A Rebuke of Schaff's Account of Servetus

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote: https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R3UE08UK9P7K7Y?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

This is a brief response written in 1897 to Church Historian Philip Schaff's treatment of Calvin's involvement in the execution of Michael Servetus. Servetus was a Unitarian, whose paths crossed that of Calvin at various points in his life. Servetus had already staked out a position as a Unitarian apologist in his early 20s. After going somewhat underground, in his 40s, Servetus resurfaced to antagonize Calvin in Geneva. When Servetus was outed for his Unitarian text, Servetus displayed uncommonly poor judgment by fleeing to Italy by heading in the opposite direction in order to watch Calvin give a sermon. Servetus was identified, convicted of heresy and burned by Calvin's Geneva.

[[ASIN:B001NJUP2K Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of theRarest Books in the World]] provides a passable if hagiographic treatment of the Servetus/Calvin story where Calvin comes out as the villain of the story.

The idea of Reformers burning other Reformers is fairly unpalatable; persecution is supposed to be a “Catholic thing,” after all. Consequently, Reformed apologists go to great lengths to argue that Calvin had nothing to do with the burning of Servetus, which is something of a blot on his reputation. According to Mitchell:

“Servetus stands on the border line which separates the intolerance of the Middle Ages from the spirit of religious freedom in modern times. Accordingly the interest centering in Servetus has less to do with his opinions, scientific and theological, though these in many instances anticipated the progress of after centuries, than with his connection with the theory of persecution, which caused his death. “I am more deeply scandalized,” says Gibbon, “at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed at the auto-da-fés of Spain and Portugal.”

Apparently, historian Phillip Schaff incorporated the party line into his ecclesiastical history.

Author S.C. Mitchell gives a fairly even-handed outline of Calvin's likely role in the execution of Servetus. He also points out that it is properly a blot on Calvin's reputation. Mitchell explains:

“It cannot be maintained, with Michelet, that this execution was “a crime of the times rather than of Calvin himself.” While it is true that Catholics in general and Protestants sometimes were in that age given to intolerance, noble voices were not wanting to plead for religious toleration. Listen to Luther, who died seven years before the fires consumed Servetus: “Belief is a free thing which cannot be enforced;” and again, “If heretics were to be punished by death, the hangman would be the most orthodox theologian.” Philip of Hesse would not use force against differences of faith in his own subjects. Joris, an Anabaptist at Basel, protested thus at the time: “It is an incredible blindness that the servants of Christ ... should condemn the erring to death. If Servetus be a heretic, he ought to be admonished in a friendly manner, and then banished from the state.” But Calvin was not without inner light; for in his own early work on Seneca he had contended for liberty of thought. There was, moreover, at that time, no law in Geneva for inflicting the death penalty for differences in belief. Banishment alone was legal. An extinct law seems to have been revived specially for the case of Servetus.”

Mitchell gives little attention to Servetus' theology. He explains:

“He rejects the identity of the Logos with the Son of God, believing that the Christ was not God before his natural birth. Father, Son, and Spirit he thought were not three persons, but three dispositions of God.”

This text is short and treats most things in a high gloss way. It is pretty much an argument against the special pleading on behalf of Calvin.