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