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]