Survey of
Institutes of The Christian Religion
by John Calvin
Lesson Fifteen
the second on Book IV
Calvin and the execution of M. Servetus
Adult Education Class for RMPCA,
class begins May 9, 2004
stored on the net at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson15_essay.html
date shared: August 15, 2004

Justification:

If you were to analyze the anti-Calvin sites and essays on the net, most of them would make reference to the execution of Michael Servetus and how this event makes Calvin's lifetime work in theology at least suspect, if not totally invalidate. There seem to be two great champions of this viewpoint: secularists who would remake Servetus into a proto-scientist fighting the forces of religion[i] and other darkness and fundamentalist Baptists (see Servetus cover-up comic below) who see their roots in the Anabaptist movement and find in the event a way to cast a cloud over Calvin and thereby dismiss his theology. In both cases, ignorance of the real issues seems to predominate and I hope this lesson will help Reformed Christians understand the fundamental and important issues at stake.

What are the issues?

The first is the necessity of discipline in the church, how it is used and for what purposes.
The second is the relationship of the church to the magistrate.[ii]
This issue has an historical component in the doctrine of the two swords by Augustine and the Constantinian synthesis.
The third is the continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Testament as interpreted by Calvin and covenant theology and the effects of this exegesis on infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The last I will discuss is the underlying theme of Christendom or Corpus Christianum[iii] and how boundaries are drawn and under what kind of forces these ideas mutate over time. The relationship of Islam to this boundary is of primary importance and is not generally recognized.

1. What is Church discipline?

Institutes IV.12

12. OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.

This chapter consists of two parts: -

I. The first part of ecclesiastical discipline which respects the people, and is called common, consists of two parts, the former depending on the power of the keys, which is considered, sec. 1-14; the latter consisting in the appointment of times for fasting and prayer, sec. 14-21.

II. The second part of ecclesiastical discipline relating to the clergy, sec. 22-28.

Sections.

(Discussion of power of the keys in true discipline: the ends and processes of discipline, 1-7)
1. Necessity and nature of church discipline

The discipline of the Church, the consideration of which has been deferred till now, must be briefly explained, that we may be able to pass to other matters. Now discipline depends in a very great measure on the power of the keys and on spiritual jurisdiction. That this may be more easily understood let us divide the Church into two principal classes viz., clergy and people. The term clergy I use in the common acceptation for those who perform a public ministry in the Church. We shall speak first of the common discipline to which all ought to be subject, and then proceed to the clergy, who have besides that common discipline one peculiar to themselves.

But as some, from hatred of discipline, are averse to the very name, for their sake we observe, - If no society, nay, no house with even a moderate family can be kept in a right state without discipline, much more necessary is it in the Church, whose state ought to be the best ordered possible. Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the Church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews; for to it, it is owing that the members of the body adhere together, each in its own place. Wherefore, all who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impede the restoration of it, whether they do this of design or through thoughtlessness, certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church. For what will be the result if every one is allowed to do as he pleases? But this must happen if to the preaching of the gospel are not added private admonition, correction, and similar methods of maintaining doctrine, and not allowing it to become lethargic. Discipline, therefore, is a kind of curb to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ, or it is a kind of stimulus by which the indifferent are aroused; sometimes, also, it is a kind of fatherly rod, by which those who have made some more grievous lapse are chastised in mercy with the meekness of the spirit of Christ. Since, then, we already see some beginnings of a fearful devastation in the Church from the total want of care and method in managing the people, necessity itself cries aloud that there is need of a remedy. Now the only remedy is this which Christ enjoins, and the pious have always had in use.

Why does the Church perform the unpleasant task of discipline?

5. The purpose of church discipline

There are three ends to which the Church has respect in thus correcting and excommunicating. The first is, that God may not be insulted by the name of Christians being given to those who lead shameful and flagitous lives, as if his holy Church were a combination of the wicked and abandoned. For seeing that the Church is the body of Christ, she cannot be defiled by such fetid and putrid members, without bringing some disgrace on her Head. Therefore, that there may be nothing in the Church to bring disgrace on his sacred name, those whose turpitude might throw infamy on the name must be expelled from his family. And here, also, regard must be had to the Lord's Supper, which might be profaned by a promiscuous admission. For it is most true, that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if he knowingly and willingly admits any unworthy person whom he ought and is able to repel, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord's body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom bitterly inveighs against priests, who, from fear of the great, dare not keep any one back. "Blood (says he, Hom. 83, in Matth.) will be required at your hands. If you fear man, he will mock you, but if you fear God, you will be respected also by men. Let us not tremble at farces, purple, or diadems; our power here is greater. Assuredly I will sooner give up my body to death, and allow my blood to be shed, than be a partaker of that pollution." Therefore, lest this most sacred mystery should be exposed to ignominy, great selection is required in dispensing it, and this cannot be except by the jurisdiction of the Church.

A second end of discipline is, that the good may not, as usually happens, be corrupted by constant communication with the wicked. For such is our proneness to go astray, that nothing is easier than to seduce us from the right course by bad example. To this use of discipline the apostle referred when he commanded the Corinthians to discard the incestuous man from their society. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," (1 Cor. 5: 6.) And so much danger did he foresee here, that he prohibited them from keeping company with such persons. "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not to eat," (1 Cor. 5: 11.) A third end of discipline is, that the sinner may be ashamed, and begin to repent of his turpitude. Hence it is for their interest also that their iniquity should be chastised that whereas they would have become more obstinate by indulgence, they may be aroused by the rod. This the apostle intimates when he thus writes "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed," (2 Thess. 3: 14.) Again, when he says that he had delivered the Corinthian to Satan, "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," (1 Cor. 5: 5;) that is as I interpret it, he gave him over to temporal condemnation, that he might be made safe for eternity. And he says that he gave him over to Satan because the devil is without the Church, as Christ is in the Church. Some interpret this of a certain infliction on the flesh, but this interpretation seems to me most improbable. (August. de Verb. Apostol. Serm. 68.)

It is a boundary issue. With baptism we allow people to cross into the visible church, with discipline we put the wicked outside of the church boundaries. The primary goal in mind is the sanctity of the Lord's Supper, fencing the holiness of the supper from the wicked and evil among the visible membership. So just like infant baptism was the lightening rod for issues regarding the boundary into the Church, Communion will be the central theme for the issues on removing people from the church. In many ways it acts as a second defense line where the actions of people are considered rather than just their testimony of faith in baptism.

What are the potential ranges of punishments?

10. Excommunication is corrective

For when our Saviour promises that what his servants bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 18: 18,) he confines the power of binding to the censure of the Church, which does not consign those who are excommunicated to perpetual ruin and damnation, but assures them, when they hear their life and manners condemned, that perpetual damnation will follow if they do not repent. Excommunication differs from anathema in this, that the latter completely excluding pardon, dooms and devotes the individual to eternal destruction, whereas the former rather rebukes and animadverts upon his manners; and although it also punishes, it is to bring him to salvation, by forewarning him of his future doom. If it succeeds, reconciliation and restoration to communion are ready to be given. Moreover, anathema is rarely if ever to be used. Hence, though ecclesiastical discipline does not allow us to be on familiar and intimate terms with excommunicated persons, still we ought to strive by all possible means to bring them to a better mind, and recover them to the fellowship and unity of the Church: as the apostle also says, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother," (2 Thess. 3: 15.) If this humanity be not observed in private as well as public, the danger is, that our discipline shall degenerate into destruction.

Excommunication, that is enforcement of the fence surrounding the Lord's table, is the strongest form of punishment allowed to the church. And it fits the situation, the point is to perserve the sanctity of the Table against the problems of an inclusive church: unregenerated covenant children, the tares sown among the wheat, the problem of counterfeit faith and the problem of apostasy. All of these are issues of the visible church allowing people into the circle of the church and someday discovering that they did not show the fruits of the spirit expected of a Christian. So excommunication puts this person outside the visible church. It doesn't bar him from attending church and listening to sermons and observing Communion, for these are rightly means of grace that redeem sinners, to bring him back rightly this time within the boundaries of the Church. It is also one of the fundamental problems surrounding the ideal of a parish church, that is everyone within earshot of the church bells is a Christian(except Jews) by virtue of their geographical inclusion within the boundaries of that state established church. Infant baptism, often without the faith of the parents being expressed is a substantial bulwark to this idea, hence the Anabaptist assault on it.

2. But Servetus was not a church member and burning at the stake is not the same thing as excommunication

This is the problem, Calvin was not practicing church discipline on Servetus, just what was he doing then?

Institutes Book IV

20. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

9. Concern for both Tables of the Law

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. _{That it extends to both
tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane
writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the
enacting of
laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine
worship.
Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established
unless
piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard
the
rights of God, and consult only for men.} Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of Him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule.

Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased, (Judges 21: 25.)

This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety.

In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, "Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood," (Jer. 22: 3.) To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, "Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked," (Psalm 82: 3, 4.) Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgement; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgement is God's," (Deut. 1: 16.) I say nothing as to such passages as these, "He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;" "neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;" "he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;" "and it shall be with him and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;" "that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren," (Deut. 17: 16-20.) In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. "A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that has an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me," (Psalm 101: 4-6.)

But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power to curb manifest evildoers and criminals, by whose misconduct the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon's saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of states totters and falls to pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue, and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute "judgement and righteousness," (Jer. 21: 12; 22: 3.) It is righteousness (justice) to take charge at the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgement to withstand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence and punish their faults.

10. The magistrates' exercise of force is compatible with piety

But here a difficulty and, as it seems, a perplexing question arises. If all Christians are forbidden to kill, and the prophet predicts concerning the holy mountain of the Lords that is, the Church, "They shall not hurt or destroy," how can magistrates be at once pious and yet shedders at blood?

But if we understand that the magistrate, in inflicting punishment, acts not of himself, but executes the very judgements of God, we shall be disencumbered of every doubt. The law of the Lord forbids to kill; but, that murder may not go unpunished, the Lawgiver himself puts the sword into the hands of his ministers, that they may employ it against all murderers. It belongs not to the pious to afflict and hurt, but to avenge the afflictions of the pious, at the command of God, is neither to afflict nor hurt. I wish it could always be present to our mind, that nothing is done here by the rashness of man, but all in obedience to the authority of God. When it is the guide, we never stray from the right path, unless, indeed, divine justice is to be placed under restraint, and not allowed to take punishment on crimes. But if we dare not give the law to it, why should we bring a charge against its ministers? "He beareth not the sword in vain," says Paul, "for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil," (Rom. 13: 4.) Wherefore, if princes and other rulers know that nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience, let them give themselves to this service if they are desirous, to approve their piety, justice, and integrity to God.

This, was the feeling of Moses when, recognising himself as destined to deliver his people by the power of the Lord, he laid violent hands on the Egyptian, and afterwards took vengeance on the people for sacrilege, by slaying three thousand of them in one day. This was the feeling of David also, when, towards the end of his life, he ordered his son Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death. Hence, also, in an enumeration of the virtues of a king, one is to cut off the wicked from the earth, and banish all workers of iniquity from the city of God. To the same effect is the praise which is bestowed on Solomon, "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness."

How is it that the meek and gentle temper of Moses becomes so exasperated, that, besmeared and reeking with the blood of his brethren, he runs through the camp making new slaughter? How is it that David, who, during his whole life, showed so much mildness, almost at his last breath leaves with his son the bloody testament, not to allow the grey hairs of Joab and Shimei to go to the grave in peace? Both, by their sternness, sanctified the hands which they would have polluted by showing mercy, inasmuch as they executed the vengeance committed to them by God. Solomon says, "It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by righteousness." Again, "A king that sitteth in the throne of judgement, scattereth away all evil with his eyes." Again, "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them." Again, "Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness." Again "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Again, "An evil man seeketh only rebellion, therefore an evil messenger shall be sent against him." Again, "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him."

Now, if it is true justice in them to pursue the guilty and impious with drawn sword, to sheath the sword, and keep their hands pure from blood, while nefarious men wade through murder and slaughter, so far from redounding to the praise of their goodness and justice, would be to incur the guilt of the greatest impiety; provided, always, they eschew reckless and cruel asperity, and that tribunal which may be justly termed a rock on which the accused must founder. For I am not one of those who would either favour an unseasonable severity, or think that any tribunal could be accounted just that is not presided over by mercy, that best and surest counsellor of kings, and, as Solomon declares, "upholder of the throne," (Prov. 20: 28.) This, as was truly said by one of old, should be the primary endowment of princes.

The magistrate must guard against both extremes; he must neither, by excessive severity, rather wound than cure, nor by a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into the most cruel inhumanity, by giving way to soft and dissolute indulgence to the destruction of many. It was well said by one under the empire of Nerva, It is indeed a bad thing to live under a prince with whom nothing is lawful, but a much worse to live under one with whom all things are lawful.

-----end of Calvin’s Institutes quote

So the magistrate enforces BOTH tablets of the law, which are written on all men's hearts.
This is where the fundamental issues of the continuity and discontinuity of the Testaments comes in so strongly. The Old Testament presents Israel as a theocracy, a civil government ruled by a dual hierarchy: the high priest and the king. How much of this is applicable to the Church and the new kingdom Jesus ushered in with His death? Calvin recognizes that the tie to ethnicity and genetics ended with Pentecost, but yet still sees the promises 'to you and your children' as being family based hence the his best defense of infant baptism. But the radical voluntariness of the church remained a doctrine only in the radical Reformation, for they alone deny the ideas that follow.

To get a firmer handle on the ideas we need to look to the crucial events of the 4th century: Constantine and Augustine.

from: http://www.knights.freeuk.com/mjp/MIL4002-9.htm
The Church became central to society and instead of Jewish apocalyptic being its primary dialogue partner, it found itself explaining itself to Greek philosophy. Primitive Christianity in both the Hellenistic and medieval Roman Catholic paradigms moved from being on the edge of the State and held in contempt by the Powerful and became transformed into an idea of Christendom, the Christian State. The emphasis became creating a Christian civilization, with laws based on biblical teaching and ruled by Kings and Emperors under explicit obligation to Christian discipleship. This may well have had many regrettable consequences, but it was an inevitable development of the missionary impulse of Christianity.

Constantine switched the Imperial patronage from Zeus, Apollo and company to the Christian Church and in doing so set into motion the institution that Luther rebelled against 1200 years later. There are several excellent books on the topic, I would recommend a set by Rodney Stark, where he introduces the motif of the Church of Piety versus the Church of Power and the entanglements and trouble this entails. For this discussion it is important to see the rise of an idea of Christendom or Corpus Christianum that looks at lot like Europe in the 16thC. Coupled with Augustine's doctrine of the two swords this was a most powerful motif that actually overrode many of the related and contradictory ideas from the Scriptures and is responsible for Calvin's behavior in the Servetus affair.

For Augustine's two swords theory gave a spiritual sword to the church but asked the church to refer the worst of the offenders to the civil state for execution by the secular killing sword. This is in fact what Calvin did as expert theological witness and preferrer of first charges; he was the representative of the visible church handing over to the state a dangerous seditious treasonous person.

3. What was the trial of Servetus?

from: http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.8.HTML

# CALVIN AND THE BURNING OF SERVETUS

1. The one event in Calvin's life that has cast a shadow over his fair name, and which has exposed him to the charge of intolerance and persecution is the burning of the heretic Servetus. Calvin's enemies have played this event to the hilt. Facts have often been withheld or misconstrued so as to put Calvin in a bad light. That the burning of Servetus was a mistake is admitted by all. History knows only one spotless being — Jesus Christ, the savior of sinners. All others have marks of infirmity in their lives.

2. Servetus was a Spaniard who opposed Christianity, both in its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms. He denied the Trinity and was the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century. He opposed the teaching of justification by faith and infant baptism. Servetus was a very strange person, and to understand him we have to look into his background. He had a split personality, and perhaps some of this can be traced to the fact he was castrated at the age of five. He was religious and superstitious, but not Christian. He followed astrology like a religion and consulted the stars rather than the Bible for guidance. He was a proud, vain and arrogant man.

3. Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienna, France. Before he came to Geneva, he corresponded with Calvin, and Calvin did all he could to help this man see the truth of Christianity, but with no success. Servetus regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism whom he was determined to convert or overthrow. When Servetus first came to Geneva, he tried to align himself with the liberal city council that was somewhat opposed to Calvin. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved punishment. Servetus actions were in one sense sedition — because in a theocracy there is a mixture of state and church, his attempt to overthrow the church was an attempt to overthrow the government of Geneva. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial.
Calvin and other pastors in Geneva spent days with Servetus, trying to help him to see the error of his way, but Servetus was as hard as stone. He was convinced that the liberal council would throw Calvin out and let him out of jail.

4. The trial of Servetus was left to the civil court, which charged him with fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. The city council at this point was not favorable to Calvin. The libertines hoped to use the Servetus situation as a means of getting Calvin expelled from Geneva. The court's decision was:

“Inasmuch as you, Michael Servetus of Villanueva in the Spanish kingdom of Aragon, have been accused of terrible blasphemies against the holy Trinity, against the Son of God and other principles of the Christian faith, whereas you have called the Trinity a devil and a monster with three heads, whereas you went about to destroy poor souls by your horrifying mockery of the honor and majesty of God, too wicked to be mentioned, whereas refusing to be taught in any way, you called Christian atheists and magicians, whereas, whereas, whereas . . .

“We, the mayor and judges of this city, having been called to the duty of preserving the church of God from schism and seduction, and to free Christians of such pestilence, decree that you, Michael Servetus, be led to the place of Champel and be bound to a stake and with your book be burned to ashes, a warning to all who blaspheme God.”

The verdict was “guilty,” and the sentence punishment by fire. Calvin, agreeing that Servetus should be put to death, opposed the state’s method of execution and pleaded for the sword to be substituted for the fire. The council refused Calvin's request. The final responsibility for the burning rested with the city council, not Calvin.
Had Servetus been executed in any other way than by fire, his death would have passed almost unnoticed.

5. Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics (Lev. 24:16). Calvin also felt himself providentially called to purify the church of all corruptions, and to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct toward Servetus.

6. We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards. We must remember that Servetus was given a fair court trial, which lasted over two months, and that he was sentenced by the full session of the civil council in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom.

It should be noted that only Servetus was put to death in Geneva and no one else. No Catholic or Anabaptist was ever executed in Geneva for the sake of his religious conviction.

7. Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Re-formers of the time. Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Besa all felt that Calvin and Geneva dealt fairly with Servetus. The city council sought the advice of the other cities in Switzerland as to the fate of Servetus and received the following answers:

From Zwingli's city: “No severity is too great to punish such an offense. Our preachers are in total agreement with what Calvin thinks of his doctrine.

From Schaffhausen: “Stop the evil, other-wise his blasphemies, like a crawfish, will eat away the members of Christ!”

From Basel: “Do what lies in your power to convince him of his error. If he persists in his folly, then use the power which is entrusted to you by God to prevent him by force from any further injury to the Church of Christ.”

Even Melanchthon stated to Calvin in a letter, “I have read your book in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus . . . To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man.”

Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with twentieth century ideas.

8. When Servetus was informed of the decision of the council, he was stunned at first, and then began to rant and rave like a mad man. Again, Calvin went to Servetus, hoping to lead him to Christ, and said to him:

“Believe me, never did I have the intention to prosecute you because of some offense against me. Do you remember,” he spoke now with a tender voice and not in a tone of reproach, “how, in danger of death, I wanted to meet you in Paris sixteen years ago in order to win you to our Lord? And afterwards when you were a fugitive was I not concerned to show you the right way in letters until you began to hate me because you were offended by my firmness? But let's not talk about me, nor of the past! Are you thinking of asking forgiveness of the everlasting God whom you have blasphemed on so many occasions? Are you thinking of being reconciled to the Son of God?”

Servetus became quite serious and humble as he faced the certainty of death. He asked Calvin to forgive him, and perhaps he asked Christ for forgiveness also. It is recorded that he spent the last twenty-four hours of his life repeating over and over again, “Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!”

9. In Geneva at this very hour, on the place where Servetus was burned, is an inscription placed there by later followers of Calvin which says:

“As reverent and grateful
sons of Calvin,
our great Reformer,
repudiating his mistake, which was the mistake
of his age,
and according to the true principles of the
Reformation and the Gospel
holding fast to the freedom of conscience,
we erect
this monument of reconciliation
on XXVII October MCMIII”

What Calvin did was to prosecute treason, the same as the US did with the Roseburg's. Even more to the point, the trial of Saco and Venzetti in the 1920's offers us a glimpse into the same process in our own society. We human beings guard the essential elements of our societies with extraordinary passion, for the impulse to disorder and the breakdown of society is so feared. Often I have read Chinese history that reflects that the Chinese will do almost anything to avoid anarchy and civil unrest, and often do terrible things in the name of order and stability. Those times of disorder occur frequently anyhow and cause so much pain and suffering that these periods become the next great evil to avoid at all costs. It was this boundary of Christendom that Calvin was defending at all costs, not the visible church boundary, but he like almost all the people of his age mistook the two. It was the hated Anabaptists that intuitively recognized that the Constantinian synthesis had bequeathed us a chimera that was better off dead than resurrected in the magisterial Reformation. They saw this clearly for the reasons that they, in general, did not see the continuities of the Testaments that the Reformers did. They saw only the New Testament Church without the exegetical and historical baggage from an association with the Old Testament Israel; from this exegetical error they did see the intertwining of the state and church as a great evil. It was several hundred years later in the American experience of church disestablishment because of pragmatic reasons that the children of Calvin stumbled onto the same question but answered it pragmatically rather than the principled way the Anabaptists started in the early 16th century.

The issue is one of boundaries and how we cross them: voluntarily as individuals or corporately hence involuntarily. We do not choose our parents, covenant children are in church involuntarily, brought there by the faithfulness of their parents. God promises to reward faithfulness but He obviously doesn’t always convert covenant children, but gives us the hope that this is His Will. This is the reason the Anabaptists did not want to deal with a category of people in the Church but not voluntarily of the Church. Individuality and the loss of corporate thinking is still 200 years in the future for Calvin’s successors in the French Enlightenment, so people in his day set the scale of individual----corporate far more to the community end then to we, the bearers of both Enlightenment and Reformation cultural values. But it is this essential voluntariness of Church membership and by right that boundary between the world and the church, that the Anabaptists fought for and that we now believe contra Calvin. For today we believe much closer to the Anabaptist believers church than that parish ideal that was part of the Corpus Christianum that almost all Europeans believed to be Biblical in the 16^th century. Infant baptism is now crucially related to the faith of the parent’s, something not important in the 16^th century, for being baptized yourself was the only requirement, confirmation or even taking communion was not required to present a child for baptism.

My final unanswered question is however, is our stand on not asking the magistrate to prosecute heresy a pragmatic or a principled stand?

research links:

http://www.pbministries.org/Baptists/J.%20B.%20Jeter/baptist_principles_reset/bpr_p2_08.htm
http://www.covenanter.org/GGillespie/miscellaneousquestions/ggilles13.html

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin.htm

The Servetus Cover-Up

"... you KNOW that no murderer has
eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn. 3:15). "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the MURDERERS,
the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts,
the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the
fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

Read the whole, fully-documented story about John Calvin and Michael Servetus!

Permission is granted to reproduce this in its entirety only.

http://www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/calvinismmain.html
http://www.thirdmill.org/qach_answer_main.asp/section/qa/subnav/ch/file/99812.qna
http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_chap5.htm

THE RIGHT TO HERESY
OR, HOW JOHN CALVIN KILLED A CONSCIENCE
Castellio Against Calvin
by
Stefan Zweig
at: http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_intro.htm

THE
EXECUTION OF SERVETUS
FOR BLASPHEMY, HERESY,
& OBSTINATE ANABAPTISM,
DEFENDED
By John Knox
at: http://www.covenanter.org/Antitoleration/knoxdefended.html

John E. Longhurst
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN
(1517-1546)
at: http://www.ku.edu/carrie/texts/carrie_books/longhurst/index.html

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?457

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28055&highlight=calvin+servetus
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/pastwords/chl047.shtml
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28054
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/home.html

Quote:

Good point. Which can nicely segue way us back into the topic at hand. In light of God's grace, the New Testament, the words and teachings of Christ, Christ's fulfillment of the Law etc. how then could Calvin and his fellows at Geneva possibly decide that a theocratic government complete with imprisonment and execution as possible punishments, be according to the teachings of grace and liberty? Shouldn't that lack of proper discernment be taken in to account when regarding his theological disposition as being the faith that embodies 'biblical Christianity?

It’s a good question. I don't expect that we will answer it here. But pieces of the answer are straightforward enough to express within Web’s message posting limits.

1-Calvin is NOT theocratic. Nor was Geneva a theocratic state. Calvin taught an early form of what we now describe as sphere sovereignty. The government of the republic of Geneva and the company of pastor's are best described as Erastian. That is the state operates to command the church. And this is exactly the relationship- the council commanded the company of pastors to admit people that they had excommunicated earlier to the Lord's Table. Period.

2. The fundamental 'problem' with executing Servetus is that (a) the doctrine of the two swords in Augustine (b) the Constantinian synthesis of Roman state and Christian church that resulted in the confusion of the two, yielding the parish church, the division of the visible church into the Church of Power and the Church of Piety as Stark so well puts it, and the use of the secular sword to kill in cases of heresy.

3. Looking at the times through 450 years of subsequent history distorts both what Calvin said and believed and what we as his intellectual and religious heirs have come to see as his errors. The best way of looking at the execution of Servetus is that he was executed for treason. He denied the basic 'glue' that held together society. This is no different than the modern execution of Saco and Vanzetti or Mrs. Rosenberg. The country saw them as traitors. Period.

4.as to the issues of grace and liberty. These are bigger issues. For Calvin as for all covenant theologians there is very little distinction between the Law and Grace, between the covenant of Works and the covenant of Grace. The Law drives men to see their need for redemption, and Grace provides a sacrifice where Jesus completes and actively fulfills the Law in our place. Only the ceremonial portions of Hebraic Law are not applied to Calvin's view of society. The moral Law, both tablets, are still binding on all societies within Calvin's theology. Although Calvin's notions of natural theology are substantially closer to Roman Catholicism than to modern conservative Reformed thinking. He in several places yields to natural fallen man the ability to rightly order society according to 'natural reason' and 'the law as written on the hearts of all men'.

i hope that helps a little. There is supposed to be a statue in Geneva where the intellectual offspring of Calvin apologize to Servetus and his descendents and admit that Calvin was on the wrong side of the issue. Something that took the rise of the American republic and the disestablishment of the churches to teach us. Simply put Calvin was not just a very conservative man but he was in many things a man of his times and therefore prone to the errors of those days. In many ways, I am thinking particularly of Institutes Book I and epistemology Calvin is very much ahead of his time and sounds very modern. In his statecraft he was very conservative and was personally very interested in the issues of stability and lawfulness. One has only to read the extraordinary preface to Institutes, the dedicatory letter to Francis I to prove this point.

-----

Quote:

Those modern executions are very 'secular' in nature, however. The 'glue' that held together society that you speak to would be that present 'Geneva Society'? Servetus was not the only 'result' of Calvin and the councils authority...we have other examples of people imprisoned, flogged etc. at Geneva. Again, is not a Christian to be more than simply a man of his time? Should he or she not transcend the times in which they live? Just as 'the Gospel' does?

Our sanctification is a process in time. It is not expected to be completed this side of heaven (unless you are a Wesleyan perfectionist).
Likewise, analogously, the Church is being perfected in time. Jesus is essentially teaching His bride how to live, and again this is a process in time. Because we are beings in time, in space, finite. There is this slow, and I must confess it appears awkward, unfolding of doctrine, of how to live as children of the King in the world. And this is on top of the social, cultural, historical evolution of the human race itself. The Church seems to straddle the world, partly in the world and thereby contaminated by its inherent evil, and partly in the heavenlys, this great "now but not yet" metaphor. Where the Kingdom is among us, but not yet fully born.

Calvin was a child of his time, and a child of the Church. Just as you and I are. For example, our ecclesiology is deeply contaminated by the individualism of our times. We seldom say things like "you can't have God as your Father unless you embrace the Church as your Mother" or "outside of the Church there is no salvation". Part of this individualism finds it's expression in the revulsion most of us feel towards the execution of Servetus, the death due to saying words, to writing books. But another part of this individualism misses the point of Sola Scriptura and moves the spectrum too far from the collective, from the body, from the Church. And this I think is one of the great lessons of the issue. Calvin, as did Luther, and Zwingli and all theologians (except those of the Radical Reformation) until the early 1700's, thought that the body of Christ had to be protected by the secular sword from heresy, lest the thoughts expressed lead any souls to perdition. Perhaps in throwing out the necessity of execution(for heresy) we have inadvertently minimized the damage that heresy is and does. Perhaps we do not take our theology seriously enough.

-----
the above is a quote from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27327&highlight=calvin+servetus

what follows is from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=573201&postcount=61

We can judge Calvin as one guilty of complicity in the murder of Servetus. The true church is ever a pillar and support of the truth and, as such, is above moral errors of any age. For example, true Christians did not participate the brutal, family-shattering institution for enslaving members of the black race, a race against which whites had no pecuniary claims as justification for their enslavement of blacks--let alone the matter of shattering black families. Just an error of the age, or another of the moral and spiritual failures in the southern Baptist Church?

(I recall my maternal grandmother, who lived to a very old age, recount on more than one occasion that she had heard more than one Baptist minister, who lived through the Civil War, preach to their congregations that "[blacks] had no soul," meaning that they were not human. She grew into adulthood with that prejudice, and judging by what I remember of her conduct towards blacks, I am fairly certain she never made significant improvement against that error. And yes, my own mother died holding prejudicial views against blacks. I lay some blame for all this at the feet of Presbyterian and Baptist ministers who did not overcome the error of their age.)

True Christians rose above racist error of that age before the Civil War; yes, we can indeed condemn as unchristian and ungodly the enslavement of blacks by those who claimed to own the tenderest affections for Jesus Christ. (God, spare us such "Christians" as those!)

There is no apostolic authority that may be invoked whereby Christians may sit in judgment for purpose of executing those whose beliefs do not agree with true Christianity--just as there is no apostolic authority for the slavery that existed in the USA before the Civil War.

from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15474&highlight=calvin+servetus
original link: http://www.arminian.net/estep.html

He was no advocate of religious freedom, but an autocrat who often mistook his own will for the will of God.

Calvin never was able to free himself from his Roman Catholic heritage. The tenacity with which he held to infant baptism, a church-state in which a sin against the church became a crime against the state, and the use of the civil government to enforce conformity to the Genevan theocracy reflect his adherence to the Codex Justinian.

His Old Testament hermeneutics and his uncontrollable temper acerbated his intolerance of those who disagreed with him. A case in point was his quarrel with Jerome Bolsec over predestination.

-----
http://www.crisispub.com/evolution_of_calvinism.htm
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10001&page=2&pp=16&highlight=calvin+servetus
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/search.php?searchid=276274
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18618&highlight=servetus+calvin

http://www.servetus.org/es/news-events/articulos/20030901.htm
http://www.christianforums.com/t722701

http://www.smartpedia.com/smart/browse/Anabaptist
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2001/01/daily-01-21-2001.shtml

a covenant theology justification of anti-paedo baptist
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html