LEGACY OF SERVETUS:
Humanism and the Beginning of Change
in the Social Paradigm: From Servetus to Thomas Jefferson
Hillar. Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies,
Member of the Michael Servetus Institute
Servetus occupies a unique place in the annals of European history.
He was a lonely scholar and a bold mind who brought together what
was best in the cultural renewal of the Renaissance and in the attempt
at the moral renewal programmed by those later described as Radical
Reformers. He discovered through the study of the Bible, which was
made possible by the Reformation trends, that its truth contrasted
with official Christian practice and official doctrinal formulations.
He saw that Christianity was corrupt morally and ideologically,
and, inspired by the rising spirit of the reform, he envisioned
a plan to restore Christianity to its original simplicity and integrity
as suggested by the Erasmus.
the title of his major work Restoration of Christianity is reminiscent
of the proposal by Erasmus (1466-1536) which was based on three
major premises as explained by Hans R. Guggisberg : Erasmus postulated
1. studying the original texts of the Gospels, the first apostolic
writings, and the first Christian theologians still operating in
the Greco-Roman social paradigm as the source of religious assertions;
2. that sophisticated theological speculations should be abandoned;
3. that this was necessary in order to reduce the religious beliefs
to a small number of fundamental and essential doctrines.
Erasmus satisfied his interests with philological studies and made
no effort at reforming the old system of thought, Servetus, in the
realm of intellectual inquiry, demanded a radical reevaluation of
the entire ideological religious system of assertions and dogmas
imposed on Western Europe since the fourth century. Servetus's theological
inquiry initiated the study of scriptural tradition in an attempt
to uncover the real religious doctrines contained in it. In the
process he developed a new more humane religion and a new understanding
of divinity and divine matters closer to the realities of the human
condition. This was one of his two major legacies as categorized
by Prof. Alcalá. The other legacy concerns the function of
society at the moral level. Servetus realized the full potential
of human nature, capabilities, and rationality. Thus he demanded
freedom of intellectual inquiry, thought, conscience, and expression
that was denied to millions on doctrinal theological grounds. By
his sacrifice Servetus set into motion a process of change in the
entire social paradigm and recovery of the right to freedom of conscience.
of an ecclesiastical paradigm.
Servetus’s role as the central figure in history who initiated
the process of recovering the social humanistic paradigm becomes
obvious if we put it in a historical perspective. Greco-Roman pre-Christian
society enjoyed toleration, freedom of religion, of conscience,
and of thought. The ancient western world did not have a concept
of "heresy" or "heretic." Greco-Roman society
tolerated all religions and did not impose restrictions on free
thought. Acts of intolerance were rare, and if they occurred, they
were never justified by deviations from one doctrine or another.
This was due to the lack of a state religion and state sanctioned
theological doctrine though the people and the centers of power
were highly religious.
All this was dramatically changed with the advent of state supported
Christianity. Ever since the fourth century Christianity became
an institution of organized clergy and was fused with the political
power in the Roman Empire and later in the rest of Western Europe.
Christianity triumphed only because it evolved into a rigid, totalitarian
The Emperors Valentinian II and Theodosius I established on February
28, 380, the Christian religion of the Roman pontiff as obligatory
in the Empire declaring those who would not embrace it “demented
and insane,” and therefore, “shall be smitten first
by divine vengeance and second by the retribution of Our own initiative,
which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment”
(Codex. Theodosius 16.1.2). This decree may be considered an official
declaration of the first forced adherence to a state religion and
the official initiation of persecutions for the convictions of conscience.
In a short span of time Christian emperors accomplished the elimination
of free thought and the imposition of a totalitarian theocratic
system so that they could congratulate themselves in 423 on a job
regulations of constitutions formerly promulgated shall suppress
any pagans who survive, although We now believe that there are none
[left] (Cod. Theod. 16.10.22).
Constantine the Great who issued an edict against them already on
September 1, 326, persecuted “heretics” and schismatics
from the beginning. The fundamental principle on which the persecution
was based was deviation from the official state religion. Heresy
was considered "a public crime, since whatever is committed
against divine religion amounts to the detriment of all" (Cod.
Theod. 16.5.38-39). The definition of a "heretic" left
no doubt that a theocratic society could not tolerate any free thought:
persons who may be discovered to deviate, even in a minor point
of doctrine, from the tenets and path of the Catholic religion are
included under the designation of heretics and must be subject to
the sanctions which have been issued against them (Arcadius and
Honorius, September 3, 395; Cod. Theod. 16.5.28).
In the sixth century Emperor Justinian incorporated explicitly the
Catholic creed, including the doctrine of the Trinity, into Roman
state law. Chapter 1 of Book I, entitled De Trinitate et Fide catholica,
confirms establishing the Catholic faith as the official state religion
and forbids any critical thought under penalty of being burned at
the stake. Justinian defines faith in the Trinity in terms of the
Nicaean creed ("trinitatem consubstantialem"), and ordains
that any deviation from it should be punished as well as any so-called
heretical views. It is interesting too, that the law promulgated
in 413 declares the death penalty for the crime of rebaptism.
Thus in the fourth century a switch took place in the social paradigm,
if we may borrow the concept from the history of science, from the
humanistic principles of ancient morality to the new ecclesiastical
one. The social paradigm can be defined as an entire constellation
of beliefs, values, and worldview which is shared by the community
and has a normative character. Initially it was imposed forcefully
by the emperor and formulated by the clergy; later it became a tradition
established by a system of laws (state and ecclesiastical), theological
doctrines (e.g., the doctrines of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas),
and its preservation was scrupulously supervised by the ecclesiastical
authority, institutions (e.g., infant baptism, canon law), and courts
The Reformation arose in the sixteenth century aiming at correcting
financial abuses of the ecclesiastical institution and a competition
for political power by local centers. It brought also new trends:
the assertion of individual, personal experience as a basis for
religion, and an emphasis on biblical studies. It also underscored
the need for tolerance, at least in the initial phase, for its own
survival. Unfortunately, as soon as the “reformed” churches
gained independence they, too, quickly became as intolerant as the
old Roman church and ossified into the old dogmatic tradition. There
were a few leaders of liberal religious thought who opposed the
moral corruption and power of the popes and the clergy, though any
real investigation of the accepted dogmatic assertions was persecuted
by both Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. Protestants accepted
the theological arguments of the Catholic Church for the persecution
of those who differed in their views based on the Hebrew laws expressed
in the book of Deuteronomy. The so-called heretics, apostates, and
non-believers were considered sinners of the highest degree and
their punishment was justified by a wide range of arguments ranging
from the political necessity of maintaining the unity of the church
and state to the vindication of God’s honor.
implementation in practice of the persecution of the so-called heretics
depended on the actual political situation in a given country or
state. The general rule was “cuius regio eius religio”
which replaced the Catholic Church monopoly. The persecution continued
until the rulers liberated themselves from the domination of the
clergy and realized that they had to separate the matters of religion
from the practical task of running a country or state. They realized
that religious pluralism was not only not dangerous to the state
but, on the contrary, brought significant advantages. This change
in politics coincided on the pragmatic level with a change in the
type of argumentation for tolerance and religious freedom from the
biblico-theological to the economically and politically oriented
secular ones. This was achieved with the help of writings produced
by members of a Unitarian-type church known in Western Europe as
the Socinians, who prepared the intellectual environment with their
only reformers who defended religious freedom were the members of
the Radical Reformation movement who argued for tolerance mostly
on the political level of religious minorities. Anabaptists rejected
infant baptism, the oath, a paid ministry, legal suits, military
service, and a union of church and state. They were regarded as
menace to society – ecclesiastical and political – and
were banished on penalty of death. They were convinced that a worldly
authority does not have power over the religion of its subjects
and if they are to be brought to consensus this should be done only
with spiritual means. Such a view was postulated by a baptist scholar,
Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528). He wrote the treatise, Concerning
Heretics and Those Who Burn Them (1524), defending the complete
freedom of religion. He argued that the Gospel precludes coercion
and claimed that the state has no jurisdiction in religious matters.
He extended liberty even to law abiding atheists, "It is well
and good that the secular authority puts to death the criminals
who do physical harm to the defenseless, Romans 13. But no one may
injure the atheist who wishes nothing for himself other than to
forsake the gospel." Another prominent representative of the
Radical Reformation was Sebastian Franck (1499-1542), a German independent
preacher and spiritualist who, for the first time, expressed the
idea that only God knows who the heretic is, and who granted everybody
universal tolerance, even to the unbelievers.
Case of Servetus
The pivotal event in the history of Europe which brought to the
fore the absurdity and moral turpitude of the whole ecclesiastical
paradigm was the case of our lonely scholar. It does not mean that
there were no voices even before the Reformation arguing for religious
tolerance. For the early humanists the model of argumentation was
the Erasmian hope for a religious consensus based on the reduction
of theological assertions to an essential minimum.
Servetus’s role, however, is unique because of the depth of
his humanism and historical circumstances of his martyrdom.
was sought by the Catholic Inquisition ever since the publication
of his De Trinitatis erroribus in 1531, but he was able to evade
capture by disguising his identity under the assumed name of Michaelis
Villanovanus, and refraining from publicly expressing his ideas.
Calvin, however, upon learning about the book Christianismi restitutio,
which Servetus undertook to publish secretly in 1553, designed an
intricate scheme to condemn Servetus and denounce him to the Catholic
Inquisition in Vienne. Servetus managed to escape from prison, but
was tried and condemned in absentia on June 17, 1553. The list of
charges was as follows: "the crime of scandalous heresy, dogmatization;
elaboration of new doctrines, publication of heretical books; sedition;
schism and disturbance of unity and tranquility by public rebellion;
disobedience against the decree concerning heresies; breaking out
and escaping from the royal prison."
Calvin himself, being a "heretic" by Catholic standards,
strongly supported capital punishment for those who deviated from
imposed doctrines -- his own doctrines in the region under his control.
He later defended the punishment of Servetus in his Defensio orthodoxae
fidei (Geneva 1554) where he attacked freedom of conscience and
justified the right to condemn to death the so-called heretic based
on his own doctrine of persecution “by the mandate of God.”
Calvin's doctrine is representative not only of his own views; he
was a spokesman for the entire Catholic and Protestant Christianity
as well. His arguments to justify this conclusion were derived from
the Old Testament and ran against the spirit and letter of the New
When Servetus showed up in Geneva in August of 1553, Calvin seized
the moment to realize his promise of February 13, 1546, not to let
him leave Geneva. The arrest was made at the explicit demand of
Calvin who admitted it in several documents. The whole trial in
Geneva and its procedure were orchestrated by Calvin who, as leader
of the church, was considered superior to everyone except God (which
is attested by his biographer Théodore de Bèze). Moreover,
Calvin was motivated by his own Christian thinking. The supporters
of Calvin take this fact as an excuse for his action. They say Calvin
was doing only what the whole of Christianity approved: "Unanimously,
all the churches of Switzerland replied: 'Servetus ought to be condemned
to death.'" The law under which Servetus was condemned was
the Codex of Justinian that prescribed the death penalty for the
denial of the Trinity and the repetition of baptism. The sentence
was carried out immediately on October 27, 1553.
Servetus placed great value on human natural spontaneity, reason,
and capability to do good works, and through this he emphasized
human dignity and autonomy in moral decisions. Catholics could not
agree with him because he eliminated the role of the church and
the papacy for justification and salvation, and Protestants disagreed
with his concept of faith and accepting the works of love. Though
he states that faith is first a precondition of secondary grace,
he confirms that love is the greatest and supports this statement
with several arguments. "Faith then, to conclude, if considered
in its pure and essential property, does not contain such perfection
as love ... Love is superior to everything ... durable, sublime,
more resembling God, and closer to the perfection of the future
age." Even faith now from the act of mental assent to the credible
propositions became an act of will, and is "a creative act
of the soul." Luther, Calvin, and other reformers denied man
any spontaneity and moral impulse.
Human nature cannot be depraved, condemned, utterly corrupt, and
helpless, claimed Servetus in opposition to the reformers and Catholics.
There is no inherent necessity for sin in man, no state of sin and
depravity. Though Servetus justified this state by constant communication
with God through God's innate Spirit and inner light, he believed
that we have knowledge of good and evil, and that we act with a
free will. Sin thus becomes qualified, conditioned by historical,
cultural and personal factors. And from this Servetus was able to
deduce a universal and humanistic moral principle:
righteousness is to give everyone what is his: that is, to help
everybody in need and harm nobody; to do what conscience and natural
reason dictate so that whatever you want others to do to you,
do to others. In such righteousness ... nations are justified
and saved, including the Jews.
Thus, all nations and peoples are taught from nature. Israelites
were capable of righteousness through the Law and all other people
through an inner natural light. Servetus granted all men dignity
and recognized equal endowment in their ability to recognize good
Servetus was the first Christian thinker in modern times who
proclaimed in clear terms the right of every individual to follow
his own conscience and express his own convictions. He was the first
to express an idea that it was a crime to persecute and kill for
ideas. His argument was rational based on a humanistic
principle of morality:
with those nor with others I am in agreement in everything, because
all seem to me partly right and partly in error. Moreover, everyone
sees the error of the other, but nobody sees his own ….
It would be easy to distinguish all this if in the church all
people would be allowed to speak by contending in a prophetic
Servetus clearly stated that persecution and killing for ideas is
contrary to the teaching of the apostles and the original church
doctrine. In a letter already in 1531, to Iohannes Oecolampadius
(Johan Hausschein), leader of the Reformation in Basel, Servetus
you find me in error in one point you should not on that account
condemn me in all, for according to this there is no mortal who
would not be burned a thousand times …. The greatest of
the apostles were sometimes in error. Even though you see Luther
erring egregiously on some points you do not condemn him in the
rest …. Such is human frailty that we condemn the spirits
of others as impostors and impious and except our own, for no
one recognizes his own errors … I beg you, for God’s
sake, spare my name and fame … You say that I want all to
be robbers and that I will not suffer any to be punished and killed.
I call almighty God to witness that this is not my opinion and
I detest it, but if ever I said anything it is that I consider
it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some
question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that the very
elect may be led astray.
This assertion of Servetus was later fully elaborated by Sebastian
Castellio in his famous defense of Servetus and condemnation of
Calvin, Contra libellum Calvini (1554):
kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man. When
the Genevans killed Servetus they did not defend a doctrine, they
killed a man. The defense of a doctrine is not the matter to be
resolved by the judges, it is an issue only to be solved by teachers.
What has the sword to do with the matter of teaching?
a letter to judges in Geneva dated August 22, 1553, Servetus defended
the right to freedom of conscience and expression. He accused the
court of instituting "a new invention unknown to the apostles,
to their disciples, and the ancient church of initiating criminal
procedure for the doctrines of the Scripture or for the theological
themes derived from it." Even the Arians in the time of Constantine
the Great were not handed over to civilian tribunals in accordance
with the ancient doctrine, but the church alone decided such questions
and the only possible punishment for "heresy" was banishment.
Such a punishment was always used against heretics in the primitive
church. On the basis of these precedents he demanded to be set free
from the criminal accusations.
Servetus’s struggle for freedom of conscience was a part of
his program for the restoration of Christianity and one of the “heresies”
for which he was condemned. Servetus attempted to discuss the issue
with Calvin in one of his letters to Calvin sent with Christianismi
restitutio. He approaches a problematic subject in his time and
rhetorically asks himself whether it is permissible for the Christian
to fulfill the duties of a magistrate or to be a king, or to kill.
And Servetus answers to himself that: “While there is the
world, regardless whether we want it or not, we have to preserve
the worldly order, especially the one which is safeguarded by the
administration of justice.” And he admits the death penalty
for some especially malicious crimes, but categorically rejects
such a penalty for schism or heresy:
other crimes … we have to expect corrections by using other
types of punishments and not by killing. Among those we prefer
exile … as well as excommunication by the church which was
used initially when there still were preserved traces of the apostolic
tradition and with which schisms and heresies were punished.
in movement a process of change in the social paradigm
Just like in science where the accumulation of new data and scientific
facts makes it necessary to reevaluate the old paradigm and establish
a new one, so personal sacrifice of a pious scholar became a turning
point inducing thinking people to rethink the morality of the prevailing
church ideology and mental framework of how religion and society
treated the issue of intellectual inquiry and its repression.
The idea of punishing "heretics" was so pervasive in the
society that it did not occur even to most thinking Protestants
that the whole concept of repression of thought was evil and against
the spirit, and the letter, of the Gospels. No Protestant religious
leader was against the punishment of heretics in general. Even Sebastian
Castellio, recognized champion of rational tolerance and a precursor
of the French Revolution and the Déclaration des Droits
de l'Homme, could not avoid these contradictions. Only later
did he develop, through the experience of the fraternal religious
war in France, the concept of mutual toleration and freedom of conscience.
Though he still recognized the scripture as the source of valid
statements, the concept of “liberum arbitrium”
became the foundation of human rationality and natural moral principle.
The trap of contradictions and theocratic mentality were so pervading
that even in the eighteenth century Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote
in 1762 in his Contrat social, that in the future ideal
state, one who did not believe in the religious truths decreed by
the legislator should be banished from the state or even, one who,
after having recognized them, would cease to believe should be punished
A month after the publication of Calvin's Defensio there
appeared in Basel an anonymous, eloquent pamphlet against intolerance
entitled De haereticis, an sint persequendi... A few weeks
later there appeared a French translation of this treatise entitled
Tracté des hérétiques, a savoir, si on
les doit persecuter, etc. This treatise was later translated
into German and Dutch (1620, 1663), and English (1935). The book
contained extracts promoting toleration taken from the writings
of some twenty five Christian writers, ancient and modern, including
Luther and Calvin himself and was authored by Castellio, perhaps
with some collaboration from Laelius Socinus and Celio Secondo Curione.
Castellio wrote also a rebuttal to Calvin’s Defensio,
in the already mentioned Contra libellum Calvini.
The movement for tolerance grew out of the influence of Castellio
and his associates in Basel. Servetus's martyrdom gave a stimulus
to the rise of religious toleration as a general policy, as a moral
principle. But the process was very slow and lasted for several
centuries before the switch in paradigm could take place.
The figure of Servetus stands out at the beginning of the movement.
In the later phase Castellio deserves more ample recognition than
he received. He continued to point out that most important is the
principle of absolute tolerance of differing views. This position
was an outgrowth of an entirely new concept of religion initiated
by Servetus as centered not in dogma but in life and character.
It is the very essence of this kind of religion to regard freedom
and reason not as incidental but as fundamental conditions of a
thoroughly wholesome existence of religion.
Servetus’s legacy was first spread by the Italian humanists
and reformers Francesco Stancaro, Giorgio Biandrata, Gianpaolo Alciati,
Valentino Gentile, Bernardino Ochino, and Lelio and Fausto Sozzini
in Poland and Transylvania, and led to the development of the Antitrinitarian
or Unitarian movement represented by the Unitarians of Transylvania
and the Socinians of Poland. In Poland they were known as the Minor
Church or Polish Brethren. After their expulsion from Poland they
developed into the Unitarian movement in England and America. Socinians
were the first who demanded and fully understood the moral imperative
of the complete separation of church and state. Such ideas were
developed by Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), John Crell (1590-1633),
Christopher Ostorodt (d. ca 1611), Andrew Wojdowski (1565-1622),
John Sachs (1641-1671), and particularly by Samuel Przypkowski (1592-1670)
and Jonasz Szlichtyng (1592-1661). They published numerous treatises
in Poland and in Holland and defended their rights against the machinations
of Jesuits who eventually succeeded in the destruction of the Reformation
for example, argued in six points in a pamphlet entitled Brotherly
Declaration (1646), the importance of guaranteeing freedom
of conscience: 1. It is a fundamental right on which is based the
integrity and freedom of the republic; 2. It is a foundation of
the unity of the republic composed of many ethnic and religious
groups; 3. It is a foundation of the social equality of citizens;
4. it is a foundation of all civil liberties; 5. It is a guardian
against religious and ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 6. It is the
highest law. Przypkowski, still in another treatise, On the Law
of the Christian Magistrate and Private Person in War and Peace
(1650), and Szlichtyng in Apology for the Truth (1654),
developed a complete modern and secular doctrine of the separation
of church and state.
Moral, social, and political doctrines of the Socinians eventually
led to the development of the Enlightenment. Their ideas were perfected,
extended and popularized by writings of philosophers John Locke
(1632-1704), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), Voltaire (1694-1778), and
David Hume (1711-1776). The arguments used by John Locke in his
famous four Letters on Toleration, published in Holland
between 1683 and 1689, coincide with those used by the Polish philosophers.
Locke possessed in his library a complete set of Socinian works
and certainly read them. He presented a detailed analysis of toleration
and church-state relations from a political point of view, obviously
suitable for the circumstances in England. A severe weakness of
Locke’s statements in which he contradicted himself, as well
of some statements of the Polish Brethren, was the exclusion of
atheists from religious liberty. Pierre Bayle made numerous references
to the Socinians and introduced one more element for the change
of the social paradigm: namely, he was the first in the Christian
world who argued for the separation of ethics and morality from
religion. He also defended atheism on a rational basis.
The ideas of John Locke were transplanted directly to the American
continent by James Madison (1751-1836) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
who implemented them for the first time in American legislation.
They were philosopher-statesmen who shared a strong conviction of
absolute freedom of conscience and distrusted any kind of established
ecclesiastical institution. Their conviction was that the established
churches create only “ignorance and corruption” and
introduce the “diabolic principle of persecution.” The
exercise of religion should be completely separated from government.
Toleration was not enough; only absolute freedom could be acceptable.
For them democracy was the best guarantee of religious freedom.
It was an institution that erected a “wall of separation”
between church and state, and protected the liberties of minority
groups against the imposition of majority views. Both were broadly
educated and Jefferson had a keen interest in studying religions,
especially Servetus and the Socinians.
the religious realm I will signal a few consequences and results
of the seminal thoughts of Servetus. Today biblical scholars confirm
the discovery of Servetus and his universal understanding of the
divinity which breaks with tribal or ecclesiastical particularism.
Philosophers and religious scholars develop further Servetain understanding
of the divinity which manifests itself and evolves in a historical
process in the new concepts of process theology. However, others
reject the ontological concept of divinity but recognize the importance
of human values and make them the center of a new “religion,”
a religion of the “highest values” as the one propounded
by a Polish philosopher of religion, Stanislaw Cieniawa.
these intellectual ideas and movements can flourish only in the
environment of unhindered and free exercise of inquiry.
From a historical perspective, Servetus died in order that freedom
of conscience could become a civil right of the individual in modern
1. Hans R. Guggisberg, “Wandel der Argumente für religiose
Toleranz und Glabensfreiheit in 16. and 17. Jahrhundert.”
In Michael Erbe, ed., Querdenken Dissens und Toleranz im Wandel
der Geschichte. Festschrift zum 65 Geburstag von Hans R. Guggisberg,
(Manheim: Palatin, 1996). P. 139.
Ángel Alcalá, “Los dos grandes legados de Servet:
el radicalismo como método intelectual y el derecho a la
libertad de conciencia.” En Turia, Revista Cultural, No 63-64,
(2003), pp. 221-242.
Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (1511-1553) - The Turning
Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience (Lewiston, N.Y;
Lampeter, U.K.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997), pp. 13-180. The Theodosian
Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. (New York: Greenwood
Press, Publishers, 1952).
Corpus Iuris Civilis. Editio stereotypa sexta. Volumen secundum.
"Codex Iustinianus." Recognovit Paulus Krueger. (Berolini:
Apud Weidmannos, 1895).
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 175.
. M. Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus, op. cit., chapters 4,
5, pp. 137-180.
Roland Bainton, Here I Stand. A Life of Martin Luther, (New York,
Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1940s).
Alan Eyre, The Protesters, (Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 1975,
1985). Alan Eyre, Brethren in Christ. A Stirring Record of Faithful
Believers of the Truth During the 16th and 17th Centuries, (Torrens
Park, Australia: Christadelphian Scripture StudyService, 1982).
H. R. Guggisberg, op. cit., p. 140. William R. Estep, ed., Anabaptist
Beginnings, 1523-1533: A Sourcebook, (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976).
Balthasar Hubmaier, Balthasar Hubmaier Theologian of Anabaptism,
translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, (Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald Press, 1989).
Sebastian Franck, Chronica, [Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibell von anbegyn
bis in dis gegenwertig 1536 jar verlegt. Reprograf. Nachdr. d. Orig.-Ausg.
Ulm 1536]. Reprinted, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchges., 1969.
Originally published in 1531 in Strassburg.
For example the writings of Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499); Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494); or Nicholas of Cusa (1400-1464);
Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la Tolérance au siècle
de la Réforme ; (Paris: Aubier, 1955), 2 Vols.
Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. (1870; reprint New York,
London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, and Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva
G.m.b.H:, 1964) Vol. VIII. p. 752.
Defensio orthodoxae fidei in Calvini, Opera, op. cit., Vol. VIII,
Ibid. pp. 478-479.
Ibid. pp. 462, 479.
Doumergue, Émile, Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de
son temps. (Lausanne, Paris: 1899-1927; Slatkine Reprints: Genève,
1969), Vol. VI, p. 351.
17. Christianismi restitutio, 350-354.
18. Ibid. 631.
Ibid. 623-624, 635, 733.
De Iusticia, a tractate added to Servetus’s Dialogorum de
Trinitate libri duo, F7a-7b, 1531). Reprinted by G.m.b.H., Frankfurt
a. Mein, 1965.
Letter to Aecolampadius in Calvini, Opera, op. cit., Vol. IX, 861-862.
Sébastien Castellion, Contra libellum Calvini, Vaticanus
77 (Amsterdam, 1612).
Letter to the judges in Geneva of August 22, 1553. In Calvini, Opera,
op. cit., Vol. VIII. 762-763.
Miguel Servet, Treinta cartas a Calvino, traducción de Ángel
Alcalá, (Madrid: Editorial Castalia, 1981), carta XXVII,
Thomas S. Kuhn, op. cit., p. 175.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Oeuvres immortelles du contrat social. Du
Contrat social ou principes du droit politique. (Genève:
Consant Bourquin, Éditeur, 1947). p.370.
Sébastien Castellion, Traité des hérétiques,
a savoir, si on les doit persecuter, et comment on se doit conduire
avec eux, selon l’avis, opinion, et sentence de plusieurs
auteurs, tant anciens, que modernes. (1554; Édition nouvelle
publiée par A. Olivet, préface par E. Choisy; Genève:
A. Julien, Libraire-Éditeur, 1913).
Bainton, Roland H., Concerning heretics; whether they are to be
persecuted and how they are to be treated; a collection of the opinions
of learned men, both ancient and modern; an anonymous work attributed
to Sebastian Castellio now first done into English, together with
excerpts from other works of Sebastian Castellio and David Joris
on religious liberty by Roland H. Bainton. (New York: Columbia University
Hillar, M.,”From the Polish Socinians to the American Constitution,”
A Journal from the Radical Reformation. A Testimony to Biblical
Unitarianism, 1994, no. 3, pp. 44-51.
31. Marian Hillar with Claire S. Allen, Michael Servetus: Intellectual
Giant, Humanist, and Martyr (Lanham, New York, Oxford: University
Press of America, 2002), p. 257. Hillar, “From the Polish
Socinians,” op. cit.
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God (New York: Baker Book House, 1972).
Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity.
Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (San Francisco, London,
Bethesda: International Scholars Publications, 1999). Karl-Josef
Kuschel, Born Before All Time.
M. Hillar, “Process Theology and Process Thought in the Writings
of Michael Servetus,” paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, October 24-27, 2002,
San Antonio, TX.
Stanislaw Cieniawa, “The Plurality of Confessions and one
Religion,” in Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, (Houston,
Humanists of Houston, 2003), pp. 13-20.