1. The best general biography of the difficult Spaniard's life is Roland Bainton, H., Michael Servetus; The Hunted Heretic (Boston, 1953).Google Scholar For a traditional treatment of Servetus as part of a larger Unitarian tradition see volume 1 of Wilbur, E. M., History of Unitarianism (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1945).Google Scholar Historians who have dealt with Servetus have mentioned the existence arid general nature of his exegetical views, but there has been almost no attempt to see these ideas as part of a larger coherent pattera involving Servetus' other radical views. The most complete treatment is Anonymous, An Impartial History of Michael Serveius, Burned Alive at Geneva for Heresy (London, 1724).Google Scholar

2. Servetus, Michael, Biblia Sacra ex Santis Pagnini tralatione … (Lyon, 1542).Google Scholar Because there are several different editions of this work, all citations will be based upon Scripture passage number, and not page number of this specific edition.

3. While Servetus' Trinitarian views are very complicated, even within the framework of this short article we can present some of the limits of these sometimes contradictory ideas. While there are countless locations where Servetus attacked the notion of the Trinity, he was certainly no Unitarian: “And so I admit Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one Godhead, and this is the true Trinity.” Concerning the Errors of the Trinity (Hagenau, 1531) If. 64b.Google Scholar On the other hand he certainly was not an orthodox Trinitarian either. The following citations demonstrate that the Spaniard's views were generally modalist and subordinationist: “ … there are three wonderful dispositions of God, in each of which His divinity shines forth, and from this you might well understand a Trinity.” Errors If. 28b-29a. The ante-Nicene quality of Servetus' views is often quite apparent: “And Peter in the Clcmentine Recognitions speaks not of three equal beings but a threefold invocation of the divine name.” Errors if. 8b. In yet other places Servetus spoke of “multiformes deitatis aspectus”, Errors lf. 29a, of various “species” of deity, ibid.

4. It is important to note that Servetus was fully aware of ancient heterodox theological formulations, indeed, much of his earliest work, Concerning the Errors of the Trinity, is devoted to criticizing and analyzing these views. The charge most frequently made against Servetus was that he was a latter day follower of Anus, but ho disavowed any such influence and criticized this antique thinker on much the same grounds that he condemned Athanasius, because both made divisions with the Godhead. See Servetus', Restilutio Christianismi (Vienne, 1553) 1f. 36.Google Scholar

5. While Erasmus' name twice appeared in Servetus' works, Bainton, p. 34, has pointed to the likelihood that the former's work was known to the Spaniard. It would appear, however, the Dutch reformer was familiah with Servetus' work. Thus, “We fancy we see heralds of the far bolder and mure original exegetical annotations with which Servetus, under his assumed name of Villanovanus, accompanied his reprint of the Pagnini Bible,” in the Scholia added by Erasmus to his Greek Now Testament, cited by Newmann, L. I., Jewsh Influences on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), p. 518.Google Scholar

6. Errors 1f. 13b.

7. Ibid., 1f. 15b.

8. Ibid., 1f. 117a.

9. Ibid., 1f. 8b.

10. Ibid., 1f. 47b.

11. Biblia Sacra, Introduction.

12. Ibid.

13. Errors 1f. 100b.

14. Ibid., 1f. 101a.

15. Ibid., 1f. 100a-100b.

16. Ibid., 1f.96b.

17. Ibid., 1f. 101b.

18. Ibid., 1f. 102a.

19. Restitution 1f. 325.

20. Ibid., 1f. 451.

21. Ibid., 1f. 624.

22. It is not only Servetus' system which poses such a problem but one of his favorite patristic sources, Irenaeus, also raises the same issue: “Si autem quidam secondum Hebraeam linguam deverse dietiones positas in Seripturis opponant, quale est, Sabaoth, et Eloe, et Adonai, et alia quaecunque nuncupationes et pronomina. per quae Deus et Pater ostenditur…” Adversus Haereses, Patriogia Cursus Completus, ed. J. P. Migue (Paris, 1882), 7, 2; 25; 3.Google Scholar

23. Errors 1f. 119a.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., 1f. 119b.

28. Restitution 1f. 318.

29. Ibid.

30. Errors 1f. 114a. Criticism of Servetus' openness to Jewish sources was not long in coming. As soon as the Spaniard published the Errors, Oecolampadius observed: “Proinde satis video quantum tu a nobis recedes et magis judaisos quam gioriam Christi praedicas,” Calvini Opera, ed. Baum. Cunitz and Reuss (Brunswick, 1863–1900), 8: 860.

31. Biblia Saera, Isa. 7: 14.

32. Ibid., Isa. 19: 20.

33. Ibid., Isa. 8: 10.

34. Ibid., Isa. 51. 4.

35. Ibid., Isa. 41: 2. Calvin was quite annoyed with the general drift of Servetus' exegetical views, but when the Spaniard saw allusions to Cyrus rather than Christ, he commented: “The perfidious scamp wrenches the passage so as the apply it to cyrus … Everyone will admit that I was right when I told him [Servetus] that no author had so boldly corrupted this signal prophecy.” Calvini Opera, 8:496–497.

36. Biblia Sacra, Jer. 23: 5.

37. Ibid., Jer. 3: 8.

38. Ibid., Ps. 2: 7.

39. Ibid., Ps. 22: 17.

40. Ibid., Ps. 69. 22.

41. Ibid., Hos. 11: 1.

42. Errors 1f. 56b. Much the same sentiments were expressed several decades later when Servetus published his magnum opus, the Restiutio Christianis'rni, see p. 59. In Geneva, both John Calvin and the Company of Pastors were upset with Servetus' open reliance upon a score of Jewish sources and authorities, as well as his Judaizing tendencies. See Kingdon, Robert M. and Jean-François, Bergier, eds., Regi.stres de la Corn pagne des Pasteurs de Genève au temps de Calvin (Geneva, 1962), 2, 3: 25,Google Scholar and Calvini Opera, 8:505, 515. Oa the function of Judaica in Servetus' thought see my “Michael Servetus: The Case for a Jewish Christianity,” Sixteeath Century Journal 4 (1973): 87–110.Google Scholar

43. Errors 1f. 114a.

44. Biblia Sacra, Introduction.

45. Calvin was aware of this limitation in Servetus' system, from an orthodox point of view. If Christ was totally merged into the Godhead in such a way as to reject His independence, the soteriological implications were serious indeed. When commenting upon the results of Servetus' exegetical system and method, and his notions of prophecy, the Genevan reformer observed: “ … we are left with no satisfaction for sin, no means of propitiating God, no purgation.” Calvini Opera, 8: 496497.

46. Restitution, 1f. 567.

47. Historians have tended to neglect Servetus' interest in the Koran and Islam. See Errors 1fs. 42b-43a. Restitution 1fs. 35, 399, et al. For the predictable Geneva reaction, see Kingdon and Bergier, p. 25, and Caluini Opera, 8:501, 515.

48. According to Calvin's close friend, Guillaume Farel, who witnessed Servetus' execution, the Spaniard cried out as the flames burned his body: “O Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have pity on me.” An apocryphal story has it that had Servetus cried out instead: “O Jesus, eternal Son of God, have pity on me” his fate might have been far different. Certainly Farel and others in Geneva felt that Servetus denied the eternality of the Son. Calving Opera, 5. 14: 694.Google Scholar

49. Errors 1f. 93a.

50. Servetus went quite far out on the proverbial limb when he commented: “ … loquor de antiquis haeresibus, quae veritati erant propinquiores, nam Graecorum stuiticiae exortae … ” Errors 1f. 119a.

51. Restitution 1f. 396, 399.

52. Ibid., 1f. 108.

53. Ibid., 1f. 36.

54. Ibid., 1f. 395–396. Ot no point was Servetus explicit about the exact date of the end of the world, but he did begin the count of 1260 years from the time of Constantine and Sylvester. The date 306 is unlikely for while Constantine began his reign in that year, Sylvester only became Pope in 314. The earliest possible date must be 314, which would mean the end of the world in 1574. A preferable date to begin the count, however, is 325, putting the end of time at 1585. On page 666 Servetna wrote of the period of 1260 years commencing from a time when horrible dogmas, such as the Trinity (p. 670) were made into law, which might signify the eenmenical council meeting in Nicaea in 325. This issue is further pursued in my forthcoming article in Re'naissaece and Reformation entitled “The Archangel Michael vs. the Antichrist: The Sorvetian Drama of the Apocalypse.”

55. Mosse, George L., in Europe in the Sixlcenth Century (New York, 1968), pp. 87–88,Google Scholar has pointed out how very important Lichtenberger's Prognotications was in the sixteenth century, that even Martin Luther discussed this work in his Table Talk. For more complete coverage see Peuckert, Eilhclm, Die Grosse Wende, das apokalyptische Saeculum and Luther (Hamburg, 1949).Google Scholar

56. Williams, George, The Radical Reformetion (Philadelphia. 1962, p. 606,Google Scholar is quite correct in asserting that Servetus identified himself with the Archangel Michael. Bainton, pp. 86, 146, 176, also makes this point. On the opening page of the Restitution, Servetus cited Dan, 12:1, “And at that time Michael the prince shall stand up … ” and in muny places throughout that work, such as pp. 395. 403, 409, 667, et al. Michael is again mentioned as the initiator of the millenium.

57. Servetus' mature work, the Restitution, strikes an ecstatic tone when dealing with man's future unity with God. On pages 311–312, he wrote: “Iterum dico, regnum Dei intra nos esse, per Christum esse caelnm ad nos allatum, per ipsum esse caelum apertum Nos sumus templum Del … Nos sumus lapides vivi … Participationem eius naturali habemus, facti participes diviuae naturae.” In yet other places Servetus goes even further: “Dii vere nos efficimur, participatione Deitatis Christi, facti vere participes divinae naturae … ” 1f. 196. And yet more ecstatic still: “Transformabitur earo nostra, et conformis fiet corpori Christo glorioso” 1f. 277.

58. Errors 1f. 78b-79a.