SERVETUS AGAIN ADDRESSES THE SYNDICS AND COUNCIL OF GENEVA, AND ACCUSES
CALVIN.
If Calvin, then, as we apprehend, had every reason to anticipate
an answer in his favour from the Churches, so do we find Servetus
possessed by the assured hope that he would be acquitted, or, at
most, be found guilty of nothing involving a heavier penalty than
banishment from the Republic of Geneva. Of heresy he did not think
for a moment he had been more guilty than every one of the Reformers
whom he had been accustomed to hear spoken of in the polite circles of
Vienne not only as schismatics, but as heretics of the deepest dye. If
his ‘Restoration of Christianity’ had been burned by the hangman of
Vienne, had not Calvin’s ‘Institutions of the Christian Religion’ been
summarily condemned by the whole Catholic world, and put on the Index
of prohibited books by the Roman Curia? So sure does Servetus appear to
have felt of final acquittal at this time--guiltless of blasphemy as
in his soul he knew himself to be, and bolstered by the false hopes
of his false friends, that whilst the scales of justice were still
trembling on the beam, he, from his filthy cell, in rags, and devoured
by vermin, even he aspired to become the accuser of the man by whom he
was himself accused, and subjected to all the indignities he endured!
It could only have been under the excitement of some such persuasion
that he now wrote the following extraordinary letter to the Council:--
_To the Syndics and Council of Geneva._
My most honoured Lords,--I am detained on a criminal charge at
the instance of John Calvin, who has accused me, falsely saying
that in my writings I maintain--
1st. That the soul of man is mortal, and
2nd. That Jesus Christ had only taken the fourth part of his
body from the Virgin Mary.
These are horrible, execrable charges. Of all heresies and
crimes, I think of none greater than that which would make
the soul of man to be mortal. In every other there is hope
of salvation, but none in this. He who should say what I am
charged with saying, neither believes in God nor justice, in
the resurrection, in Christ Jesus, in the Scriptures, nor,
indeed, in anything, but declares that all is death, and that
man and beast are alike. Had I said anything of the kind--said
it not in words only, but written and published it, I should
myself think me worthy of death.
Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be
declared subject to the law of retaliation, and like me be
sent to prison until the cause between him and me, for death
or other penalty, is decided. To this effect I here engage
myself against him, submit myself to all that the Lex Talionis
requires, and declare that I shall be content to die if I am
not borne out in everything I shall bring against him. My
Lords, I demand of you, justice, justice, justice!
From your prison of Geneva, this 22nd of September, 1553.
MICHAEL SERVETUS, pleading his own cause.
The letter was followed by a series of articles in form like those
lately brought against himself, headed--
_Articles on which Michael Servetus demands that John Calvin be
interrogated._
I. Whether in the month of March last he did not write, by
the hand of William Trie, to Lyons, and say many things about
Michael Villanovanus called Servetus. What were the contents of
the letter, and with what motive was it sent?
II. Whether with the letter in question he sent half of the
first sheet of the book of the said Michael Servetus, entitled
‘Christianismi Restitutio,’ on which were the Title, the Table
of Contents, and the beginning of the work?
III. Whether this was not sent with a view to its being shown
to the authorities of Lyons, in order to have Servetus arrested
and impeached, as happened in fact?
IV. Whether he has not heard since then that in consequence of
the charges thereby brought against him, he, the said Servetus,
had been burned in effigy, and his property confiscated; he
himself having only escaped burning in person by escaping from
prison?
V. Whether he does not know that it is no business of a
minister of the gospel to appear as a criminal accuser and
pursuer of a man judicially on a capital charge?
My Lords, there are four great and notable reasons why Calvin
ought to be condemned:
_First_: Because doctrinal matters are no subjects for
criminal prosecutions, as I have shown in my petition, and
will show more fully from the Doctors of the Church. Acting as
he has done, he has therefore gone beyond the province of a
minister of the Gospel, and gravely sinned against justice.
_Second_: Because he is a false accuser, as the above articles
declare, and as is easily proved by reading my book.
_Third_: Because by frivolous reasons and calumnious assertions
he would suppress the Truth as it is in Jesus Christ, as will
be made obvious to you, by reference to my writings; what he
has said of me, being full of lies and wickedness.
_Fourth_: Because he follows the doctrine of Simon Magus, in
great part, against all the Doctors of the Church. Wherefore,
magician as he is, he deserves not only to be condemned, but to
be banished and cast out of your city, his goods being adjudged
to me in recompense for mine which he has made me to lose.
These, my Lords, are the demands I make.
MICHAEL SERVETUS, in his own cause.
Although we have only conjecture to aid us in understanding the temper
that now shows itself in Servetus, and the hope he evidently entertains
of triumphing over his prosecutor, we cannot be mistaken in ascribing
it to the influence of Perrin and Berthelier. They must have imagined
that the same result would ensue from the appeal to the Churches as
had followed the reference made to them in the case of Jerome Bolsec,
and believed that the worst that would befal their puppet would be
banishment from the city and territory of Geneva. If they could but
cross and spite the refugee Frenchman, their clerical tyrant, through
the fugitive Spaniard, their end would be attained, although at
the cost, perhaps, of a certain amount of inconvenience to their
instrument. The conclusion of Servetus’s last address to the Council
shows clearly the opinion he had been led to form of Calvin’s present
position in Geneva. ‘As the magician he is,’ says Servetus, ‘he ought
to be condemned, and cast out of your city, his property being adjudged
to me in recompense for all I have lost through him!’ The Council
appear to have taken no more notice of this last address and demand of
their prisoner than they had of his preceding more reasonable petitions
and remonstrances.
* * * * *
The pause in the proceedings that ensued, pending the receipt of
replies from the Churches consulted; the silence of the Council upon
his letter and inculpation of Calvin, combined with the effects of
continued imprisonment, anxiety, and hope deferred, on a body not of
the strongest, would seem before long to have induced a frame of mind
different from that so unmistakably displayed of late by the prisoner.
The petition forwarded three weeks later to the Council is pitched in a
much lower key than the one last presented.
Most noble Lords,--It is now about three weeks since I
petitioned for an audience, and still have no reply. I entreat
you for the love of Jesus Christ not to refuse me that you
would grant to a Turk, when I ask for justice at your hands. I
have, indeed, things of importance to communicate to you, very
necessary to be known.
As to what you may have commanded to be done for me in the way
of cleanliness, I have to inform you that nothing has been
done, and that I am in a more filthy plight than ever. In
addition, I suffer terribly from the cold, and from colic, and
my rupture, which cause me miseries of other kinds I should
feel shame in writing about more particularly. It is very cruel
that I am neither allowed to speak nor to have my most pressing
wants supplied; for the love of God, Sirs, in pity or in duty,
give orders in my behalf.
From your prison of Geneva,
MICHAEL SERVETUS.
October 10, 1553.
This appeal to the duty as well as the compassion of the Council was
the first of any he had addressed to it which met with an immediate
response. One of the Syndics, attended by the Clerk of the Court, was
commissioned to visit the prisoner, and inquire into his state, being
requested, further, to see measures taken to have him furnished with
the articles of clothing he required, so that the resolution formerly
come to in this direction should no longer remain a dead letter.
_October 19 and 23._ A month had all but elapsed before the messenger
to the Councils and Churches of the Protestant Swiss Cantons returned
with the replies of the Magistrates and Pastors to the Documents
submitted to them by the Council of Geneva. But he came at last. As the
answers were in Latin, translations into French had to be made for the
behoof of those among the councillors of Geneva who were indifferently
versed in the Latin tongue. Some days more were required for this; so
that though the messenger arrived on October 19, the papers in Latin
and French were only ready on the 23rd, when they were laid before the
Council, once more solemnly assembled in its judicial capacity, with
the prisoner before them.
The Church of Berne which was the first referred to [and had its head
pastor, Haller, as reporter of its conclusion?], blames Servetus not
only for his heresies, but for his insolence and want of respect for
Calvin.
He seems (says the report) to have thought himself at liberty
to call in question all the most essential elements of our
religion, to upset everything by new interpretations of
Scripture, and to corrupt and throw all into confusion by
reviving the poison of the ancient heresies.... We pray that
the Lord will give you such a spirit of prudence, of counsel,
and of strength, as will enable you to fence your Church and
the other Churches from this pestilence, and that you will at
the same time take no step that might be held unbecoming in a
Christian magistracy.
The Church of Zürich [of which Bullinger must have been the reporter],
replied at greater length than that of Berne, or, indeed, any of
the other Churches, going minutely into the question of Servetus’s
opinions, which are pronounced to be at once heretical and blasphemous.
The Ministers of this Church are particular also in insisting on the
propriety of upholding Calvin in his prosecution of the heretic.
We trust (say the pastors of Zürich), that the faith and zeal
of Calvin, your pastor, and our brother, his noble devotion to
the refugees and the pious, will not be suffered by you to
be obscured by the unworthy accusations of this man, against
whom, indeed, we think you ought to show the greater severity,
inasmuch as our Churches have the evil reputation abroad of
countenancing heretics, and even of favouring heresy. But
the holy providence of God, they proceed, waxing in fervour,
presents you at this moment with an opportunity of clearing
yourselves as well as us, from such injurious imputations, if
you but resolve to show yourselves vigilant, and well disposed
to prevent the further spread of the poison. We do not doubt,
indeed, that your Excellencies will act in this wise.
Schaffhausen was content to subscribe to all that had been said by
Zürich (whose conclusion, consequently, had been communicated to it);
but could not resist insinuating how it thought the Spaniard should be
dealt with.
We do not doubt (say its Ministers) that you, with commendable
prudence, will so repress this attempt of Servetus, that his
blasphemies shall not be suffered to eat like a gangrene into
the limbs of Christ. To use lengthy reasonings with a view to
free him from his errors, would but be to rave with a madman.
The pastors of the Church of Basle [with Sulzer as reporter], the last
consulted, are rejoiced to see Servetus in the hands of the magistrates
of Geneva; feeling persuaded that they will not be wanting either
in saintly zeal or Christian prudence, in finding a remedy for an
evil that has already led to the ruin of vast numbers of souls. The
theological culpability of the man is also much aggravated in their
opinion by the obstinacy and insolence with which he persists in his
errors, instead of yielding to the reflections which imprisonment and
the instructions of the pastors of Geneva ought to have led him to make.
We exhort you, therefore (they conclude), to use, as it seems
you are disposed to do, all the means at your command to
cure him of his errors, and so to remedy the scandals he has
occasioned; or, otherwise, does he show himself incurably
anchored in his perverse opinions, to constrain him, as is
your duty, by the powers you have from God, in such a way that
henceforth he shall not continue to disquiet the Church of
Christ, and so make the end worse than the beginning. The Lord
will surely grant you his spirit of wisdom and of strength to
this end.
We thus see that the Churches, whilst they all agree in condemning,
refrain from declaring in precise terms the kind of punishment they
would have awarded the prisoner--they do not in so many words say
they would have him put to death; but finding him guilty of heresy
and blasphemy, they knew that by the law of the land he must die.
Condemning him unequivocally, therefore, for his theological views,
they, in fact, pronounce his doom. To have done so directly, would
have been trenching on the rights of the Council of Geneva, by whom,
under the circumstances, a covert wish was sure to be better taken than
an open recommendation. And let us not overlook the base and selfish
motive that underlies the severity counselled: by putting the heretical
Spaniard to death, the Swiss Churches will free themselves from the
imputation of favouring heresy!
So much for the conclusions and implied wishes of the Ministers. The
Magistrates of the cities consulted, differ but little, if at all, from
their Clergy. The Council of Berne express a hope that their brothers
of Geneva will not allow the wickedness and evil intentions of their
prisoner to make further head, all he says being so manifestly opposed
to the Christian religion, which they think it must be his purpose
to vilipend and do what in him lies to exterminate. They, therefore,
‘entreat the Senate of Geneva so to comport themselves--and they
do not question their inclination in this--that such sectaries and
disseminators of error as their prisoner shall no longer be suffered to
sow in the Church of Christ.’
The reply of Berne is said by Calvin to have had greater influence
on the Judges of Servetus than that of any of the other Councils.
Geneva had oftener than once in former years been indebted to Berne
for assistance in her straits, and still continued, to a considerable
extent, under the influence of the Canton that was looked up to as
Chief in the Swiss Confederation. The Magistrates of Berne, moreover,
were more outspoken, perhaps, than those of any of the other Cantons.
But we discover, after all, that neither the Churches nor Councils were
acting independently and of knowledge self-acquired of the business.
The Clergy were dominated by Calvin, the Councils by the Clergy; and
there appears to have been collusion and concert among the reporters
both of the Churches and Senates.
Yesterday (September 26), (writes Haller of Berne, to Bullinger
of Zürich) we received the documents in the case of Servetus,
and have since been studying them in view of our reply. But we
should like to know what your answer is before we send ours. We
therefore entreat you immediately to inform us of its tenor.
Yet wherefore so much ado! the man is a heretic, and the Church
must get rid of him. Let me, however, I beseech you, speedily
know the conclusion you have come to.
The Zürich pastor would seem to have been the most active of all the
ministers in collecting and imparting information of a kind that would
lead to unanimity of conclusion among the Churches and Councils. His
friend, Ambrose Blaurer, acknowledging receipt of a letter from him
communicating the decision of Zürich, says that he ‘had thought the
pestilent Servetus, whose book he had read twenty years ago, must long
since have been dead and buried.’ But the self-righteous man must add
further: ‘We are surely tried by heresies and satanic abortions of the
sort, in order that they who are steadfast in the faith may be made
known.’ Sulzer of Basle has also been primed by him of Zürich, for, in
reply to the intimation he has received of what has been done, he says
that he, Sulzer, ‘is rejoiced to have heard of the arrest of Servetus
in a quarter where it seems he may be effectually kept from infecting
the Church with his heretical dogmas in time to come; although I know
there be some who are violently opposed to Calvin’s proceedings, and
the subserviency of the Senate in the business.’
So much for the Churches and Councils of the Cantons consulted; and how
little the latter were disposed to act, or, indeed, were capable of
acting of themselves, and on their own appreciation of the questions
submitted to them, is made manifest by the letter which Haller wrote to
Bullinger at this time:
I have to give you my best thanks, dear Sir and Brother, for
your diligence in communicating with the Genevese [and, of
course, with the Bernese also] so speedily. Our Council have
been of the same mind as yours in their reply. We, _as ordered
by them_, have exposed the principal errors of Servetus,
article by article. When our Councillors had been made aware
of their nature, they were so horror-struck, that I have no
doubt, had the writer been in prison here, he would have been
burned alive. But as the matters in question were very little
intelligible to them, they desired that I should reply in a
letter as from myself to the Council of Geneva. They added,
however, from themselves, that they exhorted the Genevese so to
deal with the poison that it should not, by any negligence of
theirs, be suffered to spread to neighbouring districts; and,
indeed, it has often happened that commotions in Geneva have
extended from its walls and got footing within ours. I think I
need not send you a copy of our reply, as it agrees so entirely
in every respect with your own.
Yours most truly,
J. HALLER.
Berne: October 19, 1553.
The Churches and Councils consulted, then, were at one in their
condemnation of Servetus. But it has been presumed that ecclesiastical
conclusion and innuendo backed by civilian assent, might still have
failed to bring matters to the issue aimed at by the prosecution, had
not political considerations intervened to complicate and sway judicial
action. We are ready enough to believe that there was so much common
sense in the Senate of Geneva, and such a feeling of the impossibility
of attaining to absolute certainty in questions of dogmatic theology,
that they were even more indisposed than they plainly show themselves
to have been to come to a final decision in the case of their prisoner.
But to assume that political considerations had the lead in the
condemnation of Servetus, would, we venture to think, be a great
mistake. To remove the prosecution from the sphere of theology to that
of policy, were to take from it its chief interest and significance.
But the arrest was made, the trial was begun, and the sentence was
delivered exclusively on theological grounds. The political element
that got mixed up with the business, was no more than an accident, and
cannot truly be said to have influenced the judgment finally given. The
four Swiss cantonal Councils and Churches which condemned Servetus,
condemned him on theological grounds alone; they knew little or nothing
of the political strife that agitated Geneva, and were not swayed by it
in their decision.
Servetus himself, ill-advised and misled by those who had access to
him, fully persuaded of the truth of his opinions, and relying on their
consonance with Scripture, as he read it, may be said to have left his
Judges one way only out of the difficult and delicate position in
which they found themselves; and this was by finding him guilty of the
theological errors laid to his charge. He appeared to be opposed not
only to every religious principle as known to them, and as understood
alike by Catholics and Protestants, but he had used such objectionable
language in speaking of subjects held so sacred as the Trinity and
the Baptism of Infants, that even the most tolerant in the present
day would find it inexcusable; how much less warrantable must it have
appeared amid the universally prevalent intolerance of three centuries
ago! Nevertheless, it may be that the mind of every member of the
Council had not yet been made up as to the _degree_ of the prisoner’s
guiltiness, or even granting him guilty of everything imputed to
him, that he, therefore, deserved to die; and die he must if they so
declared him.
* * * * *
All the grounds for a definitive decree being before the Court on their
meeting of the 23rd, we must presume that the sense of the members
generally as to the guiltiness of the prisoner had been ascertained,
and that the opinion of the majority to this effect was only not
formulated and pronounced because of the absence of some of the leading
Councillors--that of Amied Perrin, the first Syndic, being particularly
remarked. An adjournment was therefore moved; but to afford no further
excuse for delay in bringing the protracted business of the Servetus
Trial to an end, summonses for a special session on the 26th were
ordered to be issued. Doubtful of the decision, as it might seem, and
anxious for delay in consequence of the tenor of the letters from
the Churches, Perrin had absented himself from the meeting of the
23rd, through indisposition, as he said himself, through _feigned_
indisposition, according to Calvin, as we learn from a letter of his to
his friend Farel of the 26th, in which he speaks of his great political
antagonist by the derisive title of _Cæsar comicus_. Meantime, the
members of the Court present determined to proceed to the gaol, and
inform the prisoner of their purpose to have him before them with the
least possible delay, to hear their final award. Before taking their
leave, and as if to intimate to the unhappy Servetus what was to
follow, they placed him under the care of two special warders, who were
to hold themselves responsible with their lives for his safe custody.
The unusual visit of his Judges, and the additional guard set over
him must, we should imagine, have sent a chill to the heart of the
unfortunate Servetus, and gone far to damp out the hope he had been
led to entertain either of acquittal or a sentence short of that which
he knew Calvin had made up his mind from the first to extort. Yet does
he not appear even now to have thought it possible that his Judges
would condemn him to death. Self-conscious rectitude alone, and a
better belief than it deserved in the world’s will to do justly and
mercifully, had blinded him to the fate that awaited him.
During the three days’ pause that now ensued, some faint show of
sympathy for the prisoner was manifested outside the walls of the
Council chamber; but it came from no one of weight or standing in the
Republic. Zebedee, the pastor of Noyon, a known opponent of Calvin on
some of his theological tenets, and Gribaldo, an Italian by birth,
by profession a lawyer, now a refugee from his home for conscience’
sake, were bold enough to proffer something in his behalf; Gribaldo
even going so far as to defend certain of his conclusions, and having
a word to say in favour of toleration. But he was not backed by the
congregation of his countrymen, domiciled in Geneva, so that the move
he made had no result. The show of opposition on the part of the
Italian to his sovereign will and pleasure was not, however, forgotten
by Calvin. Denounced by him at a later period for irregularity of some
sort, in contravention of consistorial law, Gribaldo found it advisable
for safety’s sake to quit Geneva.
Still there were not wanting many, both laymen and clerics, natives
of Geneva, as well as refugees, devoutly attached to Calvinistic
doctrines, who showed a lively repugnance to pushing matters the length
of capital punishment in cases of heresy; the instinctive feeling of
all pointing to this as the conclusion aimed at by the prosecution.
For Reformers--heretics themselves in the eyes of the dominant
European Church--to have recourse to measures that appeared in such
an odious light when brought into requisition by Roman Catholics,
seemed illogical, unwarrantable, and dangerous. But the number who
raised their voices in this direction was small. The prisoner was not
an object of interest to the Libertine party in general; a stranger
in Geneva, he was in some sort the particular puppet of Perrin and
Berthelier, rather than the representative of a principle. Even to the
leaders he was nothing more than a counter in the political game of the
day. In a word, and in so far as anything was known about him to the
public, the man entertained extraordinary, and what seemed blasphemous
opinions on religion, as they had learned to understand the word, and
so must be a wicked and worthless person, who might safely be left to
be dealt with by the ministers and civil authorities in the way they
judged best.
Calvin, at this momentous juncture, maintained an attitude of entire
confidence as to the pending decision. He had been informed of the
tenor of the letters received from the Swiss cities; and, aware of
their uniform agreement in the theological culpability of Servetus, he
could rely on the effect this must produce on the minds of the Judges.
He seems even to have thought it unnecessary any longer to exert the
special influence he could always bring to bear on any question in
debate before the Council--he refrained from preaching against the
prisoner and holding him up as a blasphemer against God and religion,
as had been his wont.
_October 26._--The Council, in its capacity of High Court of Criminal
Justice, solemnly convoked for this day, was well attended, though not
quite complete as to numbers; Amied Perrin, cured of his indisposition,
presiding.
The Governing Body of the Republic of Geneva consisted, as we have
seen, of two extreme and mutually opposed parties--the Libertines, or
patriots, and the Clericals, or abettors of Calvin and theocratic rule.
Each of these had representatives in the Council whose voices could
be implicitly relied on. But--as in all general assemblies that ever
came together, there are still found a certain number of neutrals or
waverers, men of no strong convictions one way or another; too weak in
some cases to rely on themselves and act independently; too strong in
others to be led by any convictions but their own, whose votes could
make the balance incline one way or another, so were they not wanting
in the Council of Geneva at this time. Now, in the fateful meeting of
October 26, it was observed that several of the most constant opponents
of Calvin had absented themselves, whilst not one of his regular
supporters failed to appear.
The resolution to be come to was delicate, on matters unfamiliar, and
apt to excite the scruples of the conscientious and timid. It was the
life of no brutal offender against person or property, no criminal, in
fact, save by construction, that was in debate, but that of a scholar
of varied accomplishments, against whom no social delinquency had been
charged, or, if charged, which had not been rebutted, and fallen to
the ground. Yet was this man accused of heresy and blasphemy against
God and religion, not only by the distinguished head of the Church
of Geneva and its other ministers, but was now found guilty of these
theological crimes, involving, as they were said to do, disruption of
the entire social fabric, by every one of the Confederate Churches and
Councils consulted. What, forsooth, could be urged in behalf of him who
had spoken of the Trinity as a three-headed monster, comparable to the
hell-dog of the heathen poets, and declared the Baptism of Infants to
be an invention of the devil?
And then, and yet more, it was not by the Reformed Churches only that
the prisoner had been challenged for heresy, and found guilty; he had
been tried and convicted on this ground by their neighbours the Roman
Catholics of Vienne, been burned in effigy by them along with his
books, and only escaped burning in person by breaking from his prison.
The Genevese, moreover, had been frequently reproached as well by
papists as by professors of other forms of Christianity akin to their
own, with laxity in matters of doctrine, and even called abettors of
heresy and shelterers of heretics; and they had, indeed, been invaded
of late by a host of individuals fleeing for their lives, through
entertaining all manner of new and hitherto unheard-of opinions on
religion.
Weary on every side of wranglings upon subjects they did not
understand, the clerical party in the Senate would not be thought
less than zealous for the true Faith--the Faith which was their own;
whilst the more timid of their adversaries sought excuse and escape
from responsibility by absenting themselves at the moment the vote must
be given on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. But everything at
the moment conspired to associate theological dissidence with social
criminality, and to make of the independent critic of particular
religious dogmas the enemy of all religion.
In the light, therefore, in which Servetus was regarded, his cause
was not seen as one through which, in the event of a decision in his
favour, the Liberal party in the Council of Geneva might hope to find
greater freedom to lead their lives in the way they listed; neither,
through a sentence adverse to him, was it one through which they
foresaw that the iron hand of Calvin would be made either lighter or
heavier than it was. There were, in fact, more reasons for letting
Calvin have his way here than for opposing him--for suffering Servetus
to burn, than for saving his life. The Council had been hard upon the
Reformer of late, and were not disposed to quarrel with him in a matter
that had but a remote connection with their domestic concerns. Backed
as their great theologian was by the Swiss Churches, they believed that
they might safely and with propriety now show themselves on his side,
by condemning the heretic to death.
The meeting of the Court on the 26th, then, not so fully attended as we
have said by the usual opponents of Calvin as by his supporters, had
to face the painful duty of pronouncing sentence on their prisoner at
last. A resolution finding him guilty of the charges alleged, and so
deserving of death, must now have been moved by one of the members--by
whom we are not informed--for we find it immediately met, on the part
of Perrin, by a counter-resolution, declaring him not guilty. Perrin,
we must presume, maintained that the charges were not of a nature that
fell properly under their cognisance as a Court of Criminal Justice.
Nothing had been brought home to the prisoner that showed him to be a
disturber of the public peace, and so came within the sphere of what
he held to be their proper jurisdiction. Perrin must, therefore, have
argued that the Court could only pronounce him not guilty. But this
would plainly have been to stultify the whole of their proceedings
during the last two months and more. The Court, by the laws of
the country, was competent in causes of every complexion, and the
prosecution had proceeded from the first on the ground of theological
criminality. The proposition of the First Syndic, consequently, could
not be entertained, but was rejected as a matter of course. Perrin
then moved that the cause should be remitted to the Council of the Two
Hundred. But this proposal was also negatived: the General Council in
its capacity of Criminal Court, could not waive its right of decision
in a case in which its competence was recognised, and such ample
pains had been taken to get at the merits of the case. Perrin must
then, doubtless, have pleaded for some punishment short of the extreme
penalty of death awarded to the heretic by the law of the land. This
last effort failing like the others, and the Records of the Court
giving no intimation of any further motion in favour of the prisoner,
the following resolution was moved, and by a majority of votes adopted:
‘Having a summary of the process against the prisoner, Michael
Servetus, and the reports of the parties consulted before us, it
is hereby resolved, and, in consideration of his great errors and
blasphemies, decreed, that he be taken to Champel, and there burned
alive; that this sentence be carried into effect on the morrow, and
that his books be burned with him.’[98]
The sentence once resolved on, appears to have been immediately
communicated to Calvin, and he in the same hour proceeded to inform his
most intimate friend Farel of the result. In anticipation of the event,
he had, indeed, written to Farel some days before, begging him to come
to Geneva. The clergy of the city having acted with Calvin to a man
in the prosecution, it was thought more seemly that a stranger should
attend the prisoner in his last moments, than one of themselves; hence
Calvin’s first letter of October 14, in anticipation of the final
sentence, and to the following effect:
I have no words, my dear Farel, adequately to express my thanks
to you for your great solicitude in respect of ourself and our
Church. I purposely abstained from writing to you for fear of
inducing you to take horse so soon (Farel had been dangerously
ill), and I would not be troublesome to you until time pressed.
You say, indeed, that you do not thank me for sparing you; and
I know how willing, nay, how eager you are at all times to
labour for the Church of God, how ready ever to come to our aid.
As to the state of affairs with us, I imagine you are already
well informed, through Viret, or rather through my letters
to him, which, however, were really meant for you both in
common. The enemy is now intent on the business that comes on
for discussion before the General Council about the Ides of
November, and I think it would be well were Viret to come to
us then; but I would have you here somewhat sooner--about the
time when the affair of Servetus will be drawing to a close;
and this I hope will be before the end of the ensuing week....
I would not, however, incommode you, or have you stir, where no
immediate necessity compels.
Farel had not arrived so soon as Calvin expected, so he writes again on
the 26th, and informs his friend that answers had been received from
the Churches unanimous in their condemnation of Servetus. Alluding to
the proceedings during the last few days of the trial, when Perrin,
the First Syndic, made vain attempts by delay and entreaty to save the
prisoner’s life, Calvin speaks of the merciful man by the nickname
under which he was wont to characterise his great Libertine opponent,
and says:
Our comical Cæsar having feigned illness for three days,
mounted the tribune at length with a view to aid the wicked
scoundrel--_istum sceleratum_--to escape punishment. Nor did he
blush to demand that the cause might be remitted to the Council
of the Two Hundred. But in vain, all was refused, the prisoner
was condemned, and to-morrow he will suffer death.
Self-centred, resolute as he was, we yet see in Calvin’s anxiety to
have Farel beside him, that he felt the want of such support as an
all-devoted friend alone can give in supreme moments of our lives. His
last letter could not have reached Farel in such time as would have
enabled him to be in Geneva on the day of the execution; but when it
was despatched Farel was already on his way from Neuchatel, and reached
Geneva in the evening of the 26th, so that he had the news of all that
had taken place, and of the fate that awaited the unhappy Servetus on
the morrow, from the mouth of Calvin himself.