The author, identified and published in a recognized-if left-wing-national newspaper of undeniably high prestige, says Calvin is innocent.
The unidentified commentator says he is guilty but he makes no acknowledgement whatsoever of the author's assertions or evidence, indeed, one cannot even be certain from the comment that he has even read the article. The author says that Calvin was not even in town at the time of the execution. The commentator says he was responsible for it and even ordered it! The author asserts the negative, the commentator asserts the affirmative. The author cites no facts in support of his position or references. The commentator merely rehearses the original allegations against Calvin which the author had categorically refuted. But the commentator gives me not a single reason to believe what he says. Advocating the affirmative side of a proposition, the commentator is in a better position to submit facts in support. The author is advocating the negative and we are all aware of how difficult it is to prove the negative. Yet the author did submit facts and references. The commentator has not.
Please tell me how merely repeating the commentator's unsupported statement advances our understanding of Calvin and his contribution, if any, to American independence? If we have a brief against Calvin, can we at least make the case and support it? Or is this a proxy?
Michael Servetus, a Unitarian, a skilled doctor/debator and one who had the courage to go toe to toe against Calvin, the so-called great theologican, was burnt alive at Calvin's insistence.
Why is it that people are saying this over and over as if repetition will make it true?
First of all, Servetus wasn't a Unitarian. Unitarians, proper, didn't exist. The forerunners of the Unitarians (and political opponents to Calvin), the Libertines tried to attach a martyr status to Servetus. That really didn't work out so well because it was other opponents of Calvin that ultimately had Servetus burnt at the stake.
What Servetus
was was an anti-trinitarian heretic that tried to spread his writings across Europe. He was condemned to death
twice before getting to Geneva, once in Vienne and once in Lyons (after he had escaped authorities in Paris). From both of those convictions he escaped and was on the lamb, headed towards Italy when he stopped in Geneva, inexplicably, since he had been warned not to come to Geneva for surety of his execution.
He never "went toe to toe" with Calvin. He even skipped out twice on meetings they were supposed to have on neutral ground before Servetus was declared a heretic.
Servetus and his teachings were denounced by everyone from Calvin to Luther to the Catholics and every ecumenical council of western Europe. He was an enemy of the Church, no matter which church or city council (ruling body of the cities) you look to.
Anyhow, Calvin did not have him burnt. First of all, Calvin was no longer a member of the Geneva Council. Having lost his power in the council to the
libertines the year before, Calvin resigned his position in July 1553 (before Servetus showed up in Geneva). Calvin was called as witness to the trial. There he presented Servetus' writings and letters between Calvin and him as evidence against Servetus. What is often overlooked, though, is Calvin's actual role. In Philip Schaff's
History of the Christian Christian Church, Volume VIII, ch. 16 SERVETUS: HIS LIFE. OPINIONS, TRIAL, AND EXECUTION Schaff writes at the beginning of sec. 137...
We now come to the dark chapter in the history of Calvin which has cast a gloom over his fair name, and exposed him, not unjustly, to the charge of intolerance and persecution, which he shares with his whole age.
The burning of Servetus and the decretum horribile are sufficient in the judgment of a large part of the Christian world to condemn him and his theology, but cannot destroy the rocky foundation of his rare virtues and lasting merits. History knows only of one spotless being—the Saviour of sinners. Human greatness and purity are spotted by marks of infirmity, which forbid idolatry. Large bodies cast large shadows, and great virtues are often coupled with great vices.
...establishing how he treats the subject (I show this to show that Schaff was no Calvin propogandist on this subject). Later he reflects on the procedures of the arrest and trial of Servetus):
The prisoner [Servetus] was allowed to have paper and ink, and such books as could be procured at Geneva or Lyons at his own expense. Calvin lent him Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, and Irenaeus.
Calvin gave Servetus access to his personal library for use in his defense.
Also, in accordance with Geneva law, the accused (Servetus) and the accuser (
not Calvin but a student of Calvin named Nicholas de la Fontaine brought the charges against Servetus) were both jailed so that the accuser could recieve just punishment for false accusation if the accused were found not guilty.
Calvin attended the trial only as a witness during it's first part, and the trial lasted almost two months in two parts. The Geneva Council found Servetus guilty of heresy and did not condemn him, because they had no authority to do so (Servetus wasn't a citizen of Geneva). However other ecumenical council asked that he not be released. Geneva sought authority by ecumemical agreement, then, to execute Servetus under the penalty of law. They recieved such authority. Calvin wrote to a friend:
The messenger has returned from the Swiss Churches. They are unanimous in pronouncing that Servetus has now renewed those impious errors with which Satan formerly disturbed the Church, and that he is a monster not to be borne. Those of Basel are judicious. The Zürichers are the most vehement of all … They of Schaffhausen agree. To an appropriate letter from the Bernese is added one from the Senate in which they stimulate ours not a little. Caesar, the comedian [so he sarcastically called Perrin], after feigning illness for three days, at length went up to the assembly in order to free that wretch [Servetus] from punishment. Nor was he ashamed to ask that the case be referred to the Council of the Two Hundred. However, Servetus was without dissent condemned. He will be led forth to punishment to-morrow.
The condemnation:
The judges, after enumerating the crimes of Servetus, in calling the holy Trinity a monster with three heads, blaspheming the Son of God, denying infant-baptism as an invention of the devil and of witchcraft, assailing the Christian faith, and after mentioning that he had been condemned and burned in effigy at Vienne, and had during his residence in Geneva persisted in his vile and detestable errors, and called all true Christians tritheists, atheists, sorcerers, putting aside all remonstrances and corrections with a malicious and perverse obstinacy, pronounced the fearful sentence:—
"We condemn thee, Michael Servetus, to be bound, and led to the place of Champel, there to be fastened to a stake and burnt alive, together with thy book, as well the one written by thy hand as the printed one, even till thy body be reduced to ashes; and thus shalt thou finish thy days to furnish an example to others who might wish to commit the like.
"And we command our Lieutenant to see that this our present sentence be executed."
Calvin agreed with the death sentence...
...BUT...Calvin did not want Servetus burned. In the letter to his friend on the judgement of the councils:
...He will be led forth to punishment to-morrow. We endeavored to alter the mode of his death, but in vain. Why we did not succeed, I defer for narration until I see you.
Calvin wanted that the council show mercy in its execution method, by sword instead of burning. Calvin was overruled and chided for leniency.
Calvin sent for a minister from outside of Geneva to perform the pastoral duties to the condemned. He did not attend the execution.
58 Executions of those who refused to follow his way took place over the first 5 years of his reign.
Well, not for nothing, but the numbers are disputed. That really doesn't matter though. What matters is that the city governments were set up as Christocratic theocracies which used the Levitical code as a base on which to establish the law. People were executed for the same reasons they were executed under OT law. Remember, this wasn't the church proper carrying out the sentence or passing judgement (the church constitory never had authority to conduct anything beyond excommunication, which they eventually lost to the Council, btw), but elected officials on the city government's Geneva Council.