Michael Servetus: The Challenge to Trinitarian Orthodoxy in the Reformation Copyright 1995 by David K. Bernard The Protestant Reformation, which began with Martin Luther in 1517, initiated a revival of biblical scholarship and doctrine. Luther and the other Reformers asserted that Scripture alone, not tradition, is our authority for doctrine. As a result, the Protestants discarded many Roman Catholic beliefs. Curiously, however, orthodox Protestantism retained the doctrine of the trinity, although it is the product of philosophical speculation and historical development rather than the explicit teaching of Scripture. Did this important doctrine receive serious scrutiny, and if so, how could the Reformers have affirmed it in light of their commitment to sola Scriptura? Is there any evidence that the Holy Spirit sought to lead them into the truth of the oneness of God and the almighty God in Jesus Christ, and if so, how did they respond? To a great extent, we find the answers to these questions in the life and teachings of Michael Servetus. Life of Servetus Servetus is the Latin name of Miguel Serveto alias Reves, a Spaniard who was born in 1511 (or possibly 1509) to a noble, devoutly Catholic family. His birthplace was either Tudela, Navarre, or Villanueva, Aragon; he grew up in the latter. At age fourteen he entered the service of Juan de Quintana, a Franciscan friar and doctor at the University of Paris who became the confessor of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. As a teenager, Servetus spent two years studying law at the University of Toulouse in France. There he saw the complete Bible for the first time and participated in a student Bible study group. The Scriptures led him to a life-transforming experience; from them, he wrote, “the Holy Spirit enters us as a stream of living water.”1 1Roland Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), 1-13, quoting Michael Servetus, On the Errors of the Trinity, 107. In 1530 Servetus accompanied Quintana to Italy for the coronation of Charles V in Bologna. Then he apparently traveled to Germany with the imperial party for the Diet of Augsburg, where leading Protestants presented their views to the emperor. Soon afterward, Servetus left the service of Quintana and appeared in Basel, Switzerland, debating doctrine with Protestant leaders there. He also spent time in another city along the Rhine River, the German city of Strassburg (now Strasbourg, France). Servetus’s study of the Bible in Toulouse convinced him that the Roman Catholic Church was in serious error. His trip to Italy, which exposed him to elaborate religious ceremony, worldliness in high church circles, and adulation of the pope, further confirmed his opinions. While sympathetic to the Protestants’ criticism of Catholicism, he concluded that they were wrong on some important points as well, particularly the trinity, predestination, and infant baptism. He developed a system of theology that was most akin to the Anabaptists in spirit yet was uniquely his own. In 1531, at age twenty, Servetus published On the Errors of the Trinity in Strassburg, which challenged the traditional doctrine of the trinity. It is remarkable for its originality and scholarship. In it Servetus demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and theological writings across the ages, reading them in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He was also fluent in Spanish (his mother tongue), French, and Italian. The book aroused so much controversy that Servetus was forced to leave Strassburg. He returned to Basel, where he was supposed to write a retraction. In 1532 he published Two Dialogues on the Trinity, which included a treatise on justification. The Dialogues indeed begins with a retraction of sorts: “All that I have lately written, in seven books, against the received view as to the Trinity, honest reader, I now retract, not because it is untrue, but because it is incomplete, and was written as though by a child for children.”2 He then proceeded to attack trinitarianism again and to offer a correction to the Lutheran doctrine of justification. So much opposition again ensued that Servetus thought of fleeing to America. The Spanish Inquisition sent his brother, a priest, to lure him back to Spain, where the Catholic Church could prosecute him. He finally decided, however, to move to France and assume the name of Michel de Villaneuve (Michael Villanovanus), after his home town. In France, he studied medicine in Paris for a time, then moved to Lyon to earn money as a proofreader and editor. One important work he edited was Ptolemy’s Geography. After a time he returned to his medical studies in Paris, where he became an accomplished anatomist. He was a colleague of the famous anatomist Vesalius, and he was the first in the West to discover and record the pulmonary circulation of the blood (through the lungs from the right to the left side of 2Servetus, Two Dialogues on the Trinity, in James Ropes and Kirsopp Lake, eds. The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1932), 188. 2 the heart). He later published this discovery in The Restitution of Christianity, but when the book was destroyed the knowledge was lost to science until William Harvey independently made the same discovery almost a hundred years later. Servetus wrote two medical tracts, including a popular work on the use of syrups in medicine, and he ultimately earned a doctor’s degree. While in Paris, he also lectured on geography and astrology, deriding the medical profession’s ignorance of the latter. When challenged, he wrote a tract on astrology that contained insulting attacks on his critics. He was tried by the Inquisition on the charge of divination, and he was also prosecuted before the judicial court of Paris on behalf of the University of Paris. In either case, a guilty verdict would have meant death by fire. In his defense, Servetus asserted that the stars could affect or influence material things but denied that events were thereby predestined and renounced the use of astronomy to predict future events. The Inquisition acquitted him, while the court reprimanded him and banned him from lecturing on astrology. Servetus thereupon returned to Lyon. Soon he began a medical practice in Charlieu, a nearby town, where he was apparently rebaptized at age thirty. After two or three years, he moved to Vienne, another nearby town, where he became the personal physician of the archbishop and also resumed his editorial work. He produced a number of important works, including the Latin Bible of Pagnini. He added significant critical notes, and in them he consistently argued for the literal, historical interpretation of Scripture. For about a decade Servetus enjoyed a distinguished medical and literary career in Vienne. He attended mass and kept his unorthodox views to himself, but secretly worked on a lengthy theological manuscript. He began an extended correspondence with John Calvin (the Reformed leader in Geneva), whom he may have met in Paris, and sent him a copy of his manuscript. In early 1553 he secretly and anonymously published his major work, The Restitution of Christianity, which included thirty letters to Calvin, and scheduled it for distribution at book fairs in Lyon and Frankfurt. As the title of the book indicates, Servetus wanted not merely to reform but to restore Christianity. He concluded that the church fell into apostasy in the fourth century with the adoption of trinitarianism at the Council of Nicea, the merger of church and state under Constantine, and the consolidation of ecclesiastical power under the pope. Like the Reformers, he viewed the Roman Church as the system of the Antichrist, and he listed sixty signs of the reign of the Antichrist, including the doctrine of the trinity, the baptism of infants, the mass, and transubstantiation. He further considered the Protestants essentially as offshoots of the same system, with no organized group accurately representing the true church. He believed that this system would soon fall and the present age would end in the 1500s. He saw his role as heralding the restoration of true Christianity, although he felt he would probably die in the attempt. 3 In his letters to Calvin, Servetus addressed the famous theologian as an equal (they were about the same age) and indeed as someone who needed instruction. For instance, he urged him to be rebaptized. When Calvin refused to concede any point, Servetus grew abusive in his language, calling him a reprobate, blasphemer, thief, and robber. Other theologians of the day, including Luther and Calvin, were not above using similar language in their disputes. Calvin spoke of various opponents as rascals, dogs, asses, and swine and later called Servetus a “wild beast from hell.”3 Calvin developed such animosity to Servetus and his doctrine that he wrote to his senior colleague William Farel on February 13, 1546, about the possibility of Servetus visiting Geneva: “If it may be agreeable to me, he undertakes that he would come hither. But I will not interpose my assurance of his safety, for if he shall come, provided that my authority is of any avail, I shall not suffer him to depart alive.”4 When The Restitution of Christianity was published, an acquaintance of Servetus sent Calvin a copy in advance of the distribution date. Guillaume Trie, a friend of Calvin in Geneva, denounced Michel de Villaneuve to the Catholic Inquisition in Vienne as a heretic, disclosing that Villaneuve was actually Servetus. When the authorities demanded proof, Trie obtained evidence from Calvin, including letters from Servetus to him. Servetus later rebuked Calvin for his treachery, but Calvin denied any direct role. Some historians conclude that Calvin actually instigated and composed Trie’s letters, while others say his role was indirect, but almost all hold Calvin ultimately responsible. In an attempt to eliminate Servetus, Calvin clearly cooperated with the very institution that was executing Protestants and even sought his own life. The authorities in France arrested Servetus on charges of heresy. He initially denied that he was Servetus and affirmed that he believed the doctrines of the Catholic Church. When confronted with his writings, he tried to explain them away but eventually confessed that he was Servetus. While under arrest he managed to escape, probably with the help of influential friends. The Catholic tribunal condemned him to die and burned him in effigy along with his books. Servetus hid for several months and eventually decided to flee to Italy. On the way, he made the fatal mistake of passing through Geneva and remaining there for a time. While in church one Sunday, he was recognized and reported to Calvin. Calvin immediately had him arrested and tried for heresy. He was condemned to die, and on October 27, 1553, at age fortytwo, he was burned at the stake. 3Robert Willis, Servetus and Calvin: A Study of an Important Epoch in the Early History of the Reformation (London: Henry S. King & Co., 1877), 346. 4John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, comp. Jules Bonnet (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858) 2:30. 4 Background to the Discussion of the Trinity When Servetus first challenged the doctrine of the trinity, the Reformation was quite young, and there were indications that the Reformers were somewhat uncomfortable with the doctrine. It seems that God was trying to restore biblical patterns of thought in this area as well as others.5 The Reformers faced a crucial decision: retain traditional orthodoxy as much as possible or follow the logical implications of their own emphasis on Scripture alone and reconstruct the doctrine of God from the Bible instead of the creeds.6 Unfortunately, they chose to follow tradition, not wanting to give the Catholics further ammunition against them. Instead of taking a further step of reformation or restoration, they completely rejected Servetus and thereby consolidated the power of trinitarianism. Erasmus, the Catholic humanist who did much to prepare the way for Protestantism, wrote in 1523 that an understanding of the trinity was not essential to salvation and that discussion of the doctrine was not profitable in this life: We define so many things which may be left in ignorance or in doubt without loss of salvation. Is it not possible to have fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without being able to explain philosophically the distinction between them and between the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Ghost?... You will not be damned if you do not know whether the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son has one or two beginnings.... It would be better to defer questions of this sort to the time when, no longer in a glass darkly, we see God face to face.7 Later, Erasmus was offered one of Servetus’s books, but he refused it. 5In a similar way, it appears that when the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues was renewed in 1901 under Charles Parham, God sought to bring about a renewal of baptism in the name of Jesus at the same time. See Fred Foster, Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals, rev. ed. (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1967, 1981), 118-22. 6The Assemblies of God faced the same choice in 1916 over the Oneness controversy and made the same decision, choosing history and tradition over Scripture and their own restorationist impulse. See Edith Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Popular History (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1985), 49-50, 106. 7Bainton, 34-35. 5 Martin Luther disliked the philosophical language used to define the trinity, including homoousios (“same substance”), and his junior colleague Philip Melanchthon agreed.8 When Servetus’s Dialogues came to his attention, Luther confessed his own doubts but rejected the book as “wicked”: “Visionaries like the writer do not seem to fancy that other folks as well as they may have had temptations on this subject. But the sting did not hold; I set the word of God and the Holy Ghost against my thoughts and got free.”9 Melanchthon confessed to “reading Servetus a great deal” but ultimately rejected his doctrine vehemently and approved of his execution. Nevertheless, in several private letters he acknowledged his own questions and hinted that his private views were not altogether orthodox: I have little doubt that great controversies will one day arise on this subject.... On the subject of the Trinity—you know, I have always feared that serious difficulties would one day arise. Good God! To what tragedies will not these questions give occasion in times to come: Is the Logos an hypostasis [person]? Is the Holy Ghost an hypostasis? For my own part I refer me to those passages of Scripture that bid us call on Christ, which is to ascribe divine honors to him, and find them full of consolation.... I find it after all of little use to inquire too curiously into that which properly constitutes the nature of a Person, and into that wherein and whereby persons are distinguished from one another.... To me Tertullian seems to think on this subject as we do in public, and not in the way Servetus interprets him. But of these things more hereafter when we meet.10 Initially, Servetus did receive some favorable reactions in Strassburg to his first book. Some in the city “lauded it to the stars.” The Reformed leaders there, Bucer and Capito, were initially friendly, and “Capito was thought to favor his views.” Oecolampadius, the Reformed leader in Basel, wrote to Ulrich Zwingli, founder of the Reformed wing of Protestantism, that some of the Strassburgers had accepted Servetus’s views. Sebastian Franck of that city wrote to a friend, “The Spaniard, Servetus, contends in his tract that there is but one person in God. The Roman Church holds that there are three persons in one essence. I agree rather with the 8Bainton, 60. 44. 10Ibid., 45-47. 9Willis, 6 Spaniard.”11 Servetus himself claimed that Capito assented to his views in private and that Oecolampadius first seemed to accept them but later withdrew approval.12 James Ropes and Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University summarized the situation in early Protestantism as follows: Until now it had not been quite clear what attitude the newly reformed part of Christendom would finally take toward the traditional trinitarian dogma. It had indeed been, as one may say, provisionally retained in the Augsburg Confession in 1530, but the leaders of Protestant thought were plainly wavering about it, in view of its lack of clear scriptural support.... Luther disliked the terms in which the doctrine was stated, and left them out of his catechisms; Calvin had disapproved of the Athanasian Creed and spoken slightingly even of the Nicene, and had only lightly touched upon the doctrine in his Catechism; Melanchthon in his Loci Theologici in 1521 had hardly mentioned the doctrine except to pronounce it not essential to salvation; while Zwingli and Farel, Bucer and Oecolampadius, were far from being sound upon it.13 Ironically, this quote reveals that Calvin himself had apparently entertained some doubts. He questioned the essentiality of the trinitarian formulation and initially agreed to have fellowship with certain individuals who did not want to use it. “In the Confession of Faith which he formulated for the Church of Geneva in the year 1536, it is certain that neither the word Trinity nor the word Person is to be found.”14 He explained: Did anyone, however, from religious scruples, feel indisposed to make use of the words—although we avow that such superstition is not approved by us, and we shall continue striving to correct it—still, this seems no sufficient reason why a man, otherwise pious and having like religious views as ourselves, should be rejected. His want of better knowledge in this direction ought not to carry us the length of casting him out of the Church, or lead us to conclude that he was therefore altogether unsound 11Bainton, 60. 371. 13Ropes and Lake, eds., xvi-xvii. 14Willis, 491-92. 12Willis, 7 in the faith. Neither, meantime, are we to think evilly of the Pastors of the Church of Berne, if they refuse to admit anyone to the ministry who declines to use the words.15 Against Servetus, Calvin somewhat reluctantly embraced trinitarian language: The first principle to be acknowledged in the Scriptures is the Being of One God; but as the same Scriptures speak of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, what have we for it but to own three Persons in the Godhead? These, however, imply no plurality of persons, neither do they destroy the essential unity of God; ... the one God [does] comprise himself in three properties.16 Like the leading Protestant theologians, Catholic leaders of the sixteenth century, including Cochlaeus, Quintana, and Aleander, also became personally aware of Servetus’s teachings and rejected them. There were other antitrinitarians in the sixteenth century, particularly among the Anabaptists, including Hetzer, Dench, Campanus, Melchoir Hoffmann, Reed, Martini, and David Joris.17 It is not clear how much they may have influenced Servetus, if any, but he developed his own systematic theology that went far beyond their efforts. Later, when Servetus was tried in Geneva, some individuals were sympathetic to his doctrine. Vergerio, a minister from Italy, wrote: It is to be regretted that the scamp has supporters among the doctors and among those who are not just nominally for the Gospel, but wish to be considered as pillars. I say what I know not what I suspect. I have heard it from themselves, not from others, recently and not a long time ago.... A friend has written me from Basel that Servetus has supporters there.18 15Ibid., 492-93, citing John Calvin, Opera [Works] 8:707. 494-95. 17Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1910; Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 8:738. 18Bainton, 205. 16Ibid., 8 Paul Gaddi of Cremona similarly wrote to Calvin, “The heresy that flourishes the most of all, is the doctrine of the proud and Satanic Servetus.... How much rather ought you to come forward against this diabolical spirit, who is looked on by so many as having the highest authority in matters of doctrine.”19 After the death of Servetus, several antitrinitarian teachers inspired by him arose among Italian refugees and churches, including Valentine Gentilis, who held similar views and was eventually beheaded in Bern.20 Most of these men seemed to veer in the direction of Arianism or Unitarianism, however. Three professors of the University of Basel—Borrhaus (Cellarius), Curio, and Castellio—were suspected of embracing Servetus’s views.21 A number of prominent people opposed his execution, both before and afterwards, some because of sympathy with his views, others on humanitarian and religious grounds, and others out of opposition to Calvin. In the end, however, no group followed the specific teaching of Servetus. Servetus’s Doctrine of God In establishing his theology, Servetus asserted the sole authority of Scripture,22 and he employed modern hermeneutical principles. He sought for the literal interpretation, and he appealed to reason to aid in interpretation. He objected to the use of nonbiblical philosophical terms to define the trinity.23 He quoted from medieval nominalist scholars to demonstrate the absurdity of trinitarianism. They pointed out the logical contradictions of the doctrine, concluding they could not prove it but must accept it by faith. He contrasted their philosophical theories with the teaching of Scripture. Servetus began his discussion of the Godhead by identifying Jesus Christ as a true man. At the opening of On the Errors of the Trinity he set out to prove: “First, this man is JESUS CHRIST; second, he is the Son of God; third, he is God.” (He typically rendered the names “Jesus” and “Christ” in large and small capitals.) He then pointed out that Jesus is the proper name of this man. According to Servetus, the Son is not an eternal person but a man. Luke 1:35 teaches that Jesus is the unique Son of God because God, and not a man, caused His conception. Trinitarians wrongly make the Word a Son, but actually “the Son was a man.... The Son is said to be flesh.”24 19Willis, 302-3. Shields, The Trial of Servetus by the Senate of Geneva (Philadelphia: MacCalla & Co., 1893), 36. 21Schaff 8:789-90. 22Servetus, On the Errors of the Trinity, in Ropes and Lake, eds., 166. 23Ibid., 50. 24Ibid., 13. 20Charles 9 Hebrews 1:5 provides an “explanation of the sonship” and a refutation of the doctrine of the eternal begetting of the Son.25 “The flesh is begotten in the natural way, but the Spirit is not begotten at all; for to say that the Word is begotten is a mere dream, and a great misuse of words.”26 Trinitarians actually have two Sons and two begettings. The Son of God came into actual existence at the Incarnation, but we can speak in a certain sense of His preexistence in the mind of God. “When I say Son, I refer to the flesh,” yet “Jesus the Son of God” was born and begotten when the Word was uttered.27 There is no actual begetting in God, however.28 When Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 say the worlds were made through the Son, they mean through the Spirit that later came in the flesh.29 In Genesis 1:26, God spoke to the angels, but the ultimate sense of this verse refers to Christ.30 Not only is Christ the Son of God, but He is also God. He has “fulness of deity.... According to the flesh, he is man; and in the spirit He is God.... Christ himself is, and from everlasting has been, God.”31 As proofs, Servetus cited passages such as Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23; John 14:9-11; 20:28; Romans 9:5; I Timothy 3:16. Christ is “not only Son of God, but God and Lord of the world.” “The whole Nature and Essence of God is in CHRIST.” “The Son ... is God in spirit.” “He was God and man.” “Since his spirit was wholly God, he himself is called God, even as from his flesh he is called man.” “Wonderful has God made the body of Christ his own, that it might be his own tabernacle for him to dwell in.”32 Christ is Elohim, Jehovah, and Logos.33 “God is seen and worshiped in Christ alone.”34 Servetus explained that the titles of Father, Word, and Holy Spirit refer to modes (manners of acting) of the one God. “Only the Father is called the invisible God.” “The Father ... is the prime, true, and original source of every gift.”35 The Word is God’s self-expression, which began at creation. “The Word, in God when he utters it, is God himself speaking.... The Father himself, when speaking, is said to be the logos [Word].”36 “The whole Word is God” but in a different mode—a “different disposition” from the 25Ibid., 85-88. 62. 27Ibid., 106-7, 118. 28Ibid., 145. 29Ibid., 114-16. 30Ibid., 103, 140. 31Ibid., 17, 23. 32Ibid., 85, 90-93. 33Ibid., 136, 150; Dialogues, 191 34Dialogues, 194. 35Errors, 22, 44. 36Ibid., 70, 77, 79. 26Ibid., 10 Father. Thus, “to argue, The Word is the Father, is as absurd as to say, Flowing is drinking.”37 “The invisible God manifests himself to us through the visible Word.”38 The Word is not the same as the Son because the Son refers to the Incarnation. The Old Testament speaks of the Son as future.39 In another sense, however, “the Son was the Word” because “the Word, which formerly was with God, has to us become the Son.”40 The Word became flesh (as the Son), and therefore is no longer the Word as such.41 Servetus later corrected this statement to say the Word has not ceased to exist but is in the flesh today.42 The Holy Spirit is “not a separate being, but an activity of God, a kind of in-working or in-breathing of the power of God.”43 The whole Spirit is God; the Holy Spirit in us is “God his very self.”44 “The Holy Spirit is the activity of God in the spirit of man.”45 The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.46 Errors explains that the title of Holy Spirit can have a range of meanings in Scripture, including God Himself, an angel, the spirit of a man, instinct, divine inspiration of the mind, mental impulse, or breath.47 In Dialogues, however, Servetus made one of his few specific retractions: the Holy Spirit is not an angel.48 “The Holy Spirit is now a Person [manifestation].” Under the law “it was not thus a Person” [the manifestation was not given], for no one in the Old Testament could receive the power of the kingdom of God, become a joint-heir with Christ, or receive permanent justification.49 There is only one hypostasis of God, not three.50 (Hypostasis originally meant “substance or being,” but trinitarians used it to mean “person.”) Servetus was willing to use the Latin word for “persons,” but only in the original sense of “manifestations” or “dispositions” (to him, the equivalent of the Greek oikonomia). “The idea is that God disposes or manages himself in three different ways for three different forms of his activity.”51 Thus there are “three persons in one Godhead” but not “three beings in one God.”52 “No plurality of beings” is proved because God 37Ibid., 102, 119. 161. 39Ibid., 123. 40Ibid., 171-72. 41Ibid., 143-44. 42Dialogues, 190. 43Errors, 44. 44Ibid., 102, 104. 45Ibid., 132. 46Dialogues, 214. 47Errors, 35. 48Dialogues, 221. 49Ibid., 219-20, 252. 50Errors, 168. 51Ibid., 45, 57. 52Ibid., 100. Calvin preferred “properties,” Servetus “dispositions,” but both were willing to use “persons.” 38Ibid., 11 speaks by His Word or works by His Spirit.53 The “Person of Christ” means “prosopon, this mask, this countenance, this face, this representation of man in God.”54 The three manifestations of God relate to time and to God’s creation. At creation God became Word and Spirit.55 The Word is God’s presence made known in the world, while the Spirit is God’s power breathing in the world.56 In the end “the dispensation [oikonomia] of the trinity will then cease.”57 Servetus was the first writer to call believers in the trinity “trinitarians.”58 He concluded that trinitarians really believe in “three Gods,” which amounts to practical atheism, or belief in no God.59 He noted that by teaching three persons and one abstract essence, they actually have a quarternity. As examples of what Servetus opposed, Roland Bainton reproduced medieval or contemporary representations of the trinity as three identical men, three men distinguished, one head with three faces, and one body with three heads.60 Servetus established the oneness of God by passages such as Isaiah 43:11; 45:5-6; I Timothy 2:5; I Corinthians 8:6. He noted that the Jews and Muslims do not believe in a trinity and that the trinity came from Greek philosophy.61 The doctrine is not apostolic and not Christian; true Christians gather in the name of Christ, not the names of the trinity.62 As a consequence of his doctrine, Servetus believed that Jesus Christ was the revelation of the Father, the total deity, in flesh. The flesh of Christ is the veil that covers the divinity of the Father. “In CHRIST alone does the name of God now wholly dwell.... God is in him entirely.” There is no other hypostasis or form of God but the man Christ himself; the Father is visible through Christ. Christ is the “face of God.” We can only see God “in the face of Jesus Christ.” Christ is “a kind of engraving, of the hypostasis, that is, of the being of God.”63 “The Father is in the man.... The Father is in CHRIST,” Servetus said, citing John 14:10-11 and II Corinthians 5:19.64 In John 14:10, it is noteworthy that Jesus said “the Father,” not the Son or a second person, was in Him.65 In John 10:30 (“I and my Father are one”), the plural 53Ibid., 102-3. 134. 55Dialogues, 193. 56Ibid., 221. 57Errors, 126. 58Ibid., 54-55. See n. 9. 59Ibid., 34. 60Bainton, 15. 61Servetus, Errors, 67. 62Ibid., 68. 63Ibid., 134, 137, 140, 143, 161, 162, 165. 64Ibid., 118-20. 65Ibid., 63. 54Ibid., 12 “are” refers to God and man while “one” means oneness of mind.66 Christ “is really the Father now.... He himself is the face of the Father, nor is there any other Person of God but CHRIST; there is no other hypostasis of God but him.... They [trinitarians] say that one portion, I say that the whole Nature, of God is in him. In him is the whole Deity of the Father.... He is God and the Lord of the world.... The Father is in the Son.”67 From Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 Servetus taught that “the whole fulness of God, the whole of God the Father together with all the fulness of his properties, whatever God has, this dwells fully in this man.”68 The God who created the world and appeared to the Old Testament saints is Christ, yet the God of the Old Testament is also the Father of Jesus Christ. But there is no contradiction here, for there are not two Gods.69 Christ was also Melchizedek of the Old Testament.70 Servetus objected to the terminology of the Council of Chalcedon that Christ had two “natures” in one person; He preferred to say simply that God and man joined together in one person. The Word became flesh, not by a change of elements, but “to the Substance of the Word there was added a partaking in the flesh, so as to make one hypostasis. The Substance of the Word and the Substance of the flesh are one Substance.”71 Servetus further stated that Christ’s “flesh came down from heaven”72; it was like ours except for sin. Today His flesh is not situated in a particular place, for the right hand of the Father is not a fixed place. However, God is not elsewhere than in Christ.73 Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharistic elements, which are not the physical body of Christ but not mere symbols either, and we are to worship Christ.74 Since Servetus believed the church apostatized at the Council of Nicea, he researched the Ante-Nicene writings to find support for his views. He particularly cited Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The language of the first two meshed well with his beliefs, but he had some difficulty with the third and admitted that Tertullian was inconsistent.75 He interpreted Tertullian to refer to manifestations, which was the original connotation of persona, the Latin word Tertullian used for the persons of the trinity, and he showed that Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. 66Ibid., 36. 173-74. 68Dialogues, 196-97. 69Errors, 183. 70Ibid., 109. 71Dialogues, 199. 72Ibid., 200. 73Ibid., 214. 74Ibid., 215, 217. 75Errors, 54. 67Ibid., 13 With respect to the monarchians, Servetus rejected Paul of Samosata because he denied the deity of Christ.76 He also denounced the modalists (Patripassians and Sabellians) on the grounds that they said “JESUS CHRIST was God the Father almighty, and that he sat at his own right hand,” “the Father suffered,” and “the Father became flesh,” and that they “confused the names of CHRIST and the Father.”77 His opposition to them seems to be based primarily on semantics, misunderstanding, and the charges of Tertullian. His concern was not to confuse the Father and the Son, the deity and the flesh. He pointed out that the apostle John wrote to dispose of two fallacies: “that God was a body, or that Christ may be a phantasm.”78 Servetus admitted that the modalists were “rather near the truth,”79 and scholars today generally conclude that he taught the same basic doctrine of God as Sabellius. Servetus summed up his fundamental belief as follows: “The most solid support and foundation of the truth in which the Church is founded is to believe that JESUS CHRIST is the Son of God.... May the Lord grant you understanding, that you may conform to the simplicity of the Scriptures. If you have sought after CHRIST with your whole heart, he will without fail be gracious to you.”80 Servetus’s final work, The Restitution of Christianity, represents his fuller, more mature thought, but presents essentially the same view of God as Errors and Dialogues. Historically, the two earlier books were by far the most influential, for Restitution was almost totally destroyed as soon as it was printed. Unlike the smaller books, it has never been published in English. Servetus said his task in Restitution was “to make God known in his substantial manifestation by the Word and his divine communication by the Spirit, both comprised in Christ.” He again said Jesus is the Son of God and also God. “In the Word made flesh, in the face of Jesus Christ it is that we see the Light—God Himself—shining upon us.”81 One important issue that arises with respect to Restitution is whether Servetus taught pantheism. Calvin and some theologians today conclude that he did. Calvin asked Servetus at his trial, “If one stamps the floor would one say that one stamped on your God?” and, “The devil then will be substantially God?” Servetus reportedly replied with a laugh, probably taunting Calvin, “Can you doubt it? This is my fundamental principle that all things are a part and portion of God and the nature of things is the substantial spirit of God.” He later explained, “Stamping your foot you said that you did not move in God. You must, therefore, have moved in the devil. But we move and are in God in whom we live. Even if you are a blind demon you are sustained 76Ibid., 173. 60-61, 119. 78Ibid., 184. 79Ibid., 183. 80Ibid., 68-69. 81Willis, 197-203. 77Ibid., 14 nevertheless by God.”82 In Dialogues, Servetus had stated that God Himself is not actually in “drains, and stones, and other things.”83 The problem seems to be mainly one of terminology and expression. It is difficult to see how Servetus could be a true pantheist and yet so strongly maintain the oneness of God and unique deity of Jesus Christ as he did. His authoritative biographer, Roland Bainton, explained Servetus’s views as follows: God confers essence upon all things; all essences emanate from Him. While many call Servetus a pantheist, “he is rather an emanationist. God confers being, essence, particularity upon all that is and God sustains all things.”84 Servetus’s Doctrine of Salvation Servetus taught salvation by grace through faith. Grace “makes us free from sin, justifies us freely, pours out the Holy Spirit upon us, bestows the kingdom of heaven on us.”85 In opposition to Luther and Calvin, he strongly rejected “the servitude of the will” and the associated doctrine of predestination (unconditional election).86 He criticized Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith for minimizing the value of good works and the supremacy of love. He denied that anyone could be saved by works, but he sought a middle ground between Catholicism and Lutheranism that would uphold salvation by faith yet give due regard to sanctification and love. The truth, he said, is that we receive eternal life through grace and faith, and “the reward of glory is increased by works of love.”87 We begin with faith and are made perfect in love.88 He further criticized the Protestant doctrine for reducing faith to a sentimental feeling about Jesus instead of basing it on a knowledge of who Jesus really is. We must know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and not just believe in Jesus.89 To be saved, we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins.90 Moreover, true faith includes obedience: we are justified based on “obedience of faith in CHRIST.”91 82Bainton, 186. Dialogues, 214. 84Bainton, 131-33. 85Servetus, Dialogues, 239. 86Ibid., 238. 87Ibid., 258. 88Ibid., 263. 89Errors, 129. 90Dialogues, 201. 91Errors, 127. 83Servetus, 15 Servetus affirmed the necessity of being born again of water and Spirit. “When the flesh has been buried through baptism, we rise again through the power of the Spirit and are born again.”92 For Servetus, as for the Catholics and Lutherans but unlike the Anabaptists, water baptism is essential to salvation. If someone has died through baptism with Christ, then he has been justified.93 We are “born again through baptism.”94 He did not believe that unbaptized infants would die lost, however. The age of accountability for sins is about twenty, and baptism is only for those who repent and believe. He recommended being baptized at age thirty in imitation of Jesus. In a letter to Calvin, Servetus referred to John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 to establish the necessity of repentance and baptism, and he urged Calvin to be baptized and receive the Spirit: Regeneration, I maintain, comes through baptism.... Is it not written that we are born anew by water?.... As a prelude to baptism Peter required repentance. Let your infants repent, then; and do you yourself repent and come to baptism, having true faith in Jesus Christ to the end that you may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit promised therein.95 Servetus did not give specific attention to the baptismal formula, but as already shown, he believed the full name of God was invested in Christ. He explained that Matthew 28:19 does not teach three beings, but one: “In the name of the Father because he is the prime, true, and original source of every gift. In the name of JESUS CHRIST, because through him we have the reconciliation of this gift, ‘neither is there any other name under heaven wherein we must be saved.’ And in the name of the Holy Spirit, because all that are baptized in that name receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”96 Here he identified “Jesus Christ” as the name of Acts 4:12, and like Justin and Irenaeus he replaced the title of “Son” with that name. He also explained, “We are baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit ... that we may always be mindful only of the sanctification of the spirit.”97 92Ibid., 88. 93Dialogues, 227. 94Ibid., 203. 178-79. 96Servetus, Errors, 44-45. 97Ibid., 101. 95Willis, 16 Apparently Servetus was not rebaptized until years after he wrote these words, so they may not indicate what formula he actually used. He did not make the baptismal formula a central feature of his theology, but it seems that he included the name of Jesus in it. While Servetus taught the necessity of receiving the Holy Spirit, some of the foregoing quotes seem to indicate an automatic reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism. Elsewhere, however, he linked receiving the Spirit with faith. The Holy Spirit comes by believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and when a person believes, “immediately you shall feel the Holy Spirit given to you.”98 He further described a tangible, emotional experience of receiving the Spirit. Commenting on Acts 2:2-3, he noted the tongues of fire and mighty sound and explained, “Though that vision does not remain for us, yet we know by experience that it is in us.”99 “We are now living in the Spirit.... He that does not feel this in himself is not yet reborn of Christ.”100 Some people have never “tasted the power of the resurrection of Christ, nor his birth from above ... since there is no Spirit in them, they can do nothing but speculate upon qualities. But the anointing teaches something else in you that are reborn and have risen with Christ.”101 Servetus did not identify speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit, but he did indicate that the true church would have miraculous gifts of the Spirit: He preaches that the kingdom of God has come who proclaims that Christ has been raised, and lives and reigns with great power, and that heavenly gifts are conferred on us through him. Nor does he know that Christ has come, who does not know that gifts have come with him. Christ expressed it also by outward deeds, by healing the sick, expelling demons, and giving eyes and clearness of sight to those affected with blindness, from which he concludes that the kingdom of God is come upon us.102 One intriguing statement by Calvin may indicate that Servetus claimed to speak in tongues. During the trial, Calvin produced a Greek quotation from Justin that spoke of the trinity. Servetus had never seen this quote—indeed scholars have now concluded that it is spurious—so he asked to check a Latin version of Justin. Calvin erroneously took this as an admission that 98Ibid., 128. 168-69. 100Dialogues, 233. 101Ibid., 237. 102Ibid., 235. 99Ibid., 17 Servetus did not know Greek: “This learned man, this Servetus, who plumes himself on having the gift of tongues, is found to be about as much able to read Greek as an infant to say the ABC.”103 In the context, however, it may be that Calvin did not refer to a claim of a supernatural gift but merely a claim of linguistic ability. So Bainton rendered the comment: “But this genius of a Servetus, who was so proud of his linguistic accomplishment, could no more read Greek than a boy who has just started the alphabet.”104 As a sample of Servetus’s views as well as his strong language, here is an excerpt from a letter to Abel Poupin, a minister in Geneva, which was read at his trial: Your gospel is without the one God, without true faith, without good works. For the one God you have a three-headed Cerberus [in Greek mythology, the three-headed dog that guards the entrance to Hades]; for faith a fatal [deterministic] dream, and good works you say are vain shows. Faith in Christ is to you mere sham, effecting nothing; man a mere log, and your God a chimera of subject [enslaved] will. You do not acknowledge celestial regeneration by the washing with water, but treat it as an idle tale, and close the kingdom of heaven against mankind as a thing of imagination. Woe to you, woe, woe!105 The Execution of Servetus When Servetus was arrested in Geneva, John Calvin wrote the original thirty-nine charges against him and personally prosecuted him. Calvin attacked his writings, morals, and theology, stating in one charge that he used “scurrilous and blasphemous terms of reproach in speaking of M. Calvin and the Doctrines of the Church of Geneva.”106 The main doctrinal charges were denying the trinity, teaching pantheism, denying the immortality of the soul, and denying infant baptism. Servetus denied all attacks on his morals. He asserted belief in the trinity, but a trinity of manifestations rather than distinctions in God’s essence; he affirmed the immortality of the soul; he explained that God is present in all things in the sense of sustaining them; and he confessed his opposition to infant baptism. He acknowledged using abusive language, but defended it as a 103Willis, 347. 187. 105Willis, 359; see Bainton, 147. 106Willis, 311. 104Bainton, 18 technique of controversy and said his opponents had used equally abusive language. His initial replies were quite reasonable, but he hurt his cause by resorting once again to insults against Calvin in subsequent written exchanges. Servetus further protested that he was not seditious, that he had broken no law of the city of Geneva, and that the early church had not prosecuted anyone for doctrinal reasons. He asked for legal counsel, which was denied on the ground that there was no evidence for his innocence. He also complained of filth, cold, lack of clothing, and lack of medical attention in his cell. After consulting with the other major Swiss cities to obtain a consensus, the city council of Geneva ultimately convicted Servetus on two counts: denying the trinity and denying infant baptism. Under the sixth-century Code of Justinian (the Byzantine emperor who briefly reunited the Roman Empire), the penalty for these offenses was death. The council relied on this law in pronouncing its sentence, which concludes: In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we now in writing give final sentence and condemn you, Michael Servetus, to be bound and taken to Champel and there attached to a stake and burned with your book to ashes. And so you shall finish your days and give an example to others who would commit the like.107 Calvin wanted the death penalty but unsuccessfully sought to have him beheaded instead. When Servetus first heard of his sentence, he began to moan and cry like a madman, beating his breast and bellowing, “Misericordia! Misericordia!” (“mercy” in Spanish). When he regained his composure, he asked to see Calvin, and he apologized to him. Calvin urged him to seek God’s pardon and embrace the trinity. When he appeared before the council for formal sentencing, Servetus requested death by sword instead of fire, lest he should recant under torture and lose his soul. The request was denied. Serving as chaplain, William Farel accompanied Servetus to Champel, the place of his execution on the outskirts of Geneva. On the way, Servetus prayed for God to forgive his accusers; confessed Christ as his Savior; asked God for forgiveness of his errors, ignorance, and sin; but refused Farel’s urgings to confess Christ as “the eternal Son of God.” Servetus was chained to a stake, his book was tied to his arm, a crown of leaves covered with sulfur was placed on his head, and a rope was wound around his neck. Green wood (that 107Bainton, 209. 19 would burn slowly) was piled around him. When the executioner brought the fire before his face, he horrified the spectators with a piercing shriek of “Misericordia!” Amid the smoke and flames he cried out his last words: “O Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have pity on me!”108 He died after one-half hour. Farel noted that a shift of one word—moving the adjective “eternal” from before “God” to before “Son”—would have saved him. Thus, the dying cry of Servetus was “one last gesture of defiance to man and confession to God.”109 Conclusions The theology of Michael Servetus was original and unique. His writings contain inconsistencies, errors, ambiguities, and repetition, but considering that he practically invented his theology from scratch by age twenty, the results are still amazing. He was the equal of the foremost Reformers in intellect, scholarship, and spirituality, although his chief opponent, John Calvin, was more controlled in temperament and more systematic and lucid in writing. It took extraordinary brilliance and strength of personality to stand alone against “orthodoxy” and develop a biblical theology far more advanced than that of any contemporary. On the doctrine of God, Servetus was essentially biblical. Despite some questionable ideas, faulty expressions, and doubtful analysis of certain historical views, the two key features necessary to a genuine Oneness theology clearly emerge: (1) There is one God with no distinctions in His essence. (2) Jesus Christ is the true God, the Father, the fullness of the Godhead incarnate. Even today Oneness theologians wrestle with the same issues as he did and sometimes after long reflection find themslves reaching conclusions that Servetus singlehandedly attained 450 years ago. Apostolic Pentecostals today are not followers of Servetus, but the sixteenth-century Reformers would have gladly burned them alive along with him. On the doctrine of salvation, Servetus was sound theoretically on grace, faith, repentance, the necessity of water baptism, and the necessity of the Holy Spirit, but it is not clear what he actually experienced. His theology of the name and identity of Jesus Christ and his discussion of Matthew 28:19 lead us to expect that he was baptized with the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ. He testified to a definite experience in the Holy Spirit and valued the miraculous gifts of the Spirit; it would not be surprising if he spoke in tongues. 108Ibid., 212; Schaff 8:785. 214. 109Bainton, 20 He exhibited human failings by his dabbling with astrology, deceit under pressure, insolent remarks, and arrogance. He seemed to delight in objecting to everyone else’s doctrines, even those closest to his own, and in ridiculing opponents. In the end, however, he died humbly and bravely, with conviction and faith. His martyrdom stands as an eloquent plea for religious tolerance and freedom of conscience, and above all as a testimony of faith in Jesus Christ. 21 Bibliography Bainton, Roland H. Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553. Boston: Beacon Press. 1953. Calvin, John. Letters of John Calvin. Compiled by Jules Bonnet. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1858. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 8. Third edition. 1910. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Servetus, Michael. Christianismi Restitutio. 1553. Reprint. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Graphischer Betrieb Heinz Sammer. [Latin only. Excerpts separately translated by Ronald Rundberg of Austin, Texas.] ______. The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity. Translated by Earl Morse Wilbur. Harvard Theological Studies. Vol. 16. Edited by James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1932. Shields, Charles. The Trial of Servetus by the Senate of Geneva. Philadelphia: MacCalla and Co. 1893. Willis, R[obert]. Servetus and Calvin: A Study of an Important Epoch in the Early History of the Reformation. London: Henry S. King & Co. 1877. 22