In the Institutes of the Christian Religion theologian John Calvin outlined the major tenants of Reformed theology, which became known as the Doctrines of Grace or “Calvinism.” Calvin’s Institutes was, and remains today, a foundational text of the Reformation. Further, Calvin’s theology went beyond just Reformed Biblical interpretation, but it impacted political philosophy. David W. Hall argues that Calvin’s theology contributed greatly to the ideas of republicanism, limited government, separation of powers, civil liberties, among others which are considered pillars of freedom in Western Civilization.[1] This was especially apparent when considering the development of American constitutionalism and the influence of “Calvinism” on the American Founding.[2]
“Civil Government” is the concluding chapter in Calvin’s Institutes, which outlined his Biblical view of government, liberty, the responsibility of public service, and the powers of government. The Doctrines of Grace were woven throughout Calvin’s view of “civil government.” This was especially true of two foundational doctrines of “Calvinism,” which included the sovereignty of God and total depravity.[3] Calvin begins his discussion of “civil government” when he wrote that “man is under a twofold government.”[4] By twofold government, Calvin referred to God’s sovereignty in both spiritual and secular spheres of life, which included government.
Calvin’s twofold theory of government also reflected his view of natural law. “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men,” wrote Calvin.[5] In this sense Calvin referred to Romans (1:18-23), specifically verse 19 when the Apostle Paul wrote “for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”[6] God reveals himself through nature, but mankind as a result of original sin rejects God. Calvin, just as other natural law theorists, also argued that a moral code governed mankind.[7]
From Calvin’s perspective the originator of natural law was God. Calvin distinguished between both moral and judicial law. “The moral law is contained under two heads, one which simply commands us to worship God with pure faith and piety; the other, to embrace men with sincere affection,” wrote Calvin.[8] This was illustrated by Calvin when he addressed not only the necessity of the rule of law and a judicial system, but rather individuals should practice and reflect Christian love toward each other instead of “hatred and revenge” when settling disputes before a court.[9] Calvin also warned against greed and other behaviors that do not reflect Christ.[10]
This should not infer that Calvin recommended passivity when it came to justice and addressing grievances, because he did believe that individuals had a fundamental right to protect their property and liberties. Nevertheless, Calvin stressed that “love will give every man the best council.”[11] “Everything undertaken apart from love and all disputes that go beyond it, we regard as incontrovertibly unjust and impious,” stated Calvin.[12] In this sense Calvin stressed grace, just as Christ showed grace in salvation when individuals did not deserve grace as a result of sin.
The judicial law was given “for civil government.”[13] Calvin argued that judicial law “imparted certain formulas of equity and justice.”[14] Judicial law reflected God’s law. As an example, Calvin wrote that “God’s law forbids stealing,” and this was based not only in the Ten Commandments, but also in secular judicial law.[15] As a result of original sin judicial law was necessary in order to protect civil society. It is important to understand that Calvin believed that God ordained government as a provision for mankind.[16] As Calvin wrote:
Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, 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 or social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.[17]
Calvin, based upon total depravity, understood that perfection could “never be found in a community of men,” and as a result God ordained government.[18] Without civil government or judicial law, Calvin argued that mankind left to their own means and left unchecked would default to sin.[19] In other words without government and laws or consequences for sin, individuals would “see that their depravity can go scot-free,” which would result in chaos.[20] Therefore, government was part of God’s common grace to not only protect liberties, but to restrain sinful human nature.
In the Institutes, Calvin established the importance and necessity of government and law, and he also addressed the proper structure of government. Calvin wrote about the virtues of a republican form of government which was limited. He also stressed the importance of separation of powers. These political principles were not exclusive to Calvin, but the Reformed political perspective would have influence in Europe as well as in the United States. Total depravity also shaped how Calvin viewed the structure of government. This is why the Institutes illustrate that Calvin was suspicious of monarchy and democracy.[21] As Calvin wrote:
For if the three forms of government which the philosophers discuss be considered in themselves, I will not deny that aristocracy, or a system compounded of aristocracy and democracy, far excels all others: not indeed of itself, but because it is very rare for kings so to control themselves that their will never disagrees with what is just and right; or for them to have been endowed with such great keenness and prudence, that each knows how much is enough. Therefore, men’s faults or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government, so that they may help one another, teach, and admonish one another; and, if one asserts himself unfairly, there may be a number of censors and masters to restrain his willfulness.[22]
Calvin argued that a republican form of government “has both been proved by experience, and also the Lord confirmed it by his authority when he ordained among the Israelites an aristocracy bordering on democracy…”[23]
Calvin’s preference for a republican form of government with separation of powers was based upon the need to check the sinful tendencies of individuals. A monarch, magistrate, or other government officials could abuse their power. It was in this regard that Calvin argued that separation of powers was an essential component to government. In the Institutes, Calvin describes three separate parts of government that check one another. These include the magistrate (or monarch) and lesser magistrates, the judicial laws, and the people within the society that are being governed.[24] This model would be reflected within Calvin’s Geneva and later in England, the United States, and the Netherlands.
Calvin related the doctrine of separation of powers with the responsibilities of both magistrates, judges, and the general populace. All of whom had the responsibility to reflect and honor Christ. Magistrates, Calvin argued, are not only “God’s deputies,” but they had an obligation to be faithful stewards and practitioners of the office they held.[25] Further, Calvin wrote that government officials were servants of the people, and it was essential that they “remember that they are vicars of God.”[26] “For if they commit some fault, they are not only wrong doers to men whom they wickedly trouble, but are also insulting toward God himself…,” stated Calvin in reference to corrupt officials.[27] Calvin described a good and God honoring magistrate as a “father of his country,” a “shepherd of the people,” and a “guardian of peace, protector of righteousness, and avenger of innocence.”[28] Calvin remarked that anyone who “does not approve of such government [magistrate] must rightly be regarded as insane.”[29]
Calvin even goes as far to label those who abuse their authority as not only “faithless in office,” but also “traitors to their country.”[30] Finally, Calvin reminded his readers that “holy kings are greatly praised in Scripture because they restored the worship of God when it was corrupted or destroyed, or took care of religion that under them it might flourish pure and unblemished.”[31] The opposite leads to God’s discipline and as Calvin wrote, “on the contrary, the Sacred History places anarchies among things evil: because there was no king in Israel, each man did as he pleased.”[32]
Calvin argued that magistrates had the authority to exercise force within limits and even to wage war when it was required.[33] Calvin argued that “there is no reason that bars magistrates from defending their subjects.”[34] Nevertheless, Calvin argued that there were limits to a magistrate’s power to wage war. “But it is the duty of all magistrates here to guard particularly against giving vent to their passions even in the slightest degree,” wrote Calvin.[35] Further, Calvin argued that diplomacy must come first and “be tried before recourse is had to arms.”[36] Calvin also warned that magistrates should not allow their passions to decide war, but rather act “for the benefit and service of others.”[37] Interestingly, Calvin argued that it was fine for a magistrate to establish a military, post garrisons, and even enter into “leagues” or “pacts” for civil defense.[38]
Taxation was another policy area that Calvin addressed, and he argued that a magistrate had the authority to collect taxes.[39] Revenue was needed to meet the “public expenses” or the obligations of government.[40] Just as with the use of force or waging war, Calvin argued that officials had to be prudent in their use of the taxing power. Calvin stated that it was immoral for officials to use taxes “for the magnificence of their household,” and excessive taxation was “tyrannical extortion.”[41] Therefore, Calvin warned magistrates to not only be prudent in taxation but avoid wasteful spending and “expensive luxury.”[42] Both magistrates and taxpayers, Calvin argued, needed to approach this with “a pure conscience before God.”[43]
If magistrates and other officials had the responsibility and obligation to not only uphold the law, but also encourage the faith of the people, individuals also had responsibility to obey. As noted above individuals had an obligation to pay taxes as long as it was within the moral boundary. Calvin argued that “order itself is worthy of such honor and reverence,” and magistrates and officials should “receive reverence out of respect for their lordship.”[44] “Subjects, Calvin noted, should prove their obedience toward them, whether by obeying their proclamations, or by paying taxes, or by undertaking public offices and burdens which pertain to the common defense, or by executing any other commands of theirs.”[45]
Calvin’s view of obedience gets complicated because he not only argued that obedience is warranted to an unjust magistrate, but he also defended the right to resist or even nullify or secede from an abusive magistrate.[46] A magistrate or official who abuses their authority either by corruption, disregarding laws, lining their own pockets from abusing the taxing authority (Calvin described this as draining “the common people of their money”), or other wrongs will probably occur because of original sin.[47] Calvin argued that this might occur as a judgement from God when the people fall away from His Word.[48] God is sovereign and in His sovereignty, God appoints those in authority. As Calvin argued:
Indeed, he says that those who rule for the public benefit are true patterns and evidences of this beneficence of his; that they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people; that all have been endowed with that holy majesty with which he has invested lawful power.[49]
A corrupt or abusive magistrate or official should be obeyed as it is a form of God’s discipline and wrath. “Accordingly, he should be held in the same reverence and esteem by his subjects, in so far as public obedience is concerned…,” stated Calvin.[50] If confronted with such as ruler, Calvin not only stated that individuals must repent and “be mindful of our own misdeeds,” but also “implore the Lord’s help, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, and the changing of kingdoms.”[51]
If people are to obey even an abusive or corrupt magistrate or ruler than Calvin argued that as a result of God’s sovereignty and through His “goodness, His power, and His providence,” the Lord “raises up open avengers from among his servants.”[52] As the Lord may use a ruler to punish or discipline a nation, Calvin stated that the opposite can occur. The Lord will not only raise up people to respond, but “arms them with his command to punish the wicked government and deliver His people, oppressed in unjust ways, from miserable calamity.”[53] Calvin used the example of the Lord using Moses to deliver His people (Israelites) from the tyranny of the Egyptian Pharaoh.[54] This is just another example of God’s sovereignty in orchestrating the affairs of both rulers, the people, and the nation at large. “Let the princes hear and be afraid,” wrote Calvin.[55]
The issue of rebellion against a ruler is serious and Calvin is clear in the Institutes that individuals must exercise caution. As Calvin argued:
But we must, in the meantime, be very careful not to despise or violate that authority of magistrates, full of venerable majesty, which God has established by the weightiest decrees, even though it may reside with the most unworthy men, who defile it as much as they can with their own wickedness. For, if the correction of unbridled despotism is the Lord’s to avenge, let us not at once think that it is entrusted to us, whom no command has been given except to obey and suffer.[56]
The exception, as Calvin noted, is when a ruler commands anything that goes against God’s Word.[57] Calvin used Daniel’s refusal to comply with a godless decree as an example. Further, Calvin argued that the first loyalty is to the Lord. “The Lord, therefore, is the King of Kings, who, when he has opened His sacred mouth, must alone be heard, before all and above all men; next to Him we are subject to those men who are in authority over us, but only in Him.”[58] Therefore, resistance and disobedience is warranted if a ruler attempts the people to go against God.
Calvin’s doctrine of obedience and revolt is complicated. One example of this is the American Revolution. Reformed theology (Calvinism) was influential in the American colonies and many Reformed preachers defended the Patriot cause of independence from England. Patriots argued that Parliament and King George III were violating the British constitution by denying the colonists actual representation in Parliament. Parliament had been levying taxes upon the colonists as a result of the French and Indian War. From the Patriot perspective it was not the tax rate, but rather they believed that their constitutional rights were being violated as a result of not having an actual representative to vote in Parliament.
The question must be asked whether or not this constitutional issue was sufficient to not only issue the Declaration of Independence, but wage war against England for independence. Reformed Patriots argued that the move toward independence was justified and a survey of pamphlets, sermons, and other documents from this period demonstrated the influence of Calvinism on the American colonies. The Declaration of Independence itself has been viewed as a document based upon the ideas of John Locke, but scholars have also demonstrated that it is a Calvinistic document. From a Calvinist perspective, and God is sovereign, He [God] was using the Patriots to punish England. English officials, including King George III, even described the American revolt as a “Presbyterian rebellion.”
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is not just a foundational text in Reformed Protestant theology, but it also shaped Western political thought. Woven throughout the Institutes are the key Biblical doctrines of the Sovereignty of God and total depravity. Based upon Calvin’s understanding of Scripture he defined a Biblical view of government that was based on republicanism, limited government, separation of powers, the rule of law, and the protection of individual liberties. Calvin also wrote about the responsibilities that both rulers and individuals have in terms of honoring God and acting in virtue. Calvin understood that as a result of total depravity government was not only needed but ordained by God.
James Madison in Federalist 51 reflected Calvin’s thought:
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[59]
The American Founders, just as with Calvin, understood that human nature was fallen, and that government was necessary. Both rejected monarchy and democracy (mob rule). Both shared the belief in limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and prudence. American constitutionalism is the best example of the influence that Calvinism had upon a political system.
John Calvin probably would not enjoy the idea that Reformed theology is named after him, but he would be the first to note that the primary value of his Institutes is to glorify and honor God by focusing on the Word and the Gospel message of salvation. God through His sovereignty used Calvin to not only advance the Gospel, but also liberty. This included political liberty, but more importantly liberty through Christ’s saving grace.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. edited by John T. McNeill. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Hall, David W. The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008.
Hall, Mark David. Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Madison, James. “Federalist 51.” Bill of Rights Institute. <https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-51> (accessed on February 10, 2024)
Sproul, R.C. editor. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Orlando, Florida: Ligonier Ministries, 2015.
[1]David W. Hall, The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008, 24-27.
[2]Mark David Hall, Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, 12-13.
[3]The sovereignty of God and total depravity were just two important doctrines of “Calvinism.” The others included unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the Saints.
[4]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 1485.
[5]Calvin., 1504.
[6]The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version, edited by R.C. Sproul, Orlando, Florida: Ligonier Ministries, 2015, 1979.
[7]Calvin., 1503-1504.
[8]Ibid., 1503.
[9]Ibid., 1505.
[10]Ibid., 1508-1509.
[11]Ibid., 1509.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid., 1503.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid., 1503-1504.
[16]Ibid., 1487.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Ibid.
[19]Ibid., 1488.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid., 1493-1495.
[22]Ibid., 1493-1494.
[23]Ibid., 1494.
[24]Ibid., 1485-1489, and 1491 and 1502.
[25]Ibid., 1491-1492.
[26]Ibid., 1491.
[27]Ibid., 1491-1492.
[28]Ibid., 1511-1512.
[29]Ibid., 1512.
[30]Ibid., 1494.
[31]Ibid., 1495.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid., 1497-1499.
[34]Ibid., 1500.
[35]Ibid.
[36] Ibid., 1501.
[37]Ibid.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Ibid.
[40]Ibid.
[41]Ibid.
[42]Ibid.
[43]Ibid.
[44]Ibid., 1510.
[45]Ibid., 1510.
[46]Ibid., 1511.
[47]Ibid., 1512.
[48]Ibid.
[49]Ibid., 1512.
[50]Ibid., 1513.
[51]Ibid., 1516-1517.
[52]Ibid., 1517.
[53]Ibid.
[54]Ibid.
[55]Ibid., 1518.
[56]Ibid.
[57]Ibid., 1520.
[58]Ibid.
[59]James Madison, “Federalist 51,” Bill of Rights Institute, < https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-51> (accessed on February 10, 2024).
Print a PDF