Did Calvin Murder Servetus? by Standford Rives

Previously I went through a quote attributed John Calvin in which he is purported to have written, "I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard." There's good evidence that this quote is from a forged letter and not from the pen of Calvin at all.  The nuts and bolts of this can be found in my previous post. What I did not realize then was the extent to which one of the modern sources has popularized this quote. Over on the CARM boards a person posted the quote and was kind enough to provide a link to the book it came from: Did Calvin Murder Servetus? by Standford Rives.  A few folks defended this book as the go to source on the Calvin / Servetus issue. I'd like to take a closer look at the way the quote appears in this book, and then mention a few questions I have in regard to  the author. 

Did Calvin Murder Servetus? by Standford Rives
First let's take a look at how Mr. Rives cites the quote. He prefaces it with, "Unrepentance of Calvin To The Very End":

It is also a fact that Calvin remained unrepentant as of 1561 about his role and responsibility for the death of Servetus. In 1561, Calvin wrote a letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which Calvin said: “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.”548

The author then concludes, "One can readily see in this fire-breathing quote that the Christian spirit had been extinguished in Calvin." (Kindle Locations 4398-4403). The documentation provided states,

548 David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America (Lincoln and Edmands, 1813) at 186, quoting Rev. Robert Robinson’s Ecclesiastical Researches (Cambridge: Francis Hodson, 1792) at 348.

Here is not the place to delve into a defense or prosecution of Calvin's involvement in the execution of Servetus. What interests me is the quote itself and how it's documented. One thing to immediately note is that the phrase  "[Anabaptists and others]" is not from the original, it was added in. More troubling though is the documentation. Rives quotes Benedict, who is quoting Robinson, who is allegedly quoting Calvin! First, it's in vol. 1 of Benedict (his footnote left that out). Second, when one goes to look at Robinson, one discovers that author is citing Voltaire who is citing Calvin. So Standford Rives never actually quoted Calvin directly. He quoted someone quoting someone who quoted someone quoting Calvin!

This letter from Calvin was first popularized by Voltaire. It was included in Dr. Jules Bonnet's collection of Calvin's letters, published originally in French in the 1850's. There is an English translation of Calvin's letters from Bonnet's French. The letter in question can be found in Letters of John Calvin Vol. IV, pp. 439-440. Dr. Bonnet included this letter in a chapter entitled, "An Historical Calumny Refuted." There Bonnet documents the spuriousness of the letter. He mentions that the first publication of the letter was in 1750. He also documents that the letter swept across nineteenth century scholarship. After personally seeing the letter, Bonnet argues it (along with another one) is a fraud. Those reasons can be found in my previous post (or simply read "An Historical Calumny Refuted). The most compelling of the reasons is that the alleged letter gives someone a title he did not hold until twenty years later (M. du Poet, grand chamberlain of Navarre).

Over on CARM, the work of this author received accolades. The topic was said to be "thoroughly researched," "brilliantly researched," "you'll hardly find a more well-researched or documented book...with more footnotes to verify any information yourself," and "will eviscerate the common stock Calvin apologists' arguments." We've just seen above a blatantly poor neglect of information and spurious documentation. The ironic thing is that Rives cites the french version of Bonnet's Calvin letters a few times. I can think of a few reasons why this information about the forged letter was left out. First, he missed it because he didn't do adequate primary research; second, he willfully left it out because it did not fit his construction of Calvin. Third, perhaps he was not convinced of the forgery. One would think though in a 606 page book that the author would have at least mentioned it.

Standford Rives, Author of Did Calvin Murder Servetus?

Who is this author? That's actually not a simple question. From what I can figure out, Standford Rives self-published his book, Did Calvin Murder Servetus? (2008). Even though Amazon misspells his first name on their purchase page, they also say in his bio that he's been a Christian since he was 15 years old, was a member of a "Calvinist church for over 10 years," but his major credential is that "As an attorney, Rives examines the trial of Servetus initiated by Calvin and prosecuted by Calvin to determine whether Calvin was responsible for wrongfully killing Servetus as a heretic." None of these necessarily qualify him to write a book in regard to an historical event from hundreds of years ago, written in a different language in a different country. Here's what the back cover of the book says,

Mr. Rives is a California attorney. He has been in practice for twenty-seven years. In school, he studied Classical Greek and Latin. Mr. Rives has been an evangelical Christian since age 15. He was first baptized in a Baptist church. He has spent most of his thirty-one years as a Christian attending a Reformed Calvinist congregation.

Keep your eye on the ball. Amazon says Rives was in a Calvinist church for over 10 years, the back cover says most of his 31 years, and we'll  now see that the stat turns into over 15 years in his own on-line bibliography: "In my experience for over 15 years in a Reformed Congregation..." OK, so before it was "over ten years," then most of his thirty-one years, now he's says "over 15 years." So, is he still in a Reformed church? His Calvin book blurb says he "was" a member of Calvinist church. Which Reformed church? Was he a member? Was he there ten years, 15 years, or most of his thirty-one Christian years?

So who exactly is the author of Did Calvin Murder Servetus? I don't really know. I know the facts about his previous Calvinist churches are movable. Here's where it becomes interesting: do a search for "Standford Rives" along with words like "attorney," "lawyer," "esquire." Add in "California" if you want. From my cursory search, I didn't come up with any significant hits to verify this information. Now, perhaps he's retired? Perhaps his practice flies under the Internet radar?  I found another one of his self-published books (2012) which said on the back cover,

Mr. Standford Rives is a licensed practicing attorney. He has been in practice for over twenty-eight years. Mr. Rives has been an evangelical Christian since age 15. From 1998-2002, Mr. Rives served as a self-funded full-time missionary with his wife in Latin America in an out reach to children of the very poor.

This book was written after his Calvin book, so it appears he was still in practice as of 2012, so we know he was still in practice up until recently, at least. If anyone can find some hits to this mystery lawyer, I'd be interested in seeing that information. The bottom line is there is zilch in regard to the author's credentials to write an historical account from the 16th Century, and actually, there is next to nothing to know about this self-published author / lawyer.

I did find a website that claims "Standford Rives" is a fictitious name. This may be be the truth of it. If so, I think I actually have found the author's real name, but until I can verify this, I'm not going to post it. A reviewer on Amazon also mentions "Standford Rives" is a pseudonym, and also mentions the real author has some bizarre doctrinal beliefs, including a link to the author's website that demonstrates the author rejected and denigrated the apostleship of Paul and also denies Paul's books as Sacred Scripture. From my quick cursory search, this does appear to be the same person, but in this age of information deception, who knows? It could very well be there's a lawyer out there that's flying under the online information radar. On the other hand, if it is the same person mentioned in the Amazon review,  the person that wrote against John Calvin with such authority, did the same with the Apostle Paul!

Am I suspicious of the caliber of the book? Absolutely. Simply because someone writes a book does not mean they're necessarily qualified to be taken seriously as an authority on a particular subject. Now with self-publishing available, all sorts of  unqualified people are writings books. It appears to me "BookSurge Publishing" (used by Standford Rives) is a self-publisher. Sure, someone could produce a quality self-published book, that is within the realm of possibility. But, consider these following two points in terms of writing (and selling!) an historical account:  

1) If you're going to to write a book on X, it's essential to cite X, not someone quoting X.
2) If historical figure X spoke a different language than the author does, the author should be able to read X in his/her own language.

So far in my cursory look into his book, Rives has not demonstrated either of these points. What would make it all the worse is if the author is not using his real name. If someone is going to write an historical account and actually sell it, then why not have the integrity to use a real name? If this is explained somewhere in his Calvin book, I have not come across it yet. If the author is using a pseudonym, the book's credibility amounts to the same as that of an anonymous website, but in this case, someone has to pay money for the content, unlike a website that can be accessed for free.

Granted, none of this information refutes what the author argues in his book, Did Calvin Murder Servetus? It should though serve as a warning about being careful with the content. Yes, sometimes you can take your broken car to your weird friend Bob and have him fix it. Other times, Bob might be in over-his-head, working on an antique foreign car that requires bonafide training and skill. He might get it running, but if you honk the horn, the lights may turn off. 

Calvin: I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.

In a recent discussion, the following John Calvin quote was provided:

Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561. "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

This quote has been around for quite awhile, receiving its popularity because of its negative reference to Michael Servetus, "I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard." Here, Calvin directly admits to having Servetus killed. This admission would be contrary to the popular defense of Calvin's involvement that he had no authority in Geneva to put anyone to death.   Here is not the place to delve into a defense or prosecution of Calvin's involvement in the execution of Servetus. What interested me is the actual letter this quote comes from and the possibility it may be a forgery.

Documentation
In the snippet above, the only documentation provided is that the quote is from a 1561 letter "to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre." If you search the first phrase of the snippet, it becomes obvious it's a blatant cut-and-paste. For example, you can find it in the exact form here and here. A more broad search demonstrates the quote was often used in the 1800's.  For instance,  in the 1848 book, The life of Michael Servetus, the author states,

No one could know the history of Calvin and Servetus better than Voltaire. He affirms that the former acted towards the latter with treachery and theological hatred; that "when he saw his adversary in confinement, he loaded him with every kind of insult and vile treatment that base minds are wont to do when they get the upper hand. At length, by continually pressing the judges to employ the credit of those he pointed out to them, and by proclaiming in person, and by his emissaries, that God demanded the execution of Michael Servetus, he had him burned alive, and took a cruel pleasure in being a witness to his sufferings; he who, if he had set a foot in France would have heen sent to the stake himself, and who had so loudly exclaimed against all persecution." The finishing stroke to this picture of Calvin may be found in a letter written with his own hand, which is still preserved in the castle of Bastie-Roland, near Montelimar: it is directed to the Marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the king of Navarre, and dated Sept. 30, 1561. "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."*

* Works of Voltaire translated by Smollet, and Franklin, &;c.—Lond. 1763. vol. iv. pp. 82—84.

This old book gives a reference to  the works of Voltaire vol. 4.  In the 1761 edition, Voltaire's comment can be found on page 84 as part of a chapter entitled "Calvin and Servetus":

It appears that Voltaire was the source for this popular quote, and the English translator provided the form that it's in. A contemporary English version of Voltaire's words can be found here. Voltaire had a severe view of Calvin (as this  biographical book documents). This letter from Calvin cited by Voltaire does indeed exist. It was included in Dr. Jules Bonnet's collection of Calvin's letters, published in French in the 1850's. There is an English translation of Calvin's letters from Bonnet's French. The letter in question can be found in Letters of John Calvin Vol. IV, pp. 439-440. There is a typo in the English translation. In the letter below, the date is said to be "8th September, 1561." The French version verifies that this is an error, the actual date should have been September 13, 1561.


Context

XVII.—To MONSEIGNEUR, MONSEIGNEUR DU POET, GRAND CHAMBERLAIN OF NAVARRE AND GOVERNOR OF THE TOWN OF MONTELIMART, AT CREST..

MONSEIGNEUR :—What have you judged of the Colloquy of Poissy? We have conducted our business safely. The Bishop of Valence as well as the others have signed our profession of faith. Let the king make processions as much as he pleases, he will not be able to hinder the preaching of our faith, harangues in public, nor gain anything except to stir up the people already too disposed for rebellion. The brave Seigneurs de Montbrun and de Beaumont abandon their opinions. You spare neither courses, nor cares; labour, you and yours will find their turn (sic). One day, honour, glory, and riches will be the reward of so much pains. Above all, do not fail to rid the country of all those zealous scoundrels that stir up the people by their discourses to make head against us, blacken our conduct, and wish to make our belief pass for a reverie. Such monsters should be smothered, as I have done here, by the execution of Michel Servetus the Spaniard. Do not imagine that in future any one will take it into his head to do the like. 

For the rest, Monseigneur, I forgot the subject for which I did myself the honour to write to you, which is humbly to kiss your hands, supplicating you to take in good part the quality which I shall covet during my whole life of . . . 

MONSEIGNEUR,
 Your very humble and affectionate servant, 

                                                                J. CALVIN.

At Geneva, this 8th September, 1561.
[Fr. Copy—Arch. of M. le Marquis d' Alissac a Valreas.]  

Conclusion 
Dr. Jules Bonnet included this letter in a chapter entitled, "An Historical Calumny Refuted." There Bonnet documents the spuriousness of the letter. He mentions that the first publication of the letter was in 1750, and indeed that Voltaire popularized the quote in question. He also documents that letter swept across nineteenth century scholarship. After personally seeing the letter, Bonnet argues it (along with another one) is a fraud. His reasons are as follows:

1st. These originals, written by Calvin’s own hand (as Voltaire affirms), are anything but autographs. They are neither in the handwriting of Calvin, nor in that of Jonvillers his secretary, nor of Antony Calvin, who sometimes held the pen under the dictation of the Reformer during the latter years of his life.

2nd. If these pieces are not in the handwriting of Calvin, still less do we find in them his style, admired by Bossuet himself and one of the finest in our language. That style is concise, nervous, and dignified, bearing the impress of a strong individuality more easy to caricature than to imitate.

3rd. From the form let us pass to the substance. The two letters swarm with mistakes and historical blunders which betray the work of an unskillful forger. The first, dated the 8th May, 1547, and addressed to M. du Poet, General of the Religion in Dauphiny, bestows this title on this seigneur, fifteen years before the period in which he declared for the Reformation, and when the new faith, having neither church nor soldier in Dauphiny, could scarcely enumerate some obscure martyrs in that province. The second, dated the 13th September, 1561, has for superscription — to M. du Poet, grand chamberlain of Navarre and Governor of Montelimart, dignities with which he was invested only twenty years later, in 1584. It is one of Calvin’s accusers, M. Aubenas himself, who informs us of that, without remarking that the notice which he has devoted to M. du Poet is the best refutation of the authenticity of the letters attributed to the Reformer.

The first reason given does not necessarily prove the letter is a forgery. I would assume Dr. Bonnet was familiar enough with the writing styles of the men he mentions, yet it does not rule out that Calvin could have dictated the letter to someone else as an exception. The second reason given is even less convincing. However, the third reason, of blunders with dates, is compelling. The alleged letter gives someone a title he did not hold until twenty years later... that is indeed a problem, and it's enough then to pull the letter from historical evidence until further notice.  I did a cursory search to see if any more recent Calvin scholarship discussed the letter, and did not come across anything, yet. When I mentioned in dialog that the letter is a suspected forgery, the response given back was "James I Don't believe you, both quotes are found in numerous places especially the quote about Servetus." But then again, this person thinks Calvin was a "demon possessed murderer" so it probably wouldn't matter if there were a dozen more reasons proving the letter spurious.

Calvin Killed Servetus? Before Servetus Killed Calvin?

Here's a helpful link on the Calvin / Servetus issue: Calvin Killed a Man. Also Here I Blog posted an interesting letter from Servetus asking for Calvin to be punished:

Honrable Seigneurs. I am detained for the criminal charges made by lehan Calvin who falsely accuses me saying that I have written: 1. that the souls are mortal 2. that Jesus Christ took from the Virgin Mary only the fourth part of his body. These are horrible and execrable things. Among all heresies and all crimes there is none so great as to make the soul mortal. For in all other there is a hope of salvation, whereas there is none in such a heresy. Whoever says so does not believe that there is a God, nor justice, nor resurrection, nor Jesus Christ, nor Holy Scripture, nor anything else. He believes only that everything dies and that the man and the beast are the same. If I had said or written this, for offending the world I should condemn myself to death. Therefore, messeigneurs, I ask that my accuser be punished according to the law of poena talionis and detained as prisoner with me, until the matter is settled by his death or mine or any other punishment. And for this I submit myself to the mentioned poena talionis. I am content to die if he is not convicted both of this and other things which I list below. I demand from you, messeigneurs, justice, justice, justice.

Written in prison of Geneva, 22 of September 1553.

Some time ago Dr. White provided a very helpful overview on this issue on the Dividing Line. I extracted the 20 minute section on Calvin and Servetus.

Also this article attempts to answer the charge that Calvin was a dictator: John Calvin: An Unopposed Dictator?

Servetus, Calvin, etc.

Amazon sends me advertisements based on my purchases. A few days ago they sent me a notification for the following:

Thirty Letters to Calvin, Preacher to the Genevans: And Sixty Signs of the Kingdom of the Antichrist and His Revelation Which Is Now at Hand [Hardcover]Michael Servetus (Author), Christopher A. Hoffman (Translator), Marian Hillar (Translator) $109.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more. This title has not yet been released.You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives.Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Wow, only $109.95 to read the letters of a heretic. If it were cheaper, I'd probably pick it up.

Various web pages note Servetus sent Calvin around thirty letters. One thing the book doesn't appear to do is include any letters written from Calvin back to Servetus. That would be quite interesting, to see the exchanges between the two. The author has written others books on Servetus.

The last book on Servetus I purchased was entitled, Out of the Flames by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone. This book is much cheaper, you can probably find used copies of it for under twenty bucks. I read the book a few years ago, and I recall it being sympathetic to Servetus and less than charitable to Calvin. Chapter 11 documents some of their exchanges. Overall, the book does provide a helpful popular account and biography of Servetus.

Servetus also now has his own fan club: The Servetus International Society. I haven't checked to see if he's got a Face book page. It's an interesting webpage- including conferences, a newsletter, excerpts from his writings, and even a discussion board. Their goal is to "foster the spirit of Humanism, tolerance of ideas and respect for the rights of the individual by promoting and preserving the Servetus Heritage as intellectual giant, model of integrity and standard-bearer in the struggle for freedom of conscience."

Recently I've begun reading Calvin again. I pulled out my old copy of John Calvin's Sermons on Ephesians. Say what you want to about Calvin, the man was indeed brilliant. Calvin spent an incredible amount of time preaching. His sermons are quite readable. It's obvious he had the ability to communicate clearly to his congregation. Calvin is said to have preached without notes or written record. It was only after some of the Genevans realized this that they began to take notes and transcribe his sermons. Calvin reviewed many of them, but never revised them. All together, there were forty-eight bound volumes of Calvin's sermons. The Library of Geneva had them, but slowly lost track of some of them. By 1805, what volumes they had were said to be taking up too much room and were sold to local booksellers.

As far as I can tell, most of these sermons grom the Ephesians volume are not on-line. However, a few from this volume are:


(1) Ephesians 1:1–3
(2) Ephesians 1:3, 4
(3) Ephesians 1:4–6
(4) Ephesians 1:7–10
(5) Ephesians 1:13, 14
(6) Ephesians 1:15–18
(7) Ephesians 1:17, 18
(8) Ephesians 1:19–23

Here's a section from what I read last night.

The second point is the assurance of our salvation. The papists say that we must doubt it and that we can come to God only with a hope that he will receive us; but to assure ourselves of it—that we ought not to do, for that would be too great a presumption. But when we pray to God, we must call him Father, at least if we are the scholars of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has taught us to do so.

Now, is it at a venture that we call him Father, or are we sure of it in ourselves that he is our Father If not, then there would be nothing but hypocrisy in our prayers, and the first word that we utter would be a lie. The papists then never know what it is to pray to God, seeing that they cannot be assured of their salvation. But (as we shall see in the third chapter especially) the Scripture shows that to pray to God rightly, we must have belief in Jesus Christ, which gives us confidence, and upon that confidence we by and by conceive boldness. Be that as it may, we must not be hesitant nor yet doubt, but we must be thoroughly resolved and persuaded in ourselves that God counts us as his children. And how may that be but by embracing his mercy through faith, as he offers it to us in his gospel, and by assuring ourselves also that we are grounded in his eternal election? For if our faith should depend upon ourselves, surely it would soon slip from us; and it might be shaken off, if it were not maintained from above. And although we are kept or preserved by faith, as St. Peter says [I Pet. 1:5], yet it is God who keeps us. If, then, our faith were not grounded in God’s eternal election, it is certain that Satan might pluck it from us every minute. Though today we were the most steadfast in the world, yet we might fail tomorrow. But our Lord Jesus shows us the remedy to strengthen us against all temptations in that he says: You do not come to me of yourselves, but the heavenly Father brings you to me; and since I have taken you into my keeping, be no more afraid, for I acknowledge you as the inheritance of God my Father, and he that has given me charge of you and put you into my hand is stronger than all [Jn. 10:28—29]. We see, then, that besides setting forth God’s glory, our salvation also is assured by God’s eternal predestination, which ought to be sufficient reason to move us to consider what St. Paul says of it in this place.

Calvin and Servetus

A recent letter asks:

Do you know if Calvin really wanted Servetus put to death? I know he wrote he wouldn't stop it, if he were put to death (paraphrased). I know the two often corresponded, until Calvin lost patience. But a Reformed guy told me, last summer, that when Servetus wrote he wanted to come to Geneva or Vienna, I forget which, Calvin tried to discourage him? And that when he did get arrested, and sentenced to burn alive at the stake, Calvin tried to get the sentence mitigated to the quicker and more humane decapitation?

A few months back Dr. White provided a very helpful overview on this issue on the Dividing Line. I extracted the 20 minute section on Calvin and Servetus.

Calvin and the Execution of Servetus

Recently, I read the following:

Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In other words. he was as near like the "Sovereign God" of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" as his health permitted.

-snip-

This is what it says in Frank Schaeffer's book on the history of Christianity: Those who questioned Calvin's theology were dismissed by Calvin as "pigs," "asses," "riff-raff," "dogs," "idiots," and "stinking beasts." One morning Calvin found a poster on his pulpit accusing him of "Gross Hypocrisy." A suspect was arrested. No evidence was produced, but he was tortured day and night for a month until he confessed. Then his feet were nailed to a stake by which he hung in public for a day. Ultimately he was decapitated.Here was Calvin's justification for the execuation of the alleged "mocker," who had left the offending message on Calvin's pulpit: "When the papists are so harsh are not Christ's magistrates shamed to show themselves less ardent in defense of the sure truth?

Just my 2 cents- The modern idea of "tolerance" can't be read back into the 16th Century. It simply did not exist. Even the word itself originally meant to "suffer and permit, at most, what one could not manage to destroy".It becomes very silly to speak about the big bad John Calvin the intolerant dictator, and subsequently to see his adversaries as hippie-esque "give peace a chance" flower children. His adversaries had the same societal concept of "intolerance" that he did. Given the opportunity, all parties would probably go down swinging.

I'm not familiar with the snippet posted from Frank (aka "Frankie") Schaeffer, a man whose recent work breaks my heart. I'm tempted to say, some facts be missing. Schaeffer has written books that directly attack the gospel, and he writes from the position of anger. He's always been angry- he used to be angry at Evangelicals from a Reformed perspective. Now he's angry at the Reformed from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Who knows who he'll be angry at next...perhaps the Eastern Orthodox from a Roman Catholic perspective?

I'm only aware of Servetus being put to death with the involvement of John Calvin. Beza commenting on Geneva highlighted this fact, that it was only one heretic- most of the others deemed "heretic" were banished (Bolsec, Castellio, etc). Many of the other towns in Switzerland and Germany had no problem putting Anabaptists to death. In Geneva however, Anabaptists were banished, not executed.

Sometimes Calvin’s opponent Castillo is put forth as the champion of tolerance: Castillo was busy having “bed-ins for peace” (without Yoko) while Calvin was sharpening his sword and getting the fire hotter. Actually though, While Castellio did write books asking for heretics to be treated better, he also wrote that the magistrates have the duty to punish blasphemy or irreligion. In other words, once his own theology got kind of wacky (like his hatred for the Song of Solomon and his bogus Bible translation), he himself was hopeful to argue himself away from punishment for heresy, but he still had no problem with the punishment of blasphemy or those active against Christianity.