Calvin became a leader of the reformation movement and after a long battle with the catholic forces Calvin's forces took control of Geneva - catholic priests were thrown into jail, catholic churches were destroyed, and Calvin's new Gospel was established in both Geneva and Zurich.58 Executions of those who refused to follow his way took place over the first 5 years of his reign.
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.
Calvin was a vindictive and sometimes cruel man and to associate our great nation with such a man in the light of modern scholarship shows a lack of good judgment or a failure to avail one's self of modern scholarship.
Sounds like the early Popes and the Catholic church. Remember, all of those early religios folk were pretty violent.
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?
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....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 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 beingthe 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.
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.
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:Calvin agreed with the death 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."
...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.