Chapter 8 Chapter VI Declaration of Religious Tolerance

Chapter VI Declaration of Religious Tolerance Seeking the truth and saying what you believe is the truth can never be a crime.No one is forced to accept a belief.Faith is free. Sebastian Castellio 1551 It was immediately recognized that the burning of Servetus brought the Reformation to a crossroads where it was not going to go.In a century marred by countless acts of violence, the execution of a human being may seem like an insignificant event.Between the coast of Spain and the coast of the mainland bordering the North Sea (not counting the British Isles), Christians burned countless heretics for the greater worship of Christ, in the name of the "true church" (too many to name) Thousands of helpless people were dragged to the execution ground to be burned, beheaded, hanged or drowned. "If it were not horses but pigs that were thus slaughtered," we read from Castellio's On Heresy, "every prince would think that he had suffered a great loss." But only because It was men and women who were slaughtered, and no one bothered to count the victims. "I doubt," said Castellio, "that there was ever a time in the history of the world when so much blood was shed as ours."

But, among innumerable atrocities over the centuries, there has often been one atrocity, thought to be no worse than the others, which visibly pricks the dormant conscience.The flame that consumed the martyr Servetus was a supreme sign of the age.Two centuries later, the British historian Gibbon declared that this sacrifice repulsed him more than the massacres of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.Because, to quote Voltaire, the execution of Servetus was the first "religious massacre" committed by the Reformation, and it was also the first time that the main idea of ​​that great movement was completely abandoned.As far as the Protestant church is concerned, the single concept of "heretics" is absurd in itself, since Protestantism requires everyone to have the right to speak.Thus, at the outset, Luther, Zwingeri, and Melanchthon declared their strong disapproval of the use of coercion against those who stood in their movement's camp and were apt to exaggerate their intentions.These are Luther's original words: "I don't like the death penalty, even if it is well deserved. What disturbs me is that this incident sets a precedent. Therefore, I will never approve of the death penalty for those quacks." The way goes on: "Heretics must never be suppressed or subdued by material force, but can only be contested by the Word of God. For heresy is a spiritual thing, which cannot be washed away by earthly fire and water." Zwingeri, if possible, even more emphatically denies any recourse to any earthly weapon, any use of force in such a case.

However, the champions of the new dogma, at the same time as they founded a "church" for themselves, immediately realized what the old church authorities had already known: that in the long run power cannot be maintained without force.So, in order to avoid a showdown (which was inevitable), Luther proposed a compromise, trying to distinguish "heretical" from "agitator" and "adviser" from "rebel".The former have different opinions with the Reformation Church on spiritual and religious affairs; the latter are the real "order destroyers" who challenge the established religious order and hope to change the social order at the same time.By this latter group, Luther meant Anabaptists with social communist leanings, who advocated the official use of force as a means of repression.But none of the leaders of the early Reformation churches took the decisive step of delivering to the executioner anyone who disagreed with them and who might claim to be a free thinker.Not so long ago, when religious revolutionaries confronted popes and emperors for their convictions, they declared themselves champions of man's most sacred rights.From the outset, therefore, it seemed inconceivable to have a Protestant inquisition.

Calvin's burning of Servetus was an epochal step.In doing so he swiftly ended the "Christian liberty" for which the Reformation had fought.Calvin surpassed the Roman Catholic Church.To its own credit, the Roman Catholic Church has been far more hesitant than Calvin for a thousand years to burn a man alive simply for insisting on interpreting the dogma of Christ according to his own ideas.And Calvin, in the first decade of his dictatorship, established his spiritual tyranny by burning alive those who challenged him.From a moral point of view, this action was probably more heinous than all of Toguimada's crimes.Servetus was not killed as an atheist, because he was never an atheist.He was murdered because he denied some of Calvin's arguments.Hundreds of years later, the free citizens of Geneva erected a monument to the free thinker Servetus.Any attempt to exonerate Calvin by describing Servetus as a "victim of the age" is in vain.Montaigne was a man of his time, and so was Castellio.It was not the blindness and ignorance of the times that sent Servetus to the stake, but Calvin's personal dictatorship.Dishonesty and superstition may have been the hallmarks of a certain age, but as a particular misdemeanor Calvin committed a crime that was his own responsibility.

From the moment of Servetus' martyrdom, indignation against Calvin grew rapidly.Even Betsey, Calvin's official apologist, had to admit: "The poor man's ashes were not yet cold, and the debate about whether heresy should be punished came to the fore. There were those who argued that heresy should be suppressed, but not capital punishment. Some wish God to punish them." We know that Betsy, though always inclined to extol Calvin in all his ways, was extremely hesitant in the matter, and Calvin's other friends still more. hesitated.Melanchthon, who himself savagely reviled Servetus, wrote to his "dear brother" Calvin: "The Church is and will be to you thank you. The officials of Geneva put to death the blasphemer Well done.” Even one such scholar and zealot named Maxcleus was found to have composed a hymn at the time—the eternal “betrayer of the priesthood,” but those were the only praises that came from the heart Voice.Synods in Zurich, Schaffhausen and elsewhere were far more indifferent than Geneva had hoped.Although in principle they seem to think so: it would be good to threaten the "overzealous" sectarians.They will be pleased, no doubt, because this is the first Protestant act on the grounds of faith, the first extermination of dissenters, and this is done not within their own walls, but by John Calvin took on the notoriety of making that terrible decision.In presenting an eternal ideal, its significance has been foreseen.For an ideal is a concept that no one can see, and it can only be realized in the real world by people who conceive it, who work hard, and who are prepared to march for it on the dusty road that leads to death .Analyzed spiritually, the words "victory" and "defeat" acquire new meanings.Henceforth, we must never stop reminding the whole world that it sees only the monuments of the victors, and that the true heroes of our race are not those who achieve ephemeral dominance through butchered corpses, but those who have no strength to resist , Men who are overwhelmed by the violence of the superiors--as Castellio was overwhelmed by Calvin in his struggle for spiritual freedom, for the establishment of a human kingdom at last on earth.

But if these like-minded people did nothing but damned cowardly praise, they themselves soon heard voices of hostility.Francis Baldwin, the most eminent jurist of the time, expressed his opinion clearly: "I do not think that Calvin had the right to set a precedent of criminal execution on the arguments of religious dogma." Not only free-thinking humanists all over Europe Expressing their indignation, many Protestant clergymen also expressed their disapproval.The clergy of the canton of Vaud, who had been protected from Calvin's enslavement by the Bernese overlords, declared from their pulpit, an hour's walk from Geneva, that Calvin's treatment of Servetus was unreligious and illegal.In Geneva, Calvin had to turn to the police to suppress criticism.A woman was imprisoned for publicly declaring that Servetus was a martyr for Jesus Christ; and a printer was thrown in prison for saying that the city authorities had sentenced Servetus to the will and will of a man.A few prominent foreign scholars simply left in outrage, quickly exiting a city where they no longer felt safe.Because an autocracy has been established that threatens free thought.Calvin was immediately compelled to recognize that the martyrdom of Servetus was more dangerous to the dictatorship than the life and writings of the Spanish scholar.

Calvin was sensitive to any contradictions.Under Calvin, Genevans played it safe, but complaints still came through keyholes and shuttered windows, and the dictator realized that his citizens of the Free City could no longer contain their anger .What is done is done, and Almighty God himself cannot undo it.Since there was no escape from the consequences of what he had done, Calvin had better stand up to the matter and proclaim his responsibility.Calvin had no choice but to go against his original intention and turn what started out as an exciting offensive into an imperceptible defensive one.The friends were all convinced that since Servetus had been burned, it was for Calvin to look for justification for "acting from faith."Therefore, Calvin bit the bullet and made up his mind to use the Servetus incident to "educate" the world, and he wrote an apology for killing the heresy.

But in the case of Servetus, Calvin had an uncomfortable conscience.A man with an uncomfortable conscience can only write poor material, though he will try to cover up doubts, so it is natural that his defense should be entitled "Defending the True Faith of the Trinity Against the Terrible Mistakes of Servetus" up.Written while the dictator's "hands were still dripping with the blood of Servetus," as Castellio puts it, it is the weakest of all his writings.By Calvin's own admission, he wrote this book "in confusion"—that is to say, in a very neurotic haste.The uncertainty with which he felt his position was so compelled to take a defensive position is illustrated by the fact that he summoned all the clergy of Geneva to sign this manifesto as he himself did, so that other People can share some responsibility.He found it distasteful to be thought of as the instigator of the killing of Servetus, and it turned out that two opposite tendencies were clumsily combined in that manifesto.On the one hand, Calvin, frightened by the general dissatisfaction, hoped to shift the responsibility to the "authorities"; on the other hand, he wanted to prove that the municipal council had full power to destroy "devils" like the Spaniards.Calvin appeared at his most suave face, deeply rooted against any violence, and the lines of his defense were filled with complaints about the cruelty of the Catholic Inquisition.That court sentenced many true believers, gave them no chance to defend themselves, and then executed them in the most barbarous way (afterwards Castellio questioned him: "What about you? Who have you appointed as Servetus What about his defense?").He stunned his readers by what he said next, telling them that he had privately done his best to cheer Servetus (“I have privately and continually done all I could to ennoble his feelings. ’) He declared that it was in fact the City Council, which, despite his desire for clemency, insisted on the death penalty and insisted on a death penalty so cruel.But the so-called efforts of Calvin for Servetus, the murderer for his victims, were "so secret" that no one believed such a purely fictional legend.Castellio cites the facts contemptuously. "First, your 'admonition' was nothing but abusive; second, you put Servetus in prison, and the Spaniard never left until he went to the stake and was burned alive."

Thus, with one hand Calvin washed away personal responsibility for Servetus' murder, and with the other he produced the best evidence he could to exonerate the "authorities".As usual, when he had to justify repression, he spoke up.Calvin thus argued that it would be most unwise to allow everyone to speak freely, for Epicureans, atheists, and God-scorners would be heartily pleased.Only the true (i.e. Geneva) dogma can be proclaimed, no other dogma can be proclaimed.Such censorship is not meant to limit liberty (this is how intolerant tyrants often resort to logical fallacies). "It's not about tying the church's hands, it's about stopping bad-hearted writers from airing what's on their minds openly." People whose freedom of speech is restricted from expressing disagreement with a dictator won't give in to any Gaucho rule, even if we take Calvin and his echoes at their word.They were treated as they were due, setting an example "for the greater worship of God".

Calvin had to justify his own weakness—the suppression of heresy, which the Protestant Church copied long ago from the Catholic Church.At the heart of the debate is whether those with real power have the right to kill those who hold different views.In the case of Servetus, Calvin had insisted on this power from the beginning, and all he had to do now was to justify his actions.He naturally turned to the Bible for proof.He was at pains to show that he acted on the terms of a "higher commission" and obeyed a "divine order."This so-called higher commission, the divine order, made him destroy Servetus from the world.However, he could not find convincing examples in the Bible, because the Bible did not systematically elaborate on the concept of "heretics", but only involved "blasphemy".And now, in the midst of the flames, Servetus continues to call the name of Jesus, surely he was never an amythist.Always eager to cite any passage in the Bible that might serve his actions, Calvin declared it a "sacred duty" on the "authority" to root out all who subverted the opinion of the authority (that is, himself). "Just as a man is to blame if he does not draw his sword when the church of God is defiled, or when his followers rebel against God. If a cardinal is so cowardly: In religion, he closes his eyes, how bad it is!" The authorities have a sword in their hands, which they are likely to wield "for the honor of God".For, the actions taken in the name of "the devout believers" have long since been justified.The defense of orthodox religion, of the true faith, of kinship between men and of the benevolence which governs mankind, can only end there.When Satan drives people away from "true" religion, you must destroy them, even if they are your closest followers. (We trembled as we read it) "If men disliked God's good in all respects for man, they ascribed to him no glory--a glory which only God deserves--. When men for their own When he goes to fight with honor, he has no regard for kinship, blood relationship, life issues, and he forgets all humanity and human touch." Calvin tells us bluntly that for the sake of doctrine (his doctrine), He considers pious only those who suppress "everything that has to do with man," that is to say, he suppresses every thought of humanitarianism.Here we have a terrible but tragic extreme demonstration of how far an otherwise clear thinker and profound religious man can go through fanaticism and blindness.Whenever his friends, brothers, and blood relatives disagreed with the Protestant Inquisition on the most trivial points of doctrine, he would willingly submit them to the Roman Catholic Inquisition, lest others should deny such barbarism. of the struggle, resorts to his last and favorite resort: terror.Anyone, he declared, whether defending or being accused of a heresy, was himself guilty of heresy and should be punished.Since Calvin could not tolerate contrary opinions, he proposed to intimidate those who might turn against him, and to threaten sinners with the fate of Servetus.If they can't keep their tongues shut, send them to the stake.Calvin hoped to be freed once and for all from the nerve-wracking problem of killing Servetus.This thing has to end.

But no matter how furious Calvin was, how much he babbled to justify himself to the world, the condemnation of the massacre could not be appeased.Calvin's defense, with his insistence on hunting down heresy, made a very bad impression.Even the best Protestants shudder at the prospect of establishing a Roman Catholic-style religion in their own churches, and some declare that such an absurd argument would have , a servant of God suggested, was less offensive.Zerchintes, a civil servant in the city of Bern and later Castellio's loyal friend and protector, made up his mind to write a personal letter to Calvin to express his attitude: "I declare that I am also one of those who want to do everything possible. One of those who might limit the power of capital punishment for differences of belief, only when those errors were deliberate and deliberate. What makes me judge such things? Not a passage from the Bible that could be used against violence, but the Anabaptist rampage seen here, in Berne. I saw an eighty-year-old woman with her daughter , together with a mother of six children, were dragged to the gallows. The two women committed no other crime than refusing to baptize their infants. On the basis of such an incident, I am afraid that the judicial authorities may not I want to act within the established limits, fearing that they will regard small mistakes as major crimes. Therefore, I believe that if the authorities are wise, they should think more about mercy than resort to the sword. I would rather shed my own blood than Don't want to be stained with a man's blood, if the man has not done something bad that deserves the death penalty." These were the words of a lowly city administrator in a feverish age.There are many people who have the same views as him, but they think it is not appropriate to export.Even the venerable Zerchenwirt, unlike his teacher Erasmus of Rotterdam, took a decided side in the controversies of the time.Zerchenwert humbly informed Calvin that he did not intend to protest publicly. "I will not step into the arena unless my conscience compels me to do so. I prefer to remain silent, as far as my conscience allows, and not to stir up controversy and hurt anyone." A man of humanitarian temperament is Too easily at the mercy of events, thus opening up opportunities for violence.Almost all Humanists behaved in the same way as the brilliant but gentle Zerchenwirt.They kept silent.Some of these humanists, clergymen, and scholars resented public squabbling, others feared being suspected of heresy if they did not (hypocritically) declare the execution of Servetus a laudable feat.When things came to such a point, it seemed as if all were submitting to Calvin's absurd demand that dissenters be executed.However, unexpectedly, a voice, a voice that Calvin knew very well but hated deeply, appeared, and it accused Calvin of being responsible for the murder of Miguel Servetus in the name of violation of humanity.This was Castellio's calm voice.He was never intimidated by the threat of the dictator in Geneva; he was determined to risk his life to save the lives of countless others. In spiritual polemics the best fighters are not those who plunge into the dispute without hesitation and enthusiasm, but those who hesitate for a long time.Because the latter are peaceful, and because their decisions are formed slowly.Not until they have done everything possible to learn and realize that recourse to power is inevitable do they unhappily reject the position imposed on them and rally in self-defense.But those who have the most difficulty in deciding the course of battle are, once decided, the most unshakable of all.Castellio was such a man.A true humanitarian, he dislikes struggle.The method of compromise is more in line with his mild and honest religious nature.Like his spiritual predecessor Erasmus, he knew that truth has many sides, both earthly and divine, and that even his most important work (written in 1562 but only now printed) ), the proposition "On the Trick of Doubt" that is recognized as important is not accidental. Castellio's constant self-reflection does not make him a skeptic at all; opinion; he would rather keep silent than intervene prematurely in an irrelevant quarrel.For the sake of inner freedom, he voluntarily gave up public office and high position; after that, he quit political life, preferring to devote himself to religious creative career: translating the Bible into Latin and French.He made a quiet home in Basel, the last state within a state of religious freedom.The relics of Erasmus are still kept at the University of Basel, and for this reason survivors of the past pan-European movements fled there to escape persecution by the religious dictator.In Basel also lived Karlstadi, exiled from Germany by Luther; Bernardino Ochina, hunted by the Roman Inquisition outside Italy; excommunications; Relus Susinus and Corus Secundus Triese; and the exile from the Low Countries, under the guise of an alias, the Anabaptist David Jolis.A common destiny, a common resistance to persecution, has brought these exiles together.Although in fact they disagree with each other in religion.But true humanitarians need not agree on every detail of doctrine before forming friendships.Cut off from dictators of all stripes who exercised power over their minds as well as their bodies, they lived a life of quiet seclusion in Basel.They do not send out leaflets and pamphlets, they do not make controversial speeches, they do not form factions.What unites them as never before is pain.They are pained by the growing dictatorial powers in the spiritual as well as in the physical realm.Lonely "advisers" (as anyone who opposes doctrinal terror will later call himself) are united in peace and fraternity. These independent thinkers, of course, regarded the burning of Servetus and Calvin's murderous pamphlets justifying their actions as declarations of war.They were inflamed with rage and terror at the face of such an outrageous challenge.They recognize that disputes are decisive.Freedom of thought in Europe would be doomed if such an absurdity could not be tolerated and challenged.Might will replace justice. "After such a bright dawn", after the banner of "liberty of conscience" held high by the Reformation has spread all over the world, is it necessary to degenerate back into "the darkness of the Ximelai people"?Are Christians who disagree with Calvin in some respects to be slaughtered with fire and sword?At the critical moment before a thousand similar torches are lit from the heights of Chappelle, is it not necessary to declare aloud that no one who holds a view in spiritual matters different from that of Hunt them down, or execute them brutally like robbers and murderers.Even if it is a little late, the world must clearly understand that intolerance is unchristian and that the politics of terror are not artificial.For the sake of the persecuted and against the persecutors, we must speak up. He has to speak out loud and clear - but is that still possible?There are times when the simplest and most indisputable truth has to be disguised before it can be communicated, and the most humane and most holy thoughts have to be smuggled out like thieves masked and veiled by the back door, because the front door There are patrols and mercenaries from the authorities on guard.Time and time again history has reproduced such absurd situations: those who incite one person or one belief against another are tolerated and encouraged; while all tendencies to compromise, all ideals of peace are predicated on the pretext that they endanger the integrity of some religions. or non-religious groups to be suspected and suppressed.They were branded "defeatists," and because of their cosmopolitan humanitarian tendencies they were likely to undermine pious or patriotic zeal.Thus, under the terror established by Calvin, Castellio and his disciples did not dare to propagate their views openly.A manifesto of religious toleration, an appeal to human fraternity as devised by Castellio and others, would be thwarted even in this day by the prohibition of a spiritual dictatorship. Therefore, ingenuity must be countered by violence.Someone specially invented a name called "Martinus Bilias", who is said to be the author of a new book.It is actually Castellio's book, with a false name and a false place of printing (Madelburg, not Basel) appearing on the title page.But the most important thing is the content of the book.Ostensibly a scientific or theological treatise, this book is actually an appeal to the rescue of persecuted innocents.It looks bookish, with learned Christian clergymen and other authorities discussing issues. (The original text is in Latin, and the translation is:) "About heresy, whether they should be persecuted, and how they should be dealt with, many learned authors, old and new, have expounded." Indeed, no matter who it is, as long as he turns a few pages of " On Heresy would have been fully convinced that it was only a pious theological tract.For in this book he will find the claims of the most famous priests of the Catholic Church—St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Bastian Frank) or excerpts from the writings of independent humanists such as Erasmus, juxtaposed peacefully.The book is of course only a jurisprudential and theological compilation of excerpts from the writings of various philosophers.Its purpose is to help readers develop an unbiased perspective on difficult issues.But a little closer inspection reveals that the book only extracts those opinions which are considered abnormal for the imposition of the death penalty for heresy.The ingenuity of that book, its only malice, lies in its extreme earnestness.In fact, it inserts, among the many articles in which the authorities denounce the use of capital punishment for heresy, a name which seems to have particularly annoyed Calvin: Calvin's own name.John Calvin, in his own day of persecution, had preached against the cruel recourse to fire and sword.Servetus' murderer, Calvin, was condemned by previous Calvins as transgressive to Christianity.Here is the article signed by Calvin: "It is anti-Christian to use arms against those who are excommunicated, and to deny them the common rights of all mankind." But the value of a book is measured by what it overtly says, not what it hides.In his dedication to the Duke of Wordenburg, Castellio was meticulous.The dedication begins and ends, raising the editor of theological anthology above the level of the fugitive polemicist.Though the dedication to the duke spanned only a dozen pages, they were the first account of an assertion of freedom of thought and a sacred sanctuary in Europe.Although written only in favor of heretics, the dedication is a vivid defense of those who were later persecuted for demanding political or philosophical independence.Here the struggle against the feud of spiritual justice, against the zealots who wish to suppress the narrowness of opinion contrary to their sect, is clearly waged.Now, the concept of religious restriction is triumphantly opposed to the concept of religious tolerance, which spreads the only way to liquidate hatred on Earth. Castellio develops his argument clearly and irrefutably with unbiased logic.The question at issue is whether to persecute and put to death purely ideologically offended heresies.But before discussing the issue, Castellio asks: "What is the real meaning of the term heresy?" Who can we call heresy without impartiality?Castellio replied as follows: "I don't believe that all who are called heretics are really heretics... The designation has become so absurd today," so horrible, and has such an atmosphere of shame, that if someone wants to To get rid of one of his personal enemies, he found it easiest to accuse the man of heresy.As soon as other people hear the dreadful name, they are terrified and deaf, and blindly attack not only those who are said to be heretics, but those who dare to say a good word for him. " Castellio refused to contract such persecution hysteria.He knew that every era would find a new group of unlucky ghosts, who would become a house of resentment pouring out collective hatred.Sometimes it's their religion, sometimes it's the color of their skin, their race, their blood, their sense of society, their philosophy.Members of those smaller and weaker groups are used as targets for so much energies that lurk within us.Slogans and timing can change, but slander, scorn and destruction are constant.Now, Castellio declared, a wise man would not be deceived by such slanderous statements, nor would he be carried along by the instinctive rage of the crowd.With a determination to further his devotion to justice and justice, he explored axiomatically time after time.So, as far as heresy is concerned, "Martinus Bilias" refuses to take an authoritative position unless he can grasp the full significance of the word. But what is heresy?Castellio returns to this question again and again.Because Calvin and other inquisitors of the Inquisition declared that the Bible was the only valid legal document.Bilias searched very carefully between the lines of the Bible.See, he cannot find that word and that concept in the scriptures.Because, first of all, there must be a system of doctrines, an orthodoxy, and a unified doctrine, so that the word "heretical" can be spread.The church must be established before anyone betrays the church.In the Bible we do find references to the unbeliever and the need to punish him.But this does not mean that an unbeliever is therefore a heretic.The Servetus incident provides proof of this.Those who are called heretics, especially the Anabaptists, insist that they are true and true Christians, and that Jesus Christ is the highest and most beloved example.For no Christian has ever called a Turk, a Jew, or a heathen a "heretic."Heresy must be a crime committed entirely within the sphere of Christianity.Thus we arrive at a new definition: a heretic, who, though being a Christian, does not recognize "true" Christianity, and stubbornly deviates from the "right" way in one way or another. Now, have we arrived at our definition?Goodness, how can we decide what is the "true" Christianity, or what is the "correct" interpretation of God's will, amidst the multitude of interpretations?Can we find a definition of heresy in Catholic, Lutheran, Zwingli, Anabaptist, Hussite, or Calvinist commentaries?In matters of religion, is there such an absolute certainty that the Bible is universally valid?Castellio was brave enough to challenge the headstrong Calvin: answer with a modest "No." The meaning of the Bible is sometimes clear and sometimes vague.The fundamentally religious man wrote: "The truths of religions are in their mystical nature, which is still in constant struggle after a thousand years, until spiritual love reveals us, and Only when the conclusion is reached will the blood stop.” Anyone who interprets the Bible will have errors, so religious tolerance is the primary responsibility of Christians. "If all things were as clear as the existence of God, Christians could easily find a way in religious matters. Just as all nations are united by the recognition that there is a God. However, Since everything is vague, Christians should stop condemning each other. If we are wiser than the heathen, let us be better and more compassionate than them." Castellio went a step further in his monograph.In his view, anyone who, while acknowledging the basic principles of Christian truth, fails in some way to please established authorities is called a heretic.因此，异端（在这儿我们终于触及到了事情的核心）不是一个绝对的而是一个相对的概念，对一个天主教徒来说，一个加尔文派教徒当然是一个异端；对等地，对一个加尔文派教徒来说，一个再洗礼派教徒当然也是一个异端。一个人在法国是作为真正的信徒，而在日内瓦却是一个异端。vice versa.凡在一个国家里将成为一个处火刑的罪犯，而在他的邻邦就被推戴成为烈士。 “有鉴于在一个城市或一个地区，他们把你称为真正的信徒，而在另一个城市或毗邻的地区，他们蔑视你为一个异端，因此，凡有人希望不被干扰地生活，他必须有象城市和乡村那么多的信仰和宗教。”现在卡斯特利奥得出了他最后的和最大胆的公式。 “当我思考什么是真正的异端时，我只能发现一个标准：我们在那些和我们观点不同的人们的跟里都是异端。”这看来简单之极，几乎陈腐又如此显而易见。但是要说得如此坦率，在那些日子里就需要巨大的道德上的勇气。这一公式的重要性是：在整个时代，领导者们（无论是红衣主教还是教士，天主教徒还是路德教徒）追猎异端是荒谬的，是由于错觉所造成的。成千上万的人受到迫害，被非法判处死刑，被绞杀、溺毙、烧死。他们是无辜的，因为他们没有犯过任何反对上帝和国家的罪行：他们的行动范畴并没有远离他们的同代人，只是在看不见的精神世界里有距离。在世俗的法律上，又有谁被授权去指导他的伙伴的思想，或者把后者最根本的和最私下的信念认为是一个罪行呢？不是国家，也不是任何建立起来的权威。我们在《圣经》上读到过“以尘世君王之物还诸尘世君王”（《圣经》马太福音第二十三章）；卡斯特利奥引用了路德的话，大意是，尘世的王国只能指挥肉体；就灵魂而言，上帝不希望任何尘世的法律得以盛行。国家有权坚持要求每一子民按外界的和政治的制度办事。因此，任何对内心世界的道德、宗教和（允许我加上）艺术上的信念进行官方干涉，都意味着滥用职权和侵犯公民的神圣权利，只要以上这些方面不明显地涉及背叛政府的实质（用近代的术语来说，只要他们不进行政治煽动）。鉴于“涉及到这些事务时，每一个人都可以个人求助于上帝”，发生在内心世界的事是无需对政府负责的。政府当局和个人见解没有任何关系，那么，为什么他们一碰到一些在哲学信念上与自己不同的人就唾沫四溅暴跳如雷呢？为什么要立即报告警察局呢？为什么要这样杀气腾腾地仇恨人呢？没有和解的精神，就不可能有真正的人道。只有当我们大家都抑制住自己的不宽容时，才能和平相处。在获得信仰的统一之前，我们即使时时意见相左，至少也要做到共同了解，彼此相爱，和平相处。 “异端”是不应对这些屠杀、对这些玷辱了人名字的野蛮的迫害负责的。他们无可非议。不能因为一个人的思想或信念而找他的岔子。在这个被幻觉和狂热搅乱了的世界上，总是有那么多的罪行，它们是随盲信和理论家的急躁而来的。这些理论家们不承认（除他们自己以外的）任何其它的思想、宗教或哲学是真实的。卡斯特利奥无情地嘲笑如此肆无忌惮的疯狂。“人们是如此坚信他们自己意见的可靠性，或者更确切他说，是他们的错觉肯定了他们自己意见的可靠性，以致于常置别人的意见于不顾。狂妄自大产生残忍和迫害，因此，一个人将不会容忍其它人在任何方面持不同的意见。虽然在今天有多少人口就有多少意见，但所有的教派都在谴责其它的教派，并希望至高无上地统治别人。那就说明了为什么会有流放、驱逐、监禁、火刑和绞刑，以及为什么打手们一直力图镇压那些看来会使我们的老爷们和主子们不顺眼的人的原因。他们常常因为一些说不出的理由而暴跳如雷。”一方的顽固，导致了另一方的顽固。其结果是精神上的不宽容，其结果“是残忍，是野蛮，是干兽性行为的欲望。我们今天看到许多人由于被诬蔑而激动，以至于看到有人判了死刑，先仁慈地绞死他，再点火焚尸，他们也会怒气冲冲。” 只有一件事能把人类从野蛮主义中拯救出来——宗教宽容。我们的世界大得足以容纳许多真理。如果人们互相友好的话，就能和睦地同住。“让我们彼此宽容吧，让我们不要谴责别人的信仰吧。”追猎异端人和任何一种对不同观点的迫害一样，是不必要的。鉴于加尔文，为了开脱罪责，祈求权贵们不邮使用火和剑去消灭异端，卡斯特利奥恳请那些当权者“倾向于仁慈那边，永远不要屈服于煽动你去谋杀的那些人。因为，当你面对最后审判时，他们不会站在你的旁边帮助你；他们为了为自己辩护什么都干得出来。请相信我，如果基督今天还在世，他不会建议你去杀害那些叫着基督名字的人，即使在某些细节上他们可能有错，或有可能偏离了正确的道路也罢。” 就象在正常情况下需要解决学术上的问题一样，塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奥平心静气地讨论了那棘手的问题：所谓的异端究属有罪或无罪。在仔细地权衡了正反两方面的理由之后，他要求建立一个自由精神的城市，使那些被追猎的可怜虫有可能有一个避难之所。虽然卡斯特利奥明确地肯定自己的立场，但仍然很谦逊地提出了自己的意见；反观那些宗派主义者，就好象市场上的小贩一样，大声吹嘘他们教条主义的货色。这些气量狭窄的教义至上主义者们，每一个人都从布道台上发出这样的尖叫：只有他，而不是别人所兜售的，是真正的信仰；只有通过他的声音和言论，上帝的意志才得以宣扬。而卡斯特利奥只是简单他说：“我不向你们自称为上帝派未的先知，我从群众中来，厌恶争论，唯一的愿望是：不要通过争吵，而通过有同情心的爱；不要通过外在的实践，而通过心中内在的礼拜来寻求建立宗教。”教义至上主义者彼此对话时犹如小学生对小学生、奴隶对奴隶，但人道主义者却象兄弟对兄弟、人对人地讲话。 然而，一个真正人道的人看到不人道的行为不能不强烈地感到震动。一个诚实的作家的思想受到同时代的狂妄严重干扰的时候，他的手不可能继续写出教义的叙述；在他的神经因正义愤慨而震动时，他的声音只能颤抖。这样，从长远观点看来，关于查佩尔高台殉难一事，卡斯特利奥不能够把自己只限制或局限于书生气的质问上。就在那儿，一个无辜的人在难以言喻的折磨中被处死。以爱宗教为名，一个学者消灭了另一个学者，一个神学家消灭了另一个神学家。 塞维特斯受难的形象、对异端的大量迫害，使得卡斯特利奥从书叶中抬起头来，去寻找究竟是哪些人在煽动如此暴虐的，究竟是哪些人自命是上帝的虔诚的仆人，徒劳地试图为自己的不宽容辩护。加尔文凶猛地注视着卡斯特利奥，后者宣称“不论这类事情何等的令人毛骨悚然，那些罪人们的罪还要毛骨悚然。他们披着基督的外衣，倾其全力去干罪恶行径，还宣称他们的所作所为符合上帝的愿望。”卡斯特利奥知道，那些当权的人们，常求助于一些宗教的或哲学的理论，力图证明他们的暴行是正当的。但是鲜血玷污了它所代表的理论，暴行贬低了它所要辩护的思想。米圭尔·塞维特斯不是根据基督的命令，而是根据约翰·加尔文的命令被烧死的，这是整个基督教世界的耻辱。卡斯特利奥宣称：“在今天，当那些自认为是基督教徒的人被其它基督教徒们毫不仁慈地用火、用水、用剑屠杀掉、受到比杀人犯和强盗更为残酷的待遇时，还有谁还愿意成为一个基督教徒呢？当人们看到，在今天，不管是谁，只要在一些微不足道的细节上，同那些攫夺了权力的人有所不同，就要以基督的名义被活活烧死，即使象塞维特斯，在火焰中仍呼喊着基督，并大声宣布他是基督的信徒也无法幸免，那么有谁愿意继续礼拜基督呢？撒旦再坏还能比把呼喊着耶稣名字的人烧死更坏吗？ 因此，这位可敬佩的人道主义者认为必须排除错觉，以为殉道者和被害者仅仅只是因为在智力的水平上同当时的当权者有所不同。他看到当权者往往滥用他们的权力，而他自己，则是世界上独立支持被迫害者和被追猎者事业的唯一弱者，他绝望地提高声音，用一首热情入迷的赋格曲结束他的呼吁。 “噢，世界的创造者和王，您看到了这些事情了吗？难道说您已如此改变、如此残忍，与本来的您相反吗？在您住世时没有人比您更温和、更仁慈、更忍受损害了。您被鞭笞、毒打、嘲弄，戴上荆冠并和两个贼一起被钉死在十字架上，在受辱中，您为那些对您干了可耻的恶行的人们祷告。难道说您现在竟如此改变了吗？我以圣父的名义析求您：难道说这真是您的意志吗？将那些不了解您的箴言的伟大的人溺毙，割尸抽肠，撒盐。用剑肢解，烤以文火，无所不用其极地折磨至死。噢，基督，是您下令并赞同这些事情的吗？那些组织如此的屠杀，剥您子民的皮并把他们剁成肉酱的人，真的是您的仆人吗？当人们在如此的暴行中呼唤您的名字作证，好象您在渴求人肉，您真的在场吗？如果您，基督，真的下令于了这些事，那么撒旦还有什么可做呢？说您下命令干撒旦的事，这是何等可怕的渎神！把那种只有通过魔鬼的意志和创造发明能力才能得以实现的事，却又归咎于基督的那部分人，是何等的卑鄙放肆啊！” 只要塞巴斯蒂安.卡斯特利奥写了《论异端》一书的序，只要他写了这一页，他的名字就将永垂于人类的历史。因为他的声音是那样寂寞。在一个武器铿锵声盖没了说话声并以战争为最后仲裁的世界里，他祈求觅求知音，是没有什么希望的。虽然虔诚的牧师和圣者一再向健忘的人类传播福音，最人道的要求，仍然是必须恢复他们的记忆力。谦逊的卡斯特利奥接着说：“毫无疑问，我没有说过前人没有说过的话。除非统一了认识，重述什么是真的，什么是正义的，那决不会多余。”因为在每一时期，暴力会改头换面重新出现，坚持精神事业的人们也要继续不断地更新以与之斗争。他们决不应借口说那时对他们的压力太大而去寻找避难之所。因为，凡是有必要要说的，不能说是说得太多了，真理决不会白说。即使《圣经》不能胜利，它却宣告了永存。凡是在这时刻礼拜它的，就光荣地证明了恐怖不能支配自由精神，即使在那最残酷的世纪中，人道的声音仍有其地位。