Chapter 9 Chapter Seven Conscience Against Violence

Chapter Seven Conscience Against Violence Anyone who tries to ruthlessly overwhelm the opinions of others is always extremely sensitive to opposing opinions.Calvin therefore regarded it as a great injustice when the whole world dared to discuss the execution of Servetus: they did not appraise the act as a pious act most agreeable to the will of the Almighty accept it.Calvin was the man who brutally burned a countryman for a mere difference of opinion.Calvin wanted sympathy for him and not for the victim. "If you could have known even a tenth of the berates and blows I have received," Calvin wrote to a friend, "you would have sympathized with my tragic position.Vicious dogs barked at me from all directions, pouring out unimaginable condemnation on me.Those who were on my side attacked me even more violently than my Roman Catholic opponents out of jealousy and hatred. Calvin found that, although he quoted from the Bible and spoke out for his arguments, after Servetus was murdered, he could only slip away under the opposition. He flew into a rage. Conscience Disquiet made him nervous and restless, so that Calvin became tense and panicked as soon as he heard that Castellio and some others in Basel were about to refute him.

The first thought of anyone of authoritarian temperament is to suppress or suppress opinions that differ from his own.As soon as Calvin heard the news from Basel, before he had time to read the book "On Heresy", he sat down at his desk and wrote to the Swiss synods to prohibit the circulation of this book.In particular, discussions can no longer be allowed. "Geneva has said it." Whoever tries to make up his mind about the truth about Servetus is, on the general principle, condemned as: wicked, stupid, hypocritical, heretical, or blasphemous—because, that means Against Calvin.Calvin was diligent in writing and thinking.On March 28, 1554, he wrote to Bollinger that a book had been printed in Basel, under a false name on the title page, in which Castellio and Curly Olito demonstrated that power should not be used to eradicate heresy.Such a teaching must not be allowed to proliferate, for it is "a malicious demand for comprehensiveness, to show that heresy and god-reading should not be considered punishable crimes." !" Pastors in our churches must take care not to spread error, even though it is a little late now, and may it be God's will.One appeal is not enough.So, the next day, his confidant Theodore de Betsy wrote a more urgent letter: "On the title page you will find that the place of printing is Magdeburg. In my humble opinion, the Magdeburg Fort must be on the Rhine. Many scandals of one kind or another originate there. I can only ask myself, if people 'tolerate' the scoundrel's filth in the preface to this book, can Christianity remain intact ?”

However, such remarks were made too late.The debate has already begun before the big shots are made.When the first book arrived in Geneva, anger erupted like a volcano.What?Does anyone really want to put humanity above canon?Is it not to be swiftly sent to the stake, but to be treated gently and fraternally with those who have evil purposes?Should Christians be allowed to interpret the Bible as they please, instead of leaving that prerogative to the Inquisition in Geneva?For the Church, which Calvin naturally regarded as his own, this was perhaps the most serious crisis.At one command, Geneva yelled "Heretic!" People shouted: "A new heresy has appeared!" Among them, the "Billisian" heresy is particularly dangerous.Since then, for a long period of time, "Bilisians" have symbolized the doctrine of religious tolerance on the issue of belief.The term was coined after the book's named author, Martinus Villis (Castellio's pseudonym). “We must extinguish the fires of hell before they spread across the face of the earth,” Te Betsy wrote of the first public demand for tolerance, furious and frantic."Such scandals have not been heard since the birth of the world of Christ," he said.

A war council is held in Geneva.Should there be an answer to Castellio's attack?Zwingli's heir, Bollinger (who was so eagerly begged by the Genevans to ban the book quickly) wrote a scathing letter from Zurich, to the point that, unless it was repressed with great fanfare, nothing else would happen. will be quickly forgotten.It is best to ignore it.Calvin has not been very successful in his latest attempt, so he prefers to remain discreetly in the background.He sent one of his young disciples, Theodore de Betsy, to do something like a theological agitation.Betsy won the favor of the dictator for his powerful, overwhelming onslaught against the "diabolical" doctrine of tolerance.

On the whole, Theodore de Betsey was a pious and just man, and his devotion to Calvin for many years was only rewarded by his successor in due course.He is utterly hostile to any air of spiritual freedom, surpassing even Calvin in this (slavery often trumps the creative spirit).He made many sensational remarks, which earned him the reputation of "the glorifier of evil" in the history of thought. "Freedom of conscience is the devil's dogma." Freedom is best destroyed by fire and sword on those guilty of hateful independent thought."Tyranny, however brutal," declared T. Betsy, "is better than let one have one's way... The argument that heresy should not be punished is as absurd as the argument that murdering patriarchs and mothers should not be punished. For heresy is a thousand times more sinful than murder." Long matricide." The reader can judge from the above examples how cruel and stupid this pamphlet has descended in its crusade against "Bilisism"!What?Is it necessary to treat them humanely according to the requirements of "monsters in disguise"?No, canon first, humanity second.Doctrine is at stake now, and as a religious leader, there must be no compromise in favor of kindness.For this kindness will be "diabolical and not Christian." Here (not for the last time) we encounter the belligerent theory of "cruel humanity."Te Betsy said that humanity is a crime against human beings, because human beings can only move towards theoretical ends through iron rules and intolerant strictness. "We cannot tolerate those few ravenous wolves unless we are prepared to feed them whole packs of good Christians . Determined to exterminate the Bilisists, he went on to implore the authorities to "strike them with the sword of morality".

Compassionate Castellio, who cried aloud to a merciful God, for a final end to this brutish massacre, now the priest in Geneva is driven by hatred (as earnestly as Castellio sympathy), imploring that same God to allow the slaughter to continue uninterrupted, "and to endow the leaders of Christianity with magnanimity and fortitude to exterminate that mob." Yet even that slaughter exterminated They, too, could not satisfy Te Betsy's desire for revenge.Heretics were not only to be put to death, but they had to be executed as slowly as possible, so as to cause them pain.He pre-justified every unimaginable torment with a pious cry: "If they were to be punished according to the degree of their crimes, I think it would be difficult to find a proper death penalty for the heinous crimes they committed. Whoever reads such paeans to divine terror and cruel arguments to barbarism is disgusted. But we must keep them in mind if we are ever to appreciate the crisis facing the Protestant world —Let ourselves be driven by the hatred and fanaticism of the Genevans, to establish a new Inquisition; if we could possibly appreciate how brave it was for thinking men to defy these madnesses, and, for the sake of religious tolerance, put their own What life is risked at the stake. Betsy's slander is accompanied by a demand that, in order to defeat the terrible idea of ​​religious toleration, every friend of this doctrine, every "better than Defenders of Christianityism" are treated as "enemies of Christianity" and are therefore to be burned alive as heretics. "To them personally we should teach them every point I have made, atheists and heretics alike. Must be punished by local authorities. "To be sure, Castellio and his friends must have known what awaited them if they were compelled by their own conscience to continue to defend a scoundrel like Servetus. They learned that even inventing a place of printing and an alias would not save them from persecution. "Everyone knows who you are and what your intentions are. . . Montfort, and all of you. "

On the face of it alone, T. Betsy's article is no more than a contribution to academic debate.But the threatening rhetoric quoted above shows its practical significance.Defenders of spiritual freedom finally realize that every time they demand humane treatment, they are putting their lives at risk.De Betsy, eager to hope that Sebastian Castellio, the leader of the "Bilisians," would act rashly, denounced the latter as a coward.The Geneva clergyman wrote contemptuously: "He was a man who was otherwise so brave, and who said so much sympathy and kindness, as is shown in this book, but he was a coward, because He only dared to stick his head out after putting on the mask." Perhaps the writer of this passage hoped that Castellio would take the warning and hide discreetly behind the scenes; perhaps he really hoped that Castellio would take his own exposed.But in any case, Castellio immediately responded.It turned out that the Orthodoxy in Geneva was striving to promote the doctrine of exclusion and systematically put it into practice.This fact forced Castellio (albeit a fervent pacifist) to declare war openly.He saw that the decisive moment had begun.Although Miguel Servetes is dead, unless the crimes committed against him are appealed to a court (whose members are all Christians), the embers from the first burning will be used to burn him. Hundreds, no, thousands of the same people.Murder, which had been no more than an isolated act, would ossify into a principle.Castellio took a break from academic studies to devote himself to drafting the most important indictment of his century: against John Calvin, who had sent Miguel Servetus to Chapelle to be executed in the name of religion.Although this "Antical" was chiefly addressed to one man, the moral vigor with which it manifested proved to be one of the most glorious treatises ever heard.It opposes the suppression of speech by law, thought by dogma, and eternal liberty of conscience by eternal vileness.

Year after year Castellio learned the character of his enemy and became more and more acquainted with his methods.Calvin was good at turning every attack on himself into an attack on doctrine, true religion, and even God.Castellio therefore makes it clear at the beginning of his "Answer to Calvin" that he neither accepts nor condemns the views of Miguel Servetus, nor does he recommend any religious or exegetical questions. Sentence of any kind, he just brought a murder charge against that man, John Calvin.Not allowing sophistical twists to falsify his argument, he presented the case he defended with the polished style of an accomplished lawyer. "John Calvin is in power today, and I can only hope that he has even a milder temperament than I have ever known, but his last important public act was a bloody execution, followed by a massacre of the pious People intimidate. That's why I, a man who hates killing (isn't it the same all over the world?), with God's help, will bring Calvin's heart to light, or, at least, those whom he led astray. bring people to the right path.”

"On October 27, 1553, the Spaniard Miguel Servetus was burned in Geneva for his religious beliefs. The instigator of the burning was Calvin, priest of the cathedral of the city. Because of this One execution, which aroused many protests, especially in Italy and France. In response to these protests, Calvin published a book. This book seems to be most skillfully colored. The purpose of the author is threefold: to defend himself, attacking Servetus, and justifying his execution. I suggest a critical review of this book. In Calvin's often argumentative style, he would probably describe me as a student of Servetus , but I hope no one will be misunderstood by this. I am not defending Servetus' arguments, but attacking Calvin's bogus arguments. I definitely do not consider discussing baptism, the Trinity, and whatnot. I don't even have a copy of Servetus, for Calvin burned all that could come his way. I do not know, therefore, what Servetus was proposing. At most I laugh at Calvin's errors, which have nothing to do with differences of principle I wish to explain to everyone what kind of man this bloodthirsty madman is. I will not deal with him as he did Servetus. He sentenced Servetus to the stake and burned his book , books that were considered sinful, were burned. Now, even after Servetus is dead, Calvin continues to abuse him. After killing and burning books, Calvin has the face to mention these books to us (out of context, of course. ), it seems to set a fire first, burn the house to ashes, and then invite us to see the furnishings in the various rooms. As for me, I will neither burn an author nor burn his books. I The book attacked is open to anyone and available to anyone. There are two editions. One in Latin, the other in French. In order to avoid possible mistakes, I will indicate the chapter at each quotation source, and indicate the responses to each chapter as in the original text.

The discussion couldn't be more frank.In the above-mentioned books, Calvin unequivocally defends his views.And Castellio, like a prosecutor using the defendant's evidence, used this "exhibition" that could be understood by everyone.Castellio reprinted Calvin's book verbatim, so that no one can say that the critic has falsified or falsified his opponent's views, or suspect that the critic has cut Calvin's words.In this way, the trial of Servetus was much fairer than the first trial in Geneva: when the accused was kept in a dark and damp dungeon, witnesses were denied, and defense lawyers were not allowed to appear in court.Castellio was determined to let the entire artificialist world freely discuss every detail of the Servetus case, determined to bring its moral problems to light.

There can be no dispute about certain basic facts.The man, who, as he was engulfed in flames, loudly proclaimed his innocence, was brutally executed at the instigation of Calvin, with the consent of the City Council of Geneva.Castellio went on to ask: "What crime did Miguel Servetus really commit? Since John Calvin did not hold political power, but only ecclesiastical power, how could he make it purely a crime?" The theological affairs were transferred to the municipal administration? What right did the Geneva municipal administration have to execute Servetus on a false charge? Finally, by whose permission, by what law or statute, did the foreign theologian be placed in Geneva? What about execution? Regarding the first question, in order to determine what crime Miguel Servetus committed, Castellio consulted the archives and Calvin's statements.The only charge that Castellio could find was that Servetus had "had audaciously perverted the Gospels," driven by some unexplainable desire to be different.Calvin's whole charge, then, against Servetus was that the Spaniard interpreted the Scriptures independently and arbitrarily, which led him (Servetus) to conclusions different from those expressed by Calvin's teachings of the Christian Church.Castellio shot back: "Is Servetus the only one among all the fighters of the Reformation who interpreted the Gospels independently and arbitrarily? If someone spreads an arbitrary interpretation, he is thus divorced from the true meaning of the Reformation." Doctrine, then who dares to make irresponsible remarks? Isn't such dissenting opinions a basic requirement of the Reformation? Besides establishing a right to reinterpret the Bible, the heads of the evangelical churches also want to What's going on? Aren't Calvin himself, and Calvin's friend Farel, the most courageous and decisive of those who have labored to rebuild the Church in this way?" Calvin himself was not alone Overzealous, and he does too much in this area to give the impression that he has gone too far and is in danger.In the course of ten years he innovated more than the Catholic Church did in six centuries.Calvin, one of the most courageous reformers, had no right to denigrate new interpretations as a crime within the Protestant Church. "However, Calvin took it for granted that he was infallible, that his views were correct and that anyone who disagreed with him was wrong." This leads Castellio to the second Question: "Who authorized Calvin to decide what is true and what is not true?" "Of course, Calvin tells us that every writer who does not follow his yelling is a villain with ulterior motives. So he demanded that those who disagreed with him be prevented not only from writing, but from speaking. This shows that only he A man is entitled to say what he thinks is true." Now Castellio insists that no one, nor any party, will ever be entitled to say: "We alone know the truth, and all who are different from us Opinion is wrong." All truth, especially religious truth, is debatable and divisive. "It would be presumptuous to adjudicate too absolutely on secrets known only to God, and to act as if we were partakers in His most secret schemes. Also, to fancy that we can know such things with certainty, and to fancy that we can It would be utterly megalomaniac to represent them clearly. Because, in reality, we know nothing about them." Ever since the world came into existence, miseries of all kinds have been the work of dogmatists.Those people relentlessly insist that their own views and opinions are the only ones that are reliable.It is these fanaticisms that lead them to demand a unity of thought and action according to their own model.They brag about themselves, argue endlessly, and disturb the peace of the world. They turn ideas that should be parallel and parallel into hostile and murderous arguments.Castellio charges Calvin with spiritual intolerance as follows, "All the sects base their religion on the word of God, and the members of each sect regard their own religion as the sole possessor of truth. But, According to Calvin, only one denomination is true, and the others must obey it. Of course, to Master John Calvin, his own teachings appeared to be true, and the leaders of other denominations also believed in their beliefs With the same attitude. Calvin says others are wrong, and others say Calvin is wrong. Calvin wants to be the supreme judge, and others think so. So, who decides? Anyway, Who appointed Calvin to be the supreme arbiter with the sole right to impose capital punishment? Calvin got his qualifications from this—God's word, but others also claim this right. Or, possibly, Calvin assures us that his teachings are indisputable. In whose eyes are they indisputable? In his own, in those of John Calvin. If the truth is as obvious as he professes, then why How many books does he have to write? Why does he not allow others to take the time to grasp the facts that are so obvious to him? Why knock them down without giving them a chance and deprive them of the possibility of knowing the truth , as he has grasped it? Castellio thus makes a decisive argument.Calvin usurped a position he was not qualified to confer—that of supreme arbiter in spiritual and religious matters.If he thought Servetus was wrong, what he had to do was to inform Servetus where he had lost his way.But instead of reasoning and benevolently arguing, Calvin easily resorted to force. "You arrested your adversary, Servetus, at the outset, and threw him into prison. At the trial you excluded all but some enemies of the Spaniard." Calvin invoked the old magic of the dogmatists : When he found that the debate was gradually going against him, he stopped listening to the words of letting go and blocked his mouth.Such recourse to censorship exposed his insecurities about a person or a teaching.Castellio, as if foreseeing his own fate, continued to speak of Calvin's moral responsibility. "Let me ask you a question, Mr. Calvin. If you are suing a man on a matter of inheritance, and your release obtains a ruling from the judge that only he (the opponent) is entitled to speak, and you are forbidden to speak , don't you immediately protest this unfair treatment? Why do you ask us to keep silent when we are engaged in a dispute of faith? Don't you realize the weakness of your argument deeply? Are you very Fear that the conclusion will turn against you and disqualify you from being a dictator? Castellio broke off the protest for a moment in order to call a witness.A well-known theologian, for opposing the preacher John Calvin, was willing to testify that the law of God forbids local authorities to use violence to suppress purely spiritual faults.The great scholar and eminent theologian who is now called to testify is Calvin himself.He reluctantly took the witness stand in this matter. "Calvin found confusion, so he at once condemned others, lest he himself should be suspected. But, apparently, only one thing contributed to the confusion above, and that was his attitude as a persecutor. The sentence on Servetus It was done at his instigation, which aroused consternation and outrage in Geneva, and throughout the Western world. Now he tries to place the blame on others for what he himself did. He changed when he was still The tune sung when he was one of the persecuted, when he wrote a long article to denounce and oppose this persecution. I would copy a chapter from Calvin's Principia, lest my readers Suspect me." The Calvin of 1554 would probably have sent the Calvin who wrote the words that Castellio was about to quote to the stake.Because in "Principles", Calvin once wrote: "It is sinful to put heretics to death. It is against all principles of humanity to end their lives with fire and sword." His book cuts out the demands of humanity.In the second edition of the Principles, the sentence quoted above has been carefully revised.Just like Napoleon, as soon as he became the first consul, he paid attention to buying and burning the pamphlets written by the Jacobins describing his youth.In the same way, the head of the church at Geneva, as soon as he was a persecutor, and no longer a member of the persecuted, was anxious to suppress all who knew that he had previously demanded temperance.But Castellio was unwilling to let Calvin slip away from what he had said himself.He copied them word for word to refute them.Castellio continued after the quotation: "Now, all my readers, compare Calvin's original declaration with his writings and actions today, and it becomes clear that his present is the same as his present. The past was as different as light from darkness. For he had put Servetus to death, and now he wanted to do the same to all who disagreed with him. He, the legislator, abandoned his laws and demanded death Dissenters... Calvin should put people to death because he was afraid they would expose his inconsistency and his degeneration, and make him the center of attention. Should we be surprised at this? The worst of those who do evil Afraid of broad daylight.” But Castellio wanted broad daylight.He insisted that Calvin was obliged to explain to the world why a former advocate of free thought burned Servetus alive at Chapel.The interrogation therefore continues without mercy... Two problems solved.A dispassionate study of the facts shows that Miguel Servetus' crimes, if any, were purely spiritual.Furthermore, even if the Spaniard had deviated from what Calvin believed to be the correct interpretation, it should never have been treated as a common crime.Calvin, in order to suppress those who disagreed with him, appealed to earthly powers, asked Castellio, why?Differences among thinkers should be dealt with only with the tools of thought. "If Servetus took arms against you, you have the right to seek the aid of the mayor. But since the pen is the only weapon he has against you, why do you attack his writings with fire and sword? Tell me , why did you go to the local authority to be your backer?" A country has no jurisdiction over matters of conscience, and the executive council should not interfere in upholding theological teachings, because that is only relevant to scholars.The business of the Municipal Council is to protect a scholar, just as it protects a craftsman, a hired man, a doctor, or any other citizen from bad people.Only when Servetus attempted to murder Calvin did the City Council intervene, upon request, to protect Calvin.But since Servetus did nothing but use rational argument to advance his attack on Calvin, Calvin should have defended himself with argument and logical reason.Castellio's criticism of Calvin cannot be doubted.Calvin was trying to prove that what he was doing supported a higher and more divine order.That, Castellio argued, was impossible, since there was no divine or Christian command to kill.Calvin appealed to the Law of Moses, which he declared commanded the destruction of the unbelievers by fire and sword.Castellio vehemently retorted: "I don't think so. How Calvin appealed to the law of Moses. I think he would destroy all the settlements, cattle and furniture in all the cities. If he could mobilize enough military forces, He will surely attack France and other countries which harbor what he considers heresy, and will surely raze their cities to the ground, and kill men, women, children, and even fetuses." Calvin declared in his defense , the whole of Christianity will perish, unless those whose duty it is to defend it are courageous enough to amputate the gangrenous limb.To this, Castellio replied: "The expulsion of unbelievers from the church is considered by the clergy. They are entitled to excommunicate heretics and excommunicate the church, but they have no right to execute them." No such intolerance is called for in the Gospels, nor is it ever called for in any moral treatise in the world. "As a last resort, dare you say that it was Jesus himself who taught you to burn your followers?" And Castellio snarled at Calvin, whose "hands were dripping with the blood of Servetus" , wrote such absurd self-defense.For, Calvin goes on to claim, he was compelled to burn Servetus in defense of doctrine, he was compelled to preserve the will of God; for, like all men who resort to violence, Calvin repeatedly tried to Justify violence by saying it has something to do with some self-interest.Now, like a flash of light in the darkest night of the century, Castellio offers the immortal words: "To burn a man alive is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man. We should not prove it by burning others." Our own beliefs should be ready to be burned at any moment, only for our beliefs." "To burn a man alive is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man." How true and clear this maxim is, how immortal and humane it is.In this brilliant remark, Castellio made the final decision and pronounced the verdict on the murderer of Servetus.You may be able to justify executing a person logically, ethically, ethnically or religiously, but you cannot obscure the personal responsibility of the executioner and abettor.There are always specific people who are responsible for bloodshed, and killing cannot be condoned by abstract philosophical maxims.Truth can be spread but not imposed.No doctrine is made more true by fanaticism; no truth is made truer by fanaticism.Nor can a doctrine or a truth be propagated by touting it, let alone make a doctrine or philosophy truer by killing those who conscientiously reject that "truth."Opinions and concepts are personal experiences and affairs, subordinate to no one but the individual who holds them.They cannot be trained and controlled.A truth may invoke the name of God a thousand times, may proclaim its own inviolability over and over again, but have no sanction for it to destroy the life of a man whom God has given.Life is more sacred than any dogma.Although, for Calvinism and sects, it seems to be a matter of course that corrupt people should perish for the sake of immortal ideas.Castellio argued that everyone who was tortured and slaughtered for his beliefs was an innocent victim.Coercion in spiritual matters is not only a crime against the spirit, but futile as well. "Let us force no one, for coercion does not make men better. Those who try to force others to accept the truth are as foolish as a man with a stick in his hand who puts food into the mouth of a sick man." The result, therefore, must be Crack down on dissent. "Deprive your officials at last of the power to use force or to persecute. Give every man the free use of tongue and pen (for, this is what St. Paul meant when he said, 'You may all prophesy...  ...you want to prophesy and forbid the tongue to speak'). You will soon learn what miracles liberty will perform once liberated from oppressive domination!" Facts reviewed, questions answered.Now, Sebastian Castellio sums it up and pronounces sentence in the name of outraged humanity.History sanctioned the verdict: a man named Miguel Servetus, seeker of God, "student of the Bible," was killed.Calvin was the accuser, the instigator of the trial; the City Council of Geneva, charged with actually carrying out the crime, mentally reviewed the case, and proved that the above-mentioned religious and earthly authorities had exceeded their respective jurisdictions. right.The municipal council has no power to pass judgment on a moral offense. Calvin's crime was greater, and he imposed the responsibility on the local authorities. "Influenced by your testimony and your accomplices, the city council has sentenced a man to death."But the City Council has no power to act in this matter, nor can it judge, any more than a blind man can distinguish colors. Calvin was guilty of two felonies: the crime of abetting and the crime of carrying out that heinous act. Whatever his motives for throwing the unfortunate Servetus into the flames, his conduct was heinous. "You put Servetus to death, or because Thinking what he said, or saying what he thought because he said it according to his inner convictions.If you killed him because he expressed what he believed in, you killed him because he told the truth, even if it was wrong, but it was true, he just said what he believed to be true.On the other hand, if you put him to death merely because his views were wrong, it is also your duty, before taking such a death sentence, to try to convince him of those views which you think are true; The Bible is enough to prove that you have no other choice but to order the death of all those who err, even though their error lies in their belief in the truth. ”加尔文没有正当的理由，就杀死了一个持异议者，这是犯了预谋杀人罪，三倍的杀人罪。 犯罪，犯罪，犯罪，好象号角三响，卡斯特利奥的判决向全世界公布了。人道这一最高的道德权威已经作出裁定。但是，身后的补课不能使死者复生。恢复一个已死者的名誉，又有什么用呢？不，现在最根本的是保护活着的人。给不人道的行为打上耻辱的烙印，这样才有可能防止无数同样的行为。不光是要宣布约翰·加尔文其人有罪，加尔文的书，充满了极其可怕的恐怖和高压的教义，必须宣布为不人道。卡斯特利奥责问他已作出宣判的那一个人说：“你难道没有看到你的书和你的行为将导向何处吗？很多人强调他们是在保卫上帝的荣誉，但今后要想屠杀人类的'上帝保卫者'将以你作为证明。他们将跟随你，走同样灾难的路。象你一样，他们将用血来玷污自己的双手。象你一样，他们将把那些持有与自己不同意见的人送上绞刑台。”“这并非是危险的、孤立的、狂热的个人，而是狂热主义的一种罪恶精神。有自由思想的人必须反抗的不仅是独裁主义者、教条主义者、矫在过正者和残忍的杀人狂，而且是任何求助于恐怖的思想。卡斯特利奥的话恰好是在持续一百年之久的宗教战争爆发之前，他的预言应验了。“通过你嗜血的祈祷，造成或将要造成那么多的鲜血，甚至那最残酷的使用大炮轰炸的专制暴君也望尘莫及——除非上帝对可怜的人类发慈悲，使君主们和其它统治者们看清真相而中断那血腥的勾当，那血还是要流。 " 即使象塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奥那样主张宽容的温和的宗教改革者，看到被迫害者和被追猎者的痛苦，也觉得已不可能保持漠不关心了，他感动得高声祈求上帝，绝望地祷告上帝赐尘世以更多的人道——就这样，我在引用过的这一对加尔文的批驳中，卡斯特利奥雷鸣般的吼声是对一切因狂热仇恨而成为和平破坏者的诅咒。他的书以庄严的祷告结尾：“这种臭名昭彰的宗教迫害在但尼尔时代早被摧毁。因为先知的敌人们对先知的作为无懈可击，为了通过他的信念对他加以攻击，他们凑在一起了。同样的事也在今天发生。当敌人的行为无懈可击时，人们就会以大棒对准敌人的“教义”。他们知道那些当权者，由于自己没有主张，很容易被人说服，因此，采取这样的策略是极端灵巧的。就这样，那些把“教义不可侵犯”喊得最响的总是那压迫弱者的人。呜呼，他们“神圣的教义”将是耶稣在最后审判日中厌恶地抛弃的。到其时，他将主持对行为的审判而不是对教义的审判。当他们对他说：“主啊，我们站在你的一边，按照你的指示办事。 ”他将回答说：“去你们的，你们这些罪大恶极的人！ "