possessed the right of forcing the magistrates and the people to continue faithful to the holy doctrine, and to observe good morals. In 1558, Gentilis escaped death only by a retractation, though it was known to be feigned; and Calvin, in a letter which he wrote at that time, observed; "Servetus by a recantation might have averted his punishment: I would have it attested that my hostility was not so deadly; but that by humility alone, had he not been deprived of his senses, he might have saved his life; but I know not how to account for his conduct without supposing him to have been seized with a fatal insanity, and to have plunged himself headlong into ruin."* From this fragment it appears that Servetus might have retracted; that Calvin wished him to do it; that he was grieved that the retractation was not made: it is also evident that the Council furnished him with occasions of so doing; that they descended to theological conversations, in which they endeavoured to instruct him; but he persisted in defending his opinions in a blasphemous manner; so that if. Servetus was condemned, it was because he was not afraid of exposing himself

* "Mutando mentem pænas à se avertere potuisset Servetus: hoc testatum volo me non ità capitaliter infestum quin licitum fuerit vel solà modestia, nisi mente privatus foret, vitam redimere; sed nescio quod dicam, nisi fatali vesania fuisse correptum, & se precipitem jaceret."

to it, since he was acquainted with the existence of the laws which threatened him, and, independently of those laws, could not have been brought to trial; but, as the Council could not violate them to absolve him, neither could they change them to mitigate his punishment: these laws equally opposed the desire of the Council to commute the punishment into banishment, and the efforts of Calvin to render it less cruel.

The civil and ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the tribunals with respect to heresy, was undoubtedly grossly inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, and the principles of equity. But if we could transport ourselves into that age, and contemplate the circumstances in which Calvin was placed, divesting our minds of prejudice, we should no doubt perceive that the sentence was that of the civil judges, and that they strictly followed the ordinary course of the law; that Calvin followed the judgment of all the ecclesiastics of his time, and complied with the sanguinary laws of every country in Europe against heretics.

It cannot, however, be denied, that in this instance Calvin acted contrary to the benignant spirit of the gospel. It is better to drop a tear over the inconsistency of human nature, and to bewail those infirmities which cannot

be justified. He declares that he acted conscientiously, and publicly justified the act. Cranmer acted the same part towards the poor Anabaptists in the reign of Edward VI. This doctrine they had learnt at Rome, and it is certain, that, with a very few exceptions, it was at this time the opinion of all parties.* The apostles John and James would have called down fire from heaven; Calvin and Cranmer kindled it on earth. This, however, is the only fault alledged against Calvin; but, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."

" It ought, however," says a sensible writer, "to be acknowledged, that, persecution for "If the

* The author of the Memoirs of Literature, says, religion of Protestants depended on the doctrine and conduct of the Reformers, he should take care how he published his account of Servetus: but as the Protestant Religion is entirely founded on Holy Scripture, so the defaults of the reformer ought not to have any ill influence on the reformation. The doctrine of non-toleration, which obtained in the sixteenth century, among some Protestants, was that pernicious error which they had imbibed in the Church of Rome: and, I believe, I can say, without doing any injury to that church, that she is, in a great measure, answerable for the execution of Servetus. If the Roman Catholics had never put any person to death for the sake of religion, I dare say that Servetus had never been condemned to die in any protestant city. Let us remember, that Calvin, and all the magistrates of Geneva in the year 1553, were born and bred up in the Church of Rome: this is the best apology that can be made for them."

Biographia Evangelica, Vol. ii. p. 42.

religious principles was not at that time peculiar to any party of Christians, but common to all, whenever they were invested with civil power. It was a detestable error; but it was the error of the age. They looked upon heresy in the same light as we look upon those crimes which are inimical to the peace of civil society; and, accordingly, proceed to punish heretics by the sword of the civil magistrate. If Socinians did not persecute their adversaries so much as Trinitarians, it was because they were not equally invested with the power of doing so. Mr. Lindsay acknowledges, that Faustus Socinus himself was not free from persecution in the case of Francis David, superintendant of the Unitarian Churches in Transylvania. David had disputed with Socinus on the invocation of Christ, and died in prison in consequence of his opinion, and some offence taken at his supposed indiscreet propagation of it from the pulpit. "I wish I could say," adds Mr. Lindsay, that Socinus, or his friend Blandrata had done all in their power to prevent his commitment, or procure his release afterwards." The difference between Socinus and David was very slight. They both held Christ to be a mere man. The former, however, was for praying to him; which the latter, with much greater consistency, disapproved. Considering this, the persecution to which

Socinus was accessary was as great as that of Calvin; and there is no reason to think, but that if David had differed as much from Socinus as Servetus did from Calvin, and if the civil magistrates had been for burning him, Socinus would have concurred with them. To this it might be added, that the conduct of Socinus was marked with disingenuity; in that he considered the opinion of David in no very heinous point of light; but was afraid of increasing the odium under which he and his party already lay, among other Christian Churches.

It was the opinion that erroneous religious principles are punishable by the civil magistrate, that did the mischief, whether at Geneva, in Transylvania, or in Britain; and to this, rather than to Trinitarianism or to Unitarianism, it ought to be imputed.*

* See Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, examined and compared, by Andrew Fuller. 2d Edit. p. 146.