Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

this piece of conduct, thought he was doing God fervice. To fuppofe the contrary, and that he was not fincere, would be to fuppofe him a much greater monster than he reprefented Servetus. Allowing this to be an act of fincerity, and the question is fair before us, Was it agreeable to the will of Chrift, for Calvin thus to perfecute Servetus? If you should answer in the negative, you give up your theory; if you fhould answer in the affirmative, then it will neceffarily follow, that if it were the will of Chrift two hundred and forty years ago, that antitrinitarians and anabaptists should be burnt, merely for their fentiments, it undoubtedly is agreeable to his will now, as he is the fame yesterday, to-day, and forever.

In the mild reign of Edward VI. king of England, but two perfons fuffered for their religious fentiments. And although these persons were both put to death, I do not find that they were charged with any other crime, than differing in opinion from the ruling party.

with this title, Chriftianifmo Reftitutio, &c. without his name; but Calvin took care to inform the Roman Catholicks in France who was the author. On this Servetus was imprisoned, and would certainly have been burned then, if he had not made his escape. He proposed to retire to Naples, but was imprudent enough to go through Geneva, where he was seized on Calvin's information, and profecuted for herefy. All his public writings and private letters to Calvin, were ranfacked for every thing that could be ftrained to a bad fenfe; in confequence of which the unfortunate Servetus was burned alive, Oct. 27th, 1553, "to the eternal fhame of his inconfiftent brutal reformed perfecutors.' Servetus was a man of great acuteness, of prodigious learning, and admirably skilled in his own profeffion.-See Calvin's Life, Glasgow edition, p. 17, 19-and Northouck's Biographical Dictionary.

Calvin's hiftorian informs us, that the death of Servetus raised such a flame, as fet Poland, Transylvania and Hungary all on fire; which he fuppofed Servetus to have foretold by the spirit of the devil. This controverfy led many rationally to inquire, whether hereticks ought to be put to death, or left to the judgment of God?

That Servetus was an antitrinitarian will not be denied. This probably was the greatest cause of Calvin's opposition to him, but not the whole: for he confidered him as a "monfter compofed of many ancient and prodigious herefies." He calls him an anabaptist, and has attempted to answer twenty arguments brought by Servetus against infant baptism.-Institut. Christ, Relig. p. 649.

That this was the cafe, with either John, or the angel, is abundantly evident. And in order to fave your argument from falling, it appears neceflary to be proved, either that it was agreeable to the will of Chrift for John to worship the angel; or, that he was infincere in attempting it. Until one or the other is made out, we fhall conclude he fincerely attempted to do that, which was exprefsly forbidden in the revealed will of God. Many more inftances might be produced, but the preceding are thought fufficient, to how the abfurdity of confidering fincerity of heart as actual conformity to the will of Chrift, with refpect to his pofitive institutions.

6

In pursuing your argument you conclude, thofe perfons differ from Chrift, who fuppofe, that a good tree may bring forth corrupt fruit.' They certainly do, if the words are taken in a proper fenfe. But if by the good tree we understand a Chriftian, including all his exercises both of flesh and fpirit, it is not true, that he cannot bring forth corrupt fruit. To deny this, would be to affert that he is in a ftate of finlefs perfection: forall imperfect and depraved creatures can and do fin.

Now if good men have fome holy, and fome felfifb defires; and are fometimes governed by pure, and fometimes by corrupt motives; how are we to know which of thefe govern their conduct, when they plead their fincerity in departing from God's appointments ? I conclude, Proteftants in general look upon Calvin as a good man; but as a tree he bore fome fruit, which the tafte of a modern Chriftian would not call good :) particularly his unchristian refentment, and inhuman treatment of Servetus.* It is evident that Calvin, in

• This learned and ingenious Spaniard was born at Villeneuva, in Aragon, 1509. He ftudied the civil law at Toulous, where he began to read the fcriptures, and to be fond of trinitarian notions. He foon became refolved to retire into Germany and fet up for a reformer. He there printed two tracts, De Trinitatis erroribus, and Dialogorum de Trinitate, libri duo; this spread his name throughout all Europe. After this, Servetus returned to Paris, and was admitted a doctor of phyfic in the univerfity there. Here a correfpondence betwixt Calvin and him commenced, which was kept up for fixteen-years: notwithftanding which, he continued in his former opinion, and refolved to publish a third work in favour of it: this came out at Vienna, in 1533,

life might be fpared, and other means used to prevent the fpreading of her opinions.-Rogers on the other hand pleaded, fhe ought to be put to death. Well, then, fays his friend,* if you are refolved to put an end to her life, together with her opinion, choofe fome other kind of death, more agreeable to the gentleness and mercy prescribed in the gofpel; there being no need that fuch tormenting deaths fhould be taken up in imitation of the papifts. Rogers anfwered, that burning alive was no cruel death, but eafy enough. His friend then hearing these words, which expreffed fo little regard to poor creatures' fufferings, anfwered him with great vehemence-Well, perhaps it may fo happen, that you yourself fball have your hands full of this mild burning. And fo it came to pafs; and Rogers was the first man who was burnt in Queen Mary's time."

"This Rogers (fays Pierce) was a nonconformist, and a very excellent man, and died nobly in the cause of Chrift; but this barbarity of his deferves to be expofed; and the rather, because God in his providence feems to have shewn his great displeasure against it." If this indeed were the cafe, it could not be agreeable to the will of Chrift.

It is quite remarkable, that Cranmer, Ridley, and Rogers, who had a principal hand in burning these two perfons in the reign of Edward, were all burnt in the fucceeding reign of Mary.

I do not mention thefe things with a view of glory. ing in the sufferings of my own denomination, nor for the fake of reproaching others; but to fhow what enormous cruelties good men may practise, under the Specious fhow of godly fincerity and a zeal for the truth.

* Supposed to be Fox himself.

+ Pierce's Answer to Nichols, p. 33, in Crosby.

[blocks in formation]

Whether there be any Morality in Externals' or Sentiments; and whether fincerity of heart fecures the judgment from error; briefly confidered.

SIR, you have anticipated an objection against your theory; i. e. That a good intention will fanctify a wicked action.' We shall only notice two things in That mere externals are neither holy nor finful, is evident from this confideration, that the fame modes of external conduct are convertible to both good and bad purpofes.* But, Sir, is there no morality in good and bad purposes? You seem to convert them neither to one or the other, but to a ftate of indifferency. I fuppofe the fame external modes of conduct may be the expreffions both of holy and finful affections.' But this by no means proves, that there is no morality in our external conduct. If we are rational agents (and we certainly are) whatever mode of external conduct we pursue, must be our choice, rather than any other ; and how this can be without morality, I am totally at a lofs.

your answer. Firft you fay,

I conclude, Sir, that you will allow that eating bread and drinking wine, are external acts; but if there be no morality in them, it is hardly worth while to waste our time in a difpute about fuch trifling things. I do not conclude, however, that the morality of the act is merely in masticating bread, or in fwallowing wine, which a brute may do as well as an intelligent agent; but the circumstances which lead us to choose and adopt this particular mode of conduct, undoubtedly tinge the act with morality.

Your other obfervation which I fhall take notice of, is the following, that There is nothing of a moral nature in mere fentiments or mere externals.'

[ocr errors]

If by

mere fentiments, you mean no more, than thofe fugitive thoughts which flutter upon the furface of the

* Marginal Note, p. 24.

brain, as butterflies do in the fun-beams, we fhall not contend. But, if by fentiment, we underftand that refult of the mind which leads us on to external acts, we fhall undoubtedly find that it is connected with the heart, as well as the head. The fool bath faid, not in his head, but in his heart, there is no God. This is his fentiment, and a very innocent one it is, if destitute of morality.

in

You will permit me to add a remark from a very fentimental writer. Saith he, "Error in judgment and fentiment, especially in things of a moral nature, is always wrong; and does not confift or originate merely any defect of the moral faculties of the mind; but is of a moral nature, in which the tafte, affection, or inclination of the heart is concerned; and therefore is always, in every degree of it, morally wrong, and more or lefs criminal. Were the moral faculties of the mind, were the heart, perfectly right, man would not be capable of error, or of judging wrong, or making any miftake, especially in things of religion. The natural faculties of the mind, confidered as feparate from the inclination or will, do not lead, and have no tendency in themselves, to judge wrong, or contrary to the truth of things. To do fo, is to judge without evidence, and contrary to it, which the mind never would or could do, were not the inclination or heart concerned in it, fo as to have influence, which must be a wrong inclination, and contrary to truth and to evidence; and therefore is morally wrong or criminal.”

"Therefore, all the mistakes and wrong opinions which men entertain respecting the doctrines, inftitutions and duties revealed in the bible, are criminal, and of a bad tendency."* If this reafoning be true, it cannot be faid that there is nothing of a moral nature in our fentiments.

I conclude that the bible exhibits a fair system of truth, fupported by rational evidence; and were it not for the blindnefs of the human heart, and the prejudices occafioned by finful affections, men would yield their cheerful affent to truth, in exact proportion to the exi

Hopkins's Syft. Treatise on the Millen. Vol. II. p. 61.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »