BOOK IV.

OF PERSECUTIONS AMONGST PROTESTANTS.

After the world had groaned for many ages under the insupportable bondage of Popish superstition and cruelty, it pleased God, in his own good Providence, to take the remedy of these evils into his own hands; and after several ineffectual attempts by men, at last to bring about a reformation of religion by his own wisdom and power. The history of this great event hath been very particularly and faithfully given by many excellent writers, to which I must here refer my readers; and it must be owned, that the persons employed by Almighty God, to accomplish this great work, were, many of them, remarkable for their great learning and exemplary piety. I am sure I have no inclination to detract from their worth and merit. One would indeed have imagined, that the cruelties exercised by the papists upon all who opposed their superstitions in worship, and their corruptions in doctrine, should have given the first reformers an utter abhorrence of all methods of persecution for conscience-sake, and have kept them from ever entering into any such measures themselves. But it must be confessed, that however they differed from the church of Rome, as to doctrines and discipline, yet, that they too generally agreed with her, in the methods to support what they themselves apprehended to be truth and orthodoxy; and were angry with the papists, not for persecuting, but for persecuting themselves and their followers; being really of opinion that heretics might be persecuted, and, in some cases, persecuted to death. And that this was their avowed principle, they gave abundant demonstration by their practice.

SECT. I. _Luther’s opinion concerning Persecution._

Luther, that great instrument, under God, of the reformation in Germany, was, as his followers allow, naturally of a warm and violent temper, but was however in his judgment against punishing heretics with death. Thus, in his account of the state of the Popish church, as related by Seckendorf, he says:[292] “the true church teaches the word of God, but forces no one to it. If any one will not believe it, she dismisses him, and separates herself from him, according to the command of Christ, and the example of Paul in the Acts, and leaves him to the judgment of God: whereas our executioners and most cruel tyrants teach not the word of God, but their own articles, acting as they please, and then adjudge those who refuse to believe their articles, and obey their decrees, to the fires.” The same author gives us many other strong passages to the same purpose. Particularly, in one of his letters to Lineus, who asked his opinion about the punishment of false teachers, Luther says:[293] “I am very averse to the shedding of blood, even in the case of such as deserve it: and I the more especially dread it in this case, because, as the Papists and Jews, under this pretence, have destroyed holy prophets and innocent men; so I am afraid the same would happen amongst ourselves, if in one single instance it should be allowed lawful for seducers to be put to death. I can therefore, by no means, allow that false teachers should be destroyed.” But as to all other punishments, Luther seems to have been of Austin’s mind, and thought that they might be lawfully used. For, after the before-mentioned passage, he adds, “it is sufficient that they should be banished.” And in another place[294] he allows, that “heretics may be corrected, and forced at least to silence, if they publicly deny any one of the articles received by all Christians, and particularly that Christ is God; affirming him to be a mere man or prophet.” “This,” says he, “is not to force men to the faith, but to restrain from public blasphemy.” In another place he goes farther and says,[295] that “heretics are not indeed to be put to death, but may however be confined, and shut up in some certain place, and put under restraint as madmen.” As to the Jews, he was for treating them more severely;[296] and was of opinion, that “their synagogues should be levelled with the ground, their houses destroyed, their books of prayer, and of the talmud, and even those of the old testament, be taken from them; their rabbies be forbid to teach, and forced, by hard labour, to get their bread; and if they would not submit to this, that they should be banished, as was formerly practised in France and Spain.”

Footnote 292:

L. 2. Sect. 36. § 83.

Footnote 293:

Ibid. Sect. 13. § 43.

Footnote 294:

Ibid. Sect. 36. § 83.

Footnote 295:

L. 3. Sect. 8. § 28.

Footnote 296:

L. 3. Sect. 27. § 3.

[297]This was the moderation of this otherwise great and good man, who was indeed against putting heretics to death, but for almost all other punishments that the civil magistrates could inflict: and agreeably to this opinion, he persuaded the Electors of Saxony not to tolerate in their dominions, the followers of Zuinglius, in the opinion of the sacrament, because he esteemed the real presence an essential or fundamental article of faith; nor to enter into any terms of union with them, for their common safety and defence, against the endeavours of the papists to destroy them. And accordingly, notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, to get them included in the common league against the papists, the Elector would never allow it, being vehemently dissuaded from it by Luther, Melancton, and others of their party, who alledged, “That they taught articles contrary to those received in Saxony; and that therefore there could be no agreement of heart with them.”

Footnote 297:

L. 3. Sect. 32. § 125.

In one of his conferences with Bucer, he declared, that there could be no union, unless Zuinglius and his party should think and teach otherwise; cursing all phrases and interpretations that tended to assert the figurative presence only; affirming, that [298]“either those of his own opinion, or those of Zuinglius, must be the ministers of the devil.” On this account, though Luther was for treating Zuinglius and his followers with as much christian friendship as he could afford them, yet he would never own them for brethren, but looked on them as heretics, and pressed the Electors of Saxony not to allow them in their dominions. [299]He also wrote to Albert Duke of Prussia, to persuade him to banish them his territories. Seckendorf also tells us, that the Lutheran lawyers of Wirtemburg condemned to death one Peter Pestelius, for being a Zuinglian; though this was disapproved by the Elector of Saxony. Several also of the anabaptists were put to death by the Lutherans, for their obstinacy in propagating their errors, contrary to the judgment of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, who declared himself for more moderate measures, and for uniting all sorts of protestants amongst themselves.[300]

Footnote 298:

L. 2. Sect. 6. § 11.

Footnote 299:

Sect. 17. § 47.

Footnote 300:

L. 3. Sect. 6. § 15. Sect. 13. § 41. Ibid.

SECT. II. _Calvin’s Doctrine and Practice concerning Persecution._

John Calvin, another of the reformers, and to whom the christian world is, on many accounts, under very great obligations, was however well known to be in principle and practice a persecutor. So entirely was he in the persecuting measures, that he wrote a treatise in defence of them, maintaining the lawfulness of putting heretics to death. And that by heretics he meant such who differed from himself, is evident from his treatment of Castellio and Servetus.

The former, not inferior to Calvin himself in learning and piety, had the misfortune to differ from him in judgment, in the points of predestination, election, free-will and faith. This Calvin could not bear, and therefore treated Castellio in so rude and cruel a manner, as I believe his warmest friends will be ashamed to justify. In some of his writings he calls him “Blasphemer, reviler, malicious barking dog, full of ignorance, bestiality and impudence; impostor, a base corrupter of the sacred writings, a mocker of God, a contemner of all religion, an impudent fellow, a filthy dog, a knave, an impious, lewd, crooked-minded vagabond, beggarly rogue.” At other times he calls him “a disciple and brother of Servetus, and an heretic.” Castellio’s reply to all these flowers, is worthy the patience and moderation of a Christian, and from his slanderer he appeals to the righteous judgment of God.

But not content with these invectives, Calvin farther accused him of three crimes; which Castellio particularly answers. The first was of theft, in taking away some wood, that belonged to another person, to make a fire to warm himself withal: this Calvin calls “Cursed gain, at another’s expence and damage;” whereas, in truth, the fact was this. Castellio was thrown into such circumstances of poverty by the persecutions of Calvin and his friends, that he was scarce able to maintain himself. And as he dwelt near the banks of the Rhine, he used at leisure hours to draw out of the river with an hook, the wood that was brought down by the waters of it. This wood was no private property, but every man’s that could catch it. Castellio took it in the middle of the day, and amongst a great number of fishermen, and several of his own acquaintance; and was sometimes paid money for it by the decree of the senate. This the charitable Calvin magnifies into a theft, and publishes to the world to paint out the character of his Christian brother.

But his accusations ran farther yet; and he calls God to witness, that whilst he maintained Castellio in his house, “He never saw any one more proud or perfidious, or void of humanity; and it was well known he was an impostor, of a peculiar impudence, and one that took pleasure in scoffing at piety, and that he delighted himself in laughing at the principles of religion.” These charges Castellio answers in such a manner, as was enough to put even malice itself to silence. For, notwithstanding Calvin’s appeal to God for the truth of these things, yet he himself and two of his principal friends, who were eminent preachers in Savoy, pressed Castellio, even contrary to his inclination, to take the charge of a school at Stratsburg; and therefore, as he says to Calvin, “With what conscience could you make me master, if you knew me to be such a person when I dwelt in your house? What sort of men must they be, who would commit the education of children to such a wicked wretch, as you appeal to God you knew me to be.”

But what is yet more to the purpose, is, that after he had been master of that school three years, Calvin gave him a testimonial, written and signed with his own hand, as to the integrity of his past behaviour; affirming, amongst other things, “That he had behaved himself in such a manner, that he was, by the consent of all of them, appointed to the pastoral office.” And in the conclusion he adds, “Lest any one should suspect any other reason why Sebastian went from us, we testify to all wheresoever he may come, that he himself voluntarily left the school, and so behaved himself in it, as that we adjudged him worthy this sacred ministry.” And that he was not actually received into it, was “non aliqua vitæ macula,” not owing to any blemish of his life, nor to any impious tenets that he held in matters of faith, but to this only cause, the difference of our opinions about Solomon’s Songs, and the article of Christ’s descent into hell. But how is this testimonial, that Castellio had no “macula vitæ,” was unblameable as to his life, reconcileable with the appeal to God, that he was proud and perfidious, and void of humanity, and a professed scoffer at religion, whilst he dwelt at Calvin’s house? If this charge was true, how came Calvin and his friends to appoint him master of a school, and judge him worthy the sacred ministry? Or if he was of so bad a character once, and afterwards gave the evidence of a sincere repentance by an irreproachable behaviour, what equity or justice, what humanity or honour was there in publishing to the world faults that had been repented of and forsaken? Castellio solemnly protests that he had never injured Calvin, and that the sole reason of his displeasure against him was because he differed from him in opinion. On this account he endeavoured to render him every where impious, prohibited the reading of his books; and, what is the last effort of enmity, endeavoured to excite the civil magistrate against him to put him to death. But God was pleased to protect this good man from the rage of his enemies. He died at Basil, in peace; and received an honourable burial, the just reward of his piety, learning, and merit.

I may add to this account, Calvin’s treatment of one Jerom Bolsec,[301] who from a Carmelite monk had embraced the reformed religion, but held the doctrine of free-will and predestination upon the foresight of good works. Calvin was present at a sermon preached by him at Geneva, upon these articles; and the sermon being ended, publicly opposed him in the congregation. When the assembly was dismissed, poor Bolsec was immediately apprehended, and sent to prison; and soon after, by Calvin’s counsel, banished for sedition and Pelagianism from the city, and forbid ever to come into it, or the territories of it, under pain of being whipped, A. C. 1551.

Footnote 301:

Bez. in vit. Calvin.

But Calvin’s treatment of the unfortunate Servetus was yet more severe. His book, entitled, “Restitutio Christianismi,” which he sent in MS. to Calvin, enraged him to that degree, that he afterwards kept no temper or measures with him; so that as Bolsec and Uytenbogaert relate, in a letter written by him to his friends Viret and Farrel, he tells them,[302] that “If this heretic (Servetus) should ever fall into his hands, he would take care that he should lose his life.” Servetus’s imprisonment at Vienne, soon gave him an opportunity to shew his zeal against him: for, in order to strengthen the evidence against him, Calvin sent to the magistrates of that city the letters and writings which Servetus had sent to him at Geneva. This is evident from the sentence itself against him; in which those writings, as well as his printed book, are expressly mentioned, as containing the proofs of his heresy. Whether Calvin sent them of his own accord, or at the desire of the magistrates of Vienne, I shall not presume to determine. If of his own accord, it was a base officiousness; and if at the request of those magistrates, it was a most unaccountable conduct in a Protestant to send evidence to a Popish court to put a Protestant to death; especially considering that Servetus could not differ more from Calvin than Calvin did from the Papists, their common adversaries, and who certainly deserved as much to be burnt, in their judgment, as Servetus did in Calvin’s.

Footnote 302:

Biblioth. Raison. Pour d’ Octobre, &c. 1728. Art. VIII.

Besides this, Servetus farther charges him with writing to one William Trie, at Lyons, to furnish the magistrates of that city with matter of accusation against him. The author of the Bibliotheque before-mentioned, says this is a mere romance, dressed up by Servetus. I confess it doth not appear to me in so very romantic a light; at least Calvin’s vindication of himself, from this charge, doth not seem to be altogether sufficient. He says, “It is commonly reported that I occasioned Servetus to be apprehended at Vienne; on which account it is said, by many, that I have acted dishonourably, in thus exposing him to the mortal enemies of the faith, as though I had thrown him into the mouth of the wolves. But, I beseech you, how came I so suddenly into such an intimacy with the pope’s officers? It is very likely, truly, that we should correspond together by letters; and that those who agree with me, just as Belial doth with Jesus Christ, should enter into a plot with their mortal enemy, as with their companion: This silly calumny will fall to the ground, when I shall say, in one word, that there is nothing in it.” But how doth all this confute Servetus’s charge? For whatever differences soever there might be between Calvin and the Papists in some things, yet, why might he not write to the Papists at Vienne to put Servetus to death for what was equally counted heresy by them both, and when they agreed as the most intimate friends and companions in the lawfulness of putting heretics to death? What Calvin says of the absurdity of their intimacy and conspiracy with him their mortal enemy, is no absurdity at all. Herod and Pontius Pilate, though enemies, agreed in the condemnation of the Son of God.

Besides, it is certain, that the magistrates at Vienne had Servetus’s Manuscripts sent to them from Geneva, either by Calvin, or the magistrates of that city; and when Servetus was afterwards apprehended at Geneva, the magistrates there sent a messenger to Vienne, for a copy of the process that had been there carried on against him; which that messenger received, and actually brought back to Geneva. So that nothing is more evident, than that there was an intimacy and conspiracy between the Protestants of Geneva and the Papists at Vienne, to take away the life of poor Servetus; and that, though they were mortal enemies in other things, and as far different from one another as Christ and Belial, yet that they agreed harmoniously in the doctrine and practice of persecution, and were one in the design and endeavour of murdering this unhappy physician. And though Calvin is pleased magisterially to deny his having any communication by letters with the Papists at Vienne, yet I think his denial far from sufficient to remove the suspicion. He himself expressly says that many persons blamed him for not acting honourably in that affair; and the accusation was supported by Servetus’s complaint, and by what is a much stronger evidence, the original papers and letters which Servetus had sent to Calvin, which were actually produced by the judges at Vienne, and recited in the sentence as part of the foundation of his condemnation. And as Calvin himself never, as I can find, hath attempted to clear up these strong circumstances, though he owed it to himself and his friends, I think he cannot well be excused from practising the death of Servetus at Vienne, and lending his assistance to the bloody Papists of that place, the more effectually to procure his condemnation.

But he had the good fortune to make his escape from imprisonment, and was, June 17, 1553, condemned for contumacy, and burnt in effigy by the order of his judges; having himself got safe to Geneva, where he was re-condemned, and actually burnt in person, October 27, of the same year 1553. He had not been long in this city before Calvin spirited up one Nicholas de la Fountain, probably one of his pupils, to make information against him; wisely avoiding it himself, because, according to the laws of Geneva, the accuser must submit to imprisonment with the party he accuses, till the crime appears to have a solid foundation and proof. Upon this information Servetus was apprehended and imprisoned. Calvin ingenuously owns, that this whole affair was carried on at his instance and advice; and that, in order to bring Servetus to reason, he himself found out the party to accuse him, and begin the process against him. And therefore, though, as the fore-mentioned author of the Bibliotheque, for January, &c. 1729, observes, the action, after its commencement, was carried on according to the course of law; yet, as Calvin accused him for heresy, got him imprisoned, and began the criminal process against him, he is answerable for all the consequences of his trial, and was in reality the first and principal author of his death; especially as the penal laws against heretics seem at that time to have been in force at Geneva, so that Servetus could not escape the fire upon his conviction of heresy.

When he was in jail, he was treated with the same rigour as if he had been detained in one of the prisons of the inquisition. He was stripped of all means of procuring himself the conveniences and supplies he needed in his confinement. They took from him ninety-seven pieces of gold, a gold chain worth twenty crowns, six gold rings, and at last put him into a deep dungeon, where he was almost eaten up with vermin. All this cruelty was practised upon a protestant in the protestant city of Geneva. Besides this, he could never get a proctor or advocate to assist him, or help him in pleading his cause, though he requested it, as being a stranger, and ignorant of the laws and customs of the country. Calvin, at the request of the judges, drew up certain propositions out of Servetus’s books, representing them as blasphemous, full of errors and profane reveries, all repugnant to the word of God, and to the common consent of the whole church; and, indeed, appears to have been acquainted with, and consulted in the whole process, and to have used all his arts and endeavours to prevent his coming off with impunity.

It is but a poor and mean excuse that Calvin makes for himself in this respect, when he says; [303]“As to the fact, I will not deny, but that it was at my prosecution he was imprisoned:—But that after he was convicted of his heresies, I made no instances for his being put to death.” But what need of instances? He had already accused him, got him imprisoned, prosecuted in a criminal court for the capital crime of heresy, and actually drew up forty articles against him for heresy, blasphemy, and false doctrine. When he was convicted of these crimes, the law could not but take its course; and his being burnt to death was the necessary consequence of his conviction. What occasion was there then for Calvin to press his execution, when the laws themselves had adjudged him to the flames? But even this excuse, poor as it is, is not sincerely and honestly made: for Calvin was resolved to use all his interest to destroy him. In his letter to Farrel, he expressly says, “I hope, at least, they will condemn him to death, but not to the terrible one of being burnt.” And in another to Sultzer, “Since the papists, in order to vindicate their own superstitions, cruelly shed innocent blood, it is a shame that Christian magistrates should have no courage at all in the defence of certain truth.—However, I will certify you of one thing, that the city treasurer is rightly determined, that he shall not escape that end which we wish him.” And in another to the church at Franckfort,[304] “The author (Servetus) is put in jail by our magistrates, and I hope he will shortly suffer the punishment he deserves.” There was but one way possible for him to escape; and that was by bringing his cause from the criminal court, where he was prosecuted, before the council of the two hundred. And this Calvin vigorously opposed and reflected on the syndic himself for endeavouring it. He says, “that he pretended illness for three days, and then came into court to save that wretch (Servetus) from punishment; and was not ashamed to demand, that the cognizance of the affair should be referred to the two hundred. However he was unanimously condemned.” Now, what great difference is there between a prosecutor’s endeavouring to prevent the only method by which a criminal can be saved, and his actually pressing for his being put to death? Calvin actually did the former, and yet would fain persuade us he had no hand in the latter.

Footnote 303:

Epist. ad Farrel.

Footnote 304:

Epist. ad Farrel.

It is much of a piece with this, his desiring that the rigour of Servetus’s death might be mitigated; for as the laws against heretics were in force at Geneva, the tribunal that judged Servetus could not, after his conviction of heresy, absolve him from death, nor change the manner of it, as Calvin says he would have had it; and therefore his desiring that the rigour of it might be abated, looks too much like the practice of the inquisitors, who when they deliver over an heretic to the secular arm, beseech it so to moderate the rigour of the sentence, as not to endanger life or limb.

This was the part that Calvin acted in the affair of Servetus, which I have represented in the most impartial manner, as it appears to me; and am sorry I am not able to wipe off so foul a stain from the memory of this otherwise excellent and learned reformer. But when his enemies charge him with acting merely from principles of malice and revenge in this matter, I think it an evident abuse and calumny. He was, in his own judgment, for persecuting and destroying heretics, as appears from the treatise he published in vindication of this practice, entitled, “A declaration for maintaining the true faith, held by all Christians concerning the Trinity of persons in one only God, by John Calvin, against the detestable errors of Michael Servetus, a Spaniard. In which it is also proved, that it is lawful to punish heretics; and that this wretch was justly executed in the city of Geneva.” Geneva, 1554.

This principle was maintained by almost all the fathers and bishops of the church since the three first centuries, who esteemed heresy as one of the worst of impieties, and thought it the duty of the civil magistrates to employ their power for the suppression of it, and for the support and establishment of the orthodox faith. And though the first reformers abhorred the cruelty of the papists towards the protestants, they had nevertheless the same abhorrence of what they counted heresy that the papists had, and agreed with them in the lawfulness of suppressing it by the civil power. So that Calvin acted in this affair from a principle, though a mistaken principle of conscience, and had the encouragement and approbation of the most learned and pious reformers of the times he lived in.

Melancton, in a letter to Bullinger, says[305] “I have read also what you have written concerning the blasphemies of Servetus, and I approve your piety and judgment. I think also, that the senate of Geneva have done right, that they have put to death that obstinate person, who would not cease to blaspheme; and I wonder that there are any who disapprove that severity.” He affirms the same also in another letter to Calvin himself. Bucer also said publicly in his sermon, that “He ought to have his bowels pulled out, and be torn in pieces,” as Calvin relates in his letter to Sultzer. Farrel in a letter to Calvin, says, that “He deserved to die ten thousand deaths; that it would be a piece of cruelty, and an injustice to Christ, and the doctrine of piety, for magistrates not to take notice of the horrible blasphemies of that wicked heretic. And he hoped God would so order it that as the magistrates of Geneva were very praise-worthy for punishing thieves and sacrilegious persons, so they would behave themselves well in the affair of Servetus, by putting him to death, who had so long obstinately persisted in his heresies, and destroyed so many persons by them.”

Footnote 305:

Calv. Op. Vol. ult.

[306]The pastors of the church at Basil, in their letter to the syndics and senate of Geneva, express their joy for the apprehension of Servetus, and advise them first to “Use all endeavours to recover him; but that if he persisted in his perverseness, they should punish him according to their office, and the power they had received from God, to prevent his giving any disturbance to the church, and lest the latter end should be worse than the first.” [307]The ministers of the church of Bern were of the same opinion; and in their letter to the magistrates of Geneva say, “We pray the Lord that he would give you the spirit of prudence, counsel and strength, to remove this plague from the churches, both your own and others,” and advise them “to neglect nothing that may be judged unworthy a Christian magistrate to omit.” [308]The ministers of Zurich give much the same advice, and thought that there was need of a great deal of diligence in the affair; “especially as the reformed churches were evil thought of, amongst other reasons for this, as being themselves heretical, and favourers of heretics. But that, as the Providence of God had given them an opportunity of wiping off so evil a suspicion, and preventing the farther spreading of so contagious a poison, they did not doubt but their excellencies would be careful to improve it.” [309]Those of Scaffhusen subscribed to the judgment of those of Zurich, and declare, that they did not doubt, but that their prudence would put a stop to the attempts of Servetus, lest his blasphemies, as a canker, should eat up the members of Christ; adding these remarkable words, “That to endeavour to oppose his dreams by a train of reasoning, what would it be, but to grow mad with a madman?”

Footnote 306:

Ibid.

Footnote 307:

Ibid.

Footnote 308:

Ibid.

Footnote 309:

Ibid.

These extracts, which are taken out of the letters printed at the end of Calvin’s Institutions, clearly demonstrate that he acted seriously and deliberately in the affair of Servetus; and that he consulted the neighbouring churches, and had their opinion of the lawfulness and expediency of putting him to death for his heresies. And though it doth not wholly excuse his fault, yet it ought in justice to be allowed as an abatement and extenuation of it; and, I think, evidently proves, what his enemies are very unwilling to allow, that he was not transported by rage and fury, and did not act merely from the dictates of envy and malice, but from a mistaken zeal against what he accounted blasphemy and heresy, and with the concurrent advice of his brethren in the ministry, and fellow-labourers in the great work of the reformation. And I think his eminent services to the church of God, both by his preaching and writings, ought, notwithstanding all his failings, to secure to his memory the honour and respect that is due to it: for he deserved well of all the reformed churches, and was an eminent instrument in the hand of Providence, in promoting the great and glorious work of saving men from the gross errors, superstitions and idolatries of the Romish church. And as I thought myself obliged impartially to represent these things as they appeared to me, I hope all who love to distinguish themselves by Calvin’s name, will be careful not to imitate him in this great blemish of his life, which, in reality, hath tarnished a character, that would otherwise have appeared amongst the first and brightest of the age he lived in.

In the year 1632, after Calvin’s death, one Nicholas Anthoine was condemned also by the council of Geneva, to be first hanged, and afterwards burnt; because, that having forgotten the fear of God, he had committed the crime of apostacy and high treason against God, by having opposed the Holy Trinity, denied our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, blasphemed his holy name, renounced his baptism, and the like.

SECT. III. _Persecutions at Bern, Basil, and Zurich._

Valentinus Gentilis,[310] a native of Cosentia in Italy, had the misfortune also to fall into some heterodox opinions concerning the Trinity, and held that the Father alone was αυτοθεος, God of himself, αγεννητος, unbegotten, Essentiator, the giver of essence to all other beings; but that the Son was Essentiatus, of a derived essence from the Father, and therefore not αυτοθεος, or God of himself, though at the same time he allowed him to be truly God. He held much the same as to the Holy Ghost, making them three eternal Spirits, distinguished by a gradual and due subordination, reserving the monarchy to the Father, whom he stiled the one only God. Being forced to fly his native country, on account of his religion, he came to Geneva, where there was a church of Italian refugees, several of whom, such as G. Blandrata, a physician, Gribaldus, a lawyer, and Paulus Alciatus, differed from the commonly received notions of the Trinity. When their heterodoxes came to be known at Geneva, they were cited before the senators, ministers, and presbyters, and being heard in their own defence, were refuted by Calvin, and all subscribed to the orthodox faith.

Footnote 310:

Bez. in vit. Calv. B. Aret. Hist. Val. Gent.

But V. Gentilis having after this endeavoured to propagate his own opinions, he was again apprehended, and forced by Calvin and others to a public abjuration, and condemned anno 1558, to an exemplary penance, viz. “That he should be stripped close to his shirt, then barefoot and bare-headed should carry in his hand a lighted torch, and beg God and the court’s pardon on his knees, by confessing himself maliciously and wickedly to have spread abroad a false and heretical doctrine; but that he did now from his heart detest and abhor those abominable, lying, and blasphemous books, he had composed in its defence; in testimony of which he was to cast them, with his own hands, into the flames, there to be burnt, to ashes. And for more ample satisfaction, he was injoined to be led through all the streets of Geneva, at the sound of trumpet, in his penitential habit, and strictly commanded not to depart the city without permission.” And this penance he actually underwent.

But having found means to make his escape, he came at last to Gaium, a prefecture, subject to the canton of Bern, where he was seized and imprisoned by the governor, who immediately sent an account of his apprehension to the senate of Bern, who ordered him to be brought prisoner to that city, where they put him in jail. After they had seized all his books and papers, they collected several articles, with the heads of an indictment out of them to be preferred against him. Amongst others these were two, 1. “That he dissented from us, and all the orthodox, in the doctrine of the Trinity.” And 2. “That his writings contained many impious blasphemies concerning the Trinity.” And because he continued obstinate in his opinions, notwithstanding the endeavours of the divines to convert him, he was condemned by the senate, for his blasphemies against the Son of God, and the glorious mystery of the Trinity, to be beheaded; which sentence was executed on him in September, anno 1566.

[311]At Basil, also, heresy was a crime punishable with death, since the reformation, as appears from the treatment of the dead body of David George, an enthusiastical anabaptist. Having left Holland he went to Basil, and settled there as one that was banished out of his country for the sake of his religion, propagating his own doctrines by letters, books, and messengers in Holland. But his errors being discovered after his death, he was taken out of his grave, and together with his books and pictures burnt to ashes, by order of the magistrates, at the place of execution, without the walls of Basil, May 13, 1559. His opinions were first extracted from the printed books and manuscript papers found in his house, and himself declared an arch heretic.

Footnote 311:

Brand Hist. Book 3. p. 77.

[312]Zurich also furnishes us with an instance of great cruelty towards an anabaptist. A severe edict was published against them, in which there was a penalty of a silver mark, about four shillings English money, set upon all such as should suffer themselves to be-rebaptized, or should withhold baptism from their children. And it was farther declared, that those who openly opposed this order, should be yet more severely treated. Accordingly one Felix was drowned at Zurich, upon the sentence pronounced by Zuinglius, in these four Words, “Qui interum mergit, mergatur:“ He that re-dips, let him be drowned. This happened in the year 1526. About the same time also, and since, there were some more of them put to death. [313]From the same place, also, Ochinus was banished, in his old age, in the depth of winter, together with his children, because he was an Arian, and defended polygamy, if Beza’s account of him be true.

Footnote 312: