Opening RemarksA young woman is dragged through the streets. A crowd follows her and proclaims A witch! A witch! The magistrate of the town undergoes a brief trial in which it is determined that witches are burned because they are made of wood. After comparing her weight to a duck, which floats just like wood, it is proclaimed that she is indeed a witch and the poor young woman is lead off to be burned at the stake. This scene of course comes from the famous Monty Python and the Holy Grail[footnoteRef:1] and is, in my humble opinion, one of the wittiest and most humorous scenes from that era of British comedy. However, it points to a stark reality that was prevalent in the Middle Ages that bears no resemblance to humor. People who did not follow the status quo were burned to death, often times to convey a message to the populace. Whether political dissidents, those accused of witchcraft, or theological heretics the stake was a harsh reality for those who would attempt to buck the established system. That is the subject of this paper. [1: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones. By Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. Produced by John Goldstone, Mark Forstater, and Michael White. Performed by Graham Chapman, John Cleese and Eric Idle. Python (Monty) Pictures, 1975. DVD. The scene referenced is considered Scene 5 in the movie.]

In 1553, Michael Servetus[footnoteRef:2] was accused of, found guilty of, and burned at the stake for doctrinal heresy. This tragic event occurred in Geneva during the time of the famous Reformer John Calvin. This brutal execution brings about many questions surrounding Calvin and Geneva. Was this justified? How could a reformer perpetrate such a heinous execution? Does this undermine Calvins broader theological contributions? All of these questions are valid; however of all the questions that rise in response to the execution, I wish only to tackle one: Was the trial and execution of Michael Servetus for doctrinal heresy, conducted according to the theological outline of Church discipline established by Calvin? I shall answer this question by giving a brief historical account of the trial and execution as well as the events leading up to it. In addition, I shall provide a theological excurses of Calvins church discipline. Next, I shall offer several other instances of Church discipline by exploring cases listed in the consistory of Geneva. Finally, I shall offer my analysis regarding this cases conformity to the general method of Church discipline espoused by Calvin. [2: Also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto. Servetus was known by several variant names and aliases during his life. For the sake of clarity, he shall always be refered to by his Latinized name, Michael Servetus or Servetus throughout this essay.]

A Disclaimer of SortsPrior to the onset of this essay, I would like to make a few clarifying statements and announce my biases. This essay is not an attempt to place John Calvin on trial for the murder of Michael Servetus. While this may be a worthwhile exercise for some, this is not the undertaking I wish to embark on. While I believe that burnings were a harsh and unjustified means of punishing heresy, it is not my place to judge the methods and ideals of another generation. Furthermore, execution by burning was a common and prevalent means of execution during the medieval and early Reformation period. While this does not excuse the heinous nature of this action, I feel that it reflects more of a cultural and societal failure rather than a personal failure on the part of John Calvin. Beyond that, as we shall see, Calvin advocated for a more humane method of execution for Servetus, but was overruled by the Geneva Council. Finally, it is important to note that executions of this nature were most often carried out by the State rather than the Church. This is clear in this case, but being that the Church and State shared a much more intimate relationship during this time period than our modern Church does, it is important to recognize the influence of theological discourse on the actions of the state.I would also like to take a brief pause to announce my bias in this matter. No author can step outside their biases to write in a vacuum, and I believe that it is important to be transparent with the reader so they can attempt to correct for any potential biases they observe. That being said, it is important to understand that I am a Reformed Theologian and Historian, specifically of the Calvinist school of thought. I believe that John Calvin, although human and subject to error, was a great man and theologian whose contributions to the Church are vast and significant. Although I acknowledge, and Calvin would affirm, that he is as capable of despicable sin and destitute motives and actions, my natural tendency is to side with him in disputes. I will attempt to be as objective as possible in this essay, but please be aware of this tendency as you read.The Tragic Tale of Michael ServetusIn order to answer the question of our inquiry, we must get a grasp on the historical context and order of events in this tragic tale. It will be critical to understand not only the events, but also the causes and processes that were instrumental in this death. In this section, I shall give a biographical overview of Servetus life, discuss the damning heresy that lead him to the stake, and recount the events that led to his execution.Michael Servetus was born in 1511 to a wealthy family in northern Spain.[footnoteRef:3] At a young age he studied first at the local College of Huesca and later at the University of Saragossa and eventually he would be sent to the University of Toulouse to study law.[footnoteRef:4] Like Calvin, civil law did very little to satisfy his thirst for learning and he began to study theology and scripture. He would eventually come under the mentorship of Juan de Quintana, who was a Franciscan monk and the Court preacher to Charles V.[footnoteRef:5] As such, he was privy to many of the religious visits to the Imperial Court, but unlike so many of his peers he found them to be unpalatable. Like many of the Reformers, Servetus was appalled by the drama and theatrics that often accompanied Church officials and would speak against it on several occasions.[footnoteRef:6] One author writes He was forced to contrast the outward ceremonial religion of the Church with the spiritual religion of the Bible. He saw the Pope almost adored as a god by princes and people, and was discontented by the hypocrisy of the highest offices of the Church.[footnoteRef:7] However, although he shared much with the Reformers in the way of theology and perspective, many found his ways to be too severe. Servetus played the part of a lonely and zealous reformer; but so vehement were his denunciations that he won few followers among either Protestants or Catholics.[footnoteRef:8] [3: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XIX.] [4: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 26.] [5: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 26.] [6: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 27.] [7: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XX.] [8: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 27.]

It was soon after entering the home of Oecolampadius that Servetus would embark on a path that would ultimately lead to his execution. Ignoring the advice of Oecolampadius, he published De Trinitatis erroribus libri septem[footnoteRef:9] under his own name. In this document he puts forward several heretical statements that ultimately marked him for death by both Catholic and Protestant authorities.[footnoteRef:10] Servetus bases his argument in the fact that the Trinity is not an explicit doctrine in the Scripture. Particularly he attacks the scholastic understandings at the time,[footnoteRef:11] but also challenges all Trinitarian theology that followed Nicaea.[footnoteRef:12] Servetus did not believe that the doctrine of the Trinity came from Scripture, rather it could be defended only by sheer sophistry.[footnoteRef:13] He believed that both the Bible and the earliest Church Fathers taught that Christ was a man who was given divinity. That Jesus, surnamed Christ, was not a hypostasis but a human being is taught both by the early Fathers and in the Scriptures.[footnoteRef:14] Furthermore, he argued that the Holy Spirit was not a person in any meaningful sense, rather it is not a separate being, but an activity of God himself.[footnoteRef:15] He continues on in great detail to argue against the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the personal existence of the Holy Spirit. [9: On the Errors of the Trinity Refered to as On the Errors throughout.] [10: Roland H. Bainton,Hunted Heretic(Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), 21. Italics in original] [11: Roland H. Bainton,Hunted Heretic(Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), 21.] [12: Roland H. Bainton,Hunted Heretic(Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), 32.] [13: Roland H. Bainton,Hunted Heretic(Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), 32-33.] [14: Michael Servetus, "On the Errors of the Trinity," trans. Earl Morse Wilbur, inThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 3.] [15: Michael Servetus, "On the Errors of the Trinity," trans. Earl Morse Wilbur, inThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 3.]

Shortly after the work hit the public, it became a firestorm that shocked Catholic and reformer alike.[footnoteRef:16] In fact, the reaction was so strong that Servetus published a formal retraction and attempted to clarify his views.[footnoteRef:17] This work was titled Dialogorum de Trinitate, libri duo.[footnoteRef:18] However, the retraction did not denounce his views, rather it was simply acknowledged that he was foolish in publishing them. He writes To the reader, greeting. All that I have lately written, in seven Books, against the received view as to the Trinity, honest reader, I now retract; not because it is untrue, but because it is incomplete, and written as though by a child for children.[footnoteRef:19] However, it was not enough and Servetus was obliged to go thereafter into hiding.[footnoteRef:20] The next twenty-one years of his life are rather mysterious; he was quite successful in hiding. So successful in fact that twenty-one years were to elapse before it was publicly discovered that Michael Servetus and Michael Villanovanus were one and the same person.[footnoteRef:21] However, we do know that he ended up in Paris and likely studied medicine. We do know that he received a medical degree, but from what university has been lost to time.[footnoteRef:22] [16: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 28.] [17: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 28.] [18: Dialogues on the Trinity] [19: Michael Servetus, "Dialogues on the Trinity," trans. Earl Morse Wilbur, inThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 188.] [20: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 28.] [21: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 29.] [22: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 29.]

In 1538, Servetus continued on his self-destructive trajectory by publishing a work called Apologetica disceptatio pro astrologia which denounced the Faculty of the Universit of Paris for condemning astrological studies. In this work he primarily appeals to Plato writing the divine Plato in his Republic shows the circuit of the heavens to be the cause of change in terrestrial affairs.[footnoteRef:23] He also roots his argument in Aristotle as well as Egyptian and Babylonian astrology.[footnoteRef:24] He was not convicted of heresy at this time, but was forced to leave the school. [footnoteRef:25] [23: Michael Servetus, "Discourse in Favor of Astrology," inMichael Servetus, trans. Charles D. O'Malley (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), 173.] [24: Michael Servetus, "Discourse in Favor of Astrology," inMichael Servetus, trans. Charles D. O'Malley (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), 175.] [25: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 30.]

After Paris, Servetus would settle in Vienne at the request of the Archbishop Pierre Palmier.[footnoteRef:26] It was here that Servetus would return to Biblical pursuits working on a Latin translation of the Bible and practicing medicine. However, his work in this translation was later deemed heretical and placed on index in Madrid.[footnoteRef:27] Although one would expect the constant rebuke to eventually discourage Servetus from writing, it appears that the converse occurred as it caused him once again to begin brooding over his old plan to restore Christianity to the original scriptural simplicity and purity.[footnoteRef:28] [26: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 32.] [27: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 33.] [28: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 33.]

It was in the year 1546 that Servetus began corresponding with Calvin and attempting to publish a book he had been working on for some time. This book, Christianismi restitutio, was his discourse regarding the restoration of Christianity to the simple state in which he believed it to have been conceived.[footnoteRef:29] It was a result of this theology that Calvin famously wrote to Farel, I will not pledge my faith to him for did he come, had I any authority here, I should not suffer him to go away alive.[footnoteRef:30] Although he had trouble publishing the book, he eventually succeeded and in 1553 the book was published.[footnoteRef:31] Calvin was immediately sent a copy of the book by, and the work was immediately denounced by Calvin as heretical and dangerous.[footnoteRef:32] In addition to Calvin, several other significant reformers denounced the work, including Oecolampadius, Luther, and Melanchthon.[footnoteRef:33] In fact, in 1554, after the execution of Servetus, we see Melanchthon write a congratulatory letter to Calvin in which he writes, I have read your refutation of the horrible blasphemies of the Spaniard, and for the conclusion attained give thanks to the Son of God who was umpire in your contest.[footnoteRef:34] [29: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 34.] [30: John F. Fulton,Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr(New York: Herbert Reichner, 1953), 34.] [31: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XXIV.] [32: David Cuthbertson,A Tragedy of the Reformation(Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1912), 47.] [33: David Cuthbertson,A Tragedy of the Reformation(Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1912), 19.] [34: David Cuthbertson,A Tragedy of the Reformation(Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1912), 47 Authors footnote reads Corpus Reformatorum. Ep. Melanchthon, ad. an.1554. See also E. Dunant, Les relations politiques de Geneve avec Berne et les suisses de 1536 a 1564, pp. 131-2. Geneve 1894]

Shortly after the work was published Servetus was accused of heresy and arrested. The evening before the conclusion of the trial, Servetus would escape and flee. The next morning, Servetus was found guilty of heresy and condemned to death.[footnoteRef:35] From that point forward, Servetus days were numbered and decided to make for Naples where he could live out the rest of his life quietly. For unknown reasons he traveled through Geneva and stayed to hear Calvin preach. He was recognized and Calvin initiated his arrest. However it is important to recognize that although Calvin wished to have him arrested and imprisoned for his crimes, he did not wish the death penalty on him. Calvin himself writes: [35: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XXIV.]

I will not deny that it was at my instance that he was arrested, that the prosecutor was set on by me, or that it was by me that the articles of inculpation were drawn up. But all the world knows that since he was convicted of his heresies I never moved to have him punished by death.[footnoteRef:36] [36: David Cuthbertson,A Tragedy of the Reformation(Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1912), 47-48. Italics in original]

However, since the trial would proceed through civil court prior to ecclesiastical court, Calvin had little say in the matter. Through a series of trials starting in the Little Council, eventually making its way up to the Attorney-General, Servetus would be tried for spreading dangerous heresies, leading an immoral life, and disturbing the public peace.[footnoteRef:37] The council would eventually seek the assistance of four other Swiss cities for advice. All four cities agreed that Servetus should be put to death, and although Calvin advocated the more human execution method of beheading, Servetus was burned to death on October 27, 1553.[footnoteRef:38] [37: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XXV. Tense adapted to fit context of essay. Original reading is had long been spreading dangerous heresies, had lead an immoral life, and was a disturber of the public peace.] [38: "The Life of Servetus," preface toThe Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, ed. James H. Ropes and Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), XXV.]

Church Discipline in the CalvinChurch discipline is a complex subject to tackle. The vast majority of modern Protestant Church exercises little of it. In fact, the very idea of barring someone from the Lords Table or asking someone not to return to services would be met with cries of outrage by many modern Christian. However, this was not always the case.[footnoteRef:39] For centuries people were actually held accountable to live as Christians in order to participate in Christian life in the Church. Although it did not originate with Calvin, his writings on Church discipline in the Institutes of the Christian Religion[footnoteRef:40] have been instrumental in many traditions development of Church discipline. In addition to its vast impact, it provides the most systematic and complete treatment of Calvins understanding of the role and method of discipline within the Church and as such I shall take some time to review and explore this important teaching. [39: The abandonment of Church Discipline would be an interesting research field; however it is not the subject of this paper and shall not be explicated.] [40: Referred to as the Institutes throughout]

This teaching is found in Book Four, Chapter Twelve[footnoteRef:41] of the Institutes. Calvin identifies two primary sections that correlate to two different types of Church Discipline. The former is related to how to discipline the laity and the latter how to discipline the clergy.[footnoteRef:42] It will be important to understand both types of discipline, for although Servetus was a theologian it is not always clear if he is viewed as Clergy or Laity. [41: Referred to as IV.12.Section Number throughout. I shall include Book.Chapter.Section Number references along with my citations.] [42: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.1. - Calvin also notes that when he refers to Clergy, he is not specifically speaking of ordained priests as the term was commonly used. Rather he is referring to anyone who holds a public office in the Church]

Calvin begins this discourse by explaining that Church discipline rests in the authority of the Church, given in the power of the keys. He writes, Now discipline depends in a very great measure on the power of the keys and on spiritual jurisdiction.[footnoteRef:43] He continues to comment in that no organized body, whether a family or an entire society, can function properly without a level of discipline. Calvin also considered discipline in the Church to be a much more needed function than in other groups due to the significance of the Churchs message. So significant is the need that he claims all who either wish that discipline were abolished, or impede the restoration of it certainly aim for the complete devastation of the church.[footnoteRef:44] Perhaps most pertinent to our discussion is that Calvin found Church discipline to be an important way to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ.[footnoteRef:45] [43: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.1.] [44: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.1.] [45: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.1.]

Next, Calvin sets out to discuss the various degrees to which Church discipline might be carried out. The first level of discipline is that of private admonishment. Specifically, this kind of discipline is used in cases of public sin. If anyone does not do his duty or behaves insolently, or lives not quite honestly, or commits something worth of blame, Calvin calls for the private admonishment of such a person.[footnoteRef:46] This level of punishment is everyones responsibility and Calvin makes it clear that this is a somber responsibility that each believer bears. We see this when he writes, Everyone must study to admonish his brother when the case requires.[footnoteRef:47] This statement makes clear two points. The former is as mentioned before, everyone must engage in Church discipline. It is not simply the job of the leadership. The second is that everyone is expected to be biblically literate enough to provide this type of admonishment. However, Calvin does note that those in leadership are to exercise a higher level of knowledge and ability in this area. He supports this by showing that Paul himself exercised this type of Church discipline in Acts 20:20, 26-27.[footnoteRef:48] The next level of discipline is to be sought only after the first is rejected. This level again is the obligation of all in the Church and is not limited to those in formal leadership. Finally, if a person continues to reject this type of correction they are to be brought to the bar of the church, which is the consistory of elders.[footnoteRef:49] This rebuke is to be done firmly and publicly, specifically with the hope that if he reverence the church he may submit and obey.[footnoteRef:50] Ultimately, if these corrective steps do not accomplish the goal of effecting repentance and obedience, that person is to be removed from fellowship.[footnoteRef:51] [46: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.2.] [47: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.2.] [48: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.2.] [49: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.2.] [50: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 813, IV.12.2.] [51: In most cases, the extent of this was that they were not allowed to participate in quarterly communion, however in some cases it may have meant banishment from the Church and City entirely.]

In the following two sections, Calvin makes two important distinctions in the types of error that bears correction. The first is that we must distinguish between sins that are private and sins that are public. For the private sins, Calvin is explicit that these must be dealt with privately. He cites Jesus words in Matthew 18:15[footnoteRef:52] who writes go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.[footnoteRef:53] However, he notes that those who sin in a public manner should be confronted in a public manner. For support in this he cites the Apostle Pauls direction to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:20.[footnoteRef:54] The next distinction that Calvin makes is between minor and major offenses. He writes Some sins are mere delinquencies, others crimes and flagrant iniquities.[footnoteRef:55] Calvin does not delineate the means of discipline for minor offenses, so we may assume that the general principles he outlined previously stand. However, for correction of the more severe transgressions he is very specific. They are to be handled with more immediate and severe consequences. He writes it is necessary to employ not only admonition or rebuke, but a shaper remedy.[footnoteRef:56] For Calvin, the specifics of this sharper remedy find precedent in the Apostle Paul. Calvin continues to use the example of the incestuous man in Corinth. He notes that in this example Paul did not begin by privately going to the individual, nor did he insist on bringing him before witnesses or council. Rather he not only verbally rebukes the incestuous Corinthian, but punishes him with excommunication, as soon as he was informed of his crime.[footnoteRef:57] He then closes this section by asserting that churches cannot stand without discipline, and that the utility of this practice will be revealed by its manifold uses.[footnoteRef:58] [52: All Scripture quoted is the original authors quotation and does not reflect quotation of a modern translation. Any quotations of a modern translation will be noted appropriately] [53: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.3.] [54: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.3.] [55: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 81, IV.12.4.] [56: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.4.] [57: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.4.] [58: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.4.]

Next Calvin pauses to explain something critical to the pursuit of Church discipline, namely the reason we engage in such a thing. Specifically he comments on the purpose of excommunication. He identifies three reasons why the Church must not only discipline individuals, but ultimately must follow through with excommunication if the case merits it. The first is something we see as a dominant theme in all of Calvins work. For Calvin, the glory and honor of God is of the highest concern. Calvin believed that the reason excommunication should be practices is that to allow sinful people to openly bear the name of Christian and live in sin is to bring dishonor to the Church and through that to bring dishonor to God. The first [reason] is, that God may not be insulted by the name of Christian being given to those who lead shameful and flagitious lives.[footnoteRef:59] For Calvin, the concept of wicked person and holy persons coexisting with no corrective action being taken was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Furthermore, he places blame on the one administering the Lords Supper if they allow a person living in unrepented sin to partake in communion. The second reason comes from the pastoral perspective that Calvin, unfortunately, is not known for. Calvin wishes for openly sinful persons to be expelled from the Church as not to corrupt others around them. a second end of discipline is, that the good may not, as usually happen, be corrupted by constant communication with the wicked.[footnoteRef:60] Again he appeals to the Scripture to support this claim, citing Paul when he writes to the Corinthians, A little leaven leaventeth the whole lump (1 Cor 5:6).[footnoteRef:61] Finally, and I think most importantly, Calvin believed that excommunication was a means to bring sinners to repentance. He writes, It is for their interested also that their iniquity should be chastised that they may be aroused [to repentance] by the rod.[footnoteRef:62] [59: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 814, IV.12.5.] [60: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 815, IV.12.5.] [61: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 815, IV.12.5.] [62: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 815, IV.12.5.]

In sections following, Calvin comments on several practical examples of this discipline and what methods correlate to which levels of sin. These range from simple verbal rebuke[footnoteRef:63] to denial of the sacraments and excommunication.[footnoteRef:64] He also briefly comments that if a person has been disbarred from fellowship but is repentant and contrite, they should be readmitted to fellowship with the consent of the people.[footnoteRef:65] He also writes briefly that none are above this kind of discipline. He even notes that kings should not be displeased at being judged by the church, and comments that due to the fact that they are often flattered in their throne rooms that they should welcome the correction.[footnoteRef:66] [63: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 815, IV.12.6.] [64: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 816, IV.12.6.] [65: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 816, IV.12.6.] [66: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 816, IV.12.7.]

The next section is particularly important to our discussion. In it, Calvin emphasizes that the discipline of the Laity should accompany it with the spirit of meekiness.[footnoteRef:67] The reason he gives for this is that the target and goal of discipline, here excommunication, is the eventual repentance of the wayward believer. He claims that this should be straightforward with no confusion, writing we shall easily understand how far severity should be carried, and at what point it ought to cease.[footnoteRef:68] He continues to write that once a sinner has repented, that they should be pushed no further in regards to discipline. He continues on in the following section to address the whole Church, writing that they should act mildly and should respond in such a way that allows the sinner to be restored.[footnoteRef:69] [67: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 816, IV.12.8.] [68: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 816, IV.12.8.] [69: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 817, IV.12.9.]

Over the next several sections Calvin explains Christs words regarding the Church loosing and binding things on earth.[footnoteRef:70] He also cautions individuals against separating from the Church by using the example of the Donatist controversy in the time of Augustine.[footnoteRef:71] Next he discusses the topic of fasting as it relates to Church discipline, and explains that it should be something done willingly and assigned by the Church sparingly.[footnoteRef:72] Finally, he engages in a polemic of sorts against the practice of Lent.[footnoteRef:73] [70: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 817-18, IV.12.10.] [71: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 818-819, IV.12.11-13.] [72: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 820-821, IV.12.14-18.] [73: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 821-823, IV.12.19-21.]

In section twenty two, Calvin embarks on the next portion of Church discipline that is pertinent to our cause. This section is related to how Church discipline functions within the Clergy. Now, we must acknowledge that Servetus was not technically considered a part of the Clergy as Calvin defined it. However, Servetus was well learned and wrote several influential treatises and it is likely that Calvin would have considered him accountable to a level higher than the average Church goer.Immediately, Calvin launches into an explanation of how Church discipline worked in the Early Church. He comments that a Bishop was entrusted with the superintendence of his own clergy, and points out that if anyone sinned, he might be punished according to his fault.[footnoteRef:74] However, Calvin makes note that there were limitations on the sovereignty of the Bishop in punishing a wayward clergyman, writing If any bishop had been too harsh or violent with his clergy, there was an appeal to the synod, though only one individual complained.[footnoteRef:75] Perhaps most significant to our discussion he writes The severest punishment was deposition from office, and exclusion, for a time, from communion.[footnoteRef:76] Calvin then concludes the remainder of the chapter by launching a full polemic against the Roman Catholic doctrine requiring celibacy for the Clergy. He argues that this form of discipline, which is parallel to his discussion of fasting in the laity, is too severe and should not be forced upon the Clergy.[footnoteRef:77] He concludes the polemic by pointing out that the push toward celibacy was not universal in the Early Church and thus is suspect.[footnoteRef:78] [74: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 823, IV.12.22.] [75: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 823, IV.12.22.] [76: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 823-824, IV.12.22.] [77: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 824-826, IV.12.23-27.] [78: John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 826, IV.12.28.]

Cast Study The Consistory of GenevaWork the Plan, the Plan WorksConcluding thoughts