The reformer’s energetic words sounded like a peal of thunder to his antagonist. Furbity was confounded and bewildered; his ideas became confused; he lost his presence of mind, and, wishing to establish the doctrine of the episcopate as it is understood at Rome, he quoted the verse in which it is said that a bishop ought to be the husband of one wife, which greatly amused the assembly. He did more: desiring to prove that there had been bishops of the Roman model in the apostolic times, he mentioned Judas Iscariot. ‘It is written of Judas,’ he said, ‘his bishopric let another take: Episcopatum suum accipiat alter. As Judas had a bishopric, he must of necessity have been a bishop;’ and he concluded there was no salvation out of the Roman episcopate. The doctor had not kept his promise to behave like a man. Farel smiled at the strange argument, and began to lash the Dominican with the scourge of irony. ‘As you have quoted that good bishop, Judas,’ he said, ‘Judas, who sold the Saviour of the world; as you have asserted that he had a diocese, pray tell me in what part of the Roman empire it lay, and how much it was worth, according to the customary language of Rome. That bishop, whose name you use, is very like certain prelates who, instead of preaching the Word of God, carry the bag,[[455]] and instead of glorifying Jesus Christ, sell him by selling his members, whose souls they hand over to the devil, receiving money from him in exchange.’[[456]]
The monk, astonished at such boldness, again exclaimed in a threatening manner: ‘Go and repeat what you say at Paris, or any other city of France.’ So sure was he that the evangelist would be sent to the stake there that he could not refrain from repeating such a peremptory argument. It was all that Farel would have desired: ‘Would to God that I were allowed to explain my faith publicly,’ he said; ‘I should prove it by Holy Scripture, and if I did not, I would consent to be put to death.’
As the discussion went on, the feelings grew inflamed on both sides—some defending Furbity, others supporting Farel.
No one was more assiduous at this verbal tournament than Baudichon de la Maisonneuve; he accompanied the evangelical champion, both as he went to the meeting and returned from it, being unwilling to leave to others the care of protecting his person. The catholics did not fail to notice the constant goings and comings of the great citizen; it quite shocked them: his intimacy with the detested heretic seemed to them most disgraceful. A young man of five-and-twenty, named Delorme, who was born at Fontenay, a league and a half from the city, and who for upwards of a year had been following his business with a relative in Geneva, specially watched Baudichon, and was surprised to see so great a gentleman pay such frequent visits to the poor preacher, Farel.[[457]] He made a note of it, which, on a future day he made use of.
The disputation went on all through Friday. The market on Saturday, the services on Sunday, and the Feast of the Purification which fell on Monday, interrupted it for three days. The three ministers took advantage of the leisure given them to preach to the people with fervor. Each day they proclaimed the Gospel in the large hall of their friend’s house, and Baudichon watched to see that everything went on in an orderly manner—which was very necessary, for the sensation excited by the discussion attracted large crowds. In the evening the evangelicals met in different houses and conversed together until far into the night. During the daytime they endeavored to attract to their assemblies such as still hesitated between popery and the Reformation. ‘Ah,’ exclaimed young Delorme with vexation, ‘see what efforts they are making to increase their party.’[[458]] All Geneva was in a ferment.
Tales About Farel.
But the sensation was not confined to that city: the anger excited by the discussions manifested itself in violent speeches in the surrounding districts. The idle, the curious, and the devout would stop and question travellers ‘to learn the great news from Geneva which they so desired to know.’[[459]] Many priests and monks preached in the villages round the city against heretics and heresy; and in Geneva, as well as in other places through which Farel had passed, there was always some friar or old woman to tell strange stories about the reformer. ‘He has no whites to his eyes,’ they would say; ‘his beard is red and stiff, and there is a devil in every hair of it. He has horns on his head, and his feet are cloven like a bullock’s.... Lastly—and this seemed more horrible than all the rest—he is the son of a Jew of Carpentras.’[[460]]
All these stories, flying about the city, reached the Tête-Noire inn, where the Bernese and the three reformers lodged. The domestic life of this hostelry was not edifying. The landlord (according to the chronicle) had two wives: his lawful spouse and a servant who acted as the mistress. The former, an upright person, behaved becomingly to the preachers of the Gospel, though she did not like them; but the other woman detested them, and every time they entered the house, both master and servant scowled at them. They restrained themselves however before the illustrious lords of Berne, greeting them with forced smiles; but made up for it when they were alone with the preachers. The latter usually dined together; and the landlord and servant, while waiting on them, heard language from the lips of the evangelists which greatly provoked them. Instead of the idle stories and jests so common at the dinner-table, the three ministers would exchange words of truth with one another; and this conversation, so new to the two listeners, caused them to make wry faces (as Froment records, who saw them). The three guests had scarcely quitted the room when the servant, who had restrained herself, would cry out after them: ‘Heretics! traitors! brigands! huguenots! Germans!’ ... ‘I had rather,’ said the landlord, ‘that they went away without paying (that was saying a great deal), provided it was a long way off ... so long that we should never see them again.’ These two wretched people felt that the doctrine of the Bible condemned their disorderly lives, and the hatred they felt towards the holiness of God’s Word was vented on those who proclaimed it.
‘The adulterous servant, unable to serve the preachers as Herodias served John the Baptist,’ says Froment, ‘avenged herself in another manner.’ Addressing one of those women who prate at random about everything: ‘Only imagine what I have seen,’ said she; ‘one night as the preachers were going to bed, I stole up softly after them, and, approaching the door, I peeped through a hole.... What did I see? They were feeding devils!’ The neighbor’s dismay did not hinder the servant from continuing: ‘These devils were like black cats ... their eyes flashed fire, their claws were crooked and pointed ... they were under the table ... moving backwards and forwards.... Yes; I saw them through the hole.’ In a short time all the gossips of the quarter knew it; ‘at which there was a great stir in the neighborhood.’[[461]]
To this story of the servant, the priests added theirs, and said: ‘There are three devils in Geneva in the form of men—Farel, Viret, Froment; and many demoniacs. If ever you listen to those three goblins, they will spring upon you, enter into your body, and you are done for.’[[462]] Not satisfied merely with repeating such absurdities in their conversation, the priests began to preach to the people upon ‘the three devils.’ Next a song was written on them; and ere long the catholic mob went up and down the streets singing these rude rhymes:—