‘On May 24, Guillaume Farel requested of the council of Geneva to send to that city Master Cauvin (Calvin) for any battle (_journée_) there was to be, to take part in the disputation. Upon which it was resolved that he should go.’[525] Berne had shown a certain favor towards Caroli. It might therefore be feared that the judgment pronounced at Lausanne would not be confirmed. We cannot tell what the sentence would have been if it had been pronounced by the state authorities. But the council, finding that it was a question of doctrine, had convoked at Berne the synod of the Bernese Church for the end of May. The debate was opened in the presence of the great council, which doubtless took part so far in the cause. The would-be Athanasius supported his charge with confidence and a haughty spirit, assuming to play in the sixteenth century the part which the great bishop of Alexandria had played in the fourth. Calvin completely justified both himself and his colleagues. Consequently the reformer was once more entirely acquitted, and declared free not only from all fault but also from all suspicion. As for Caroli, he was pronounced a slanderer, and as such condemned. [Sidenote: CONDEMNATION OF CAROLI.] When that was over, the lords of Berne inquired of Calvin, Farel, and Viret whether Caroli was, so far as they knew, guilty in any respect, either in his private life or especially in his ministry. As soon as he heard these words, the doctor of the Sorbonne, seeing that his own turn was come, was terror-struck, and vehemently opposed the inquiry. ‘Those whom I have just accused of great crimes,’ said he, ‘cannot be allowed to bring formal charges against me.’ ‘You have indeed accused them,’ replied the Bernese, ‘and without being able to substantiate your charges. Why then should they not be allowed to accuse you?’ And the doctors were enjoined to communicate anything they knew with regard to him. Thereupon this man, who had no heart, no moral sentiment, was disconcerted; and as he dreaded above all the revelations of his adversaries, he fancied that the best way to avert them was to accuse himself. He began therefore to confess the faults with which he knew that Farel and his friends were well acquainted--the debaucheries to which he had addicted himself in France, the meanness with which he had dissembled his sentiments in matters of religion, and the cruel perfidy which had prompted him to deliver to death two young Christians whose way of thinking he himself approved. It was a strange sight! Here was a singular penitent, without repentance and without scruple, assuming a contrite air and confessing his faults solely because he hoped in that way to secure exemption from punishment. ‘A devil’s penitent!’ said Tertullian in such cases.