John Calvin, Murderer

[Dale]

The French/Swiss religious leader John Calvin is famous as an advocate of predestination. He was virtual dictator of Geneva for many years, and Geneva can justifiably be called a totalitarian state under his rule. Perhaps the greatest controversy of Calvin's life is the execution of Miguel Servetus, or Michael Servetus.


Servetus, a Spandiard, was successful as a medical doctor and had published books on theology. He had corresponded with John Calvin, apparently hoping to make a friend. Servetus rejected the Trinity, preferring simple monotheism.


There is strong case against Calvin as the cause of the unjustified death of Miguel Servetus.


First, the betrayal. Calvin caused letters to be written, betraying Servetus to the Catholic Inquisition. Servetus was arrested by the Inquisition but escaped. Some believe he was allowed to escape.

Second, the arrest. Servetus went to Geneva, apparently hoping to influence Calvin or receive some aid from him. Servetus went to church, was recognized by John Calvin, and was arrested leaving the cathedral. In effect, Servetus was arrested for going to church.

The arrest of Servetus was blatantly illegal. He had committed no offense against the laws of Geneva. None of his books had been printed or sold in Geneva, so even by the standards of a time when a man could be jailed for writing unorthodox theology, he had committed no crime in Geneva. No other jurisdiction had called for his extradition.

Third, denial of extradition. A request for extradition was received from the Catholic Inquisition. Calvin and Geneva could have turned the problem of how do deal with Servetus over to someone else. Instead, Calvin opposed extradition.

Fourth, an unjust trial. Servetus was held under conditions that cannot be discussed in a family newspaper. Tried in absentia, he was not allowed to defend himself, or even to view his own trial. No one was appointed to defend him. Probably anyone who volunteered would have met the same fate. There was no possibility of appeal. When the death penalty was announced, he was burned at the stake the next day.

Fifth, the offense. Miguel Servetus was convicted of blasphemy. When and where did he blaspheme? When did he blaspheme under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Town Council? When did he blaspheme in Geneva before his arrest? He had only just arrived and wasn't noticed until John Calvin recognized him and had him arrested.

 

[Dale]

Are such miscarriages of justice merely an unfortunate part of the times that Calvin and Servetus lived? Not entirely.


<< The most distinguished jurist of the day, Francois Baudouin, uttered a decisive opinion: "I hold that Calvin had no right to open a criminal prosecution over a point of religious doctrine." >>


Not everyone who lived at that time believed in mixing religion and criminal law. The above quote comes from The Right to Heresy, or How John Calvin Killed a Conscience, or Castellio Against Calvin by Stefan Zweig. This is a book written in the 1930's. It has survived because of its excellent scholarship and clear devotion to truth. If The Right to Heresy sounds like an odd title, Zweig's point is that unless you have the right to be a heretic in someone's eyes, you don't have a right to worship or the right to have a religion. Is Zweig simply a fierce critic of Calvin? In the end, Zweig is more interested in upholding the views of Sebastian Castillio, a contemporary of Calvin, as an advocate of tolerance.


Link:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_intro.htm

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Moved from General Theology.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[RC1970]

It is true that Calvin and his fellow pastors in Geneva were involved in the death of Servetus. However, it would be difficult to find any church leader in the 16 th century who advocated a more gentle approach. Luther called for attacks on German peasants and wrote an angry tract against the Jews, called ‘On the Jews and their Lies'. Zwingli, the Reformer of Zurich, supported the execution by drowning of the Anabaptist leader, Felix Manz. Sir Thomas More, England 's Catholic Lord Chancellor, presided over the execution of those he viewed as “heretics” in England during the reign of Henry the VIII. Each country of Europe in the sixteenth century felt that defending its religious views involved taking strong measures against those who disagreed. Toleration and acceptance of doctrinal differences were simply not sixteenth-century concepts.

 

[rockytopva]

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin

 

[Winken]

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin

Grievous.

 

[JackRT]

At some time or place in history every Christian on these forums could probably have been tried, convicted and executed for heresy or blasphemy by some other fellow Christians. I don't quite know what to call this --- fundamentalism seems too harsh so lets just term it overzealousness.

 

[John Hyperspace]

At some time or place in history every Christian on these forums could probably have been tried, convicted and executed for heresy or blasphemy by some other fellow Christians. I don't quite know what to call this --- fundamentalism seems too harsh so lets just term it overzealousness.

I would've considered it an honour back in the day, seeing my smiling face inked on parchments hanging around Ye Olde Towne and Square:

WANTED: PUBLIC HERETIC #1

John Hyperspace aka Hyperspace Johnny
aka John Smith, aka John Sheppard, aka John Cobb, aka Juan Ramirez, aka Space Cowboy, aka Pope Zero, aka Kwai-Chan-Qui, aka Iron Fist Comanche, aka Clark Kent, aka Bruce Wayne, aka The Man With No Name, aka Yojimbo, aka Tim

REWARD: 5,000 10,000 20,000 100,000 500,000

DEAD OR ALIVE

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Is bearing false witness still a sin?

 

[bcbsr]

The French/Swiss religious leader John Calvin is famous as an advocate of predestination. He was virtual dictator of Geneva for many years, and Geneva can justifiably be called a totalitarian state under his rule. Perhaps the greatest controversy of Calvin's life is the execution of Miguel Servetus, or Michael Servetus.


Servetus, a Spandiard, was successful as a medical doctor and had published books on theology. He had corresponded with John Calvin, apparently hoping to make a friend. Servetus rejected the Trinity, preferring simple monotheism.


There is strong case against Calvin as the cause of the unjustified death of Miguel Servetus.


First, the betrayal. Calvin caused letters to be written, betraying Servetus to the Catholic Inquisition. Servetus was arrested by the Inquisition but escaped. Some believe he was allowed to escape.

Second, the arrest. Servetus went to Geneva, apparently hoping to influence Calvin or receive some aid from him. Servetus went to church, was recognized by John Calvin, and was arrested leaving the cathedral. In effect, Servetus was arrested for going to church.

The arrest of Servetus was blatantly illegal. He had committed no offense against the laws of Geneva. None of his books had been printed or sold in Geneva, so even by the standards of a time when a man could be jailed for writing unorthodox theology, he had committed no crime in Geneva. No other jurisdiction had called for his extradition.

Third, denial of extradition. A request for extradition was received from the Catholic Inquisition. Calvin and Geneva could have turned the problem of how do deal with Servetus over to someone else. Instead, Calvin opposed extradition.

Fourth, an unjust trial. Servetus was held under conditions that cannot be discussed in a family newspaper. Tried in absentia, he was not allowed to defend himself, or even to view his own trial. No one was appointed to defend him. Probably anyone who volunteered would have met the same fate. There was no possibility of appeal. When the death penalty was announced, he was burned at the stake the next day.

Fifth, the offense. Miguel Servetus was convicted of blasphemy. When and where did he blaspheme? When did he blaspheme under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Town Council? When did he blaspheme in Geneva before his arrest? He had only just arrived and wasn't noticed until John Calvin recognized him and had him arrested.

I agree. I've written an article on the details of the events at The Murder of Michael Servetus

Much as those of a Reformed Theology typically rush to Calvin's defense claim that he was merely an observer on the sidelines, such was not the case.

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Any Calvinists out there who want to claim Calvin was not involved at this level in Servetus' murder?

 

[truefiction1]

Is bearing false witness still a sin?

Yes, it is.

 

[hedrick]

Calvin did in fact agree with the execution, although technically he wasn't in a position to stop it. You can see that from the fact that he tried to get a more merciful form of execution and failed. But he published a book defending it, so I don't think we can reasonably remove him from blame.

It seems odd, however, to blame him in particular. Geneva consulted with churches in other cities in Switzerland. All agreed that they would execute Servetus. So would the Catholic inquisition. I'm sure there were people in favor of tolerance, but they weren't numerous or influential.

This was a period when the safety of the State was seen as depending upon God's favor, and upon the unity of the Church. Heresy was thus an attack on the State.

I think we can reasonably criticize Christians for this view, but it makes no sense to call out one particular person.

 

[Winken]

I agree. I've written an article on the details of the events at The Murder of Michael Servetus

Much as those of a Reformed Theology typically rush to Calvin's defense claim that he was merely an observer on the sidelines, such was not the case.

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Any Calvinists out there who want to claim Calvin was not involved at this level in Servetus' murder?

Gruesome.

 

[Dale]

Calvin did in fact agree with the execution, although technically he wasn't in a position to stop it. You can see that from the fact that he tried to get a more merciful form of execution and failed. But he published a book defending it, so I don't think we can reasonably remove him from blame.

It seems odd, however, to blame him in particular. Geneva consulted with churches in other cities in Switzerland. All agreed that they would execute Servetus. So would the Catholic inquisition. I'm sure there were people in favor of tolerance, but they weren't numerous or influential.

This was a period when the safety of the State was seen as depending upon God's favor, and upon the unity of the Church. Heresy was thus an attack on the State.

I think we can reasonably criticize Christians for this view, but it makes no sense to call out one particular person.

Hedrick: “ Geneva consulted with churches in other cities in Switzerland. All agreed that they would execute Servetus.”

My source says: “Even though not one of the four religious communities frankly demanded or even approved capital punishment, they nevertheless endorsed on principle any severe measures that might be taken.”

The other churches did not ask for the death penalty.

Hedrick: “You can see that from the fact that he tried to get a more merciful form of execution and failed.”

I don't believe this is true. As far as I know, no one in Geneva had anything against Servetus until John Calvin stirred them up.

 

[hedrick]

My account was based on McNeill, History and Character of Calvinism. He says the attempt to get a more merciful execution is well known. His statement on the consultation with other cities also differs at least in part from your source and Wikipedia. I have no easy way to know which is right. But he cites Bullinger from Zurich and the response from Bern as saying specifically that he would be executed there. There's an implication that other cites were not so specific.

In case you don't know him, McNeill is one of the best Calvin scholars from the previous generation. It's very unlikely that he would make statements without documentation. I have read more recent treatments but don't recall the details of Servetus from them.

 

[hedrick]

If you want to make a case against Calvin, Servetus is probably not the best example to use. Death for heresy was all too common. The more serious problem is that Calvin had a pattern of treating those who disagreed with or challenged his authority harshly. He supported harsh punishment for those he considered “libertines,” and for those who disagreed with him.

There were actually some “liberals” at the time, in the sense of opposing persecution. One well-known example was Sebastian Castellio. Calvin’s treatment of him was shameful, but was consistent with Calvin’s general insistence of maintaining strong discipline.

At his best, Calvin cared for Geneva and its citizens, and his theological vision of basing Christianity on a “mystical union” with Christ resulted in some of the best theology of the time. He was also a fine Biblical commentator, whose work is still referred to. But he could also be nasty when his authority was challenged. Was his vision of God who decided before creation of the world to reject people, for his glory, part of that? He certainly doesn’t seem to have had the same concerns about the resulting image of God that many people reading his work do.

For what it's worth, McNeill (in his PhD thesis) maintains that Calvin's real concern in predestination is that we need to see everything that happens us, bad and good, as coming from God and intended to help us. He maintains that this emphasis is clearer in the commentaries, but that in the Institutes he takes a more abstract approach that leads to the result I just described. While the idea of God setting out to condemn a list of people for his glory should give anyone pause, there are both Biblical and pastoral reasons to maintain that everything that happens is under God's control and is intended to help us.

It’s probably best simply to observe that many great people have their bad side. I think his were in accordance with his age, though there were certainly those like Castellio who didn't share it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Calling Calvin a murderer seems overly harsh--Calvin didn't personally kill Servetus, or take the personal responsibility of Servetus' death. Calvin isn't blameless in the event, but calling Calvin a murderer seems almost inflammatory.

I certainly don't approve of the execution of Servetus, but then I have the benefit of living in the 21st century and five hundred years of hindsight.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bcbsr]

Calling Calvin a murderer seems overly harsh--Calvin didn't personally kill Servetus, or take the personal responsibility of Servetus' death. Calvin isn't blameless in the event, but calling Calvin a murderer seems almost inflammatory.

I certainly don't approve of the execution of Servetus, but then I have the benefit of living in the 21st century and five hundred years of hindsight.

-CryptoLutheran

As noted my previous post in this thread in which I quote John Calvin in this matter, he not only admitted to "exterminating Michael Servetus" (his words) but took pride in it.

Yes, the evidence shows that John Calvin is in fact a murderer, not only unrepentant but proud of the fact.

1John 3:15 "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him."

 

[Dale]

If you want to make a case against Calvin, Servetus is probably not the best example to use. Death for heresy was all too common. The more serious problem is that Calvin had a pattern of treating those who disagreed with or challenged his authority harshly. He supported harsh punishment for those he considered “libertines,” and for those who disagreed with him.

There were actually some “liberals” at the time, in the sense of opposing persecution. One well-known example was Sebastian Castellio. Calvin’s treatment of him was shameful, but was consistent with Calvin’s general insistence of maintaining strong discipline.

At his best, Calvin cared for Geneva and its citizens, and his theological vision of basing Christianity on a “mystical union” with Christ resulted in some of the best theology of the time. He was also a fine Biblical commentator, whose work is still referred to. But he could also be nasty when his authority was challenged. Was his vision of God who decided before creation of the world to reject people, for his glory, part of that? He certainly doesn’t seem to have had the same concerns about the resulting image of God that many people reading his work do.

For what it's worth, McNeill (in his PhD thesis) maintains that Calvin's real concern in predestination is that we need to see everything that happens us, bad and good, as coming from God and intended to help us. He maintains that this emphasis is clearer in the commentaries, but that in the Institutes he takes a more abstract approach that leads to the result I just described. While the idea of God setting out to condemn a list of people for his glory should give anyone pause, there are both Biblical and pastoral reasons to maintain that everything that happens is under God's control and is intended to help us.

It’s probably best simply to observe that many great people have their bad side. I think his were in accordance with his age, though there were certainly those like Castellio who didn't share it.

Hedrick: "Death for heresy was all too common."

Is it also common for Protestants to denounce other Protestants to the Catholic Inquisition?

Stefan Sweig says that none of Calvin's contemporaries believed that Calvin had tried to mitigate the sentence. Calvin tried to claim that he had, as damage control after the fact.

 

[Dale]

I agree. I've written an article on the details of the events at The Murder of Michael Servetus

Much as those of a Reformed Theology typically rush to Calvin's defense claim that he was merely an observer on the sidelines, such was not the case.

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Any Calvinists out there who want to claim Calvin was not involved at this level in Servetus' murder?

Bcbsr,
Thanks for your article on Michael Servetus. I notice that you also have no hesitation in calling the execution a murder.