Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

The cause having now come again formally before the council, they lost no time in taking it into consideration; and on the twentysixth of October, they decided, by a majority of votes, to condemn Servetus to death.

Before we proceed with the narrative, we deem it of some consequence to direct the attention of our readers to the charges which Servetus had been called upon to answer. It has been seen that he was arraigned on several accusations of alleged heresy and blasphemy. We have dwelt the more pointedly upon these imputations, as constituting the gravamen of his pretended offences, on account of the attempt made by M. Rilliet to give to the proceedings a different colour, with the view of palliating the conduct of Calvin. He does not, indeed, deny that theological delinquencies were among the charges, but contends that they were neither the sole nor the principal grounds of his condemnation. The main causes were, he alleges, of a political nature, for which the magistrates of Geneva, and not Calvin, must be held responsible. Servetus, he affirms, came to Geneva with the knowledge that there was a party in the city hostile to Calvin; that he entered into a league with these persons for his annoyance; that they took his part in the proceedings, encouraging him, in his defence, to assail Calvin with virulent and abusive language; that, in consequence, he was considered as a seditious demagogue and dangerous disturber of the public peace. "He was therefore condemned," we are told, "not at all as the opponent of Calvin, scarcely as a heretic, but essentially as seditious. Politics acted a more important part than theology towards the close of the trial."*

M. Rilliet attaches great importance to this view of the case, which he represents as established by the official records recently recovered. But he greatly errs if he suppose that he is the first to impute to Servetus a collusion with the opponents of Calvin. M. de la Roche, one of the earliest historians of these proceedings, states expressly that "he had discovered that Calvin had at Geneva some enemies who counselled Servetus to attack him with virulence, persuading him that such a course would be serviceable to his cause." Beza, also, refers to this circumstance, alleging that "one of the factions against Calvin whispered, as was believed, in the ear of Servetus, what might serve to confirm his mind in his obstinacy."†

If, then, the fact that Servetus had abettors in the city, supposing it to be true, could be thought to furnish grounds for exculpating Calvin, his friends and defenders had the benefit of it from the first. But who among his many apologists and eulogists has ever before thought of alleging this circumstance in his favour? But the allegation itself rests wholly on conjecture. The earliest writers who notice it give it as a mere matter of opinion, which they do not attempt to confirm by direct proof. Servetus was again and again closely interrogated upon the subject, but no admission could be extorted from him to warrant the assumption, Calvin himself, in his eagerness to multiply and aggravate the charges against him, never once added this to his alleged offences, though it might have been easily and instantly established by

* Rilliet, ut supra, p. 131.

† Life of Calvin prefixed to his Epistles, Lausanne, 1576.

the examination of the gaoler; and M. Rilliet has not adduced a particle of evidence in its support entitled to a moment's consideration. The sole pretence for this allegation of a seditious collusion with Calvin's enemies, is the simple fact, that two members of the council before whom Servetus was tried, Berthellier and Perrin, who held a principal rank in the republic, shewed themselves on one or two occasions disposed to favour him; but there is no evidence whatever of any intriguing between them for political objects. M. Rilliet has wholly failed in supporting the allegation. Indeed, his reasoning upon this point is singularly weak, the logic being of that sort which establishes the direct contrary of what it was intended to demonstrate.

The assertion, however, that Servetus "was condemned, not as a heretic, but essentially as seditious," is not only not proved, but is amply and decisively contradicted by the whole tenor and the express language of the charges preferred against him in all the documents submitted to the consideration of the judges, in the papers referred to the ministers of the Swiss churches, and, finally, in the language of the sentence which consigned him to death.

We have already related, that, after considering the answers of the Swiss ministers, the majority of the council agreed upon a verdict of guilty upon the capital charges. The following is the record of their judgment as entered in the official registers :

66

Having examined the abstract of the trial of Michael Servetus, prisoner, the report of those whom we have consulted, and considered his grand errors and blasphemies, it is thus decreed-Let him be condemned to be led to Champel* and there be burned alive, and let him be executed to-morrow, and his books be consumed."†

Anxious as we are to compress our observations on this case, we cannot pass without notice the strange remark of M. Rilliet upon this judgment of the council. "Viewed by our consciences," he writes, "this sentence is odious-it was JUST, according to law."‡

In thus attempting to justify the sentence on the ground of its legality, this writer ought to have fortified himself by a reference to the particular edict or statute under the authority of which it was passed. This he has not done, and we will state the reason; it is because no such law existed. If we are thought to be in error, let the statute be produced. In the mean time, we demand what was the law, or the fiction of law, which authorized the arrest of Servetus at Geneva, his committal to prison, and his subsequent trial?

It may be assumed as a principle in all civil and criminal jurisprudence, that no state will deprive a man of his personal liberty and put him on his trial, except for some offence, actual or supposed, alleged to have been committed within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of that state. We ask, then, what offence had Servetus committed within the territories and against the laws of the republic of Geneva ? None whatever: there is no proof, there is no allegation even, of the kind. It is imputed to him that he elsewhere disseminated heretical

* A small hill, or rising ground, on a plain without the walls of Geneva, called the Champ de Bourreau, or executioner's field, where criminals were usually put to death.

[blocks in formation]

principles; but he had not disseminated them in Geneva. He was charged with printing heretical books in Germany and France; but not a copy of either of those books had he sold or given away in the republic. The utmost that was alleged against him which could be considered at all cognizable before the authorities there, was, that he had communicated some obnoxious opinions by correspondence to individuals resident in the city. But this was altogether a private matter, done in strict confidence, and therefore constituted no public offence. He was arraigned, then, in the technical language of lawyers, coram non judice, before a court not competent to entertain the charges. But we are told that he had published in other countries heretical and blasphemous opinions, subversive of the Christian religion, and against the peace of Christendom. But how was this conduct punishable at Geneva? Did that city in any way represent Christendom? Was its council, with "the venerable Company of Pastors," to erect itself into a high Court of Inquisition, John Calvin being invested with the office of Chief Inquisitor, with supreme authority to adjudicate upon all alleged offences against the doctrines of Christianity, in what country soever committed, and in contravention of whatever system of Christian faith, whether Protestant or Catholic? Such an authority, indeed, they seemed in this case to assume; but it was in principle preposterous and absurd. During the trial, Calvin and his agents appealed in justification of their measures to the authority of the Roman emperors, to the Code of Theodosius, and the Institutes of Justinian. But against whom were the laws thus appealed to enacted? The answer is obvious-Against those who assailed the dominant Catholic Church in the days of its greatest corruption. And Servetus remarked with great force, that Calvin could not admit the validity of the authority of Justinian as to the subjects of Holy Church, of bishops, the clergy, &c. And of what authority could such laws be in the Protestant state of Geneva? The fact is, that these laws were seldom, if at all, acted upon for the punishment of alleged heresy in the Western empire. Heretics were put to death generally by virtue of the bulls or rescripts of the Popes, who arrogated to themselves this power in religious matters in all Catholic countries. We believe that the first imperial edicts under the authority of which alleged heretics were consigned to the stake in Europe, were the "Constitutions" of Frederic II., who, to shew his gratitude to the Pope for placing upon his head the imperial diadem, issued, in 1220, these nefarious ordinances for the suppression of the sectaries then swarming in Italy and France. These edicts, for the protection of the pure Catholic faith, were the productions of the orthodox zeal of that atheistical monarch and his equally unbelieving Chancellor, Peter de Vignes.* Geneva having in former times been an imperial city, these constitutions had there, during that period, the force of law; but if they were valid for the burning of Servetus, they were equally valid against his Protestant prosecutors and judges, and would, if put in force, have consigned them all alike to the stake.

But Geneva had long ceased to be a city of the empire, and recently

Piero delle Vigne, to whom Dante has assigned a remarkable place in his Inferno, Canto xiii.

[blocks in formation]

had expelled its Episcopal prince and sovereign, and formed itself into a republic under a new constitution. The question, therefore, reduces itself into this simple form-Was there in this new constitution any law which rendered the sentence on Servetus just? Shortly after the establishment of the Reformation, and the formation of the new civil government, a commission, of which Calvin was a member, was appointed to revise the laws and prepare a new constitution. The body of laws thus formed, called the Edits Politiques, were approved and adopted in 1543, and remained in force till 1568, when another revision took place. Were the imperial constitutions included in these laws? -or was there in them a single ordinance which applied to the case of Servetus? We answer, decidedly not. The commissioners did not stultify their labours by the admission of any statute so preposterous. The fact is, that the constitution thus settled was in many respects defective, forming rather an outline than a complete code. The authors were sparing of positive enactments as to penal judgments and inflictions, and left a large discretion to the judges. Rousseau asserts, in a passage quoted by M. Rilliet,f that there were not at Geneva penal laws, strictly so called, the magistrates punishing crimes arbitrarily. And Mr. Keate‡ asserts the same thing. "The Republic hath no code of criminal punishment, but only of process." But if there were here no penal laws, no code of criminal punishment, where, we ask, has M. Rilliet found the law which rendered the sentence of Servetus just? We are bound to follow Rousseau's account and say, that after having countenanced a preposterous inquisition into the conduct of Servetus, and his alleged heretical offences in foreign lands, authorized by no written law of the state, and in violation of the essential principles of jurisprudence, they arbitrarily, without the sanction of any positive statute, condemned him to death.

We have in the preceding pages traced with some minuteness Calvin's "share" in the proceedings against Servetus, until the pastors of the Swiss churches pronounced their judgment upon the documents submitted to their consideration. We have now to look to his conduct subsequently to the decision of the council.

His temper and spirit at this period will perhaps derive some illustration from a brief retrospect. On the 20th of August, Calvin addressed a letter to his friend Farel at Neufchatel, in which, after apprizing him of the arrest of Servetus and the commencement of the proceedings against him, he writes-" I hope Servetus will be condemned to death, but wish that the severity of the punishment may be mitigated."§ The reply is worthy of the letter. "I hope," says this Christian divine, "that those who are praised for inflicting a just punishment upon thieves and sacrilegious persons, will do their duty in this case, by taking off a man who has so long and so obstinately persisted in his heresy, and ruined so many people. In desiring that the severity of the punishment should be mitigated, you act the part of a friend towards one who is

*Spon, Histoire de Genève, 4to, Genève, 1730, Tom. I. p. 284, note. † Page 207.

Account of the Ancient History, Present Government, and Laws of the Republic of Geneva, 8vo, London, 1761, p. 82.

§ Calvini Epist., ut supra, No. 152, p. 258.

your greatest enemy. But I beseech you to act in such a way that no one may hereafter be daring enough to come and publish new doctrines, and occasion so much disturbance."*

On the 26th of October, as soon as the judgment of the council was known, Calvin hastened to convey the intelligence to the same friend, to whom he knew it would be highly gratifying. After relating the opinions of the Swiss pastors, and referring to the deliberations of the council, he proceeds :-Servetus "has been condemned without any dispute, and will be executed to-morrow. I have tried to have the punishment commuted, but without effect."

Whether Calvin interfered to direct, by his influence, the deliberations of the judges when considering their verdict, to secure the consummation he had all along so ardently desired, there are now no means of ascertaining. But it is evident that he was fully informed of all that passed at the sitting, and was apprized of the result before it was known beyond the walls. The council pronounced the final judgment on the 26th of October; but on the day before, Calvin, having received private notice of its tenor, hastened to convey the welcome intelligence to his friend Bullinger, who would, he thought, share his triumph. 'It is not yet known," he writes, “what will be done with this man. As far as I can conjecture, he will to-morrow be condemned by the judges, and on the following day will be led to execution."‡ How admirable a guess-how clear a foresight into futurity!

66

Calvin, the reader will have seen, takes credit to himself for the wish to mitigate the punishment, and the endeavour to obtain a commutation of the sentence, of Servetus. But are we to understand from this that his feelings towards him had undergone any change? Had he abandoned his threat, so often repeated, to leave no effort untried to have him put to death? By no means! Still implacable in his resentment, he could not consent that the life of his enemy should be spared. He petitioned for a revision of the sentence; but the whole extent of his mercy was to plead for the substitution of the sword for the stakethat his victim should be beheaded rather than be burnt alive! why solicit even this change? Not because he wished to lessen the pains of the sufferer, but because he was apprehensive that the employment of fire would suggest no very flattering parallel between the execution of a Protestant Inquisition and the auto-da-fé of the "holy office" of Rome.

And

On the morning of the 27th of October, the final sentence of the judges was communicated to Servetus, and publicly read in his hearing at the Town-hall. He had cherished hopes of a more favourable result, and this announcement of the instant and painful death that awaited him for a moment overwhelmed his spirit, already depressed by his long imprisonment and harassing persecutions. Calvin, anxious. to impress the public that in his last moments he exhibited no claims to be considered as a martyr, states tauntingly, that, when the sentence was announced, "there appeared in him a brutish stupidity. At first he stood dumb and motionless; at times he sighed deeply; and then

* Calvini Epistolæ, ut supra, No. 155, p. 261.

Ibid., No. 161, p. 271.

Ibid., No. 162, p. 273.

« PředchozíPokračovat »