A

DEFENCE

OF THE

Brief Account of CALVIN'S Treatment of SERVET US, against some Objections which have been made

to it.

S

OBJECTION I.

OME have infinuated that the facts are falfe.

Anfwer. Upon feeing it proved that the facts are falfe, by folid proofs and impartial evidence, they shall be otherwife related. 'Till then, they must ftand as they are. The evidence of his profeffed adverfaries will not eafily be admitted. Epifcopius (on 1 John i. 1. Vol. II, of his works, p. 174. Col. II.) intimates that fome reprefent the followers of Servetus as Arians. And then adds, -"Although he

0.2

"feems

"feems to have held a very

different opinion,

as we may fee from Calvin. For we have not been allowed to fee Servetus's own writings."

John Fox (in his Acts and Monuments, Vol. II. p. 534.) firft reprefents the Papifts as burning those whom they term Heretics.

"And yet (fais be) the malignity of thofe "adverfaries doeth not here ceafe. For, af"ter that the fire hath confumed their bo

dies, then they fall upon their books; and "condemn them, in like manner, to be "burned. And no man must be fo hardy as to read them, or keep them, under

pain of berefie. But, before they have a"bolished these books, firft they gather ar"ticles out of them, fuch as they lift "themselves: and fo perverfly wrest and

wring them, after their own purpose, false

ly, and contrary to the right meaning of "the author; as may feem, after their put"ing down, to be moft beretical and exe"crable. Which being done, and the books "then abolished, that no man may confer

[or compare] them with their articles, to "fpie their falfhood; then they divulge and "fet abroad thofe articles, in fuch fort as "princes and people may fee what heretics "they were. And this is the rigor of their "proceffe and proceding against these perfons, "whom thus they purpose to condemn and bu rn.”

When

When violent men and fierce perfecutors have procured the death of one who differs in opinion from them, and have burned his books, I confeffe I am greatly inclined to call in question their representations of his opinions; and defire further evidence, concerning the truth and reality of them; or a more fair, candid, and impartial representation of what his fentiments really were.

If his worst opinions are fit to be picked out of his writings and published, in order to be confuted: Why may we not read them in his own writings? Why is he not permitted to speak for himself? Surely every man best understands his own fentiments; and his own writings are the most likely to give one the most just idea of them.

We know very well, that a man's own words may be fo quoted, as to represent his opinions in quite another manner, than they appear in his own writings, when read in their proper connection. How much more, when a word is added, or left out; or another fubftituted in its place.

What party will allow, that their fiercest adversaries have justly represented their fentiments: notwithstanding they have quoted their very words; and, perhaps, refered to the page, from which they have copied them?

One might mention authors, who, in the heat of controverfie, have mifrepresented the opinions

Ο 3

books

opinions of their adverfaries; even while their adverfaries have been alive, and their common. very What would fuch have done, with respect to the dead; especially if their books had been burned; and a fair reprefentation of their real fentiments could not have been come at?

Object. II. It hath been inquired, why is this account published now?

Anf. To this it may be replied, by another inquiry, which was actually made, by fome plane, honeft people, in the country, upon their reading The brief account." Is "this true (faid they?) And, if it be true, why were we not told of it before?"

Object. III. Why are Calvin's faults rip'd up, and his failings thus expofed to pub<<lic view ?"

Anf. Why has the fcripture mentioned the faults of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob; and efpecially of King David? Why is it left upon record, that the apostle Peter three times denied his Lord and Mafter; and that at last with oaths and imprecations? Why! but to let us fee that fome good men have had great faults and blemishes in their characters? And to caution us to beware of those, and like crimes? I acknowlege, Calvin helped forward the Reformation from Popery; for which reafon I revere his memory. But was Calvin a better man than the patriarchs, prophets and apoftles? Why then

fhould

fhould we fhow more tenderneffe to his character, than the fcriptures have shown to them and their characters? It is this palliating the vices of great men, and fhuting our eyes upon their crimes, that has been the ruine of virtue and true religion. If Calvin did wrong, in perfecuting his Chriftian brother, let us not fcreen Calvin, but condemn perfecution in friend or enemy; left it be fufpected that we condemn it in our enemies only, but like it in our friends, and those of our own party.

Object. IV. "Servetus called Calvin feve"ral hard names, and gave him abundance "of ill language; fo that Calvin had re"ceived great provocation, by the treatment "he had met with, from that worthleffe "man."

Anf. It was too much the cuftom of that age to use virulent language in controverfy, and call their adverfaries many hard names. And Servetus is greatly to be blamed for his indecent language. But then it ought to be remembered that Calvin ufed very harsh language in return; and did not come much behind Servetus in calling hard names, and treating his adversary with opprobrious terms. -And that, about two hours before he was executed, Servetus beged Calvin's pardon for all the abufive language he had ufed towards him: But we do not find that Calvin beged his pardon, though he had used very coarfe language

04