Chapter IV

THE TOURNAMENT.
(JANUARY TO FEBRUARY 1534.)

[Sidenote: The Three Reformers.]

The 9th of January was an important date in the history of the Reformation of Geneva, and perhaps (we might add) in that of Europe. The laity were about to resume their rights: a priest was to appear before the Genevese laymen and the Bernese magistrates. As soon as the Council of Two Hundred had assembled, the ambassadors entered, followed by three persons who attracted the special attention of all present. The eyes full of fire, the bold bravery, the indomitable features of one of them marked him to be Farel. The second, less known, had, although young, the prudence of a man in years and the sweetness of a St. John; this was Viret. The third, short in stature and of mean appearance, decided in his gait, lively, and talkative; this was Froment. They all took their seats at the right of the premier syndic. The friar of the order of St. Dominic, entering in his turn, sat on the left on a raised bench. They had met to attack and defend the papacy. The tournament, at which a great crowd of gentlemen and citizens was present, resembled one of those ‘solemn judgments’ to which man had had recourse for ages to terminate certain controversies. The subject of the dispute was more important than usual. Truth and tradition, the middle ages and modern times, independence and slavery, were in the balance. All, therefore, who were interested in divine and human things, waited with impatience. Their expectations were disappointed.

Just as the struggle was about to begin, one of the combatants hung back. The Dominican rose and said: ‘Messieurs, I am a monk and doctor of Paris; I cannot appear before laymen without the license of my prelate.’ He sat down. ‘You offered before all the people,’ said Sebastian of Diesbach, ‘to defend your position by the Holy Scriptures, and now you want a licence.’ Farel rose and observed, that the monk and the great apostle were of contrary opinions; ‘St. Paul refused, in such a case, to appear before the priests at Jerusalem, and appealed to Cæsar. Now Cæsar was certainly a layman, and what is more—a heathen.’ The monk forbore to reply to this invincible argument; but looking with pity on the individual who had dared speak to him, said, with a gesture of contempt, ‘that he had nothing to do with that man.’ Then, remembering how the strappado and the stake brought such cavillers to their senses in Paris, he added: ‘Let him go and speak like that in France!’ ‘Good father,’ said the premier syndic, ‘since you will not answer when our lords of Berne accuse you, leave that place and sit on the bench yonder, where you shall hear the rest.’ The monk of St. Dominic had to quit his place of honor and go to the bar; but notwithstanding this humiliation, he again refused to speak. The syndics then sent to ask the grand-vicar to give him leave to answer; but this dignitary replied: ‘I am ill.’ The deputies made the same request to the official, M. de Veigy, who answered: ‘The bishop has forbidden me to do so.’ ‘Shameful!’ exclaimed many; ‘all these priests refuse to give an account of their faith.’ The Dominican said to the council: ‘Let my lords the ambassadors select as judges two doctors from Germany; and we will select two from Paris; then I will reply not only to Farel, Viret, and Froment, but to a hundred or two hundred of such preachers.... Alone I will meet them all!’ The Bernese declared they would trust the matter to those only who were lawfully authorized. They wanted more. The refusal of the Dominican served but to increase their desire to see the Reformation freely preached in Geneva. Not contenting themselves with a theological discussion, they said to the syndics: ‘The way to pacify the city and to be just towards all, is to pick out one of the parish churches and appoint a preacher of the Gospel to it. Those who wish to go to the sermon, will go to the sermon; those who wish to go to mass, will go to mass; every man is to remain free in his conscience; no one shall be constrained, and all will be satisfied.’ ‘We are only laymen,’ answered the astonished syndics; ‘it is not our business to choose preachers and assign them churches.’ The council sent a deputation to Berne to soften the rigor of the chiefs of the state; but it was useless. The greater the _suppleness_ (to use the language of a manuscript) shown by the Genevans, the greater the inflexibility displayed by the Bernese. It was a struggle between the pliant and the rigid; and the pliant, as usual, were compelled to give way.[445]

[Sidenote: Reparation Demanded.]

The Bernese ambassadors pursued their plans with vigor, and demanded reparation for the insults of the Dominican, and a church for the preachers of the Gospel. ‘If you refuse,’ added Diesbach, ‘we shall return you the seals of our alliance; we shall take back ours; we shall prosecute the monk ... and whomsoever we think fit.’ The Two Hundred were astounded, involuntary tears escaped from the eyes of some, and even the people outside were much disturbed (says the Council minute). Joining deeds to words, Sebastian of Diesbach placed the letters of alliance on the table. The whole assembly immediately rose up with indescribable emotion, and with tears begged the ambassadors to take back their letters. ‘We will do our best to satisfy you!’ exclaimed the premier-syndic, stout catholic as he was. The stern Bernese noble was touched. ‘We take them back,’ he said at last; ‘but we protest that we shall return them if you do not satisfy our demands.’[446] Everything was then prepared for the trial. Geneva undertook to bear the axe into the wilderness of church abuses: a priest, accused by laymen, was about to be tried by laymen. This in itself was a revolution.

[Sidenote: The Monk On His Trial.]

On the 27th January, the Two Hundred sitting as a court of justice, Furbity was brought before them. He had taken courage; his erect head and confident look showed that he believed himself sure of victory. He called upon the Bernese to set forth their grievances, but protested against the inquiry on account of the sacerdotal character with which he was invested. Then the following colloquy took place:—

AMBASSADOR.—You preached publicly that four kinds of executioners divided the robe of our Saviour Jesus Christ at the foot of the cross, and that the first were Germans. That word concerns us.

MONK.—I never used such words; and I do not know to what country the executioners belonged.

AMBAS.—We will prove this charge presently. You said that those who eat meat on Friday and Saturday are worse than Jews, Turks, and mad dogs.

MONK.—I did not mean thereby to offend their Excellencies of Berne; I was preaching only to the people of this city.

AMBAS.—You said that all who read the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue are no better than lewd livers, gluttons, drunkards, blasphemers, murderers, and robbers.

MONK.—I affirm that I have not abused my lords of Berne.

AMBAS.—You spoke in a general manner, and consequently included them in your accusation.

MONK.—I was speaking to the Genevese only.

AMBAS.—You said: ‘Avoid these wicked modern heretics, these Germans, as you would lepers and unclean persons. Do not let them marry your daughters, you had better give them to the dogs.’

MONK.—I deny having preached that article.

AMBAS.—You said: ‘That the modern heretics, who will not obey the pope or the cardinals, bishops, and curates, are on that account the devil’s flock and worse than mad dogs ... and ought to be hanged on the gallows.’

MONK.—That is an article of faith, and I have not to answer for it before you.

PREMIER-SYNDIC.—You are commanded to answer.

MONK.—I shall not answer.

PREMIER-SYNDIC.—The charge is confessed.

AMBAS.—‘Most honored lords, we belong to those who read Scripture in the vulgar tongue. We belong to those who hold our Lord as _sole head of the Church_, as its everlasting and sovereign pastor; and, moreover, we are Germans; and for this reason we believe the said articles have been uttered against us. If we were what these articles say, we should deserve corporal punishment; and therefore we demand, in terms of the _lex talionis_, that the said preacher be visited with a punishment similar to that which we should have incurred.’

The reasoning of the ambassador was not irrefutable. Envoys from Zurich, Basle, and other Evangelical cantons, even from the landgrave of Hesse or the elector of Saxony might just as well accuse the monk of having insulted them. But it is precisely this which explains the conduct of the Bernese deputies. Protestantism had been abused, its fundamental principles trampled under foot. The Bernese did not prosecute the monk in order to avenge a personal affront; what they wanted was to see the Word of God set in the place of the word of the pope, and the Reformation established in Geneva. The Gospel was on trial and not my lords of Berne; but the latter considered themselves the champions of the Reformation in Switzerland, and when enemies attacked it, they thought it their duty to defend it. To have kept out of the lists would have been disobedience to the supreme judge of the combat. The ambassadors brought up fourteen witnesses ready to swear that the monk had said what was ascribed to him.[447]

Furbity seeing no other means of escape, determined to fight for Rome. On Thursday, 29th January, a rumor spread through the city that the monk would hold a discussion with the reformers. The Two Hundred, and a certain number of other citizens, met in the Hotel de Ville to be present at this important struggle.

One of the tourneys of the Reformation at Geneva was about to begin; the two combatants were in the lists. On one side the Dominican, the champion of Rome, came forward with scholastic learning that was not to be despised, a front of adamant, lungs strong enough to reduce all his rivals to silence, and a tongue furnished with an inexhaustible flow of words.[448] At once violent and skilful, he made use of every weapon, and possessed a particular art of glozing over his errors and rendering them less apparent.[449] On the other side was Farel, less experienced than his rival in the tricks of dialectics, but full of love for the truth, firm as a warrior advancing to defend it, and ready to confound the monk’s scholastic arguments by the invincible demonstrations of the Scriptures of God. Possessing a manly eloquence and sonorous voice, his clear, energetic, and at times ironical language, did prompt justice upon the sophisms of his adversaries[450].

The reformer rose first and said: ‘This is a serious business; let us therefore speak with all mildness. Let not one strive to get the better of the other. We can have no nobler triumph than to see the truth prevail. So that it be acknowledged by all, I willingly consent to forfeit my life.’ Touched by his words, the assembly exclaimed: ‘Yes, yes! that is what we desire.’

Furbity began by asserting the authority of the pope. He maintained that the heads of the Church may ordain things that are not in Scripture, and to prove it, he quoted Deuteronomy: ‘If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, thou shalt come unto the priests, and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee.’[451]

Farel, on the contrary, maintained the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and declared that all doctrine must be founded on them alone. He called to mind that God, in this very book of Moses, had said: ‘_Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it_.’[452] ‘What is said of the Levitical priest in the Old Testament (he added) ought to be applied, not to the Romish priests, but to Jesus Christ, who is the everlasting high-priest. To him, therefore, we must go, him we must obey, and not the priest.’[453] ‘Christ,’ exclaimed Furbity, ‘gave to St. Peter the key of the kingdom of heaven, and St. Peter transmitted it to the priests, his successors.’ ‘The key of the heavenly kingdom,’ answered Farel, ‘is the Word of God. If any one believes in the promises of grace with all his heart, heaven opens for him. If any one rejects them, heaven is closed against him.’

As it was growing late, the discussion was adjourned to the next day, and Furbity said haughtily that he was ready. A voice from the midst of the crowd called out: ‘Endeavor to hold more to the Word of God and less to the teaching of the Sorbonne.’ ‘I shall behave like a man,’ he answered. ‘If the strength of a man consists in his want of sense, then you are a true man,’ rudely returned the speaker.

The next day the discussion entered upon a new phase.

[Sidenote: Interpretation By The Councils.]

Farel maintained throughout the right and duty of the Christian people to read the Scriptures, to understand them, and to submit to them alone. Furbity, on the contrary, asserted that the Scriptures should be read by the clergy only, and understood conformably with the interpretation of the councils. He proved his point by reasons which might have some force in the eyes of his friends, but they had none for Farel, who maintained the necessity of the immediate contact of each Christian soul with the Scriptures of God. It was not from councils (he contended) nor from popes, but from the Word of God itself that every Christian must receive by faith the truth which saves. The first assembly at Jerusalem (ordinarily termed the first council), was it not, according to the account in the Acts, composed of apostles, elders, and of the _whole church_, and did it not begin its letter with: ‘The apostles and elders and _brethren_’? Defending, therefore, the rights of the lay members of the flock, he declaimed energetically against the institution of all those dignitaries who, in the Romish Church, are _lords over God’s heritage_: ‘You invent all sorts of things,’ he said to the Dominican,[454] ‘you introduce diversities of orders, a countless number of eminences, bishops, prelates, archbishops, primates, cardinals, popes, and other superiorities of which Scripture makes no mention. You do everything to your own fancy, without any regard to God or the right. The apostles took counsel with the whole assembly of the believers, but you ... you do everything, you are everything! ... you cut and shape as you please. The Christian people are no more called by you into council than dogs and brutes. Your ordinances must be adored, and those of God be trodden under foot. Your papal monarchy surpasses all others in pride, pomp, and feasting. You want those who are to teach the people to be princes with lordships, estates, law-courts, and governments. You want to have a rich triumphant Jesus, who shall put to death all who contradict him.... Ah! sirs, the Saviour was not such here below: he was poor, humble, put to death, and his disciples were banished, imprisoned, stoned, and killed.... What similarity is there between the Apostolic Church and yours?... The supreme argument in yours is the executioner.... The apostles did not, like you, fulminate fierce excommunications; they did not, like you, imprison and condemn.... No! Jesus is not in the midst of you. He is in the midst of those who are expelled, beaten, burnt for the Gospel, as the martyrs were in the time of the primitive Church.’

[Sidenote: Farel’s Thunders.]

The reformer’s energetic words sounded like a peal of thunder to his antagonist. Furbity was confounded and bewildered; his ideas became confused; he lost his presence of mind, and, wishing to establish the doctrine of the episcopate as it is understood at Rome, he quoted the verse in which it is said that a bishop ought to be _the husband of one wife_, which greatly amused the assembly. He did more: desiring to prove that there had been bishops of the Roman model in the apostolic times, he mentioned Judas Iscariot. ‘It is written of Judas,’ he said, ‘his bishopric let another take: _Episcopatum suum accipiat alter_. As Judas had a bishopric, he must of necessity have been a bishop;’ and he concluded there was no salvation out of the Roman episcopate. The doctor had not kept his promise to behave _like a man_. Farel smiled at the strange argument, and began to lash the Dominican with the scourge of irony. ‘As you have quoted that good bishop, Judas,’ he said, ‘Judas, who sold the Saviour of the world; as you have asserted that he had a diocese, pray tell me in what part of the Roman empire it lay, and how much it was worth, according to the customary language of Rome. That bishop, whose name you use, is very like certain prelates who, instead of preaching the Word of God, _carry the bag_,[455] and instead of glorifying Jesus Christ, sell him by selling his members, whose souls they hand over to the devil, receiving money from him in exchange.’[456]

The monk, astonished at such boldness, again exclaimed in a threatening manner: ‘Go and repeat what you say at Paris, or any other city of France.’ So sure was he that the evangelist would be sent to the stake there that he could not refrain from repeating such a peremptory argument. It was all that Farel would have desired: ‘Would to God that I were allowed to explain my faith publicly,’ he said; ‘I should prove it by Holy Scripture, and if I did not, I would consent to be put to death.’

As the discussion went on, the feelings grew inflamed on both sides—some defending Furbity, others supporting Farel.

No one was more assiduous at this verbal tournament than Baudichon de la Maisonneuve; he accompanied the evangelical champion, both as he went to the meeting and returned from it, being unwilling to leave to others the care of protecting his person. The catholics did not fail to notice the constant goings and comings of the great citizen; it quite shocked them: his intimacy with the detested heretic seemed to them most disgraceful. A young man of five-and-twenty, named Delorme, who was born at Fontenay, a league and a half from the city, and who for upwards of a year had been following his business with a relative in Geneva, specially watched Baudichon, and was surprised to see so great a gentleman pay such frequent visits to the poor preacher, Farel.[457] He made a note of it, which, on a future day he made use of.

The disputation went on all through Friday. The market on Saturday, the services on Sunday, and the Feast of the Purification which fell on Monday, interrupted it for three days. The three ministers took advantage of the leisure given them to preach to the people with fervor. Each day they proclaimed the Gospel in the large hall of their friend’s house, and Baudichon watched to see that everything went on in an orderly manner—which was very necessary, for the sensation excited by the discussion attracted large crowds. In the evening the evangelicals met in different houses and conversed together until far into the night. During the daytime they endeavored to attract to their assemblies such as still hesitated between popery and the Reformation. ‘Ah,’ exclaimed young Delorme with vexation, ‘see what efforts they are making to increase their party.’[458] All Geneva was in a ferment.

[Sidenote: Tales About Farel.]

But the sensation was not confined to that city: the anger excited by the discussions manifested itself in violent speeches in the surrounding districts. The idle, the curious, and the devout would stop and question travellers ‘to learn the great news from Geneva which they so desired to know.’[459] Many priests and monks preached in the villages round the city against _heretics_ and _heresy_; and in Geneva, as well as in other places through which Farel had passed, there was always some friar or old woman to tell strange stories about the reformer. ‘He has no whites to his eyes,’ they would say; ‘his beard is red and stiff, and there is a devil in every hair of it. He has horns on his head, and his feet are cloven like a bullock’s.... Lastly—and this seemed more horrible than all the rest—he is the son of a Jew of Carpentras.’[460]

All these stories, flying about the city, reached the Tête-Noire inn, where the Bernese and the three reformers lodged. The domestic life of this hostelry was not edifying. The landlord (according to the chronicle) had two wives: his lawful spouse and a servant who acted as the mistress. The former, an upright person, behaved becomingly to the preachers of the Gospel, though she did not like them; but the other woman detested them, and every time they entered the house, both master and servant scowled at them. They restrained themselves however before the illustrious lords of Berne, greeting them with forced smiles; but made up for it when they were alone with the preachers. The latter usually dined together; and the landlord and servant, while waiting on them, heard language from the lips of the evangelists which greatly provoked them. Instead of the idle stories and jests so common at the dinner-table, the three ministers would exchange words of truth with one another; and this conversation, so new to the two listeners, caused them to make wry faces (as Froment records, who saw them). The three guests had scarcely quitted the room when the servant, who had restrained herself, would cry out after them: ‘Heretics! traitors! brigands! huguenots! Germans!’ ... ‘I had rather,’ said the landlord, ‘that they went away without paying (that was saying a great deal), provided it was a long way off ... so long that we should never see them again.’ These two wretched people felt that the doctrine of the Bible condemned their disorderly lives, and the hatred they felt towards the holiness of God’s Word was vented on those who proclaimed it.

‘The adulterous servant, unable to serve the preachers as Herodias served John the Baptist,’ says Froment, ‘avenged herself in another manner.’ Addressing one of those women who prate at random about everything: ‘Only imagine what I have seen,’ said she; ‘one night as the preachers were going to bed, I stole up softly after them, and, approaching the door, I peeped through a hole.... What did I see? They were _feeding devils_!’ The neighbor’s dismay did not hinder the servant from continuing: ‘These devils were like black cats ... their eyes flashed fire, their claws were crooked and pointed ... they were under the table ... moving backwards and forwards.... Yes; I saw them through the hole.’ In a short time all the gossips of the quarter knew it; ‘at which there was a great stir in the neighborhood.’[461]

To this story of the servant, the priests added theirs, and said: ‘There are three devils in Geneva in the form of men—Farel, Viret, Froment; and many demoniacs. If ever you listen to those three goblins, they will spring upon you, enter into your body, and you are done for.’[462] Not satisfied merely with repeating such absurdities in their conversation, the priests began to preach to the people upon ‘the three devils.’ Next a song was written on them; and ere long the catholic mob went up and down the streets singing these rude rhymes:—

Farel farera,
Viret virera,
Froment on moudra,
Dieu nous aidera
Et le diable les emportera.[463]

The popular epigram was mistaken. At the very moment when the catholics were singing it about the city, tragic events were coming that were to change everything in Geneva. It was the Roman Church that was about to _veer_ and popery to depart.

Footnote 445:

Registre du Conseil des 10, 11, 12 Janvier, 1534.—Ruchat, iii. p. 251,
252.—MSC. de Gautier.

Footnote 446:

Registre du Conseil des 25 et 26 Janvier, 1534.—MSC. de Roset, liv.
ii. ch. xviii. etc.

Footnote 447:

Registre du Conseil du 27 Janvier, 1534.—_Lettres certaines d’aucuns
grands troubles._

Footnote 448:

Furbito homine sinuoso, cui firma latera, frons ferrea.—_Geneva
restituta_, p. 68.

Footnote 449:

Pictæ tectoria linguæ.—_Persius._

Footnote 450:

Farello pro veritate strenue stante, etc.—_Geneva restituta._

Footnote 451:

Deuteronomy xvii. 8-10.

Footnote 452:

Deuteronomy iv. 2.

Footnote 453:

Farel indicated the passages taken from the following chapters:
Hebrews v. to x.; Romans xiv.; Matthew v.; Luke xxiv.; John v. viii.
xii. xiv.; Romans xv.; Galatians i.; Deuteronomy xviii.

Footnote 454:

_Lettres certaines_, &c., by Farel.

Footnote 455:

Au lieu de porter la Parole de Dieu, portent la bourse.

Footnote 456:

_Lettres certaines._

Footnote 457:

MSC. du Procès inquisitionnel de Lyon, p. 80.

Footnote 458:

Ibid. p. 81.

Footnote 459:

_Lettres certaines d’aucuns grands troubles_, &c. This work, which is
dated Geneva, 1st April 1534, and consequently appeared two months
after the discussion, is the principal source whence we have taken our
account of these discussions.

Footnote 460:

Froment, _Gestes de Genève_, p. 86.

Footnote 461:

Froment, _Gestes de Genève_, p. 85.

Footnote 462:

Ibid.

Footnote 463:

Farel shall depart, Viret shall veer (go away); Froment (corn) shall
be ground in the mill; God will help us, and the devil shall run away
with them all. Froment’s _Gestes de Genève_, pp. 84-86.