|
|
Survey of
Institutes of The Christian
Religion
by John
Calvin
Lesson sixteen
the third on Book IV and the last
in the
class
Calvin and the doctrine of
the
rebellion under the lesser magistrates
Adult Education Class for RMPCA,
class begins May 9, 2004
stored on the net at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson16_essay.html
date shared: August 22, 2004
Introduction:
Calvin is conservative, which to me means that he favors order over
libertarian
freedom, prefers authority to license and aristocracy over democracy.
He often combats the Radical Reformation who took the liberty of
Christians to
mean that we are no longer subject to civil authorities. He preferred a
bad
King to no King at all, finding that the release of individuals from
the bonds
of government to be an opportunity for sinful expressions of
licentiousness,
remembering Munster.
It is both the pervasiveness and the persuasiveness of sin that Calvin
wishes
to stress and to keep foremost in his mind when discussing civil
government in
Book IV.20
for a brief defense of Anabaptist thinking on this issue see: http://www.anabaptists.org/ras/21e74.html
Key elements:
Romans 13
from: http://www.covenanter.org/JMWillson/CivilGovt/civilgovernment.htm
"Let every soul be subject unto
the
higher powers.—For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God; and they that rest shall receive to themselves
damnation. For
rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be
afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise
of the
same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do
that which
is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the
minister of God; a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience
sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s
ministers,
attending continually upon this very thing. Render, therefore, to all
their
dues: tribute to whom tribute is due—custom to whom custom—fear to whom
fear—honour to whom honour."
Calvin's Commentaries on Romans 13
from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/TOC.htm
1.
By these reasons, as it is
probable, Paul
was induced to establish, with greater care than usual, the authority
of
magistrates, and first he lays down a general precept, which briefly
includes
what he afterwards says: secondly, he subjoins an exposition and a
proof of his
precept.
He calls
them the
3
And he adds,
Let us then continue to honor the good appointment
of God, which may be easily done, provided we impute to ourselves
whatever evil
may accompany it. Hence he teaches us here the end for which
magistrates are
instituted by the Lord; the happy effects of which would always appear,
were
not so noble and salutary an institution marred through our fault. At
the same
time, princes do never so far abuse their power, by harassing the good
and
innocent, that they do not retain in their tyranny some kind of just
government: there can then be no tyranny which does not in some
respects assist
in consolidating the society of men.
He has here noticed two things, which even
philosophers have considered as making a part of a well-ordered
administration
of a commonwealth, that is, rewards for the good, and punishment for
the
wicked. The word praise has here, after the Hebrew manner, a
wide
meaning.
And then he says,
5.
Now this passage 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.
Institutes:
|
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. |
Sections.
24. Obedience is also due the unjust magistrate
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. The wicked ruler a judgment of God
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. Obedience to bad kings required in Scripture
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, 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, 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, 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, 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," (1 Sam. 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.
29. It is not the part of subjects but of God to vindicate the right
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 (Eph. 6:4), and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love (Eph. 5:25) and to spare as the weaker vessels (I Peter 3:7); 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 (Prov. 21:1). "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps. 82:1). 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 (Isa. 10:1-2).
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. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom
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. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God
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, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 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," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 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 (1 Cor. 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.
Multiplicity of elders and the
importance of
restraining sin in Church govt.
see: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_sub_standards/form_presby_gov.html#[36]
|
And God hath
set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly
teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
governments, diversities of tongues. |
http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk4ch05.html#four.htm
4. Abuses in the appointment of the presbyter
("priest") and deacon
Such is the famous call, on account of which bishops boast that they are the successors of the apostles. They say, moreover, that they alone can competently appoint presbyters. But herein they most shamefully corrupt the ancient institution, that they by their ordination appoint not presbyters to guide and feed the people, but priests to sacrifice. In like manner, when they consecrate deacons, they pay no regard to their true and proper office, but only ordain to certain ceremonies concerning the cup and paten.
But in the Council of Chalcedony it was, on the contrary, decreed that there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, ordinations without assigning to the ordained a place where they were to exercise their office. This decree is most useful for two reasons; first, That churches may not be burdened with superfluous expense, nor idle men receive what ought to be distributed to the poor; and, secondly, That those who are ordained may consider that they are not promoted merely to an honourary office, but intrusted with a duty which they are solemnly bound to discharge.
But the Roman authorities (who think that nothing is to be cared for in religion but their belly) consider the first title to be a revenue adequate to their support, whether it be from their own patrimony or from the priesthood. Accordingly, when they ordain presbyters or deacons, without any anxiety as to where they ought to minister, they confer the order, provided those ordained are sufficiently rich to support themselves. But what man can admit that the title which the decree of the council requires is an annual revenue for sustenance? Again, when more recent canons made bishops liable in the support of those whom they had ordained without a fit title, that they might thus repress too great facility, a method was devised of eluding the penalty. For he who is ordained promises that whatever be the title named he will be contented with it. In this way he is precluded from an action for aliment. I say nothing of the thousand frauds which are here committed, as when some falsely claim the empty titles of benefices, from which they cannot obtain a sixpence of revenue, and others by secret stipulation obtain a temporary appointment, which they promise that they will immediately restore, but sometimes do not. There are still more mysteries of the same kind.
the importance of peers and many
counselors
1. There is safety in having many counselors - Pro 11:14
|
Where no
counsel [is], the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors
[there is] safety. |
2. There is wisdom in heeding the counsel of others - Pro 12:15
|
The way of a
fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel
[is] wise |
from: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/top/choices.htm
the rule that a bad king is better than no king.
hierarchical organizations, authority and the chain of command,
top down
the fundamental purpose is to preserve authority and operate at maximum
speed
bottom up organization where the executive and judical are united as in
Presbyterianism
the purpose is to restrain sin and reach consensus, time is secondary.
Outline of doctrine
I. relationship of Church and State
imho, the most profitable way to look at this theme is Kuyper's sphere
sovereignty.
from: http://wrf.ca/comment/issue/04sp/essay1
As far back as the sixteenth century, the legal theorist Johannes
Althusius
was arguing that the government, through its powers, "creates a legal
and
policy framework in which private associations can actualize their
rights and
acknowledge their responsibilities." The emphasis here is on the
associational nature of society. Government is limited, not only by the
rights
of the lonely individual, but by public and private associations with
their own
responsibilities and spheres of authority.
In the late nineteenth century, Althusius's idea that the institutions
of
society have distinct realms of influence and authority was picked up
by
Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch prime minister at the time. Kuyper was
adamant that
every social institution is "sovereign in its own sphere." To a large
extent, his idea of sphere sovereignty was rooted in his theology. As a
strong
Calvinist, Kuyper could not attribute to any human institution an
absolute
authority -- not even an absolute temporal authority. To do so would be
idolatrous. Thus, placing limitations on the power of government was a
simple
acknowledgement that only God has the right to absolute sovereign rule.
The timeless truth of God's rule was balanced by the organic, unfolding
nature
of human society. Kuyper thought that human social structures are
latent in
creation. As a culture develops, its people discover organizational
principles
and structures to meet developing needs. These structures are not
artificial
creations. They reflect something about what it means to be human and
in
society. Each also has a unique purpose, a mission distinct from that
of every
other social structure.
In a series of guest lectures he gave at Princeton in 1898, Kuyper
argued what
we are to understand by this idea of sphere sovereignty:
that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social
spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do
not derive
the law of their life from the superiority of the State, but obey a
high
authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the
grace of
God, just as the sovereignty of the State does.
The spheres of society are not subsidiaries of the state. Within the
bounds of
their purposes, they have no other authority than God above them.
Kuyper has
received criticism on this point. Later thinkers have accused him of
advocating
sphere autonomy. The criticism is not unwarranted, given such remarks
as,
"the State . . . has nothing to command in their domain."
However, here domain refers to the unique purposes of the institutions,
not the
broad scope of their influence. What we need to remember is that while
the
structures of society are diverse in their purposes they hold many
things in
common (for example, their members) and often operate in relation to
one
another. Thus, the state does have an interest in seeing that justice
is
maintained within and between the different institutions. Kuyper wanted
to
prevent a hierarchical model of society. His model was horizontal,
where each
institution assumed authority over its particular function.
Unfortunately, Kuyper's fear of a hierarchical society caused him to
see a rift
between his social thinking and Catholic social thought, which
advocated the
notion of subsidiarity. Kuyper's rejection of subsidiarity was based on
an
obsolete top-down understanding of subsidiarity. In his time,
subsidiarity was
being interpreted as a bottom-up, decentralized approach. The functions
of
society, in this new interpretation, are to be performed by the lowest
or,
rather, the most local community possible.
A. the subtopic is civil
disobedience or what
to do if the sovereign is wrong?
The rule is that if obedience to man means disobedience to God then we
obey
God.
.............1. the subtopic of this is how to go about obeying God
in this
matter
the choices are:
flee
stay and die martyrs quietly
stay and passive disobedience
stay and active rebellion
rebellion under the lesser magistrates
Lex Rex is at: http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm for
anyone really
interested in the topic of justifying rebellion, in fact, to justify
regicide
this is a must read.
http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/WITTENBERG/...REBELLION.-0110
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/fedcov.html
from: http://highlands-reformed.com/militias.html
Militias and the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate
Reformed theology has always maintained a distinction between the
various
spheres of government; self, church, state, etc. The power of the sword
clearly
belongs neither to the church nor to individuals; God has delegated
that
authority only to the State (cf. Rms 13:1ff). While the individual
himself has
the right to self-defense, he never had the right to take the law into
his own
hands and punish evil with the sword. In historic Reformed thought,
this was
seen as sedition and rebellion. Self-defense is one thing, revolution
another.
According to the Reformers, if the State became oppressive and
tyrannical, the
individual could appeal to a "lesser magistrate" to resist unlawful
government since only the magistrate has the right to "bear the
sword" against evil. For example, in Germany, it was the responsibility
of
princes to protect the people against the Emperor. In Britain
parliament was
the lesser magistrate while in Scotland it was the nobility. In
Switzerland,
the lesser magistrate was often the city fathers.
In American history, Reformed thought regarding militias was a balance
between
the authority of the State and the responsibility of the individual.
Individual
men, living free and responsibly under God’s law, were often called up
by the
“lesser magistrate” as needed to defend property, life and freedom. In
continental Europe, armies were often composed of the dregs of
humanity,
conscripted and used by the powers that be. However, in Scotland,
England and
the American colonies, the armies often raised were composed of local
militias,
raised by lairds, nobleman, local towns or colonial legislatures.
john howard yoder at: http://www.nd.edu/~theo/jhy/writings/justwar/justrevo.htm
milton's The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates at: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Tenure.HTM
In Praise of Constantine and the Reformed State at: http://www.eauk.org/commission/evid...d%2520State.pdf
" One of the most important distinctives of Theonomy is its view on
civil
law and the civil magistrate." at: http://www.hisglory.us/articles/theonomy.htm
Calvin says that "Civil authority is a calling, not only holy and
lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most
honorable of
all callings in the life of moral men." Magistrates are "ordained
ministers of divine justice." They are "vicars of God." In
administering punishment the magistrate "does nothing by himself, but
carries out the very judgments of God." And again, magistracy is a
"jurisdiction bestowed by God and on that account to esteem and
reverence
them as ministers and representatives of God."
There is room here, and even an obligation (although the Institutes
lays down
rather stringent conditions) for people to rise up and replace
magistrates who
are not ruling according to the high standards Calvin sets. Even
Catholic
magistrates who rule justly are presumably in Calvin's view ministers
of God.
But we read that "Sometimes [God] raises up avengers from among his
servants, and arms them with his command to punish the wicked
government and
deliver his people, oppressed in unjust ways, from miserable calamity."
But, even then, Calvin admonishes us that such rebellion must be led by
notable
persons, and only after grave provocation.
from the book:David Hall's new book, Savior or Servant? Putting
Government in
Its Place
http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960812.html
on Luther at: http://spindleworks.com/library/peet/german.htm
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/inde...laws_Moses.html
The big point is that we, because of the pervasive effects of sin, do
not as
individuals rebel, but rather as well organized, disciplined subgroups
assent
to the fact that rulers rule in the place of God. Not to replace God
but to do
His will. This essentially is an authority replacement plan not an
anarchistic
individualism.
In this context, passive disobedience was the only form of disobedience the early church would countenance. This attitude was founded on the basis of a doctrine known as patientia, developed primarily by such writers as Tertullian, Lactiantius and Origen.
In its basic form, patientia maintained that the use of force or violence to defend even the highest values was radically in opposition to the very foundations of Christianity. This did not mean Christians should give up the idea of influencing history but rather it was to be affirmed that there was a power other than the use of force.
Such an affirmation rested on the Christian's active belief in God as the source of that power and the hope of its fulfillment in his eternal kingdom. On this order, the believers gave God room to act, placing their trust in him and enduring any present evil with the certainty of final victory over it.10
Clearly the early Christians saw violent resistance and retaliation as contradictory to the nature and purpose of Christ and able to achieve only the exact opposite of any well‑meaning intention. Tertullian asserted that believers could resist injustice without resorting to unjust means, that they must not return evil for evil.
...
But again, of this lecture Professor of History Richard Greaves writes: "Since this position was taken by Calvin in the aftermath of the successful Scottish revolution, there is a possibility that be was influenced by Knox."23 Another scholar has remarked concerning Calvin's apparently contradictory behavior: "His political philosophy allowed for successful rebellions; their success made them legitimate."24 It is impossible to determine whether Greaves is correct that Calvin determined the propriety of violence on the basis of its relative success. However, it is clear that Calvin continued to grapple with the questions of rebellion and force throughout his life, finding a consistent conclusion difficult to achieve in his writings, and even more difficult to apply.
from: http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?169
This
"propriety of violence on the basis of its relative success."
looks remarkably like the Chinese Mandate of Heaven.
from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/TIENMING.HTM
|
|
In its early form, this
political theory asserted that Heaven, |
So we have discussed
the church
and civil government, that is priest, king, what about the office of
prophet?
It is my opinion, informed by historical analysis, that in order to
know what
is good, we look to the church and to Scripture. How else do we know if
the
civil government is doing good? Likewise church government is duly
constituted
and in fact is cognizant of the problems of sin and license. Rebellion
under
the lesser magistrates ends up in the position that we are justified in
rebellion IF and only IF lead by lesser officials who are themselves
authorities under God. This includes our pastors and elders. This is in
fact,
the primary argument from the Presbyterians in the American Revolution.
"Cousin
America has run off with the Presbyterian parson and there is nothing
we can do
about it"* My opinion is that the apex of the argument was reached
in
the mid 1700's and that still exists today as the best Scriptural
analysis, not
having been contaminated by the individualism of the French
enlightenment as we
are. This is the prophetic nature of the church in action, where the
church
speaks in Christ's name to the civil authorities when they have
neglected the
whole counsel of God.
*Quoted in: http://www.coralridge.org/DrKennedyTestimonyBeforeCongress.htm
This legislation is a vitally important step in reversing a
long-standing
injustice whereby free speech seems to be protected everywhere except
in the
pulpits of our churches and other houses of worship. It will restore to
churches a freedom and role that dates to America’s infancy. Nineteenth
century
historian John Wingate Thornton said “in a very great degree, To the
pulpit,
the PURITAN Pulpit, we owe the moral force which won our independence.”
The British would agree. Disgusted at the black-robed clergy’s
prominent role
in stirring the colonies to fight, the Redcoats called them the “Black
Regiment.” And Prime Minister Horace Walpole declared in Parliament
that
“Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” Walpole was
most
likely referring to John Witherspoon, who was a Presbyterian minister,
president of Princeton and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Witherspoon, who was accused of turning his college into a “seminary of
sedition,” was the most important “political parson” of the
Revolutionary
period, according to the Library of Congress.
The question that prompted this essay is if Calvin was being
disingenuous in
his insistence that the Reformed were loyal to Francis I King of France
in his prefatory
letter. When the Puritans executed Charles I in 1649*, and their
descendents were instrumental in the American Revolution against George
III,
King of Great Britain.
Would Calvin have approved of this usage of his 'doctrine of rebellion
under
lesser magistrates'? I don't know for he was in many ways a man of his
times
and not like those who followed and expanded on his work. But one thing
is
certain historically, Calvin gave the church the tools to combat the
absolutist
claims of Kings and was instrumental in the rise and acceptance of
Republican
forms of government patterned after the Presbyterian forms outlined by
Calvin
in Institutes. Without this the exegesis of Romans 13 as supporting the
status
quo would have remained a very conservative force in European societies
rather
than being coupled to a form of revolutionary behavior in the English
civil war
and the American war of independence.
*From: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/History/The_Puritans.htm
Charles saw his chance. He tried to play the army against
Parliament, and
the Scots against the English, until all but the staunchest royalists
had lost
faith in him. Finally, Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), in disgust, [17]
put an end to the farce by defeating the invading Scottish Royalist
army in
August, 1648 at Preston, purging Parliament of ninety-six Presbyterian
members
and other suspected royalists (and leaving only about 60 members), [18]
and seizing, trying, and executing Charles I on January 30, 1649.
The
monarchy was terminated, [19]
the House of Lords was dissolved, the Anglican Church was
abolished, and
the Commonwealth was declared. England was now ruled by a Council of
State. In
that same year, Cromwell commands armies sent first to crush Ireland in
August,
and then to crush Scotland, July, 1650.
research links
http://www.berith.org/pdf/Calvin's_Covenantal_Pronomianism.pdf
Calvin and the American revolutionary war:
on
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8886329#post8886329