Replies

We have no wish to palliate any act of Calvin's which is manifestly wrong. All his proceedings, in relation to the unhappy affair of Servetus, we think, cannot be defended. Still it should be remembered that the true principles of religious toleration were very little understood in the time of Calvin. All the other reformers then living approved of Calvin's conduct. Even the gentle and amiable Melancthon expressed himself in relation to this affair, in the following manner. In a letter addressed to Bullinger, he says, "I have read your statement respecting the blasphemy of Servetus, and praise your piety and judgment; and am persuaded that the Council of Geneva has done right in putting to death this obstinate man, who would never have ceased his blasphemies. I am astonished that any one can be found to disapprove of this proceeding." Farel expressly says, that "Servetus deserved a capital punishment." Bucer did not hesitate to declare, that "Servetus deserved something worse than death."

The truth is, although Calvin had some hand in the arrest and imprisonment of Servetus, he was unwilling that he should be burnt at all. "I desire," says he, "that the severity of the punishment should be remitted." "We wndeavored to commute the kind of death, but in vain." "By wishing to mitigate the severity of the punishment," says Farel to Calvin, "you discharge the office of a friend towards your greatest enemy." "That Calvin was the instigator of the magistrates that Servetus might be burned," says Turritine, "historians neither anywhere affirm, nor does it appear from any considerations. Nay, it is certain, that he, with the college of pastors, dissuaded from that kind of punishment."

It has been often asserted, that Calvin possessed so much influence with the magistrates of Geneva that he might have obtained the release of Servetus, had he not been desirous of his destruction. This however, is not true. So far from it, that Calvin was himself once banished from Geneva, by these very magistrates, and often opposed their arbitrary measures in vain. So little desirous was Calvin of procuring the death of Servetus that he warned him of his danger, and suffered him to remain several weeks at Geneva, before he was arrested. But his language, which was then accounted blasphemous, was the cause of his imprisonment. When in prison, Calvin visited him, and used every argument to persuade him to retract his horrible blasphemies, without reference to his peculiar sentiments. This was the extent of Calvin's agency in this unhappy affair.

Foxes Book of Martyrs

We have no wish to palliate any act of Calvin's which is manifestly wrong.

Hey, if Dr. Steve and OP had stopped right there, we would not have any problem.

They did not, they either denied Calvins role or that it was wrong.

Note the appeal to the 'times', as if the New Testament was not in existence.

Also, Calvins plea for the sword was so the execution would be seen as a civil one not a religious one.

Some have tried to make something of the fact that, late inthe trial of Servetus, Calvin put forth an effort to have the man destroyed in some other way than by fire. However the fact is that Calvin was not opposed to exterminatio in the case of Servetus, merely against its proposed mode. Death by fire had been the punishment for heretics for more then a millennium, and Calvin realizing that death for heresy was becoming questionable in the public mind, would have preferred execution by a means in which the sedition aspect rather then the heresy aspect of the man's deliction would stand out. In Calvins mind, the one still implied the other-heresy implied sedition

(The Anatomy of a Hybrid, Leonard Verduin, p.207,cited in Vance, The Other Side, p.99)

So, it was not from any act of mercy that he pleaded for the sword.

It was Calvins actions that resulted in Servetus getting picked up by the Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne and being sentenced to death there in the first place.

But this post is not on Calvin but on another great Reformer, Knox, who supported the action, as did other posters on these threads.

There are some honest Calvinists historians who have condemned the action.

When all is understood, admirers of Calvin must still look upon it with shame McNeil,The History and Character of Calvinism p.347

In our judgement Calvin was guilty of sin (Bratt,The life and Teachings of Calvin

There can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time,and after the event, explicitly approved and defended the putting him to death, and assumed the responsiblity of the transaction (Cummingham,The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation pp.316-317) cited in Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p.99)

Such honesty you will not find among the Calvinists on these threads (with one or two exceptions)