Chapter II: The Disputation at Lausanne

(OCTOBER, 1536.)

[Sidenote: THE DISPUTATION AT LAUSANNE.]

The disputation of Lausanne inaugurates with a certain grandeur the Reformation of the Vaudois. Some look upon it as merely a Bernese project. But that imposing assembly, among whose speakers were all or nearly all the reformers of western Switzerland; at which the great evangelical questions were discussed; and by means of which some of those who were present were converted; is evidence that the Reform was truly the work of God. The Reformation had begun in that country, obscurely and modestly, in some districts on the banks of the Rhone, on the shores of the lake of Neuchâtel, and in others besides. It now announced itself with power, and the mass of the people were going to embrace it. Men discourse much in books about the beautiful. We find true beauty, Christian beauty, evangelical, inward, more veiled perhaps than that of the world, but more pure and more solid, in the doctrine then proclaimed at Lausanne, and often in the manner in which it was set forth, although we have to make allowance for the time. We find it in the Farels, the Calvins, the Virets and other heroic men of that epoch, who lived with God, who were unwearied in their work, and were always ready to give their lives for the truth which they proclaimed. That synod was a beautiful portico erected to lead men into a temple of divine beauty.

[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS AT LAUSANNE.]

Farel was preparing for the disputation; and on the Roman Catholic side there was much ado to find valiant champions. At Lausanne there was no canon, no priest, no monk who came forward to defend the doctrine by which till that day they had lived. It was necessary to beat to arms elsewhere. They did so; and at the end of September the Dominican Monbouson, Michod dean of Vevey, the vicars Drogy and Berrilly, and others besides, arrived, in the town. Two laymen alone represented Lausanne, the captain of the youth,[392] Fernand de Loys, and the French physician Blancherose. The latter was ‘_un homme tenant de la lune_’ (something of a lunatic), said the Catholic Pierrefleur, ‘who blends in his discussions medicine and theology, and excites boundless merriment.’ Viret, Marcourt, and Lecomte appeared for the reformed. From Geneva came Chapuis, a former Dominican, then pastor at Compesières, and Jacques Bernard, formerly superior of the Cordeliers. But the man who chiefly attracted attention was Farel, who was accompanied by a young man pale and modest, unknown by sight to most, and who appeared to be his assistant. It was John Calvin. Farel had urged him to come to Lausanne, but Calvin shrank from the thought of speaking in that great assembly. Still he was deeply interested in its proceedings. ‘The Senate of Berne,’ said he, ‘has declared that everyone is at liberty to state his objections freely, without need to fear being disturbed in consequence of it. That is the fittest means of exposing the ignorance of those who set themselves against the Gospel.’[393] These two men had set out in company with the Syndic Porral, and they arrived with many others at the cathedral, in which the disputation was to be held. An amphitheatre had been constructed. The altars, pictures, statues, and rich ornaments of the Romish worship still displayed their magnificence; and even the canons, who were determined to keep silence, but nevertheless wished to do something, had brought out of their hiding-places the image of the holy Virgin and all those of the saints, trusting more, it would seem, to the eloquence of those dumb figures than to their own.

On the side of the Reformation there was no other preparation but some simple evangelical theses drawn up by Farel, and affixed to the doors of all the churches. They were entitled, ‘Conclusions which are to be discussed at Lausanne, a new province of Berne.’ In the form of ten articles it was declared,--that Holy Scripture teaches no other justification than that which is by faith in Jesus Christ, once for all offered in sacrifice--that it acknowledges no other head, priest, saviour, or mediator of the Church than Jesus Christ, seated at the right hand of God;--that it gives the name ‘Church of God’ only to the assembly of those who believe in their redemption by Jesus Christ alone. The other seven articles established the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper--the ministry of the Word of God--confession made to God--absolution coming from God--spiritual service rendered to God, such as is ordained by the Word, and without the infinite mockeries which pervert religion--the civil magistrate ordained of God to maintain the peace of the Republic--marriage a divine institution for any class whatsoever--and the free use, so it be with charity, of things indifferent.[394]

On Sunday, October 1, all the bells were set a-going, and a great crowd filled the cathedral. But the lords of Berne, in whose presence the disputation was to take place, had not yet arrived. It was a great disappointment. However, the opening took place on Sunday, although the discussion only began on Monday. It was Farel, the senior of the French reformers, the great champion of the Gospel in the district of Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchâtel, that Christian man, at once so learned and so pious, so devout and so active, who made the first speech, in which his design was to prepare the minds of those present for a becoming and Christian conference.[395] He said,--‘While Satan leads the sheep astray in order to destroy them, our Lord seeks to bring them back to his holy flock in order to save them. We shall never attain real unity except by means of the truth. A safe-conduct has therefore been given to all, to go and come, to speak and to hear, as shall seem good to them, for the truth must not be hidden. May it be the truth that wins the day! If I myself were wholly vanquished and put to confusion, while the truth had its triumph, I should count that the greatest gain and the best possible victory. Let all therefore, whether priests or preachers, have respect to the great shepherd Jesus Christ, who gave his body and his blood for the poor people. Let us prefer to be nothing, if only the poor sheep, gone so far astray, may find the right way, may come to Jesus and give themselves to God. That will be better than if we should gain all the world and lose those for whom Jesus died. If any man will exalt himself against Jesus, if any man will light against the faith, it would be better for him if he had never been born. Let us not despise our neighbor. Let us not mock him. Let us not shut the door of the kingdom of heaven and take away the key of knowledge. Let us be free from all hatred and rancor. Let us love all men, pray for all men, do good to all men. Let us visit the poor and the afflicted, that is the true pilgrimage. Those little ones are the images of God, and it is to those images that we ought to resort, to them that we should carry food and candles.... My dear brethren, when you hear the bell ring, present yourselves here in God’s name, in peace and unity, without disturbance or murmuring.’ This was indeed a good and Christian address, and after hearing it the assembly dispersed.

[Sidenote: FAREL’S DISCOURSE.]

On Monday, October 2, at seven o’clock in the morning, the cathedral was again filled, and ‘as soon as the shrill sound of the bell had ceased, there appeared on the platform the ambassadors of Berne,’ J. J. de Watteville, formerly _avoyer_,[396] J. de Diesbach, and the _baillifs_ of Yverdon and Lausanne. They were easily recognized by their red and black doublets, skirts, and hose. The council of Geneva had sent as its representative the Syndic A. Porral, a warm friend of Reform. Presidents were chosen from among the men of Berne and Lausanne. Then Farel rose and read his first thesis, which treated of man’s justification before God, developed and proved it.

When he had finished, the vice-bailiff of Lausanne said aloud, ‘If any man has aught to say against these first conclusions, let him come forward and we shall willingly listen to him.’ The canons of the cathedral then rose, who were determined not to carry on but to prevent the discussion, and one of them, Perrini, said, ‘When doubts arise respecting the faith, they must be resolved according to the true sense of the Scriptures. Now, that is lawful only to the Church universal, which is not liable to error. Therefore, we, the provost and canons of this church, do solemnly protest against this controversy, and refer it to the next council.’[397]

This proposal not to proceed was inadmissible. The courageous Farel opposed it. ‘It is nowhere asserted in the Scripture,’ said he, ‘that any particular Church is liable to error and that the universal Church is exempt from it. On the contrary, it is to a particular Church that Jesus Christ addresses the words, _Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them_. This promise cannot fail. The Canons refrained from accusing by their protest all the early doctors and the holy fathers, for whom they make pretence of so much reverence. We find in fact, in the writings of those ancients, only particular disputations, held for the purpose of examining articles at that time controverted. There are ten such articles in Cyprian, and twenty or thereabouts, in Augustine. If they accuse us, who are now assembled here, how shall they defend their own provincial councils, their monks’ chapters, all their schools and Sorbonnes, in which they hold conferences for the research of truth? Most of those whom they have condemned as heretics were not condemned in a general council, but in some particular assembly. Paul, speaking with reference to churches as they were, scattered in towns or villages, said, _Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge_. (1 Cor. xiv. 29.)

‘And how do these reverend gentlemen prove that the Church general cannot err? This is their pretty assertion, invented too by them, according to their excellent custom. They say that our Lord prayed for St. Peter that his faith might not fail. Who then has revealed to them the fact, either asleep or awake, that Peter is the Church universal? If it were indeed represented by St. Peter, then it would follow that the Church universal may, in one single day, three times deny Jesus Christ, as Peter did so after that word had been spoken to him. If an assembly of the Church universal were the only body capable of resolving doubts, then all the martyrs of Jesus Christ, who in the first three centuries set the seal with their blood to the truth of the Gospel, would have suffered death for things doubtful, for the Church universal had not yet been assembled in general council.

[Sidenote: THE DISPUTATION.]

‘If there be now a universal council which pretends to infallibility, let it then show us that it assembles _in the name of Jesus_! A holy company indeed is that of the pope and his cardinals! Fair pillars of the church are bishops and prelates! Great zealots for the faith are the monks! It is greatly to be doubted whether, if all that multitude were thoroughly sifted, one man among them would be found deserving to be called a true member of the Church of Christ! It is of men who are all trying to get the benefices and the dignities of the Church that a general council consists, and this calls itself the Church universal. Ah! to secure their wealth, their honor, and their gain, they would be ready not only to trample in the dust the word of Jesus Christ, but they would go further and put himself to death, if he were present in his own person. Such is the fine band with whom, if we take their word, the Holy Spirit dwells! If any man offer to contend with them on reasonable grounds, proceedings will be taken against him to punish him for his audacity, and, as was the case at the council of Constance, he will be condemned and burnt.’[398]

Thus spake Farel. We may perhaps think some of his remarks severe, but if we take into account the time, the form of his speech is certainly not amiss, and the substance of it is unanswerable. After that discourse, the Dominican Monbouson and the reformer Viret argued on the same subject till eleven o’clock. Then the call was heard, ‘Retire for dinner,’ and the meeting broke up. In the afternoon the old priests and monks of Thonon, who had bragged that they would put the ministers to confusion, were in the assembly. Fabry, who was well acquainted with Thonon and its clergy, invited them to speak. Not one of them did so. Two of them declared that they believed the theses to be true, and most of the others contented themselves with giving their adhesion to the protest of the canons.

On Tuesday, October 3, Dr. Blancherose (of whom it was said _il tenait de la lune_) addressed the assembly. Even if the clergy were silent he thought himself quite competent to maintain his cause. ‘Magnificent and mighty lords,’ he began, ‘I am a physician; my profession is that of medicine, not that of theology.’ To which Farel politely answered, ‘To be a physician does not at all clash with true theology. St. Luke was a physician likewise.’--‘I have taught,’ said Blancherose, ‘in many cities and universities of France; moreover, I was once physician to the king, and afterwards to the princess of Orange.’ He then began to set forth strange theories on what he called the _monarchies_ of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Caroli was present. It is known that this inconsistent and whimsical man was sometimes a Papist and sometimes a Protestant. For the moment he was Protestant. So he raised the cry, just as if he were with a hunting party, ‘A hare started out of the Donatist warren!’ The priests themselves were not particularly pleased with their lay companion in arms. Mimard, therefore, schoolmaster of Vevey, and Jacques Drogy, vicar of Morges, hastened to the rescue, hoping to retake from the enemy what he had carried off. But their attempt had no great success.

Drogy renewed his speech on Wednesday, October 4. He must have known well what kind of life was led by many priests, monks, and laymen, who at the same time that they were doing everything to save themselves by legal works, found therein a support, and, so to say, an indulgence, for giving themselves up unscrupulously to an impure life. Nevertheless, he showed that he was greatly alarmed, and no doubt sincerely, at the dangers to which the doctrine of justification by faith alone would expose the work of sanctification. He therefore said, ‘If you say that a man is justified by faith and not by works, people will not take the trouble to live well.’ Drogy was seeking light. The sayings of the reformers had disturbed him, and all that he desired was to see the truth clearly.

[Sidenote: THE CHURCH AND THE SCRIPTURES.]

Caroli, once Romanist and now Protestant, whose inconsistencies we have seen and shall again see, spoke on this occasion with fairness. As doctor of the Sorbonne and a man of intelligence, he was well acquainted with the doctrine; only he did not walk according to its teaching. He rose and said, ‘To allege that works must be partners in justification is to enervate Jesus Christ; that is, to say that he alone is not sufficient to justify us. If a man be absolved through faith, it is certainly not in order that he may again begin doing evil. Just as when a king grants a pardon, it is not that the man may repeat his offence. God forgives all my offences only in order that I may do good works. Are you not yourselves in the habit of saying to a dying man, God is a greater _pardoner_ than man is an offender? The death of Jesus is more effectual in the punishment of sin than the death of all mankind.’[399]

The laity were ashamed to see their cause so ill defended by their priests. The captain of the youth of Lausanne, Fernand de Loys, therefore entered the lists. He was a clear-headed man; he had learnt carefully some theses of the Romish theology, and had a little of that presumption which is frequently seen in the young men of whom he was one of the chiefs. He came forward, with his baton raised, speaking bluntly and without palliation. ‘The Church is before the Scripture, worthier than the Scripture, and invested with higher authority. Now the Church teaches justification by works.’ Farel, roused by hearing such assertions, exclaimed, ‘Which is first, the Church or the Scripture?... Certainly, the Scripture is before the Church. The Church has its existence through the Word of God; and Jesus himself proved what he said by reference to the Scriptures.’ Upon this the physician Blancherose thought he must come to the aid of the captain of the young men, and said to Farel, ‘In saying so much of faith, and in making it the cause of all good, you are very much like the sorcerers and enchanters, who, through the faith which they have in certain words, pretend to do so many great and wonderful things.’ Farel, taking little heed to these jests, said, ‘Jesus was beaten and wounded; he bore the discipline for our sakes; for us he died.’ The master of the Catholic school of Vevey, who was present, seems to have had a truer Christian feeling than his colleagues, and, profiting by Farel’s words, he said, ‘Precisely so; it is Jesus who justifies us, and not faith.’ This was more serious. Farel therefore supported the first part of the proposition. In opposing the second part, he said--‘Yes, it is Jesus alone who justifies; but he justifies only those who receive him by faith, and he dwells in those who believe. But as for those who do not believe in him, he is for them only a stone of stumbling and of ruin.’

The truth began to be pursued more closely. The reverend Jean Michod, of Vevey, who had studied at Paris and was acquainted with the interpretations of Romish theology, rose and said--‘St. Peter tells us that there are unlearned persons who pervert the Holy Scriptures to their own destruction. I have often listened to wise doctors at Paris, and they all declared that that passage of the Epistle to the Romans--_A man is justified by faith without the works of the law_--had reference exclusively to the Jewish _ceremonies_, such as circumcision.’ Then turning to Caroli, ‘You, sir, our master,’ said he, ‘I have heard you at Paris, at the College of Cambrai, expound that passage in the same way.’ That was an _argumentum ad hominem_, and Michod believed that the circumstances peculiar to the person himself to whom he addressed it rendered it unanswerable. But Caroli, who was not deficient in presence of mind, replied, ‘The fact is that I was at that time one of those unlearned persons of whom St. Peter speaks in the passage which you have just cited, who _pervert the Holy Scriptures_. But God has now given me the true understanding of the matter. I have changed, and it will be well for you to do the same.’[400]

[Sidenote: THE REAL PRESENCE.]

In the afternoon of the third day they passed to the second thesis, affirming that Jesus is the only pontiff. As no one raised an objection, even in favor of the pope, which was a very significant fact, they went on to the third proposition, respecting the true Church. _That Church_, it was said, _Christ, who in his corporal presence has been taken away from us, fills, governs, and vivifies by his Holy Spirit_. The Roman Catholics took advantage of the thesis to turn the discussion on the corporal presence. Blancherose, who was always confident that he could answer everything, rose first, and began to speak of the sun and of all sorts of things. He undertook to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation by the example of an egg, which is converted into a chick, which chick is afterwards eaten by a man. Viret did not think that strange argument deserving of a very grave answer. ‘That proof,’ he said, ‘reverses the order of things. To make it applicable, it would be necessary for the priests to sit on the object transformed, as hens sit on their eggs.’ Blancherose, having offered other instances of the same kind, was invited to carry on the discussion by the Scripture, and not by proofs taken from the sun, which is everywhere at once, from hens, from their eggs changed into chicks, and from chickens which are eaten, and from other natural transformations.

On Thursday, October 5, in the morning, the presidents, offended by the extravagances of the doctors, and perceiving that the method till then pursued would entail digressions and interminable prolixity, announced that, instead of resuming the debate, and with the hope of shortening the proceedings, the following alternative would be offered to all canons, abbots, priors, monks, curés, and vicars in the whole country, as well as to the ministers: ‘Argue, get some one to argue for you, or subscribe the theses.’ All were then called by name, and those who declared themselves willing to subscribe passed into the choir. Megander, a minister of Berne, exhorted them to preach nothing but the pure Word of God, and after that they were allowed to withdraw if they wished. But those who declined to adhere to the theses were ordered to remain to the close of the disputation.

In the afternoon, Mimard appeared with a long manuscript of his own composition, intended to vindicate the mass. The subject was treated under thirteen heads, which did not seem to promise much for shortening the business. Mimard was, at any rate, a serious speaker, although a little dull and rather prolix. ‘Do you pretend,’ he said, ‘to be wiser and more enlightened by the Holy Spirit than the holy doctors, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory, who all believed in the real presence? If you reject them as unlearned, it is merely because they are opposed to you.’ Farel replied on the thirteen heads, without omitting one of them. What was said by each of the two champions may easily be imagined. The subject has already been so frequently brought forward that it is needless to spend more time over it now. But there was present in the assembly one young theologian, who rejoiced to hear his friends defending the true doctrine, and who by reason of his youth and his modesty had been kept silent till that time. It was Calvin. For four days he had sat there without speaking, contenting himself with the part of a hearer. But he had a brave heart. That Ambrose, that Augustine, those other doctors, he was well acquainted with them. He knew their words by heart. They were his friends, and he could not stand by and see them insulted by being ranked with the pope’s army. He could not be silent any longer; his heart burnt within him, and he felt impelled to defend the principles which were brought to light by the Reformation. But he wished also to restore to those great men of Christian antiquity, and above all to his beloved Augustine, the honor which was due to them. This was the first occasion on which Calvin took part in any of the great discussions of the time, and it is worth while to listen to him.

[Sidenote: SPEECH OF CALVIN.]

‘I have abstained from speaking till this moment,’ he said, ‘and it was my intention to abstain to the end, perceiving that any speech of mine was unnecessary, because my brethren Farel and Viret have made sufficient reply. But the reproach which you have uttered against us with regard to the ancient doctors compels me to show again briefly how grievously you err in accusing us on this point.

‘We despise them and reject them altogether, you say, and that because we find them opposed to our cause. Verily, all the world, we own, might esteem us not only rash men, but arrogant beyond measure, if we held in derision such servants of God, and considered them _asses_, as you say we do. Those who make pretence of holding them in great reverence, frequently honor them less than we do, and would not deign to employ in reading their works the time which we gladly devote to it. But we do not exalt their authority to such a height as to allow it to lessen the dignity of the Word of the Lord, to which, exclusively, entire obedience ought to be given in the Church of Christ. We should fear being found rebels against that Word of the Lord which asks whether his people ought not to be content with _his voice_, and which adds, _without hearing either the living or the dead_. Yes, we do rest in his sacred Word, and we fasten on it our hearts, our understandings, our eyes, our ears, without turning aside to the right hand or to the left. _If any one speak_, says Peter, _let him speak as the oracles of God_; we therefore teach the people of Jesus not human doctrines, but heavenly wisdom. With the ancient doctors, we seek for God’s truth, with them we listen to it and keep it with all reverence, reserving to the Lord this glory, _that his mouth alone be opened in the Church, to speak with authority_. Let every ear then hear him, and let every soul be ready to obey him!

‘As to your assertion that we despise the fathers because they are not on our side, it would be easy for me to show that whatever matters are in controversy between us, that assertion is no more true than your reproach. But, to confine myself to the subject before us, I will lay before you only a small number of passages of such a character that there will be nothing left for you to reply to.’

Calvin had not with him the voluminous works of the fathers; but his memory was a library abridged. Tertullian, Chrysostom, and the writers of his time, especially Augustine, came immediately to his aid. ‘Tertullian,’ said he, ‘when refuting Marcion, speaks thus, “Christ in the supper has left us the _figure_ of his body.” The author of the commentary on St. Matthew, contained in the works of Chrysostom, says, “It is a far greater offence to defile ourselves, who are the true vessels in which God dwells, than to profane the vessels in which the supper is administered, since that _the real body of Jesus Christ is not contained in them_, but only the mystery of his body.” St. Augustine, in his twenty-third Epistle,[401] says, “The bread and the wine, which are sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, _we call them in a certain sense_ (_quodammodo_) his body and his blood.” And in his book against Adimantus, he adds, “The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the _sign of his body_.” Weigh all these words, every syllable of them if you will, and see whether these declarations in any way favor your error. When you taunt us with the charge that the ancients are against us, everybody sees your rashness. Assuredly, if you had read only a few pages you would not have been so bold; but you have not even seen the covering of the book. The foregoing testimonies, which may easily be pointed out, prove it.’

[Sidenote: DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS.]

At this point, Calvin, wishing to show fully how chimerical the Romish opinion is, offered one or two considerations which, while they display his fine intelligence, are not lacking in solidity. ‘It is not without reason,’ he said, ‘that we reject the foolish opinion which the craft of Satan introduced into the world. In the supper we certainly eat the same body of Christ as the apostles ate at its institution, and it must be either his mortal body or his glorified body. If it be his mortal body, Jesus is then at this hour mortal and passible, while the Scripture declares to us that he has laid aside all infirmity. If it be his immortal and glorified body, Jesus, at the first supper, was in a certain place (seated at the table) in his mortal and passible body, and he was in another place (in the hands and mouths of his disciples) in his immortal and glorified body. The dreams of Marcion were never so fantastic!...’

Calvin, however, went further and, knowing the importance which Rome attached to the letter, felt bound to show to what that method leads. He has explained his own doctrine elsewhere in a more complete manner, but we must not suppress what he said on this solemn occasion. ‘If you tie yourselves to words,’ said he, ‘if you so rigorously insist on these words, _Hoc est corpus meum_, you are compelled by such verbal strictness to separate the body of the Lord from his blood. For he said, _This is my body_, pointing to the bread, and when pointing to the wine, _This is my blood_. Now, to imagine that the body of Christ was separated from his blood is an abominable thing. I know that you evade this by what you call the _concomitance_. But do not allege it, for it is mere mockery. If the real body is in the cup, as you affirm it to be, the Lord of truth then spoke falsely when he said, _This is my blood_.

‘No, it is neither the natural body nor the natural blood of our Lord Jesus which is given to us in the holy supper. But there is a spiritual communication, by virtue of which he gives to us all the grace that we can receive from his body and his blood. _Christ makes us truly participants, but altogether in a spiritual way, by the bond of his Holy Spirit._ St. Luke and St. Paul write that Jesus said, _This is the new testament in my blood_; that is to say, the new alliance which the Father has made with us, blotting out our iniquities by his mercy, receiving us into his favor that we may be his children, and writing his law in our hearts by his Spirit; an alliance really new, and ratified and confirmed by the body and the blood of Jesus Christ.

‘Constrained by reasons so forcible, we interpret the Scripture according to the true analogy of faith. We do not put glosses on it out of our own heads, and we give no explanation which is not expressed in itself.’

[Sidenote: CONVERSION OF JEAN TANDY.]

Calvin was silent. The young man, whose face was unknown but full of expression, had been listened to with astonishment, and people recognized in him a master. Everyone felt the force of his words, and no one raised an objection. ‘At this point,’ say the Acts of the Disputation, ‘both the Mimards and the Blancheroses remained without making any attempt to reply.’ The minds of the hearers seemed to be enlightened by fresh knowledge. This was soon evident.

A monk of the order of Cordeliers, the Franciscan Jean Tandy,[402] who had been present at the disputation from its opening, listened with eager interest to Calvin’s speech, and felt that its truth reached him. His heart was affected, his understanding was satisfied. He embraced by faith the sacrifice of the Saviour; and, according to the expression of the Evangelist, he ate of his flesh and drank his blood. For awhile he sat silent, awaiting the objections which might be offered. But ‘when he saw that those who had taken part in discussion till that hour had their lips closed,’ he took courage, rose and said, the assembly listening to him attentively--‘Holy Scripture teaches that there is no remission for the sin against the Holy Ghost. Now this sin is that of men who, through unbelief, willing to contend against the clearest truth, choose rather to exalt themselves against God and his Word than to humble themselves and obey him. As I desire now not to resist the truth, but to receive it and confess it openly, I acknowledge before you all that I have long been mistaken. While I thought that I was living in a state of perfection, as they had given me to understand, I have been, on the contrary, only the servant of men, submitting myself to their traditions and commandments. Nothing is good but that which God commands. I have heard the truth. I see that I must hold fast to Jesus alone, must stand to his Word, and must have no other head, leader, or Saviour, but him who by his sacrifice has made us acceptable to the Father. I will henceforth live and die according to his Gospel. I ask forgiveness of God for all that I have done and said against his honor. I ask pardon of you and of all the people, so far as by my preaching or by my life I have taught you amiss, or have given you a bad example. And since, by following the rule of the Cordeliers and assuming this garb of dissimulation, I have been led out of the right way, at this moment in which I renounce all superstition, I abandon also this garb full of all hypocrisy and trumpery.’ As he uttered these words, Jean Tandy cast off his monastic dress, and then added--

‘Let no one be offended, but let each examine himself and confess that if the state in which he has lived be contrary to the will of God, he ought not to persevere in it, nor to reënter after quitting it. I will live as a Christian, and not as a Cordelier; according to the Gospel of Jesus, and not according to the rule of the monks; in true and living faith in Christ, and united with all true Christians. To this God calls us all, to the intent that, instead of being divided into so many rules, we may be all one in Jesus Christ.’

This frank, noble, and affecting conversion gave great joy to those who loved the Gospel, and Farel, as their spokesman, said, ‘How great God is! how good and how wise! How he smites and heals, how he casts down to hell and brings up again to heaven, we see with our own eyes. What superstition is there equal to that of the Cordeliers, in which the enemy has with so much skill colored his work that even the elect are deceived! Let us rejoice, therefore, that the poor sheep which was straying on the mountains and in the deserts, in the midst of wolves and wild beasts, now, by the grace of the Lord, abandoning the barren deserts, the vexatious thorns of human traditions, is entering into his fold, and finds now his pasture in God’s holy Word.’

‘This done,’ add the Acts, ‘because it was late, everyone retired.’[403]

The last theses were discussed during the remaining two or three days, and for the most part by the same combatants, each of the champions expressing himself well or ill, according to his character and the spirit which actuated him. ‘The Lord,’ said the intelligent and spiritual Viret, ‘commands Peter to _feed his sheep_, but according to the well-known by-word, the Romish court want _no sheep without wool_.[404] The true key of the kingdom of heaven is the Gospel of the Lord, but the pope and his priests have devised others which close the door instead of opening it. If the pope be willing to imitate Jesus and Peter, let him then go about hither and thither in every place, seeking and saving souls. The apostles had no holy see like the Romish pontiff. They were not often even seated, except, indeed, it were in a prison. And instead of a triple crown and a chain of gold, they had chains of iron on their hands and their feet.’[405]

[Sidenote: THE TRINITY OF BLANCHEROSE.]

Dr. Blancherose, who unhesitatingly considered himself the most valiant of the defenders of Rome, began now to lose heart. His only consolation was in the thought that if he were beaten it was not for want of talent, but because he stood alone; and quoting a word of the ancients, he said, ‘The opponents (reformers) are too strong, and as some one said, Hercules himself could do nothing against two.’[406] The two, in his case, were doubtless Farel and Calvin.

He continued to complain of his comrades in the fight. ‘Instead of aiding me,’ he said, ‘the priests have begged me to begone. There are six score of us, they added, who will be compelled, if the disputation is to last much longer, to sell our gowns and hoods to pay our hosts.’ Then, after this trifling, returning to his grand theses, the fantastical doctor said, ‘The holy Trinity represents three monarchies. The father represents the emperor; the Son represents the pope; and the third monarchy, which is only now beginning, is that of the Holy Spirit, and _belongs to physicians_.’ Thus he claimed a great part for himself. This recalled him to his duty, and he applied himself to matters within his grasp. ‘The time of Lent, in which people fast,’ he said, ‘has been well regulated, because in the spring nature is awakening, the blood is warm and impels to pleasure, and, moreover, people have eaten a good deal during the winter.’ The energetic Farel, who knew as well as the doctor how to be popular and sarcastic, met him on his own ground, and replied in his medical language, ‘that, on the contrary, the least fitting season had been fixed for Lent; for in the spring the poor people work in the fields and the vineyards, and after having crammed themselves with flesh in the winter, they give them well-salted, fish, hot spices, etc. This method gives origin to legions of maladies, so that the priests make their harvest of them and the doctors their vintage. The sicknesses put money into the purses of these two classes of men, especially into those of the Romish priests, according to the anagram of _Roma_. If each letter of that word be taken as the initial of another word, we get the sentence, _Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia_: Rome is avarice, the root of all evil. She shows this in all kinds of ways, but above all in granting for a money payment the liberty to eat flesh, which otherwise she prohibits and declares to be a sin.’[407] It is clear that Farel knew how to profit by that precept, _Answer a fool according to his folly_.

The vicar of Morges, Drogy, a man more enlightened than the others, and who saw clearly the weakness of the Romish teaching, apologized in the best way he could for his comrades, and made excuse for their defeat. ‘The poor priests are ignorant,’ he said, ‘and they deserve to be pitied. It is no great glory for the ministers to have beaten them. What they want is time given them for study, and a long time too; but instead of that they have been pitilessly bantered.’ ‘Do not take as insults,’ said the amiable Viret, ‘the charitable admonitions which we have given them. So far from wishing them any harm, we are ready to shed our blood for their salvation.’ ‘No doubt,’ added the reformer Marcourt, who had not hitherto spoken, a man of much good sense, but somewhat more severe than Viret, ‘no doubt the poor priests deserve to be pitied, but still more the poor people. No man would intrust a flock of sheep to a shepherd who was blind and dumb; why then are the churches placed under leaders who are blind and unable to explain the Word of God?’[408]

[Sidenote: CALVIN AND HILDEBRAND.]

Calvin then rose to speak again, and without stopping to argue with the feeble apologists of Rome, who were sufficiently refuted, he selected for his adversary the most illustrious and the most valiant of the champions of the papacy, the man who was indeed its chief founder, Hildebrand, made pope under the name of Gregory VII. These two men were well fitted to contend with equal strength in the lists. It is a pity that five centuries stood in the way of their measuring their forces hand to hand. It was Hildebrand who had launched over Christendom these stupendous assertions, ‘that the name of the pope is sole in the world,--that the Romish Church never did err and never will err,--that the pope may depose the emperor, and that all princes must kiss his feet.’[409] Calvin frequently contended against these presumptuous lies,[410] and he had done so before this time, at least to some extent. On this occasion he made use of a document written by a cardinal, a contemporary of Hildebrand, which relates, among other things, that that pope, wanting for once _to get through his incantations_, took the bread which he affirmed to be God, and threw it into the fire.[411] An occasion for the natural exclamation, ‘Say now that the bread is your God!’ This story, told by a cardinal at the expense of a pope, appears to us to be apocryphal. But it is quite true, as we know from the relations which existed between Gregory VII. and Berenger, that the famous pontiff had doubts about the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that he did not pronounce himself in support of it until he perceived that his enemies would take advantage of his doubts on the subject to strike a blow at his hierarchical rights and supreme authority.

When the debate on the ten theses had been brought to a close, Farel entered the pulpit, in the afternoon of Sunday, October 8, and delivered the closing discourse. We shall allow the orator to speak his own language, although it be not always that of our age, for it is essential that the Reformation should be set before us just as it actually appeared. Farel was struck with the fact that a band of ministers, feeble men and few in number, had been capable, in that conflict of eight days, of filling mighty Catholicism with alarm and vanquishing it. He remembered, too, how when he arrived at Aigle, at Neuchâtel, at Geneva, poor, weak, and contemptible in the eyes of many, he had seen the papacy reel and fall down before the Word of God. ‘What is it then,’ said he, ‘which makes you tremble, you who are a great multitude covering the whole land? What! a poor prophet makes his appearance, alone in the face of so many rich men; unknown and friendless before so many people who have powerful allies; he knows not whither to go, has no one to speak to, while you are all comfortably lodged, you all know one another, and fill the whole world with terror. Of what then are you afraid? The prophet will not strike you, for he is unarmed. When, for one reason or another, a whole city or even a whole people revolts against you, you have no fear at all, and you act even worse than usual.... Whence is this difference? Is one then more than a multitude? The fact is this: With that poor prophet comes the truth, the wonderful truth of God, which is mightier than all men, and which, whenever it encounters enemies, pursues them, confounds them and puts them to flight, while they are unable to make any resistance.’[412]

[Sidenote: FAREL’S CLOSING DISCOURSE.]

Farel did not confine himself to giving the solution of the enigma. He desired above all to teach consciences and to lead souls to Jesus Christ, while he rescued them from the pope. This was the great aim of his long life. That is the reason why, in addressing a vast audience, he cried out, ‘Come then to Jesus, to Jesus who hath borne our sorrows, and trust wholly in him that you may be saved. Abandon the perverse doctrines which the pope and his servants teach, the masses and the confessions, the absolutions, indulgences, and pardons for life. Run no more hither and thither to the broken cisterns. Trust no longer in persons so impotent and so cruel; receive neither the pope nor Mohammed, nor anyone who assumes to govern you by his own ordinances. Hold fast to the sole head, Jesus, who when he entered into the great sanctuary, offered to his Father his own blood, thus making peace between God and us, so that Christians are made immortal. If you trust in the pope you will be put to shame when you hear from the mouth of God these words: Who commanded what you have done? You have had the popes for your gods.... Go then, and let them save you if they can. Then will come upon you great desolation. It is greatly to deceive yourselves to seek Jesus Christ in the wafers of the priests, in bread, in wine, in flesh, in tears, thorns, nails, wood, shrouds, cloths, and all the other mockeries which Rome offers you, which lay low everything that is of God. It is in another way, it is in his Spirit, it is by faith, that you must seek the Saviour. A church of Jesus, governed by its spouse, does not receive all these papal errors; it directs poor sinners to God, that he may open their hearts, and that they may implore his mercy.

‘Then do not send your wives nor your daughters to those whom you know so well. Do not give your souls up to the guidance of men to whom you would hardly like to intrust your sheep. Let all go to God, go to him with the heart, for it is the heart he asks for and not our money. To sing a mass, to mutter prayers and _Ave Marias_ before a piece of wood, to make so many journeys hither and thither; these are not what he wants of us. He wants us to cling wholly to him alone, and he will save us.’

Farel then turning to the priests, of whom there was a large number present, said to them, ‘Leave off then, you poor priests, who till now have been deceived, and have deceived others, leave off teaching that without your confessions, your penances, your satisfactions and absolutions, whether made in this world or in the world to come, it is not possible to enter into paradise. Lead your sheep to the shepherd who gave his life for them. The church of Jesus gets nothing out of all your trash. God does not care how you muffle yourselves up, what sort of shirts you wear under your gowns, whether your cloaks are bordered in the proper way, or whether you keep in good condition the ornaments and furnishings of your chapels and altars. To place salvation in these outward things is to reverse the doctrine of Jesus, for _the kingdom of God is within you_.’

[Sidenote: HIS APPEAL TO THE PRIESTS.]

Farel, as he closed his discourse, raised a song of triumph, and pointed out that the Reformation did not adopt the weapons of its adversaries, but that its method formed the most striking contrast to theirs. ‘Many,’ said he, ‘have tried to assail my propositions, but the truth has been the strongest. Yet the priests and the monks have been subjected to no secret interrogatories; they have not been forbidden to speak; they have not been threatened with prison or with death; no deathsmen have appeared on the scene to settle the questions before us by fire or sword. All have been kindly invited. All those who wished to dispute have been listened to, and no one has taken offence even at their frequent repetitions. Receive then the holy doctrine of Jesus which has been set before you, and let him alone suffice you. One better, wiser, or more powerful, we cannot find. Be Christians; be no longer papists.

‘O priests, canons, and monks, if henceforth you have no more the honors which you have previously enjoyed, if you should not be so well treated and fed, do not on that account destroy yourselves and the poor people. Better is it to enter into life eternal with the poor Lazarus than go with the rich bad man to hell. Leave, then, your songs and your masses, and follow Jesus. Instead of chanting Latin before the people, preach to them the sacred Gospel. When some came like brigands to kill us, we did not demand vengeance, but grace and forgiveness for them. And now we ask that you may be joyfully and tenderly received, as wandering sheep returning to the fold.

‘And you, my lords,’ said Farel, addressing the delegates from Berne, ‘since God has led you to the conquest of this country, and has committed its people to you as a child is committed to its father, see to it that God be holily honored in the lands which are intrusted to your rule. Let not Jesus be to you of less estimation than the poorest man in the land. May God touch the hearts of all kings and lords, to the end that the poor people may live according to God’s will, without war and in peace; that human blood may not be shed; that a man who is made in God’s image may not kill his fellow who is made in the same image; but that each may love and aid his neighbor as he would that his neighbor should aid him. And may all those who have suffered for the faith in Jesus be strengthened to persevere even to the end, and declare the goodness and the power of God, so that all the earth may worship him.’[413]