colloque de Poissy, in: Henri Meylan, Me´langes d’histoire du XVIe sie`cle: offerts a` Henri Meylan, Gene`ve: Droz, 127 – 137. – (1980), Das Religionsgespräch von Poissy : Hoffnungen der Reformierten und der ’Moyenneurs’, in: Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit, Gütersloh: Mohn, 117 – 126. Dufour, Théophile (1878), Notice bibliographique, in: Le cate´chisme franc¸ ais de Calvin: publi¦ en 1537: Re´imprim¦ pour la premie`re fois d’apre`s un exemplaire nou-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

267

Literature

vellement retrouve´ et suivi de la plus ancienne confession de foi de l’e´glise de Gene`ve, avec deux notices par Albert Rilliet et The´ophile Dufour, Gene`ve: H. Georg, xcix-end. Duke, Alastair C./Jones, R.L. (1990a), Towards a Reformed Polity in Holland, 1572 – 1578, in: Alastair C. Duke, Reformation and revolt in the Low Countries, London/ Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 199 – 226. Duke, Alastair C. (1990b), The Ambivalent Face of Calvinism in the Netherlands, 1561 – 1618, in: idem, Reformation and revolt in the Low Countries, London/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 269 – 293. – (1990c), The Reformation of the Backwoods: The Struggle for a Calvinist and Presbyterian Church Order in the Countryside of South Holland and Utrecht before 1620, in: idem, Reformation and revolt in the Low Countries, London/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 227 – 268. – /Lewis, Gillian/Pettegree, Andrew (1992), Calvinism in Europe, 1540 – 1610: A collection of documents, Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press. Dykema, Peter A./Oberman, Heiko A. (ed.) (1993), Anticlericalism in late medieval and early modern Europe, Leiden [etc.]: Brill. Ebel, Wilhelm (1958), Der Bürgereid: als Geltungsgrund und Gestaltungsprinzip des deutschen mittelalterlichen Stadtrechts, Weimar : Böhlau. Eck, John Van (1992), God, mens, medemens: humanitas in de theologie van Calvijn, Franeker : Van Wijnen. Egli, Emil (ed.) (1879), Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519 – 1533, Zürich: Schabelitz. Elliger, Walger (1975), Thomas Müntzer : Leben und Werk, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Erasmus (1703 – 1706 = 1961 – 1962), Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami: Opera Omnia, 10 tomi, Lugduni Batavorum: cura et impensis Petri Vander Aa [reprint Hildesheim: Ohms] Erastus, Thomas (1589), Explicatio quæstionis gravissimae: utrum Excommunicatio, quatenus Religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a Sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet; mandato nitatur Divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus Th. Erastus, Pesclavii: apud Baocium Sultaceterum. Evennett, Henri O. (1930), Claude d’Espence et son ‘Discours du Colloque de Poissy’, ¦tude et texte, in: Revue historique 164, 40 – 78. Fabius, Joke/Spaans, Arie/Spaans, Joke (ed.) (1982), Kerkhistorische studiÚn: Feestbundel uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het 80–jarig bestaan van het kerkhistorisch gezelschap S.S.S., Leiden: [s.n.] Farel, Guillaume (1980), Sommaire et brÀve de´claration 1525, Arthur-Louis Hofer (ed.), Neuch–tel: Editions “Belle RiviÀre”. Farner, Alfred (1930), Die Lehre von Kirche und Staat bei Zwingli, Tübingen: Mohr. Farner, Oskar (1943 – 1960), Huldrych Zwingli, 4 vol. (vol. 4: 1960), Zürich: Zwingli Verlag. Fast, Heinold (1959), Heinrich Bullinger und die Ta¨ ufer : ein Beitrag zur Historiographie und Theologie im 16. Jahrhundert, Weierhof (Pfalz): Mennonitische Geschichtsverein. Feine, Hans E. (1964), Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte: die katholische Kirche, 4e ed., Köln [etc.]: Böhlau.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

268

Literature

Feller, Richard/Fischer, Rodulf Von (1974), Geschichte Berns: Von der Reformation bis zum Bauernkrieg, 1516 bis 1653, vol. 2, 2e ed., Bern/Frankfurt am Main: H. Lang. Fockema Andreae, Sybrandus J. (1952), De kerk op wereldlijk terrein onder de republiek, in: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 39, 146 – 157. Forbes, Patrick (1740), A full view of the public transactions in the reign of Q. Elizabeth: or, a particular account of all the memorable affairs of that Queen, Transmitted down to us in a series of letters and other papers of state, written by herself and her principal ministers etc., vol. 1, London: G. Hawkins. Formula Confessionis Gallicarum Ecclesiarum (1559), in: Crudelitas Gallica: id est druidum renovata hominum innocentium immolatio; adjecta est Confessio Gallicarum ecclesiarum, ex qua intelligatur illarum cum Germanicis consensus et quam doctrinam, omni suppliciorum genere, persequatur Regicardinalis, s.l.: Conrad Badius. Foxgrover David (ed.) (2002), Calvin and the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society May 24 – 26, 2001, Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Church. Franklin, Julian H. (1969), Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century : Three Treatises by Hotman, Beza and Mornay, New York: Pegasus. Franz, Günter (1963), Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges: Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte der Neuzeit, vol. 2, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fruin, Robert J. (1959; 1e ed. 1857), Tien jaren uit de Tachtigjarige Oorlog: 1588 – 1598: Leiden: Drabbe/Utrecht [etc.] : Het Spectrum. Gäbler, Karl Ulrich/Herkenrath, Erland (ed.) (1975), Heinrich Bullinger, 1504 – 1575: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, 2 vol., Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Gäbler, Karl Ulrich (1983), Huldrych Zwingli: eine Einfu¨ hrung in sein Leben und sein Werk, München: C.H. Beck. Gassmann, Günther (1979), Das Augsburger Bekenntnis, deutsch, 1530 – 1980: revidierter Text, 3e ed., Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ganoczy, Alexandre (1966), Le jeune Calvin: gene`se et e´volution de sa vocation re´formatrice, Wiesbaden: Steiner. – (1966), Calvin avait-il conscience de r¦former l’¦glise ?, in: Revue de th¦ologie et de philosophie 118, 161 – 177. Geisendorf, Paul F. (1949), The´odore de Be`ze, Gene`ve [etc.]: Labor et Fides. – (1957), Livre des habitants de GenÀve, vol. 1: 1549 – 1560, GenÀve: Droz. Gelder, H.A. Enno Van (1933), De religieuze ontwikkeling bij de prins van Oranje tot 1572, in: Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 22, 101 – 148. – (1968), Nederland geprotestantiseerd?, in: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 81, 445 – 464. George, Timothy F. (1990), John Calvin and the church: a prism of reform, Louisville, Kentucky : Westminster/J. Knox Press. Gerber, Ulrich J. (1988), Berner Täufertum und Berner Synodus, in: Gottfried W. Locher, Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 2, 167 – 194. Gilmont, Jean-François (1972), PremiÀres ¦ditions franÅaises de la Confessio Belgica (1561/2), in: Quaerendo 2, 173 – 181. Ginkel, Albertus Van (1975), De ouderling: oorsprong en ontwikkeling van het ambt

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

269

Literature

van ouderling en de functie daarvan in de gereformeerde kerk der Nederlanden in de 16e en 17e eeuw, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Groot placaet-boeck (1658 – 1797), vervattende de placaten, ordonnantien ende edicten van de Staten Generael der Vereenighde Nederlanden, ende van de Staten van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt, mitsgaders vande Staten van Zeelandt, 10 vol., ’s Gravenhage: By de weduwe ende erfgenamen van wylen Hillebrandt Jacobsz van Wouw. Guggisberg, Kurt (1958), Bernische Kirchengeschichte, Bern: Haupt. Haight, Roger S.J. (2005), Calvin’s Ecclesiology, in: Christian Community in History, New York: Continuum, 2, 82 – 147. Haitjema, Theodorus L. (1925), Calvijn en de oorsprongen van het Nederlandsche Gereformeerde kerkrecht, in: Christendom en historie: lustrumbundel uitgegeven vanwege het Gezelschap van Christelijke Historici in Nederland, Amsterdam: Uitgeversmij Holland, 183 – 212. Herminjard, Aime-Louis (1866 – 1897), Correspondance des re´formateurs dans les pays de langue franc¸ aise, recueillie et publie´e avec d’autres lettres relatives a` la re´forme et des notes historiques et biographiques, 9 vol., GenÀve: Georg/Paris: Levy [reprint 1965 – 1966, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf] Heussi, Karl (1971), Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 13e ed., Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul SiebeckVerlag. Heyer, Henri (1909, reprint 1974), L’E´glise de Gene`ve, 1535 – 1909: esquisse historique de son organisation, suivie de ses diverses constitutions, de la liste de ses pasteurs et professeurs et d’une table biographique, GenÀve: A. Jullien. Heijting, Willem (1989), De catechismi en confessies in de Nederlandse Reformatie tot 1585, 2 vol., Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. Hexter, Jack H. (1973), The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation: More, Machiavelli, and Seyssel, New York: Basic Books. Holböck, Carl (1961), Konsistorium, in: Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche, vol. 6, 476 – 477. Hollweg, Walter W. (1956), Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: eine Untersuchung u¨ ber die Anfa¨ nge der reformierten Predigtliteratur, Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen Kreis Moers. – (1964), Der Augsburger Reichstag von 1566 und seine Bedeutung für die Entstehung der Reformierten Kirche und ihres Bekenntnisses, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. Hooft, Cornelis P. (1871/1925), MemoriÚn en adviezen, vol. 1: 1871 en vol. 2: 1925, Utrecht: Kemink. Hooijer, Cornelis (1865), Oude kerkordeningen der Nederlandsche Hervormde Gemeenten 1563 – 1638 en het concept-reglement op de organisatie van het Hervormd Kerkgenootschap in het koningrijk Holland 1809, Zalt-Bommel: Noman. Huguet, Edmont E.A. (1925 – 1967), Dictionnaire de la langue franÅaise du seizie`me sie`cle, 7 vol., Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion [etc.] Hwang, Sung Chul (2001), A Study on the Identity of the Geneva Church in the Time of John Calvin, in: Presbyterian Theological Quarterly 68, no. 1, 141 – 73. Im Hof, Ulrich (1980/1981), Die reformierte Hohe Schule zu Bern. Vom Gründungsjahr 1528 bis in die zweite Hälfte des 16.Jahrhunderts, in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

270

Literature

Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 194 – 224. Ivstificatie (1618) vande Resolvtie der H.M. Heeren de Staten van Hollandt ende WestVrieslandt ghenomen den 4. Augusti 1617 op hare H.M. Name inghestelt ende aende Vroetschappen der Steden overghesonden. Met by voeginghe van verscheyden verificatien daer toe dienende, s.l., s.n. Jahr, Hannelore (1964a), Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Confession de foi von 1559, Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. – (ed.) (1964b), Martin Bucer, Ordenung der Christlichen Kirchenzucht: Für die Kirchen im Fürstenthumb Hessen, 1539, in: Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, vol. 7: Schriften der Jahre 1538 – 1539, Gütersloh: Mohn, 247 – 278. Jelsma, Auke J. (1970), Adriaan van Haemstede en zijn martelaarsboek, ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Jensma, Teunis W. (1981), Uw Rijk kome: Acta van de Kerkeraad van de Nederduits Gereformeerde Gemeente te Dordrecht 1573 – 1579, Dordrecht: J.P. van den Tol. Kamphuis, Jacob (1970), Kerkelijke besluitvaardigheid: over de bevestiging van het gereformeerde kerkverband in de jaren 1574 tot 1581/2 ondanks de oppositie van het confessioneel en kerkelijk indifferentisme, zoals deze oppositie inzonderheid vanuit Leiden werd gevoerd, Groningen: De Vuurbaak. Mckee, Elsie A. (1984), John Calvin on the diaconate and liturgical almsgiving, Gene`ve: Droz. – (1988), Elders and the plural ministry : the role of exegetical history in illuminating John Calvin’s theology, Gene`ve: Droz. – (1990), Calvin’s Teaching on the Elder : Illuminated by Exegetical History, in: Timothy F. George, John Calvin and the church: A prism of reform, Louisville, Kentucky : Westminster/J. Knox Press, 147 – 157. Kerner, Hanns (1980), Diskussionsbericht, in: Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit, Gütersloh: Mohn, 153 – 157. Kim, Kil-Sung (2002), John Calvin’s Ecclesiology, in: Chongshin Theological Journal 7, no. 1, 3 – 19. Kingdon, Robert M. (1956), Geneva and the coming of the wars of religion in France: 1555 – 1563, Gene`ve: Droz. – (1970), The deacons of the Reformed Church in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Henri Meylan, Me´langes d’histoire du XVIe sie`cle: offerts a` Henri Meylan, Gene`ve: Droz, 81 – 90. – (1972), The control of morals in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Lawrence P. Buck/Johnathan W. Zophy (ed.), The Social history of the Reformation, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 3 – 16. – (1967), Geneva and the consolidation of the French Protestant movement, 1564 – 1572: a contribution to the history of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist resistance theory, Gene`ve: Droz. – (1984), Calvin and the Government of Geneva, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus ecclesiae Genevensis custos: die Referate des Congre`s International des Recherches Calviniennes vom 6.– 9. September 1982 in Genf, Frankfurt [etc.]: Lang, 49 – 67. – /Lambert, Thomas A. et al. (ed.) (1996 f), Registres du Consistoire de GenÀve au temps de Calvin, vol.1 (1996): 1542 – 1544, vol.2 (2001): 1545 – 1546, vol.3 (2004): 1547 – 1548, vol.4 (2007): 1548, GenÀve: Droz [RC]

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

271

Literature

Kingdon, Robert (2001), La Discipline eccl¦siastique vue de Zurich et GenÀve au temps de la R¦formation: l’usage de Matthieu 18: 15 – 17 par les R¦formateurs, in: Revue de Th¦ologie et de Philosophie 133, 343 – 355. – (2007), Calvin and Church Discipline, in: Edward Dommen/James D. Bratt (ed.), John Calvin Rediscovered: The Impact of His Social and Economic Thought, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 25 – 31. – (2007), Calvin and Discipline among French and Italians, in: Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi, and Alain Tallon (ed.), La R¦forme en France et en Italie: contacts, comparaisons et contrastes, Rome: Êcole franÅaise de Rome, 553 – 562. – (2008), De kerk en de overheid, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvijn Handboek: Kampen, 398 – 404. – (2009), Calvin et la discipline eccl¦siastique, in: Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’Histoire du Protestantisme FranÅais 155, no. 1, 117 – 26. Kluckhohn, August (1868), Briefe Friedrichs des Frommen, Kurfu¨ rsten von der Pfalz, mit verwandten Schriftstu¨ cken, vol. 1: 1559 – 1566, Braunschweig: Schwetschke und Sohn. Knetsch, Frederik R.J. (1978), De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578 en de positie der Waalse Kerken, in: Doede Nauta/Johannes P. van Dooren, De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland, 53 – 67. – (1982), Kerkordelijke bepalingen van de Nederlandse synoden ‘onder het kruis’ (1563 – 1566), vergeleken met die van de Franse (1559 – 1564), in: Joke Fabius et al. (ed.), Kerkhistorische studiÚn: Feestbundel uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het 80–jarig bestaan van het kerkhistorisch gezelschap S.S.S., Leiden: [s.n.], 29 – 44. Köhler, Walther (1932/1942), Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, 2 vol., Leipzig: Heinsius. Kroon, Marijn J.J.P. De (1991), Bucer und Calvin über das Recht auf Widerstand und die Freiheit der Stände, in: Willem van ‘t Spijker (ed.), Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 146 – 156. Lavater, Hans R. (1980/1981), Zwingli und Bern, in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 60 – 103. – (1981), Regnum Christi etiam externum, Huldrych Zwinglis Brief vom 4 Mai 1528 an Ambrosius Blarer in Konstanz, in: Zwingliana 15, 338 – 381. – (1988), Die ‘Verbesserung der Reformation’ zu Bern, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, vol. 2, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 35 – 117. Lechler, Gotthard V. (1854), Geschichte der Presbyterial- und Synodalverfassung seit der Reformation, Leiden: Noothoven van Goor. Lecler, Joseph (1955), Histoire de la tole´rance au sie`cle de la Re´forme, 2 vol., Paris: Aubier-Montaigne. Lennep, Maximiliaan F. Van (1884), Gaspar van der Heyden 1530 – 1586, Amsterdam: Spin & zoon. Léonard, Émile G. (1961 – 1964), Histoire ge´ne´rale du protestantisme, 3 vol., Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Lietzmann, Hans (ed.) (1930), Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

272

Literature

Kirche, herausgegeben im Gedenkjahr der Augsburgischen Konfession 1930, 2 vol., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [= BSLK] Linde, Simon Van Der/Balke, Willem (ed.) (1976), Wegen en gestalten in het gereformeerde protestantisme: een bundel studies over de geschiedenis van het gereformeerd protestantisme aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. S. van der Linde bij zijn afscheid als gewoon hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, Amsterdam: Bolland. Linde, Simon Van Der (1982), Jean Taffin: Hofprediker en raadsheer van Willem van Oranje, Amsterdam: Bolland. Locher, Gottfried W. (1962), Zwingli, in: RGG [Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft], vol. 6, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1969), Huldrych Zwingli in neuer Sicht: Zehn Beiträge zur Theologie der Zürcher Reformation, Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag. – (1976), Von Bern nach Genf: Die Ursachen der Spannung zwischen zwinglischer und calvinistischer Reformation, in: Simon van der Linde/Willem Balke (ed.), Wegen en gestalten in het gereformeerde protestantisme: een bundel studies over de geschiedenis van het gereformeerd protestantisme aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. S. van der Linde bij zijn afscheid als gewoon hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, Amsterdam: Bolland, 75 – 87. – (1979), Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europaschen Kirchengeschichte, Göttingen/Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1982), Zwingli und die schweizerische Reformation, Go¨ ttingen/Zürich: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. – (ed.) (1984 und 1988), Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, 2 vol., Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag. – (1988a), Der Berner Synodus als reformierter Bekenntnisschrift, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, vol. 2, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 16 – 34. – (1988b), Die Sakramentslehre des Berner Synodus, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, vol. 2, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 219 – 234. Luther, Martin (1883 ff = 1964 ff), D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 61 vol., Weimar : Böhlau [WA] Lutz, Samuel (1988), Das Problem der Ethik im Berner Synodus, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, vol. 2, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 248 – 259. Marnix Van St. Aldegonde, Philips Van (1860), Oeuvres de Ph. de Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde: Correspondance et m¦langes, vol.1, Bruxelles: Fr. van Meenen; Paris: A. Bohne´ et Gene`ve: Joel Cherbuliez. – (1871 – 1891), Godsdienstige en kerkelijke geschriften: Verscheidenheden, Johan J. van Toorenenbergen (ed.), 4 vol., ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. Maschke, Erich (1966), ’Obrigkeit’ im spätmittelalterlichen Speyer und anderen Städten, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 57, 7 – 23. Mentzer, Raymond (2008), Theory in Practice: Calvin’s Ecclesiology in the French Churches, In: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 209 – 222.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

273

Literature

Meyer, Walter E. (1988), Der Berner Synodus – eine kirchliche Pädagogik, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532, vol. 2, Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, 260 – 291. Meylan, Henri (1970), Me´langes d’histoire du XVIe sie`cle: offerts a` Henri Meylan, Gene`ve: Droz. Mihály, Márkus (1997), Kirche als unabhangige Institution in Genf 1536 – 1538, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong (ed.) Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion [Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 36], Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 241 – 246. Moeller, Bernd (1975), Die Ursprünge der reformierten Kirche, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 100, 641 – 653. – (1978), Stadt und Kirche im 16. Jahrhundert, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. – (1987), Reichsstadt und Reformation, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Monter, E. William (1967), Calvin’s Geneva, New York [etc.]: Wiley. – (1987), The Consistory of Geneva, in: idem, Enforcing morality in early modern Europe, London: Variorum Reprints, 467 – 484. Müller, Ernst L. (1895), Geschichte der Bernischen Täufer : nach den Urkunden dargestellt, Frauenfeld: Huber [= reprint 1972, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf] Müller, E.F. Karl (ed.) (1903), Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche: In authentischen Texten mit geschichtlicher Einleitung und Register, Leipzig: Deichert [= reprint 1987, Zürich: Theologische Buchhandlung] Müller, Gerhard (ed.) (1980), Die Religionsgespra¨ che der Reformationszeit, Gütersloh: Mohn. Muralt, Leonhard Von (1968), Zum Problem der Theokratie bei Zwingli, in: Discordia Concors: Festschrift für Edgar Bonjour, vol. 2, Basel/Stuttgart: Birkhäuser, 367 – 390. Naef, Henri (1922), La conjuration d’Amboise et Gene`ve, Gene`ve: Jullien et Georg & Co/ Paris: Champion. – (1936 and 1968), Les origines de la Re´forme a` Gene`ve, 2 vol., Gene`ve: Droz. Nauta, Doede (1965), Calvijn afkeer van een schisma, in: Gerrit C. Berkouwer, Ex auditu verbi: Theologische opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. G.C. Berkouwer ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfentwintigjarig ambtsjubileum als hoogleraar in de faculteit der godgeleerdheid van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, Kampen: Kok, 131 – 156. – (1973), De synode van Emden (1571) en de hugenoten, in: Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 73, 76 – 94. – (1974), Twee geschriften uit de begintijd van de Gereformeerde kerk in Nederland, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn. – /Dooren, Johannes P. Van (1978), De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland. – (1978a), Guillaume Farel: In leven en werken geschetst, Amsterdam: Bolland. – (1978b), De nationale synode van Dordrecht (1578), in: Doede Nauta/Johannes P. van Dooren, De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland, 9 – 52.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

274

Literature

– (1988), Pierre Viret (1511 – 1571): Medestander van Calvijn in leven en werken geschetst, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. Neale, John E. (1963), The age of Catherine de Medici, 8e ed., London: Jonathan Cape. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (1971), Calvin [Sammlung Göschen, 3005], Berlin: De Gruyter. Niemeyer, Hermann A. (1840), Collectio confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis publicatarum, Lipsiae: Klinkhardt. Niesel, Wilhelm (1945), Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche, 3e ed., Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. Nijenhuis, Willem (1960/61), Calvijns houding ten aanzien van de oudkerkelijke symbolen tijdens zijn conflict met Caroli, in: Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 15, 24 – 47. – (1960/61), Calvijn en de Augsburgse Confessie, in: Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 15, 416 – 433. – (1972), Ecclesia reformata: Studies on the Reformation, Leiden: Brill. – (1976), Varianten binnen het Nederlandse Calvinisme in de zestiende eeuw, in: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89, 358 – 372. Nürnberger, Richard (1948), Die Politisierung des franzo¨ sischen Protestantismus: Calvin und die Anfa¨ nge des protestantischen Radikalismus, Tübingen: Mohr. Olthuis, Hendrik J. (1908), De doopspraktijk der Gereformeerde kerken in Nederland (1568 – 1816), Utrecht: Ruys. Overvoorde, Jacob C. (1912), Advies van burgemeesters en gerecht van Leiden aan de Staten van Holland over de Acta van de in 1578 te Dordrecht gehouden synode, in: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 9, 117 – 149. Pannier, Jacques (1936), Les origines de la confession de foi et la discipline des e´glises re´forme´es de France: Êtude historique, Paris: Alcan. Pestalozzi, Carl (1858), Heinrich Bullinger : Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, in: Karl R. Hagenbach (ed.), Leben und ausgewa¨ hlte Schriften der Va¨ ter und Begru¨ nder der reformirten Kirche, vol. 5, Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1 – 646. – (1861), Bertold Haller: Nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, in: Karl R. Hagenbach (ed.), Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformierten Kirche, vol. 9, Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1 – 67. – (1860), Leo Judä. Nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, in: Karl R. Hagenbach (ed.), Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformierten Kirche, vol. 9, Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1 – 106. Peter, Rudolphe (1972), Calviniana et alia: Nouveaux compl¦ments au r¦pertoire des imprim¦s Genevois de 1550 — 1600 [BibliothÀque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 34], 123 – 155. – (1979), Premiers ouvrages franÅais imprim¦s — Strasbourg (suite), in: Annuaire de la Soci¦t¦ des Amis du Vieux-Strasbourg 1978, Strasbourg, no.8, 11 – 75. – /Gilmont, Jean-François (ed.) (1991), Bibliotheca Calviniana: Les oeuvres de Jean Calvin publie´es au XVIe sie`cle, vol. 1: Ecrits th¦ologiques, litt¦raires et juridiques 1532 – 1554, Gene`ve: Droz. Pfisterer, Ernst (1949), Genfer Kirchenordnung von 1561, in: Paul Jacobs (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen in deutscher Übersetzung, Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 72 – 107. – (1957), Calvins Wirken in Genf, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

275

Literature

Plasger, Georg (2009), Ecclesiology, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 323 – 332. Plomp, Johannes (1969), De kerkelijke tucht bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Pol, Frank Van Der (1990), De Reformatie te Kampen in de zestiende eeuw, Kampen: Kok. Polman, Andries D.R. (1948 – 1953), Onze Nederlandsche geloofsbelijdenis, verklaard uit het verleden, geconfronteerd met het heden, 4 vol., Franeker : Wever. Pont, Adrianus D. (1991), Confession of Faith in Calvin’s Geneva, in: Willem van ’t Spijker, Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag, Kampen: Kok, 106 – 116. Posthumus Meyjes, Guillaume H.M. (1982), Het gezag van de theologische doctor in de kerk der Middeleeuwen: Gratianus, Augustinus Triumphus, Ockham en Gerson, in: Joke Fabius et al. (ed.), Kerkhistorische studiÚn: Feestbundel uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het 80–jarig bestaan van het kerkhistorisch gezelschap S.S.S., Leiden: [s.n.], 7 – 28. Poujol, Jacques (1959), L’Ambassadeur d’Angleterre et la Confession de Foi du Synode de 1559, in: Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’histoire du protestantisme franÅais 105, 49 – 53. – (1973), De la Confession de Foi de 1559 — la Conjuration d’Amboise, in: Bulletin de la Soci¦t¦ de l’histoire du protestantisme franÅais 119, 158 – 177. Punt, W. (1981), Mislukte bemiddeling ’inder saecken der Excellentie tegens Petrum Dathenum’, in: Johannes P. van Dooren (ed.), De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 158 – 173. Quervain, Theodor De (1906), Kirchliche und soziale Zustände in Bern unmittelbar nach der Einführung der Reformation (1528 – 1536), Inaugural-Dissertation, Bern: Buchdruckerei G. Grunau. Quick, John (1692), Synodicon in Gallia Reformata: or, The acts, decisions, decrees, and canons of those famous national councils of the Reformed Churches in France, 2 vol., London: T. Parkhurst and J. Robinson. Raemond, Florimond De (1648), L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et de´cadence de l’ he´resie de ce sie`cle, 8 vol., Rouen: Estienne. Remond, Florimond De(1690), Opgang, voortgang, en nedergang, der ketteryen deser eeuwe, 2 vol., Antwerpen: Hieronymus Verdussen. Reinhard, Wolfgang (1980), Glaube, Geld, Diplomatie: Die Rahmenbedingungen des Religionsgesprächs von Poissy im Herbst 1561, in: Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit, Gütersloh: Mohn, 89 – 116. Reitsma, Johannes En Veen, Sietse D. Van (1892 f), Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden, gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572 – 1620, 8 vol., Groningen: Wolters. Reulos, Michel (1976), Les caractÀres particuliers de l’organisation des Êglises r¦form¦es en France aux XVIÀme et XVIIÀme siÀcles, in: Les ¦glises et leur institutions aux XVIe siÀcle: Colloque de Montpellier, 141 – 152. Richel, Pieter J. (1942), Het kerkbegrip van Calvijn, Utrecht [etc.]: Libertas. Rilliet, Albert/Dufour, Théophile (1878a), Le cate´chisme franÅais de Calvin: publie´ en 1537: Re´imprim¦ pour la premie`re fois d’apre`s un exemplaire nouvellement ret-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

276

Literature

rouve´, et suivi de la plus ancienne confession de foi de l’e´glise de Gene`ve avec deux notices, Gene`ve/Paris: H. Georg. – (1878b), Notice sur le premier se´jour de Calvin a` Gene`ve, pour servir d’introduction historique au cate´chisme et a` la confession de foi de 1537, in: idem, Le cate´chisme franÅais de Calvin: publie´ en 1537, Gene`ve/Paris: H. Georg, v-xcviii. Rivoire, Émile/Berchem, Victor De/Gardy, Frédéric (ed.) (1900 – 1940), Registres du conseil de GenÀve, 13 vol., GenÀve: Soci¦t¦ d’histoire et d’arch¦ologie de GenÀve [= RC] Rivoire, Émile/Berchem, Victor De (ed.) (1927 – 1935), Les Sources du droit du Canton de GenÀve, 3 vol., Aarau: H.R. Sauerlander. Roget, Amédée (1870 – 1883), Histoire du peuple de Gene`ve depuis la Re´forme jusqu’a` l’Escalade, 7 vol., Gene`ve: Jullien. Rogge, Hendrik C. (1856 – 1858), Caspar Janszoon Coolhaes: De voorlooper van Arminius en der Remonstranten, 2 vol., Amsterdam: H.W. Mooij. Romier, Lucien (1913 – 1914), Les origines politiques des guerres de religion: D’apre`s des documents originaux in¦dits, 2 vol., Paris: Perrin. – (1922), Le royaume de Catherine de M¦dicis. La France — la veille des guerres de religion, 2 vol., Paris: Perrin. – (1923), La conjuration d’Amboise: L’Aurore sanglante de la libert¦ de conscience, le rÀgne et la mort de FranÅois II, Paris: Perrin. – (1924), Catholiques et Huguenots — la cour de Charles IX: Les ¦tats-g¦n¦raux d’Orl¦ans, le colloque de Poissy, le “concordat” avec les protestants, le massacre de Vassy (1560 – 1562), Paris: Perrin. Roodenburg, Herman W. (1990), Onder censuur : De kerkelijke tucht in de gereformeerde gemeente van Amsterdam, 1578 – 1700, Hilversum: Verloren. Roth, Paul/Dürr, Emil (ed.) (1921 – 1950), Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Basler Reformation in den Jahren 1519 bis Anfang 1534, 6 vol., Basel: Verlag der Historischen und Antiquarischen Gesellschaft. Ruys, Theodorus Jr. (1919), Petrus Dathenus, Utrecht: Ruys. Rutgers, Frederik L. (1899), Calvijns invloed op de Reformatie in de Nederlanden, voor zooveel die door hemzelven is uitgeoefend, Leiden: Donner. – (1889), Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden der zestiende eeuw, 3 vol., Utrecht: Kemink/’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff [reprint 1980, Dordrecht: J.P. van den Tol] Saxer, Ernst (1988), Capito und der Berner Synodus, in: Gottfried W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, 2 vol., Neukirchen/Bern: Neukirchener Verlag, vol. 2, 150 – 166. Schelven, Aart A. Van (1908), De Nederduitsche vluchtelingenkerken der XVIe eeuw in Engeland en Duitschland in hunne beteekenis voor de Reformatie in de Nederlanden, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Scherft, Pieter (1981), De generale synode van Middelburg en de Zeeuwse Statenordonnanties van 8 februari 1583, in: Johannes P. van Dooren (ed.), De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 140 – 143. Schiess, Traugott (1908), Briefwechsel Der brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, 6 vol., vol.1: 1509 – 1538, Freiburg: E. Fehsenfeld.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

277

Literature

Schmidt, Heiinrich R. (1989), Die Christianisierung des Sozialverhaltens als permanente Reformation: Aus der Praxis reformierter Sittengerichte in der Schweiz während der frühen Neuzeit, in: Peter Blickle/Johannes Kunisch (ed.), Kommunalisierung und Christianisierung. Voraussetzungen und Folgen der Reformation 1400 – 1600, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 113 – 163. Schwarz, Rudolf (1961 – 1962), Johannes Calvins Lebenswerk in seinen Briefen: Eine Auswahl von Briefen Calvins in deutscher Übersetzung, 3 vol., Neukirchen, Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. Screech, Michael A. (1978), Quelques aspects du marriage au XVIe siÀcle: Misogynie et Misogamie – Droit romain et Droit canon, in: Michel P¦ronnet (ed.), Les Eglises et leur institutions au XVIe siÀcle, Montpellier : Universit¦ Paul Val¦ry, 81 – 93. Sehling, Emil (ed.) (1902 – 1913; repr. 1967 f), Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts, 15 vol., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2002), Church on Stage: Calvin’s Dynamic Ecclesiology, in: David Foxgrover (ed.), Calvin and the Church: Papers Presented at the 13th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, May 24 – 26, 2001, Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Church, 46 – 64. Soldan, Wilhelm G. (1855), Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich bis zum Tode Karl’s IX, 2 vol., Leipzig: Brockhaus. Speelman, Herman A. (2009), Historische inleiding, in: Mees te Velde (ed.), Confessies: Gereformeerde geloofsverantwoording in zestiende-eeuws Europa, Heerenveen: Groen, 21 – 109. – (2010), Biechten bij Calvijn: Over het geheim van heilig communiceren, Heerenveen: Groen. – (2013), Hoe overleeft de kerk? Melanchthons Onderricht aan predikanten, Heerenveen: Groen. – (2013), Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession, Contrition, and Penitence: Daily Practices of Life and Death, in: Jon O. Flaeten and Tarald Rasmussen (ed.), Preparing for death, remembering the dead in the Late Medieval and Reformation period, through the 17th Century, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spijker, Willem Van ’T (1970), De ambten bij Martin Bucer, Kampen: Kok. – (1974), Democratisering van de kerk anno 1562: Het conflict Mor¦ly in de begintijd van de gereformeerde kerk in Frankrijk, Kampen: Kok. – (1978), De kerkorde van Dordrecht (1578), in: Doede Nauta/Johannes P. van Dooren, De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578: gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn/Bolland, 126 – 184. – (1981), De acta van de synode van Middelburg (1581), in: Johannes P. van Dooren, De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 64 – 126. – (1981), De overname van de kerkorde van Middelburg (1581) op de generale synode te Herborn (1586), in: Johannes P. van Dooren, De nationale synode te Middelburg in 1581: Calvinisme in opbouw in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden, Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuws Genootschap der Wetenschappen, 144 – 157.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

278

Literature

– (1984), De ambten bij Zwingli, in: Willem Balke et al., Zwingli in vierderlei perspectief, Utrecht: De Banier, 41 – 79. – (1988), De ambten bij Martin Bucer, in: Pieter J. Rossouw, Gereformeerde ampsbediening, Pretoria: N.G. Kerkboekhandel, 111 – 127. – (1990), De kerk bij Calvijn: theocratie, in: idem (ed.), De kerk: wezen, weg en werk van de kerk naar reformatorische opvatting, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 143 – 162. – (1991a), Bucer en de twist over het doctoraat in Bazel (c.1535), in: idem (ed.), Geest, woord en kerk: Opstellen over de geschiedenis van het gereformeerd protestantisme, Kampen: Kok, 48 – 62. – (1991b), Stromingen onder de reformatorisch gezinden te Emden, in: idem (ed.), Geest, woord en kerk: Opstellen over de geschiedenis van het gereformeerd protestantisme, Kampen: Kok, 150 – 174. Staehelin, Ernst (1929), Das Buch der Basler Reformation: Zu ihrem vierhundertjährigen Jubilaüm im Namen der evangelischen Kirchen von Stadt und Landschaft Basel, Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. – (1939), Das Theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, Leipzig: Heinsius. Stauffer, Richard A. (1980), Autour du Colloque de Poissy : Calvin et le ‘De officio pii ac publicae tranquillitatis vere amantis viri’, in: idem, Interpre`tes de la bible: Êtudes sur les re´formateurs du XVIe sie`cle, Paris: Beauchesne, 249 – 267. Steck, Rudolf/Tobler, Gustraf (ed.) (1923), Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Bemer Reformation, 1521 – 1532, Bern an Hasli: K. J. Wyss. Stupperich, Robert (1964), Einleitung, in: idem (ed.), Martin Buceri Opera Omnia: Deutsche Schriften, vol. 7, Gütersloh: Mohn and Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 67 – 89. Sutherland, Nicola M. (1977), The Cardinal of Lorraine and the colloque of Poissy, 1561: A Reassessment, in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28, 265 – 289. Swigchem, Cornelis A. Van (1970), Een blik in de Nederlandse kerkgebouwen na de ingebruikneming voor de protestantse eredienst, Den Haag: Voorhoeve. Tavard, George H. (1979), The Church ad Eucharistic Communion in Medieval Theology, in: Studies in the History of Christian Thought 19, 92 – 103. Toorenenbergen, Johan J. Van (1883), De omkeering in den kerkstaat te Amsterdam van 1578, door den prins van Oranje veroordeeld, in: Oud-Holland: Nieuwe bijdragen voor de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche kunst, letterkunde en overheid enz., Amsterdam, 1, 81 – 85. Trocmé, Étienne (1959), Une r¦volution mal conduite: A propos d’un centenaire et d’un livre, in: Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 39, 160 – 168. Tukker, Cornelis A. (1965), De classis Dordrecht van 1573 tot 1609: Bijdrage tot de kennis van in- en extern leven van de gereformeerde kerk in de periode van haar organisering, Leiden: Universitaire Pers. – (1970), The Recrutment and Training of Protestant Ministers in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century, in: Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae 3, 198 – 215. – (1973), De christenheid in Nederland: Was zij tot 1800 oecumenisch?, in: Lambertus Lagerweij (ed.), Reformatie: Blijvende opdracht!, Kampen: Kok, 55 – 75. – (1983), Het klassieke doopformulier, in: Willem van ’t Spijker/Willem Balke (ed.), Rondom de doopvont: leer en gebruik van de heilige doop in het Nieuwe Testament en in de geschiedenis van de westerse kerk, Goudriaan: De Groot, 311 – 323.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

279

Literature

Turchetti, Mario (1986), Concorde de tol¦rance? Les Moyenneurs — la veille des guerres de religion, in: Revue de th¦ologie et de philosophie 118, 255 – 267. Valois, Noël (1945), Les Essais de conciliation religieuse au d¦but du rÀgne de Charles IX, in: Revue d’histoire de l’Êglise de France vol. 31, no. 119, 237 – 275. Viret, Pierre (1565), L’interim, fait par dialogues. D’ordre & les titres des dialogues: 1. Les Moyenneurs. 2. Les Transformateurs. 3. Les Libertins. 4. Les Perfecteurs, 5. Les Edicts, 6. Les Moderez, Lyon: Claude Senneton. Visser, Johannes Th. De (1926 – 1927), Kerk en Staat, 3 vol., Leiden: Sijthoff. Vries, Herman De, De Heekelingen (1918 – 1924), Gene`ve pe´pinie`re du Calvinisme hollandais: Documents publie´s avec une introduction, 2 vol., Fribourg: Fragnie`re/La Haye: Nijhoff. Wäber, J. Harald (1980/81), Bibliographie zur Berner Reformation (Berichtszeit 1956 – 1979), in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 585 – 693. Wälchli, Karl F. (1981), Von der Reformation bis zur Revolution, in: Peter Meyer (ed.), Berner – deiner Geschichte: Landschaft und Stadt Bern von der Urzeit bis zur Gegenwart, Bern: Büchler Verlag, Illustrierte Berner Enzyklopädie vol. 2, 107 – 150. Walder, Ernst (1980/81), Reformation und moderner Staat, in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 441 – 568. Weber, Otto H. (1968), Kirchlichen und staatliche Kompetenz in den Ordonnances eccl¦siastiques von 1561, in idem, Die Treue Gottes in der Geschichte der Kirche, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 119 – 130. Werner, Georges (1926), Les institutions politiques de GenÀve de 1519 — 1536, in: Êtrennes Genevoises, 8 – 54. Wiley, David N. (1990), The Church as the Elect in the Theology of Calvin, in: Timothy George, John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform, Louisville: John Knox/ Westminster Press, 96 – 119. Witte, Johannes L. (1949), Het probleem individu-gemeenschap in Calvijns geloofsnorm, 2 vol., Franeker : Wever. Witteveen, Klaas M. (1977), Het revolutionaire element in de Vastenspelen van Niklaus Manuel, in: Willem F. Dankbaar et al., Geloof en revolutie: kerkhistorische kanttekeningen bij een actueel vraagstuk: aangeboden aan Professor Dr. W.F. Dankbaar op zijn zeventigste verjaardag, Amsterdam: Bolland, 65 – 87. Woltjer, Jan J. (1971), De politieke betekenis van de Emdense synode, in: Doede Nauta, Johannes P. van Dooren/Otto J. de Jong (ed.), De synode van Emden, 1571 – 1971, Kampen: Kok, 22 – 49. – (1976), De Vredemakers, in: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89, 299 – 321. – (1985), Een nieuw ende onghesien dingh: Verkenningen naar de positie van de kerkenraad in twee Hollandse steden in de zestiende eeuw, Leiden: Uitgave van de Rijksuniversiteit. – (1986), De religieuze situatie in de eerste jaren van de Republiek, in: Henri L.M. Defour (ed.), Ketters en papen onder Filips II: Het godsdienstig leven in de tweede helft van de 16e eeuw, ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 58 – 74.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

280

Literature

Wright, David (2001), Reflections on John Calvin and the Church Struggle in Geneva, in: Theology Matters 7, no. 5, 7 – 12. Zinsli, Paul, Niklaus Manuel als Schriftsteller, in: Gerhard Aeschbacher et al., 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, Bern: Historischer Verein, 104 – 137. Zuidema, Jason/Raalte, Theodore Van (2011), Early French Reform: The Theology and Spirituality of Guillaume Farel [St Andrews Studies in Reformation History], Surrey : Ashgate. Zwingli, Ulrich/Schuler, J. Melchior/Schulthess, Johannes (ed.) (1828 – 1861), Huldrici Zwinglii opera. Completa editio prima, curantibus Melchiore Schulero et Jo. Schulthessio, 8 vols, Turici [= Zürich]: apud Fridericum Schulthessium [= ZO] Zwingli, Ulrich/Egli, Emil/Finsler, Georg (et al.) (1905 – 1929), Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. 14 vol. in 18 Bd., Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger/vanaf 1959: Zürich: Berichthaus/vanaf 1982: Zürich: Theologischer Verlag/Berlin: Schwetschke [= CR 88 – 101 = ZW 1 – 14]

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Sixteenth-century Names

Albon de Saint-Andr¦, J. d’ 189 Albrecht von Brandenburg 37 Alting, M. 239 Amerbach, B. 77 Angelier, B. 184 Arentsz., J. 211 Badius, C. 167 Barbier, N. 184 Beaulieu, J. de 189 Bernard, J. 91, 97 Bertschi, M. 76 Beza, Th. 63, 113, 144 – 161, 171 – 176, 181 – 183, 186, 189 – 205, 225, 239 seq. Blarer, A. 19, 98, 115 Bonnefoy, J. 184 Bourbon, Antoine de 171 – 173, 187, 190, 194 seq., 203 Bourg, A. du 161, 171, 173 Bourgeois, J. 167 Breton, R. 184 Brunner, J. 23 Bucer, M. 25, 33 seq., 37, 39, 93, 98, 104, 109, 113, 132 Bullinger, H. 29, 35 – 55, 64, 81 seq., 87, 91, 109, 116, 174, 190, 198, 228, 238 seq., 257 Camerling, N. 219 Capito, W. 25, 37, 40 – 44, 52 – 54 Caroli, P. 70 seq., 85 Casembrood, L. 219

Catherine de Medici 167, 169 – 173, 181 seq., 187, 190, 203, 206, 252 Chandieu, A. de la Roche 153 seq., 163 seq. Charles IX 172, 188, 192, 195 Charles V 233 Chauvin, A. 209 seq. Christoph von Württemberg 169 Cl¦mence, A. 176, 184 Coligny, G. de 163, 172, 177, 180 – 183, 186, 188, 194 seq., 198 – 201, 206, 251 Colladon, N. 63, 155 Cond¦, Louis de Bourbon 172, 195, 200, 207, 251 Coolhaes, C. 217, 226, 237 – 243, 245 Corault, Ê 89, 96 Cordier, M. 114 Courteau, T. 184 Cyro, P. 35, 38 – 41, 44 seq., 52 – 54 Datheen, P. 219, 228 Davodeau, A. 184 Eck, J. 21, 84 Elizabeth I 162 Erasmus, D. 37, 44, 54, 191 Erastus, Th. 228 Espence, Cl. de 191 Farel, G. 16 seq., 31, 50, 57 seq., 60, 63 – 80, 82, 87 – 97, 103, 114, 135, 137, 250 Frans I 19, 80 Francis II 167, 169, 172, 175, 183, 203

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

282

Sixteenth-century Names

Frederick III 169, 196, 211 Froment, A. 97 GabriÚl, P. 211 Gallars, N. des 191 Grossmann, K. (see: Megander) Grynaeus, S. 47 Guise, Fr. de 189, 203, 205 Guise, house of De 203 Haller, B. 23, 25 – 30, 32 – 35, 37, 46 – 50, 53 Henry II 154, 165, 167 – 169, 171 – 173, 182, 206 Henry IV 206 Henry VIII 198 Heyden, G. van der 215, 219, 222, 243 Hofmeister 25, 34 Húpital, Michel de L’ 118 seq., 180 – 182, 186, 188, 192 seq., 199 seq., 206 seq., 252 Isenschmied, V. Judae, Leo

28

36, 47 seq., 55, 87

Knight, W.C. 162 seq. Kolb, F. 25 seq., 30, 164 Laynez, P. 191 Louis of Nassau 211 Luther, M. 19, 25, 42, 53, 116, 240, 257 MaÅon, Le (de la RiviÀre) 194 seq. Mangeant, S. 184 Manuel, N. 22 seq., 27 Mare, H. de la 91 Marillac 186 Marnix of Saint-Aldegonde, Ph. of 243 Marot, Cl. 185, 190 Martyr Vermigli, P. 171, 191, 197 Medici (see: Catharine de) Megander, C. 25 – 27, 31, 33 seq., 36 seq., 69 seq., 136 Montluc, J. 186 seq., 191 Montmorency, A. de 189

Morel, F. 154 – 156, 159 – 162, 166 – 168, 176, 178 seq., 194 MortiÀres, L. de 184 Müntzer, Th. 42 Musculus, W. 238 seq. Myconius, O. 36, 127, 132 Mylius, C. 167 Oecolampadius, J. 25, 29, 46 – 47, 87, 97, 116, 132 Olevianus, C. 225 Orange, William of 210 seq., 213, 218 seq., 222, 253 P¦rissin (gravure) 192 seq. Philip II 198, 253 Pignet, A. 73, 92 Preux, J. le 184 Puys, J. du 184 Ramus, P. (Pierre de la Ram¦e) 161 Reyersz., W.J. 219 Rhellikan, J. 34 Roche, A. de la (see: Chandieu) 153 Roy, A. le 184 Roye, Madam de 172 Russanges, A. 171 Sadoleto, J. 13, 74, 130 Sam, K. 21 Saugrain, J. 176 Saunier, A. 114 Schwenckfeld, K. von 54 Sturm, J. 161 Taffin, J. 219 Throckmorton, N. 162 – 163 Til, Th. van 239 Tillet, L. du 60, 63, 72 – 75, 79, 81, 88, 97, 247 Tortorel (engraving) 192 seq. Tournon, F. de 191 Villarochius, P. 162 Villemadon, D. 173 Villiers, P. de 219

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

283

Sixteenth-century Names

Viret, P.

77, 97, 147, 187, 225

William of Orange (see: Orange) Wolfgang von Zweibrücken 169

Zili, D. 29 Zuylen van Nyevelt, W. van 219 Zwingli, H. 19 – 39, 46, 49 seq., 53, 59, 65, 93, 115, 117 seq., 138, 240, 249, 255, 257

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Other Names

Adams, H.M. 167 Ambrose 78 Amphoux 170, 200 Apeldoorn, L.J. van 231 seq. Aquilon, P. 184 Arnaud, E. 152 Augustijn, C. 23, 39, 44, 78, 109, 122, 144, 157, 163, 170, 243, 257 Augustine 66, 78 Aymon, J. 152, 182, 189, 204 Bächtold, H.U. 30, 32 – 34, 36, 47 Bähler, E. 71 Baird, H.M. 163, 167, 171 seq., 179, 181, 183, 185 seq., 189 – 192, 195, 207 Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. 20, 30, 146 seq., 149 – 151, 159 seq., 164 – 166, 175, 184, 218, 225, 228 Balke, W. 58 seq., 63, 65, 80 – 82, 94 seq. Baudrier, J. 176, 190 Baum, G. (E. Cunitz & E. Reuss) 70, 168, 176, 209 Beauss¦, de 153 Bender, W. 20 Benoit, J.D. 156 Berg, H.G. vom 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 44, 52, 54, 135 Bergier, J.F. 120 Blickle, P. 20 seq., 24, 26, 33 seq., 62 Bloesch, E. 123 Boer, E.A. de 8, 10, 259 Bohatec, J. 84, 86, 92 seq. Bor, P. 60, 65, 97, 212 – 215, 226, 242

Bouwsma, W.J. 220 Brandt, G. 211, 218 – 224, 226 – 231, 233 – 235, 237 seq., 240, 243 Bremmer, R.H. 218 seq., 226, 235 Buisson, A. 179, 185 seq., 188, 190, 198, 200, 207 Cahier-Buccelli, G. 75 Cange, C. du 113, 122 Chaix, P. 167 Chambers, B. 184 Constantine the Great 220 Cornelius, C.A. 128 Crottet, A. 60 Dankbaar, W.J. 58, 97, 113, 115, 133, 225 Decavele, J. 214 Dellsperger, R. 22 seq., 28, 51, 54, 141 Deursen, A.Th. van 214, 221, 223 Doumergue, E. 93 seq., 113, 128, 152 seq., 163, 181, 189, 203, 207 Dufour, A. 147, 167, 179, 186 – 188, 192, 195, 197, 200 Dufour, Th. 69 seq., 76 Duke, A.C. 144, 169, 189 seq., 205 seq., 212 – 215, 218, 226, 235, 243, 245 Dykema, P.A. 96, 112 Ebel, W. 76 Eck, J. van 84 Egli, E. 29 seq., 50, 78 Elliger, W. 42

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

286

Other Names

Enno van Gelder, H.A. 213, 217, 231, 243 seq. Evennett, H.O. 191, 195 Farner, O. 39 Fast, H. 26, 253 Feine, H.E. 90 Feller, R. 23, 25, 29, 44 Fockema Andreae, S.J. 216 Forbes, P. 162 seq. Franz, G. 25, 33 Gäbler, U. 19 – 21, 24 seq., 29, 31 seq., 34, 36, 49 Ganoczy, A. 72, 83, 97 Gassmann, G. 151, 164 seq. Geisendorf, P.F. 181, 191 Gerber, U.J. 31, 42 Gilmont, J.F. 70, 176, 184 Ginkel, A. van 58 Girard, A. 184 Gregory the Great 78 Guggisberg, K. 23, 25 seq., 28, 30, 33, 43, 45 seq., 123, 224 Heijting, W. 184 seq. Heussi, K. 44, 143, 206 Holböck, C. 122 Hollweg, W. 211, 238 Hooft, C.P. 240 Hooijer, C. 211 seq., 214 – 217, 219 – 224, 226 – 235, 243 Huguet, E. 110 seq., 168 Hus, Joh. 240

96 seq., 104, 113, 115, 118 – 121, 128, 130, 132, 134, 143 seq., 150 – 152, 161 seq., 181, 189, 192, 207, 257 Kluckhohn, A. 169 Knetsch, F.R.J. 157, 211 Köhler, W. 19, 23, 27 – 30, 33, 47 – 51, 54, 58 seq., 83, 87, 90 seq., 93, 95, 104, 112, 121 – 126, 128, 130 – 132 Kroon, M. de 93 Lavater, H.R. 19, 22, 24 – 35, 37 seq., 40, 44, 54 Lechler, G.V. 150, 152 Lecler, L. 162, 180 Lennep, M.F. van 222 L¦onard, E.G. 144, 150, 152, 154, 179, 181, 192 Locher, G.W. 19 – 26, 30 – 32, 35 – 38, 44 seq., 52, 54, 257 Lutz, S. 31, 42, 54 Maschke, E. 20, 93 McKee, E.A. 59, 65, 93, 109, 112, 115 – 119, 129, 132 seq., 138 Meyer, W.E. 42, 45, 53 Meylan, H. 197 Moeckli, G. 167 Moeller, B. 24 Monter, E.W. 128 Müller, E. 23, 25, 53, 70, 80 Muralt, L. von 19

Jahr, H. 132, 157, 163 seq., 167, 176, 184 seq. Jelsma, A.J. 214 Jensma, Th.W. 213 Jerome 78

Naef, H. 61 seq., 94, 134, 167, 171, 175 Nauta, D. 50, 58, 77, 81, 89 – 91, 96 seq., 136, 211, 215 Neale, J.E. 146, 158 Neuser, W.H. 115 Niemeyer, H.A. 20, 30 Niesel, W. 149 seq., 153, 157 seq., 209 Nijenhuis, W. 70 seq., 170 Nürnberger, R. 180 – 182, 190, 199 seq., 207

Kamphuis, J. 231, 238, 241, 245 Kerner, H. 188 Kingdon, R.M. 11, 62 seq., 65, 81, 94,

Oberman, H.A. 96, 112 Olthuis, H.J. 239 Overvoorde, J.C. van 236 – 238

Im Hof, U.

25

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

287

Other Names

Pannier, J. 143, 149, 151 – 157, 160, 162 seq., 165, 168, 176, 182 Pestalozzi, K. 26, 47 Peter, R. 20, 35, 38 seq., 70, 79, 96, 112, 167, 171, 191, 197, 228 Pfisterer, E. 122, 126, 128 Plomp, J. 59, 65, 67, 89, 94 seq., 104, 110 seq., 121 – 124, 126, 128, 130 – 132, 138 Pol, F. van der 214 Pont, A.D. 67 Posthumus Meyjes, G.H.M. 57, 113 Poujol, J. 160, 162 seq., 178 Quervain, T. de 26 – 29, 32 seq., 47, 51, 55, 135, 141 Quick, J. 135, 152 Raemond, Fl. de 153 Reinhard, W. 179, 181, 192, 197, 205 Rilliet, A. 61, 63, 69 seq., 76, 78 – 81, 83, 86, 91, 94 – 96, 100, 102, 137 Rivoire, E. 62, 77 Rogge, H.C. 210, 237 – 239, 241 seq. Romier, L. 181 seq., 191 – 195 Roodenburg, H. 215, 224, 232 seq. Roth, P. 67, 80 Ruys, Th. 228 Saxer, E. 35, 37, 40, 53 – 54 Schelven, A. A. van 228

Schmidt, H.R. 28 Screech, L. 123 Sehling, E. 225 – 226 Soldan, W.G. 190 Spijker, W. van ‘t 67, 113 – 115, 122, 132, 211, 215, 219, 222 – 227, 230 – 234, 237, 242 – 243 Staehelin, E. 76, 87 Stam, F.P. van 17 Stauffer, R. 145, 164, 182 Strasser, O.E. 40 Stupperich, R. 98, 132 Sutherland, N.M. 181 – 182, 184 – 186, 188, 190 Swigchem, C.A. van 216 Tavard, G.H. 66 Trocm¦, E. 205 Tukker, C.A. 211, 223, 226 – 229, 233 – 234 Turchetti, M. 188 Visser, J.Th. de 242

217 – 218, 231, 236 – 239,

Wälchli, K.F. 27 – 28, 50 Walder, E. 22, 24 Weber, O. 58, 62, 82, 92 Werner, G. 62 Wiley, D.N. 67, 93 Woltjer, J.J. 213 – 217, 238

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

Geographical Terms

Alkmaar 213, 226, 235 Amboise 178, 180 – 183 Amsterdam 7, 10, 210 seq., 224, 232 seq., 244, 259 AngoulÞme 60 Antwerp 214, 218 seq., 226, 239 Appenzell 21 Augsburg 25, 164, 169, 186, 197, 211 Aarau 46 Baden 21 Basel 16, 21, 27, 29, 31, 46 seq., 67, 70 seq., 76 seq., 80 seq., 87, 91, 114, 116, 127, 132, 135 Beauvais 190 Berg¦rac 162 Bern 7, 15 – 17, 19 – 42, 45 seq., 48 – 55, 58, 63, 69 – 71, 76 – 78, 81, 89 – 91, 95, 104, 122 – 124, 128, 134 – 136, 138 – 142, 194, 223, 238, 247 – 250, 257 Biel 81 Bienne 91 Brabant 217 Brugg 37 Caen 184 Cappel 16, 22, 31 – 35, 42, 44, 47, 52, 136 Cateau-Cambr¦sis 179, 181 Ch–tellerault 145 Constance (see: Konstanz) Dauphin¦ 152 seq. Den Briel 213, 233

Denmark 240 Dordrecht 18, 212 seq., 215 – 217, 222 – 227, 230, 232 – 236, 240 – 242, 245, 254 Drenthe 232 East Friesland 226 Edam 217, 223, 232 Emden 211 seq., 217, 230, 239 England 163, 186, 192, 198, 240 Enkhuizen 212 seq. Flanders 217 Florence 197 Fontainebleau 180 seq., 186, 194 France 7, 15, 17, 20, 60, 72, 75, 93, 143 seq., 147 seq., 150 – 205 seq., 210 seq., 213, 222, 241 – 246 seq., 251 – 253 Freiburg 21 Friesland 211 Gallen, St. 29, 31, 39, 91, 124 Gelderland 216 seq. Geneva 7, 13 – 17, 24, 31, 50 seq., 54, 57 – 141, 143 – 177, 184 – 198, 209 – 244, 247 – 255 Germain, St. 144, 158, 181, 200 – 202, 207, 252 Germany 29, 31, 76, 87, 192, 200, 213, 240 Glarus 21, 124 Gorkum 212 seq. Gouda 213 Groningen 232

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

290

Geographical Terms

Hague, the (’s-Gravenhage) 213 Hessen 132 Holland and Zeeland (States of) 17, 208 – 222, 225 – 236, 242 – 246, 253 Hoorn 232 Kampen 10 – 12, 59, 214, 259 Konstanz 19 – 21, 27, 31 Lausanne 27, 70 seq., 120 Leerdam 213 Leiden 209, 213, 217, 219, 226, 230, 234, 236 – 239, 242 seq. Leonhard, St. 76 Loches 185 Longjumeau 190 Loudun 145 Luzern 21 Lyon 150, 176, 184 Mainz 37 Meilen 32, 36 Metz 149 Middelburg 218, 241 Mont¦limar 152 Montpellier 123, 184 Moulins 184 Mühlhausen 91 Naaldwijk 212 Nantes 206 Navarre 171 – 173, 187, 190, 192, 195, 197, 203 Netherlands (Republiek der Nederlanden) 7, 10, 209 – 213, 215 seq., 220, 224 – 227, 233, 236, 238, 240 seq., 243 seq., 246 seq., 251 – 255 Neuch–tel 103 Nicea 164 Nieuwe Niedorp 226 N„mes 189 North Holland 217 Oost-Friesland 217 Orl¦ans 180 seq., 186 – 188, 190, 194, 201 seq., 206 seq.

Overijssel

217

Palatinate 169, 196, 211, 224 Paris 7, 143 – 145, 148, 153 – 157, 159, 161, 163 seq., 166 – 169, 171 – 173, 175 – 177, 179, 181 seq., 184, 187, 189, 195, 206 seq., 251 Poissy 169, 179, 181, 188, 190 – 201, 206 seq., 252 Poitiers 143 – 146, 149, 151 – 153, 156, 181, 188, 190, 204 Poitou 60, 145, 152 seq. Poland 192 Pontoise 188, 190, 194, 198, 206 Rhineland 231 Rochelle, La 211 Rome 25, 32, 75, 80, 96, 160, 187, 191, 193 Rotterdam 215, 218, 220, 230, 235, 243 Rouen 176, 184 Sauve 189, 198 Savoy 15 Schaffhausen 21, 31, 91, 124 Schiedam 213 Schwyz 20 seq. Scotland 185, 192, 216, 218 Sitten 27 Solothurn 21 Spain 154, 179, 198, 253 Strasbourg 21, 37, 41, 51, 57, 58, 70, 75, 81, 98, 104, 113, 115, 167, 176, 184, 250 Switzerland 22, 29, 31, 78, 138, 174, 192, 218, 240 seq. Tours 167, 189 Trent 179, 197 seq. Ulm 21 Unterwalden 20 seq. Uri 20 seq. Utrecht 217, 226 Valence 186 seq., 191 Vassy 205 Vienna 186

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211

291

Geographical Terms

West-Friesland

211

Zeeland (see: Holland) Zug 20 seq.

Zürich 20 – 23, 26 seq., 29 – 36, 41, 46 seq., 49 seq., 55, 58, 70 seq., 78, 81, 87, 90 seq., 104, 109, 122 – 126, 128, 138, 197, 228, 238

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570210 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570211