The Persecution of Michael Servetus by Charles McRae 1892

For more, go to The Murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin - 50 Books on CDrom

Written by Charles McRae 1892

THE Sixteenth Century produced an unusually large number offamous biologists. To it belonged Andreas Vesalius, the incomparable anatomist, and his teachers, Sylvius and Winter of Andernach; Columbus of Cremona, to whom the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood was for a century and a half ascribed; and Fallopius, Eustachius, Arantius, Fabricius of Aquapendente, and Clesalpinus; men whose names have become familiar to every student of anatomy. Foremost, perhaps, among these illustrious workers stands the name of Michael Servetus, the physiologist and liberal thinker, who was burned to death as a heretic at Geneva in 1553, and whose life and tragic end have ever since excited the interest and sympathy of mankind.

Michael Servetus was born in Aragon or in Navarre about the year 1509. At an early age he entered the University of Saragossa, from which, in 1528, he was sent as a law student to the University of Toulouse. Here he may have read some of Luther's writings, for several of the latter were translated into Spanish soon after their publication. But whether he saw them or not, after staying two or three years at Toulouse, he acquired certain views which were antagonistic to some of the generally received dogmas of the Church, and which influenced the whole of his subsequent life.

Quitting the university, he went-in what position it is unknown-with a Franciscan friar named Quintana, who was confessor to the Emperor Charles V., to Bologna, to the coronation of that monarch.

And here, in Italy, it is supposed that he met with opinions which strengthened his desire for liberty of thought, for about this time he thus expresses himself: "For my own part I neither agree nor disagree in every particular with either Catholic or Reformer. Both of them seem to me to have something of truth and something of error in their views; and, whilst each sees the other's shortcomings, neither sees his own. God, in His goodness, give us all to understand our errors, and incline us to put them away."

Leaving Bologna, the Emperor with his suite proceeded to Germany to hold the Diet of Augsburg. And here Servetus probably saw and spoke to some of the leading Reformers.

Soon after this, however, he quitted the service of Quintana, and we find him seeking the friendship of certain of the reformers, CEcolampadius and Bucer. He must have had the power of winning friends, for Bucer, in a letter, speaks of him as his dear son, "filius meus dilectus."

In 1531 Servetus published at Hagenau his first book, "De Trinitatis Erroribus." This production of a young man only twenty one or twenty-two years of age, crude as it was, excited remark from
Luther and Melanchthon. In the "Table-Talk" of 1532 Luther refers to it as "A fearfully wicked book which had lately come out against the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 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."

Melanchthon confesses he has read Servetus much. "I see him indeed sufficiently sharp and subtle in disputation, but I do not give him credit for much depth. He is possessed, as it seems to me, of confused imaginations, and his thoughts are not well matured on the subjects be discusses."

CEcolampadius wrote, "Our Senate have forbidden the Spaniard's book to be sold here. They have asked my opinion of its merits, and I have said that as the writer does not acknowledge the coeternity of the Son, I can in no wise approve of it as a whole, although it contains much else that is good."

Servetus now followed this with "Two Dialogues on the Trinity," explanatory and additional to the former work. Thus he published two books against the principal dogma of the Church in less than two years, without hesitating to put his name on the title-page of both. He was very young, extremely zealous for his new opinion, and, perhaps, unacquainted with the principles of the Reformers. He may have thought that if they wrote freely about the doctrine of Transubstantiation, why should he not inquire into the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. But the reception afforded to his two works was of such a kind as to convince him that he had committed an imprudent act in allowing his name to appear as the author, and he accordingly changed his name and retired to Lyons. The name he now assumed, and by which he was always afterwards known, was Michael Villeneuve or Villanovanus, after the town of Villaneuva, in Aragon, from which he probably came.

At Lyons he found work as a corrector for the press, at the publishing firm of the Brothers Trechsel; and he edited the "Geography of Ptolemy." The description of Palestine which this book contained, although really an extract and not an original statement by Servetus, was quoted against him eighteen years afterwards when he was tried for his life at Geneva. It concluded with these words: "Know, however, most worthy reader, that it is mere boasting and untruth when so much of excellence is ascribed to this land; the experience of merchants and others, travellers who have visited it, proving it to be inhospitable, barren, and destitute of all charm. Wherefore you may say that the land was promised indeed, but is of lillie promise when spoken of in everyday terms."

The latter part of the following description of the Germans, which is given in this book, looks like an expression of Servetus's own opinion: "Hungary is commonly said to produce oxen, Bavaria
swine, Franconia onions, turnips, and liquorice, Swabia harlots, Bohemia heretics, Switzerland butchers, Westphalia cheats, and the whole country gluttons and drunkards. The Germans, however, are a religious people; not easily turned from opinions they have once espoused, and not readily persuaded to concord in matters of schism, everyone valiantly and obstinately defending the heresy he has himself adopted."

While thus working at Lyons, Servetus formed the acquaintance of Doctor Campeggius, to whose influence it was perhaps due that he decided to take up the study of medicine. To carry out this
determination he proceeded to Paris, and entered as a student at the University under Joannes Guinterus (Winter of Andernach) and Sylvius. Here he had as a fellow-student Andreas Vesalius, the
famous anatomist, to whom, as well as to Servetus, their teacher Winter makes a laudatory reference some time afterwards. Writing in the preface to his "Anatomical Institutions," published in 1539, Winter informs his readers that he " had been effectually aided in the preparation of the work, first by Andreas Vesalius, a young man, by Hercules I singularly proficient in anatomy; and after him by Michael Villanovanus, distinguished by his literary acquirements of every kind, and scarcely second to any in his knowledge of the
teaching of Galen."

After taking his degree, Servetus lectured in Paris on Geometry and Astrology. The lectures on the latter subject involved him in a dispute with the University; and in March 1538 we find him
defending by counsel a suit that was brought against him by the medical faculty on account of these lectures. In 1537 he wrote a little book, "Syruporum Universa ratio," the most popular perhaps
of all his writings, containing six lectures on digestion, with one chapter-the fifth-devoted to the composition and use of syrups or tisanes.

In June 1538 he was at the University of Louvain studying theology and Hebrew; and in a letter to his father, written from this place, he explains that he has left Paris owing to the death of his
master, but hopes to return soon. After practising as a doctor for a short time at Charlieu, he continued his studies for part of 1540 at the University of Montpellier, where unusual facilities were at that time afforded to medical students.

At Paris, some years before, Servetus had made the acquaintance of Pierre Paumier, a man of learned tastes, who was now Archbishop of Vienne, in Dauphiny. At his invitation the Spaniard took up his residence at Vienne, and there appears to have lived in quiet seclusion from 1541 to I553· His professional work was not too heavy to allow of his taking up literary pursuits also. He brought
out a new edition of "Ptolemy's Geography," and he annotated the Latin Bible of Pagnini. In his preface to the latter work he intimates what he considers to be the proper method of interpreting
the prophetical books. He says that people who are ignorant of the affairs and customs of the Hebrews easily think the historical and literal sense of no importance; and in consequence of this they ridiculously follow a mystical interpretation everywhere. " Wherefore," he adds, " I would desire you again and again, Christian reader, to get the knowledge of the Hebrew in the first place, and, after that, diligently to apply yourself to the study of Jewish history, before you enter upon the reading of the prophets."

One of the gravest charges brought against Servetus by Calvin was that by such a method of interpretation "this impostor has dared to give such a wrong turn to the passages (contained in the fifty third chapter of Isaiah) as to interpret them of Cyrus. So that whatever the prophet has with great perspicuity, and with the utmost force of expression, discoursed, this perfidious villain has blotted out."

Here it may be remarked that while no one would pretend that Servetus was a Biblical critic and expositor, yet his method of looking first for the historical and literal meaning is the method of the modern school of Scriptural exegesis.

The book which immediately brought about the imprisonment and death of Servetus was called "Christianismi Restitutio"·-the Restoratbn of Christianity. It contained, besides a series of chapters setting forth the various theological tenets of the author, thirty letters addressed to Calvin. The views of the writer, although fantastical, and in many instances unintelligible, often exhibit a broad and tolerant spirit, and always breathe intense earnestness. He appears to have felt himself impelled to propagate his opinions on these theological matters, and to have come to regard this as his mission in life, which must be fulfilled at any risk. So much at least is clear from the invocation to Christ, with which he closes his introduction. "Thou hast taught us that the light is not to be hidden, so woe to me unless I evangelise." He seems even to have thought that he had his vocation shadowed out to him in his name. The angel Michael led the embattled hosts of heaven to war against the Dragon; and he, Michael Servetus, had been chosen to lead the angels on earth against Antichrist!

This book is now one of the rarest in the world. Two copies only are known to be extant-one at Paris and another at Vienna. A copy of the latter, printed in 1790, is in the British Museum.

In this work, while writing on the Trinity (Book V.), Servetus introduces certain physiological statements in order to illustrate some of his theological speculations. The passage, although lost to the world for nearly a century and a half, has long ago become famous. It was first brought to light in "Wotton's Reftections upon Ancient and Modern Learning," published in London in 1694. It
proves that the knowledge which Servetus possessed of the way by which the blood passed from the right to the left side of the heart was in advance of his time, and a step beyond that reached by Galen. The latter had taught that the blood, for the most part, passed through the septum, from one side of the heart to the other. Servetus wrote: "This communication" (i.e., from the right ventricle of the heart to the left) " does not take place through the septum, partition, or midwall of the heart, as commonly believed, but by another admirable contrivance, the blood being transmitted from the pulmonary artery to the pulmonary vein, by a lengthened passage through the lungs, in the course of which it is elaborated and becomes of a crimson colour. Mingled with the inspired air in this passage, and freed from fuliginous vapours by the act of expiration, the mixture being now complete in every respect, and the blood become fit dwelling·place of the vital spirit, it is finally attracted by the diastole and reaches the left ventricle of the heart." He then goes on to give as proofs of the accuracy of his state~ents the various conjunctions and communications of the pulmonary artery and pulmonary vein in the lungs, and the great size of the pulmonary artery, and the great quantity of blood passing through it; both being much larger than would be required for the mere nutrition of the lungs. He concludes that the septum, seeing that it is without vessels and special properties, is not fitted to permit the communication in question, "although," he adds, "it may be that some transudation takes place through it." This unfortunate qualification of what he has so distinctly affirmed just before, namely, that the communication does not take place through the septum, is not very intelligible; for if he believed the blood to soak through the septum, his theory differs but little from that of Galen, and yet Servetus calls attention to the fact that what he is declaring was unknown to Galen.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

Prof. Huxley points out that Servetus quotes neither observation nor experiment in favour of the imperviousness of the septum. But neither does Realdus Columbus, who correctly described the lesser circulation in 1559, and to whom the credit of the discovery was very early ascribed. It is to be remembered that the work in which Servetus introduces his discovery is not a treatise on Physiology, and that the whole passage being brought in by way of illustration is not fully treated.

It is clear, however, that Servetus held that the blood in a great stream passes from the right ventricle of the heart to the lungs; that in the lungs, and not in the left ventricle, it is purified; and that from the lungs it passes by the pulmonary vein to the left ventricle of the heart and thence into the arteries.

From these statements of fact Servetus quickly passes to metaphysical speculations. He has before said "there are three sorts of spirits in the human body, namely, natural, vital, and animal, which are not in reality three, but two distinct spirits only; the arteries communicating by anastomoses, the vital spirit to the veins, in which it is called natural. The first spirit then is the blood, whose seat is in the liver, and in the veins of the body; the second is the vital spirit, whose seat is the hea~t and arteries; the third is the animal spirit, whose seat is in the brain and nerves." Now, he goes on to suppose that the blood, having received in its passage through the lungs the breath of life, is sent by the left ventricle into the arteries. The purest. part ascends to the base of the brain, where it is more refined and changed from the vital to the animal spirit, and acts upon the mass of the brain, which is incapable of reasoning ·without its stimulus. From this, and much more which is unintelligible, it appears plain that Servetus had read the Schoolmen, and was imbued with their methods of reasoning.

To get published a book filled, as the "Christianismi Restitutio" was, with theological opinions repugnant alike to Catholics and Reformers, was no easy task. And in effecting his purpose Servetus exercised great caution and ingenuity. At Vienne, where he had lived for twelve years, was a publisher named Amoullet, whom, with the printer Geroult, Servetus took into his confidence. He engaged not only to pay the whole expenses, but also to add a gratuity of a hundred crowns. It was arranged that the printing should not be carried on at the ordinary place of business, but that a small house at some distance should be used for the purpose. The printing was commenced on St. Michael's Day, and in three or four months 1000 copies of the book were ready.

No name appeared on the title-page, but at the end of the book immediately over the date the initials "M. S. V." were placed, and at page 199, at the commencement of the dialogue between Michael
and Petrus, the latter is made to say, "Here he is; Servetus is here, of whom I was speaking." The reference made in the preface to former works on the same subject, and the introduction of Michael and Peter as interlocutors, just as had been done in the "Dialogue on the Trinity" twenty years before, rendered it easy to establish that Michael Servetus and Michael Villeneuve were one and the same man.

The whole stock of books, when ready, was made up into bales of 100 each and sent away, the greater part to Lyons, to the care of a typefounder named Pierre Merrin, who believed that the packets
contained nothing but blank paper. It was probably intended to forward them, as soon as opportunity offered, to Genoa and Venice.

Meanwhile, unknown to Servetus, a copy of the work, with a letter giving particulars of the printing of it, were despatched to Calvin at Geneva, probably by some one at Lyons, who had friends at Vienne, and who was in the confidence of both Servetus and Calvin. Armed with this evidence against the Spaniard, Calvin caused a letter to be written to Vienne by a young man named William Trie, denouncing Servetus, and enclosing the first few sheets of the" Christianismi Restitutio." By a subsequent mail he sent by the same man about twenty letters, which he had received from time to
time from Servetus. On this the latter was arrested, and conveyed to prison on the pretence of being required to see some sick prisoner.

He was immediately examined closely as to his early history and the meaning of some of his writings. Taken by surprise as he was, he appears to have prevaricated and tried to hide his identity with the author of" De Trinitatis Erroribus," by pretending that in his letters with Calvin be had personated Servetus merely for the purpose of discussion. Facts looked very black against him, but he probably had very powerful friends, and it may have been with the connivance of some of them that two days afterwards he made his escape from prison. The whole plot was soon ferreted out by Matthew Ory, the Inquisitor; the books were seized, and Servetus was condemned "in a pecuniary mulct of a thousand livres, to be paid to the King of Dauphiny;" and the sentence went on, "as soon as he shall be taken he shall be drawn in a dung-cart, with his books, on the market-day and hour, from the gate of the Royal Palace, through the streets and accustomed places, to the common hall of the present city, and from thence to the place called the Charneve, and there he shall be burnt alive, with a slow fire, until his body shall be reduced to ashes. In the mean time the present sentence shall be executed in effigy, with which the said books shall be burnt."

This sentence was duly carried out on June 17, 1553, the effigy and five bales of books being burned to ashes.

Of such action as Calvin's in thus betraying what had been communicated to him in the confidence of a letter, into the hands of a professed enemy of both, Erasmus expresses himself as follows: "You are not ignorant how abhorrent, I do not say from virtue, but entirely from all humanity, it is to betray the secrets of friendship; forasmuch as we detest even those who, after a breach of friendship, shall divulge what was said in confidence before; nor can those of a generous disposition suffer themselves to betray that which they know, from the confidence of ancient friendship, will expose one to the resentment of his greatest enemies."

Having escaped from Vienne, Servetus probably remained in hiding first at Lyons. But the discovery of the whole matter, and his subsequent condemnation, made it imperative that he should get out of France. Many Spaniards were settled at Naples, and thither he now seems to have determined to push his way. For some reason or other, probably because he expected more leniency from Reformers than from Catholics, he preferred to go through Switzerland rather than Piedmont. He reached Geneva, and lodged at the Rose Inn, intending to go by boat to Lausanne on his way to Zurich. Calvin, however, learned that he was in the town, and he immediately informed the first Syndic, and caused him to be apprehended; and here he was kept while proceedings were being taken against him, from August 14 to October 27.

The people of Geneva, in the year 1553 were, and had been for several years, divided into two hostile parties, struggling desperately with each other for the supremacy. The austerity and tyranny of Calvin had aroused against him many opponents, and it seemed now as if these were on the point of attaining the ends for which they had been so long striving. Calvin's earliest attempts at ruling the Genevese had soon met with failure. He had first settled in Geneva in 1536, but so unpopular had he become in two years, that he and his colleague, Farel, were formally banished from the city. Passing from Basle to Strasburg, he had taken up his residence in the latter city as Professor of Theology. But after two years, in response to a deputation which came and besought his return to Geneva, he consented to go back, and in September 1541 he took up his old position under greater advantages than before. He then laid before the Council the draft of his ordinances respecting Church discipline, and these were at once accepted. A Consistory was formed, composed for the most part of clergymen, with the addition of a few laymen "to watch over the support of the pure doctrine and of morals." The tribunal called everybody, without exception, to account for their slightest words or actions, and referred cases, where ecclesiastical censure was not sufficient, to the Council. Thus Calvin had made himself director of the conduct as well as of the opinion of the Genevese. His spirit governed exclusively in the Council as in the Consistory, and no one could hope to succeed who set himself in opposition to Calvin.

Twelve years of such bondage, however, had not been borne by the Genevese without indication of discontent and dissatisfaction. The Council declared that clergymen could no longer be admitted to its meetings, although they had not been previously excluded; men who were under the Consistorial ban for some infringement of discipline were chosen as councillors, and even open hostility was shown to Calvin, who wrote: "The accumulated rancour of their hearts breaks out from time to time; so that when I show myself in the street, the curs are hounded on me."

To the great misfortune of Servetus it was at such a time as this that he arrived in Geneva. His case became the subject of dispute over which the two factions fought one of their bitterest struggles; and although Calvin had declared some years before that if the Spaniard ever came to that city he should not escape with his life, yet probably the relentless Reformer was now bent on his destruction quite as much by a desire to defeat the opposite party as by the personal hatred he had for Servetus.

The nominal prosecutor of Servetus was a creature of Calvin's, a certain Nieolas de la Fontaine-who, in accordance with the law, had not only to bind himself over to continue the suit to a conclusion, but also to go to prison with the accused man, and, in compliance with the requirements of the lex talionis, to engage, in case his charges were not made good, to undergo the penalty that would have fallen on the accused had they been established.

Thirty-eight articles of impeachment were advanced against Servetus. One of these was that he had defamed Mr. Calvin and the doctrine that he preached. To this Servetus replied that he had had abusive language from Calvin, and that he had only answered in the same terms. La Fontaine produced "Ptolemy's Geography," the annotated Bible, the " Christianismi Restitutio," and certain MS. letters, and Servetus admitted that he was the author of all. It having been considered now that sufficient evidence had been furnished to warrant prosecution by the attorney-general, the court relieved La Fontaine of all charge, damage, and interest in the matter, and Servetus was committed for trial.

At the trial, passages from "Ptolemy's Geography," as to the character of Palestine, were adduced as proofs of the heretical opinions of the prisoner, and when the latter added that the notes contained nothing harmful, or that was not true, Calvin himself warmly interposed. And writing afterwards about the event, he says, "When Servetus stood so plainly convicted of this his impiety he had nothing to allege in his vindication. The filthy cur, laying aside all shame, asserted in one word that there was no harm in it."

The annotations of the Pagnini Bible were produced again, and Servetus was examined as to his method of interpreting prophetical passages, and then the meaning of certain extracts from the "Christianismi Restitutio" was inquired into, and a letter from Servetus, written about six years before to Abel Pepin, a preacher at Geneva, was put in. It contained two remarkable passages: "It is perhaps far from agreeable to you that I should concern myself with Michael's war in the Apocalypse, or that I should desire to bring you into the strife. But do so much as consider that passage narrowly, and you will soon perceive who the men were to be who would engage in that quarrel, namely, such as were resolved to expose their lifts to death for the blood and the testimony of Jesus Christ."..."That I must die for the cause I have espoused I certainly know; but I am not at all cast down on that account, since by that I shall be a disciple made like to his master."

Some days afterwards Calvin came into court attended by all the ministers of Geneva, and undertook to prove that the teaching of the early fathers of the Church was opposed to that of Servetus. After Calvin and the prisoner had had a long dispute as to the meaning of the word _persona_, the court adjourned, but before doing so the judges gave permission for Servetus to be provided, at his own cost, with such books as he needed, which could be obtained in Geneva or Lyons. Some paper and ink, with which the prisoner was now for the first time furnished, enabled him to send in a petition on the following day. In this he pointed out that the prosecution, as a criminal, of a man on account of the views he held on doctrine was contrary to the Scriptures and to the ancient Church; and he begged that, as he was a foreigner, wholly unacquainted with the customs of the country, and of how he should proceed, he might be allowed an advocate. But to this very reasonable request, although subsequently repeated more than once, the judges did not accede.

The Syndics and Council of Geneva now addressed a letter to the authorities of Vienne, asking that the documents connected with the trial of Michael Villeneuve might be sent to them; and, three days after, they received a letter saying that these documents could not be forwarded, but that, if the prisoner were delivered over to them, the sentence already passed on him would be carried into effect. Servetus was hereupon asked if he preferred remaining in the hands of the Council or to be sent back to Vienne. Knowing full well that a cruel death most certainly awaited him in France, and hoping that no such punishment was in store for him here, he fell on his knees and besought the Council to do what they would with him, but in no case to send him back to Vienne.

The trial was accordingly continued.

Meanwhile, Servetus lay in one of the foul cells set apart for criminals of the lowest class, and we find him writing in a petition, dated September 15: "Calvin is resolved that I should rot in a prison to please him. I am eaten up with lice. My hose are worn to pieces and I have no change, nor another doublet, and only one shirt, and that in tatters."

Another petition, dated a week later, ends with the words: "Wherefore, my lords, I desire that my false accuser should be punished poena talionis, and confined to prison as I am, till he or I be condemned to death or to some other punishment. I am willing to die if be is not convicted both of this and other things which I shall lay to his charge. I beg of you, my lords, to do me justice. Justice, my lords, justice!"

Finally, on October to, comes his last appeal: "It is now three weeks since I desired to have a hearing, but could not obtain it. I beseech you, for the love of Jesus Christ, not to deny me what you would not deny a Turk, when I beg you to do me justice. I have several things to tell you that are very important and necessary. As to what you may have ordered to be done for me in the way of cleanliness, I have to inform you that nothing has been done, and that I am in a more miserable condition than ever. In addition to which, I suffer terribly from the cold and from colic, and my rupture, which causes me miseries of other kinds that I should feel shame in writing about more particularly. It is very cruel that I am neither allowed to speak nor to have my pressing wants supplied For the love of God, my lords, either in pity or in duty, give some orders in my behalf."

During this time a letter was sent by the Council of Geneva to the different Swiss churches, asking for an expression of opinion on the case of Servetus. The answers came back in due course, and the Spaniard was declared to be an intolerable monster of impiety, and to have revived the wicked errors "with which Satan did formerly disturb the Church." The Church of Zurich was more vehement than the rest in exhorting the magistrates to deal severely with him.

On the morning of October 27, Servetus was summoned "to learn the pleasure of my lords the Councillors and Justices of Geneva," and before the porch of the Hotel de Ville he beard his condemnation: "To be burned alive, along with thy books, printed as well as written with thy hand, until thy body be reduced to ashes. So shall thy days end, and thou be made an example to others who would do as thou hast done."

The sentence was immediately carried into execution. In a few hours Calvin's most subtle disputant had for ever ceased to trouble him, and the world was the poorer by one loving, faithful spirit.
CHARLES McRAE.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

Philo and the Anarthrous QEOS/theos

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

"Philo, as a Jew, was a committed monotheist. Although Philo could use very exalted language to describe the Logos, the divine powers, and even certain heroes from Israelite history (e.g., Moses), Philo remained a convinced monotheist and vigorously opposed any notion that there was a plurality of deities. For example, he can state categorically that "God, being One, is alone and unique, and like God there is nothing" (L.A. 2.1). In addition, when discussing the first commandment he writes:

Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honour one God Who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and guilelessness" (Decal. 65).

Similarly, for Philo only God has absolute existence. This is reflected in the phrases "He that IS" (hO WN) and "the Being One" (TO ON), which Philo often uses when speaking of God. Only God has real Being and all other "beings" derive their existence from Him (Det. 160).

It is true that Philo can call the Logos "the divine Logos" (hO QEIOS LOGOS; Som. 1.62), and "God" (QEOS; Som. 1.227-230), and even "the second God" (hO DEUTEROS QEOS; Q.G. 2.62). Nonetheless, he is always careful to distinguish between God and His Logos. For example, in his extended exposition of Gen. 31.13 (Som. 1.228-230), he carefully distinguishes between God and the Logos of God. hO QEOS refers to "Him Who is truly God" (TON MEN ALHQEIA), while the anarthrous QEOS refers to the Logos, who is "improperly" (TON D EN KATACRHSEI) called God. Nevertheless, for Philo the author of scripture uses the title QEOS for the Logos, "not from any superstitious nicety in applying names, but with one aim before him, to use words to express facts". Thus, while Philo wishes to defend the use of QEOS for the Logos, he is very careful to differentiate the Logos from God Himself. Not even the Logos can be called "the God" (hO QEOS), since there is only one God." pp. 78, 79, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity by Darrell D. Hannah

metatron3@gmail.com

Isaac Newton's Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Henry Green 1856

Buy this Kindle book on Amazon for only 99 cents
Visit my listing of this book here.

Isaac Newton's Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Henry Green 1856

Join my Facebook Group - For a list of all of my disks and digital books click here

It is to writings not published in their life-time that we must have recourse for the clearest evidence of Locke's and Newton's views of Trinitarian Doctrine. In his History of the Royal Society, p. 284, Dr. Thomson had declared;—- “Newton's religious opinions were not orthodox; for example, he did not believe in the Trinity. This gives us the reason why Horsley, the champion of the Trinity, found them unfit for publication;" yet Brewster, writing in 1880, considered the assertion of Sir Isaac Newton's being an Anti-Trinitarian as “not warranted by any thing which he has published.” The Question really at issue is the fact itself,-and this fact must be substantiated, not simply by what they printed, but by what they wrote. The Manuscripts which they left must decide the controversy.

Sir Isaac Newton's Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, I. John v. 7, [For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one] and I. Tim. iii. 16, [And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory] published in his collected works by Horsley, might have been the production of any honest-minded man who desired the pure text of the Sacred Writings; though it is very unlikely that a believer in the Trinity would have written as he has done: “it is,” he says to disarm hostility, “no article of faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture, which I am going to write about.” Some expressions, however, reveal the animus with which he entered upon the criticism. A believer in the Trinity would have inserted some saving clause to vindicate the soundness of his faith in that particular dogma, and to show, though he was assailing one of its strongholds, that he still regarded it as a doctrine resting on a rock: he would scarcely have said of the baptismal formula, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Matt. xxviii., 19, “the place from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity.” Neither is it likely that a Trinitarian would have written;—-“Will you now say that the testimony of the “three in heaven' was razed out of their books by the prevailing Arians? Yes, truly, those Arians were crafty knaves, that would conspire so cunningly and sly, all the world over at once (as at the word of a Mithridates,) in the latter end of the reign of the Emperor Constantius, to get all men's books into their hands, and correct them without being perceived, ay, and conjurors too, to do it without leaving any blot or chasm in their books, whereby the knavery might be suspected and discovered.”—Horsley's Newton, vol. V., 496, 498, 508.

The comment on I. Tim. iii., 16, the other corruption which Newton exposed, savours too of Anti-Trinitarianism. “And besides, to read QEOS/theos, makes the sense obscure and difficult. For how can it possibly be said 'that God was justified in the Spirit!' But to read O', and interpret it of Christ, as the ancient Christians did, without restraining it to his divinity, makes the sense very easy. For the promised and long expected Messias, the hope of Israel, is to us ‘The great mystery of godliness.' And this mystery was at length manifested to the Jews, from the time of his baptism, and justified to be the person whom they expected.”——Horsley's Newton, v., 548

Locke's acquaintance with Newton began between the years 1688 and 1690, and it was then that Newton first communicated to Mr. Locke, in strictest confidence, the valuable papers on the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. “The author, with his characteristic timidity, shrunk from the responsibility of sending them forth to the public with the sanction of his name, and thus expose himself to the scoffs or the censures of the theological bigots of the age, who were either incompetent or indisposed to appreciate the value of his labours. Mr. Locke was at this time meditating a voyage to Holland; and Sir Isaac's first purpose was, that he should take these papers with him, and, through the medium of some literary acquaintance, procure the translation and publication of them there in the French language. He wished in this manner, without bringing himself personally before the public, to ascertain the feeling and judgment of Biblical critics, as to the subjects of his work. Then ‘After it had gone abroad long enough in French,' he 'might', he states, 'perhaps put it forth in English.’” ——King's Life of Locke, p. 229-230; or vol. i., 427-428.

The nature of this “Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture” it is interesting to re-consider, and we give it in Brewster's words:--

“This celebrated treatise relates to two texts in the Epistles of St. John and St. Paul, the first of these is I. John, v., 7 (I John 5:7), ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' This text he considers as a gross corruption of Scripture, which had its origin among the Latins, who interpreted the Spirit, Water, and Blood, to be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in order to prove them one. With the same view Jerome inserted the Trinity in express words, in his version. The Latins marked his variations in the margins of their books; and in the twelfth and following centuries, when the disputations of the schoolmen were at their height, the variations began to creep into the text in transcribing. After the invention of printing, it crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek, contrary to the authority of all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions, and from the Venetian press it went soon after into Greece. After proving these positions, Sir Isaac gives the following paraphrase of this remarkable passage, which is printed in Italics,--

“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God, that Son spoken of in the Psalms, where he saith, ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.' This is he that, after the Jews had long expected him, came, first in a mortal body, by baptism of water, and then in an immortal one, by shedding his blood upon the cross, and rising again from the dead; not by water only, but by water and blood; being the Son of God, as well by his resurrection from the dead,(Acts, xiii., 32-33,) as by his supernatural birth of the virgin, (Luke, i., 35.) And it is the Spirit also, that together with the water and the blood, beareth witness of the truth of his coming; because the Spirit is truth; and so a fit and unexceptionable witness. For there are three that bear record of his coming; the Spirit which he promised to send, and which was since shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in various gifts; the baptism of water, wherein God testified ‘this is my beloved Son;' and the shedding of his blood, accompanied with his resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful martyr, or witness of this truth. And these three, the spirit, the baptism and passion of Christ, agree in witnessing one and the same thing, (namely, that the Son of God is come;) and, therefore, their evidence is strong; for the law requires but two consenting witnesses, and here we have three: and if we receive the witness of men, the threefold witness of God, which he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism, ‘this is my beloved Son,' by raising him from the dead, and by pouring out his spirit on us, is greater; and therefore ought to be more readily received.”—Brewster, vol. ii., 331-333.

The text of the heavenly witnesses is now indeed given up, by the most eminent biblical scholars, as a notorious corruption. Porson, in his letters to Archdeacon Travis, triumphantly proved that it ought not to form a part of the Sacred Text; and it demands the efforts of all who venerate the writings of the apostles to endeavour to purify the New Testament from an almost universally acknowledged forgery. Surely those who occupy the high places in the Christian church, should be able to say, “we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.”—II. Cor., ii., 17.

In referring to these able letters, Sir Charles Lyell, as quoted by Brewster, remarks, “that by them the question was for ever set at rest.” “Had it been a question in science, it might have been expected that presumptuous error, when once sternly refuted, would not dare to re-appear; but theological questions are never set at rest, and the very corruption of the Sacred Text, which Sir Charles characterizes as having been ‘given up by every one who has the least pretension to scholarship and candour, has been defended in our own day by Dr. Burgess, Bishop of St. David's, and afterwards of Salisbury, with a boldness of presumption and a severity of intolerance, unworthy of a Christian divine."—Brewster's Memoirs, ii., 334, 335.

“The other notable corruption of Scripture discussed by Sir Isaac, is that which he charges the Greeks with having perpetrated in the text of St. Paul, Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh. According to him, this reading was effected by changing O into OS, the abbreviation for QEOS,--whereas all the churches, for the first five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome as well as the rest, read ‘Great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh.' For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac, and Latin versions to this day, Jerome's manuscripts having given him no occasion to correct the old vulgar Latin in this place."—Brewster, vol. ii., 335.

The opinions of critics, since the time of Newton, have been much divided in reference to this passage, I. Tim., iii., 16; a summary of those opinions we add from the Principles of Textual Criticism, by J. Scott Porter, p. 482.

“The first word of the second clause in this verse is variously read.

1. QEOS EFANERWQH—-‘God was manifested.' This is the reading of the Received Text, approved by Mill, Bengel, Berriman, Woide, Henderson, Scholz, Davidson, and many other eminent critics.

2. OS EFANERWQH—-‘Who was manifested.' This reading Griesbach has taken into the text of the New Testament, and it is supported by Carpenter and Belsham; and also Dr. J. Pye Smith, though with some hesitation.

3. O EFANERWQH—'Which was manifested,'—referring to the mystery mentioned immediately before. Grotius, Sir Isaac Newton, Wetstein, Wakefield, Norton, and several other writers, prefer this reading.”

The arguments for each of these readings are then stated and examined, and for several reasons which he adduces, Scott Porter concludes; “in my judgment the true reading is "o which.”—p. 493.

For a list of all of my digital books (Amazon and PDF) click here

Celebrating the King James Bible, by Rev. W.H. Lindemuth 1903

The King James Bible, 1611 — The Father Bible, by Rev. W.H. Lindemuth 1903

See also Rare Olde English Bibles on DVDrom (Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, AV1611 ) and The King James Version Bible Companion: 100 Books on DVD and The History of the English Bible - 125 Books on DVDrom - For a list of all of my ebooks (DVD and Amazon) click here

With pride we contemplate the noble ancestry of our present English Bible. Tracing its history remotely through a thousand years, we find in it the lifeblood of kings, scholars, reformers, and saints, whose memories we revere as of those who kept alive the word of truth through the dimly lighted ages. Our Authorized Version is the most useful and beautiful fruitage of the biblical tree, and it has come down to us weighted with the treasures of the wisdom, scholarship, and piety of a millennium of history, and very naturally it has become the focal point of our interest, and it speaks to us in a language so simple and yet so ornate that all can understand and all admire.

The production of a new version of the Scriptures can be justified only by a growing need of a better translation. It was thus that the work of Wycliff and Tyndale grew out of the intellectual and spiritual requirements of the developing age in which they lived. The origin of the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva can be easily traced to ecclesiastical differences between ritualists, low churchmen, and Puritans. At the dawn of the seventeenth century, with splendid English Bibles already in the field, what was the necessity for a new revision? The Great Bible was antiquated and cumbersome; the Geneva Bible, most excellent as it was, had become the version of the Puritan party; the Bishops' Bible, authorized by royal and ecclesiastical sanction, was unpopular with the people. A new and more uniform translation was inevitable, but the fact is that the idea which originated such a work was entirely incidental and not the result of a special or popular demand. The immediate cause of the enterprise which gave birth to the Authorized Bible was the objection of the Puritan party to the Bishops' Bible, and the prompt decision of James I, the newly crowned English king, to signalize his reign by so great a work as the production of an English Bible.

When James the Sixth of Scotland, son of Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots, succeeded Queen Elizabeth on March 24. 1603. he proceeded with brilliant pageantry to England's throne. Encouraged by the knowledge that the new king, though of Roman Catholic parentage, was by profession a Presbyterian, the representatives of the Puritan party at once presented to him the famous Millenary Petition, praying that there be a change in church service and greater strictness in ecclesiastical discipline. The king was in no sense a religious man, but be loved to dabble in ecclesiastical matters, and he at once summoned Puritans and Ritualists to a conference at Hampton court. The High Church party, knowing that secretly the king's sympathies were with them, felt confident of a decision in favor of the existing order but the final result, as we shall see, was that the Puritans carried off the spoils.

On the second day of the assembly Dr. Reynolds, a veritable pillar of Puritanism, while speaking in behalf of his brethren, "moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, . . . because others were corrupt and not answerable to the original." The suggestion, made so incidentally, found immediate favor with the king, much to the chagrin of Bishop Bancroft and his ritualistic followers. In this instance James I shows how he merits the title "The wisest fool in Christendom." He at once proposed that a new translation should be undertaken by the most learned men of the schools and the Church, and the convention formally endorsed the enterprise. It is evident, however, that the king was the only one really interested in the project, for the council closed without making further preparations for the work of translation. But James, not to be hindered by such masterly inactivity, began at once the serious task of selecting the translators and drafting rules to guide their labors.

It is not known by whose advice he selected the fifty-four learned divines who were appointed to make the new version, but extraordinary care was evidently taken to secure the interest of the wisest and best of English scholars, and every possible resource was taxed to yield up its treasures of wisdom and knowledge. A wise provision for the direction of the work was found in the restrictive rules which the king had formulated for the guidance of the revisers, the moat notable being that the Bishops' Bible should be followed as far as possible, no unnecessary changes should be made, no marginal notes except for the explanation of Hebrew and Greek words, chapter divisions should be as little changed as possible and all differences of opinion should be settled at a general meeting. Among the older versions allowed to be used were Tyndale'a, Coverdale's, the Geneva, and the Rheims, together with Bibles in French, German, Latin, and Spanish, but at the basis of all should be "the original Hebrew and Greek."

The translators, divided into six companies, each having its special work, did not actually begin their labors until 1607, but from that time they wrought assiduously, self-sacrificingly, and with the most intense devotion. Their secular rewards were in the gifts of positions in the Church, but their lasting remuneration is in the glory of their work and the gratitude of succeeding generations.

The first edition of the new translation was issued in 1611, and as might be expected, it was met with considerable disfavor. The Romish party was uncompromisingly hostile to it in any form; the High Church party was wedded to the Bishops' Bible; and the Puritans were quite contented with the Geneva Version, whose notes so sharply defined their theological and civil views. Since there was no popular demand for the new Bible it was compelled to work its way into the affection of the people and the esteem of scholars. At first there was a general feeling of discontent, and it was publicly attacked from the pulpits, and even Hugh Broughton, the first Hebrew and Greek scholar of the day, delivered his invectives against it; but all this opposition was short lived. In thirty years the Geneva Bible contested the field with the King James Version, but in 1644 its last edition was published, and from that time the new translation began to prevail. Its superior merit was the chief cause of its complete triumph, although the absence of marginal notes did more than anything else to commend it to all classes.

In a brief summary of the excellences of the Authorized Bible we must note the general accuracy and fidelity to the original, the predominance of Anglo-Saxon words, the simple, pure, and nervous style, its beauty and dignity, all of which surround it with a charm for all lovers of the word of God. Of course it is not perfect, but considering the state of scholarship, and the lack of critical material when it was made, the result is simply marvelous. In the seventeenth century the sciences of sacred philology, biblical geography, and antiquities were not far advanced, and on this account there is often a lack of precision. From the viewpoint of present-day scholarship we can see how little force was then given to prepositions, articles, moods, tenses, and nice shades of meaning; how the poetical portions were rudely reduced to prose; how the same Greek words were translated by different English words, producing a lack of uniformity; what confusion exists in chapter and verse divisions. And yet we must argue with Selden that "our English translation of the Bible is the best in the world, and renders the sense of the English best."

With what marvelous tenacity the people cling to this grand old version! The Revised Version of 1881 takes preeminence for scholarship, but still the King James Bible receives the reverent praises of mankind. "Who will say," says Father Taber, "that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the strongholds of heresy in this country? It lives on the ear like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert scarcely knows how to forego. ... It is part of the national mind and the anchor of the national seriousness. Nay, it is worshiped with a positive idolatry. . . . The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses." Says John Fiske: "The sonorous Latin Vulgate is very grand, but in the sublimity of fervor as in the conscious sublimity of strength, it is surpassed by the English version, which is scarcely, if at all, inferior to the original, while it remains to-day, and will remain, the noblest monument of English speech."
Philadelphia, Pa.

Join my Facebook Group - Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

Metatron - The Lesser Jehovah by William B Smith 1912

Metatron - The Lesser Jehovah by William Benjamin Smith 1912

See also 125 Books on ANGELS & Angelology on DVDrom

Join my Facebook Group - For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

How familiar and even native to the Jewish mind was the idea of a Being purely divine yet subordinate to God Most High is clearly shown in the strange doctrine of Metatron. Hitherto in this whole discussion the present writer has carefully avoided broaching this all-important theme, since it deserves a volume rather than a paragraph. However, it seems hard to maintain this reserve any longer or to avoid saying so much at least as the following: The rigorous rabbinical monotheism with which we are all familiar was be no means the only recognized form of Judaism. The notion of Jehovah's angel (Malak YHVH), frequent in the Old Testament, and that of Mediator, already present in Gal. iii. 19, 20 and apparently current, pervade both Hebrew writings and the Apocrypha. In the latter this heavenly and even divine Being is often called Enoch, also Michael, and Metatron, which latter name he bears preeminently in the former. In Greek and Latin the word is written Metator and is said to mean Guide. It looks very like a disguised reflection of Mithra, as Kohut contends. Many scholars identify this Being with the Logos of Philo, against the protest of Cohn. That profound Talmudist, Max Friedländer, in his Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnosticismus and elsewhere, identifies him with the early Gnostic Horus, “the surveyor or guardian of frontiers.” Still other interpretations have been suggested.

For us the important point is that this Metatron is clothed with attributes and powers very nearly equal to those of God Most High. Thus, when Elisha b. Abuyah beheld Metatron in Heaven he thought there were two Deities (Hag. 15a). When God wept over the temple destroyed Metatron fell on his face, exclaiming, “I will weep, but weep not Thou,” whereupon God answered: “If thou wilt not suffer Me to weep, I will go whither thou canst not come, and there will I lament” (Lam. R., Introduction 24). Compare Jer. xiii. 17 and John xiii. 33, “Whither I go, ye can not come.” Metatron shares in the functions of God: during the first three quarters of the day he teaches children in the Law, during the last quarter God himself teaches them (‘Ab. Zarah 3b). Involuntarily one thinks of freshman, sophomore, junior, —- senior! He is a “mighty scribe,” little lower than God (Ps. viii. 6). We are reminded of the secretary-angel of Ezekiel (ix. 2, 3, 11, x. 2, 6, 7). He is a youth, suggesting the mysterious youth of Mark xiv. 51, 52; xvi, 5—-a supernatural being. He bears witness to the sins of mankind, recalling the “faithful witness” of Revelation. Most of all, however, he bears the sacred ineffable name, the tetragrammaton YHVH, for in Ex. xxiii. 21, it is written, “My name is in him.” Nevertheless, he must not be worshiped, since the same passage commands, “Exchange not Me for him,” (Sanh. 38b). However, it is conceded (Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, 408 a, b,) that “angel worship was not unknown in certain Jewish circles,” and that prayers addressed to angels insinuated themselves even into the liturgy. Even in Daniel xii. 1, Michael appears as Intercessor, along with whom Metatron is frequently mentioned by Gnostics as the mediator of revelation. Even when Abraham ibn Ezra, commenting on the Pentateuch, finely says: “The angel that intermediates between man and God is reason,” he is still not far from John and Theophilus, not far from Heraclitus and Philo, with all of whom the Logos (Reason) serves to link man with God. Enough. It is superfluously clear that in Jewish conception Metatron was quite in line with the Second Person in the Trinity, that, if not in official, at least in unofficial Judaism, the idea of a Vice-Elohim, a Pro-Jehovah, a Mediator-God, was perfectly naturalized, was popular, and was widely active. This mid-Being or Mesites (by which latter term Lactantius describes Jesus) was wholly divine, without any tincture of humanity, and yet was distinctly lower than God Most High, with whom he was even contrasted.

Buy this Kindle book on Amazon for only 99 cents
Visit my listing of this book here.

A Criticism of the New King James Version

The New King James Bible New Testament. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, c. 1979, vi + 407 pp.

This, translation claims to be "a revised English edition which will unlock the spiritual treasures found uniquely in the, King James Version of the Holy Scriptures" (p. iii). One, would have thought that such spiritual treasures were to be found 'in the original Greek of the New Testament, rather than in the translation published in 1611, but the "119 scholars, editors, and church leaders" (dust jacket) who are responsible for this translation have chosen to update that venerable trandation. The updating includes the replacement of some archaic vocabulary with modern equivalents, the replacement of archaic pronouns and verb forms by modern English forms, and an improvement in syntax for some of the most obscure seventeenth century syntactic structures.

 Section headings have been added. Punctuation has been modernized. Old Testament quotations are indicated by a change in type face, with a footnote reference to the Old Testament location, Passages identified as poetry, for example, Luke 1.46-55, but not,  Philippians 2.6-11, are printed in lines with initial capital letters, Where "Lord" occurs in an Old Testament quotation referring,to "the covenant name of God" (p. iv) it is now printed in small capital letters. The practice of identifying added words by italics has been dropped. Words of Jesus are printed in brown, in contrast to the normal black type. In brief this is the King James Version, (also known as, the, Authorized Version) in modem dregs. It should be noted, however, ,that some of the "improvements" are steps backward toward an even more literal translation, as for example in Matthew 5.9, where the King James Version's "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" is replaced by "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called, the sons of God."

There are two really shocking things about this translation: its use of initial capital letters for all pronouns referring to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and in acceptance of the traditional Greek text underlying the 1611 translation. The Introduction states that although the use of thee, thou, etc. is being abandoned, "reverence for God in the present work is preserved by capitalizing all pronouns, including You, Your, and Yours, which refer to Him." This betrays a woeful, lack of knowledge about such matters in the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us. The principle stems to have been applied mechanically, and it leads to some real absurdities. In dialogue with Jesus, all speakers, whether, disciples, family members, or opponents, address their remarks to Him. In John 4:19 the Samaritan woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet" and, in John 10:33 the Jews say, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man (sic), make Yourself God."

It seems almost incredible at this stage in the development of New Testament textual criticism, with all the new evidence that is now available for the history of the transmission of the text, that a group of "scholars, editors, and church leaders" would be willing to update the language of the King James Version, and make no effort to recover a more certain, textual base than that available to the translators in 1611. This seems even more incredible when one reads that "all participating scholars have signed a document of subscription to the plenary and verbal inspiration of the original autographs of the Bible" (p.v). One would have thought that such a view would have compelled the scholars involved to do more toward the recovery of the earliest text than to suggest that "the traditional Greek text is much more reliable than previously supposed" (p. v). Indeed one has the distinct impression in reading this translation that it is the King James Version itself, and not even its late underlying Greek text, which here here taken as the authoritative standard.

The Bible translator should not be misled. This is not a modem translation. To quote the King James, Version, "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau" (Gen. 27.22). This "new" King James Version New Testament should not be used as a base or as a model for the work of translation. HEBER F. PEACOCK.

Voltaire on the Trinity, Arianism and Michael Servetus 1904

Voltaire on the Trinity, Arianism and Servetus (from A Philosophical Dictionary 1904)

See also The Pagan Origin of the Trinity - 60 Books on CDrom

For a list of all of my digital books *PDF and Amazon) click here

The great theological disputes, for twelve hundred years, were all Greek. What would Homer, Sophocles, Demosthenes, Archimedes, have said, had they witnessed the subtle cavillings which have cost so much blood.

Arius has, even at this day, the honor of being regarded as the inventor of his opinion, as Calvin is considered to have been the founder of Calvinism. The pride in being the head of a sect is the second of this world's vanities; for that of conquest is said to be the first. However, it is certain that neither Arius nor Calvin is entitled to the melancholy glory of invention. The quarrel about the Trinity existed long before Arius took part in it, in the disputatious town of Alexandria, where it had been beyond the power of Euclid to make men think calmly and justly. There never was a people more frivolous than the Alexandrians; in this respect they far exceeded even the Parisians.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

There must already have been warm disputes about the Trinity; since the patriarch, who composed the "Alexandrian Chronicle," preserved at Oxford, assures us that the party embraced by Arius was supported by two thousand priests.

We will here, for the reader's convenience, give what is said of Arius in a small book which every one may not have at hand: Here is an incomprehensible question, which, for more than sixteen hundred years, has furnished exercise for curiosity, for sophistic subtlety, for animosity, for the spirit of cabal, for the fury of dominion, for the rage of persecution, for blind and sanguinary fanaticism, for barbarous credulity, and which has produced more horrors than the ambition of princes, which ambition has occasioned very many. Is Jesus the Word? If He be the Word, did He emanate from God in time or before time? If He emanated from God, is He coeternal and consubstantial with Him, or is He of a similar substance? Is He distinct from Him, or is He not? Is He made or begotten? Can He beget in his turn? Has He paternity? or productive virtue without paternity? Is the Holy Ghost made? or begotten? or produced? or proceeding from the Father? or proceeding from the Son? or proceeding from both? Can He beget? can He produce? is His hypostasis consubstantial with the hypostasis of the Father and the Son? and how is it that, having the same nature—the same essence as the Father and the Son, He cannot do the same things done by these persons who are Himself?

These questions, so far above reason, certainly needed the decision of an infallible church. The Christians sophisticated, cavilled, hated, and excommunicated one another, for some of these dogmas inaccessible to human intellect, before the time of Arius and Athanasius. The Egyptian Greeks were remarkably clever; they would split a hair into four, but on this occasion they split it only into three. Alexandros, bishop of Alexandria, thought proper to preach that God, being necessarily individual—single—a monad in the strictest sense of the word, this monad is triune.

The priest Arius, whom we call Arius, was quite scandalized by Alexandros's monad, and explained the thing in quite a different way. He cavilled in part like the priest Sabellius, who had cavilled like the Phrygian Praxeas, who was a great caviller. Alexandros quickly assembled a small council of those of his own opinion, and excommunicated his priest. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, took the part of Arius. Thus the whole Church was in a flame.

The Emperor Constantine was a villain; I confess it—a parricide, who had smothered his wife in a bath, cut his son's throat, assassinated his father-in-law, his brother-in-law, and his nephew; I cannot deny it—a man puffed up with pride and immersed in pleasure; granted—a detestable tyrant, like his children; transeat—but he was a man of sense. He would not have obtained the empire, and subdued all his rivals, had he not reasoned justly.

When he saw the flames of civil war lighted among the scholastic brains, he sent the celebrated Bishop Osius with dissuasive letters to the two belligerent parties. "You are great fools," he expressly tells them in this letter, "to quarrel about things which you do not understand. It is unworthy the gravity of your ministry to make so much noise about so trifling a matter."

By "so trifling a matter," Constantine meant not what regards the Divinity, but the incomprehensible manner in which they were striving to explain the nature of the Divinity. The Arabian patriarch, who wrote the history of the Church of Alexandria, makes Osius, on presenting the emperor's letter, speak in nearly the following words:

"My brethren, Christianity is just beginning to enjoy the blessings of peace, and you would plunge it into eternal discord. The emperor has but too much reason to tell you that you quarrel about a very trifling matter. Certainly, had the object of the dispute been essential, Jesus Christ, whom we all acknowledge as our legislator, would have mentioned it. God would not have sent His Son on earth, to return without teaching us our catechism. Whatever He has not expressly told us is the work of men and error is their portion. Jesus has commanded you to love one another, and you begin by hating one another and stirring up discord in the empire. Pride alone has given birth to these disputes, and Jesus, your Master, has commanded you to be humble. Not one among you can know whether Jesus is made or begotten. And in what does His nature concern you, provided your own is to be just and reasonable? What has the vain science of words to do with the morality which should guide your actions? You cloud our doctrines with mysteries—you, who were designed to strengthen religion by your virtues. Would you leave the Christian religion a mass of sophistry? Did Christ come for this? Cease to dispute, humble yourselves, edify one another, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and pacify the quarrels of families, instead of giving scandal to the whole empire by your dissensions."

But Osius addressed an obstinate audience. The Council of Nice was assembled and the Roman Empire was torn by a spiritual civil war. This war brought on others and mutual persecution has continued from age to age, unto this day.

The melancholy part of the affair was that as soon as the council was ended the persecution began; but Constantine, when he opened it, did not yet know how he should act, nor upon whom the persecution should fall. He was not a Christian, though he was at the head of the Christians. Baptism alone then constituted Christianity, and he had not been baptized; he had even rebuilt the Temple of Concord at Rome. It was, doubtless, perfectly indifferent to him whether Alexander of Alexandria, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the priest Arius, were right or wrong; it is quite evident, from the letter given above, that he had a profound contempt for the dispute.

But there happened that which always happens and always will happen in every court. The enemies of those who were afterwards named Arians accused Eusebius of Nicomedia of having formerly taken part with Licinius against the emperor. "I have proofs of it," said Constantine in his letter to the Church of Nicomedia, "from the priests and deacons in his train whom I have taken," etc.

Thus, from the time of the first great council, intrigue, cabal, and persecution were established, together with the tenets of the Church, without the power to derogate from their sanctity. Constantine gave the chapels of those who did not believe in the consubstantiality to those who did believe in it; confiscated the property of the dissenters to his own profit, and used his despotic power to exile Arius and his partisans, who were not then the strongest. It has even been said that of his own private authority he condemned to death whosoever should not burn the writings of Arius; but this is not true. Constantine, prodigal as he was of human blood, did not carry his cruelty to so mad and absurd an excess as to order his executioners to assassinate the man who should keep an heretical book, while he suffered the heresiarch to live.

At court everything soon changes. Several non-consubstantial bishops, with some of the eunuchs and the women, spoke in favor of Arius, and obtained the reversal of the lettre de cachet. The same thing has repeatedly happened in our modern courts on similar occasions.

The celebrated Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, known by his writings, which evince no great discernment, strongly accused Eustatius, bishop of Antioch, of being a Sabellian; and Eustatius accused Eusebius of being an Arian. A council was assembled at Antioch; Eusebius gained his cause; Eustatius was displaced; and the See of Antioch was offered to Eusebius, who would not accept it; the two parties armed against each other, and this was the prelude to controversial warfare. Constantine, who had banished Arius for not believing in the consubstantial Son, now banished Eustatius for believing in Him; nor are such revolutions uncommon.

St. Athanasius was then bishop of Alexandria. He would not admit Arius, whom the emperor had sent thither, into the town, saying that "Arius was excommunicated; that an excommunicated man ought no longer to have either home or country; that he could neither eat nor sleep anywhere; and that it was better to obey God than man." A new council was forthwith held at Tyre, and new lettres de cachet were issued. Athanasius was removed by the Tyrian fathers and banished to Trèves. Thus Arius, and Athanasius, his greatest enemy, were condemned in turn by a man who was not yet a Christian.

The two factions alike employed artifice, fraud, and calumny, according to the old and eternal usage. Constantine left them to dispute and cabal, for he had other occupations. It was at that time that this good prince assassinated his son, his wife, and his nephew, the young Licinius, the hope of the empire, who was not yet twelve years old.

Under Constantine, Arius' party was constantly victorious. The opposite party has unblushingly written that one day St. Macarius, one of the most ardent followers of Athanasius, knowing that Arius was on the way to the cathedral of Constantinople, followed by several of his brethren, prayed so ardently to God to confound this heresiarch that God could not resist the prayer; and immediately all Arius' bowels passed through his fundament—which is impossible. But at length Arius died.

Constantine followed him a year afterwards, and it is said he died of leprosy. Julian, in his "Cæsars," says that baptism, which this emperor received a few hours before his death, cured no one of this distemper.

As his children reigned after him the flattery of the Roman people, who had long been slaves, was carried to such an excess that those of the old religion made him a god, and those of the new made him a saint. His feast was long kept, together with that of his mother.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

After his death, the troubles caused by the single word "consubstantial" agitated the empire with renewed violence. Constantius, son and successor to Constantine, imitated all his father's cruelties, and, like him, held councils—which councils anathematized one another. Athanasius went over all Europe and Asia to support his party, but the Eusebians overwhelmed him. Banishment, imprisonment, tumult, murder, and assassination signalized the close of the reign of Constantius. Julian, the Church's mortal enemy, did his utmost to restore peace to the Church, but was unsuccessful. Jovian, and after him Valentinian, gave entire liberty of conscience, but the two parties accepted it only as the liberty to exercise their hatred and their fury.

Theodosius declared for the Council of Nice, but the Empress Justina, who reigned in Italy, Illyria, and Africa, as guardian of the young Valentinian, proscribed the great Council of Nice; and soon after the Goths, Vandals, and Burgundians, who spread themselves over so many provinces, finding Arianism established in them, embraced it in order to govern the conquered nations by the religion of those nations.

But the Nicæan faith having been received by the Gauls, their conqueror, Clovis, followed that communion for the very same reason that the other barbarians had professed the faith of Arius.

In Italy, the great Theodoric kept peace between the two parties, and at last the Nicæan formula prevailed in the east and in the west. Arianism reappeared about the middle of the sixteenth century, favored by the religious disputes which then divided Europe; and it reappeared, armed with new strength and a still greater incredulity. Forty gentlemen of Vicenza formed an academy, in which such tenets only were established as appeared necessary to make men Christians. Jesus was acknowledged as the Word, as Saviour, and as Judge; but His divinity, His consubstantiality, and even the Trinity, were denied.

Of these dogmatizers, the principal were Lælius Socinus, Ochin, Pazuta, and Gentilis, who were joined by Servetus. The unfortunate dispute of the latter with Calvin is well known; they carried on for some time an interchange of abuse by letter. Servetus was so imprudent as to pass through Geneva, on his way to Germany. Calvin was cowardly enough to have him arrested, and barbarous enough to have him condemned to be roasted by a slow fire—the same punishment which Calvin himself had narrowly escaped in France. Nearly all the theologians of that time were by turns persecuting and persecuted, executioners and victims.

See also The Murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin - 50 Books on CDrom

The same Calvin solicited the death of Gentilis at Geneva. He found five advocates to subscribe that Gentilis deserved to perish in the flames. Such horrors were worthy of that abominable age. Gentilis was put in prison, and was on the point of being burned like Servetus, but he was better advised than the Spaniard; he retracted, bestowed the most ridiculous praises on Calvin, and was saved. But he had afterwards the ill fortune, through not having made terms with a bailiff of the canton of Berne, to be arrested as an Arian. There were witnesses who deposed that he had said that the words trinity, essence, hypostasis were not to be found in the Scriptures, and on this deposition the judges, who were as ignorant of the meaning of hypostasis as himself, condemned him, without at all arguing the question, to lose his head.

Faustus Socinus, nephew to Lælius Socinus, and his companions were more fortunate in Germany. They penetrated into Silesia and Poland, founded churches there, wrote, preached, and were successful, but at length, their religion being divested of almost every mystery, and a philosophical and peaceful, rather than a militant sect, they were abandoned; and the Jesuits, who had more influence, persecuted and dispersed them.

The remains of this sect in Poland, Germany, and Holland keep quiet and concealed; but in England the sect has reappeared with greater strength and éclat. The great Newton and Locke embraced it. Samuel Clarke, the celebrated rector of St. James, and author of an excellent book on the existence of God, openly declared himself an Arian, and his disciples are very numerous. He would never attend his parish church on the day when the Athanasian Creed was recited. In the course of this work will be seen the subtleties which all these obstinate persons, who were not so much Christians as philosophers, opposed to the purity of the Catholic faith.

Although among the theologians of London there was a large flock of Arians, the public mind there has been more occupied by the great mathematical truths discovered by Newton, and the metaphysical wisdom of Locke. Disputes on consubstantiality appear very dull to philosophers. The same thing happened to Newton in England as to Corneille in France, whose "Pertharite," "Théodore," and "Recueil de Vers" were forgotten, while "Cinna" was alone thought of. Newton was looked upon as God's interpreter, in the calculation of fluxions, the laws of gravitation, and the nature of light. On his death, his pall was borne by the peers and the chancellor of the realm, and his remains were laid near the tombs of the kings—than whom he is more revered. Servetus, who is said to have discovered the circulation of the blood, was roasted by a slow fire, in a little town of the Allobroges, ruled by a theologian of Picardy.