The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum "John Calvin on the Civil Government" by David W. Hall

Calvinism is also credited with immense political impact. Asserting that the state was not merely a necessary evil for Calvin, Karl Holl recognized that Calvinism, even more than Lutheranism, provided a theological basis to oppose unjust governments.[1] Everywhere Calvinism went, so did its views of putting government in its place. Calvinism “placed a solid barrier in the path of the spread of absolutism.”[2] Holl claimed that even though precursors of human rights were found in the Middle Ages, nonetheless, “its formal acceptance into political theory is not completed until this period and only under the impact of religion. . . . The acceptance of universal human rights into the constitution was, however, not just the modification of a single point; it included in itself the transformation of the whole concept of the state.”[3]

John Calvin (1509-1564) is frequently credited with massive impact on political and economical matters in modern Europe.[4] Abraham Kuyper summarized the political impact of God’s sovereignty:

[T]he Calvinistic confession of the sovereignty of God holds good for all the world, is true for all nations, and is of force in all authority which man exercises over man . . . It is therefore a political faith which may be summarily expressed in these three theses: 1. God only, and never any creature, is possessed of sovereign rights, in the destiny of nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by his Almighty power, and rules them by his ordinances. 2. Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority, for the purpose of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. And, 3. In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow man in any other way than by the authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God. Calvinism protests against State-omnicompetence, against the horrible conception that no right exists above and beyond existing laws, and against the pride of absolutism, which recognizes not constitutional rights, . . . Calvinism is to be praised for having built a dam across the absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force, nor to the hallucination of human greatness, but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life from the same source from which the high authority of government flows, even the absolute sovereignty of God.[5]

Calvin’s primary teaching on these matters is recorded in his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion.[6]The Genevan reformer believed that civil government was a token of “how lovingly God has provided for mankind” (IV, xx, 1). The task of the civil ruler was to provide “that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity be maintained among men” (IV, xx, 1). Calvin believed that if there was no civil government and if depraved men perceived that they could go “scot-free” (IV, xx, 2), they surely would and society would deteriorate into anarchy. On one occasion, he likened such irresponsible anarchy to living “pell-mell, like rats in straw” (IV, xx, 5). He argued that when Psalm 2:12 bids us to “kiss the Son,” God does not at the same time bid persons to “lay aside their authority and retire to private life, but submit to Christ the power with which they have been invested, that he alone may tower over all” (IV, xx, 5). On Romans 13, Calvin commented that, “powers are from God, not as pestilence, and famine, and wars, and other visitations for sin, are said to be from him; but because he has appointed them for the legitimate and just government of the world. For though tyrannies and unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder are not an ordained government; yet the right of government is ordained by God for the well-being of mankind.”[7]

Calvin recognized the holding of civil offices as entirely appropriate, even going so far as to speak of civil service as “the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of men” (IV, xx, 4). At one point, Calvin referred to these civil rulers as “vicars of God” (IV, xx, 6), and saw their role as “ordained protectors and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, decency, and tranquility, and that their sole endeavor should be to provide for the common safety and peace of all” (IV, xx, 9). Elsewhere, he stated the “appointed end” of the civil government as: “to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility” (IV, xx, 2). The use of the sword was the necessary correlate to human depravity. The civil magistrates were to be honored as “superiors” in keeping with the fifth commandment. Even evil rulers kept God’s law to some degree, and disobedience was justified only for legislation contrary to God’s law. The task of civil government according to Calvin was prescribed in Romans 13:4:

Magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, but for the public good; nor are they endued with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the well-being of their subjects; in short, they are responsible to God and to men in the exercise of their power. For as they are deputed by God and do his business, they must give an account to him: and then the ministration which God has committed to them has a regard to the subjects, they are therefore debtors to them.[8]

Calvin believed that the Kingdom of God had indeed begun, but that it was not totally consummated: “For spiritual government, indeed, is already initiating in us upon earth certain beginnings of the Heavenly Kingdom, and in this mortal and fleeting life affords a certain forecast of an immortal and incorruptible blessedness” (IV, xx, 20). He also shared the common theocratic notions of his time: “Let no man be disturbed that I now commit to civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion . . .” (IV, xx, 3). Further, he believed that theology and politics were inextricably intertwined (“All have confessed that no government can be happily established unless piety is the first concern;”, IV, xx, 9), and that the civil magistrate should see to both tables of the law (IV, xx, 9). Commenting on John 18:36, Calvin enunciated his view of the kingdom in these terms: “there is no disagreement between his [Christ’s] kingdom and political government or order. . . the same doctrine is useful to believers to the end of the world; for if the kingdom of Christ were earthly, it would be frail and changeable, because the fashion of this world passes away; but now since it is pronounced to be heavenly, this assures us of its perpetuity. . . . though there are innumerable storms by which the world is continually agitated, the kingdom of Christ, in which we ought to seek tranquility is separated from the world.”[9]

Clearer still are Calvin’s comments on the next gospel phrase (Jn. 18:36) where Jesus stated that his servants do not strive for enforcement of an earthly kingdom. His view of separation of powers is still helpful.

He [Jesus] proves that he did not aim at an earthly kingdom, because no one moves, no one takes arms in his support; for if a private individual lay claim to royal authority, he must gain power by means of seditious men. Nothing of this kind is seen in Christ; and, therefore, it follows that he is not an earthly king.

But here a question arises, Is it not lawful to defend the kingdom of Christ by arms? For when Kings and Princes are commanded to ‘kiss the son of God,’ not only are they enjoined to submit to his authority in their private capacity, but also to employ all the power that they possess in defending the church and maintaining godliness. I answer, first, they who draw this conclusion, that the doctrine of the Gospel and the pure worship of God ought not to be defended by arms are unskillful and ignorant reasoners; for Christ argues only from the facts of the case in hand, how frivolous were the calumnies which the Jews had brought against him. Secondly, though godly kings defend the kingdom of Christ by the sword, still it is done in a different manner from that in which worldly kingdoms are wont to be defended; for the kingdom of Christ, being spiritual must be founded on the doctrine and power of the Spirit. In the same manner, too, its edification is promoted; for neither the laws and edicts of men, nor the punishments inflicted by them, enter into the consciences. . . . It results, however, from the depravity of the world that the kingdom of Christ is strengthened more by the blood of the martyrs than by the aid of arms.[10]

Calvin wrote that if civil rulers properly understood their callings, i. e., “that they are occupied not with profane affairs or those alien to a servant of God, but with a most holy office, since they are serving as God’s deputies” (IV, xx, 6), they would serve with more equity. He queried rhetorically:

For what great zeal for uprightness, for prudence, gentleness, self-control, and for innocence ought to be required of themselves by those who know that they have been ordained ministers of divine justice? How will they have the brazenness to admit injustice to their judgment seat, which they are told is the throne of the living God? How will they have the boldness to pronounce an unjust sentence, by that mouth which they know has been appointed an instrument of divine truth? With what conscience will they sign wicked decrees by that hand which they know has been appointed to record the acts of God? To sum up, if they remember that they are vicars of God, they should watch with all care, earnestness, and diligence, to represent in themselves to men some image of divine providence, protection, goodness, benevolence, and justice (IV, xx, 6).

Following Aristotle’s morphology of the state and its tendency toward deterioration from monarchy to tyranny and from democracy to anarchy, Calvin advocated “a system compounded of aristocracy and democracy” (IV, xx, 8). He also saw a legitimate place for checks and balances, seeing the need for “censors and masters to restrain his [monarch] willfulness” (IV, xx, 8).

The civil magistrate did not act on his own, but “carries out the very judgments of God” in bearing the sword to punish lawbreakers (IV, xx, 10). He even cites King David as condoning the destruction of the wicked in the land (Ps. 101:8). Far from legitimating vengeance, violence, or undue cruelty, the magistrate was to avoid “excessive severity” and “superstitious affectation of clemency” (IV, xx, 10). Alluding to the proverb from Seneca, Calvin concurred: “It is indeed bad to live under a prince with whom nothing is permitted; but much worse under one by whom everything is allowed” (IV, xx, 10). He argued: “Now if their true righteousness is to pursue the guilty and the impious with drawn sword, should they sheathe their sword and keep their hands clean of blood, while abandoned men wickedly range about with slaughter and massacre, they will become guilty of the greatest impiety, far indeed from winning praise for their goodness and righteousness thereby!” (IV, xx, 10)

Civil magistrates were to wage war as an “execution of public vengeance” (IV, xx, 11): “For if power has been given them to preserve the tranquility of their dominion, to restrain the seditious stirrings of restless men, to help those forcibly oppressed, to punish evil deed,” then by extension rulers may oppose the fury of those who perpetuate immoral deeds (IV, xx, 11). Kings who act unjustly are considered “robbers” and worthy of censure. Yet, even in war, Calvin advocated restraint and humanity. The rationale for waging war is that conditions which justified it “of old still persists today” (IV, xx, 12), and “there is no reason that bars magistrates from defending their subjects” (IV, xx, 12). The civil magistrate was also warranted to execute the guilty in obedience to God’s command: “Contend then do they with God who think it unlawful to shed the blood of wicked men.”[11]

Calvin recognized the right of the magistrate to tax. However, he recommended prudent limits, arguing that taxes should only support public necessity; for “to impose them upon the common folk without cause is tyrannical extortion” (IV, xx, 13). Obedience is a Christian duty in this area; however, princes are not to indulge in “waste and expensive luxury,” lest “in impious self-confidence [they] come under God’s displeasure” (IV, xx, 13). Later, excessive taxation is alluded to: “Others drain the common people of their money, and afterward lavish it on insane largesse” (IV, xx, 24).

Another major topic of discussion for Calvin is the use of the OT judicial law, “the silent magistrate.” Calvin believed that just as the ceremonial laws had been “abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain” (IV, xx, 15). He admitted that different nations were free to make laws as they saw best, but with this qualification: “Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose” (IV, xx, 15). For example, he believed that different states were permitted to apply the death penalty for capital crimes with different specifics, as long as the capital sentence was administered: “For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere” (IV, xx, 16). This statement must, of course, be balanced with other aphorisms.

What Calvin seems to say is that all the specifics and particulars of the judicial law are no longer binding. However, the equity of moral principle, which definition may depend on other scriptural passages, is to continue. The moral law, which Calvin viewed as “nothing else than a testimony of natural law” (IV, xx, 16), and conscience are never abrogated, contrary to the ceremonial and judicial codes: “Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law or among themselves” (IV, xx, 16). Since Calvin is seldom accused of laxness, his comments must be taken seriously. So taken, they do not call for disavowal of the equitable principles of the OT judicial law, but merely the abrogation of non-essential and non-moral aspects. One may even interpret many of the biblical passages as seeking to perpetuate not so much the specific manners of the OT law, as the moral heart of God’s law. It is possible to maintain the bindingness of God’s law, while not necessarily advocating all the Jewish specifics.

Helmut Thielicke agrees that one does not slight the OT law “if we prefer new and different laws suited to the situation. . . . This can hardly mean abrogation of the Mosiac law, since it was never enacted for us.”[12] Moreover, along the lines of Calvin, Thielicke comments: “One has to take into account, therefore, the special privileged position of Israel, which is different from our own situation. We do not live in a theocracy such as was established in Israel by the fact that God will be a lawgiver especially to it. If we understand Calvin correctly, to take over the Mosaic Law would thus be not only to turn back from the manifested reality to the mere shadows, but also to arrogate to ourselves the special theocratic privileges of Israel which are not ours.”[13]

Calvin also recognized the propriety of using civil law courts, as long as a Christian did not act in revenge, but entrusted himself “in the care of the magistrate” (IV, xx, 18). He obviously sought to support such in the face of the Anabaptists’ claim that it was un-Christian to resist in any form (IV, xx, 20). In the same context, he called for the Christian to turn to the law of love which “will give every man the best counsel” (IV, xx, 21).

The duties of Christians toward the civil magistrate even included obeying unjust rulers. Calvin enumerated the duties of the Christian citizen as first to “think most honorably of their office” (IV, xx, 22). This opinion is not to see these as necessary evils, but as Peter teaches: “the word ‘to honor, [1 Pet. 2:17] includes a sincere and candid opinion of the king” (IV, xx, 22). Second, subjects should prove their obedience by paying taxes, obeying proclamations, and serving to protect the nation. Moreover, Calvin warned Christians not to intrude excessively into the authority of the magistrate (IV, xx, 23).

Unless arising in actual disobedience to God, even a wicked ruler should be obeyed as having “their authority solely from” God (IV, xx, 25). The reasons were: (1) “Scripture reckons all such calamities among God’s curses (IV, xx, 25); (2) The Providence of God (IV, xx, 26); (3) General testimonies of Scripture on the sanctity of the royal person (IV, xx, 28); and (4) the Sovereignty of God (IV, xx, 29). However, even with such clear calls to submit to the civil ruler, in some cases, other magistrates are justified in overturning a wicked ruler; it is just not to be done by private individuals (IV, xx, 31). Calvin acknowledged that at times God’s will has been done in the overthrow of wicked rulers (IV, xx, 31), but still preferred to allow the Lord to correct unbridled despotism. Concerning revolution, he advocated a peaceful, incremental revolution via the intermediate magistrates:

For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors . . .), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance (IV, xx, 31).

The obvious exception to any of these rules, however, was that the Christian was not only free but also obligated to resist the magistrate who compelled ungodly activity.[14] Calvin taught that not only were there exceptions to the above considerations, but also that obedience to God was primary: “obedience is never to lead us away from obedience to him” (IV, xx, 32),a good illustration of qualified absolutism.[15] He reasoned: “And how absurd would it be that in satisfying men you should incur the dis-pleasure of him for whose sake you obey men themselves!” (IV, xx, 32) Still, this is balanced with Calvin’s conclusion that we should “comfort ourselves with the thought that we are rendering that obedience which the Lord requires when we suffer anything rather than turn aside from piety” (xx, 32).

Calvin, it should be remembered, believed that any government was better than no government at all: “further, some kind of government, however deformed and corrupt it may be, is still better and more beneficial than anarchy.”[16]

In sum, however, he concluded: “Now this passage [Romans 13] confirms what I have already said, that we ought to obey kings and governors, whoever they may be, not because we are constrained, but because it is a service acceptable to God; for he will have them not only to be feared, but also honored by a voluntary respect.”[17]

The above notions notwithstanding, Calvin gave impetus to post-Reformation political upheavals when he reminded that even kings were not to “arrogate to themselves more than belongs to them.” He commented on Psalm 82:

It is unquestionably a very unbecoming thing for those whom God has been pleased to invest with the government of mankind for the common good, not to acknowledge the end for which they have been exalted above others . . . but instead of doing this, contemning every principle of equity, to rule just as their own unbridled passions dictate. So infatuated are they by their own splendor and magnificence as to imagine that the whole world was made only for them. Besides, they think it would derogate from their elevated rank were they to be governed by moderate counsels; . . . To correct this arrogance, the psalm opens by asserting that although men occupy thrones and judgment-seats, God nevertheless continues to hold the office of supreme ruler. . . . The more effectually to overthrow this irrational self-confidence with which they are intoxicated, civil order is termed the assembly of God; for although the divine glory shines forth in every part of the world, yet when lawful government flourishes among men, it is reflected therefrom with pre-eminent luster.[18]

Later, on the same passage, he reminds that, “Kings may lift up their head above the clouds, but they, as well as the rest of mankind, are under the government of God.” He further warns against the depravity of rulers: “Moreover, there is a certain devilish frenzy which infatuates the princes of the world, and leads them voluntarily to pay greater respect to wicked men than to the simple and innocent. Even supposing that the wicked continue inactive, and use no endeavors to obtain for themselves favor . . . yet those who bear rule are for the most part inclined of themselves to the bad side. The reason why the prophet upbraids them is, that wicked men find more favor at their hands than the good and conscientious.”[19]

Calvin’s thought can also be gleaned from his 1544 tract, “Brief Instruction for Arming all the Good Faithful against the Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptist,”[20] where he argued that if the civil office was so impious, how could so many believers and Judges occupy the temporal power in the OT. Further, he argued for the legitimacy of the power of the sword: “We worship the same God that the fathers of old did. We have the same law and rule that they had . . .”[21] Calvin found it inconsistent that Anabaptists could not admit that service as a civil officer was ordained, when “they do not deny that a Christian can be a tailor or a cobbler. And yet these vocations are not expressly mentioned in the Scriptures. Why then don’t they permit a Christian to be a minister of justice, seeing that this calling is so amply approved with praise by the mouth of God?”[22]

Calvin strongly reproved the Anabaptists as “miserable fanatics [who] have no other goal than to put everything into disorder, to undo the commonwealth of property in such a way that whoever has the power to take anything is welcome to it.”[23] His critique of the sixth article of The Schleitheim Confession concluded:

As for the end to which they lay claim, I only have two words to say: that in it they reveal themselves to be the enemies of God and of the human race. For they make war against God in wanting to revile what he has exalted. And we could not imagine a better way of trying to ruin the world and ushering in brigandage everywhere than in seeking to abolish the civil government or the power of the sword, which indeed is thrown down if it is not lawful for a Christian man to exercise it.[24]

Except for a few comments (e. g., on Daniel 6:22), Calvin consistently discourages rebellion. Both Luther and Philipp Melanchthon allowed resistance to the superior magistrate to be carried out by the inferior magistrate in a Roman Catholic Establishment.[25] This Lutheran claim was applicable, in their view, if a superior magistrate “undertook by force to restore popish idolatry and to suppress or exterminate the pure teaching of the Holy Gospel . . . then the lower godfearing magistrate may defend himself and his subjects.”[26] Thus, tyrants were to be removed by the intermediating magistrates. Martin Bucer also held that the OT validated cases of intermediating magistrates preserving “the people of God from evil and defend[ing] their safety and goods. . . . [when] superior power falls to extortion or causes any other kind of external injury . . . [inferior magistrates could] attempt to remove him by forces of arms.”[27] Planting the seeds which would eventually bear fruit in the American Revolution, Protestants generally came to agree that the overthrow of a ruler was acceptable under certain conditions (i. e., his opposition to true religion and through the intermediating magistrates).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Karl Holl, op. cit., pp. 65-66.

[2] Ibid., p. 68.

[3] Ibid., pp. 72-73.

[4] Ralph C. Hancock, Calvin and The Foundations of Modern Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), says that the Protestant Reformation was “an essentially modern movement that in some way laid the foundations for our modern openness.”

[5] Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 85.

[6] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960). All chapter and section references are to this edition.

[7] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xix, p. 479.

[8] Ibid., p. 481.

[9] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on John (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xviii, p. 209.

[10] Ibid., p. 210.

[11] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xix, p. 482.

[12] Thielicke, op. cit., p. 590.

[13] Idem.

[14] Henry Beveridge clarifies that Calvin’s thinking influenced Hugo Grotius: “Grotius qualifies this obedience by saying, that it should not extend to what is contrary to the will of God. But it is remarkable that often in Scripture things are stated broadly and without any qualifying terms, and yet they have limits, as it is clear from other portions. This peculiarity is worthy of notice. Power is from God, the abuse of power is from what is evil in men. The Apostle throughout refers only to power justly exercised. He does not enter into the subject of tyranny and oppression. And this is probably the reason why he does not set limits to the obedience required: he contemplated no other than the proper and legitimate use of power.” John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xix, p. 478.

[15] Ralph Keen, “The Limits of Power and Obedience in the Later Calvin,” Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 27, no. 2 (Nov. 1992), pp. 252-277 provides a good harmony between the earlier and later statements by Calvin on the propriety of resistance. Although sometimes accused of shifting toward a more republican posture, as if influenced by Beza, Keen summarizes: “It is simply necessary to recognize that the position is not pro-monarchical in itself (that is, as a political doctrine) but pro-monarchical in the theological sense of being an endorsement of the divine presence in governments.” p. 259.

[16] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on I Peter (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xxii, p. 83. He also commented on Romans: “there can then be no tyranny which does not in some respects assist in consolidating the society of men.” John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Romans(Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xix, p. 480.

[17] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. xix, p. 483.

[18] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1979), vol. v, pp. 329-330.

[19] Ibid., p. 331.

[20] John Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, Benjamin W. Farley, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), pp. 72-73, 77-82, and 82-91 for his critiques of The Schleitheim Confession.

[21] Ibid., p. 78.

[22] Ibid., p. 81.

[23] Ibid., p. 85.

[24] Ibid., p. 91.

[25] Keith L. Griffin, Revolution and Religion: American Revolutionary War and the Reformed Clergy (New York: Paragon House, 1994), p. 5.

[26] Idem.

[27] Ibid., p. 6.