THERE are two distinct charges brought against Calvin in connection with Servetus, one being that it was Calvin that stirred up the Inquisition at Lyons to arrest him, by telling that Court where he was living, and so leading to his imprisonment and condemnation to death. The other is that when Servetus, fleeing from the power of Rome at Vienne, sought refuge in Geneva, Calvin stirred up the Magistrates there to secure his person, thus leading on to his condemnation and execution. Let us take these charges in their order. Calvin, it is said, informed the Inquisition at Lyons, as to the residence and assumed name of Servetus, and thus betrayed into their hands a man—religious and God-fearing according to his light—who was a talented physician and who was living far away from Geneva. The charge is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Servetus calling himself “Reformed,” had been living for a number of years under the name of Villanova, in the house of the Archbishop of Vienne, as his private physician, and where he professed to be a Roman Catholic. While there, he wrote the book Christianismi Restitutio, and in 1546 or 1567, sent a manuscript copy of the same to Calvin. Calvin thus came to know where he was, and the name he had assumed. Living at Geneva at that time was a French refugee named De Trie, with whom Calvin was very intimate. De Trie’s friends sought to bring him back to Rome, and remonstrated with him for living in a city so immoral, they said, as Geneva, and associating with men of such bad private characters as were the members of the Reformed community. De Trie replied, that the morality of the Reformed was worthy of all commendation, and that it did not become them to speak in that manner of other people, when they allowed a man to be living in the Archbishop’s house, who laughed to scorn many of the doctrines of their Church. His friends at once challenged the statement, and insisted on knowing whom he meant. De Trie had received the information some time before from Calvin, in the course of casual conversation, and now found himself in a difficulty. He must either make good his language, or withdraw his words and stand convicted of bearing false witness. He applied to Calvin for counsel and assistance. For some time Calvin refused to allow De Trie to see the manuscript, which was in the handwriting of Servetus, but after some hesitation did so; when De Trie informed his friends that it was to Servetus he referred, who was living in the house of the Archbishop. De Trie’s friends lost no time in making the fact known to the Inquisition, which then proceeded to arrest Servetus, who was subsequently tried at Lyons and condemned to death. Before the sentence could be carried out, however, he escaped from prison when, in the absence of the real man, he was burnt in effigy in the court yard of the Archbishop’s palace. Having escaped from Vienne, Servetus turned his steps to Geneva, the last place in the world he should have gone to.
Now, wherein was Calvin to blame in all this? That he had no communication with the Inquisition may be taken for granted. Calvin had not been exerting himself to discover the residence of Servetus. He was content to leave him alone, so long as he did not come to Geneva. Nor was this knowledge a recent acquisition. He had known it for a number of years, but remained silent, until in the familiarity of friendship he mentioned it to De Trie. De Trie resenting the accusations of his relations against the Reformed, thought to turn the tables on them, and in doing so, led to the arrest of Servetus by the Inquisition, with his subsequent escape and unhappy arrival at Geneva. The documentary evidence supporting the statements now given are to be found in the Eighth volume of Calvin’s works and Correspondence, (p. 728), while not a scrap of paper is known to exist to support the accusation that Calvin had informed De Trie about Servetus, for the purpose of having him arrested by the Inquisition. It was the correspondence between De Trie and his friends, together with Calvin’s loyalty to the reputation of the Reformed for speaking the truth, that led to the discovery by the Inquisition.
Calvin was also charged with having violated all the laws of humanity in setting the Genevan Magistrates to work in the arresting of Servetus, professedly a refugee for his religious opinions, and in forcing these Magistrates to put him to death because of them. In reply we say: Let it be remembered that in 1550, heresy was a crime punishable throughout Europe with death—as with the Jews under the Law, idolatry was punishable with death. That it should have had such a law at that period, was no distinction for Geneva. From 1553 to 1558, the fires of persecution flamed in England and hundreds of men and women were burnt to death during that brief interval as “heretics”—that is, for holding religious opinions and beliefs that differed from those of the Established Church. A similar course prevailed in Spain, in France, and in many other countries. In Switzerland on the other hand, “Public Discussions” on the subject of religion were encouraged, for the better ascertaining of what opinions should be regarded as true. But even here the sword of judgment hung over the arena. He that sought to refute the heresy of an opponent did so at the risk of his life, if he failed; while if, in the judgment of the judges, he was successful, the opponent paid the penalty with his life. Under these circumstances, religious controversy was no child’s play, and every man knew the risk he ran. Previous to his fatal visit to Geneva, Servetus had sought to induce Calvin to enter the controversial lists with him; but Calvin had refrained from doing so, either because he was unwilling to expose Servetus to the condemnation for his opinions which was inevitable, or because he thought him unworthy of refutation, and the fact remains, he did nothing. He did not notice the challenge which Servetus sent him, when in 1546, he received from him, as we have mentioned, a copy of his book, though he retained in his possession what Servetus, who had tried to get it back, admitted to a friend, “would one day be the death of him.” Nor was he in error when he so spoke, for on the day on which Calvin acknowledged to Servetus the receipt of the book, he wrote to Farel saying, that if Servetus ever came to Geneva, and Calvin’s authority remained, he should never leave it alive, and Servetus knew this.
Servetus knew that this was Calvin’s determination, carrying out the universal conclusion of the times as to heresy and heretics; yet it was to Geneva that Servetus went, as if courting death. There was no concealment about his movements. He arrived there on a Sabbath morning and went openly into the Church in which Calvin was preaching, as if he believed that he had so many friends in Geneva, that he could set Calvin and his supporters at defiance. For a man who acted in such a manner not to have been arrested, would have been a much stranger thing than that he should have been arrested, and at once put into prison. That he was fleeing from the Inquisition of Rome had nothing to do with his past writings. He was arrested not as a religious refugee, but as the writer of books daringly and intolerably blasphemous. He might have gone elsewhere, or even in Geneva could have hidden himself till he could quietly escape. But, knowing of Calvin’s antagonism, knowing Calvin’s strength in that city, knowing what Calvin had already said and threatened about himself, into that city he went in broad day-light, and there making himself visible to all, rushed—one might say, wilfully—into the very jaws of death.
But Calvin, it is said, did nothing to save him from the punishment of death, on account of a few opinions he held. His private life was not stained with such conduct as might be seen in others; but simply for opinions!—What intolerable, diabolical cruelty! Certainly not. The combat between himself and Servetus was “unto the death.” Calvin regarded himself as set for the defence of the truth of God, and believed that whoever opposed that truth should die. Perversion or denial of the truth was in his judgment a crime against humanity, so that the glory of God demanded that the evil doer should be punished in accordance with the greatness of his crime. So far from denying having had any share in this trial, Calvin ever admitted that it was on his appeal, that the Magistrates had taken action and seized the person of Servetus. During the trial, he appeared as a witness against him, testifying to the nature of his erroneous beliefs, and always said that it would have been dishonourable for him to have done otherwise. Only when the Magistrates condemned Servetus to be burnt did he interfere, and then simply to the extent of asking, that the punishment might rather be beheading than burning, but failed to obtain their consent. So far indeed was he from repenting or regretting what he had done, that during the following year, he published a little work entitled: “Declaration to uphold the true faith of all persons in the Trinity of Persons in the One God-head, in opposition to the detestable errors of Michael Servetus, Spaniard. In which it is also shown that it is lawful to punish heretics, and that it is of right, that that deceiver has been executed by law in the city of Geneva.”
During the trial, the Genevan Council, unwilling to appear harsh, asked the advice of the Authorities in the Cantons of Berne, Basle, Schaffhausen, and Zurich. All these supported the action of Geneva, so that no fewer than five Swiss Cantons agreed in the punishing of heresy with death, thus sharing with Calvin the responsibility for the tragedy. These Cantons and their Churches had inherited this doctrinal position from Rome, where it is still regarded as morally right and a Christian duty, while now it is rejected by all the Reformed Churches of the world. Is it needful for Calvinists to be for ever defending Calvin for actions of which he was not ashamed? All that can be required of us is simply, to set forth a correct statement of the facts, taking care “not to extenuate or set down aught in malice,” and then to leave to successive generations to pass what judgment they please upon them. We are no more called on as Christian men, to make ourselves responsible for every thing Calvin said or wrote, than were the Jews to do so for every thing Abraham, David, Solomon, or others of the Old Testament worthies may have said or done. When the enemies of Calvin concentrate all their efforts to destroy his moral and religious influence by this one incident in his life, they bear high testimony to his general excellence and uprightness, entitling us to say to his accusers, “Be ye followers of him as he was of Christ.”—Presbyterian Register.