Calvin's Doctrine of the State

A Reformed Doctrine and Its American Trajectory, The Revolutionary War, and the Founding of the Republic

Larson

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498275545
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Contemporary treatments of Calvin's political views often imply that he embraced a theocratic civil polity and that he was committed to holy war doctrine. On the basis of the primary sources, the first half of this volume argues that neither position is correct. Calvin, in his political thought, maintained the superiority of a republic as a civil polity. In addition, he placed himself firmly within the medieval just war tradition that was established by Augustine of Hippo and later reaffirmed by Thomas Aquinas. In terms of his commitment to classical just war teaching, Calvin stood in continuity with Martin Luther, even while he distanced himself from the holy war perspective of the Zurich Reformers Henry Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli. In the thinking of Calvin, a war could only be authorized by the state, not the church. War had to be prosecuted with humanity and restraint, and not in the tradition of the medieval crusade. The second half of the book sets forth what Calvin actually believed on the matter of government and war. Here we examine his teaching on parliamentary resistance to monarchical tyranny and the full dimensions of his commitment to justice of war categories. Unlike Luther and Bullinger, Calvin provided a parliamentary remedy for the perennial evil of tyranny. With Vermigli and Theodore Beza siding with Calvin on this right, a body of Reformed doctrine was established to which succeeding generations could appeal for teaching, direction, and justification for taking up arms. It is clear that Calvin's political legacy is profoundly evident in the American Revolutionary War and in the constitutional determination for a republic in the United States of America. Calvin's ecclesiastical republicanism, as it came to fruition in Presbyterian church government, was a powerful impetus toward the creation of republican institutions in civil government.

1

The Question of Theocracy

“Christ wished to bar the ministers of his Word from civil rule and earthly authority.” Calvin indeed went on to say, “The office of pastor is distinct from that of prince,” and the two “are so different that they cannot come together in one man.”1 Despite such clear statements in which he forcefully rejected the concept of a theocratic government, elements of older and even more recent scholarship contend that Calvin deliberately implemented a theocratic structure in which he and his fellow pastors took control of the Republic of Geneva.2 According to this popular and stereotypical presentation,3 as head of the Genevan state, Calvin was able to initiate a moral reign of terror.4

What actually happened in Geneva in the time of the Reformation? Was it the intention of Calvin to establish a theocracy in which he in particular would wield autocratic authority over both church and state?5 An examination of the church constitution that he himself drafted—the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1541—demonstrates that Calvin intended to establish neither a theocracy nor an autocracy.6

The Doctrine of Two Spheres

The fact of the matter is that Calvin believed in a separation of church and state in terms of their respective jurisdictions.7 He embraced the position that there are two spheres—the civil and the ecclesiastical, the church having control over Christian discipline. This two-sphere doctrine meant that Calvin and the other pastors in Geneva would have no political authority.8 Whatever power they had would be restricted to the ecclesiastical sphere alone.9 Far from establishing a theocracy in which Calvin and the ministers ruled the city, Calvin and his colleagues had to “fight step-by-step to maintain the autonomy of the church against the ascendancy of the councils” of the civil government of Geneva.10

Calvin, in other words, rejected one of the doctrines of the medieval church—the theory that regalian bishops (bishops who possessed the “regalia” of secular office) possessed both a religious and a secular sword. Martin Luther was renowned for his expressions of outrage concerning this medieval doctrine that entailed the use of the temporal sword by the clergy. “The pope and the bishops,” he insisted, “would be deserting their calling and office to fight with sword against flesh and blood.” Luther stated in no uncertain terms, “They are not commanded to do this; it is forbidden.”11 Here we must recognize that Calvin was no less adamant in his repudiation of this theory.

The canon lawyers had based their claim upon an allegorical interpretation of Luke 22:38, a text in which the apostles directed the attention of Jesus to two swords.12 In the passage Christ responded by saying that the two swords were enough. In his biblical commentary on this text, Calvin wrote, “As to the inference which the Doctors of Canon Law draw from these words—that their mitred bishops have a double jurisdiction—it is not only an offensive allegory, but a detestable mockery, by which they ridicule the word of God.”13

In order to underscore the validity of this contention—that Calvin believed in a two-sphere structure for the Christian commonwealth—we need to consider some of the specifics of his teaching in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances.14 A fundamental point of the constitution Calvin provided for the church in Geneva was that the consistory had a limited, spiritual jurisdiction, while the magistrates retained their civil authority in the Republic.15

A careful study of the church constitution makes it clear that Calvin viewed the consistory as being a church court and not a civil one.16 Its jurisdiction was ecclesiastical, rather than civil.17 This point is made at the very end of the document: “All this is to be done in such a way that the ministers have no jurisdiction and wield only the spiritual sword of the Word of God . . . and that there is no derogation by this consistory from the authority of the Seigneury or the magistracy; but the civil power shall continue in its entirety.”18

The fact that the Geneva consistory was a church court with a limited, spiritual jurisdiction is seen in the type of cases that came before it.19 A parishioner would find himself or herself before the consistory because of either a doctrinal or behavioral problem.20 The Ecclesiastical Ordinances refer to the possibility of a doctrinal aberration and make the assumption that such a case belongs to the jurisdiction of the consistory: “If anyone speaks critically against the received doctrine, he shall be summoned for the purpose of reasoning with him.”21 As to problematic behavior, the church constitution provides two specific examples which the consistory would respond to because they fall into the category of a spiritual issue: “If anyone is negligent to come to church in such a way that serious contempt of the communion of Christians is apparent, or if anyone shows himself to be scornful of ecclesiastical rule, he shall be admonished.”22 Both of these examples may be classified as “religious” behavioral problems.23

The consistory in the time of Calvin was also committed to dealing with “moral” behavioral problems. The consistory registers show that the spiritual jurisdiction of the consistory embraced such moral aberrations as vandalism, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, domestic quarrels, and many other sins as well.24

The two-sphere doctrine of Calvin is seen in the limited jurisdiction of the consistory, as its responsibilities are positively spelled out in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. His teaching on the two spheres is also presented in two more ways. First, the church constitution ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Question of Theocracy
• Chapter 2: The Making of War
• Chapter 3: Godly Warfare
• Chapter 4: Warring by the Popular Magistrates
• Chapter 5: The Justice of War
• Chapter 6: Political Legacy
• Conclusion
• Bibliography