SECTION II. On the same principle as the persecutors of Servetus attempted to defend their conduct, if admitted, every species of persecution might be defended. erroneous. Let us trace the principle on which the reformers attempted to justify the persecution of Servetus to its natural conclusion, and it will be found to justify every species of persecu tion. The principle is, that heretics are to be put to death by the civil magistrates. To be a heretic, in their sense of the word, is to maintain opinions which the prevailing party think Those who have the power of persecuting, claim the right of judging what opinions are heretical. Those whom they denounce, the magistrates are to destroy. On this principle every species of persecution has been practised. At Geneva protestantism was the established system, the protestant preachers sustained the character of ministers of God's word, those who opposed their opinions they denounced as heretics, and persuaded the magistrates to condemn them to die: accordingly they condemned Doctor Servetus and burnt ny him alive, and Calvin and Beza contended they acted right. In Italy, France, Spain, and maother countries, popery was established; of course the pope, his cardinals, and all the popish priests were thought ministers of God's word, those who opposed their doctrines they denounced as heretics, and delivered over to the civil power to be burned. Who will dare to say they had not as much right to judge of heresy, and burn those they thought heretics, as John Calvin and the magistrates of Geneva? The cruelties of the court of inquisition, and all the religious murders committed in popish countries, are defensible, if the principle be admitted that heretics are to be destroyed, and that the prevailing party have a right to determine who are heretics. In attempting to justify themselves, the reformers adopted a mode of reasoning which would equally justify the cruel massacre of their protestant brethren by the papists. It is impossible to vindicate the persecutors of Geneva, without at the same time vindicating the whole tribe of religious murderers, and justifying persecution by whatever party practised. SECTION III. The reformers guilty of manifest inconsistency. Men who claim liberty themselves and deny it to others, who practise what they condemn, are very inconsistent characters. This is in some degree the case with all persecutors, as they use a liberty which they will not allow to others; but it was most glaringly the case with respect to the persecutors of Servetus. Calvin and his associates had claimed liberty for themselves, they had dared to oppose the pope and the whole catholic church, they had boldly avowed opinions which the church of Rome condemned, and established a system of ecclesiastical polity agreeable to their own views, without regarding how dissimilar it might be to what the christian world had for ages adopted; yet they would not allow those who differed from them the liberty of judging for themselves, nor suffer them to oppose their notions with impunity: they condemned the papists for burning those who opposed popery; yet they themselves burnt Servetus for opposing some of their doctrines. In condemning others for using the same liberty which they had long exercised, of judging for themselves and publishing their own views on religious subjects, they condemned themselves; for either they were culpable in setting up their judgment in opposition to the whole catholic church, or they were culpable in restraining others from taking the same liberty as they had done.They acted like tyrants, who will bear no control themselves, but who rule over others with a rod of iron. Again, they condemned themselves, when they condemned the catholics for persecuting those who differed from them, seeing they did the same thing. Thus the perse cutors of Servetus stand convicted of injustice on their own premises, and are condemned out of their own mouths. SECTION IV. Persecution is irrational. It is impossible to defend persecution on any rational ground. Reason revolts at the idea of punishing men for their opinions. It is irrational, because, if the persecuted be in error, persecution is not calculated to inform the mind, or produce a conviction of truth; its tendency is to confirm them in those opinions in defence. of which they suffer. Dungeons and fetters, gibbets and devouring flames, are no way calculated to enlighten the understanding; and till the understanding be enlightened men will continue in their mistakes. It is irrational, because not calculated to retard the Plogress of those opinions in support of which the persecuted become martyrs; it is rather calculated to give them a wider spread; for it gives them. greater publicity; the sufferings of the persecuted excite attention and pity, and many will be the more anxious to become acquainted with their sentiments. It is irrational, because, though it may make some hypocrites, through the fear of suffering, it can make no sincere converts to the cause of the persecutors; they will rather be abhorred by all sensible and humane persons for the cruelty they exercise upon their opponents, and their doctrines will be the more disliked so far as they are supposed to produce such unchristian conduct. It is irrational, because it is a substitution of brutal force, pains and tortures, in the place of reason and sober argument, which it aims at crushing by the strong arm of power, and a system of terror. It is the more irrational if the persecutors have truth on their side, and the persecuted be in |