Why did John Calvin have Michael Servetus burned at the stake for heresy?

Calvin was troubled, too, with the Libertines of Geneva, who desired a greater amount of freedom of action than the Reformer would allow. To shew the severity of Calvin we give one of the cases. Ameaux was a member of the Two Hundred. He was discontented, and was heard to speak against Calvin and his doctrine. His trial was demanded. At his trial witnesses were called to prove the morality of Calvin's private life. Ameaux was fined sixty dollars. He retracted the charges, and promised future respect to the Reformer.

Calvin was not satisfied with the punishment. He appeared before the council and demanded that the judgment should be set aside. Ameaux was now sentenced to go through the whole city bareheaded, and with a lighted torch in his hand, and then to kneel down and openly proclaim his repentance.

Surely this was very unwise of Calvin and very unlike his gracious Lord and Master. It called forth further opposition, and the cause of the gospel was greatly damaged.

In 1553 Michael Servetus — who denied the divinity of Christ, and who put forth his doctrine in blasphemous language — visited Geneva. He was informed against by Calvin and was thrown into prison as a heretic and a blasphemer. He was tried, sentenced and burnt alive. Much controversy has arisen as to how far Calvin was concerned in the death of Servetus, some contending that his death was chiefly owing to Calvin, and others that Calvin had little or nothing to do with his conviction. But there really seems to be little room for doubt on the subject. Calvin's own words to Farel are, "We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city . . . . but after he had been recognized, "thought that he should be detained . . . I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him; but I desire that the severity of the punishment may be mitigated."*. To another he wrote that Servetus "is held in prison by our magistrates and he will be punished ere long, I hope." To Bullinger Calvin wrote, "Our council will on an early day send the opinions of Servetus to your city, to obtain your judgment regarding them. Indeed they cause you this trouble despite our remonstrances; but they have reached such a pitch of folly and madness that they regard with suspicion whatever we say to them. So much so that were I to allege that it is clear at mid-day they would forthwith begin to doubt it." To Sulzer Calvin wrote of Servetus, "He at length, in an evil hour, came to this place, when at my instigation one of the syndics ordered him to be conducted to prison."

We have quoted Calvin's own words which clearly set forth his share in the matter. To this we may add a few words of Beza's: "Calvin pleaded the cause of the church against him in the council, in the presence of a great assemblage of the pious." Doubtless a good deal is to be attributed to the age in which this took place, so that none should blame Calvin too severely. It was surely an error, but in this Calvin did not stand alone; Farel, Melanchthon, Bucer and Bullinger all advocated the death of Servetus.

Farel attended the unhappy man to the stake in the hope of getting him to retract his error, but he laboured in vain. Calling for the death of Servetus was another dark shadow on the Reformation. It is appalling to think of a man in error, ever so dreadful, being hurried into eternity.

Michael Servetus was a Spaniard, born in the same year with Calvin; of an active, vigorous mind; capable of applying himself to various pursuits; but, unfortunately, too speculative in divine things. He had studied medicine, law, and theology, in the latter, he was led away by a daring, self-confident spirit, into the wildest extravagances of pantheism, materialism, and a virulent opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. But under all this heresy, like the Anabaptists-the celestial prophets-he was seditious and revolutionary. Such men generally aim at the overthrow of existing governments, as well as Christianity. This was the great sin, and the real cause of the persecution of the Anabaptists in those days. They followed the Reformers into every country, and sought to upset their work by affirming that they only went half way, and that Christians-like themselves-should rule the state as well as the church-that the time was come for the saints to take the kingdoms of this world.

Just before Servetus came to Geneva, he had escaped from the prison at Vienna, where he had been confined for the publication of an offensive and blasphemous work, and where he was afterwards burned in effigy, with five bales of his books. Calvin, who knew him well, and had exposed his heresies years before this affair at Vienna, is represented as saying, "If Servetus came to Geneva, and his influence could prevent it he should not go away alive." Servetus did come, and Calvin informed the council of his arrival, and drew up the articles of indictment from his writings, which led to his condemnation and death. These charges he was required by the council to retract, deny, explain, or defend, as he should see good. For this preparation he was allowed all the time he demanded. But in place of conciliating enemies, or making friends by a spirit of sobriety and moderation when he made his defence he conducted himself in the most insolent manner. He gave to Calvin the lie direct over and over again, and called him by such names as "Simon the sorcerer." Particulars of this case were sent to several other states for an opinion, and it was said, "With one consent they all pronounced that he has revived the impious errors with which Satan of old disturbed the church; and is a monster not to be endured." With these concurring opinions, and the council of Geneva being unanimous, he was condemned to be led to Champel, and there burned alive.

The wretched man, up to the last, showed no signs of repentance, but the most dreadful fear of death. When Calvin heard the sentence, he was greatly affected, and interceded with the council, not that Servetus might be spared, but that his sentence might be mitigated; he prayed that the sword might be substituted for the fire-decapitation for burning. But this was refused; and on 27th of October, 1553, he was led to the summit of Champel, where the stake had been fixed. At the first glare of the flames, it is said, Servetus gave a shriek so terrible, that it made the crowd fall back and was heard at a great distance. His books were burned with him, but the fire burned slowly, and he lived half-an-hour at the stake.*

Calvin's Work

In the sixteenth century in Italy such writers, as Denck, Hetzer, Castellio, Gribaldi, Servetus, were prominent in teaching similar views, viz., that there is only one God, the Father; that Jesus was wholly human; that His death was not an atoning sacrifice. The last-named of these, Servetus (1511-1553), in 1551 published a treatise, The Errors of Trinitarian Beliefs—the chief Trinitarian belief attacked being, that the Godhead embraces Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One in Three, and Three in One, ONE GOD.

The heretical views of Servetus and others were stoutly denounced by Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, as well as by the Romish Church. So strong was the feeling that these views were subversive of salvation itself, and destructive of the Christian Faith, that when Servetus set foot in Geneva, where John Calvin at the time was wielding a very powerful influence, he was arrested and arraigned for blasphemy. His trial lasted from August 1st to October 26th, 1553. The next day he was burnt to death. In England between 1548 to 1612 seven men were put to death for similar views.

Then follows his advice of patient waiting for results. 'And now I say to you, Refrain from those men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or if this work be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them, lest ye be found also [or, even] fighting against God' (vers. 38, 39). It was the form of toleration which a grave Jew might feel, impressed with recent facts, the character of the accused, and the state of public opinion. But there is far more reference to the issue under God than in the modern doctrine of toleration, which is in general a mere homage to the rights of man, ignoring God and the truth. He may have felt that persecution is a sorry means of subverting error or maintaining truth. Whatever the value or the motives of his judgment, it commended itself to the council, and saved the apostles from a death that seemed imminent.

Perhaps it may not be amiss here to give a specimen of the famous John Calvin's skill in handling the word of God. In his comment on the passage he first of all shows little favour to the sober speech with which Gamaliel swayed the council and extinguished the fiery zeal of those inclined to extremities. 'But if any one weigh all duly, his opinion is unworthy of a prudent man. I know indeed that by many it is held as an oracle; but that they judge badly appears with sufficient clearness even from this, because in such a way one must abstain from all punishments, neither were any wickedness to be corrected longer: yea, one must refuse all helps of life, which not even for one moment is it in our disposal to prolong. Both things indeed are said truly: what is of God cannot be destroyed by any efforts of men; what is of men is too weak to stand. But it is a bad inference that meanwhile we must do nothing. Rather should we see what God enjoins: and His will is that wickedness be restrained by us' (I. Calvani Opp. vi. in loc. Amstel. 1667).

Here breaks out the inflexible rigour which insisted on the burning of the unhappy Servetus, and the excessive punishment of others. Their evil doctrines are not questioned; but what have servants of Christ to do with measures of the kind? We have not so learned Him. The church has no doubt its own responsibility in the spiritual domain; as the world in what pertains to this life. Calvin has confounded all this in the opinion which censures Gamaliel, who meant nothing less than to deny the duty of the powers that be, but rightly urged that men should await the manifestation of that which was doubtful, instead of yielding to the hasty measures of passion and prejudice. To dissuade from extreme violence where the work might prove to be of God was certainly wiser than punishing to the utmost where they knew of no adequate reason. Calvin's logic seems as precarious as his confusion is evident of things spiritual and worldly. But this is not so extraordinary as his judgment that when Luke says, 'After him [Theudas] rose up Judas', he does not mark the order of time, as if Judas were the latter, that Gamaliel brought in his two examples promiscuously 'in disregard to time', and that 'after' means no more than 'besides' or 'moreover'!1 He had said before, 'If we credit Josephus, Gamaliel here inverts the true series of history.' Not so; unless we assume there could be only one insurrectionary Theudas. Now Josephus tells us of four men named Judas in ten years, who broke out in rebellion, and of three named Simon in forty years, and he in no way professes to name all, but on the contrary implies many more as unnamed. The assumption of Calvin is anything but rational and certainly fails in reverence. {1 It is true that Calvin might have pleaded the example of Eusebius (H.E. i. 5; ii. 11) for the same bad preference of a worldly to an inspired historian: so early, so inveterate, is the working of the evil heart of unbelief, and this in men of reputation. Even Th. de Bèze seems to be ashamed of all this, and certainly scouts the view of his predecessor as unfounded, though he speaks of Eusebius rather than of Calvin.}

That protest was assuredly a necessity; but it was also deemed that there must for this reason be something that would give more stability to it than the testimony of a few scattered and hunted souls. The kings and the nations, alike trodden down under the hard heel of Rome, had plenty of reason for desiring to set up a bulwark against her; and where could they have one more effectual than the profession of a Reformed creed, and putting the power to maintain it into the hands of a civil magistrate? It was the Spirit of God that had raised up a testimony against the evil, but the Spirit of God could not be counted upon by the mass to maintain that testimony. Had not, in fact, the apostle enjoined upon Christians to be subject to the powers that be? Rome had for her followers decreed a large exemption from such a duty. The Church could everywhere, as it pleased, throw the mantle of its charity over those whom the state condemned. On the other hand, for Protestants, the State now was to interfere in that which belonged really to the Church. The creed must be maintained, and non-conformity to the creed be penal. Hence, persecution and laxity went hand in hand. The things of God were committed to hands that were unfit to touch them; and while the purer creed indeed commended itself to a larger circle than of those who had true faith in it, it was thus continually nullified and defiled by its nominal adherents.

Again, it was from not seizing the truth conveyed here and elsewhere that some of the Reformers erred greatly in essaying to enforce the kingdom of God on Jewish principles. Thus, in the sixteenth century, not only were many burnt and imprisoned in England for alleged dogmatic evil, but also some flagrant cases occurred at Geneva under Calvin's dictation. It is needless to enlarge on the Puritans, long after, and their excesses; or on the Scottish Presbyterians, whose desires, and deeds, with a similar end in view, are notorious. The penal statutes, till lately in force in our own country, bear witness to the same general tendency. In fact, it is the danger, not of Christians who seek by the grace of God to keep themselves separate from the world and pure, but of all who adopt the world as the ground of their ecclesiastical system, which they must next render compulsory by law: sorrowful contrast to the Spirit's action in the Church of God!

Even supposing, however, that every one who differed from the Romish church was a heretic, scripture gives no authority for putting such to death. No, nor yet putting bodily suffering of any kind upon them. A schismatic or heretic may be looked upon as one who breaks from the path of walking in truth. The word of God counsels the saints to admonish such a one. If he remain hardened after this has been once or twice done, then he is to be rejected. (Titus 3:10.) Thus men, instead of acting in the blindness of a zeal without knowledge, would have done better to have listened to the voice of God, and not to that which is always wrong, the "evil heart of unbelief."

Another heresy at that time was by Servetus, who denied the Godhead of Christ. Full of his own opinions this man challenged Calvin to a conference; Calvin accepted the offer, but Servetus did not keep his appointment. Calvin became the defender of the Trinity against this deceiver.

All these things were useful to Calvin. It was not needed to oppose the errors of Rome only, but to adhere closely to the truth. Many saw Rome to be wrong, but, deceived by Satan, they wandered in the mazes of error and wickedness.

On February 28th, he was brought out to a mock trial before the Cardinal, and condemned to the flames, to be burned to death on the following day.

Persecution, however, at length became so violent that he was obliged to take refuge in Switzerland, where he made the acquaintance of Oecolampadius, Bucer, and other reformers. At Basle, Montbeliard, Aigle, Vallengin, St. Blaise, and Neuchatel, all in French Switzerland, he laboured with varying success; and such was the power of his preaching in the last-named place that the people declared they would live and die in the Protestant faith, and refused to rest satisfied till the Reformation was legally established in the Canton. At Geneva, which he visited twice, his work was difficult and perilous, and many attempts were made both by monks and priests to murder him. Several times he was stoned and beaten; twice he narrowly escaped a death by drowning in the Rhone; and once he was mercifully preserved from a more painful death by poison. But the blessing of the Lord was upon his labours, and ere long the Mass was officially suspended by a decree of the Council of Two Hundred, and an edict appeared ordaining that, "the services of God were thenceforward to be performed according to the statutes of the gospel; and that all acts of papal idolatry were to cease altogether." Coins were struck in commemoration of the event, and the citizens chose for themselves this new motto, "After darkness, light." The same happy results attended the labours of the stout-hearted reformer at Lausanne, though his first visit to the place was unsuccessful. The important matter was settled at a public disputation which lasted eight days, and ended in a signal triumph for the Protestants.