to know where one was, form the Church of Geneva? Should that Church be ‘De tant d’objets divers le bizarre assemblage?’[561] Would it not in such a case remind one of certain monsters, which are spoken of by the ancients, possessing a conformation which was against nature? The reformers were with the truth when they answered No. But where they were wrong was in requiring all the citizens to take an oath to their confession. Was it possible for them to fancy that the act by which Geneva had broken with the pope had transformed, as by the stroke of the enchanter’s wand, all the Genevese, so that from that moment they all believed heartily, and ought all to make confession with their lips? _Nascitur homo, fit Christianus_, said Tertullian in the second century. One _is born_ a man, but one _becomes_ a Christian. To pretend that all those who belonged to the state belonged at the same time to the Church was irrational. To decree that those who would not take the oath to the confession should depart from the city and go elsewhither was iniquitous. What, drive from Geneva the men to whom Geneva owed her independence! Such an enormity could not fail to lead to a revolution. The fusion of the Church and the state in a single society is the origin of those blemishes which in some instances disfigured the otherwise glorious work of the Reformation. But how to settle the dilemma? how admit two contradictory propositions? How to exclude and to keep at the same time? The early Church accomplished this. It had its ἀκροώμενοι, _audientes_, hearers. Instead of excluding those whose faith was not yet formed, it invited them lovingly to hear the preaching of the Word. They attended the service and joined in the prayers, without taking part in the mysteries of the Lord’s supper, which they shrank timidly from approaching. And when in their experience that great process of the Christian life was accomplished of which St. Paul speaks--_Faith cometh by hearing_--they shared the communion at the sacred feast. Perhaps Geneva was not yet ripe for this order of things.[562] The council assembled the Two Hundred to consider what answer should be made to the reformers. Since the scenes which had taken place in the council of November 25, the syndics had become more timid. They dreaded whatever might provoke the people and drive them on to any rash proceeding, and they felt less inclined to support the reformers. A letter was read from Berne which bore approving testimony to the confession, and exhorted to concord. Three of the members who had not sworn the confession--De Lesclefs, Manlich, and Ameaux--were urged to do as others had done. The first two took the oath required; Ameaux alone refused. The council then believing that they had gone far enough, recoiled from a measure which might have grave consequences, and determined ‘not to refuse the supper to any one.’[563]