The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-05-11
Per he Dsnocr,ae ssAipcI
Calvin and servetus.
No. III.

shall aSaFe max matter, nchcNeth W the
areision Of the readers Of the 'SentInel.'-
We ecaceive, that evra VIZ. d." With ais
gigantic Intellect and three weekS patient
study, was unable to digest the matter Of
our last article, even to his satisfaction
He says that asserted without a shad.
ow OF proof" that Calvin Iabored to have
Servetus convicted Of heresy before the Ro-
man court before he came to Geneva. Now
Ibid so assert: but not without proof. l said
that calvin, through GaiIlaunle Trie. for
warded to the officers OF The Roman Catholic
Inquisition at Vienna letters which Servetus
had sent him. TO be used rs evidence to con
Wet him of heresy Dysr's Life Of Calria,
page S65." II Mr.. I'D. will examine the
page referred to, and also pages 800, /, g L
5, he will see that the fact is abundqntly
proved by the testimony Of Trie himself.
notwithstanding Calvin's feeble denial of ii.
! proved Just what asserted, Mr.. 3D."
Again you say, said "Servetus request
ed an advocate, and the court met and deci-
ded that be should mol have a counsel, then
ask If this conduct in Calvin was not Jesuit
cal, whereas it was not, according to your
own statement, Calvin's, but the decision Of
the Court" Now, | raid no such thing
] said GHd proged, that ServetaS desired a
counsel. and that Calvin insisted that he
should not have one. / did not say that the
Court decided on the matter at all, II was
Calvin's insisting that Servetus should not
have a counsel, that l said looked more like
the conduct of a Jesuit than a great Reforms
er. And l say so still. But the Court did
decide according 10 the request of Calvin
under whose influence they acted as ! pro-
we'd in my last article, that Servetus should
not have y counsel. There is no lodging
this point Mr.. 3D."
But you say, Servetus "was permitted to
defend his own cause, and perhaps was
better qualified than any other to do it,
Perhaps he Was refused a counsel for fear it
would injure his cause. They were wonder
fully afraid that a counsel would iniure a man
that they condemned 20 be burned TO death
"by a stoW fire of green gooa."
You said in a former article hat "Scrvet-
us was condemned by the prevailing infu-
ence of the party that was opposed to Cal
vim" That statement ] proved incorrect ;
by showing from Calyin's own letter to Farel
that two efforts had been made to remove
the case from the council that was under the
influence of Calvin, that of the council OF
stco hgnarsd, which was of the Perrin party.
Now you admitted upon the testimony
Chaufpie apd Mackenzie tina! this effort waS
made, but that the object was not the good
of SerYetds, but the overthrow of Calvin
Grant it: does it not still follow that Servet-
Us was condemned by the party that was ur-
doe tka .aA,,ono, of If,1,;, ,rI ,at H. 81.
party that was opposed to him, which fatty
c~ontradiGts yo1r own statement in a former
article, via: ''Servetus was condemned by
the prevailing influence Of the party which
was opposed to Calvin" Your memory
must be bad, however good your digestive
powers.
But finally you tell us virtually, that other
folks as we'll as Calvin and the Council
Trent, murdered their theological opposers.
Grant ii: how many wrongs does il take TO
make one right? But you say, it was the
prevailing opinion of the age. Don't you
wish you could class Luther, Melapcthon,
Zuingle, Bunyaa. Baxter, Wesley, and
Whitetield with Calvin in this matter. Your
effort to prove that Arpinians had shed as
much blood in the defense of their princi-
Piles. and was as tyrannical as the Calvinists,
because the Church IF England had once in
her history sanctioned the capital punish
aent of heretics, is wide Of the mark! |
suppose you think Matthew Henry and
phamas Scott, members of the Church of
England. and authors of the commentaries
that bear their names, were staunch Amin
ians! 1t is known to the reading world that
they were both Calvinists, and the latter SO
rigid that he would even rebgke the Apos
tie Paul, for oontradicting his theory. See
Com. on Rom. ID, 1a.
Perhaps you would love to prove that the
Arminiais have been more tyranical and
prosecuting in their spirit than the Calvin
lists. Suppose you try it. But if so, give
your articles another heading, and then
s'stick to the text" But you say, our oppo-
sition is 10 Calyinism, and not tn Calvin
himsslf, That is true. have no hard
feelings towards the man, Tor indeed any
other;( but it is his practice and theory, that
oppose. ! am opposed 20 both his perse-
eating spirit, and "horriUe decree"
The former | have proved, and as you
appear to be a great admirers his %''inyalu-
able body Of divinity" ! shall quote a little
Of the latter for your edi6cation; "AIany, in
deed, as if they wished to avert cdium FROM
God, admit election in such away as to deny
that any one is reprobated. But this is
purile aud absurd, because election itself
could not exist without being opposed to
1eprobatioG. God is said to separate those
whom be adopts to salvation. 10 say that
others obtain by chance, or acquire by their
own efforts, that which election alone con-
feTs on few will be worse than absurd
Whom God passes by, therefore, he repro
bates, aad from no other cause. than his de-
termination 10 exclude them from the in
heritance which he pgedestines for his chill
dTsn." Book 3. chap. % Sec. |.
Again; "That the reprobate obey not the
wsrdo Of God. when made known to them, is
justly imputed to the wickedness and depra.
witty Of their hearts, provided, it be at the
same time stated, that they are abandoned to
this deprayi;y. because they have been
raised up by a just but inscrutable judy
ment Of God, to display his glory in their
eoRdsmuatiop." Inst Book. 3, Chap. "a,
Sec. "a. THIS igtruly q "horrible decree"
You any the persecution Of Servetus was
the spiyit Of The age. sat The time Of these
ignorance God winked att it. Grant it: the
Institutes Of Calvin we're written even in a
darker age-~seven years before he caused
the death of Servetus. Isdont look we'll 10