Three Christianities: Calvin, Servetus, Swedenborg
Introduction
To many Christian scholars, the history of theology appears an ever-progressive tale of refinement and improvement on humanity’s understanding of itself, creation, and the Divine. To many among the laity, however, who strive to lead a good life under simple belief in the plain teachings of the Bible, the now-traditional Christian constructs regarding Sin, Salvation, the Trinity, and the Word are sometimes meaningless, often mind-boggling, and generally a test of simple faith when not outright ignored. Scholars working from the New Christian perspective see the history of theology differently. Rather than steady evolution, history shows a regular decay and growing obscurity, punctuated by the occasional bright light. Most such bright lights, Origen and Tertullian, for example, though they brought some clarity to some ideas of God, Humanity, Creation and the relationships among them, were imperfect and—what is worse—almost universally misunderstood or misinterpreted by succeeding generations. Other such bright lights suffered a fate worse than misunderstanding: their work has been suppressed and often their very lives brutally terminated. One such is Michael Servetus.
In the modern era, a slow revival of interest in Servetus and his work has begun. In 1903 a tiny monument to Servetus was erected by the Geneva City Council, and a larger one four miles outside of Geneva was set up in 1908. In 1932 the first and, so far, only English translation of his first two works on the trinity was published. (His final, crowning work, Christianismi Restitutio, has yet to be fully translated into English, although Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and German versions are now extant.) Modern Socinians, Unitarians and some Pentecostals look to him as a spiritual forefather, a number of humanist and anti-Calvinist thinkers have made a small icon of him, and at least one liberal Islamic scholar has found common cause with his rejection of the traditional idea of Trinity. Much more recently, though, things have accelerated. In 2002 his birth home in Villanueva di Sijena was dedicated as a museum to his life and work, and this past March saw the establishment of the Servetus International Society (servetus.org). Just over the past few weeks, a number of conferences and events have commemorated the 450th anniversary of his martyrdom. There now even exists a book of popular history (Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone’s 2002 Out of the Flames) that not only condemns Jean Calvin’s execution of Servetus, but also praises Servetus while tracing the influence of his Christianismi Restitutio on historic thought-leaders such as Leibniz and Jefferson.
New Christians and Swedenborgians in general have been intensely interested in the theology and person of Michael Servetus for at least a century. This interest is in part due to some obvious parallels between the lives of Servetus and of Emanuel Swedenborg, each of whom stood against traditional Christian orthodoxy from the scientist-philosopher’s stance of rational theology. More particularly, though, we are intrigued by the striking similarities between Servetus’ ideas concerning the Trinity, scriptural exegesis, and regeneration and those in the theological writings of Swedenborg. Near the beginning of his Michael Servetus: His Life and Teachings, Carl Theophilus Odhner places Servetus within the New Christian framework of history with typical boldness:
And the last and greatest of all was Michael Servetus, through whom the Lord of the Church extended an opportunity for the Reformation to become not only a Reform but an actual Restoration of the Christian Church. But this opportunity was rejected, like all the preceding offers of salvation. (p. 10)
Not all Swedenborgians conclude that the Last Judgement of 1757-1758 need not have taken place, of course, while still finding the "Swedenborgianism" of Servetus’ work fascinating.
Given the above-noted growing interest in Michael Servetus, it seems timely that there be written an aid to future examinations of Servetus’ theology by New Christians, of New Christian theology by students of Servetus, and of both systems by those more familiar with the mainstream Reformation theology that martyred Servetus and was called the Great Red Dragon throughout the Writings of the New Church. This small work is, however, only a humble gesture toward a more definitive form of such an aid.
Doctrines Compared
Here follows a brief comparison of the theologies described in Jean Calvin's Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion, especially the final, 1559 edition), Michael Servetus’ Christianismi Restitutio, (Restoration of Christianity, 1552), and Emanuel Swedenborg’s Vera Christiana Religio (True Christian Religion, 1771), among other works by these authors’ pens. This is not the comprehensive study that is truly called for, but a brief examination of the differences and similarities in each work’s respective doctrines concerning (a) revelation, (b) Divinity, (c) salvation, and (d) the sacraments.
Revelation
Regarding the issue of Divine revelation, all three works agree on the holiness and inspiration of the Bible (RC 137; ICR 1.6.2; TCR 189; et al.), though diverge as to the nature of that holiness. Interestingly, all three do agree in essence that the right understanding of the Bible is not possible without some outside element.
Calvin rejects both human intelligence and church tradition as valid arbiters and interpreters of scripture, but claims "Scripture must be confirmed by the witness of the Spirit." (ICR 1.7.4) Note, "confirmed" is not "interpreted". Scripture to Calvin is not in need of any interpreter other than itself. (ICR 1.8.5)
Servetus, however, says that the Bible has a twofold nature, with a less apparent, inner meaning that must be sought out in the literal meaning. (RC 673) He also describes Scripture as a shadow:
For in every shadow there is at the same time a certain image. And thus in the shadow of the Old Testament dispensation there is contained the shadow-image of Christ. Nor is the shadow any absolute darkness but only a diminished light. (RC 202)
The Old Testament was written as a "shadow" in part because the Jewish Church was led to act and worship in a representative manner "not for the sake of the Jews, who did not understand these things," but for modern Christian readers of the Bible. (RC 482)
True Christian Religion agrees in essence but differs in detail. The Word is written with an internal sense, (TCR 193) but that sense itself is multi-layered, producing a tri-fold Word. (TCR 195) The Israelitish Church did worship by means of representatives for the sake of (among other things, q.v. TCR 234-247, 267-276) an inner meaning which they themselves did not comprehend, but that inner meaning was not principally for the sake of the original Christian Church. (TCR 206) Rather, in order to correct the heresies and profanations built up by Christian tradition and to establish a new dispensation, (TCR 761) this internal sense was specifically revealed through Swedenborg in the eighteenth century. (TCR 780)
With regard to the representational nature of the Israelitish Church, Calvin responds to Servetus (and, posthumously, to the New Church), that:
Indeed, that wonderful rascal Servetus and certain madmen of the Anabaptist sect...regard the Israelites as nothing but a herd of swine.... (ICR 2.10.1)
On those who emulate Calvin’s own persistence in seeing only the external meaning in Scripture, True Christian Religion counters:
...[T]he Word is written by pure correspondences; consequently many things in it are appearances of truth, and not unveiled truths. ...All the heresies, both past and present, in the Christian world have arisen because men have taken appearances of truth for genuine truths, and have confirmed them. (TCR 254)
Most of the differences to follow in this discussion rest upon this basic difference regarding the nature of revelation.
Divinity
Calvin subscribes to the well-established traditional Christian understanding of God as a Trinity of Persons, and defends the ground vigorously:
Now, although the heretics rail at the word "person," or certain squeamish men cry out against admitting a term fashioned by the human mind, they cannot shake our conviction that three are spoken of, each of which is entirely God, yet that there is not more than one God. (ICR 1.13.3)
While the lack of specific scriptural use of the term "person" is one of the most common arguments of anti-trinitarians, it is not the only one. True Christian Religion, in particular, argues that the idea of three persons who are each God and together are one God is an impossible thought and only results in an inner belief in three Gods with an outer confession of one, and thus of no real idea of God at all. (TCR 173) Taking a more purely Scriptural approach, Servetus notes that the seeming contradiction between the Gospel’s command to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) and the apostolic instruction to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38) actually indicates that the three are themselves in the one, who is Christ. (RC 24)
Interestingly, all three works point to early struggles with heresy as the source of the doctrine of three persons. Calvin says that the idea of three persons is found within Scripture itself, but was specifically formulated and described using the term "persons" in response to the Arian attack on the divinity of Christ (ICR 1.13.4). Servetus agrees—in part. To him, the idea of three persons was not just a response to the Arian heresy, but the whole episode was "an invention of Satan to alienate mankind from a knowledge of the true Christ". (RC 22) True Christian Religion agrees, too, that the Arian doctrine was heretical and that a response was necessary, but sides with Servetus in asserting that the response itself was in grave error, and further states that most all subsequent heresies were merely a result therefrom. (TCR 174, 177)
In opposition to Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity, Servetus asserts that Christ is God, (RC 16) and the only person or hypostasis of God. (RC 74) True Christian Religion explains that there is a Trinity, but of "essentials" (essentia): soul, body and operation, just as every one of us is triune as well. (TCR 166ff) Servetus, though, says that "The soul of Christ is God; the body of Christ is God; the spirit of Christ is God; and therefore the whole of Christ is God." (RC 231) Note that this does compare favorably with True Christian Religion's statement that "God is one, in whom is the Divine Trinity, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ." (TCR 3)
Far more could be said on the Servetian, Swedenborgian, and Calvinist conceptions of the Trinity. At the same time, far more has been said elsewhere, and this short piece is meant only as an introduction. For now, let us move on to the next theological category.
Salvation
Given the serious differences noted above regarding the nature of the Divinity, it is not remotely surprising that there should also be extreme differences regarding salvation.
One of the core issues is that of free will. Calvin is famously (though not uniquely) opposed to the idea:
...[W]hen man has been taught that no good thing remains in his power, and that he is hedged about on all sides by most miserable necessity, in spite of this he should nevertheless be instructed to aspire to a good of which he is empty, to a freedom of which he has been deprived. (ICR 2.2.1)
Compare this to the New Christian statement of faith:
Evil actions ought not to be done, because they are of the devil and from the devil. ...Good actions ought to be done, because they are of God and from God. ...Moreover these things ought to be done by man as of himself; but he should believe that they are from the Lord acting with him and through him. (TCR 3)
While there is a seeming harmony between these two positions at first glance, they are nevertheless not in true agreement when fully understood. Calvin throughout asserts that since Adam’s fall there has been no free will at all (ICR 1.15.8, 2.3.12, 3.23.7, et al.), and further that the very idea takes away from the honor of God. (2.2.10)
True Christian Religion, however, insists that the very definition of "humanness" is having the faculty of rationality with which to discern truth from falsity coupled with the freedom to will good or evil. (cf. TCR 621) More particularly, not only was humanity given free will from creation (TCR 469), but that our free will is still maintained to this day and always shall be. (TCR 475ff). Further, it explains that without free will, there would be no use for the Word, there would be no means of conjoining humanity with God, and God would be the cause of evil. (TCR 483-492) Calvin, of course, rejects each one of these arguments. (ICR 3.23)
Servetus chimes in on the side of free will, saying that God is freedom itself. (RC 54) He too, though, notes that there is a complex relationship between humanity’s free will and it’s subordination to Divine will:
The highest freedom, however, lies in obedience, and in it at the same time resides the loveliest reward of freedom. (RC 383)
He further states that the connected idea of predestination is horrible and in fact is due to the fallacious idea that God is within time. (RC 285) True Christian Religion, too, deplores predestination as cruel, deplorable and false, though attributes it more directly to the disbelief in free will. (TCR 486) Calvin, on the other hand, embraces predestination, arguing principally that to question it is "presumptuous":
...[Let men] remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself... (ICR 3.21.1)
In other words, Calvin’s reasoning that God sees the future from a position within time demands that all are predestined, but the matter is closed to further investigation by the reason of others.
On faith, charity and works, Calvin is of course in accord with Luther in his belief that faith alone saves (ICR 3.14 et al.) and that works are merely the fruits of faith. (ICR 3.14.19) Furthermore, human reason plays little part in faith. (ICR 2.2.17ff) In contrast (and in typically acerbic fashion), Servetus insists that faith alone is not sufficient:
To believe is supposed to be sufficient for salvation; but what folly to believe aught which cannot be understood—which is impossible in the nature of things, and which may even be looked upon as blasphemous. Can it be that mere confusion of the mind is deemed an adequate condition of faith? (RC 288)
For Servetus, faith is not just a "gift of grace" as Calvin asserts, (ICR 3.1.4) but is based on experience and knowledge; (RC 297) without experience, in fact, faith is completely impossible. (RC 300) Once again, he is in agreement with New Christian theology, which states everywhere that true faith is according to reason (TCR 346) and that faith separate from charity is not only insufficient, but eventually damning. (TCR 343-348, 355-377, et al.) Servetus comes close to approaching this idea of a marriage between faith and charity when he states that the two are "inseparable companions" in one place (RC 312) and "brother and sister" later on. (RC 608) Both Servetus and Swedenborg write that the traditional confusion regarding justification by faith stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Pauline teaching (Rom. 3:28) regarding the works of the Law. (RC 332; TCR 338)
Sacraments
Lest one assume that complete discord exists on all points among these works, we should briefly visit some points regarding the sacraments.
True Christian Religion defines two and only two sacraments: the Holy Supper, and Baptism. (TCR 667ff) Institutes of Christian Religion is in agreement. (ICR 4.19) For current purposes, we will consider just Baptism.
New Church doctrine states that baptism is sacred and efficacious, but not actually necessary for salvation. (TCR 677ff) Calvin, in complete contrast to common assumptions, agrees (in essence) that baptism is not necessary:
Few realize how much injury the dogma that baptism is necessary for salvation, badly expounded, has entailed. ...For, where the opinion has prevailed that all are lost who have not happened to be baptized with water, our condition is worse than that of God's ancient people—as if the grace of God were now more restricted than under the law! (ICR 4.15.20)
Even more particularly, all three works agree that those who die as infants are saved. (TCR 661; ICR 4.15.20; RC 363, 368) At the same time, while Calvin and Swedenborg both write that baptism is yet appropriate to infants, (TCR 677ff; ICR 4.16) Servetus disagrees; the latter goes so far as to say it is inappropriate for any person under the age of thirty to be baptized.
Another point on which Restitution and True Christian Religion are not in accord is the relationship between baptism and circumcision. Servetus writes:
Circumcision was not a type of baptism, as has been supposed, but it was a type of that spiritual circumcision which takes place in regeneration. Otherwise one corporeal act would be the type of another corporeal act. (RC 415)
While this statement has some surface appeal to students of the science of correspondences, its implication is not quite in line with True Christian Religion which explains that "circumcision of the foreskin represented the circumcision of the heart" and that "baptism was instituted in place of circumcision". (TCR 674) Calvin, for what it’s worth, takes a different approach, seeing baptism’s Old Testament analogue as being found in various water references, (ICR 4.15.9) e.g. the parting of the red sea (Ex. 14:21) and the Israelites being led by a cloud. (">Ex. 13:21, et al.)
There are numerous other similarities and also several differences in the interpretation and explanation of the sacraments as found in the three works under consideration. A more exhaustive treatment, though, might fill a book and is not the purpose of this small effort. It is interesting to note, though, how a growing gap between, mainly, Calvin on the one hand and Servetus and Swedenborg on the other, starting with the nature of revelation itself, proceeding on through a disjoint understanding of the Divine, and growing wider still with regard to the manner and means of salvation—despite such differences in fundamentals—there is far less difference with regard the externals of religion.
Conclusion
The forefather of Unitarianism, the first information age martyr to anti-humanist Puritanism, the original discoverer of the pulmonary action of the heart, and perhaps the John the Baptist of the New Jerusalem—Michael Servetus' life and writings contain much that calls for further examination. A more thorough examination of his theology will show many differences as well as similarities with the doctrines of the New Church; such an examination would prove a fruitful means of increasing understanding of the respective belief systems. The preceding little work, though, has at least demonstrated that among the principle things held in common between the two is their staunch dismissal of several core tenets of Reformation Theology.
Further, it is to be hoped that the need is now clear for a modern English translation of Servetus' Christianismi Restitutio. Quotes and citations of this work herein have necessarily relied heavily on the century-old partial translations in Carl Theophilus Odhner’s Michael Servetus, this paper's author being not yet sufficiently familiar with the full Latin text of the 734-page book to authoritatively render his own full original translation.
This centuries-old backwater, suppressed so long and so successfully by Christian tradition, is yet a fruitful field for historical and theological scholarship, and New Christian scholars have a particularly useful perspective to bring to such work. The sleepy cul-de-sac may soon become the next pop-history fad topic; should such a happy event occur, will the New Church be there to lend its light?
Bibliography
Works Cited
Calvin, Jean. Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols.). 1559. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. ISBN 0-664-22020-7 (Vol. 1), 0-664-22021-5 (Vol. 2).
Goldstone, Lawrence and Nancy. Out of the Flames. 2002. New York: Broadway Books. 2002. ISBN 0-7679-0836-8.
Odhner, Carl Theophilus. Michael Servetus: His Life and Teachings. 1910. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1910. LCCN 11002096.
Servetus, Michael. Christianismi Restitutio. Vienne, 1552.
Servetus International Society website. www.servetus.org.
Swedenborg, Emanuel. Vera Christiana Religio (The True Christian Religion). 1771. Trans. William C. Dick (1950). London: Swedenborg Society, 1975.
Note: the three principal works discussed here are cited as follows:
- TCR = Vera Christiana Religio (The True Christian Religion)
- ICR = Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion)
- RC = Christianismi Restitutio (Restoration of Christianity)
TCR and RC are cited by paragraph number; ICR is cited by book, chapter, and section.
Further Reading
Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad. Jesus, A Prophet of Islam. 1981. Karachi: Begum Aisha Bawany Waqf, 1981. LCCN 84930126.
Bernard, David K. The Oneness of God. 1983. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1993. ISBN 0-912315-12-1.
Center for Socinian Studies website. www.socinian.org.
Chadwick, Henry and G. R. Evans, ed. Atlas of the Christian Church. 1987. New York: Facts On File Publications, 1987. ISBN 0-8160-1643-7.
Dibb, Andrew M. T. Servetus, Swedenborg and the Nature of God. Unpublished thesis. 2001. [Note: this has since been published by University Press of America, 2005. ISBN 0-7618-2975-X.]
Hiller, Marian. "The Legacy of Servetus: Humanism and the Beginning of Change of the Social Paradigm" The Radical Reformation. 11.2 (2003): 34-41.
–––. "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. www.socinian.org/files/ProcessTheologyTalk.pdf
Hillerbrand, Hans J. "Was There a Reformation in the Sixteenth Century?" Church History. 72.3 (2003).
Michael Servetus Unitarian Society website. www.unitarian.org/msus/
Servetus, Michael. De Trinitatis Erroribus and Dialogorum de Trinitate Libri Duo (as The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity) 1531, 1532. Trans. Earl Morse Wilbur. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.
Swedenborg, Emanuel. Summaria Expositio Doctrinae Novae Ecclesiae (A Brief Exposition of the Doctrine of the New Church). 1769. Trans. Rupert Stanley. London: Swedenborg Society, 1952.
Rogers, Prescott A. "A History of the Interpretation of the Bible and Swedenborg" Covenant. 1.3 (1992): 201-267.
Stickelberger, Emanuel. Calvin: A Life. 1941. Trans. D. G. Gelzer. London: James Clarke & Co. 1959. LCCN 60034863 /L.
Willis, Robert. Servetus and Calvin. 1877.
[When I get around to it, I will be providing hyperlinks for all of the above sources. Hopefully soon.]