The Two Opponents.
Calvin's Letter To Socinus.
This celebrated trial has become a great historical event, and I
have followed its different stages with scrupulous care. I have
endeavoured to disentangle its philosophical, social, and
political aspects, and to describe them accurately. I have been
anxious truthfully to delineate the character, opinions,
passions, and attitude of the two opponents. It was their
tragical destiny to meet each other and to enter into mortal
combat as the champions of two great causes. It is my profound
conviction that Calvin's cause was the good one, that it was the
cause of morality, of social order, and of civilization. Servetus
was the representative of a system false in itself, superficial
under the pretence of science, and destructive alike of moral
dignity in the individual, and of moral order in human society.
In their disastrous encounter, Calvin was conscientiously
faithful to what he believed to be truth and duty; but he was
hard, much more influenced by violent animosity than he imagined,
and devoid alike of sympathy and generosity. Servetus was sincere
and resolute in his conviction, but he was a frivolous,
presumptuous, vain, and envious man, capable, in time of need, of
resorting both to artifice and untruth.
{327}
In an age full of martyrs to religious liberty, Servetus obtained
the honour of being one of the few martyrs to intellectual
liberty; whilst Calvin, who was undoubtedly one of those who did
most towards the establishment of religious liberty, had the
misfortune to ignore his adversary's right to liberty of belief.
I do not think that Calvin ever felt any hesitation or regret as
to his own conduct during the trial of Servetus. He believed in
his right and duty to suppress heresy in this manner, as
sincerely as Servetus believed in the truth of his own opinions;
and his most intimate friends, instead of trying to soften him,
endeavoured to confirm his severity. Farel wrote, on the 8th of
September, 1553: 'You desire to mitigate the severity of his
sentence, and in so doing you would act the part of a friend
towards him who is your greatest enemy. But I beseech you to
proceed in such a manner that hereafter no one shall seek to
promulgate new doctrines with impunity and throw all into
confusion as Servetus has done. It is absurd to conclude that
because the Pope accuses faithful believers of the crime of
heresy, and infuriated judges condemn these innocent victims to
tortures reserved for heretics, that therefore we must never put
heretics to death for the sake of ensuring the safety of true
believers. For my own part, I have often said that I was ready to
suffer death if I taught anything contrary to true doctrine; and
I have added that I should deserve the most frightful torments if
I turned any away from faith in Christ.' Even the most advanced
advocates of liberty did not go so far as to say that honest
error could not be crime.
{328}
Servetus himself, when he was accused of saying that the soul was
mortal, exclaimed, 'If ever I said that, and not only said it but
published it and infected the whole world, I would condemn myself
to death.' Nevertheless, either from instinctive justice or
influenced by the caution which their position required, many,
even of those reformers who were strongly attached to the
Calvinistic doctrines, were averse to the capital punishment of
heretics; and would not tolerate the reproduction, in their own
church, of the cruelty which they protested against in the Church
of Rome. These honest scruples were supported by the authority of
some of their most illustrious leaders. At the very commencement
of the struggle, Luther had said: 'The burning of heretics is
contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.' Calvin himself, not
long before the trial of Servetus, reproved a young Italian
refugee towards whom he entertained very friendly feelings, for
holding opinions which in many respects resembled those of the
Spanish physician, but he expressed his disapprobation with
almost paternal tenderness. It is not without surprise that I
have found among his letters one which, in 1551, he wrote to
Lælius Socinus, [Footnote 124] of Siena, uncle of that Faustus
Socinus who, at a later period, founded the Socinian heresy.
[Footnote 124: Sozzini.]
Lælius Socinus was a young man of great intellectual power, with
a strong leaning towards philosophical speculation, and he had
passed several years in Germany and Switzerland on friendly terms
with all the principal reformers. Calvin wrote to him at
Wittenberg: 'You are mistaken in your impression that Melancthon
does not agree with us in holding the doctrine of predestination.
{329}
I told you in a few words that I had received a letter from him
in which he acknowledges that his opinion is the same as mine.
But I can well believe all that you tell me, since it is no new
thing for him to avoid speaking plainly on that subject, if for
no other reason than to escape troublesome questions. Certainly
no one can have a greater objection to paradoxes than I have, and
I do not take the slightest pleasure in mere intellectual
puzzles. But nothing shall prevent me from openly avowing those
things which I have learnt from the Word of God, for he is a
master in whose school we learn nothing that is not useful. The
Bible is my only guide, and I shall always endeavour to order my
life in accordance with its pure doctrines. I earnestly desire,
my dear Lælius, that you may learn to govern your faculties with
the same moderation. Do not expect any answer from me so long as
you put forward such strange questions. If it gives you any
pleasure to float in the ether of speculation, pray do so; but
you must allow me--a humble servant of Christ--to confine my
meditations to those points which may help to establish or
confirm my faith. From henceforward I will pray for you in
silence, and will importune you no further. But truly I am deeply
afflicted that the fine talents which God has given you should
not only be employed in vain and barren researches, but debased
and destroyed by pernicious speculations. I repeat with all
earnestness that which I told you long ago: if you do not try to
subdue your passion for investigation and speculative inquiry, it
is to be feared that you will bring upon yourself bitter
misfortune.
{330}
It would be great cruelty towards you if I treated with apparent
indulgence that which I look upon as a most dangerous error. I
would rather pain you a little now by my sincerity, than leave
you, without any protest, to be led into danger by your
over-inquisitive mind. I hope that the time may yet come when you
will be glad that you received such a harsh warning. Farewell, my
very dear and greatly honoured brother; and if my strictures seem
more severe than they have any right to be, you must remember
that they arise from my love towards you.' [Footnote 125]
[Footnote 125: Calvin's Letters, published by M. Jules Bonnet
and translated into English, ii. 330. (Philadelphia, 1858.)]
Assuredly no orthodox theologian could have spoken with more
affectionate earnestness, or more forbearance, to a man who was
incessantly expressing doubts as to the divinity of Christ, the
truth of redemption, expiation, original sin, and the majority of
the Christian doctrines. It is true that Lælius Socinus was
young; he had published nothing; and he showed very great respect
for Calvin, who had never been called upon to enter into any
controversy with him.
Nothing is more easy, and at the same time more vulgar and
unworthy, than to speak with irony and contempt of the
inconsistencies of even the greatest among men. We ought rather
to congratulate ourselves on these inconsistencies, as an
involuntary homage paid to truth. They show that truth is so
deeply rooted and so powerful in the human mind, that it keeps or
makes a place for itself even when we might expect it to be
destroyed by the most noxious errors. Man often creates the gloom
which darkens his own soul, but it is not in his power to shut
out altogether the light which comes from God.
{331}
At length, to the honour of humanity and the promotion of its
moral and social well-being, rays of divine light have shown us
the right of the human conscience to liberty of belief. In that
very city of Geneva where, three hundred years ago, the fire was
kindled for Servetus, the members of that same reformed religion
which Calvin then established, met together, not long ago,
[Footnote 126] in the various churches of the city, to
commemorate the three hundredth anniversary of the death of the
great reformer.
[Footnote 126: On the 27th of May, 1864.]
One of the most eloquent and pious speakers present, M. le
pasteur Coulin, alluded to the trial and execution of Servetus,
and pronounced a just and righteous sentence upon that lamentable
act. He said: 'Even if Calvin's system had been exempt from any
possible error, if it had been, as he sincerely believed that it
was, truth itself, he should not have attempted to compel men to
accept it. He forgot that those around him did not understand, or
reason, or form conclusions as he did. That was his mistake, and
it is a very grave one. Assuredly truth is the queen of the
intellect, and whosoever believes in truth is a champion bound to
promote the establishment of her reign. But man is so constituted
that truth can and will consent to govern him, only on condition
of his own free adhesion to her rule. God has placed a something
inviolable within us for the reception of truth, which most shows
our own greatness when we maintain the supremacy of truth. If
truth is a queen, conscience is her throne.
{332}
This is why that which has truly been called liberty of
conscience is the essential condition of the reign of truth. Seek
truth, show it, prove it; exhibit in turns the splendour of its
beauty, the majesty of its strength, the charm of its excellence.
Urge all around you to bow before truth, and pay homage as to a
queen. But if you cannot prevail with them, then, in the name of
truth and of the most sacred interests of the glory of truth,
remember that there are still two things even in the most bitter
enemy--a free conscience which ought to be respected, an erring
brother who may be loved. These two things Calvin did not
recognise; in his blind zeal he wished the conscience either to
acquiesce or to abdicate its function. It is impossible to assert
too strongly that every outrage upon the liberty of conscience of
the individual, is a blow that truth receives upon the face,
which dishonours her. Make every allowance for the spirit of the
age, for the prevailing prejudices which not even a man of genius
can altogether escape; make allowance for all the necessities of
the time and the pressure of circumstances; make allowance for
whatsoever you choose: but the fact still remains that the laws
and measures by means of which Calvin endeavoured to ensure unity
of conviction in Geneva are a stain upon his memory, an element
condemned beforehand in his work, upon which time ought to pass a
just sentence.'
{333}