1846.] Hypocrisy and Falsehood of Servetus. 69 dinner on the same day of the arrest, the tribunal was assembled in the apartment where capital sentences were pronounced in the palace of Justice. The accused person was introduced and according to the custom of the time made to take oath upon the Gospel, that he would speak only the truth. But instead of acting in accordance with his solemn promise, he spoke anything but the truth. How pitiable and base was such conduct! How unworthy the name of man and especially of Christian! How art thou fallen, thou who didst claim to be one of Michael's host! The tribunal asked for some explanations of the remarks upon the leaves of the Institutes, and Servetus was incautious enough to give them, thus implying that he was the author. When he found that he was entrapped, and that his life was in jeopardy, he expressed doubts whether he was the author of the remarks, and renounced his views so often expressed upon baptism, professed himself a believer in the Orthodox doctrine, and subjected himself in all things to the church as to his Holy Mother. At the second examination the next day, when Servetus perceived that his letters to Calvin were before the judges, he lost all courage and in order to free himself from the dilemma, invented a falsehood, which was as foolish as it was dastardly. With many tears he said: " My Lords I will confess the truth. Five and twenty years ago when I was in Germany, there was printed at Hagenau a book of a certain Servetus, a Spaniard. I know not from whence he came. Since I corresponded with Calvin at that time, he wrote to me as Servetus, because there was a similarity in our persons, and I sustained his character. But for ten years I have not written him, and I protest before God and these Lords, that I have never published anything against the church or proclaimed doctrines counter to the Christian religion." Several letters were then shown in which his heretical dogmas were plainly expressed. He did not disown the letters, but supposed he had expressed the thoughts which came into his mind at the time, but which were no part of his settled belief. When the examination was resumed in the afternoon of the same day, other letters were read, to which he gave substantially the same answers as before: He did not assert what was found to be heretical in them, but only what his judges and the church would approve. So much has been said by the enemies of Calvin, in reference to his betraying trust, by giving up Servetus' letters, that we cannot forbear to enumerate two or three of the circumstances which have a bearing upon the matter, leaving our readers to draw their own conclusions in regard to his criminality. In the first place, the letters were forced upon Calvin, after he had desired to have no more communication with Servetus, and of course were not confidential letters. In the next place, a friend of Calvin, in defending his fellow Christians whose heroic martyr-cries were wafted to Geneva on every northern breeze, had brought upon himself the unjust suspicion of preferring false charges against one, who richly deserved them; and if his charge was not sustained, reproach would fall upon the truth, and the persecutor would be armed with new courage and new instruments of torture. Ought not then his earnest solicitations that Calvin would furnish the necessary documents for substantiating his assertions, to have been heeded? Would not Calvin have been recreant to his faith, if he had left Trie unaided? Besides, the contents of the letters, as far as they would be used at Vienne, were of pub. lic interest, and according to Calvin's convictions, of vital consequence to the church at large, and especially to the civil and religious community in Geneva. If then, by giving up the manuscripts which had been so ungraciously urged upon him, he could prevent the farther spread of impious and heretical dogmas, could he in conscience withhold them ?1 Considerable liberty had been granted to Servetus during his trial, and valuable presents, left for him by visitors who were permitted to see him in prison, show that he was not without friends in Vienne. Early the next morning after his last examination, he arose, dressed himself, and putting his dressing-gown over his other clothes, and a velvet cap upon his head, asked the jailor for the key to the garden in which he had been allowed to walk. It was readily given him, and the jailor went with the workmen As a good illustration of the wholesale slanders and falsehood which are but too common in speaking of Calvin, I quote a passage from the Speech of Lord Brougham on the Maynooth Grant, as given in the Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser of Sat. June 28, 1845: "By acts of the most atrocious perfidy, by opening letters, he [Calvin] entrapped Servetus to Geneva, and there, because he suspected him of Socinian doctrines, after a mockery of a trial had him buried [burned?] alive." We suppose that "opening letters" must have reference to the giving up of the letters, mentioned above, for we have yet to learn that there is any special atrocity or perfidy, in opening letters addressed to one's self for personal perusal. That Calvin not only did not entrap Servetus to Geneva,' but even refused to grant him his protection if he came there, has already been seen. Furthermore, that there was something more than a "mockery of a trial," and that Servetus was far enough from being buried alive, we think, will appear in the sequel. · 1846.] Servetus burned in Effigy at Vienne. 71 to the vineyard. Servetus had previously noticed, that it was easy to pass from this garden upon the roof of an out-building, and from that, upon a wall from which he could let himself down into the court of the royal palace, and escape thence through the gate and over the bridge of the Rhone. He accordingly made good use of his time and had been gone some hours before his absence was noticed. When it was found that he had gone, a frightful tumult was made about the prison and in the city. Doors were broken open and houses searched; but the captive was free. Nothing was heard of him until three days after, when a countrywoman reported that she had seen him pass. The trial proceeded after Servetus' escape, as if he had been present. The judges were at last persuaded that the Restitutio was printed in secret in Vienne. They then proceeded to make a synopsis of the errors contained in it, and on the 17th of June condemned its author to be burned at the stake. Until they could get possession of him, they decided that he should be burned in effigy. Arnoullet made it appear that he was assured by Gueroult that the Restitutio was an eutirely harmless book, and was set at liberty. Gueroult probably saved himself by flight. On the same day in which the sentence was passed, the executioner carried the effigy of Servetus with five bales of books upon a cart, from the palace to the market place, and thence to the Place de Charneve, and there suspended it upon a gallows and caused it, with the books, to be slowly consumed by fire. The wealth which Servetus had acquired was found to be so considerable, that a nobleman applied to the king for it for his son, and his request was granted. The Arrest and Trial of Servetus at Geneva. Servetus, after his escape from Vienne, designed to go to Naples and establish himself as physician there. He did not venture to pass through Piedmont lest he should be discovered by his popish persecutors, and after wandering for a month in France, he took the route through Switzerland. About the middle of July at evening, a man was seen silently entering the gate of the ancient city of Geneva on foot, having left his horse at a small village near, where he had passed the preceding night. He stopped at a little Inn called Auberge de la Rose, upon the banks of the lake. There was something in the bearing of the stranger, in the enthusiasm which shone through his dark, glowing, south ern eye, in the ease and familiarity of his conversation, which attracted the notice of the people of the Inn and led them to attempt to learn something about him by questions. In answer to the inquiry whether he was married he replied: On trouve bien assez de femmes sans se marier. This man was soon seen going to the church where Mr. Calvin preached. To any one acquainted with the life of the stranger, the circumstances of his escape from Vienne, the admonition which he received in respect to coming to Geneva, especially if they had heard him say as he was accustomed to do, that it was by means of accusations made by Calvin that he was first arrested, his conduct should seem so unaccountable as to suggest the suspicion that he was Insensate left, or to sense reprobate, And with blindness internal struck. No wonder is it that Calvin himself said: "Nescio quid dicam, nisi fatali vesania fuisse correptum ut se praecipitem jaceret." After remaining a month in Geneva, Servetus proposed to go to Zurich, and ordered a boat to convey him over the lake. But just as he had made preparations for departure on the 13th of August, 1553, a sheriff appeared and arrested him in the name of the council. How it became known that Servetus was in the city, does not appear. Some relate that he was recognized in church. Musculus says, that he wished to take advantage of the disaffection of some of the principal citizens against Calvin, in order to disseminate farther his own heretical principles and make disturbance. If it were so, his presence in the city would not probably long remain a secret from Calvin. Be this as it may, it seems that Calvin was the immediate cause of the arrest. He speaks of it in several letters, and expresses the firmest confidence that by taking measure, for silencing or causing a retraction of the blasphemous teachings of this man, he was rendering a service to God, to the church and to humanity. It is perfectly evident that Calvin felt it to be his imperative duty to inform the council that Servetus was in the city. Not only his love for the truth, but the civil law of the city which had come down from the previous dominion of the Emperors, requiring the infliction of the same punishment upon heretics and those guilty of high-treason, made it his duty to give this information to the council. It appears, how He says in his Refutation of the Errors of Servetus: Nec sane dissimulo mea opera consilioque jure in carcerem fuisse conjectum. Quia recepto hujus civitatis jure criminis reum peragere oportuit, causam hujusque me esse prose 1846.] The Arraignment of Servetus at Geneva. 73 ever, that Calvin had little expectation that the issue of the trial would be such as it proved to be, in consequence of the obstinacy and blindness of the Spaniard. Calvin wished only to prevent the evil which he believed the dissemination of such impious dogmas was causing, and had no malicions designs upon the life of his enemy. He says: "No danger of a more severe punishment threatened him, if he had only been reclaimable (sanabilis)."-"I wish this only to be known, that I felt no such hostility to him that he could not have saved his life, by the simple exercise of discretion (sola modestia), if he had not been insane." He also later exclaims in sorrow for his fate: "if we could only have obtained from Servetus as from Gentilis a retraction!" Still he all the time felt that Servetus was deserving of the most summary punishment if he did not change his course. And thus during his trial, when speaking of his dogmas and his conduct, in letters to Farel, he frequently expresses the hope that he will receive capital punishment, but wishes it to be in a mild form.1 Nicholas de la Fontaine, a student and scribe of Calvin, who had been six years with him, and was well grounded in theological knowledge, immediately appeared as complainant, according to the Genevan law, that the accuser, in case the accused is found guiltless, shall subject himself to the punishment due to the crime for which the accusation is made. His arrest met with general approbation, for Servetus was looked upon by all good citizens as an outlaw. The next day after the arrest, La Fontaine, in order to show his heresy, brought forward thirty-eight (or forty) propositions which Calvin had prepared. To the first thirty-six articles Servetus freely answered, acknowledged himself the author of the Restitutio, and said that he did not think that he had uttered anything blasphemous, but if it could be shown that he had, he would retract. When objection was made to the seventh article, upon the Trinity, he professed to believe in a Trinity, but understood by person something different from the modern doctrine. His book was adduced as a proof, that by inveighing against Cal cutum fateor. And again: Qui non dissimulo, me auctore factum esse ut in hac urbe deprehensus ad causam dicendam postularetur. Obstrepant licet vel malevoli vel maledici homines, ego libenter fateor ac prae me fero, (quia secundum urbis leges aliter cum homine jure agi non poterat,) ex me prodisse accusatorem. 1 Spero capitale saltem fore judicium, poenae vero atrocitatem remitti cupio. Letter to Farel, Aug. 20, 1553. 2 Not an ignorant servant, as the opponents of Calvin pretend. |