The opinions of the cities had all been received by Oct. 22, and were unanimous in condemning the false teachings of Servetus as not to be tolerated in the Church. The Council of Berne especially urged the use of severe measures to prevent the introduction of such errors, while the clergy of that city sought to mod- erate the force of that recommendation bj' a warning against indiscretion. Calvin and his associates were decidedly of the opinion that the penalty of death should be inflicted on the accused, and so expressed themselves, though averse to death by fire as involving unnecessary cruelty. When the council met to deter- mine the penalty to be imposed (Oct. 23), oi)inions were divided, and several councillors were absent. A recess was therefore taken until Oct. 20. The syndic A. Per- rin, a zealous opponent of Calvin, then |)roiiosed, first, an acquittal of the accused, and afterwards a reference of the matter to the Council of the Two Hundred, but in each case without success. The sentence of death by fire was pronounced in conformity with the laws of the cm|iire. The condemned man was profoundly moved, and pleaded earnestly for mercy, lint he coidd not be persuaded to recant. He died Oct. 27, 1553, without having changed his views in any important particular, but not without exhibiting the marks of a Christian spirit.
It is not possible to regard the character of Servetus as favorably as it has been described bj' the opponents of Calvin. He was not pure and great, and though he
SERVETUS
592
SERVIA
ultimately diecl for his convictions, he was by no means a marti/r for the truth. He concealed liis beliefs and attended mass in France during more than twenty years at a time when multitudes chose death or the loss of country and prospects rather than deny their faith. He availed himself unhesitatingly of falsehood and perjury, especially' in the trial at Vienne. He cer- tain!}' did not possess a high degree of moral earnest- ness. As a thinker, he was noticeable for originality and ingenuity, for speculative depth and a wealth of ideas, though the very number of ideas prevented him from presenting them with adequate clearness. His theological and christological system rested to a much greater extent than he imagined upon hypotheses and theories in natural philosophy, and to a much smaller extent upon the Bible. His one-sided intellectualism, finalh', afforded no satisfaction to the religious sense in man, while his strongly pantheistic leanings and his irreverent polemics necessarily offended the religious consciousness. His pyre unfortunately did more to en- lighten the world than all his books. His teachings were scarcely understood until the most recent times. His so-called followers, the later Antitrinitarians, failed to comprehend either their organic unity or their ful- ness and depth, and, while they appropriated surface ideas, were unable to appreciate what is really specula- tive in his books. Gribaldo and Gentile, for example, sensualize the twofold manifestation of God into an es- sentiation of subordinate deities, and Socinus degrades the real Sonship and Deity of Christ as taught by Ser- vetus until nothing beyond his essential manhood re- mains.
The course pursued by Calvin in the trial of Servetus has been the subject of incessant dispute from his own daj' until now. His contemporaries already condemned his action, though the most eminent orthodox thinkers and theologians approved his course; and though the argument has been renewed as often as occasion off^ered, the Christian jvorld is not yet able to agree upon a judg- ment which shall affbrd universal satisfaction. The facts upon which a decision must be based are as follows:
1. Calvin was thoroughly convinced that the welfare of the Church demanded the death of Servetus as an incorrigible heretic, and never hesitated to acknowledge that conviction. When Servetus requested that Calvin should protect him during a proposed visit to Geneva, the latter refused, and wrote to Farel, under date of Feb. 7, 1546, " If he [Servetus] should come hither, I will not permit him to escape with his life, if my au- thority has any weight" (Henry, Lehen J. Calcins, iii, 6(J, appendix). His views upon the subject never changed, as appears from his correspondence while the trial was in progress, e. g. the letter of Sept. 14, 1553 {Ep. et Resp. fol. 127), in which Bullinger urges Calvin not to leave Geneva even though Servetus should not
, be punished with death. The absence of such facts from the records of the trial is sufficiently explained by the consideration that thej' were not matter for public record ; and the Fidelis Exposiiio Errorinn M. Serteti, etc., written to explain his conduct in that unhappy business, does not justify the argument sometimes based on it to show that Calvin did not desire the death of Servetus, since the book was intended to show, tirst, that incorrigible heretics ought to be punished by the secular arm ; and, second, that Servetus was such a heretic.
2. In obedience to such convictions, Calvin caused the imprisonment of Servetus as soon as he learned that the latter was in (ieneva, and personally directed the prosecution of the trial. Both statements rest on his own repeated acknowledgments in letters to his friends and in his Refutatio, and are substantiated by the pub- lic records.
3. While Calvin wished Servetus to die, he did not favor his being burned at the stake (comp. the letter to Farel of Aug. '20, 1553 [A>. et Resp. fol. 114], and Beza. Joan, Ciilc. I'itu).