The Legacy of Servetus: Humanism and the Beginning of Change
of the Social Paradigm. On the Occasion of 450th Anniversary
of His Martyrdom
Marian Hillar
Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies
Published in A Journal from The Radical Reformation, A Testimony
to Biblical Unitarianism, Volume 11, No. 2, 2003, pp. 34-41.
Michael Servetus occupies a unique place in the annals of
European history. He was a lonely scholar and a bold mind
who left two great legacies (1). In the realm of intellectual
inquiry he demanded a radical reevaluation of the entire ideological
religious system of assertions and dogmas imposed on Western
Europe since the fourth century. Servetus's theological inquiry
initiated the study of scriptural tradition in an attempt
to uncover the real religious doctrines contained in it. On
the moral societal level Servetus demanded freedom of intellectual
inquiry, thought, conscience, and expression that was denied
to millions on doctrinal theological grounds. By his sacrifice
Servetus set into motion a process of change in the entire
social paradigm and recovery of the right to freedom of conscience.
Establishment of an ecclesiastical paradigm.
Servetus’s role as a central figure in history who initiated
the process of recovering the social humanistic paradigm becomes
obvious if we put it in a historical perspective. Greco-Roman
pre-Christian society enjoyed toleration, freedom of religion,
of conscience, and of thought. Ancient religions never demanded
conversion. The ancient western world did not have the concept
of "heresy" or "heretic." This was due
to the lack of a state religion and state sanctioned theological
doctrine, though the people and the centers of power were
highly religious.
All this was dramatically changed with the advent of state
supported Christianity. From the fourth century Christianity
became an institution of organized clergy and was fused with
the political power of the Roman Empire and later in the rest
of Western Europe. (2)
The Emperors Valentinian II and Theodosius I established
on February 28, 380, Christianity as interpreted by the Roman
bishop as the obligatory religion in the Empire declaring
those who would dare not to embrace it "demented and
insane," and who "shall be smitten first by divine
vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative,
which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment"
(Cod. Theod. 16.1.2). This decree may be considered an official
declaration of the first forced adherence to a state religion
and the official initiation of persecutions for the convictions
of conscience.
In a short span of time Christian emperors accomplished the
elimination of free thought and the imposition of a totalitarian
theocratic system so that they could congratulate themselves
in 423 on a job well done:
The regulations of constitutions formerly promulgated shall
suppress any pagans who survive, although We now believe that
there are none [left] (Cod. Theod. 16.10.22).
Constantine the Great who issued an edict against them already
on September 1, 326, persecuted "heretics" and schismatics
from the beginning. The fundamental principle on which the
persecution was based was deviation from the official state
religion. Heresy was considered "a public crime, since
whatever is committed against divine religion amounts to the
detriment of all" (Cod. Theod. 16.5.38-39). The definition
of a "heretic" left no doubt that a theocratic society
could not tolerate any free thought:
Those persons who may be discovered to deviate, even in a
minor point of doctrine, from the tenets and path of the Catholic
religion are included under the designation of heretics and
must be subject to the sanctions which have been issued against
them (Arcadius and Honorius, September 3, 395; Cod. Theod.
16.5.28).
In the sixth century Emperor Justinian incorporated explicitly
the Catholic doctrine of the creed, especially that of the
Trinity, into Roman state law (3). In Book I, entitled, De
Trinitate et Fide catholica, Chapter 1 confirms establishing
the Catholic faith and the Trinity as the official state religion
and forbids any critical thought under penalty of being burned
at the stake. In section 5 Justinian defines faith in the
Trinity in terms of the Nicaean creed ("trinitatem consubstantialem")
and any deviation from it should be punished as well as any
so-called heretical views. It is interesting that the Article
5.6 (413 C.E.) of the Theodsian Code declares the death penalty
for the crime of rebaptism.
Thus in the fourth century a switch took place, if we may
borrow the concept from the history of science (4), in the
social paradigm, from the humanistic principles of ancient
morality to the new ecclesiastical one. The social paradigm
can be defined as an entire constellation of beliefs, values,
and worldview which is shared by the community and has a normative
character. Initially it was imposed forcefully by the emperor
and formulated by the clergy; later it became a tradition
established by system of laws (state and ecclesiastical),
theological doctrines, and its preservation was scrupulously
supervised by the ecclesiastical authority, institutions (e.g.,
infant baptism, canon law), and courts (e.g., Inquisition).
The Reformation arose in the XVIth century as a trend aiming
at correcting financial abuses of the ecclesiastical institution
and a competition for political power by local centers. It
brought also new trends: the assertion of individual, personal
experience as a basis for religion and an emphasis on biblical
studies. It also underscored the need for tolerance, at least
in the initial phase, for its own survival. Unfortunately,
the "reformed" churches quickly became as intolerant
as the old Roman church and ossified into the old dogmatic
tradition. A few leaders of liberal religious thought opposed
the moral corruption and power of the popes and the clergy,
however, any real investigation of the accepted dogmas or
dogmatic assertions was persecuted by both the Roman Catholic
and Protestant churches.
The Case of Servetus
Servetus was sought by the Catholic Inquisition since the
publication of his De Trinitatis erroribus in 1531, but he
was able to evade capture by disguising his identity under
an assumed name, of Michaelis Villanovanus, and refraining
from publicly expressing his ideas. Calvin, however, upon
learning about the book Christianismi restitutio, which Servetus
undertook to publish secretly in 1553, designed an intricate
scheme to condemn Servetus and denounced him to the Catholic
Inquisition in Vienne. Servetus managed to escape from prison,
but was tried and condemned in absentia on June 17, 1553.
The list of charges was as follows: "the crime of scandalous
heresy, dogmatization; elaboration of new doctrines, publication
of heretical books; sedition; schism and disturbance of unity
and tranquility by public rebellion; disobedience against
the decree concerning heresies; breaking out and escaping
from the royal prison." (5)
Calvin himself being a "heretic" by Catholic standards,
strongly supported capital punishment for those who deviated
from imposed doctrines -- his own doctrines in the region
under his control. He later defended the punishment of Servetus
in his Defensio orthodoxae fidei (Geneva 1554) (6) where he
attacked freedom of conscience and justified the right to
condemn to death the so-called heretic in his own doctrine
of persecution "by the mandate of God." (7)
Calvin's doctrine is representative not only of his own views;
he is a spokesman for all of Catholic and Protestant Christianity
as well. His arguments to justify this conclusion were derived
from the Old Testament and run against the spirit and letter
of the New Testament.
When Servetus showed up in Geneva in August of 1553, Calvin
seized the moment to realize his promise of February 13, 1546,
not to let him go alive from Geneva. The arrest was made at
the explicit demand of Calvin who admitted it in several documents
(8). The whole trial and procedure in Geneva were orchestrated
by Calvin who, as a leader of the church, was considered superior
to everyone except God (which is attested by his biographer
Théodore de Bèze). Moreover, Calvin was motivated
by his own brand Christian thinking. The supporters of Calvin
take this fact as an excuse for his action. They say Calvin
was doing only what the whole of Christianity approved: "Unanimously,
all the churches of Switzerland replied: 'Servetus ought to
be condemned to death.' " (9) The law under which Servetus
was condemned was the Codex of Justinian that prescribed the
death penalty for the denial of the Trinity and the repetition
of baptism. The sentence was carried out immediately on October
27, 1553.
Humanism of Servetus
Servetus placed a great value in human natural spontaneity,
reason, and capability to do good works and through this he
emphasized human dignity and autonomy in moral decisions.
Catholics could not agree with him because he eliminated the
role of the church and papacy for justification and salvation,
and Protestants disagreed with his concept of faith and acceptance
of the works of love. Though he states that faith is first
as a precondition of secondary grace, he confirms that love
is the greatest and supports this statement with several arguments.
"Faith then, to conclude, if considered in its pure and
essential property, does not contain such perfection as love
... Love is superior to everything ... durable, sublime, more
resembling God, and closer to the perfection of the future
age." (10) Even faith from the act of mental assent to
the credible propositions, became an act of will and is "a
creative act of the soul." (11) Luther, Calvin, and other
reformers denied man any spontaneity and moral impulse.
Human nature cannot be depraved, condemned, utterly corrupt,
and helpless, claimed Serevetus in opposition to the reformers
and Catholics. There is no inherent necessity for sin in man,
no state of sin and depravity. Though Servetus justified this
state by constant communication with God through God's innate
Spirit and inner light, he stated we have knowledge of good
and evil, and we act with a free will. Thus sin becomes qualified,
conditioned by historical, cultural and personal factors.
From this Servetus was able to deduce a universal and humanistic
moral principle:
Natural righteousness is to give everyone what is his: that
is to help everybody in need and harm nobody; to do what conscience
and natural reason dictate so that whatever you want others
to do to you, do to others. In such righteousness ... nations
are justified and saved, including the Jews. (12)
Thus all nations and peoples are taught from nature. Israelites
were capable of righteousness through the Law and all other
people through the inner natural light. Servetus granted all
men dignity and recognized equal endowment in their ability
to recognize good and evil. (13)
Servetus was the first Christian thinker in modern times
who proclaimed the right of every individual to follow his
own conscience and express his own convictions. He was the
first to express an idea that it was a crime to persecute
and kill for ideas. His argument was rational based on the
humanistic principle of morality:
Neither with those nor with others I am in agreement in everything,
because all seem to me partly right and partly in error. Moreover,
everyone sees the error of the other, but nobody sees his
own … It would be easy to distinguish all this if in
the church all people would be allowed to speak by contending
in a prophetic spirit.(14)
Servetus clearly stated that persecution and killing for
ideas is contrary to the teaching of the apostles and the
original church doctrine. In a letter in 1531 to Iohannes
Oecolampadius (Johan Hausschein), leader of the Reformation
in Basel, Servetus stated:
It seems to me a grave error to kill a man only because he
might be in error interpreting some question of the Scripture
when we know that even the most learned are not without error.(15)
This assertion of Servetus was later fully elaborated by
Sebastian Castellio in his famous defense of Servetus and
condemnation of Calvin, Contra libellum Calvini (1554):
To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a
man. When the Genevans killed Servetus they did not defend
a doctrine, they killed a man. The defense of a doctrine is
not a matter to be resolved by the judges, it is an issue
only to be solved by teachers. What has the sword to do with
the matter of teaching?(16)
In a letter to the judges in Geneva dated August 22, 1553,
Servetus defended the right to freedom of conscience and expression.
He accused the court of instituting "a new invention
unknown to the apostles, to their disciples, and to the ancient
church of initiating criminal procedures for the doctrines
of the Scripture or for the theological themes derived from
it." Even the Arians in the time of Constantine the Great
were not handed over to civilian tribunals in accordance with
the ancient doctrine, but the church alone decided questions
and the only possible punishment for "heresy" was
banishment. Such a punishment was always used against heretics
in the primitive church. On the basis of these precedents
he demanded to be set free from criminal accusations. (17)
Servetus’s struggle for freedom of conscience was a
part of his program for restitution of Christianity and one
of the "heresies" for which he was condemned. Servetus
attempted to discuss the issue with Calvin in one of his letters
published with Christianismi restitutio. He approaches a problematic
subject in his time and rhetorically asks himself whether
it is ethical for the Christian to fulfill the duties of a
magistrate, or to be a king, or to kill. And Servetus answers
to himself that: "While there is the world, regardless
whether we want or not, we have to preserve the worldly order,
especially the one which is safeguarded by the administration
of justice." He admits the death penalty for some especially
malicious crimes, but categorically rejects such a penalty
for schism or heresy: "In other crimes … we have
to expect corrections by using other types of punishment and
not by killing. Among those we prefer exile … as well
as excommunication by the church which was used initially
when there still were preserved traces of the apostolic tradition
and with which schisms and heresies were punished."(18)
Setting in movement a process of change of the social paradigm
Just as in science where accumulation of new data and scientific
facts makes necessary to reevaluate the old paradigm and establish
a new one (19), so the personal sacrifice of a pious scholar
became a turning point inducing thinking people to rethink
the morality of prevailing church ideology and mental framework
of how religion and society treated the issue of intellectual
inquiry and its repression.
The idea of punishing "heretics" was so pervasive
in the society that it did not occur even to most thinking
Protestants that the whole concept of repression of thought
was evil and against the spirit, and the letter of the Gospels.
No Protestant religious leader was against the punishment
of heretics in general. Even Sebastian Castellio, recognized
champion of rational tolerance and a precursor of the French
Revolution and the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme,
could not avoid these contradictions. Only later did he develop,
through the experience of the fraternal religious war in France,
the concept of mutual toleration and freedom of conscience
based on a rational, humanistic and natural moral principle.
The trap of contradictions and theocratic mentality were so
pervading that even in the eighteenth century Jean Jacques
Rousseau wrote in 1762 in his Contrat social, that in the
future ideal state, one who did not believe in the religious
truths decreed by the legislator should be banished from the
state or even one who, after having recognized them, would
cease to believe should be punished by death.(20)
A month after the publication of Calvin's Defensio there
appeared in Basel an anonymous, eloquent pamphlet against
intolerance entitled De haereticis, an sint persequendi...
A few weeks later there appeared a French translation of this
treatise entitled Tracté des hérétiques,
a savoir, si on les doit persecuter, etc. (21) This treatise
was later translated into German and Dutch (1620, 1663), and
English (1935) (22). The book contained extracts promoting
toleration taken from the writings of some twenty five Christian
writers, ancient and modern, including Luther and Calvin himself
and was authored by Castellio, perhaps with some collaboration
from Laelius Socinus and Celio Secondo Curione. Castellio
wrote also a rebuttal to Calvin’s Defensio, the already
mentioned Contra libellum Calvini.
The movement for tolerance grew out of the influence of Castellio
and his associates in Basel. Servetus's martyrdom gave stimulus
to the rise of religious toleration as a general policy, as
a moral principle. But the process was very slow and lasted
for several centuries before the switch in paradigm could
take place.
The figure of Servetus stands out at the beginning of the
movement. In the later phase, Castellio deserves more ample
recognition than he received. He continued to point out that
most important is the principle of absolute tolerance of differing
views. This position was an outgrowth of an entirely new concept
of religion initiated by Servetus as centered not in dogma
but in life and character. It is the very essence of this
kind of religion to regard freedom and reason not as incidental
but as fundamental conditions of a thoroughly wholesome existence
of religion.
In the long run, Servetus’s legacy led to the development
first of the Antitrinitarian and Unitarian movement represented
by the Unitarians of Transylvania and Socinians of Poland,
then the Unitarians in England and America. The Socinians
were the first who demanded and fully understood the moral
imperative of the complete separation of church and state.
Such ideas were developed by Faustus Socinus (1539-1604),
John Crell (1590-1633), Christopher Ostorodt (d. ca 1611),
Andrew Wojdowski (1565-1622), John Sachs (1641-1671), and
particularly by Samuel Przypkowski (1592-1670) and Jonasz
Szlichtyng (1592-1661). (23)
Their moral, social, and political doctrines eventually led
to the development of the Enlightenment with writings of philosophers
John Locke (1632-1704), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), Voltaire
(1694-1778), and David Hume (1711-1776), leading eventually
to the establishment of the principles of American democracy
by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836),
expressed in the Bill of Rights and prompting the Declaration
of the Human Rights by the French Revolution (24). In the
religious realm the result of the seminal thoughts of Servetus
and trends of the Renaissance was the development of a universalistic
understanding of the divinity which breaks with the tribal
or ecclesiastical particularism and finds its expression either
in the theistic form as Universalist Unitarianism or in the
non-theistic or atheistic forms of modern Humanism.
From a historical perspective, Servetus died in order that
freedom of conscience could become a civil right of the individual
in modern society.
Bibliography
Ángel Alcalá, "Los dos grandes legados
de Servet: el radicalismo como método intelectual y
el derecho a la libertad de conciencia." En Turia, Revista
Cultural, No 63-64, (2003), pp. 221-242.
Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (1511-1553) -
The Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience
(Lewiston, N.Y; Lampeter, U.K.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997),
pp. 13-180. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian
Constitutions. (New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1952).
Corpus Iuris Civilis. Editio stereotypa sexta. Volumen secundum.
"Codex Iustinianus." Recognovit Paulus Krueger.
(Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1895).
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 175.
Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. (1870; reprint
New York, London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, and Frankfurt
a. M.: Minerva G.m.b.H:, 1964) Vol. VIII. p. 752.
Defensio orthodoxae fidei in Calvini, Opera, op. cit., Vol.
VIII, pp. 480-481.
Ibid. pp. 478-479.
Ibid. pp. 462, 479.
Doumergue, Émile, Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses
de son temps. (Lausanne, Paris: 1899-1927; Slatkine Reprints:
Genève, 1969), Vol. VI, p. 351.
Christianismi restitutio, 350-354.
Ibid. 631.
Ibid. 331.
Ibid. 623-624, 635, 733.
De Iusticia, a tractate added to Servetus’s Dialogorum
de Trinitate libri duo, F7a-F7b, 1531). Reprinted by G.m.b.H.,
Frankfurt a. Mein, 1965.
Letter to Oecolampadius in Calvini, Opera, op. cit., Vol.
IX, 861-862.
Sébastien Castellion, Contra libellum Calvini, Vaticanus
77 (Amsterdam, 1612).
Letter to the judges in Geneva of August 22, 1553. In Calvini,
Opera, op. cit., Vol. VIII. 762-763.
Miguel Servet, Treinta cartas a Calvino, traducción
de Ángel Alcalá, (Madrid: Editorial Castalia,
1981), carta XXVII, pp. 186-187.
Thomas S. Kuhn, op. cit., p. 175.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Oeuvres immortelles du contrat social.
Du Contrat social ou principes du droit politique. (Genève:
Consant Bourquin, Éditeur, 1947). p. 370.
Sébastien Catellion, Traité des hérétiques,
a savoir, si on les doit persecuter, et comment on se doit
conduire avec eux, selon l’avis, opinion, et sentence
de plusieurs auteurs, tant anciens, que modernes. (1554; Édition
nouvelle publiée par A. Olivet, préface par
E. Choisy; Genève: A. Julien, Libraire-Éditeur,
1913).
Bainton, Roland H., Concerning heretics; whether they are
to be persecuted and how they are to be treated; a collection
of the opinions of learned men, both ancient and modern; an
anonymous work attributed to Sebastian Castellio now first
done into English, together with excerpts from other works
of Sebastian Castellio and David Joris on religious liberty
by Roland H. Bainton. (New York: Columbia University Press,
1935).
Hillar, M., "From the Polish Socinians to the American
Constitution,@ A Journal from the Radical Reformation. A Testimony
to Biblical Unitarianism, 1994, no. 3, pp. 44-51.
Marian Hillar with Claire S. Allen, Michael Servetus: Intellectual
Giant, Humanist, and Martyr (Lanham, New York, Oxford: University
Press of America, 2002), p. 257. Hillar, "From the Polish
Socinians," op. cit
 |
 |
|
|
