The refusal of the syndics annoyed the evangelicals; Farel resolved to have an interview with the father-superior. Did he wish to convince Courtelier, at times so accommodating, that the evangelical doctrine ought to be preached in the churches; or else, convinced, like Luther, that the papacy was a power of Antichrist which resisted the kingdom of God, did he desire to tell the cordelier his mind? We cannot say: perhaps it was partly both. Accompanied by the intrepid Maisonneuve and the wise councillor Balthasar, Farel proceeded to the Franciscan convent. Courtelier received them in his cell, and the reformer having complained that the Gospel truth could not be preached, the monk, instead of making the least concession, took refuge behind the authority of the pope, extolling his holiness’s infallibility and power. Had not Alvarus Pelagius, a Franciscan like himself, declared that the jurisdiction of the pope is universal, embracing the whole world, its temporalities as well as its spiritualities?[490] Had not another monk taught that ‘the pope is in the place of God?’[491] But Farel, instead of seeking his ideas about Rome in the writings of the monks of the middle ages, derived them from the Holy Scriptures, and particularly from the Revelation of St. John. ‘Your holy Father,’ he said to the superior, ‘is the beast whom the ignorant worship. John the Evangelist tells us of a beast with seven heads,[492] which “devoureth them which dwell upon the earth,” and makes war upon the saints, and he adds: _the seven heads are seven hills_, on which it sits. _Seven hills_, do you hear? Everybody knows that Rome is built on _seven hills_. Therefore the holy see is not apostolical but diabolical.’ Courtelier was moved. He remonstrated with Farel ‘as well as he could,’ he says; but the reformer replied, the conversation grew warm, and at last the evangelists, unable to convince the monk, took leave of him. Maisonneuve quitted the cell, annoyed at Courtelier’s blindness, and all three left the convent together. This energetic argument, which applied the prophecies of the Bible respecting Antichrist to the pope, had already been employed by Luther. No proof excited more anger among the Romanists or inspired the evangelicals with more firmness. Footnote 476: 1 Timothy iv. 3. Footnote 477: _Lettres certaines_, &c. Registre du Conseil des 11, 12, 13, 15 Février, 1534. Froment, _Gestes_, p. 87. Footnote 478: ‘Vagans et vacillans, sententiæ satisfacere neglexit.’—Registre du Conseil du 15 Février, 1534. Footnote 479: ‘Nugis solitus plebis aures suspendere satageret.’—_Geneva restituta_, pp. 6-9. Footnote 480: ‘Impostor suggestu deturbatus.’—_Geneva restituta_, pp. 6-9. Footnote 481: Registre du Conseil des 15, 16, 20 Février. Froment, _Gestes de Genève_, p. 88. La Sœur Jeanne, _Levain du Calvinisme_, p. 78. Footnote 482: Registre du Conseil des 15 et 16 Février, 1534. Footnote 483: