Chapter 20.                                   
        
                                                    Of civil government.

This chapter consists of two principal heads,
I. General discourse on the necessity, dignity, and use of Civil Government, in opposition
to the frantic proceedings of the Anabaptists, sec. 1-3.
II. A special exposition of the three leading parts of which Civil Government consists, sec.
4-32.
The first part treats of the function of Magistrates, whose authority and calling is proved,
sec. 4-7.
Next, the three forms of civil government are added, sec. 8.
Thirdly, Consideration of the office of the civil magistrate in respect of piety and
righteousness. Here, of rewards and punishments, viz., punishing the guilty, protecting the
innocent, repressing the seditious, managing, the affairs of peace and war, sec. 9-13.
The second part treats of Laws, their utility, necessity, form, authority, constitution,
and scope, sec. 14-16.
The last part relates to the People, and explains the use of laws, courts, and magistrates,
to the common society of Christians, sec. 17-21.
Deference which private individuals owe to magistrates, and how far obedience ought to be
carried, sec. 22-32.

                                                Sections

        1. Having shown above that there is a twofold government in man, and having fully
considered the one which, placed in the soul or inward man, relates to eternal life, we are
here called to say something of the other, which pertains only to civil institutions and the
external regulation of manners. For although this subject seems from its nature to be
unconnected with the spiritual doctrine of faith, which I have undertaken to treat, it will
appear, as we proceed, that I have properly connected them, nay, that I am under the
necessity Of doing so, especially while, on the one hand, frantic and barbarous men are
furiously endeavouring to overturn the order established by God, and, on the other, the
flatterers of princess extolling their power without measure, hesitate not to oppose it to the
government of God. Unless we meet both extremes, the purity of the faith will perish. We
may add, that it in no small degree concerns us to know how kindly God has here consulted
for the human race, that pious zeal may the more strongly urge us to testify our gratitude.
And first, before entering on the subject itself, it is necessary to attend to the distinction
which we formerly laid down (Book 3 Chap. 19 sec. 16; et supra, Chap. 10), lest, as often
happens to many, we imprudently confound these two things, the nature of which is
altogether different. For some, on hearing that liberty is promised in the gospel, a liberty
which acknowledges no king and no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think
that they can receive no benefit from their liberty so long as they see any power placed over
them. Accordingly, they think that nothing will be safe until the whole world is changed into a
new form, when there will be neither courts, nor laws nor magistrates, nor anything of the
kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty. But he who knows to distinguish
between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future
and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and
civil government are things very widely separated. Seeing, therefore, it is a Jewish vanity to
seek and include the kingdom of Christ under the elements of this world, let us, considering,
as Scripture clearly teaches, that the blessings which we derive from Christ are spiritual,
remember to confine the liberty which is promised and offered to us in him within its proper
limits. For why is it that the very same apostle which bids us “stand fast in the liberty
wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage”
(Gal. 5: l), in another passage forbids slaves to be solicitous about their state (1Co_7:21),
unless it be that spiritual liberty is perfectly compatible with civil servitude? In this sense the
following passages are to be understood: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Gal_3:28). Again: “There is neither Greek
nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is
all and in all” (Col_3:11). It is thus intimated that it matters not what your condition is among
men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all
consist.

2. Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme
of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do.
Fanatics, indeed delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that after we are dead
by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit
among the celestial, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity to be occupied with
those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what
ends they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do
with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we
lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of
Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some
measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and
evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is
assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of
God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to
human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish
common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God,
as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while
we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need
of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity. As to their
allegation, that there ought to be such perfection in the Church of God that her guidance
should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can he found in the
community of men. For while the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so
stubborn, that it can scarcely be curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would
be done by those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see perfect
impunity for their wickedness?

3. But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we
wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its
use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is
much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe,
eat, drink, and be warmed (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live
together); this, I say, is not its only object, but it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the
name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and
be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man’s
property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that
honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among
Christians, and humanity among men. Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task
of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond
the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws
concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed
to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being
with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy. But the reader, by the help
of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole
order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three:
The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he
governs; and the People, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let us
consider then, first, What is the function of the magistrate? Is it a lawful calling approved by
God? What is the nature of his duty? What the extent of his power? Secondly, What are the
laws by which Christian polity is to be regulated?. And, lastly, What is the use of laws as
regards the people? And, What obedience is due to the magistrate?

4. With regard to the function of magistrates, the Lord has not only declared that he
approves and is pleased with it, but, moreover has strongly recommended it to us by the
very honourable titles which he has conferred upon it. To mention a few. When those who
bear the office of magistrate are called gods, let no one suppose that there is little weight in
that appellation. It is thereby intimated that they have a commission from God, that they are
invested with divine authority and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose
substitutes they in a manner act. This is not a quibble of mine, but is the interpretation of
Christ. “If Scriptures” says He, “called them gods to whom the word of God came.” What is
this but that the business was committed to them by Gods to serve him in their office, and
(as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they were appointing over each of the
cities of Judah) to exercise judgement, not for man, but for God? To the same effect
Wisdom affirms, by the mouth of Solomon, “By me kings reigns and princes decree Justice.
By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (Pro_8:15, Pro_8:16). For
it is just as if it had been said, that it is not owing to human perverseness that supreme
power on earth is lodged in kings and other governors, but by Divine Providence, and the
holy decree of Him to whom it has seemed good so to govern the affairs of men, since he is
present, and also presides in enacting laws and exercising judicial equity. This Paul also
plainly teaches when he enumerates offices of rule among the gifts of God, which,
distributed variously, according to the measure of grace, ought to be employed by the
servants of Christ for the edification of the Church (Rom_12:8). In that place, however, he is
properly speaking of the senate of grave men who were appointed in the primitive Church to
take charge of public discipline. This office, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he calls
kuberne4seis, governments (1Co_12:28). Still, as we see that civil power has the same end
in view, there can be no doubt that he is recommending every kind of just government. He
speaks much more clearly when he comes to a proper discussion of the subject. For he
says that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God;” that rulers
are the ministers of God, “not a terror to good works, but to the evil” (Rom_13:1, Rom_13:
3). To this we may add the examples of saints, some of whom held the offices of kings, as
David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others of governors, as Joseph and Daniel; others of civil
magistrates among a free people, as Moses, Joshua and the Judges. Their functions were
expressly approved by the Lord. Wherefore no man can doubt that civil authority is in the
sight of God, not only sacred and lawful, but the most sacred and by far the most
honourable, of all stations in mortal life.

5. Those who are desirous to introduce anarchy object that, though anciently kings and
judges presided over a rude people, yet that, in the present day that servile mode of
governing does not at all accord with the perfection which Christ brought with his gospel.
Herein they betray not only their ignorance, but their devilish pride, arrogating to themselves
a perfection of which not even a hundredth part is seen in them. But be they what they may,
the refutation is easy. For when David says, “Be wise now therefore O you kings: be
instructed, ye judges of the earth,” “kiss the son, lest he be angry” (Psa_2:10, Psa_2:12),
he does not order them to lay aside their authority and return to private life, but to make the
power with which they are invested subject to Christ, that he may rule over all. In like
manner, when Isaiah predicts of the Church, “Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their
queens and nursing- mothers” (Isa_49:23), he does not bid them abdicate their authority; he
rather gives them the honourable appellation of patrons of the pious worshipers of God; for
the prophecy refers to the advent of Christ. I intentionally omit very many passages which
occur throughout Scripture, and especially in the Psalms, in which the due authority of all
rulers is asserted. The most celebrated passage of all is that in which Paul admonishing
Timothy, that prayers are to be offered up in the public assembly for kings, subjoins the
reason, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1Ti_2:
2). In these words, he recommends the condition of the Church to their protection and
guardianship.

6. This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is
fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular
consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and
weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to
sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How
will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the
living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which
they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they
subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the
acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves
them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a
kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice.
And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on
him that “does the work of the Lord deceitfully” a much heavier curse must lie on him who
deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would
urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more
powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred -
“Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the
judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for
there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts”
(2Ch_19:6, 2Ch_19:7, compared with Deu_1:16, &c). And in another passage it is said,
“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods” (Psa_82:1;
Isa_3:14), that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors
of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them.
This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any
respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult
God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an
admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane
occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are
the ambassadors of God.

7. In regard to those who are not debarred by all these passages of Scripture from
presuming to inveigh against this sacred ministry, as if it were a thing abhorrent from religion
and Christian piety, what else do they than assail God himself, who cannot but be insulted
when his servants are disgraced? These men not only speak evil of dignities, but would not
even have God to reign over them (1Sa_7:7). For if this was truly said of the people of
Israel, when they declined the authority of Samuel, how can it be less truly said in the
present day of those who allow themselves to break loose against all the authority
established by God? But it seems that when our Lord said to his disciples, “The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called
benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve” (Luk_22:25, Luk_22:26); he by these
words prohibited all Christians from becoming kings or governors. Dexterous expounders! A
dispute had arisen among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. To
suppress this vain ambition, our Lord taught them that their ministry was not like the power
of earthly sovereigns, among whom one greatly surpasses another. What, I ask, is there in
this comparison disparaging to royal dignity? nay, what does it prove at all unless that the
royal office is not the apostolic ministry? Besides though among magisterial offices
themselves there are different forms, there is no difference in this respect, that they are all
to be received by us as ordinances of God. For Paul includes all together when he says that
“there is no power but of God,” and that which was by no means the most pleasing of all,
was honoured with the highest testimonial, I mean the power of one. This as carrying with it
the public servitude of all (except the one to whose despotic will all is subject), was
anciently disrelished by heroic and more excellent matures. But Scripture, to obviate these
unjust judgements, affirms expressly that it is by divine wisdom that “kings reign,” and gives
special command “to honour the king” (1Pe_2:17).

`8. And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the
best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any
influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined
absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances.
And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it
is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility; so equal are the
terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the
tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the
strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which
philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the
form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular
government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule
themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much
acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or
defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus
mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go
too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been
proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he
established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping
them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. And
as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed
with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very
happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with
their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay,
even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been
appointed guardians from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little
careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country. But should those to
whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long
for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you
fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view
to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that divine Providence has
not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different
forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together so in different
regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said
unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased
him to appoint kings over kingdoms and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever
be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and
submit.

9. 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 (Jdg_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” (Psa_82:3, Psa_82:4). 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” (Deu_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” (Deu_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” (Psa_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; Jer_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. 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” (Pro_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.

11. As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute
public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far
the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to
maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent,
assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more
opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and
the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent
oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of
the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline
of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been
inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with
impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people
that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no
authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty,
therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial
inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are
hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be
lawful.

12. But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching
that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which
anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no
ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that
in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their
object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly,
that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in
this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars,
when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to
cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said
(Luk_3:14), Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who
he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve” (August. Ep. 5
ad Marcell). But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the
slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they
must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable
severity; they must, as Augustine says (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24), “even pity a common
nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms
against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity,
nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if
we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired
peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in
both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but
be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power
which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.
On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By
garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by
leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any
disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine
their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include
every thing pertaining to the military art.

13. Lastly, we think it proper to add, that taxes and imposts are the legitimate revenues of
princes, which they are chiefly to employ in sustaining the public burdens of their office.
Theses however, they may use for the maintenance of their domestic state, which is in a
manner combined with the dignity of the authority which they exercise. Thus we see that
David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, and other holy kings, Joseph also and Daniel, in
proportion to the office which they sustained, without offending piety, expended liberally of
the public funds; and we read in Ezekiel, that a very large extent of territory was assigned to
kings (Eze_48:21). In that passage, indeed, he is depicting the spiritual kingdom of Christ,
but still he borrows his representation from lawful dominion among men. Princes, however,
must remember, in their turn, that their revenues are not so much private chests as
treasuries of the whole people (this Paul testifies, Rom_13:6), which they cannot, without
manifest injustice, squander or dilapidate; or rather, that they are almost the blood of the
people, which it were the harshest inhumanity not to spare. They should also consider that
their levies and contributions, and other kinds of taxes, are merely subsidies of the public
necessity, and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without
cause. These things do not stimulate princes to profusion and luxurious expenditure (there
is certainly no need to inflame the passions, when they are already, of their own accord,
inflamed more than enough), but seeing it is of the greatest consequence that, whatever
they venture to do, they should do with a pure conscience, it is necessary to teach them
how far they can lawfully go, lest, by impious confidence, they incur the divine displeasure.
Nor is this doctrine superfluous to private individuals, that they may not rashly and
petulantly stigmatise the expenditure of princes, though it should exceed the ordinary limits.

14. In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of
government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the
magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the
magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate,
the magistrate a living law. As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian
polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best
kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly
observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God,
and duly administered among men. This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not
aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that
any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the
common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it
is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false. We must attend to the well-known
division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral,
the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to
understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the
thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted
this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with
morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and
abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without
which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

15. The moral law, then (to begin with it), being contained under two heads, the one of
which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men
with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of
all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his
eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him, and mutually love one another.
The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise,
as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he
was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which
were then adumbrated by figures (Gal_3:24; Gal_4:4). The judicial law, given them as a
kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together
innocently and quietly. And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine
of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was
still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best
method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still
something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be
abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so also, when these judicial arrangements are
removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual. But if it is true that
each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still
these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they
must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which
conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other
things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since
they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.

16. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected
with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is
founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought
to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions
have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their
diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law
of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that
conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which
we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end
of all laws. wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to
this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may
differ from the Jewish law, or from each other (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17). The law
of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may
be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the
double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest
and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while
others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness
was to “do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brothers” (Deu_19:19). In
some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others, hanging; in others, crucifixion. All laws
alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries,
adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amid this
diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those
crimes which are condemned by the eternal law at God, viz., murder, theft, adultery, and
false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary,
nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful
punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an
age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in a
troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by
new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not
men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not
stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone
to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and
invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to
retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of
God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is most
absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from
regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are
abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of
Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken
the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to
be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in
enacting laws.

17. It now remains to see, as was proposed in the last place, what use the common society
of Christians derive from laws, judicial proceedings, and magistrates. With this is connected
another question, viz., What deference ought private individuals to pay to magistrates, and
how far ought obedience to proceed? To very many it seems that among Christians the
office of magistrate is superfluous, because they cannot piously implore his aid, inasmuch
as they are forbidden to take revenge, cite before a judge, or go to law. But when Paul, on
the contrary, clearly declares that he is the minister of God to us for good (Rom_13:4), we
thereby understand that he was so ordained of God, that, being defended by his hand and
aid against the dishonesty and injustice of wicked men, we may live quiet and secure. But if
he would have been appointed over us in vain, unless we were to use his aid, it is plain that
it cannot be wrong to appeal to it and implore it. Here, indeed, I have to do with two classes
of men. For there are very many who boil with such a rage for litigation, that they never can
be quiet with themselves unless they are fighting with others. Law-suits they prosecute with
the bitterness of deadly hatred, and with an insane eagerness to hurt and revenge, and they
persist in them with implacable obstinacy, even to the ruin of their adversary. Meanwhile,
that they may be thought to do nothing but what is legal, they use this pretext of judicial
proceedings as a defence of their perverse conduct. But if it is lawful for brother to litigate
with brother, it does not follow that it is lawful to hate him, and obstinately pursue him with a
furious desire to do him harm.

18. Let such persons then understand that judicial proceedings are lawful to him who
makes a right use of them; and the right use, both for the pursuer and for the defender, is
for the latter to sist himself on the day appointed, and, without bitterness, urge what he can
in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and for the pursuer,
when undeservedly attacked in his life or fortunes, to throw himself upon the protection of
the magistrate, state his complaint, and demand what is just and good; while, far from any
wish to hurt or take vengeance - far from bitterness and hatred - far from the Armour of
strife, he is rather disposed to yield and suffer somewhat than to cherish hostile feelings
towards his opponent. On the contrary when minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted by
envy, burning with anger, breathing revenge, or, in fine, so inflamed by the heat of the
contest, that they, in some measure, lay aside charity, the whole pleading, even of the
justest cause, cannot but be impious. For it ought to be an axiom among all Christians, that
no plea, however equitable, can be rightly conducted by any one who does not feel as
kindly towards his opponent as if the matter in dispute were amicably transacted and
arranged. Some one, perhaps, may here break in and say, that such moderation in judicial
proceedings is so far from being seen, that an instance of it would be a kind of prodigy. I
confess that in these times it is rare to meet with an example of an honest litigant; but the
thing itself, untainted by the accession of evil, ceases not to be good and pure. When we
hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a sacred gift from God, we ought the more
carefully to beware of polluting it by our fault.

19. Let those who distinctly condemn all judicial discussion know, that they repudiate the
holy ordinance of God, and one of those gifts which to the pure are pure, unless, indeed,
they would charge Paul with a crime, because he repelled the calumnies of his accusers,
exposing their craft and wickedness, and, at the tribunal, claimed for himself the privilege of
a Roman citizen, appealing, when necessary, from the governor to Caesar’s judgement-
seat. There is nothing contrary to this in the prohibition, which binds all Christians to refrain
from revenge, a feeling which we drive far away from all Christian tribunals. For whether the
action be of a civil nature, he only takes the right course who, with innocuous simplicity,
commits his cause to the judge as the public protector, without any thought of returning evil
for evil (which is, the feeling of revenge); or whether the action is of a graver nature,
directed against a capital offence, the accuser required is not one who comes into court,
carried away by some feeling of revenge or resentment from some private injury, but one
whose only object is to prevent the attempts of some bad man to injure the commonweal.
But if you take away the vindictive mind, you offend in no respect against that command
which forbids Christians to indulge revenge. But they are not only forbidden to thirst for
revenge, they are also enjoined to wait for the hand of the Lord, who promises that he will
be the avenger of the oppressed and afflicted. But those who call upon the magistrate to
give assistance to themselves or others, anticipate the vengeance of the heavenly Judge.
By no means, for we are to consider that the vengeance of the magistrate is the vengeance
not of man, but of God, which, as Paul says, he exercises by the ministry of man for our
good (Rom_13:4).

20. No more are we at variance with the words of Christ, who forbids us to resist evil, and
adds, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any
man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also” (Mat_5:
39, Mat_5:40). He would have the minds of his followers to be so abhorrent to everything
like retaliation, that they would sooner allow the injury to be doubled than desire to repay it.
From this patience we do not dissuade them. For verily Christians were to be a class of men
born to endure affronts and injuries, and be exposed to the iniquity, imposture, and derision
of abandoned men, and not only so, but were to be tolerant of all these evils; that is, so
composed in the whole frame of their minds, that, on receiving one offence, they were to
prepare themselves for another, promising themselves nothing during the whole of life but
the endurance of a perpetual cross. Meanwhile, they must do good to those who injure
them, and pray for those who curse them, and (this is their only victory) strive to overcome
evil with good (Rom_12:20, Rom_12:21). Thus affected, they will not seek eye for eye, and
tooth for tooth (as the Pharisees taught their disciples to long for vengeance), but (as we
are instructed by Christ) they will allow their body to be mutilated, and their goods to be
maliciously taken from them, prepared to remit and spontaneously pardon those injuries the
moment they have been inflicted. This equity and moderation, however, will not prevent
them, with entire friendship for their enemies, from using the aid of the magistrate for the
preservation of their goods, or, from zeal for the public interest, to call for the punishment of
the wicked and pestilential man, whom they know nothing will reform but death. All these
precepts are truly expounded by Augustine, as tending to prepare the just and pious man
patiently to sustain the malice of those whom he desires to become good, that he may thus
increase the number of the good, not add himself to the number of the bad by imitating their
wickedness. Moreover, it pertains more to the preparation of the heart which is within, than
to the work which is done openly, that patience and good-will may he retained within the
secret of the heart, and that may be done openly which we see may do good to those to
whom we ought to wish well (August. Ep. 5: ad Marcell).

21. The usual objection, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul (1Co_6:6), is
false. It may easily be understood front his words, that a rage for litigation prevailed in the
church of Corinth to such a degree, that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and the whole
religion which they professed, to the calumnies and cavils of the ungodly. Paul rebukes
them, first for traducing the gospel to unbelievers by the intemperance of their dissensions;
and, secondly, for so striving with each other while they were brethren. For so far were they
from bearing injury from another, that they greedily coveted each other’s effects, and
voluntarily provoked and injured them. He inveighs, therefore, against that madness for
litigation, and not absolutely against all kinds of disputes. He declares it to be altogether a
vice or infirmity, that they do not submit to the loss of their effects, rather than strive, even to
contention, in preserving them; in other words, seeing they were so easily moved by every
kind of loss, and on every occasion, however slight, ran off to the forum and to law-suits, he
says, that in this way they showed that they were of too irritable a temper, and not prepared
for patience. Christians should always feel disposed rather to give up part of their right than
to go into court, out of which they can scarcely come without a troubled mind, a mind
inflamed with hatred of their brother. But when one sees that his property, the want of which
he would grievously feel, he is able, without any loss of charity, to defend, if he should do
so, he offends in no respect against that passage of Paul. In short, as we said at first, every
man’s best adviser is charity. Every thing in which we engage without charity, and all the
disputes which carry us beyond it, are unquestionably unjust and impious.

22. The first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to entertain the most honourable views
of their office, recognising it as a delegated jurisdiction from God, and on that account
receiving and reverencing them as the ministers and ambassadors of God. For you will find
some who show themselves very obedient to magistrates, and would be unwilling that there
should be no magistrates to obey, because they know this is expedient for the public good,
and yet the opinion which those persons have of magistrates is that they are a kind of
necessary evils. But Peter requires something more of us when he says, “Honour the king”
(1Pe_2:17); and Solomon, when he says, “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king” (Pro_24:
21). For, under the term honour, the former includes a sincere and candid esteem, and the
latter, by joining the king with God, shows that he is invested with a kind of sacred
veneration and dignity. We have also the remarkable injunction of Paul, “Be subject not only
for wrath, but also for conscience sake” (Rom_13:5). By this he means, that subjects, in
submitting to princes and governors, are not to be influenced merely by fear (just as those
submit to an armed enemy who see vengeance ready to be executed if they resist), but
because the obedience which they yield is rendered to God himself, inasmuch as their
power is from God. I speak not of the men as if the mask of dignity could cloak folly, or
cowardice, or cruelty, or wicked and flagitous manners, and thus acquire for vice the praise
of virtue; but I say that the station itself is deserving of honour and reverence, and that
those who rule should, in respect of their office, be held by us in esteem and veneration.

23. From this, a second consequence is, that we must with ready minds prove our
obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking
public offices and burdens which relate to the common defence, or in executing any other
orders. “Let every soul”, says Paul, “be subject unto the higher powers.” “Whosoever,
therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God” (Rom_13:1, Rom_13:2).
Writing to Titus, he says, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to
obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Tit_3:1). Peter also says, “Submit
yourselves to every human creature” (or rather, as I understand it, “ordinance of man,”) “for
the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that
are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well”
(1Pe_2:13). Moreover, to testify that they do not feign subjection, but are sincerely and
cordially subject, Paul adds, that they are to commend the safety and prosperity of those
under whom they live to God. “I exhort, therefore,” says he, “that, first of all, supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that
are in authority: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”
(1Ti_2:1, 1Ti_2:2). Let no man here deceive himself, since we cannot resist the magistrate
without resisting God. For, although an unarmed magistrate may seem to be despised with
impunity, yet God is armed, and will signally avenge this contempt. Under this obedience, I
comprehend the restraint which private men ought to impose on themselves in public, not
interfering with public business, or rashly encroaching on the province of the magistrate, or
attempting any thing at all of a public nature. If it is proper that any thing in a public
ordinance should be corrected, let them not act tumultuously, or put their hands to a work
where they ought to feel that their hands are tied, but let them leave it to the cognisance of
the magistrate, whose hand alone here is free. My meaning is, let them not dare to do it
without being ordered. For when the command of the magistrate is given, they too are
invested with public authority. For as, according to the common saying, the eyes and ears of
the prince are his counsellors, so one may not improperly say that those who, by his
command, have the charge of managing affairs, are his hands.

24. But as we have hitherto described the magistrate who truly is what he is called, viz., the
father of his country, and (as the Poet speaks) the pastor of the people, the guardian of
peace, the president of justice, the vindicator of innocence, he is justly to be deemed a
madman who disapproves of such authority. And since in almost all ages we see that some
princes, careless about all their duties on which they ought to have been intent, live, without
solicitude, in luxurious sloth, others, bent on their own interests venally prostitute all rights,
privileges, judgements, and enactments; others pillage poor people of their money, and
afterwards squander it in insane largesses; others act as mere robbers, pillaging houses,
violating matrons and slaying the innocent; many cannot be persuaded to recognise such
persons for princes, whose command, as far as lawful, they are bound to obey. For while in
this unworthy conduct, and among atrocities so alien, not only from the duty of the
magistrate, but also of the man, they behold no appearance of the image of God, which
ought to be conspicuous in the magistrates while they see not a vestige of that minister of
God, who was appointed to be a praise to the good and a terror to the bad, they cannot
recognise the ruler whose dignity and authority Scripture recommends to us. And,
undoubtedly, the natural feeling of the human mind has always been not less to assail
tyrants with hatred and execrations than to look up to just kings with love and veneration.

25. But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject
not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty
toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is
nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to
maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers
themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description
they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the
public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who
domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their
iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I
will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need
not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no
one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your
goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all
such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. But let us insist at
greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an
individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honour, if invested with public
authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on
the ministers of his justice and judgement, and that, accordingly, in so far as public
obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honour and reverence as the best of
kings.

26. And, first, I would have the reader carefully to attend to that Divine Providence which,
not without cause, is so often set before us in Scripture, and that special act of distributing
kingdoms, and setting up as kings whomsoever he pleases. In Daniel it is said, “He
changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (Dan_2:21,
Dan_2:37). Again, “That the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Dan_4:17, Dan_4:20). Similar sentiments occur
throughout Scripture, but they abound particularly in the prophetical books. What kind of
king Nebuchadnezzar, he who stormed Jerusalem, was, is well known. He was an active
invader and devastator of other countries. Yet the Lord declares in Ezekiel that he had
given him the land of Egypt as his hire for the devastation which he had committed. Daniel
also said to him, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given thee a
kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the
beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven has he given into thine hand, and has made
thee ruler over them all” (Dan_2:37, Dan_2:38). Again, he says to his son Belshazzar, “The
most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and
honour: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled
and feared before him” (Dan_5:18, Dan_5:19). When we hear that the king was appointed
by God, let us, at the same time, call to mind those heavenly edicts as to honouring and
fearing the king, and we shall have no doubt that we are to view the most iniquitous tyrant
as occupying the place with which the Lord has honoured him. When Samuel declared to
the people of Israel what they would suffer from their kings, he said, “This will be the
manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for
himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them
to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and
instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be
cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of
your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will
take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your
asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his
servants” (1Sa_8:11-17). Certainly these things could not be done legally by kings, whom
the law trained most admirably to all kinds of restraint; but it was called justice in regard to
the people, because they were bound to obey, and could not lawfully resist: as if Samuel
had said, To such a degree will kings indulge in tyranny, which it will not be for you to
restrain. The only thing remaining for you will be to receive their commands, and be
obedient to their words.

27. But the most remarkable and memorable passage is in Jeremiah. Though it is rather
long, I am not indisposed to quote it, because it most clearly settles this whole question. “I
have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power,
and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And
now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon my
servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall
serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then
many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that
the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon,
and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I
punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with famine, and with the pestilence, until I have
consumed them by his hand” (Jer_27:5-8). Therefore “bring your necks under the yoke of
the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live” (Jer_27:12). We see how great
obedience the Lord was pleased to demand for this dire and ferocious tyrant, for no other
reason than just that he held the kingdom. In other words, the divine decree had placed him
on the throne of the kingdom, and admitted him to regal majesty, which could not be lawfully
violated. If we constantly keep before our eyes and minds the fact, that even the most
iniquitous kings are appointed by the same decree which establishes all regal authority, we
will never entertain the seditious thought, that a king is to be treated according to his
deserts, and that we are not bound to act the part of good subjects to him who does not in
his turn act the part of a king to us.

28. It is vain to object, that that command was specially given to the Israelites. For we must
attend to the ground on which the Lord places it - “I have given the kingdom to
Nebuchadnezzar; therefore serve him and live.” Let us doubt not that on whomsoever the
kingdom has been conferred, him we are bound to serve. Whenever God raises any one to
royal honour, he declares it to be his pleasure that he should reign. To this effect we have
general declarations in Scripture. Solomon says - “For the transgression of a land, many are
the princes thereof” (Pro_28:2). Job says “He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their
loins with a girdle” (Job_12:18). This being confessed, nothing remains for us but to serve
and live. There is in Jeremiah another command in which the Lord thus orders his people -
“Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray
unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace” (Jer_29:7). Here the
Israelites, plundered of all their property, torn from their homes, driven into exile, thrown into
miserable bondage, are ordered to pray for the prosperity of the victor, not as we are
elsewhere ordered to pray for our persecutors, but that his kingdom may be preserved in
safety and tranquillity, that they too may live prosperously under him. Thus David, when
already king elect by the ordination of God, and anointed with his holy oil, though
ceaselessly and unjustly assailed by Saul, holds the life of one who was seeking his life to
be sacred, because the Lord had invested him with royal honour. “The Lord forbid that I
should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against
him seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” “Mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put
forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1Sa_24:6, 1Sa_24:11).
Again - “Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” “As
the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend
into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’
s anointed” (1Sa_26:9-11).

29. This feeling of reverence, and even of piety, we owe to the utmost to all our rulers, be
their characters what they may. This I repeat the softener, that we may learn not to consider
the individuals themselves, but hold it to be enough that by the will of the Lord they sustain
a character on which he has impressed and engraven inviolable majesty. But rulers, you will
say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this
you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason
absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children.
Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to
the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger, and by their severity harass
them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom
they are enjoined to love and to spare as the weaker vessels; would children be less bound
in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward
and undutiful. Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into
the duties of one another but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be
exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. Wherefore, if we
are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or
luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the
remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this
way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it belongs not to us to cure
these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are
the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms. “God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and
judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to
oppress the poor in judgement, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows
a prey, and plunder the fatherless.

30. Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one
time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants and gives them his
command to punish accursed tyranny and deliver his people from calamity when they are
unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have
other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of
Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other
bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the
insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans;
the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians - Cyrus having previously subdued
the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious
contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, at one time by the Assyrians, at
another by the Babylonians. All these things however were not done in the same way. The
former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such
deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which
kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power,
curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though
they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without
knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.

31. But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their
means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings,
and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the
same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic
authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although
those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by
their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not
therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been
given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates
have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the Ephori, who were opposed to
kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or
Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to
this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their
primary diets). So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of
kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the
people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they
fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God,
they are its appointed guardians.

32. But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must
always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with
obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees
their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how
preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey
men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to
be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but
subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least
regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to
which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of
God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when
he refused to obey his impious decree (Dan_6:22), because the king had exceeded his
limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually
abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too
readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf,
they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions
(1Ki_12:28). With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings.
For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hos_5:11). So far is the praise of
modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and
deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their
kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over
their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before
whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to
which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they
are condemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death”
(Pro_16:14). But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought
to obey God rather than men” (Act_5:29), let us console ourselves with the thought, that we
are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than
turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional
considerations (1Co_7:23), that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our
redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved
wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.
                                              

                                     End of the Institutes.
INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION


By John Calvin      
This file is not intended to be viewed directly using a web browser. To create a viewable file, use the Preview in Browser or Publish to Yahoo! Web Hosting commands from within Yahoo! SiteBuilder.