Chapter XV.

Division Of The Religious And Civil Authorities On The Question Of The Lord's Supper.

But however sincere a reconciliation may be, it is seldom so thorough as to put an end to the difficulties which first caused the quarrel. When Calvin proposed that the past should be forgotten, and that there should be peace on the approach of the Lord's Supper, he raised that question which offered precisely the most serious difficulty to the members of the two hostile parties. They were still divided as to whether the religious or the civil authorities had the right of refusing the sacrament to, and pronouncing sentence of excommunication upon, those whom they deemed unworthy. Such a difficulty could not arise in any free country in our own time, or indeed in any country where the meaning of faith and religious liberty are known. The Lord's Supper is administered by the religious authorities under a sense of religious responsibility, and in the name of the religious belief common to the pastors and their flock. It is for them alone to decide those cases in which, for religious reasons, they think it their duty to refuse it; and the civil power has no right to interfere in this close communion of the conscience of the priest with that of the believer. {279} It is true that ecclesiastics have often abused the right of excommunication, and have thus provoked tyrannical intervention on the part of the civil power--like that of the 'Parlement' of Paris, for example, which occasionally compelled a priest, in olden times, to administer the Lord's Supper to those to whom he had refused it. The magistrates of Geneva, from motives of prudence and to avoid what they called scandal, claimed the same right; and a short time after Calvin's return they maintained that they, and not the Consistory, ought to pronounce sentence of excommunication, and that it was the duty of the pastor to administer the sacrament to all those authorized by the Council to receive it. Calvin immediately declared that he would sacrifice everything and return into exile rather than admit such a claim. Not that he held any fixed and preconceived doctrine on the subject; his point of view was not that of a fanatical theologian, but of a religious ruler. He wrote to Bullinger: 'Since my return to this church we have instituted a kind of religious discipline which is not perfect in itself, and leaves much to be desired, but which, on the whole, accomplishes its aim. A Consistory has been established for the supervision of morals; it has no civil jurisdiction, and can only restrain evil-doers in accordance with the Word of God, and as the chief representative of God,--that is, it can exclude from the Lord's Supper. ... I know that our friends are not all of one mind upon this subject; there are some learned and pious men who think that excommunication is not necessary under a Christian government, but no sane person would be so infatuated as to condemn and abolish it where it is already established. {280} So far as I am concerned, the teaching of our Lord on this point seems to me perfectly clear, and I believe you will allow that, for us at least, it would be a great disgrace and a fatal defeat, if the edifice of which our Lord has appointed us the guardians was to be destroyed beneath our eyes.' [Footnote 97] The Libertines at once saw the advantage which they might derive from this disagreement between the Council and the Pastors; they ranged themselves on the side of the Council, and Berthelier, one of their most violent partisans,--a man whose incredulity and immorality were known to all,--presented himself at the Lord's Supper, and was excommunicated by the Consistory. He complained to the Council, which declared that it would not ratify the sentence, and that 'if Berthelier had no impediment in his own conscience which hindered him from approaching the table of the Lord, the Council authorized him to do so.' 'Gentlemen,' said Calvin, 'as for me I would rather suffer death than allow the table of my Lord to be profaned in such a manner.'

[Footnote 97: Stähelin, i. 459, 460.]

The magistrates knew him well enough to feel that these were not mere words. They were intimidated, and sent a private message to Berthelier, saying: 'If you can stay away for the present, you will do well.' But, unlike the magistrates, the Libertine and his friends had no desire to avoid an open rupture. On Sunday the 3d of September, 1553, St. Peter's church was filled by a large and excited crowd; the pastors and elders filled the benches of the Consistory; the Libertines thronged in the vicinity of the communion table. {281} Calvin mounted the pulpit, and preached with great calmness upon the state of mind and heart necessary for those who would approach the table of the Lord; he ended his sermon by saying: As for me, so long as it shall please God to keep me here, since he has given me resolution and I have derived it from him, I shall not fail to exercise it when there is need; and I will rule my life in accordance with the will of my Master, which is quite clear and well known to me. ... We are now about to receive the holy sacrament; and if any one who has been excommunicated by the Consistory tries to approach that table, at the risk of my life I am prepared to do my duty.' He descended from the pulpit, and approached and blessed the table of the Lord's Supper. The Libertines drew near, and several among them made a movement forward as if to seize the bread and wine. Calvin spread his hands over the sacred elements, and cried out: 'You may break these limbs, you may cut off my arms, you may take my life! Shed my blood if you will; it is yours! But never shall any one compel me to give things that are sacred to the profane, and to dishonour the table of my God.' The Libertines hesitated; they looked at each other, and looked around them; a murmur which threatened danger was spreading throughout the hitherto silent assembly; they drew back from the table, the crowd opened for their passage, and the sacrament was then administered in silence to the excited and agitated believers.

{282}

In the afternoon of the same day Calvin preached again: 'I do not know,' he said, 'if this is not the last sermon I shall ever preach in Geneva; not that I leave by my own wish, or that I desire to depart from this spot and to give up the authority which I hold. But I take that which has been done to signify that Geneva will receive my services no longer, and will seek to compel me to do what God does not permit. So long as I am free to preach and to serve you, I will do it in the name of the Lord; but if I am forced into an intolerable position, I will not resist the constituted authorities, and I must go.' Calvin's conduct had been energetic, but his language was guarded. He laid claim to his own liberty, asserted his right to act in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, did not urge others to insurrection, and limited his resistance to voluntary exile. He showed himself obedient to the law, and at the same time a faithful pastor. But the people pronounced in his favour. The Libertines drew back. The civil magistrates recognised the difficulty of their position, and did not insist on carrying out their decision. The discussion between the civil and religious powers as to the right of pronouncing sentence of excommunication lasted some time longer; it was occasionally diversified by tumultuous outbreaks, and there was always a tendency towards hesitation on the part of the civil rulers and their compromising allies. At length, on the 25th of October, 1554, the Council induced Berthelier 'to make peace with the pastors;' and on the 24th of January, 1555, the assembled Councils agreed that it was the Consistory which ought to pronounce sentence of excommunication. [Footnote 98]

[Footnote 98: Gaberel, vol. i. p. 425]

{283}