‘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.
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.
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]