ADDITIONAL NOTES

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

TO THE LIFE OF CALVIN.

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

THE following notes are thrown together in a separate form, because their length rendered it impracticable to place them at the bottom of the pages on which they respectively occur.

NOTE A.

When Calvin returned from the Diet of Worms, he wrote to Farel the following account of the matter: “We have at length returned home, after an absence of almost three months. Our delay was occasioned by our adversaries, who constantly were devising new artifices to delude us by spinning out the time. When the Emperor, was said to be approaching, we supposed that they would have a good pretext for their own justification. For during the whole period they had eluded any conference by the most impudent shufflings; and why did they not pretend that they could have no consultation, since the Emperor was now going to Ratisbon to hold the Diet? But when all were preparing to depart, they unexpectedly gave us an opportunity for a conference. They were perhaps apprehensive, that they could not escape the accusation of dishonesty, if they did not commence, at least in appearance, when we had submitted to all their obtrusive conditions. For they had spent a whole month in proposing absurdities for our admission, expecting that by our refusal, they should have an ostensible reason for accusing us with having prevented the conference. By our patience, we frustrated all their expectations, by yielding to every condition which did not materially affect injuriously the cause of truth. At length the colloquy was opened. Eckius, being chosen by our adversaries for their advocate, commenced with a speech of two hours.

Melancthon answered more concisely. After dinner, Eckius again proceeded boisterously. On the following day, Philip answered him with great moderation. Eckius spoke again after dinner. The judges then pronounced, that they had disputed long enough about that article. To the injustice of this sentence we objected, that it was intolerable that our adversaries should both open and close the debate. But Granville persisted in his sentence with the inflexible obstinacy of an Areopagite. Permission was obtained for our advocate to speak again, on condition, however, that our adversaries should close the dispute. On the following day, Philip closed his argument, and Eckius, with more moderation than usual, ended the debate. I will not attempt to describe the monkish fastidiosity, the great audacity, insolence, and impudence, with which this ostentatious man vociferated. Imagine to yourself a barbarous sophist, exulting foolishly among his illiterate companions, and you will have the half of Eckius. — Granville having assembled the Diet, read the Emperor’s letter by which it was dissolved; and the promise was given, that he would examine the unfinished business at Ratisbon.”

Calvin also attended the Diet at Ratisbon, and from that place thus writes to Farel concerning the meeting: “Many most splendid embassies have arrived from foreign nations.

Cardinal Contarinus, the legate of the Pope, on his entering the town, scattered over us so many signs of the cross, that his arm, I apprehend, did not recover in two days from the painful labor. The bishop of Modena was sent as a special Nuncio. Contarinus would have us submit without bloodshed, and labors by all means to complete the business without having recourse to arms. The Nuncio is for bloodshed, and has nothing but war in his mouth.

Both agree in cutting off all hopes of amicable discussion. The Venitian ambassador is a man of great pomp and parade. The English, besides the resident minister, have sent the bishop of Winchester with a splendid retinue, a man too maliciously cunning.

The ambassadors of Portugal, and several others, I omit to name.

The king of France has sent Velius, an importunate blockhead. In mentioning the princes, I passed over all the dregs of the order of Pfaci, excepting John Pfaf, elector of Mentz. The bishops assembled in great numbers, — the bishops of Ratisbon, Augsburg, Spires, Bremen, Saltzburg, Brescia, Worms, Bamberg, Hildesheim, and some others. — It would be in vain to conjecture what will be the result of this Diet.” “The confederates are desirous of having an audience; and if they can hope for no confidence or lasting peace, until there is an agreement in religious matters, and the Churches established in order, they will urge the imperial Chamber to consider this subject with care and attention. They are anxious that all dissensions should be ended without tumult, and detesting war as the certain ruin of this country, they show themselves the decided enemies of all violent measures. “Our opponents are divided into three parties. The first are for proclaiming war, and openly raved because it was not commenced the first day. Of this class, the leaders are the elector of Mentz, the Bavarian dukes, Henry of Brunswick, and his brother the bishop of Bremen. The second class wish to consult the good of their country, whose ruin or devastation they foresee will be the calamitous effect of war, and they of course exert all their powers to effect a peace of any kind without a settlement of religion. The third would willingly admit a tolerable correction of ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline, but being either deficient in the knowledge of the truth, or in fortitude to avow themselves abettors of these opinions, they go forward apparently seeking only the public tranquillity. Among this class are the bishop of Cologne and the bishop of Augsburg among the Ecclesiastics; both of the brothers of the Palatine, Otho, their grandson, and perhaps the duke of Cleves, among the princes. Those are the small number who are endeavoring to excite tumults, and being opposed by all the good, they cannot effect their wishes. The mind of the Emperor is entirely inclined to peace, and to obtain it he will contend with all his strength, putting off his care for the cause of religion to some future time. The confederates will not easily yield to this, but persist in demanding the reformation of the Church. We hope to effect something. “The Pope’s legate, with his usual solemnity, entreats us not to determine on violent measures; but violent measures, in his view, are any discussions about religion, or any consultation concerning the reformation of the Church, held without the authority of his master. They openly profess to encourage the Diet which we ask, and still secretly oppose its appointment by great promises and high threats. Contarinus professes to wish that we might be subdued without bloodshed; but if this cannot be done, and the Emperor will have recourse to arms, they are prepared to furnish him with large sums of money. While, at the same time, if he yields to any measure disagreeable to the Romish tyrant, they threaten him with those thunders with which they are accustomed to shake the whole earth. The state of things in Italy makes the Emperor anxious for his power. If he can, he will therefore take refuge there, in order, without meddling with religion, to place Germany in a more composed state, by a temporary peace, or a truce for a few years. In this he will be opposed. Thus you see that affairs are in such obscurity, that there is no place for probable conjecture. In these perplexities, let us invoke the name of the Lord, and beseech him to govern, by his wisdom, this great and weighty cause, so deeply interesting to his glory and the safety of his Church; and to manifest, in this crisis, that nothing is more precious in his sight, than that celestial wisdom which he has revealed to us in the Gospel, and those souls which he has redeemed by the sacred blood of his Son. In proportion as all things are uncertain, we must stir up our minds with the more assiduous zeal in our supplications. Casting our views over the whole progress of our affairs, we find that the Lord has governed events in a wonderful manner, without the aid or the counsels of men; and made them prosperous beyond all: our most sanguine hopes. In these difficulties, let us rest entirely on that wisdom and power which he has so often displayed in our protection.”

In another letter to Farel, he thus writes: “Our advocates passed from the subject of original sin, without difficulty. The disputation on free will followed, and was amicably settled, according to the opinion of Augustine. This harmony was somewhat interrupted by the contention about the meritorious cause of justification. At length, a formula was presented; and, after passing through various corrections on both sides, it was admitted. It will doubtless surprise you, that our adversaries made concessions so extensively favorable to our cause. I enclose a copy of the formula. The confederates have retained the principal doctrines of divine truth, and nothing was admitted into this formula contradictory to the Scriptures. You will, without question, desire a more full explanation, and in this respect we shall be perfectly agreed. But a moment’s reflection, upon the characters of the persons with whom we have to transact this business, will convince you, that we have effected much beyond our expectations. In the definition of the Church, the advocates were agreed; but an extensive and unyielding controversy arose about the government; and the article, by mutual consent, was omitted.

On the sacraments, they had some warm contention; but when ours admitted, that the ceremonies were a medium, they proceeded to the Supper. This was an insurmountable rock. Changing the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, replacing the host, carrying it about, and other superstitious practices, were rejected. This was considered, by the Romish advocates, as an insufferable step. Bucer, my colleague, being wholly bent on unity, was incensed that these controverted questions were moved so prematurely. Melancthon was inclined to the opinion, that all hope of pacification should be cut off, about things so entirely corrupt.

Our advocates, having assembled us for consultation, demanded our individual opinions. We were unanimous, in our judgment, that transubstantiation was a mere fiction; that laying up the host was superstitious; and that the worship paid to it was idolatry, or at least very pernicious, as it was not warranted by the word of God.

I was requested to give my opinion in Latin, and although I understood not the opinions of the others, I freely, and without fear of giving offense, condemned the doctrine of the local presence, and declared that the worshipping of the host was intolerable. Believe me, in such cases, determined and resolute minds have a very great influence in establishing the opinions of others. Cease not to pray to God to support us with the spirit of fortitude. Melancthon drew up a writing, which being presented to Granville, was rejected with abusive language, which our three advocates announced to us. If, at the very commencement of the discussion, we have to encounter such difficulties, what an accumulation of them still remains to interrupt our progress, through the examination of the private mass, the sacrifice and communication of the cup? What obstacles will lie across our way when we come to the open profession of the real presence? What tumults will then be raised?”

In another letter to Farel, he thus writes: “The messenger having delayed his departure a day longer than I expected, I write again, to mention some things which have taken place, and which may be interesting to you. Granville, although he had destroyed by his answer all hope of agreement, when he heard of the apoplexy of Eckius, whose importunity he perhaps supposed had prevented the agreement, commanded that Pistorius should also be excluded, and that the other four should proceed in their consultations without witnesses. As far as I could understand, our advocates might have easily accomplished the business, if we would have been contented to be half Christians.

Philip and Bucer framed an ambiguous and deceptive confession concerning transubstantiation, endeavoring, as far as possible, to satisfy their adversaries, without yielding any thing. I am not pleased with this method of proceeding. They however have a motive which guides them. They indulge the hope that the things will manifest themselves, whenever there shall be an opening for the true doctrines. They prefer to pass over present difficulties, regardless of the consequences of that flexible mode of expression.

But in my opinion, this will be very injurious to the cause. I am persuaded, however, that they have the best interests of religion at heart, and are extremely anxious to advance the kingdom of Christ.

Our advocates are decided and prompt to every thing; but in their intercourse with our opponents they are too temporizing. It grieves me, that Bucer is exciting against himself the displeasure of so many persons. Being conscious of his own integrity, he expects more security from it than circumstances will warrant. We should not be so satisfied with our purity of conscience as to throw off all regard to the opinions of our brethren.”

NOTE B.

Perhaps no man has ever been more slandered and calumniated by the enemies of truth, nor more respected and venerated by its friends, than John Calvin. Not only have the doctrines which he taught, been grossly misrepresented and shamefully caricatured, but his life has been charged with the grossest immoralities. To disparage or to praise the illustrious dead, is generally a matter of fashion, and secondhand retailing, with those who are the most extravagant in either. Hence there are to be found those who bestow unbounded applause upon the Iliad or AEneid, without ever having seen either; as well as those who lavish with a most unsparing hand, upon the Geneva Reformer and his doctrines, the stereotyped calumnies of his enemies, without a knowledge of the character of either.

This persecuting spirit discovered itself even while Calvin was yet alive, and in self-defense he published a tract entitled “Calumniae Nebulonis cujusdam adversus doctrinam Calvini de occulta Dei Providentia et ad eas ejusdem Calvini Responsio.” While his enemies were charging him with persecuting Servetus, they seemed not to be aware that they were also persecuting him, and endeavoring to destroy what he valued far more than life, namely his character and usefulness. It is not infrequently the case, that those who raise the cry of persecution in order to excite public sympathy in behalf of any individual, at the same time seem not to know that they may be cruelly persecuting the very individuals on whom they labor to bring public odium. So it was with the calumniators of Calvin.

It is a striking fact that this eminent Reformer, to use the language of the Christian Observer, has borne the blame of many an erroneous opinion, both doctrinal and practical, which he spent his life in opposing; and of which no confutation could be found, in the whole circuit of theology, more masterly than his own scriptural commentaries. The Christian Observer proceeds to remark thus: “It should be observed in common justice to Calvin, that his very highest notions of absolute decrees are by his own representations, as entirely practical in their results as any opinion gathered from the decalogue; that he himself would be the last man to defend the religion of a licentious predestinarian; nay, that he would utterly deny any such character to be possessed of a particle of genuine faith; but, on the contrary, would view him as a practical atheist, whose speculations about grace were only a species of more elaborate blasphemy. “Consistently with the fundamental principle of the Reformation, Calvin went directly to the Bible, and not by the circuitous route of councils and fathers; although he frequently refers to them with much veneration, and has indeed constructed the work before us f43 in the order of the Apostle’s Creed, considering it to be a brief compend of Christianity, of high antiquity, though not of inspired origin. He seems to have been perfectly aware (as we have been lately and truly reminded) that the introduction of the fathers into the ranks of controversy, as decisive authorities, was as impolitic as the obsolete practice of bringing elephants into battle; such allies being, in the contingencies of an engagement dangerous alike to both armies. f44 “Liberated, however, as he was, from ecclesiastical fetters, yet well knowing the dangers resulting from independence, there was, to a serious mind, a third consideration, which if duly regarded, would certainly restore the equilibrium when disturbed by the other causes; namely, that having no accredited church to lean upon on the one hand; and, on the other, being at the disposal of an individual not to be trusted, (for every religious man is suspicious of himself,) the only resource was the volume of inspiration; and this resource was happily a safe and effectual one. To this infallible guide, therefore, he resorted; and, if he misunderstood, darkened, or perverted what he found in the Bible, he uniformly says, there is my doctrine, and here is its authority; than which nothing can be a more simple and Christian method of proceeding. It is referring the objector from the deduction to the principle; and inviting him to examine, not only the process of the reasoner’s logic, but the truth of the premises with which he sets out, and of the conclusions at which he arrives. How different is this appeal to the common standard of the Christian world, from the fides carbonaria of such papists, or papal Protestants, as grope in voluntary darkness amidst the noonday blaze of revelation!”

Chambers, in his Dictionary, represents one tenet of Calvinism to be that God gives to man “a necessitating grace which takes away the freedom of the will.” And yet to repel this slander was one object which Calvin had in view, in writing his “Book of Scandals.” It had been also charged against Calvin, that his views of the divine sovereignty made God the author of sin. “To check the growth of these errors,” says Waterman in his life of Calvin, “and to vindicate the cause of Christ and the Reformation from reproach, Calvin published, June 1, 1544, his Instructions against the errors and fanaticism of the Anabaptists and Libertines. In his arguments against the latter, he points out, with great clearness, the nature of the divine sovereignty, its absolute exercise over man, a fallen, depraved, but still amoral and accountable being, he exposes, with a strong hand, the absolute falsity of the libertine position, that God, as the cause of all things, is the efficient cause of evil, or author of sin. He rejects these assertions as blasphemous, while he maintains the scriptural doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. Calvin discriminated dearly the limits which bounded the human intellect on that subject, and wisely stopped short of that duplex labyrinthus, double labyrinth, as he calls it, which lies beyond the light of revelation. Neither Augustine, Calvin nor Edwards, who thought and wrote much concerning the sovereignty of God, will probably ever be surpassed in intellect, in acquisitions or distinct apprehensions in the science of morals, or the doctrines of religion.

They neither ventured themselves, nor have they given license to others, but have left many warning counsels to prevent even their attempts to intrude into the secret things which belong to God.” f50 Jortin, in his second dissertation, is guilty of a similar misrepresentation of Calvinism. The learning of so distinguished a divine forbids us to ascribe to ignorance, what seems to have arisen from a less pardonable failure. He says, “they (the Calvinists) held a Synod at Deft, and established their Calvinistical decrees by cruel insolence and oppression.” And a little after, in the following anecdote, he tells us what this Calvinism was: “Two of their (Calvinistic) divines, elated with victory, insulted a poor fellow who was a Remonstrant, and said, what are you thinking on, with that grave and woeful face? I was thinking, gentlemen, said he, of a controverted question, who was the author of sin? Adam shifted it off from himself, and laid it to his wife; she laid it to the serpent; the serpent who was then young and bashful, had not a word to say for himself; but afterwards growing older and more audacious, he went to the Synod of Dort, and there had the assurance to charge it upon God.”

Jortin proceeds to state that in England, almost all persons of any note for learning and abilities, have bid adieu to Calvinism, have sided with the Remonstrants, and have left the fatalists to follow their own opinions, f51 and to rejoice (since they can rejoice) in a religious system, consisting of human creatures without liberty, doctrines without sense, faith without reason, and a God without mercy. “This system,” continues Jortin, “so far as it relates to the eternal misery of infants for the fault of Adam, is the very fable of the wolf and the lamb.” This fable we need not repeat, as it is familiar to all the readers of AEsop.

Jortin then quotes Bernard, a father and a saint of the twelfth century, as saying “Nothing burns in hell but our own wills,” and remarks that he is highly to be commended for being the father of so good an aphorism, which is worth half his writings, and all his miracles. Now, in all this can be seen a continued misrepresentation of Calvinism; and just such as Calvin himself has again and again refuted, and branded as calumny.

It were well if all who undertake to refute or to ridicule Calvinism, would listen to the advice of bishop Horsley. In his primary charge to the clergy of the diocese of St. Asaph, he says, “Take especial care, before you aim your shafts at Calvinism, that you know what is Calvinism, and what is not; that in the mass of doctrine which of late it is become the fashion to abuse, under the name of Calvinism, you can distinguish with certainty between that part of it which is nothing better than Calvinism, and that which belongs to our common Christianity, and the general faith of the Reformed churches; lest, when you fall foul of Calvinism, you should unwarily attack something more sacred, and of higher origin. I must say,” adds that able prelate, “that I have found great want of this discrimination in some late controversial writings on the side of the church (of England), as they were meant to be, against the Methodists; the authors of which have acquired much applause and reputation, but with so little real knowledge of their subject, that give me the principles upon which these writers argue, and I will undertake to convict, I will not say Arminians only, and archbishop Laud, but upon these principles, I will undertake to convict the fathers of the Council of Trent of Calvinism. So closely is a great part of that which is now ignorantly called Calvinism, interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity.”

The life of Calvin was also charged with immoralities. But this was done principally by the famous Bolsec, of whom Beza gives some account.

After he had been banished from Geneva, through the influence of Calvin and Farel, for sedition and Pelagianism, he wrote a life of Calvin, with a view to destroy the reputation of that great and good man.

The great Dr. Moulin observes, that not one of Calvin’s innumerable enemies ever carped at the purity of his life, but this profligate physician, whom Calvin had procured to be banished from Geneva, for his wickedness and impieties. The reproach of such a man, says Middleton, was an honor to Calvin, and especially upon such an account, for as Milton truly says, “Of some to be dispraised, is no small praise.” The calumnies of Bolsec, however, were reiterated by other enemies, and are sometimes, even in this age, raked from the filth where truth has long since consigned them. “One of the greatest uses,” says Middleton, “which may be drawn from reading, is to learn the weaknesses of the heart of man, and the ill effects of prejudices in points of religion. No less a person than the great cardinal Richelieu, has produced all accusation against Calvin, on the credit of Bertelier, than which none was ever worse contrived, and worse proved; though it has been adopted, and conveyed from book to book. Bertelier pretended, that the republic of Geneva had sent him to Noyon, with orders to make an exact inquiry there into Calvin’s life and character; and that he found Calvin had been convicted of sodomy; but that, at the bishop’s request, the punishment of fire was commuted into that of being branded with the Flower-de-luce. He boasted to have an act, signed by a notary, which certified the truth of the process and condemnation. Bolsec affirms, that he had seen this act; and this is the ground of that horrid accusation. Neither Bertelier, nor Bolsec, are to be credited. If Bertelier’s act had not been suppositious, there would have been at Noyon, authentic and public testimonies of the trial and punishment in question; and they would have been published as soon as the Romish religion began to suffer by Calvin’s means. Bertelier had no party against him in Geneva more inexorable than Calvin, who held him in abhorrence, on account of his vices. Bertelier was accused of sedition and conspiracy against the state and church: but he ran away, and, not appearing to answer for himself, was condemned, as being attainted and convicted of those crimes, to lose his head, by a sentence pronounced against him, the sixth of August, 1555. No envoy or deputy was ever sent from Geneva on public business, who was not in a higher station than that of Bertelier; besides, there were some considerable persons at Noyon, who retired to Geneva, as well as Calvin: by whose means it was very easy to receive all the information which could have been desired, without going farther.

If what Bertelier said was true, he would have had his paper when he fled from Geneva: but it is plain he had not the commission he boasted of, after that time. But can any one believe, that, before the year 1555, when those who were called heretics durst not show themselves for fear of being burnt, a deputy from Geneva should go boldly to Noyon, to inform himself of Calvin’s life? Who will believeth that if Betrelier had an authentic act of Calvin’s infamy in 1554, he would have kept it so close, that the public should have no knowledge of it before 1557? Was it not a piece which the clergy of France would have bought for its weight in gold? ‘But why (says Bayle), do I lose time in confuting such a ridiculous romance? Nothing surprises me more than to see so great a person as cardinal de Richelieu, depend on this piece of Bertelier; and allege as his principal reason that the republic of Geneva did not undertake to show the falsehood of this piece.’ The truth is, this cardinal made all imaginable inquiry into the pretended proceedings against Calvin at Noyon, and that he discovered nothing; yet he maintained the affirmative on the credit of Jerom Bolsec, whose testimony is of no weight in things which are laid to Calvin’s charge. Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, an even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.

Varillas thought Bolsec a discredited author: Maimbourg rejected the infamy that was thrown upon Calvin: and Florimond de Remond owns, they have defamed him horribly. Papyrius Masso spoke very ill of Calvin, but would not venture to mention the story of the Flower-de-luce: and he called those, mean wretched scribblers, who reproached that minister with lewdness. It is not strange that cardinal de Richelieu, in one of the best books of controversy that has been published on the part of the church of Rome, should be less scrupulous and nice than Remond, Masso, and Romuald; and that he should give out, as a true matter of fact, the story of Bolsec, which began then to be laid aside by the missionaries? Richelieu intended to have reconciled both religions in France, but was prevented by death; and there was not one story which people did not believe, when it defamed him or cardinal Mazarin.”

Calvin’s political opinions have also been questioned, and variously represented, as might suit the purposes of those who sought to bring him into disrepute.

Dr. Kenny, dean of Achonry, in his “Principles and Practices of pretended Reformers,” labors to prove that Calvin was a sanguinary democrat, and the avowed champion of political principles, which are subversive of social order, and of legitimate government. What Dr. Kenny considers “a legitimate government” would be questioned by the American people, as well as by Calvin. The question of Calvin’s political principles has been ably discussed by bishop Horsley. The subject was taken up by that learned prelate in the appendix to a sermon preached before the House of Lords, on the 30th of January, 1793. He was constrained to acknowledge that Calvin was unquestionably a republican in theory. He says that Calvin frequently declared his opinion, that the republican form, or an aristocracy reduced nearly to the level of a republic, was of all the best calculated in general to answer the ends of government. So wedded indeed was he to this notion, that he endeavored to fashion the government of all the Protestant churches upon republican principles. Calvin affirms, with his usual wisdom, that the advantages of one government over another, depend very much upon circumstances; that the circumstances of different countries, require different forms. And this is strictly true, for until a nation is prepared to appreciate the advantages of a republican form, and to use civil liberty, without abusing it, such a form can not be said to be the best for them, under such circumstances. Calvin’s political views may be fairly collected from his Commentaries on the Prophecy of Daniel.

It ought to be remarked, however, that Calvin always enjoined obedience to the powers that be; in as much as governments are ordained of God.

And so taught the apostle Paul. Romans 13:1-3. Titus 3:1.

NOTE C THE CASE OF SERVETUS Robertson, in his History of Charles V remarks that “in passing judgment on the characters of men, we ought to try them by the principles and maxims of their own age, and not by those of another; for, although virtue and vice are at all times the same, manners and customs vary continually.”

Although we are by no means disposed to justify Calvin in the part he took in the unhappy affair of Servetus, yet there are facts connected with that transaction, which must be known, in order to form all impartial and just decision of its true character, and of the conduct of those who were the principal actors in the tragic scene. The enemies of Calvinism have united with the opposers of all evangelical religion, in selecting this event in the history of the Geneva Reformer, as the topic of vituperative harangue. While the opposers of Calvinism dwell, even to tediousness, upon this subject, as an argument against the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation; the enemies of all godliness use it as an argument against religion, and especially against the ever memorable Reformation. Some point it out as the “first fruits of the Reformation,, and others as resulting naturally from the adoption of the peculiar tenets of that Reformer.

Roscoe, in his life and pontificate of Leo X, denominates it the “first fruits of the Reformation;” but persecution certainly existed before the occurrence of that melancholy event. Thirty-six years at least elapsed between the commencement of the Reformation and the death of Servetus.

The zeal of some men is warmly enlisted against persecution on account of heresy or religion, while they themselves indulge the bitterest spirit of persecution against religion itself. This spirit is as active and powerful in men of no principle, as in the most ferocious bigots. No praise is due, therefore, to those who are exempt from the charge of open persecution, only because they are destitute of all religious principle. There are persons who, though little disposed to persecute on account, or rather in favor of religion, yet are ready enough to do so when the gratification of avarice, of a revengeful spirit, or of any other passion is concerned. Indeed, the apparent complacency with which some dwell upon this disgraceful event, seems to warrant the suspicion that it is as satisfactory to them, in as much as it furnishes occasion to heap abuse and obloquy upon Calvin, as they represent it to have been to that Reformer himself. It is a compliment unwittingly paid to the Reformation and to religion, that such an event seems as necessary to the enemies of both in sustaining their opposition, as Calvin misjudged it to be to the honor of both. But as explanatory of that spirit of persecution which to some extent, is justly chargeable upon the Reformers, it should be recollected that they only participated in a common error, an error belonging rather to the age in which they lived, than to the persecutors themselves. The rights of conscience and of private opinion were not then as well understood as at this day. These rights had been lost in the darkness which for ages had gathered and thickened around the human mind, and had been formally denied by the corrupt church from which the Reformers had emerged. In the midst of the papacy they had been born, in her lap they had been nursed, and from her breasts they had imbibed the poison. But from what quarter did that light issue which has since enabled us to understand, to appreciate and to defend these rights!

Not from the papal throne, for they are denied in her infallible and unalterable creed, and the exercise of them denied, even to this day, to all who are subject to its influence and control. That light sprang from the Reformation; for wherever that Reformation now obtains, these rights are understood and exercised. We appeal to facts, let them decide the question.

Let the number of individuals who suffered in Protestant and popish persecutions be compared. Let the persecutions under the five years reign of queen Mary alone, be compared with all the Protestant persecutions put together.

With respect to the wound which is designed to be inflicted through the sides of the reformer, upon the Reformation and upon Christianity itself, it is enough to observe that the truth and nature of pure religion, have never depended upon the character of its professors. Pure religion speaks for itself, and it needs only to be known, in order to be admired and loved.

Let us therefore, with calm, impartial, and unprejudiced minds, examine and weigh the facts connected with this case. The Biblical Repertory says, Michael Servetus was born at Villa Nueva, in Arragon, in 1509. He called himself Ville Neuve, or Villanovanus, from this place, but is said to have declared himself a native of Tudelle, in Navarre. At the age of fourteen, he is reported to have understood Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and to have been imbued with the knowledge of Philosophy, Mathematics, and Scholastic Theology. M. Simon, however, says: “it is evident by this author’s books, that it cost him a great deal of trouble to write in Latin;” and Servetus himself, in the second edition of a book, says, “Quod autem ita barbarus, confusus et incorrectus prior liber proderit, imperitiae meae, et typographi incuriae adscribendum est.” At the age of fifteen he went to Italy in the suite of Charles V, whom he saw crowned at Bologna. Just at this time the seeds of anti-trinitarian doctrine began to germinate in Italy.

The Socini and their fellows were then rising. It is believed that Servetus, under these influences, adopted his peculiar tenets. The late learned Dr.

M’Crie expresses his belief, that the anti-trinitarian opinions, which spread there so widely, were introduced into Italy by means of his writings. f52 From Italy he went to Germany, and thence to Switzerland; and, at Basle, held a conference with Oecolampadius, with whom he disputed about the Trinity, in 1530. He then repaired to Strasburg, and conferred with Capito, and with Bucer. The latter was so far overcome with indignation at the impieties of Servetus, as to say from the pulpit, that he deserved to be put to death. Such was the error and blindness even of one who was surnamed the Moderate Reformer; an error and blindness caught from his Romish education. Before he left Basle, Servetus had prepared a book in which he attacked the orthodox faith, respecting the Trinity. This he left there in the hands of Conrad Rouss, a bookseller, who sent it to Hagenau, as it was a dangerous business to print it. The author followed his manuscript, and published it at the last named place, in 1531. He published a second, of like contents, in 1532. The former of these was entitled “De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri Septem, per Michaelem Servetum, alias Reves, ab Arragonia Hispanum.” Scarcely a copy is known to be extant. Mosheim says that both this and the dialogues are “barbaro dicendi genere conscripti.”

The second work was entitled “Dialogorum de Trinitate Libri duo. De Justitia Regni Christi, Capitula Quatuor, per Michaelem Servetum, etc.” In this he retracts all that he had said in the preceding; not as being false, but imperfectly, and carelessly, and ignorantly written. These works were so largely circulated, especially in Italy, that, as late as 1539, Melancthon felt himself bound to write a caveat against them to the senate of Venice.

Servetus passed his time in Germany until 1533, but then, finding himself without adherents, and awkwardly situated, from his ignorance of the language, and particularly desirous of studying mathematics and medicine, he went to France. Here he sought notoriety both as a scholar and an author. He studied medicine at Paris, under the instruction of Sylvinus and Fernel, and was graduated Master of Arts and Doctor of Physic by the university. Beza relates that, in this city, as early as in 1534, Calvin opposed his doctrines. After taking his degrees, Servetus professed mathematics in the Lombard college. During this period, he was preparing an edition of Ptolemy’s Geography, and several medical works; being, meanwhile, in warm contests with the medical faculty. We next find him at Lyons, with Frellon, a publisher, whom he served as corrector of the press. After various excursions, he settled at Charlieu, and there practiced medicine. Bolsec, the noted enemy and slanderer of Calvin, and who wrote a memoir for the mere purpose of blasting his character, accounts thus for Servetus leaving his settlement: “This Servetus was arrogant and insolent, as those have affirmed who knew him at Charlieu, where he lodged with la Riviere, about the year 1540, but was forced to leave that place on account of his extravagancies.” From Charlieu he returned to Lyons. Here he fell in with Peter Palmer, archbishop of Vienne, followed him to his see, and enjoyed a harbor in his palace. While at Vienne, he worked at a revised edition of Pagnin’s Bible, which he furnished with notes, abounding in crudity and pravity of doctrine. By the intervention of the printer, Frellon, he opened a correspondence with Calvin. The manner in which Servetus conducted himself in this, may be seen in the published letters. Calvin chose to break off all communication with a man who treated him with perpetual arrogance, and, from this time, Servetus never ceased to vituperate and oppose the Reformer.

Servetus wrote a third book against the orthodox faith, and after several ineffectual attempts elsewhere, had it printed at Vienne, in 1553. This was his famous Restitution of Christianity. Attempts have been made to show that it was Calvin who caused information to be judged against Servetus, with the ecclesiastical authorities. After a careful examination of the authorities, and a full citation of all the witnesses on both sides, M.

Chauffpie pronounces the charge to be wholly without proof. If it were true, it could show no more, than that Calvin did what no good citizen of that generation would have denied to be a praiseworthy act. That Calvin communicated the evidence on which this process was founded, he expressly denies. And this denial must be credited, for, as he says, it is utterly against every presumption that he could correspond with Cardinal Tournon, one of the chief persecutors of the Protestants; and, accordingly, his virulent foes, Maimbourg and Bolsec, never hint such a charge. It is agreed, however, that process was instituted, and the issue was a sentence “that there was not as yet sufficient evidence for an imprisonment.” On a second examination, the Inquisition seized his person, by a finesse; and by a finesse, quite as allowable, Servetus escaped from them, June 17, 1553, and betook himself to the Lyonnois. The process went on in his absence, and, according to the usual course of popish trials, resulted in condemnation, and sentence that he should be burned alive in a slow fire.

This was executed on his effigy and five bales of his books. The unfortunate author, after thus flying from Vienne, wandered in places where historians cannot trace him. If Calvin is to be credited, four months elapsed before he arrived at Geneva; where he was arrested, tried, condemned, and executed.

There is great diversity of statement in the different accounts, as to the length of time he remained at large, and the manner of his being apprehended. According to the most unfavorable report, he was discovered at divine worship, on the Lord’s day, and his presence was made known to the magistracy by Calvin himself. That this was done, if done at all, from personal enmity rather than mistaken zeal for a code of laws against heresy which all the world then approved, is only asserted, can never be proved, is by no means probable, and will be rejected by impartial history as the conjecture of prejudice. Such writers as Gibbon and Roscoe have vented much bitter recrimination on this pretended motive. We may ask, with a late eminent historian: “Is it not with justice that it has been surmised, that philosophers who, not only iniquitously resolve to try men of the sixteenth century by rules and principles scarcely admitted before the eighteenth, but greedily receive every calumny or insinuation that ‘false witnesses’ can utter against them, and indulge in the most extravagant invectives in setting forth their misdeeds, had they themselves happened to live three centuries back, would not have been content to smite only with the tongue or the pen, but would eagerly have grasped the sword or the torch?” f58 We have conducted this brief narrative thus far, without any account of the opinions charged against this unhappy fugitive. As we approach the critical and final act of the sad drama, it becomes proper to state, calmly and from the best sources, the nature of those tenets which rendered him obnoxious to the laws. And let no one undertake to discuss this subject, who is so ignorant of history, as not to know, that in that day, and throughout Christendom, heresy, especially when joined with blasphemy, was a capital crime. In the noonday of civil and religious freedom, a child may detect the fallacy of the argument, that heresy, which slays the soul, should have as dire a penalty as murder, which slays only the body. But the Roman Catholic, the Protestant, and the Socinian, of the sixteenth century, assented to this argument. f59 According to the standard of the times, Servetus was a heretic. The following sketch of his published opinions is very far below their enormity; for details are purposely omitted. The authorities may be seen at great length in the life of Servetus, by M. Chauffpie.

Such is the jumble of inconsistent crudities in the works of this writer, that it is impossible to refer his tenets to any existing title in the nomenclature of error. He was not a cool speculator, but a hasty enthusiast. At the same time he was furiously opposed to many of the doctrines always regarded as fundamental in the church of Christ. It was not the favorite dogmas of Calvin, as some ignorantly or maliciously assert, which this heretic made it his business to impugn. It was not predestination, special grace, perseverance, or any of the tenets for which the reformed churches peculiarly contended, which were assaulted in his works. His shafts were aimed at more vital parts, the very nature of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and similar foundations of our holy faith. He was at once a Pantheist, an Anti-trinitarian, and a Materialist. f60 Not content with philosophizing about the personality of God, he maintained that God is the Universe, and that the Universe is God.

According to him, God is the infinite ocean of substance — the essence of all things. Not only the devil is in God, as also depraved spirits — but hell is no other thing but God himself. As God is the principle and end of all things, so they return at last to him; and in going into eternal fire, demons shall go to God himself. f61 But it was the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that he set himself chiefly to impugn. In his first book he was more cautious than in those which followed; the doctrine of the earliest was nearer to Sabellianism than to any thing else. We have the authority of the ministers of Zurich, for saying that he often called the Trinity of the orthodox, “a triple monster, a threeheaded Cerberus, imaginary gods, and, finally, visionary and three-headed devils;” that he reviled Athanasius and Augustin, as “Trinitarians, that is Atheists.” To enlarge upon his other errors and heresies, respecting the creation, the immortality of the soul, regeneration, etc., would be unnecessary. Our object is not to detail the vagaries of an enthusiast, whose works indicate a perversion of mind almost amounting to insanity.

Still less is it our wish so to represent his pestiferous errors as to convey the idea that it was right to visit them with secular penalties and a cruel death. We reject the opinion, nor is it a merit in any one to do so at this time, when all reasonable Christians do the same. But we only mean to show that the tenets of Servetus were such, as might naturally lead even good men, in the twilight of religious liberty, to recognize the duty of surrendering him to the secular arm. That Calvin so thought, is not surprising, as we have the fullest evidence to make it probable that any one of the prominent men of the age, whether churchman or layman, whether Romanist or Protestant, would have held the same opinion.

Accordingly, as soon as Calvin discovered that Servetus was in the city, he used means to have him apprehended. The words of Calvin are: “He thought perhaps to pass through this city. Why he came hither is not known, but seeing that he was recognized, I thought it right that he should be detained.” It was necessary that the prosecutor should be personally held in durance while the process was pending, and Calvin used the intervention of Nicholas de la Fontaine, a student belonging to his household. Great reproach has been cast on the reformer for this step, as if it had been his intention to shun the appearance of being active in the affair. But he declares most fully the contrary: “I declare frankly, that since, according to the law and custom of the city, none can be imprisoned for any crime without an accuser, or prior information, I have made it so, that a party should be found to accuse him; not denying but the action laid against him was drawn by my advice, in order to commence the process.” f64 In our account of the trial we follow Chauffpie, in whose impartial statement are found abundant extracts, and references to authentic documents, of which most are beyond the reach of American students, and therefore need not be expressly cited. Servetus first appeared, August 14th, 1553. La Fontaine adduced in evidence the printed books, and a manuscript, which was owned by the author, though it had been several years lying in the hands of Calvin. On the 15th, the examination upon the same articles proceeded. On the 17th, La Fontaine and a certain German named Calladon, who was now associated with him in the prosecution, produced letters from Oecolampadius and passages from Melancthon, showing that Servetus had been condemned in Germany. They likewise cited further passages of a heretical character. On the 21st, he appeared again; and after the course of the ordinary investigations had proceeded, he conferred or disputed with Calvin on certain questions respecting the Trinity. This conference, however it may have been misrepresented, was not contrary to the prisoner’s interest: indeed it should seem that his abettors complained that there was not sufficient license allowed for frequent disputations. The judges then ordered that the books which Servetus required for his answer should be bought at his expense, and that he should retain those which Calvin had cited. On the 22d, Servetus sent a letter to the syndics and council, entering a plea to their jurisdiction — maintaining that it was unchristian to institute a capital prosecution for religious opinion — declaring that the ancient doctrine allowed merely the banishment even of such as Arias himself — and praying that he might have an advocate. The reader, while he weeps over the prejudice which could disregard pleas so reasonable, will remember that even in England, long since the reformation, prisoners have been denied counsel to plead their cause before a jury in any felony, whether it be capital, within the benefit of clergy, or a case of petty larceny. On the 28th, new articles of accusation were brought forward, and among other offenses, he was charged with the Anabaptist error about the power of the magistrate.

During these protracted investigations, he persisted in avowing his tenets, and his determination to avow them, unless he should be convinced. Even when charged with his indecent railings and dreadful blasphemies, he made no excuse: ‘I confess,’ said he, ‘I have written so; and when you shall teach me otherwise, I will not only embrace it, but will kiss the ground you walk on.’ In the mean time, information had most unnecessarily and ungenerously been sent to Vienne, of the arrest of Servetus. On the last day of August, an officer from that city appeared before the council of Geneva, with a copy of their sentence, and a request that the prisoner should be remanded to them. It was left to his choice, and as was most natural, he rejected the harsh proposal, and pathetically besought that he might be judged by the magistrates of Geneva.

Hitherto, we find nothing in the conduct of Calvin inconsistent with the standard of belief and feeling at that day. It is melancholy to observe how this important circumstance is overlooked by those who, from a hasty induction of mistaken facts, attribute to personal malice the whole of his conduct. Let it never be forgotten, that the proceeding of a democratical city and a judicial council is one thing, and the ministerial and subordinate act of their pastor and teacher, another thing. And even though the latter might willingly appear in the case as prosecutor, witness, or expounder of theological opinions, we are not to charge him with every enormity of the syndics and council; especially as it is matter of history, that the faction which was at that juncture dominant in the council of Geneva, was opposed to the Reformer. Plainly unjust is it then to repeat, for the thousandth time, that we are at liberty to consider every act of that body as emanating from Calvin. This charge of vicious and vindictive interference has been repelled by several impartial historians. “Calvin,” says M. la Roche, “never came into the court but when he was commanded, and there he did nothing but by the order of his master. Upon every emergency, it seems, they had recourse to divines; to consult with them, to confer with prisoners, to direct interrogations, to make extracts, examine answers, and many offer things of this kind. I believe, in the station this pastor of Geneva was in, they were afraid of transgressing, if they did any thing without him — but why represent him as an impertinent hypocrite, who intruded himself by his office in this affair; or as an implacable enemy, who earnestly solicited Servetus’ death?” And here it is but fair to let the defamed Reformer speak a word for himself.

The extract is from his French works as cited by la Chapelle: “I will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my application. But after he was convicted of his heresies, every one knows that I did not in the least insist that he should be punished with death. And as to the truth of what I say, not only all good men will bear me witness, but I defy all malicious men to say it is not so. The proceeding has shown with what intention I did it. For when I, and my brethren, I mean all the ministers of the gospel, were called, it was not owing to us that he had not full liberty given him, of conferring and treating of the articles wherein he has erred, in all amicable manner with us.”

It was on the first day of September that the judges again availed themselves of Calvin’s aid in procuring an extract of offensive propositions, in the very words of Servetus. These were thirty-eight in number. They were put into the author’s hands, that he might answer, explain, or retract. He wrote a reply; and this, in its turn, was answered by Calvin. The answer of Calvin was likewise delivered to Servetus, who made notes upon it. The reader who would pursue the subject into its lesser windings, may find all these documents among Calvin’s Opuscula.

A consultation of these will do more to show the virulence and headstrong fury of Servetus, than any second-hand statement. About a fortnight was spent in these proceedings. On the 15th, Servetus petitioned that his cause might be referred to the Council of Two hundred; in which body, it should be observed, the sovereignty of the commonwealth resided. “It is believed,” says the cautious Chauffpie, “that this request was suggested to him by Calvin’s enemies, who contributed as much, and even more than he, to Servetus’ destruction. Believing himself well supported, he observed no measures with Calvin or his judges. If he had had the least modesty or discretion, I doubt not but he might have brought himself off; but flattering himself with a triumph over Calvin, by the credit of the party which opposed this reformer, he was the victim of his pride and prejudice. This is the only way of explaining his constant conduct at Geneva; in all respects so different from his behavior at Vienne.”

The hopes of Servetus from the city faction must have been strong, as we find him, on the 22d of September, petitioning that Calvin should be punished as a calumniator. On the 10th of October, he made a new request, from which it appears that his situation in the prison was very miserable.

It is common to charge the persecution of Servetus upon Calvin alone, and the undiscriminating compilers of our biographical dictionaries, without adducing an authority, dogmatically declare that the reformer of Geneva acted out his mere personal hatred. It is glaringly false. It is not for us to say, how much false fire mingled with the zeal of Calvin; but we are well informed that not only he, but all Protestant Europe, looked upon it as the common cause of truth. From what has been already said, it is plain that the case was not precipitately issued. And at the point of fame which our sketch has reached, the magistrates of Geneva determined to consult the Swiss Cantons. For this purpose they sent to them the “Restitution of Christianity,” with Calvin’s papers and the prisoner’s answers; and requested the opinion of the Swiss theologians upon the subject. The unanimous reply was, that the magistrates of Geneva ought to restrain Servetus, and to prevent the spread of his errors.

Painful as the conclusion is, it cannot be evaded, that the judgment of John Calvin was simply the judgment of all the Helvetic Christians; too nearly allied, alas! to the popish errors from which they had half escaped, but palliated by the circumstances. M. d’Alwoerden, the great authority of Mr. Roscoe, in his hasty and petulent censures, pretends that Calvin kept back from the press all these letters except the one from Zurich. But the letters are happily extant to give triumphant refutation to the slander; and whoever reads them will conclude with La Chapelle, that “all the churches of Switzerland agreed to punish Servetus capitally, since they all concurred in testifying their utmost abhorrence of his heresies, and requiring that this outrage should not be left unpunished.” Beza was, therefore, not falsifying, when he wrote that the issue was ‘ex omnium enim Helveticarum ecclesiarum sententia.’ The prisoner himself showed a degree of confidence in these authorities, by the appeal which he is known to have made to the churches of Zurich, Schaff-hausen, Berne, and Basle.

What were the replies of the Swiss magistrates to this reference from Geneva? Those of Zurich used these terms: “In confidence that you will not suffer the wicked intention of your said prisoner to go farther, which is entirely contrary to the Christian religion, and gives great scandal and insult.” And the ministers still more decisively: “The holy providence of God has now offered an occasion for cleaning you from the suspicion (i.e. of fostering heresy) of this evil; that is, if you shall be vigilant, and diligently take heed that the contagion of this poison spread no farther.

Which we doubt not your excellencies will effect.” The magistrates of Schaffhausen, referred the question to their ministers, and sent the reply of the latter, which ends thus: “Nor do we doubt, but that of your remarkable wisdom, you will repress the attempts of this man, lest his blasphemies eat, as doth a cauker, still more extensively, into Christ’s members. For to set aside his ravings by long argumentation — what would it be, but to rave with a madman.” The magistrates of Basle, proceeding in the same way, replied by their ministers: “But if he persevere incurably in the perverseness which he has conceived, let him, in pursuance of your duty and of the authority granted you by the Lord, be so coerced, that he may no longer be able to molest the Church of Christ, and lest the last things be worse than the first.” The magistrates of Berne wrote: “We beg of you, doubting but you are thereto also inclined, that you will take proper measures that sects and heresies as these are, or such like, be not sown in the Church of Jesus Christ, our only Savior.” f74 Such was the unanimous answer of the Swiss magistrates; and we think the fact worthy of repetition, as being very important in its bearing on the whole affair, that Servetus, after a protracted examination and defense before the senate, and after the consistory, or ministerial body, had labored to confute and reclaim him, appealed to the Swiss Churches; and this, before the said consistory had given their official opinion, as to the question whether the positions, which the Senate considered as proved, amounted to heresy and blasphemy. f75 On the 26th of October, sentence was pronounced, by which Servetus was condemned to be burned alive. — Bib. Rep. vol. 8, p. 87, The sentence is as follows: — “The Judgment of the Syndics and Senators, pronounced upon Michael Servetus. “We, Syndics, Judges of criminal causes in this city, having witnessed the process made and instituted against you, on the part of our Lieutenant, in the aforesaid causes, instituted against you, Michael, of Villeneuve, in the kingdom of Arragon, in Spain, in which your voluntary confessions in our hands, made and often reiterated, and the books before us produced, plainly show, that you, Servetus, have published false and heretical doctrines; and also, despising all remonstrances and corrections, have, with a perverse inclination, sown and divulged them in a book published against God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit; in sum against all the true foundations of the Christian religion, and have thereby tried to introduce trouble and schism into the Church of God, by which many souls may have been ruined and lost — things horrible, frightful, scandalous, and infectious; and have not been ashamed to set yourself in array against the divine Majesty and the holy Trinity; but rather have obstinately employed yourself in infecting the world with your heresies and offensive poison; a case and crime of heresy grievous and detestable, and deserving corporal punishment. For these and other just reasons moving us, and being desirous to purge the Church of God from such infection, and to cut off from it so rotten a member, having had good counsel from others, and having invoked the name of God, that we may make a right judgment; sitting upon the tribunal of our predecessors, having God and the holy Scriptures before our eyes, saying, in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, by that definite sentence which we here give by this writing — you, Michael Servetus, are condemned to be bound and led to the Champel, and there fastened to a stake, and burned alive with the book written with your hand and printed, until your body shall be reduced to ashes, and your days thus finished as an example to others, who might commit the same things; and we command you, our Lieutenant, to put this our sentence into execution. — Read by the Chief Syndic, De Arlord.” f77 Extracts from the refutation of the errors of Michael Servetus, drawn up by Calvin, with the assistance of the other Ministers of the Genevese Republic.

In this work the propositions in proof of the heresy and blasphemy of Servetus are stated, his answers and the reply to them, etc., etc., etc. And the question discussed, Whether it is lawful for Christian magistrates to punish heretics? The affirmative is maintained by Calvin, and subscribed by the ministers, as follows: John Calvin, Michael Cope, Abel Pouppinus, John Pyrery, James Bernard, John de St. Andrew, Nicholas Galasius, John Baldwin, Francis Borgonius, John Faber, Nicholas Little, John Macarius, Raymond Calvet, Nicholas Colladonius.

Matthew Malesian, The Repertory proceeds: — Calvin informs us, that Servetus, two hours before his death, sent for him, and asked his forgiveness. Calvin reminded him “with all mildness, that sixteen years before he had endeavored, even at the risk of his own life, to reclaim him, and that it had not been through his fault that Servetus had not by repentance been restored to the friendship of all religions persons.” He also endeavored to have the mode of execution changed to one less barbarous. Chateillon (otherwise called Castellio and Castellio) a declared enemy of Calvin, accused him of having smiled when the heretic passed the window from which he was looking.

There is no other alleged proof of this unlikely story. M. La Roche, who elsewhere deals harshly with Calvin, treats this as a wretched calumny.

Servetus was accompanied to the stake by Farel, and so far maintained his characteristic obstinacy, that he would scarcely allow Farel to ask the prayers of the people. Thus miserably perished this unfortunate and wicked man, by a cruel death, on the twenty-seventh day of October, 1553.

During the whole trial, the contumacy and recklessness of the prisoner were remarkable. Especially did he seem to make it his aim to irritate and sting his great opponent, Calvin. In the notes, already mentioned, which Servetus appended to Calvin’s confutation of his arguments, he endeavors to goad the latter by every name of insult which could be foisted in. Cain, and Simon Magus, and murderer, are ordinary terms, and, in the course of a few hundred lines, we have counted instances of the lie direct, Mentiris, to the number of forty-six. Yet the replies of Calvin are comparatively mild. He deals with his opponent as if he scarcely thought him balanced in mind. And when sentence was pronounced, it is notorious that he used his influence with the judge to procure a mitigation of the punishment, but without effect. — Bib. Rep. Vol. 8, pp. 76-88.

Mackenzie, in his Life of Calvin, says “It has been confidently pretended, and boldly asserted, that Calvin had, through life, nourished an implacable hatred against Servetus, and that the Genevese theologian had employed all his efforts to satiate it in the blood of the unhappy Spaniard; that he denounced him to the magistrates of Vienne, and occasioned him to be arrested on the day after his arrival at Geneva. Things advanced with an air of confidence are readily believed, and it is scarcely suspected that they may be false. Bolsec, however, the mortal enemy of Calvin, who wrote the life of that illustrious man merely to blast his memory, and who was contemporary with the facts which he relates; and Maimbourg, equally known by his partialities and his falsehoods, have never dared to advance those things which modern historians have not been ashamed to risk.

Bolsec says, that Servetus quitted Lyons to establish himself at Charlieu, because his ‘pride, his insolence, and the danger of his projects, made him equally feared and hated.’ He adds, that Servetus returned to Lyons; that he entered into a correspondence with Calvin; that he communicated to him his ideas; that Calvin combated them with force, and that Servetus persisted in them with obstinacy; that he sent his work entitled Restitutio Christianismi, which he printed at that time; and that Calvin indignant, declined all acquaintance with him. f81 But Calvin, it is said, abused the confidence of Servetus; he sent to Vienne the letters which he had received from him, to which he added his work entitled Restitutio Christianismi, of which Servetus had made him a present. This accusation is mysterious: is it to be believed that Calvin, whose name was execrated in all Catholic countries, could expect from their magistrates any attentions to his complaints or any regard to his letters?

The extreme improbability of the correspondence here alluded to, may be inferred from the character of the individual to whom Calvin is said to have applied. All historians agree in representing Cardinal Tournon to us as the scourge of heresy. He caused the severest edicts to be published against the innovators, he established at Paris a fiery court (Chambre Ardente,) which was properly an inquisition, and ordered all the tribunals of the kingdom to prosecute the new errors as crimes against the slate. The fury of his zeal transported him so far, that he caused all the heretics to be burned who had the misfortune to fall into his hands. Behold the man they want to make a correspondent of Calvin by letters! Whatever wickedness they would load him with, they must suppose him a perfect blockhead to attempt such a correspondence, by a criminal accusation of his enemy, as it would appear by the loud fits of laughter they make the cardinal fall into, upon receiving this letter.

But, supposing that this reformer had been capable of such extravagant folly, how can we imagine that the cardinal ‘this scourge of heresy,’ would have satisfied himself with laughing at this affair? That he made himself merry with the accuser, needs not surprise us; but that he neglected to prosecute such a heretic as Servetus we cannot so easily be persuaded of.

Thus Calvin himself gives no other reason in answer to the calumny we are refuting, as we shall see by his own words, than that the calumny came originally from Servetus; and that Bolsec knew nothing of the matter, but from uncertain reports. “I have no occasion,” says Calvin, “to insist longer to answer such a frivolous calumny, which falls to the ground, when I shall have said, in one word, that there is nothing in it. It is four years since Servetus forged this fable upon me, and made the report travel from Venice to Padua, where they made use of, it according to their fancy.