John Calvin on Civil Government 

Available in Audio Format:

The great Reformer John Calvin enormously influenced the Reformed tradition of Christianity. His Institutes of the Christian Religion is a famous systematic theology, laying out the basics of the Christian faith. 

But the Institutes contain more than just theology (the study of God) or soteriology (the study of salvation). The very final chapter of the Institutes discusses civil government. Of course, Calvin wrote about the civil government in more than just the Institutes. Even within the Institutes, he mentions civil government more than just in the final chapter dedicated to earthly authority. Furthermore, he had practical experience in influencing the civil government of Geneva. So, this single chapter will not do justice to Calvin’s entire political philosophy. 

But Calvin’s writings on civil government in the Institutes are still insightful. For those who have never read the Institutes (or who have never made it to the very end of the substantial work), here are the highlights. 

Because civil government is ordained by God, citizens should honour and obey their government 

Not only is the civil government established by God, but “since those who serve as magistrate are called ‘gods’ [Ex. 22:8; Ps. 82:1, 6], let no one think that their being so called is of slight importance. For it signifies that they have a mandate from God, have been invested with divine authority, and are wholly God’s representatives, in a manner, acting as his viceregents” (4.20.4).  

Calvin even goes so far as to say “no one ought to doubt 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 whole life of mortal men.” 

High praise from Calvin. We might expect that Calvin the theologian would reserve this esteem for ministers, elders, or deacons. But no, he lays it at the feet of the civil government. 

If the office of civil government is that important, Calvin says that “the first duty of subjects toward their magistrates is to think most honorably of their office, which they recognize as a jurisdiction bestowed by God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as ministers and representatives of God” (4.20.22). 

This honour is more than just lip service or a positive attitude. It requires obedience, not only to the just magistrate but also to the unjust magistrate. “In a very wicked man utterly unworthy of all honor,” Calvin continued, “provided he has the public power in his hands, that noble and divine power resides which the Lord has by his Word given to the ministers of his justice and judgement. Accordingly, he should be held in the same reverence and esteem by his subjects, in so far as public obedience is concerned, in which they would hold the best of kings if he were given to them” (4.20.25). 

Calvin went so far as to say that, even if “the willfulness of kings will run to excess, it will not be your part to restrain it; you will only have this left to you: to obey their commands and hearken to their word” (4.20.26). And later, “let us then also call this thought to mind, that it is not for us to remedy such evils; that only this remains, to implore the Lord’s help, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, and the changing of kingdoms” (4.20.29).  

And again, Calvin says that we must “be very careful not to despise or violate that authority of the 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, to whom no command has been given except to obey and suffer” (4.20.31). 

Perhaps Calvin would have written differently had he lived in a democratic era. Today, the average citizen has far more opportunities to influence magistrates and laws. In Calvin’s monarchical era, the average person could do little politically, and thus Calvin strongly commends Christians to honour, obey, and submit to their civil authorities. 

Only after spending nearly a quarter of the chapter on these duties of Christians towards the civil government does Calvin offer the caveat in a single section that our obedience to God must always triumph over our obedience to our earthly authorities. “But in that obedience which we have shown to be due the authorities of rules, we are always to make this exception, indeed, to observe it as primary, that such obedience is never to lead us away from obedience to him, to whose will the desires of all kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty their scepters ought to be submitted” (4.20.32). 

Calvin supported an aristocracy 

The Greek philosopher Plato was famous for formulating three main types of governments, distinguished by the number of people who held power. In a monarchy, a single person, such as a king, held power. In an aristocracy, a small group of elites – perhaps a senate – governed a nation. In a democracy, the common people (or at least free, landholding males) claimed sovereignty.  

Given these three options, “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” Calvin opined (4.20.8). Calvin supports this preference by claiming that God “ordained among the Israelites an aristocracy bordering on democracy,” presumably the system of judges and elders that governed Israel between Moses and king Saul. 

Why this support for aristocracy? “Not indeed of itself,” continues Calvin, “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 fault or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government.” 

In many ways, Canada’s form of government aligns with Calvin’s reasoning. We have a system of government that mixes not just two but all three types of governments together. Canada still has a monarch – King Charles III – and his representative, governor general Mary Simon. However, these figures never exercise the powers officially given to them in Canada’s written constitution. Instead, they defer to the aristocratic elements of the Canadian government: the cabinet, the Senate, and the judiciary. These small groups of political elites are in turn responsible to a democratically elected House of Commons. This system of government arose over time in Britain precisely to limit the power of the monarch and the dangers that concentrating too much power in a single figure could pose, just as Calvin observed. 

Governments have the right to levy taxes… and live in comfort 

Few Christians today would deny the right of the government to impose taxes on its citizens. (Though you may know some Christian libertarians who claim that taxation is theft.) So, few would quarrel with Calvin that “taxes are the lawful revenues of princes, which they may chiefly use to meet the public expenses of their office… their revenues are not so much their private chests as the treasuries of the entire people” (4.20.13). 

But then Calvin goes in a direction that we might not expect. “Yet, they may similarly use [tax revenue] for the magnificence of their household, which is joined, so to speak, with the dignity of the authority they exercise. As we see, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, and other holy kings, also Joseph and Daniel (according to the dignity of their office) were, without offending piety, lavish at public expense… and this doctrine is not superfluous for private individuals in order that they should not let themselves rashly and shamelessly decry any expenses of princes, even if these exceed the common expenditures of the citizens.”  

In other words, Calvin probably wouldn’t be working for the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, criticizing a cabinet official for $16-a-glass orange juice, the governor general for her travel expenses, or the expenses in modernizing 24 Sussex Drive or the Parliament buildings. 

Instead, Calvin sees some level of wealth, opulence, and splendour by the civil government as befitting its high office and high honour. If serving in the civil government is “by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men,” then they should be allowed to live the part 

The moral law continues to bind us, though the ceremonial and civil law of the Bible do not 

Calvin famously distinguished between the moral, ceremonial, and civil law of the Old Testament. The moral law of God “is the true and eternal rule of righteousness, prescribed for men of all nations and times, who wish to conform their lives to God’s will. For it is his eternal and unchangeable will that he himself indeed be worshiped by us all, and that we love one another” (4.20.15). This moral law “is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men” (4.20.16). 

The ceremonial law was entirely fulfilled in the work of Christ and is no longer binding today. This included sacrificial laws, dietary restrictions, and cleanliness customs that the Jews practiced (and still practice to some degree) that Christians do not. 

Calvin claims that the judicial laws no longer apply today, though “the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.” Thus, “every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose” (4.20.15). These laws are to be formulated “with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation… 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” (4.20.16). 

Hence, Calvin does not call for every country in the world to have exactly the same laws, even though each legal code should be based on the command to love God and our neighbour.  

The civil government has significant responsibilities to regulate religion 

Calvin supports a much greater role for the civil government in religious affairs than most twenty-first-century Reformed Christians usually espouse. Calvin lists the responsibilities of the civil government in a few places. In 4.20.2, he says that “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 our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquillity.”  

Later, he posits that the government also should “prevent idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed; it provides that each man may keep his property safe and sound; that men may carry on blameless intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modesty may be preserved among men. In short, it provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity be maintained among men” (4.20.3). 

Anticipating objections, Calvin goes on to say, “Let no man be disturbed that I now commit to civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion… I approve of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion which is contained in God’s law from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity.” 

A few sections later, Calvin insists that the government ought to have concern for both tables of the law, both our duties toward God and our duties toward our fellow man in the Ten Commandments. Why? “No government can be happily established unless piety is the first concern; and those laws are preposterous which neglect God’s right and provide only for men… as if God appointed rulers in his name to decide earthly controversies but overlooked what was of far greater importance – that he himself should be purely worshiped according to the prescription of his law” (4.20.9). 

Conclusion 

It is revealing – and challenging – to Reformed Christians today to read some of Calvin’s thoughts on the subject. Many of these thoughts – the civil government’s role in regulating religion, his support for civil officers to be well-paid, the extent to which citizens should honour and submit to civil authorities – may conflict with our sensibilities.  

Calvin’s perspective regarding civil government’s duty to remove idolatry and false worship was reflected in the original Belgic Confession’s Article 36 on the civil government, but several Reformed denominations have modified Article 36. Next week, in another article, we’ll discuss the development of Reformed thought on this matter. 

Whether Calvin was right or wrong, or only partly right about civil government’s duties and authority related to religion, we should consider what he said about the matter and try to understand why. To borrow a phrase from C. S. Lewis, “the only palliative [to chronological snobbery] is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can only be done by reading old books.” 

The Institutes are certainly one of those good old books.