CHAPTER XII.

THE TRIAL IS CONTINUED, AND SERVETUS ADDRESSES LETTERS TO CALVIN AND HIS JUDGES.

On returning to his dungeon after his examination on September 15, Servetus addressed his prosecutor in the following characteristic epistle, which the reply to Art. XXI. appears to have suggested:

To John Calvin, health!—It is for your good that I tell you you are ignorant of the principles of things. Would you now be better informed, I say the great principle is this:All action takes place by contact. Neither Christ nor God himself acts upon anything which he does not touch. God would not in truth be God were there anything that escaped his contact. All the qualities of which you dream are imaginations only, slaves of the fields as it were. But there is no virtue of God, no grace of God, nor anything of the sort in God which is not God himself; neither does God put quality into aught in which he himself is not. All is from him, by him, and in him. When the Holy Spirit acts in us, therefore it is God that is in us—that is in contact with us, that actuates us.In the course of our discussion I detect you in another error. To maintain the force of the old law, you quote Christ’s words where he asks: ‘What says the law?’ and answers himself by saying: ‘Keep the commandments.’ But here you have to think of the law not yet accomplished, notyet abrogated; to think further, that Christ, when he willed to interpose in human things, willed to abide by the law; and that he to whom he spoke was living under the law. Christ, therefore, properly referred at this time to the law as to a master. But afterwards, all things being accomplished, the newer ages were emancipated from the older. For the same reason it was that he ordered another to show himself to the priest and make an offering. Shall we, therefore, do the like? He also ordered a lamb and unleavened bread to be prepared for the Passover: Shall we, too, make ready in this fashion? Why do you go on Judaising in these days with your unleavened bread? Ponder these things well, I beseech you, and carefully read over again my twenty-third letter. Farewell.94

In the course of our discussion I detect you in another error. To maintain the force of the old law, you quote Christ’s words where he asks: ‘What says the law?’ and answers himself by saying: ‘Keep the commandments.’ But here you have to think of the law not yet accomplished, notyet abrogated; to think further, that Christ, when he willed to interpose in human things, willed to abide by the law; and that he to whom he spoke was living under the law. Christ, therefore, properly referred at this time to the law as to a master. But afterwards, all things being accomplished, the newer ages were emancipated from the older. For the same reason it was that he ordered another to show himself to the priest and make an offering. Shall we, therefore, do the like? He also ordered a lamb and unleavened bread to be prepared for the Passover: Shall we, too, make ready in this fashion? Why do you go on Judaising in these days with your unleavened bread? Ponder these things well, I beseech you, and carefully read over again my twenty-third letter. Farewell.94

How little likely this epistle, however reasonable in itself, was calculated to win the favour of Calvin, need not be said. To pretend to set John Calvin right in anything could, indeed, only be taken by him as an impertinence.

In the present disposition towards the prisoner—the purely metaphysical and undemonstrable nature of the matters in debate, taken into account—we may reasonably conclude that the Judges had hoped he would be able to explain away the offensive and heretical sense in which his views were regarded by the head of their Church—and indeed, and in so far as they could be understood, as they must have been seen by themselves.

But Servetus, unhappily for himself, did not improvethe opportunity presented him of righting himself in any way with the Court by the manner in which he set about dealing with Calvin’s strictures on his replies to the incriminated passages of his book. He does not now, as he had done before, however curtly and imperfectly, reply to the Reformer’s refutations, and show wherein he is misinterpreted or misunderstood; neither does he present his views in another and more questionable light than they are set by his accuser, which he could readily have done in numerous instances at least; and, where this was impossible, he might have appealed to the reason and common sense of his Judges for latitude in interpreting matters that really lie beyond the scope of the human understanding. He, however, did nothing of all this, but proceeded as though he thought it neither necessary nor worth his while to defend himself or his opinions any further—he did not even take paper of his own for his reply, but contented himself with jottings on the margins and between the lines of Calvin’s elaborate refutation! the remarks he makes, moreover, being rarely in the way of answer or explanation. They are mostly curt expressions of dissent, or simply abusive epithets applied to the Reformer, who is called Simon Magus, liar, calumniator, persecutor, homicide, and more besides. Instead of persisting in his legitimate plea that he was but another in the ranks of the Reformers, interpreting the Scriptures by the understanding he had by nature and his education, or declaring, as he had done before,that he would be found ready to abjure those of his opinions that were shown him to be opposed to their teaching, and adverse to the peace of the world, he threw down the gauntlet on the whole question, not to Calvin only, but to the religious world at large. But this, the point of view from which the religious question was regarded in the middle of the sixteenth century, considered, was simply to ensure his condemnation. Men less bigoted, and, above all, less under the influence of the most intolerant of bigots, might possibly have been led to take pity on the writer, and to see him for what he was in truth—a sincerely pious zealot of irreproachable life, if much mistaken, as they believed, in his theological conclusions; and so, and save in the use of intemperate language, excusable on every ground of Christian charity. But this, perhaps, was more than could possibly be expected in the fifteen-hundred-and-fifty-third year of the Christian æra.

In returning the document so unhappily annotated, Servetus appears to have felt that an apology was due to the Court for the style of response he had adopted. He therefore accompanied it with the following letter, in which he seeks to excuse himself for the course he has taken:

My Lords,—I have been induced to write on Calvin’s paper as there are so many short, interrupted expressions which, apart from the context, would have neither sense nor signification. But doing as I have done, setting theprosandconsin juxtaposition, Messieurs the Judges will be able more readily to decide on the questions in debate. Calvin mustnot be offended with me for this, for I have not touched a word of his writing; and it was not possible, without infinite confusion, to do otherwise than as I have done. Be pleased, my Lords, to let those who may be appointed to judge or report, have the two books now sent, as they will be thereby spared the trouble of searching out the passages referred to, these being all duly indicated. If Calvin makes any remarks on what is now said, may it please you to communicate them to me.Your poor prisoner,Michael Servetus.

Your poor prisoner,Michael Servetus.

This epistle, like the petitions presented to them, received no notice from the Council, which at this time was seriously engaged with business more interesting to them in their civil and administrative spheres; so that for some fourteen days no heed was given to the unfortunate Servetus rotting in the felon’s gaol of Geneva, or to the preparation and despatch of the documents to be submitted to the Councils and Churches of the four Protestant Cantons.

CALVIN ANTICIPATES THE JUDGES IN THEIR APPEAL TO THE SWISS CHURCHES.

Calvin, unlike Servetus, was never remiss. Sedulous to leave as little as might be to accident, and nothing, if he could guard against it, to independent conclusion, he did not fail to take advantage of the pause in the proceedings that now occurred, by being beforehand with the judges, and writing to the leading ministers of the Swiss Churches, every one of whom was of course personally known, and, with few exceptions, even servilely devoted, to him. Addressing Henry Bullinger, on September 7, he says:—

The Council will send you, ere long, the opinions of Servetus in order to have your advice. It is in spite of us that you have this trouble forced on you; but the folks here have come to such a pass of folly and fury that they are suspicious of all we say. Did I declare that there was daylight at noon, I believe they would question it. Brother Walter [Bullinger’s son-in-law] will tell you more [of the state of affairs here].

Calvin, it would therefore appear, did not like the appeal to the Churches. We have said that he had formerly been baffled in his pursuit of Jerome Bolsec,by the moderation they recommended when consulted on the case. He would have had his own and the Church of Geneva’s decision suffice; the motion for appeal to the wider sphere, moreover, seems really to have come from Servetus, and this of itself would have sufficed to make it distasteful to Calvin. The Council’s giving in to it must have been regarded by him, if not as an insult, yet as a mark of distrust: hence his angry allusion to the fury and folly of the Genevese. He made the best of the matter, however, as we have said, by having the start of the Council; and not only writing to the chiefs of the four Churches, but in the case of Zürich at least, by sending a messenger—Brother Walter—specially commissioned to give Bullinger, its head pastor, information of a kind he would not trust to writing.

Bullinger, in reply to the written and verbal communication, informs Calvin that—

‘Walter’s news has indeed saddened and disquieted him greatly.’ In some sort of trouble himself, as it seems, Bullinger can heartily sympathise with his brother of Geneva; yet is he ‘without fear for the future, though there be in the town around him more dogs and swine than he could desire! Still many things are to be put up with for the sake of the Elect, and we have to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through great tribulation. But do not, I beseech you, forsake a Church which has so many excellent men within its pale. Bear all for the sake of the Elect. Think what cause of rejoicing your retreat would give to the enemies of the Reformation, and with what danger it would be fraught to the French refugees. Remain! The Lord will not forsake you. He has, indeed,now presented the noble Council of Geneva with a most favourable opportunity of clearing itself from the foul stain of heresy, by delivering into its hands the Spaniard Servetus. You will have heard, of course, that he has put forth another book, wherein he surpasses himself in impiety; but if the blasphemous scoundrel be dealt with as he deserves, the whole world will own that the Genevese have the impious in horror, that they are forward to pursue the obstinate heretic with the sword of justice, and well disposed to assert the glory of the Divine Majesty! Nevertheless, and in any case should they not do so, you ought not to abandon your post and expose the Church to new misfortunes. Fight on bravely, then, trusting in God.’95

From what he says, we see that Bullinger had not been informed of all that had taken place in Geneva, and that the printing of ‘the other book,’ which he could not yet have seen, had been the occasion of its author’s arrest and trial. But the letter to Calvin, prompted by the news he had received through Brother Walter, satisfies us that Calvin at this time felt little at his ease in Geneva, and in nowise sure of the support he was to have from his friend Bullinger. He had no doubts as to the theological criminality of Servetus; neither had he any qualms as to the kind of punishment he designed for him; but he was wroth with the Council for the impartiality it showed towards one who had dared, as he believed, to beard him in his own domain, and ventured to subscribe himself as having the support of the great heavenlyhead of all the Churches. As Calvin interpreted the latest proceedings of the Council, they appeared simply hostile to himself. Failing now in his prosecution of the Spaniard, his social influence would be compromised, and with the check he had just received in the affair of Berthelier, and the power of the Consistory to excommunicate, whereby his religious foothold was seriously shaken, he must have threatened, if he did not really contemplate, the extreme step of abandoning the Genevese to their own evil devices. Bullinger probably took Calvin’s threat of quitting his charge in Geneva, as conveyed to him by Brother Walter, too literally. From the suspicion of any such purpose, we find him anxious immediately to clear himself by the letter he forthwith addressed to the Zürich pastor:

‘From your letter, most excellent Brother (he says), I learn that you have not been so accurately informed of the griefs whereof I complain as I could have wished. The wicked people about me, knowing that I am irritable, my stomach troubling me often and in various ways, have lately been striving to get the better of my patience. But sharp as the struggle has been, they have not succeeded in turning me in the slightest measure from my course. I have been armed against all the arrows they have aimed at me. The Lord may have put me of late so sorely to the proof among this people, that I might learn by experience what heavy trials have to be borne by his ministers. He who has upheld me hitherto will not, I trust, fail to possess me with less fortitude in time to come. Wherefore, trusting in his aid, I have never been really minded to quit the station in which he has placed me. Never once, when your Walter was here lately,did I think of giving way and yielding to the contumelies and indignities that were heaped upon me. The report to the contrary was raised by the factious, that they might injure me.’Calvin then goes on to inform his friend of the affair of Berthelier, and the permission he had received from the Council to present himself at the Lord’s Supper, and continues: ‘Knowing the brazen face of the man who, with every occasion given him, has still stood in my way; and believing that he would be disposed to vanquish me if he could, I declared to the Council that I would not administer to him, and said that I would sooner die than prostitute the bread of the Lord by giving it to dogs or such as made a mockery of the Gospel, and trod the ordinances of the Church under foot. You have not understood aright what I said. Do not imagine that anything is changed. Something more may possibly be attempted at the next meeting of the Council. May the Lord lead the perverse to desist from their efforts! For my part, it is certain that I will never suffer the discipline sanctioned by the senate, and the decree of the people, to be set aside. If I am prevented from discharging the duties of my office, I may have to yield to force, but I will never renounce the liberty I possess; for, that abandoned, my ministry would be in vain. I am not made of such stubborn stuff, however, as not to feel sorely distressed when I think of the future scattering of this flock; but whilst I have the power, I shall do all I can to hold them in the right way. Do you with your prayers come to our aid, and entreat that Christ may keep to himself his flock of this place.Things go on no better in France. Wherever there is the pretext, they do not spare bloodshed. Three are condemned to death at Dijon, if they be not already burned; and the danger is that the commotions we hear of in Scotland will add fuel to the fires. Seven or eight youthful persons havebeen thrown into prison at Nemours, and in several other French towns many more have met with a like fate. Farewell!

Calvin then goes on to inform his friend of the affair of Berthelier, and the permission he had received from the Council to present himself at the Lord’s Supper, and continues: ‘Knowing the brazen face of the man who, with every occasion given him, has still stood in my way; and believing that he would be disposed to vanquish me if he could, I declared to the Council that I would not administer to him, and said that I would sooner die than prostitute the bread of the Lord by giving it to dogs or such as made a mockery of the Gospel, and trod the ordinances of the Church under foot. You have not understood aright what I said. Do not imagine that anything is changed. Something more may possibly be attempted at the next meeting of the Council. May the Lord lead the perverse to desist from their efforts! For my part, it is certain that I will never suffer the discipline sanctioned by the senate, and the decree of the people, to be set aside. If I am prevented from discharging the duties of my office, I may have to yield to force, but I will never renounce the liberty I possess; for, that abandoned, my ministry would be in vain. I am not made of such stubborn stuff, however, as not to feel sorely distressed when I think of the future scattering of this flock; but whilst I have the power, I shall do all I can to hold them in the right way. Do you with your prayers come to our aid, and entreat that Christ may keep to himself his flock of this place.

Things go on no better in France. Wherever there is the pretext, they do not spare bloodshed. Three are condemned to death at Dijon, if they be not already burned; and the danger is that the commotions we hear of in Scotland will add fuel to the fires. Seven or eight youthful persons havebeen thrown into prison at Nemours, and in several other French towns many more have met with a like fate. Farewell!

The letter which Calvin wrote about the same time to Sulzer, pastor of Basle, also deserves a place here, as showing the pains he took to influence the minds of his friends in his own favour and against Servetus.

The name of Servetus, who, twenty years ago, infected the Christian world with his vile and pestilent doctrines, is not, I presume, unknown to you. Even if you have not read his book, it is scarcely possible that you should not have heard something of the kind of opinions he holds. He it is of whom Bucer, of blessed memory, that faithful minister of Christ, a man otherwise of the most gentle nature, declared that ‘he deserved to be disembowelled and torn in pieces.’ As in days gone by, so of late he has not ceased from spreading abroad his poison; for he has just had a larger volume secretly printed at Vienne, crammed full of the same errors. The printing of the book having been divulged, however, he was thrown into prison there. Escaping from prison—by what means I know not—he wandered about in Italy for some four months; but driven hither at length by his evil destiny—tandem hic malis auspiciis appulsum—one of the syndics, at my instigation, had him arrested.Nor do I deny that I have been led by my office to do all in my power to restrain this more than obstinate and indomitable individual, so that the contagion should continue no longer. We see with what licence impiety stalks abroad, scattering ever new errors; and we have also to note the indifference of those whom God has armed with the sword to vindicate the glory of his name. If the Papists approve themselves so zealous and so much in earnest for their superstitions,that they cruelly persecute and shed the blood of innocent persons, is it not disgraceful in Christian magistrates to show so little heart in defending the assured Truth? But where there is the power of prevention, there are surely limits to the moderation that suffers blasphemy to be vented with impunity.As regards this man, then, there are three things to be considered: First, the monstrous errors with which he corrupts all religion, the detestable heresies with which he strives to overthrow all piety, and the abominable fancies with which he surrounds Christianity, and seeks to upset from the foundation every principle of our Faith. Secondly, the obstinacy with which he has comported himself, the diabolical persistency with which he has despised all the counsels given him, and the desperate insistance wherewith he has been forward to spread his poison. Thirdly, the daring with which he, even now, produces his abominations. So far is he from showing any sign or giving any hope of amendment, that he does not scruple to fasten his plague-spot on those holy men, Capito and Œcolampadius—as if they were his associates! Shown the letters of Œcolampadius, he said he wondered by what spirit he, Œcolampadius, had been induced to depart from his first opinion!...There is but one thing more on which I would have you advised, viz.: That the Questor of our city, who will deliver you this, is of a right mind in the business, which is, that the prisoner shall not escape the fate we desire—ut saltem exitum quem optamus non fugiat.I say nothing now of French affairs; there being no news here of which I imagine you are not as well informed as we, unless it be that on last Sabbath-day three of our pious brothers were burned to death at Lyons, and a fourth met a like fate in a neighbouring town. It is scarcely credible how these men, illiterate, but enlightened by the spirit of God, andennobled by the perfections of the Doctrine, behaved on the occasion; with what unswerving constancy they met their fate. But it is not there only; in other parts of France burnings of the same sort go on incessantly; nor seems there any prospect of mitigation. Farewell!Geneva; v. of the Ides (19) of Septr. 1553.

Nor do I deny that I have been led by my office to do all in my power to restrain this more than obstinate and indomitable individual, so that the contagion should continue no longer. We see with what licence impiety stalks abroad, scattering ever new errors; and we have also to note the indifference of those whom God has armed with the sword to vindicate the glory of his name. If the Papists approve themselves so zealous and so much in earnest for their superstitions,that they cruelly persecute and shed the blood of innocent persons, is it not disgraceful in Christian magistrates to show so little heart in defending the assured Truth? But where there is the power of prevention, there are surely limits to the moderation that suffers blasphemy to be vented with impunity.

As regards this man, then, there are three things to be considered: First, the monstrous errors with which he corrupts all religion, the detestable heresies with which he strives to overthrow all piety, and the abominable fancies with which he surrounds Christianity, and seeks to upset from the foundation every principle of our Faith. Secondly, the obstinacy with which he has comported himself, the diabolical persistency with which he has despised all the counsels given him, and the desperate insistance wherewith he has been forward to spread his poison. Thirdly, the daring with which he, even now, produces his abominations. So far is he from showing any sign or giving any hope of amendment, that he does not scruple to fasten his plague-spot on those holy men, Capito and Œcolampadius—as if they were his associates! Shown the letters of Œcolampadius, he said he wondered by what spirit he, Œcolampadius, had been induced to depart from his first opinion!...

There is but one thing more on which I would have you advised, viz.: That the Questor of our city, who will deliver you this, is of a right mind in the business, which is, that the prisoner shall not escape the fate we desire—ut saltem exitum quem optamus non fugiat.

I say nothing now of French affairs; there being no news here of which I imagine you are not as well informed as we, unless it be that on last Sabbath-day three of our pious brothers were burned to death at Lyons, and a fourth met a like fate in a neighbouring town. It is scarcely credible how these men, illiterate, but enlightened by the spirit of God, andennobled by the perfections of the Doctrine, behaved on the occasion; with what unswerving constancy they met their fate. But it is not there only; in other parts of France burnings of the same sort go on incessantly; nor seems there any prospect of mitigation. Farewell!

Geneva; v. of the Ides (19) of Septr. 1553.

Calvin, we see from this epistle, believed that he would be fully justified in having Michael Servetus burned alive at Geneva because they differed in their interpretation of the Trinity; but that the Papists of Lyons were inexcusable for sending to a fiery death those who with himself did not acknowledge the Pope as God’s vicegerent on earth, and Romish doctrine as the true and only saving faith. It is theevil destinyof Servetus, too, that has led him into the toils of the Reformer; and to be of aright mindin the business of the prosecution, then proceeding is, so to play into the hands of the prosecutor that his victim shall not escape the death designed him!

It was of Zürich, however, more than of any of the Churches consulted, that Calvin felt most in doubt. The tolerant views of Zwingli were in some sort hereditary there; and Bullinger, who was its chief pastor, had disappointed him in the case of Bolsec. But he must also have had strong misgivings of Basle, when he was induced to write the long and particular letter to Sulzer, its leading minister, which we have just perused. The more refined and delicate tone that is said to have pervaded society in the city of Basle indisposedits people to violence or extremes; and ‘Thorough’ was always the word on Calvin’s banner.

If he had doubts of Zürich and Basle, Calvin could place implicit reliance on Neuchatel, where Farel, his oldest, most devoted, and most obsequious friend presided as head of the Church. Addressing Farel soon after the arrest of Servetus, he writes:

It is even as you say, my dear Farel,—we are indeed variously and sorely tried and tossed about by storms! We have now anewbusiness with Servetus—jam novum habemus cum Serveto negotium. His intention may, perchance, have been to pass through this city; but it is not precisely known why he came hither. When he was recognised, however, I thought it right to have him arrested, my man Nicholas presenting himself as accuser on the capital charge, and binding himself by the law of retaliation, to proceed against him. Articles of accusation under as many as forty heads were presented in writing on the day following the arrest. He prevaricated at first, which led to our being called in. Recognising me, he behaved as though he held me obnoxious to him. I, as became me, gave no heed to him. The senate, in fine, approved of all the charges, and he was sent back to prison. On the third day after, my brother becoming bail for Nicholas, he was set at liberty.I say nothing of the effrontery of the man; but such was his madness that [in the course of the interrogatory] he did not hesitate to say the Devil was in the Deity—Diabolus inesse Divinitatem—and more, that in so many men there were so many gods, Deity being substantially communicated to them, as, indeed, he said it was to stocks and stones!I hope the sentence will be capital at the least—Spero capitale saltem fore judicium; but I would have the cruel manner of carrying it out remitted. Farewell!

I say nothing of the effrontery of the man; but such was his madness that [in the course of the interrogatory] he did not hesitate to say the Devil was in the Deity—Diabolus inesse Divinitatem—and more, that in so many men there were so many gods, Deity being substantially communicated to them, as, indeed, he said it was to stocks and stones!I hope the sentence will be capital at the least—Spero capitale saltem fore judicium; but I would have the cruel manner of carrying it out remitted. Farewell!

Calvin’s charge was therefore, as we see, to no halting or half-way conclusion. He proceeded from the first for a capital conviction—he hoped it would be nothing short of this; and being so, he knew the kind of death the man must die. It is a poor show of humanity, therefore, that he makes at the end of his letter. But there is a phrase at the beginning of the epistle which deserves very particular notice: ‘Iam novum habemus cum Serveto negotium—we have now on hand anew businesswith Servetus.’ But there was noolder businesswith Servetus at Geneva. It was at Vienne that this took place. Writing to Farel, his oldest and most trusted friend, Calvin reverts in mind to the fact, and his words reflect or echo back his inward thought. Of the justice of this surmise we seem to find confirmation in Viret’s letter of August 22, which we have seen in reply to the one in which Calvin inquires after a copy of the book on Trinitarian Error; for there the pastor of Lausanne says:Nunc vobis est alia cum Serveto disputatio—and now you haveanothercontention with Servetus;96an obvious reference to a passage in one of the Reformer’s letters of the same tenor as that he has just addressed to Farel. Calvin, it is notorious, always shirked acknowledgment of the part he played in the affair of Vienne. Even the self-complacency that comes of theological zeal did not permit him to find an excuse for underhanddealing, and the violation of a correspondence that was private and entirely confidential. He was, by no means, insensible to the infamy that cleaves to an act of the kind, however, and in his own case could say, ‘Zebedæus has been perfidiously showing confidential letters of mine, which I wrote to him fifteen years ago from Strasburg!’97

Farel’s reply to the last epistle of Calvin, dated from Neufchatel on September 8, is as follows:

I have returned from Normandy, restored to my usual good state of health.... It is a wonderful dispensation of God that has brought Servetus to this country. I wish he may come to his senses, late though it be. It will indeed be a miracle if he prefer death, and, turning to God, consent to edify the spectators—he dying one death who has caused the death of so many others!Your judges will only show themselves hard-hearted contemners of Christ, enemies of the true Church and of its pious doctrine, if they prove insensible to the horrible blasphemies of so wicked a heretic. But I hope God will so order it that they may merit commendation by putting out of the way the man who has so long and so obstinately persevered in his heresies to the perdition of so many! In desiring to have the cruelty of the punishment mitigated, you appear as the friend of him who has been your greatest enemy. There are some, however, who would let heretics be doing—as if there were any difference between the office of the pastor and that of the magistrate! Because the Pope condemns the faithful for the crime of heresy, and hostile judges cause innocent persons to undergo the punishment that shouldbe reserved for blasphemers, it is absurd to conclude that heretics are not to be put to death, in order that the faithful may be preserved. But do you act, I pray, in such a manner as to show that in time to come no one will be suffered to promulgate new doctrines and to throw everything into confusion, as this Servetus has done. For my own part, I have often said that I should be ready to suffer death did I teach aught that was opposed to the true doctrine, and should deem myself deserving of the most terrible tortures did I turn even one from the faith that is in Christ. I would not, therefore, apply to another a different rule.

Your judges will only show themselves hard-hearted contemners of Christ, enemies of the true Church and of its pious doctrine, if they prove insensible to the horrible blasphemies of so wicked a heretic. But I hope God will so order it that they may merit commendation by putting out of the way the man who has so long and so obstinately persevered in his heresies to the perdition of so many! In desiring to have the cruelty of the punishment mitigated, you appear as the friend of him who has been your greatest enemy. There are some, however, who would let heretics be doing—as if there were any difference between the office of the pastor and that of the magistrate! Because the Pope condemns the faithful for the crime of heresy, and hostile judges cause innocent persons to undergo the punishment that shouldbe reserved for blasphemers, it is absurd to conclude that heretics are not to be put to death, in order that the faithful may be preserved. But do you act, I pray, in such a manner as to show that in time to come no one will be suffered to promulgate new doctrines and to throw everything into confusion, as this Servetus has done. For my own part, I have often said that I should be ready to suffer death did I teach aught that was opposed to the true doctrine, and should deem myself deserving of the most terrible tortures did I turn even one from the faith that is in Christ. I would not, therefore, apply to another a different rule.

Farel is neither an elegant nor an agreeable, still less a logical, writer; but he is zealous in behalf of the true doctrine—the doctrine, to wit, he holds himself. God, the father of mankind, who sends the rain and the sunshine indifferently on all, has, in the opinion of this poor bigot, by a special dispensation of his providence, led a sincerely pious man, according to his lights, to Geneva, there to be first harshly and ignominiously treated by another sincerely pious man, according to his lights; and finally through the influence he exerts over its clergy and magistracy, to be put to a lingering death by slow fire! Farel never thought of himself, with his ‘True Doctrine,’ as a heretic in the highest degree in the eyes of his neighbours the Roman Catholics of France withtheir‘True Doctrine.’

It is more than questionable, indeed, whether Farel had ever read a word of Servetus’s writings. He was a man of action, fearless, full of fiery zeal, and a readytalker, but with no great amount of scholarly acquirement, and still less of philosophy. In anything of his we have seen, and save in what is said of his harangues, he never meets us otherwise than as a man of narrow mind, utterly intolerant and entirely under the influence of Calvin. If Servetus had sinned by persevering in heresy, and corrupting souls, so had he, so had Calvin, so had Melanchthon and the rest, in the estimation of their neighbours the Papists of neighbouring lands; and, though he speaks glibly of myriads who had lost their chance of salvation through Servetus, there was never a tittle of evidence adduced on the trial to show that even a single individual had been influenced by his writings. On the contrary, all who are brought forward in connection whether with the man or his works—Œcolampadius, Bucer, Melanchthon—are proof and more than proof against both him and them. Calvin and Farel, as we see, had made up their minds that Servetus was to be condemned to death weeks before the conclusion of his trial.

SERVETUS SENDS A LETTER AND A SECOND REMONSTRANCE AND PETITION TO HIS JUDGES.

Smarting under a sense of the unjustifiable treatment to which he was so relentlessly subjected, and weary of the delays that had taken place through the disputes between the Consistory represented by Calvin, and the Council, Servetus now gave vent to the pent-up storm within him in the following characteristic remonstrance. Alluding to the backing his persecutor received from the clergy, and the number of names attached to the Refutation of his Replies, he exclaims:

Thus far we have had clamour enough and a great crowd of subscribers! But what places in Scripture do they adduce as their authority for the Invisible Individual Son they acknowledge? They refer to none; nor, indeed, will they ever be able to point to any. Is this becoming in these great ministers of the Divine Word, who everywhere boast that they teach nothing that is not confirmed by distinct passages of Holy Writ? But no such places are now forthcoming; and my doctrine, consequently, is impugned by mere clamour, without a shadow of reason, and without the citation of a single authority against it.Michael Servetus,who signs alone, but has Christ for his sure protector!

Michael Servetus,who signs alone, but has Christ for his sure protector!

Engaged with more immediate and interesting business in the political and administrative sphere of their duties, the Council had, in fact, left that in which their prisoner Michael Servetus was so particularly concerned unnoticed for something like fourteen days. This long delay gave him reasonable cause for complaint, and furnished him with grounds not only for the outburst given above, but for a further petition and remonstrance to the following effect:

To the Syndics and Council of Geneva.My most honoured Lords!—I humbly entreat of you to put an end to these great delays, or to exonerate me of the criminal charge. You must see that Calvin is at his wit’s end and knows not what more to say, but for his pleasure would have me rot here in prison. The lice eat me up alive; my breeches are in rags, and I have no change—no doublet, and but a single shirt in tatters.I made another request to you, which was for God’s sake; but to prevent your granting it, Calvin alleged Justinian against me. It is surely unfortunate for him that he brings against me that which he does not himself believe. He neither believes nor does he agree with what Justinian says of the Church, of Bishops, of the Clergy, nor of many things besides connected with religion. He knows well enough that [in Justinian’s day] the Church was already corrupted. This is disgraceful in him—all the more disgraceful as he keeps me here for the last five weeks in close confinement, and has not yet adduced a single passage [of Scripture] against me.I have also demanded to have counsel assigned me. This would have been granted me in my native country; and here I am a stranger and ignorant of the laws and customs of theland. Yet you have given counsel to my accuser, whilst refusing it to me, and have further set him at large before having taken any true cognisance of my cause. I now demand that my cause may be referred to the Council of Two Hundred. If I am permitted to appeal to it, I hereby appeal; declaring, as I do, that I will take on me all the expenses, damages, and interests, and abide by the award of the Lex Talionis as well in respect of my first accuser [De la Fontaine] as of Calvin his master, who has now taken the prosecution into his own hands.From your prison of Geneva, this 15th of Septr. 1553.Michael Servetus,in his own cause.

To the Syndics and Council of Geneva.

My most honoured Lords!—I humbly entreat of you to put an end to these great delays, or to exonerate me of the criminal charge. You must see that Calvin is at his wit’s end and knows not what more to say, but for his pleasure would have me rot here in prison. The lice eat me up alive; my breeches are in rags, and I have no change—no doublet, and but a single shirt in tatters.

I made another request to you, which was for God’s sake; but to prevent your granting it, Calvin alleged Justinian against me. It is surely unfortunate for him that he brings against me that which he does not himself believe. He neither believes nor does he agree with what Justinian says of the Church, of Bishops, of the Clergy, nor of many things besides connected with religion. He knows well enough that [in Justinian’s day] the Church was already corrupted. This is disgraceful in him—all the more disgraceful as he keeps me here for the last five weeks in close confinement, and has not yet adduced a single passage [of Scripture] against me.

I have also demanded to have counsel assigned me. This would have been granted me in my native country; and here I am a stranger and ignorant of the laws and customs of theland. Yet you have given counsel to my accuser, whilst refusing it to me, and have further set him at large before having taken any true cognisance of my cause. I now demand that my cause may be referred to the Council of Two Hundred. If I am permitted to appeal to it, I hereby appeal; declaring, as I do, that I will take on me all the expenses, damages, and interests, and abide by the award of the Lex Talionis as well in respect of my first accuser [De la Fontaine] as of Calvin his master, who has now taken the prosecution into his own hands.

From your prison of Geneva, this 15th of Septr. 1553.

Michael Servetus,in his own cause.

The Council appear to have been nowise moved by this very reasonable petition. The request for counsel, here reiterated, was not noticed—it had already been disposed of, and could not be granted; but the petition to have his case referred to the Council of the Two Hundred was discussed and rejected: the tribunal before which he was on his trial was competent in every respect by the laws of the State. Orders, however, were given that the articles of clothing he required should be procured for him at his proper cost; but as it seems to have been the business of no one to see the order carried into effect, or because the Council and custodians of the gaol of Geneva were accustomed to see their prisoners in rags and devoured by vermin, it was unheeded at the time, although attended to at a somewhat later period in this eventful history.

Had there been no resolution to take the opinion of the Councils and Churches of the confederate Reformed Cantons, everything necessary to a decision was again before the Court. The term had indeed been exceeded within which by the law of Geneva the proceedings ought to have ended—the law positively forbidding the protraction of a criminal suit beyond the term of a calendar month. The law had, therefore, been violated; but there was no one to urge the point in behalf of the prisoner, any more than there had been to expose Calvin’s disobedience of the Council’s orders to present his Articles of Incrimination without note or comment. Neither the Clerical nor the Libertine party, however, had yet done with the unfortunate Servetus, although it was not before their meeting of September 21 that the Council found itself at leisure to take up the tangled skein of the Servetus-prosecution again, and to order the necessary documents to be prepared for submission to the Councils and Churches they had determined to consult. Before despatching these when ready, they seem to have thought it would be well to show Calvin the short demurrers of Servetus to his elaborate Refutation; expecting, probably, that he would have something to say to them, but not meaning to let Servetus see anything Calvin might think proper to add. There was no occasion however, as it fell out, to act on this rather partial reservation. The Reformer did not think fit to notice even one of the unhappy annotations of his enemy, in which the lie direct is givenhim something like fifty times; and the epithetnebulo—knave—is not the most offensive that is applied to him. He did not add a word to what he had already written. A mere glance at the unhappy jottings sufficed, as it seemed, to make him feel sure of his suit; Servetus, he saw, stood self-condemned in his neglect to adduce Scripture authority for his peculiar views, or to show that they had either been misinterpreted or misunderstood by his pursuer. The abusive epithets so plentifully heaped on Calvin only recoiled upon himself.

THE SWISS COUNCILS AND CHURCHES ARE ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL OF GENEVA.

From the duel as heretofore carried on between Calvin, backed by the Ministers of Geneva, and Servetus, seconded by Christ alone, as he said, the process was now to be widened in its scope and debated between the solitary stranger and the Reformation at large, or so much of it at least as was represented by the Protestant Churches of Berne, Basle, Zürich, and Schaffhausen. As many as four copies of the writings that had passed between the prosecution and the prisoner had, therefore, to be made, and for this a couple of days were required; so that it was not until after the third week of September that the messenger usually charged by the authorities of Geneva with their despatches was furnished with his credentials to the Councils and Ministers of the four towns named. The documents forwarded were copies of the ‘Christianismi Restitutio,’ and of the works of Tertullian and Irenæus; the thirty-eight articles from the writings of Servetus extracted by Calvin; Servetus’s replies to these in defence of his views; and Calvin’s Refutation of his errors, as hecharacterised them, having Servetus’s jottings, disclaimers, and abusive epithets interspersed. Grounding their opinions on these lengthy documents, the Swiss Churches were requested to declare themselves on the orthodox or heretical nature of the passages inculpated, and so, in fact, to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner in respect of the heresy and blasphemy imputed to him; their standard being, of course, the particular form of Christianity professed by the prosecutor and themselves.

In referring to the Churches in communion with that of Geneva, the Council is careful to say that it would not be supposed to entertain any doubts of the competency of the Church of Geneva to pronounce a definitive opinion on the questions at issue; it would only have further light before coming to a decision in a matter of so much moment. The style of address adopted by the Council of Geneva to the Councils and Churches of the Cantons consulted will be sufficiently appreciated from the letters sent to Zürich. And first the one addressed to the Ministers:

Geneva, September 21, 1553.Honourable Sirs!—Well assured that you are every way disposed to persevere in the good and holy purpose of upholding and furthering the Word of God, we have thought we should do you an injustice did we not inform you of the business in which we have been engaged for some time past. It is this. There is a man now in prison with us, Michael Servetus by name, who has thought fit to write and have printed certain books on the Holy Scriptures, containing matters whichwe think are nowise according to God and the holy evangelical doctrine. He has been heard [in his defence] by our ministers, who have drawn up Articles against him, to which he has replied, and to his replies answers have been given—all in writing; and we pray you, for the honour of God, to take the papers now forwarded to you into consideration, and to return them by the same messenger with your opinion and advice. We beg you further to look into the book which will be delivered to you by our messenger, so that you may be well and fully informed of the unhappy propositions of the writer.In writing thus and asking your advice we desire to say that we do so without any mistrust of our own ministers.To the Burgomaster and Council of Zürich.Geneva, September 22, 1553.High and mighty Lords!—We know not if your Lordships are aware that we have in hand a prisoner, Michael Servetus by name, who has written and had printed a book containing many things against our religion. This we have shown to our ministers; and, although we have no mistrust of them, we desire to communicate the work to you, in order that, if it so please you, you may lay it before your clergy, together with the replies and rejoinders that have been made in connection therewith. We therefore pray you to be good enough to submit the documents now sent to your ministers and request them to give us their opinion of their merits, to the end that we may bring the business, to which they refer, to a close.

Geneva, September 21, 1553.

Honourable Sirs!—Well assured that you are every way disposed to persevere in the good and holy purpose of upholding and furthering the Word of God, we have thought we should do you an injustice did we not inform you of the business in which we have been engaged for some time past. It is this. There is a man now in prison with us, Michael Servetus by name, who has thought fit to write and have printed certain books on the Holy Scriptures, containing matters whichwe think are nowise according to God and the holy evangelical doctrine. He has been heard [in his defence] by our ministers, who have drawn up Articles against him, to which he has replied, and to his replies answers have been given—all in writing; and we pray you, for the honour of God, to take the papers now forwarded to you into consideration, and to return them by the same messenger with your opinion and advice. We beg you further to look into the book which will be delivered to you by our messenger, so that you may be well and fully informed of the unhappy propositions of the writer.

In writing thus and asking your advice we desire to say that we do so without any mistrust of our own ministers.

To the Burgomaster and Council of Zürich.

Geneva, September 22, 1553.

High and mighty Lords!—We know not if your Lordships are aware that we have in hand a prisoner, Michael Servetus by name, who has written and had printed a book containing many things against our religion. This we have shown to our ministers; and, although we have no mistrust of them, we desire to communicate the work to you, in order that, if it so please you, you may lay it before your clergy, together with the replies and rejoinders that have been made in connection therewith. We therefore pray you to be good enough to submit the documents now sent to your ministers and request them to give us their opinion of their merits, to the end that we may bring the business, to which they refer, to a close.

On the result of the course now taken the fate of Servetus evidently depended. Did the four Swiss Churches find the extracts from his writings heretical and blasphemous, the Council of Geneva, in their capacity of criminal judges, would find themselves justifiedin passing upon him the extreme sentence of the law; and Calvin’s determined pursuit not only of his theological opponent and personal enemy, but of his political antagonist and, in some sort,rival, as he had been made to appear through the espousal of his cause by the leaders of the Libertine party, would be brought to the conclusion he desired.

SERVETUS AGAIN ADDRESSES THE SYNDICS AND COUNCIL OF GENEVA, AND ACCUSES CALVIN.

If Calvin, then, as we apprehend, had every reason to anticipate an answer in his favour from the Churches, so do we find Servetus possessed by the assured hope that he would be acquitted, or, at most, be found guilty of nothing involving a heavier penalty than banishment from the Republic of Geneva. Of heresy he did not think for a moment he had been more guilty than every one of the Reformers whom he had been accustomed to hear spoken of in the polite circles of Vienne not only as schismatics, but as heretics of the deepest dye. If his ‘Restoration of Christianity’ had been burned by the hangman of Vienne, had not Calvin’s ‘Institutions of the Christian Religion’ been summarily condemned by the whole Catholic world, and put on the Index of prohibited books by the Roman Curia? So sure does Servetus appear to have felt of final acquittal at this time—guiltless of blasphemy as in his soul he knew himself to be, and bolstered by thefalse hopes of his false friends, that whilst the scales of justice were still trembling on the beam, he, from his filthy cell, in rags, and devoured by vermin, even he aspired to become the accuser of the man by whom he was himself accused, and subjected to all the indignities he endured! It could only have been under the excitement of some such persuasion that he now wrote the following extraordinary letter to the Council:—

To the Syndics and Council of Geneva.My most honoured Lords,—I am detained on a criminal charge at the instance of John Calvin, who has accused me, falsely saying that in my writings I maintain—1st. That the soul of man is mortal, and2nd. That Jesus Christ had only taken the fourth part of his body from the Virgin Mary.These are horrible, execrable charges. Of all heresies and crimes, I think of none greater than that which would make the soul of man to be mortal. In every other there is hope of salvation, but none in this. He who should say what I am charged with saying, neither believes in God nor justice, in the resurrection, in Christ Jesus, in the Scriptures, nor, indeed, in anything, but declares that all is death, and that man and beast are alike. Had I said anything of the kind—said it not in words only, but written and published it, I should myself think me worthy of death.Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be declared subject to the law of retaliation, and like me be sent to prison until the cause between him and me, for death or other penalty, is decided. To this effect I here engage myself against him, submit myself to all that the Lex Talionis requires, and declare that I shall be content to die if I amnot borne out in everything I shall bring against him. My Lords, I demand of you, justice, justice, justice!From your prison of Geneva, this 22nd of September, 1553.Michael Servetus,pleading his own cause.

To the Syndics and Council of Geneva.

My most honoured Lords,—I am detained on a criminal charge at the instance of John Calvin, who has accused me, falsely saying that in my writings I maintain—

1st. That the soul of man is mortal, and

2nd. That Jesus Christ had only taken the fourth part of his body from the Virgin Mary.

These are horrible, execrable charges. Of all heresies and crimes, I think of none greater than that which would make the soul of man to be mortal. In every other there is hope of salvation, but none in this. He who should say what I am charged with saying, neither believes in God nor justice, in the resurrection, in Christ Jesus, in the Scriptures, nor, indeed, in anything, but declares that all is death, and that man and beast are alike. Had I said anything of the kind—said it not in words only, but written and published it, I should myself think me worthy of death.

Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be declared subject to the law of retaliation, and like me be sent to prison until the cause between him and me, for death or other penalty, is decided. To this effect I here engage myself against him, submit myself to all that the Lex Talionis requires, and declare that I shall be content to die if I amnot borne out in everything I shall bring against him. My Lords, I demand of you, justice, justice, justice!

From your prison of Geneva, this 22nd of September, 1553.

Michael Servetus,pleading his own cause.

The letter was followed by a series of articles in form like those lately brought against himself, headed—

Articles on which Michael Servetus demands that John Calvinbe interrogated.I. Whether in the month of March last he did not write, by the hand of William Trie, to Lyons, and say many things about Michael Villanovanus called Servetus. What were the contents of the letter, and with what motive was it sent?II. Whether with the letter in question he sent half of the first sheet of the book of the said Michael Servetus, entitled ‘Christianismi Restitutio,’ on which were the Title, the Table of Contents, and the beginning of the work?III. Whether this was not sent with a view to its being shown to the authorities of Lyons, in order to have Servetus arrested and impeached, as happened in fact?IV. Whether he has not heard since then that in consequence of the charges thereby brought against him, he, the said Servetus, had been burned in effigy, and his property confiscated; he himself having only escaped burning in person by escaping from prison?V. Whether he does not know that it is no business of a minister of the gospel to appear as a criminal accuser and pursuer of a man judicially on a capital charge?My Lords, there are four great and notable reasons why Calvin ought to be condemned:First: Because doctrinal matters are no subjects forcriminal prosecutions, as I have shown in my petition, and will show more fully from the Doctors of the Church. Acting as he has done, he has therefore gone beyond the province of a minister of the Gospel, and gravely sinned against justice.Second: Because he is a false accuser, as the above articles declare, and as is easily proved by reading my book.Third: Because by frivolous reasons and calumnious assertions he would suppress the Truth as it is in Jesus Christ, as will be made obvious to you, by reference to my writings; what he has said of me, being full of lies and wickedness.Fourth: Because he follows the doctrine of Simon Magus, in great part, against all the Doctors of the Church. Wherefore, magician as he is, he deserves not only to be condemned, but to be banished and cast out of your city, his goods being adjudged to me in recompense for mine which he has made me to lose. These, my Lords, are the demands I make.Michael Servetus,in his own cause.

Articles on which Michael Servetus demands that John Calvinbe interrogated.

I. Whether in the month of March last he did not write, by the hand of William Trie, to Lyons, and say many things about Michael Villanovanus called Servetus. What were the contents of the letter, and with what motive was it sent?

II. Whether with the letter in question he sent half of the first sheet of the book of the said Michael Servetus, entitled ‘Christianismi Restitutio,’ on which were the Title, the Table of Contents, and the beginning of the work?

III. Whether this was not sent with a view to its being shown to the authorities of Lyons, in order to have Servetus arrested and impeached, as happened in fact?

IV. Whether he has not heard since then that in consequence of the charges thereby brought against him, he, the said Servetus, had been burned in effigy, and his property confiscated; he himself having only escaped burning in person by escaping from prison?

V. Whether he does not know that it is no business of a minister of the gospel to appear as a criminal accuser and pursuer of a man judicially on a capital charge?

My Lords, there are four great and notable reasons why Calvin ought to be condemned:

First: Because doctrinal matters are no subjects forcriminal prosecutions, as I have shown in my petition, and will show more fully from the Doctors of the Church. Acting as he has done, he has therefore gone beyond the province of a minister of the Gospel, and gravely sinned against justice.

Second: Because he is a false accuser, as the above articles declare, and as is easily proved by reading my book.

Third: Because by frivolous reasons and calumnious assertions he would suppress the Truth as it is in Jesus Christ, as will be made obvious to you, by reference to my writings; what he has said of me, being full of lies and wickedness.

Fourth: Because he follows the doctrine of Simon Magus, in great part, against all the Doctors of the Church. Wherefore, magician as he is, he deserves not only to be condemned, but to be banished and cast out of your city, his goods being adjudged to me in recompense for mine which he has made me to lose. These, my Lords, are the demands I make.

Michael Servetus,in his own cause.

Although we have only conjecture to aid us in understanding the temper that now shows itself in Servetus, and the hope he evidently entertains of triumphing over his prosecutor, we cannot be mistaken in ascribing it to the influence of Perrin and Berthelier. They must have imagined that the same result would ensue from the appeal to the Churches as had followed the reference made to them in the case of Jerome Bolsec, and believed that the worst that would befal their puppet would be banishment from the city and territory of Geneva. If they could but cross and spite the refugee Frenchman, their clerical tyrant, through thefugitive Spaniard, their end would be attained, although at the cost, perhaps, of a certain amount of inconvenience to their instrument. The conclusion of Servetus’s last address to the Council shows clearly the opinion he had been led to form of Calvin’s present position in Geneva. ‘As the magician he is,’ says Servetus, ‘he ought to be condemned, and cast out of your city, his property being adjudged to me in recompense for all I have lost through him!’ The Council appear to have taken no more notice of this last address and demand of their prisoner than they had of his preceding more reasonable petitions and remonstrances.

The pause in the proceedings that ensued, pending the receipt of replies from the Churches consulted; the silence of the Council upon his letter and inculpation of Calvin, combined with the effects of continued imprisonment, anxiety, and hope deferred, on a body not of the strongest, would seem before long to have induced a frame of mind different from that so unmistakably displayed of late by the prisoner. The petition forwarded three weeks later to the Council is pitched in a much lower key than the one last presented.

Most noble Lords,—It is now about three weeks since I petitioned for an audience, and still have no reply. I entreat you for the love of Jesus Christ not to refuse me that you would grant to a Turk, when I ask for justice at your hands. I have, indeed, things of importance to communicate to you, very necessary to be known.As to what you may have commanded to be done for me in the way of cleanliness, I have to inform you that nothing has been done, and that I am in a more filthy plight than ever. In addition, I suffer terribly from the cold, and from colic, and my rupture, which cause me miseries of other kinds I should feel shame in writing about more particularly. It is very cruel that I am neither allowed to speak nor to have my most pressing wants supplied; for the love of God, Sirs, in pity or in duty, give orders in my behalf.From your prison of Geneva,Michael Servetus.October 10, 1553.

As to what you may have commanded to be done for me in the way of cleanliness, I have to inform you that nothing has been done, and that I am in a more filthy plight than ever. In addition, I suffer terribly from the cold, and from colic, and my rupture, which cause me miseries of other kinds I should feel shame in writing about more particularly. It is very cruel that I am neither allowed to speak nor to have my most pressing wants supplied; for the love of God, Sirs, in pity or in duty, give orders in my behalf.

From your prison of Geneva,Michael Servetus.

October 10, 1553.

This appeal to the duty as well as the compassion of the Council was the first of any he had addressed to it which met with an immediate response. One of the Syndics, attended by the Clerk of the Court, was commissioned to visit the prisoner, and inquire into his state, being requested, further, to see measures taken to have him furnished with the articles of clothing he required, so that the resolution formerly come to in this direction should no longer remain a dead letter.

October 19 and 23.A month had all but elapsed before the messenger to the Councils and Churches of the Protestant Swiss Cantons returned with the replies of the Magistrates and Pastors to the Documents submitted to them by the Council of Geneva. But he came at last. As the answers were in Latin, translations into French had to be made for the behoof of those among the councillors of Geneva who were indifferently versed in the Latin tongue. Some daysmore were required for this; so that though the messenger arrived on October 19, the papers in Latin and French were only ready on the 23rd, when they were laid before the Council, once more solemnly assembled in its judicial capacity, with the prisoner before them.

The Church of Berne which was the first referred to [and had its head pastor, Haller, as reporter of its conclusion?], blames Servetus not only for his heresies, but for his insolence and want of respect for Calvin.

He seems (says the report) to have thought himself at liberty to call in question all the most essential elements of our religion, to upset everything by new interpretations of Scripture, and to corrupt and throw all into confusion by reviving the poison of the ancient heresies.... We pray that the Lord will give you such a spirit of prudence, of counsel, and of strength, as will enable you to fence your Church and the other Churches from this pestilence, and that you will at the same time take no step that might be held unbecoming in a Christian magistracy.

The Church of Zürich [of which Bullinger must have been the reporter], replied at greater length than that of Berne, or, indeed, any of the other Churches, going minutely into the question of Servetus’s opinions, which are pronounced to be at once heretical and blasphemous. The Ministers of this Church are particular also in insisting on the propriety of upholding Calvin in his prosecution of the heretic.

We trust (say the pastors of Zürich), that the faith and zeal of Calvin, your pastor, and our brother, his noble devotion to the refugees and the pious, will not be suffered by youto be obscured by the unworthy accusations of this man, against whom, indeed, we think you ought to show the greater severity, inasmuch as our Churches have the evil reputation abroad of countenancing heretics, and even of favouring heresy. But the holy providence of God, they proceed, waxing in fervour, presents you at this moment with an opportunity of clearing yourselves as well as us, from such injurious imputations, if you but resolve to show yourselves vigilant, and well disposed to prevent the further spread of the poison. We do not doubt, indeed, that your Excellencies will act in this wise.

Schaffhausen was content to subscribe to all that had been said by Zürich (whose conclusion, consequently, had been communicated to it); but could not resist insinuating how it thought the Spaniard should be dealt with.

We do not doubt (say its Ministers) that you, with commendable prudence, will so repress this attempt of Servetus, that his blasphemies shall not be suffered to eat like a gangrene into the limbs of Christ. To use lengthy reasonings with a view to free him from his errors, would but be to rave with a madman.

The pastors of the Church of Basle [with Sulzer as reporter], the last consulted, are rejoiced to see Servetus in the hands of the magistrates of Geneva; feeling persuaded that they will not be wanting either in saintly zeal or Christian prudence, in finding a remedy for an evil that has already led to the ruin of vast numbers of souls. The theological culpability of the man is also much aggravated in their opinion by the obstinacy and insolence with which he persists inhis errors, instead of yielding to the reflections which imprisonment and the instructions of the pastors of Geneva ought to have led him to make.

We exhort you, therefore (they conclude), to use, as it seems you are disposed to do, all the means at your command to cure him of his errors, and so to remedy the scandals he has occasioned; or, otherwise, does he show himself incurably anchored in his perverse opinions, to constrain him, as is your duty, by the powers you have from God, in such a way that henceforth he shall not continue to disquiet the Church of Christ, and so make the end worse than the beginning. The Lord will surely grant you his spirit of wisdom and of strength to this end.

We thus see that the Churches, whilst they all agree in condemning, refrain from declaring in precise terms the kind of punishment they would have awarded the prisoner—they do not in so many words say they would have him put to death; but finding him guilty of heresy and blasphemy, they knew that by the law of the land he must die. Condemning him unequivocally, therefore, for his theological views, they, in fact, pronounce his doom. To have done so directly, would have been trenching on the rights of the Council of Geneva, by whom, under the circumstances, a covert wish was sure to be better taken than an open recommendation. And let us not overlook the base and selfish motive that underlies the severity counselled: by putting the heretical Spaniard to death, the Swiss Churches will free themselves from the imputation of favouring heresy!

So much for the conclusions and implied wishes of the Ministers. The Magistrates of the cities consulted, differ but little, if at all, from their Clergy. The Council of Berne express a hope that their brothers of Geneva will not allow the wickedness and evil intentions of their prisoner to make further head, all he says being so manifestly opposed to the Christian religion, which they think it must be his purpose to vilipend and do what in him lies to exterminate. They, therefore, ‘entreat the Senate of Geneva so to comport themselves—and they do not question their inclination in this—that such sectaries and disseminators of error as their prisoner shall no longer be suffered to sow in the Church of Christ.’

The reply of Berne is said by Calvin to have had greater influence on the Judges of Servetus than that of any of the other Councils. Geneva had oftener than once in former years been indebted to Berne for assistance in her straits, and still continued, to a considerable extent, under the influence of the Canton that was looked up to as Chief in the Swiss Confederation. The Magistrates of Berne, moreover, were more outspoken, perhaps, than those of any of the other Cantons.

But we discover, after all, that neither the Churches nor Councils were acting independently and of knowledge self-acquired of the business. The Clergy were dominated by Calvin, the Councils by the Clergy; and there appears to have been collusion and concert among the reporters both of the Churches and Senates.

Yesterday (September 26), (writes Haller of Berne, to Bullinger of Zürich) we received the documents in the case of Servetus, and have since been studying them in view of our reply. But we should like to know what your answer is before we send ours. We therefore entreat you immediately to inform us of its tenor. Yet wherefore so much ado! the man is a heretic, and the Church must get rid of him. Let me, however, I beseech you, speedily know the conclusion you have come to.

The Zürich pastor would seem to have been the most active of all the ministers in collecting and imparting information of a kind that would lead to unanimity of conclusion among the Churches and Councils. His friend, Ambrose Blaurer, acknowledging receipt of a letter from him communicating the decision of Zürich, says that he ‘had thought the pestilent Servetus, whose book he had read twenty years ago, must long since have been dead and buried.’ But the self-righteous man must add further: ‘We are surely tried by heresies and satanic abortions of the sort, in order that they who are steadfast in the faith may be made known.’ Sulzer of Basle has also been primed by him of Zürich, for, in reply to the intimation he has received of what has been done, he says that he, Sulzer, ‘is rejoiced to have heard of the arrest of Servetus in a quarter where it seems he may be effectually kept from infecting the Church with his heretical dogmas in time to come; although I know there be some who are violently opposed to Calvin’s proceedings, and the subserviency of the Senate in the business.’

So much for the Churches and Councils of the Cantons consulted; and how little the latter were disposed to act, or, indeed, were capable of acting of themselves, and on their own appreciation of the questions submitted to them, is made manifest by the letter which Haller wrote to Bullinger at this time:

I have to give you my best thanks, dear Sir and Brother, for your diligence in communicating with the Genevese [and, of course, with the Bernese also] so speedily. Our Council have been of the same mind as yours in their reply. We,as ordered by them, have exposed the principal errors of Servetus, article by article. When our Councillors had been made aware of their nature, they were so horror-struck, that I have no doubt, had the writer been in prison here, he would have been burned alive. But as the matters in question were very little intelligible to them, they desired that I should reply in a letter as from myself to the Council of Geneva. They added, however, from themselves, that they exhorted the Genevese so to deal with the poison that it should not, by any negligence of theirs, be suffered to spread to neighbouring districts; and, indeed, it has often happened that commotions in Geneva have extended from its walls and got footing within ours. I think I need not send you a copy of our reply, as it agrees so entirely in every respect with your own.Yours most truly,J. Haller.Berne: October 19, 1553.

Yours most truly,J. Haller.

Berne: October 19, 1553.

The Churches and Councils consulted, then, were at one in their condemnation of Servetus. But it has been presumed that ecclesiastical conclusion and innuendo backed by civilian assent, might still have failedto bring matters to the issue aimed at by the prosecution, had not political considerations intervened to complicate and sway judicial action. We are ready enough to believe that there was so much common sense in the Senate of Geneva, and such a feeling of the impossibility of attaining to absolute certainty in questions of dogmatic theology, that they were even more indisposed than they plainly show themselves to have been to come to a final decision in the case of their prisoner. But to assume that political considerations had the lead in the condemnation of Servetus, would, we venture to think, be a great mistake. To remove the prosecution from the sphere of theology to that of policy, were to take from it its chief interest and significance. But the arrest was made, the trial was begun, and the sentence was delivered exclusively on theological grounds. The political element that got mixed up with the business, was no more than an accident, and cannot truly be said to have influenced the judgment finally given. The four Swiss cantonal Councils and Churches which condemned Servetus, condemned him on theological grounds alone; they knew little or nothing of the political strife that agitated Geneva, and were not swayed by it in their decision.

Servetus himself, ill-advised and misled by those who had access to him, fully persuaded of the truth of his opinions, and relying on their consonance with Scripture, as he read it, may be said to have left his Judges one way only out of the difficult and delicateposition in which they found themselves; and this was by finding him guilty of the theological errors laid to his charge. He appeared to be opposed not only to every religious principle as known to them, and as understood alike by Catholics and Protestants, but he had used such objectionable language in speaking of subjects held so sacred as the Trinity and the Baptism of Infants, that even the most tolerant in the present day would find it inexcusable; how much less warrantable must it have appeared amid the universally prevalent intolerance of three centuries ago! Nevertheless, it may be that the mind of every member of the Council had not yet been made up as to thedegreeof the prisoner’s guiltiness, or even granting him guilty of everything imputed to him, that he, therefore, deserved to die; and die he must if they so declared him.

All the grounds for a definitive decree being before the Court on their meeting of the 23rd, we must presume that the sense of the members generally as to the guiltiness of the prisoner had been ascertained, and that the opinion of the majority to this effect was only not formulated and pronounced because of the absence of some of the leading Councillors—that of Amied Perrin, the first Syndic, being particularly remarked. An adjournment was therefore moved; but to afford no further excuse for delay in bringing the protracted business of the Servetus Trial to an end, summonses for a special session on the 26th wereordered to be issued. Doubtful of the decision, as it might seem, and anxious for delay in consequence of the tenor of the letters from the Churches, Perrin had absented himself from the meeting of the 23rd, through indisposition, as he said himself, throughfeignedindisposition, according to Calvin, as we learn from a letter of his to his friend Farel of the 26th, in which he speaks of his great political antagonist by the derisive title ofCæsar comicus. Meantime, the members of the Court present determined to proceed to the gaol, and inform the prisoner of their purpose to have him before them with the least possible delay, to hear their final award. Before taking their leave, and as if to intimate to the unhappy Servetus what was to follow, they placed him under the care of two special warders, who were to hold themselves responsible with their lives for his safe custody.

The unusual visit of his Judges, and the additional guard set over him must, we should imagine, have sent a chill to the heart of the unfortunate Servetus, and gone far to damp out the hope he had been led to entertain either of acquittal or a sentence short of that which he knew Calvin had made up his mind from the first to extort. Yet does he not appear even now to have thought it possible that his Judges would condemn him to death. Self-conscious rectitude alone, and a better belief than it deserved in the world’s will to do justly and mercifully, had blinded him to the fate that awaited him.

During the three days’ pause that now ensued, some faint show of sympathy for the prisoner was manifested outside the walls of the Council chamber; but it came from no one of weight or standing in the Republic. Zebedee, the pastor of Noyon, a known opponent of Calvin on some of his theological tenets, and Gribaldo, an Italian by birth, by profession a lawyer, now a refugee from his home for conscience’ sake, were bold enough to proffer something in his behalf; Gribaldo even going so far as to defend certain of his conclusions, and having a word to say in favour of toleration. But he was not backed by the congregation of his countrymen, domiciled in Geneva, so that the move he made had no result. The show of opposition on the part of the Italian to his sovereign will and pleasure was not, however, forgotten by Calvin. Denounced by him at a later period for irregularity of some sort, in contravention of consistorial law, Gribaldo found it advisable for safety’s sake to quit Geneva.

Still there were not wanting many, both laymen and clerics, natives of Geneva, as well as refugees, devoutly attached to Calvinistic doctrines, who showed a lively repugnance to pushing matters the length of capital punishment in cases of heresy; the instinctive feeling of all pointing to this as the conclusion aimed at by the prosecution. For Reformers—heretics themselves in the eyes of the dominant European Church—to have recourse to measures that appeared in such an odious light when brought into requisition by RomanCatholics, seemed illogical, unwarrantable, and dangerous. But the number who raised their voices in this direction was small. The prisoner was not an object of interest to the Libertine party in general; a stranger in Geneva, he was in some sort the particular puppet of Perrin and Berthelier, rather than the representative of a principle. Even to the leaders he was nothing more than a counter in the political game of the day. In a word, and in so far as anything was known about him to the public, the man entertained extraordinary, and what seemed blasphemous opinions on religion, as they had learned to understand the word, and so must be a wicked and worthless person, who might safely be left to be dealt with by the ministers and civil authorities in the way they judged best.

Calvin, at this momentous juncture, maintained an attitude of entire confidence as to the pending decision. He had been informed of the tenor of the letters received from the Swiss cities; and, aware of their uniform agreement in the theological culpability of Servetus, he could rely on the effect this must produce on the minds of the Judges. He seems even to have thought it unnecessary any longer to exert the special influence he could always bring to bear on any question in debate before the Council—he refrained from preaching against the prisoner and holding him up as a blasphemer against God and religion, as had been his wont.

October 26.—The Council, in its capacity of HighCourt of Criminal Justice, solemnly convoked for this day, was well attended, though not quite complete as to numbers; Amied Perrin, cured of his indisposition, presiding.

The Governing Body of the Republic of Geneva consisted, as we have seen, of two extreme and mutually opposed parties—the Libertines, or patriots, and the Clericals, or abettors of Calvin and theocratic rule. Each of these had representatives in the Council whose voices could be implicitly relied on. But—as in all general assemblies that ever came together, there are still found a certain number of neutrals or waverers, men of no strong convictions one way or another; too weak in some cases to rely on themselves and act independently; too strong in others to be led by any convictions but their own, whose votes could make the balance incline one way or another, so were they not wanting in the Council of Geneva at this time. Now, in the fateful meeting of October 26, it was observed that several of the most constant opponents of Calvin had absented themselves, whilst not one of his regular supporters failed to appear.

The resolution to be come to was delicate, on matters unfamiliar, and apt to excite the scruples of the conscientious and timid. It was the life of no brutal offender against person or property, no criminal, in fact, save by construction, that was in debate, but that of a scholar of varied accomplishments, against whom no social delinquency had been charged, or, ifcharged, which had not been rebutted, and fallen to the ground. Yet was this man accused of heresy and blasphemy against God and religion, not only by the distinguished head of the Church of Geneva and its other ministers, but was now found guilty of these theological crimes, involving, as they were said to do, disruption of the entire social fabric, by every one of the Confederate Churches and Councils consulted. What, forsooth, could be urged in behalf of him who had spoken of the Trinity as a three-headed monster, comparable to the hell-dog of the heathen poets, and declared the Baptism of Infants to be an invention of the devil?

And then, and yet more, it was not by the Reformed Churches only that the prisoner had been challenged for heresy, and found guilty; he had been tried and convicted on this ground by their neighbours the Roman Catholics of Vienne, been burned in effigy by them along with his books, and only escaped burning in person by breaking from his prison. The Genevese, moreover, had been frequently reproached as well by papists as by professors of other forms of Christianity akin to their own, with laxity in matters of doctrine, and even called abettors of heresy and shelterers of heretics; and they had, indeed, been invaded of late by a host of individuals fleeing for their lives, through entertaining all manner of new and hitherto unheard-of opinions on religion.

Weary on every side of wranglings upon subjectsthey did not understand, the clerical party in the Senate would not be thought less than zealous for the true Faith—the Faith which was their own; whilst the more timid of their adversaries sought excuse and escape from responsibility by absenting themselves at the moment the vote must be given on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. But everything at the moment conspired to associate theological dissidence with social criminality, and to make of the independent critic of particular religious dogmas the enemy of all religion.

In the light, therefore, in which Servetus was regarded, his cause was not seen as one through which, in the event of a decision in his favour, the Liberal party in the Council of Geneva might hope to find greater freedom to lead their lives in the way they listed; neither, through a sentence adverse to him, was it one through which they foresaw that the iron hand of Calvin would be made either lighter or heavier than it was. There were, in fact, more reasons for letting Calvin have his way here than for opposing him—for suffering Servetus to burn, than for saving his life. The Council had been hard upon the Reformer of late, and were not disposed to quarrel with him in a matter that had but a remote connection with their domestic concerns. Backed as their great theologian was by the Swiss Churches, they believed that they might safely and with propriety now show themselves on his side, by condemning the heretic to death.

The meeting of the Court on the 26th, then, not so fully attended as we have said by the usual opponents of Calvin as by his supporters, had to face the painful duty of pronouncing sentence on their prisoner at last. A resolution finding him guilty of the charges alleged, and so deserving of death, must now have been moved by one of the members—by whom we are not informed—for we find it immediately met, on the part of Perrin, by a counter-resolution, declaring him not guilty. Perrin, we must presume, maintained that the charges were not of a nature that fell properly under their cognisance as a Court of Criminal Justice. Nothing had been brought home to the prisoner that showed him to be a disturber of the public peace, and so came within the sphere of what he held to be their proper jurisdiction. Perrin must, therefore, have argued that the Court could only pronounce him not guilty. But this would plainly have been to stultify the whole of their proceedings during the last two months and more. The Court, by the laws of the country, was competent in causes of every complexion, and the prosecution had proceeded from the first on the ground of theological criminality. The proposition of the First Syndic, consequently, could not be entertained, but was rejected as a matter of course. Perrin then moved that the cause should be remitted to the Council of the Two Hundred. But this proposal was also negatived: the General Council in its capacity of Criminal Court, could not waive its right of decision ina case in which its competence was recognised, and such ample pains had been taken to get at the merits of the case. Perrin must then, doubtless, have pleaded for some punishment short of the extreme penalty of death awarded to the heretic by the law of the land. This last effort failing like the others, and the Records of the Court giving no intimation of any further motion in favour of the prisoner, the following resolution was moved, and by a majority of votes adopted:

‘Having a summary of the process against the prisoner, Michael Servetus, and the reports of the parties consulted before us, it is hereby resolved, and, in consideration of his great errors and blasphemies, decreed, that he be taken to Champel, and there burned alive; that this sentence be carried into effect on the morrow, and that his books be burned with him.’98

Back to Index Next