加爾文基督教要義(86)卷四第二十章 論政府

第二十章 論政府
　　一、我們既已說到人受雙重的治理，又已充分論到那在人的內在心靈里與永生有關的治理，所以在本章中，我們要討論到民事判斷和統制行動的政治。因為雖然這種討論與我論信仰的教義似乎無關，但是結果必要表明，我有充分理由將兩者聯繫起來，而且我非這樣作不可；尤其因為在一方面，愚妄野蠻的人們狂妄地企圖顛覆神所設立的這種制度；在另一方面，逢迎君主的人推崇君權過度，甚至不惜以之與神的權柄對立。這兩方面的錯誤都必須予以拒絕，否則就不免要將純正的信仰廢掉了。此外，我們很應當知道，神在這件事上是多麼向人類施仁慈，好叫我們要更加虔誠地來表示感謝。第一，在我們未開始討論這個題目之前，我們當首先重述兩者間所已立定的區別，不然，恐怕要蹈世人的覆轍，把這兩件完全不同的事不合理地混亂起來。因為有些人一聽到福音所應許的自由，是要人惟獨順服基督，不注重人間的君王或長官，他們便以為若見到有任何凌駕於他們之上的權柄，就不能享受自由了。因此，他們以為除非改造整個的世界，廢除一切的法庭，法律，和長官，以及任何被他們認為足以妨害自由的事，什麼都不會好轉。但是，凡能區別身體與靈魂，今生和永生的人，就不難了解基督屬靈之國和屬世的政府，乃是兩件完全不同的事，而且彼此相距天壤。既然以基督的國為屬世界的，乃是猶太人的愚昧，我們就當照聖經的明白教訓，看我們從基督的恩典所領受的好處乃是屬靈的；因此我們要把那在基督里應許給我們的一切自由，限於其固定的範圍內。使徒保羅雖在一個地方勸人說：「基督釋放了我們，叫我們得以自由，所以要站立得穩，不要再被奴僕的軛挾制」（加5：1），但為何在另一個地方卻吩咐作僕人的「不要因此憂慮」（林前7：21）呢？這豈不是因為靈性的自由很可以和屬世的奴役並存嗎？他以下的話也有同一意義，他說：「並不分猶太人，希利尼人，自主的，為奴的，或男或女」（加3：28）；又說：「在此並不分希利尼人，猶太人，受割禮的，未受割禮的，化外人，西古提人，為奴的，自主的，惟有基督是包括一切，又住在各人之內」（西3：11）。在這些話里他表明，不問我們在世人當中的情況如何，或是在那一國的法律下生活，都無關重要，因為基督的國不在乎這些事。
　　二、然而這種區別並不使我們看政府為敗壞的事，與基督徒無關。有些狂熱分子，除自由外，不如說除放蕩外，什麼都不喜歡。他們叫囂誇口說，我們既然對世間萬事與基督同死，被接入神的國，坐在天使的中間，就不應該再為那些與基督徒無關的世俗不潔的掛慮所糾纏，否則就太有損於我們的地位和尊嚴了。他們問道，律法若沒有法庭和審判，有什麼用呢？但審判與基督徒有什麼相干呢？倘若殺人是不合法的，那麼法律和審判對我們有什麼用處呢？但是雖然我們已指出，這種治理是與基督在內心屬靈的治理有別，然而我們仍應當知道，它們二者並不互相抵觸。因為屬靈的統治就在地上使天國多少在我們心內開始了，並在這暫時的今生中將多少不朽的永生之福賜予我們。但是政府乃是為我們活在世上時所設立的，為要維持對神的外表崇拜，保存純正的教義，維護教會的組織，並約束人的行為，使之符合社會的要求，遵守國家的法律，彼此和睦，維持治安。倘若現在那在我們心中存在的神的國把今生終止了，我承認這一切就都是多餘的。但是倘若神在我們渴望那真實之國時，仍要我們在地上作客旅，而且倘若這些幫助乃是我們作客旅所必須的，那麼凡把這種幫助取消的，就是剝奪人的本性。這些人申辯說，神的教會理當非常完全，它的秩序就足以取一切律法而代之；但他們是在愚蠢地妄想人群社會有那不能有的完全。因為惡人既如此猖獗和頑梗不化，一切嚴厲的律法尚且鮮能制止，他們的暴行，即使用威權的鐵腕也不能完全禁遏，倘若他們得以橫行無忌，他們會怎樣胡作非為呢？
　　三、關於政權的行使，以在另一處討論為宜。目前我們只要使人知道，若想廢棄政權，乃是野蠻不近人情的；它對人類是如麵包和水，陽光和空氣一樣重要，而且更為優越。因為它不僅供應這些東西，使人得以呼吸，飲食，存活（政府使人群共處，確是包括這一切的事在內），而且使偶像崇拜，對神之名的褻瀆，對神之真理的侮辱，以及別種冒犯聖教的事，都不敢公然發生或傳播在人民中間；使治安不受騷擾；使每人能享受他的產業，而不受侵犯；使眾人共同交易，而可免於欺詐不義；使正直與謙恭可以培植於人間；總之，使共同的宗教能以維持於信徒中間，且使人道能以維持於人間。人也不要希奇我過去似乎將宗教的事置之於人的治理之外，如今卻把它交託於人的政府。因為我至今仍如以往一樣，不許人對宗教和崇拜神的事制定法律；可是，我贊成政府不要容許神的律法中所有的真宗教受公然的褻瀆，而不加懲罰。但是我們不如先把行政的每一部分分別加以討論，好使讀者因明晰排列，就更能了解當對整個行政系統採取什麼態度。行政可分為三部分：一，維護法律的官吏；二，官吏藉以施行治理的法律；三，在官吏之下，為法律所治理的人民。我們首先要查考官吏的功能，看這職位是否為一個合法的身分，是否為神所許可，並看這職責的性質和許可權。其次，我們要查考基督教的政府應當受何種法律節度。最後，人民從法律得著什麼利益，他們對官吏應當怎樣服從。
　　四、主不但宣布官吏的功能是他所讚許所接納的，而且用極尊榮的稱號向我們推崇官吏。我們可以提出官吏的幾種稱號來。詩篇以很尊貴的名稱，稱官吏為「諸神」（詩82： 1，6），來表明一切官吏是神所命的，他們都賦有神的權柄，都是神的代表，以神的代理者的地位來施行一切。這並不是我的捏造，乃是主基督的解釋，他說： 「經上的話是不能廢的，若那些承受神的道的人，尚且稱為神」（約10：35）。這意思無非是說，他們的任務乃是由神所授予，好在他們的職務上事奉神，正如摩西和約沙法對他們所委任的審判官說：「你們判斷不是為人，乃是為主」（申1：16，17；代下19：6）。神藉所羅門的口所宣布的智慧，是有同樣的目的：「帝王藉我坐國位，君王藉我定公平。王子和首領，世上一切的審判官，都是藉我掌權」（箴8：15，16）。好像這是說，君王臣宰在世統治萬事的權柄，並不是由於人的悖逆而來，乃是由於神聖善的安排和命定，因為他樂意如此管理人事，與人同在，並且引領人制定法律，施行公平的判斷。這正是保羅所清楚教訓的，因他於神所分給人的各種恩賜中舉出治理來，作為基督僕人當用來造就教會的。雖然他在那裡是指原始教會所委任施行管理會眾的長老會議，即在達哥林多人書上稱為「治理事的」（林前12：28）而言，然而國家政府既有同一目的，無疑他也是把各種合法的權威都介紹給我們。但是，當他進而對該問題作充分的討論時，他就對此說得更明白。他說，「因為沒有權柄不是出於神的；凡掌權的都是神所命的。作官的是神的用人，是伸冤的，刑罰那作惡的。你只要行善，就可以得他的稱讚」（羅13：1，3，4）。這一點是為許多聖人的榜樣所證實；其中如大衛，約西亞，希西家乃是君王；約瑟，但以理乃是大臣；摩西，約書亞和眾士師乃是群眾中任治理責任的；他們的任務，神宣布為他所承認。所以人不應當再懷疑官職不但是聖潔合法的，而且在人生中是最神聖尊榮的。
　　五、那些主張無政府主義的人，要回答說：古時雖有君王和士師管理粗俗的人民，但那種奴役人的政府，今日與基督的福音所帶來的完全，是十分不相合的。這種話不僅暴露他們的愚昧無知，而且表示他們邪惡的驕傲，因為他們所誇的完全，一點也不能在他們身上發現。不管他們是何許人，都容易被駁倒。因為當大衛勸君王和審判官以嘴親子（詩2：10-12），他並不是吩咐他們退位隱居，乃是要他們將所得的權柄屈服於基督，使他獨居首位。同樣，當以賽亞預言教會有「列王作養父，王後作乳母」（賽49：23），他也並不是將他們從寶座廢去；反倒稱他們為虔誠信眾的保護者，好增加他們地位的尊貴；因為那預言是指基督降臨而言。還有許多經文，尤其有在詩篇中說到掌權者的權利的經文，我故意不提。但是，最要緊的經文乃是保羅勸提摩太要在信徒的會中，「為君王和一切在位的懇求，禱告，代求，祝謝，使我們可以敬虔端正，平安無事的度日」（提前2：1，2）。可見保羅主張教會受君王和一切在位的人看顧保護。
　　六、這種思想應當不斷地存在官吏的心中，因為這是對他們強有力的鼓勵，激動他們盡忠職守，並對他們有特別的安慰，使他們職務上許多難巨的困難可以減輕。因為凡知道自己是施行神公義的人，應當如何熱心追求正直，謹慎，仁愛，節制，和清白阿！他們若知道他們的法庭，即是活神的寶座，他們怎敢在法庭上容納邪惡呢？他們若知道他們的口，即是為宣揚神真理的工具，他們怎敢不公平定案呢？他們若知道他們的手，是被派書寫神的命令，他們怎能簽署邪惡的法令呢？總之，他們要念及他們是神的代表，因此就要極其謹慎，誠懇，殷勤，在他們的行政里對人表彰神的安排，眷顧，良善，仁慈和公義。他們也必須常常謹記著：倘若在一切事情上 「凡狡詐為耶和華行事的，必受咒詛」（耶48：10），那麼，凡在公義的職位上欺詐行事的，就要受更重的咒詛。所以當摩西和約沙法想要規勸審判官盡忠職守的時候，他們除我們上面所引的那個原則外，就沒有更有效的話了。摩西說：「無論是弟兄彼此爭訟，是與同居的外人爭訟，都要按公義判斷，因為審判是屬乎神的」（申1：16，17）。約沙法說「你們辦事應當謹慎，因為你們判斷，不是為人，乃是為主；判斷的時候他必與你們同在。現在你們應當敬畏主，謹慎辦事，因為主我們的神沒有不義」（代下19：6，7）。在另一處有話說：「神站在有權力者的會中，在諸神中行審判」（詩 82：1）。他們一知道他們是為神所委任，有一天必須向他交帳，他們就當盡忠職守。這種勸告值得為他們所特別注意，因為他們若是失職，就不僅是以非法行為損害人，而且是敗壞神的審判，冒犯他。在另一方面，他們一想到他們不是從事俗務，或從事一種不合乎作神僕人身分的職業，而是執行神的使命，因此是履行了最神聖的事工；如是，他們就能得著特別的安慰。
　　七、那些不服這許多經上的證據約束，仍敢指斥這神聖的政治為與宗教及基督徒的敬虔不相融洽的人，豈不是侮辱神嗎？因為指斥他所委任的政治，也就指斥了他。事實上他們不是厭棄掌權的，而是厭棄神，「不要他作他們的王」（撒上3： 7）。倘若神因為以色列人拒絕撒母耳的治理而這樣說了，他豈不要用同樣的話來斥責今日這些任意攻擊神所設立的一切權威的人嗎？但是他們提出反對理由來說，主曾對門徒說：「外邦人有君王為主治理他們，但你們不可這樣；你們裡頭為大的，倒要像年幼的；為首領的，倒要像服事人的」（路22：25，26）。他們爭辯說，這些話禁止任何基督徒施行統治或王權。好能幹的解經家！原來事實乃是，在門徒中間起了爭論「那一個可算為大」。主為要制止這種虛妄的野心，乃教訓他們說，他們的職分不像今世的國度中一個人駕臨乎眾人之上。那麼，這種比較何曾貶損王權的尊貴呢？這裡除說明王權並非使徒的職分外，還說明了什麼呢？還有一層，雖然官職各有不同，然而我們對它們理當一律接納為神所命令的。因為保羅的話：「沒有權柄不是出於神的」，乃是將一切權柄都包含在內，甚至包括最不為人所滿意的專制政權在內。這專制政權除那為萬人所服從的一人外，乃是奴役萬人，因此是素不為心思豪爽和高尚的人所贊成的。可是，經上為要改正這些不正當的情緒，明白主張君王在位乃是出於神智慧的安排，並且特別命令我們「尊敬君王」（羅13：1以下；箴8：15；彼前2：13，14，17）。
　　八、凡無權處理公事的私人，若要來辯論他們所居之地，究應採用什麼政體才是最好的，那誠然是徒勞無益的事。此外這問題若從抽象決定，也是不免措置的失宜的，因為它是隨情況為轉移。即令我們比較各種政體，而不顧到其情況，但它們的優點既都幾乎相等，所以很不容易發現那一種政體高出其他一籌。政體共可分為三種：君主政體，由一人掌權，不管他是稱為君王，還是稱為公爵或其他；貴族政體，由國中的主腦人物掌權；民主政體，或平民政治，政權屬於全體民眾。誠然，君主政體容易變為獨裁政治，貴族政體也不難變為少數水黨的寡頭政治；但是民主政體最易轉為叛亂。就這三種由哲學家所提的政體本身而論, 我就無法否認: 貴族政體，或貴族政體與民主政體的配合,遠優於君主政體。因為很少有君王能夠約束自己，不使其意志與公義及正直相抵觸；又因為他們鮮能慎思明辨，在凡事上發現那盡美盡善的。所以由於人的罪惡和缺欠，使政權操於許多人之手，乃較為穩妥，他們好彼此幫助規勸。這樣，倘若有人越權，別人就可以監察並約束他的野心。這是經驗時常證明的，也是主用他的權威認可的，因為他在以色列民中建立了政體，好保守他們於美好的情況中，直到他在大衛身上預表了彌賽亞。我既欣然承認在這種政體內，自由若是與適當的約束相調節，而且是建立在一個鞏固的基礎上，就沒有一種政體較比這種政體更好的，所以我也以為凡能享受這種政治的人民，乃是最愉快的；倘若他們努力有恆地保守這種政體，我認為他們是盡天職。為求達到此目的，官吏也當儘力以赴，不讓他們受託去加以護衛的自由稍被減損，更不稍受破壞；倘若他們對此漠不關心，不努力，那就是不忠於職守，背叛了國家。但是倘若神給人另一種政體，而他們卻想發動革命，奪取政權，那麼這種想頭不僅是愚妄無效，而且是完全違法。倘若我們的眼光不局限於一城，而能環顧四周，總覽全世，或至少展望遠地，我們就必發現，神的明智安排，乃是以各種不同的政體，來治理各種不同的國度；因為組成國家的成分不同，所以統治的方法也就不同。然而這些話對那些以主的旨意為足的人，都是不必須的。因為若是主樂意任命君王治理王國,任命參議員或民政官治理自由城市,我們的本分只是服從上帝在我們所居之地內所設立的治理者。
　　九、這裡必須簡單說明聖經對官職的性質所說的。倘若聖經未曾說到這職務對律法的兩版都涉及，我們也可從外邦作者學到這一點；因為他們當中論到官職，立法和政府時，沒有一個不是從宗教及敬拜神去開始的。所以他們都承認，沒有一個政府能以得福，除非它是以促進宗教信仰為首務；凡只顧到人的利益，而不顧到神的命令的法律，也都是乖謬不合理的。因此，既然宗教在一切哲人的言論中占第一個位置，而且這是為萬國所普遍承認的，所以基督教諸侯和長官若不專心致力於此，就當以自己的懈怠為恥。我們已經表明，神特別命令他們負起這一職責；他們理當儘力表彰並維護神的尊榮，因為他們乃是神的代理人，而且靠著神的恩掌權。經上對一切賢君的稱讚，大都是在乎他們當宗教敗壞廢弛的時候，恢復了對神的崇拜，或是他們專忱注意於宗教，使宗教純潔安全。反之，聖經歷史認為由無政府或缺乏良好政府所產生的一個罪惡，即是「那時以色列中沒有王，各人任意而行」（士２１；２５）。這些事證明那些願意長官忘記上帝，而只願長官在人民中間施行公道的人，是多麼愚笨；因為神任命了理政者，並不是只為判決俗世的爭端，而不必顧及那更重要的事，按照神的律法去崇拜他。這種觀點為煽動分子所採取。他們毫無忌憚，醉心新奇，巴不得將那些擁護被蹂躪的虔敬的人，一概驅除於世界之外。關於第二塊法版，耶利米這樣勸告君王說：「你們要施行公平和公義，拯救被搶奪的脫離欺壓人的手，不可虧負寄居的和孤兒寡婦，不可以強暴待他們，在這地方也不可流無辜人的血」（耶２２：３）。詩篇八十二篇也有同樣的勸告：「你們當為貧寒的人和孤兒伸冤；當為困苦和窮乏的人施行公義。當保護貧寒和窮乏的人，救他們脫離惡人的手」（詩82：3，4）。摩西囑咐代表他的審判官說：「你們聽訟，無論是弟兄彼此爭訟，是與同居的外人爭訟，都要按公義判斷。審判的時候，不可看人的外貌，聽訟不可分貴賤，不可懼怕人，因為審判是屬乎神的」（申1：16，17）。我止住不多說他在另一處，對將來的君王的指導：「不可為自己加添馬匹，也不可為自己多積金銀；不可向弟兄心高氣傲，要平生誦讀律法」（申17：16，17，19，20），以及那充滿於經上同樣的吩咐，叫審判官不存偏心，不收賄賂；因為我在這裡論到官吏的職司，主要目的不在教導長官，乃在對別人指明長官為何許人，神委任他們有何目的。因此我們知道，長官在位，是要維護人民的清白，廉正，和安寧。他們的惟一目的，理當是增進大家的安全與和平。關於這一切德行，大衛宣布他一旦身登王位，將以身作則，說：「邪僻的事，我都不擺在眼前。悖逆人所作的事，我甚恨惡，不容沾在我身上，彎曲的心思，我必遠離；一切的惡人，我不認識。在暗中讒謗他鄰居的，我必將他滅絕。眼目高傲，心裡驕縱的，我必不容他。我眼要看國中的誠實人，叫他與我同住；行為完全的，他要侍候我」（詩101：3-6）。但是，除非長官能保護善人脫離惡人的侵害，而且救助被壓迫的人，他們就不能照大衛的話行，所以他們必須有權力，壓抑邪罪，並嚴厲懲罰那些擾亂治安的人。因為經驗十足證實了梭倫（Solon）的話：「一切國家都賴賞罰來維持，一旦將賞罰去掉，人類社會的制裁就都被破壞廢除。」因為若無賞善，許多人就都會不顧公道與正義；若無罰惡，惡人的暴行也不易制遏。而這兩者都包括在耶利米對君王和治理者的訓諭中：「你們要施行審判和公義」（耶22：3），施行公義就是看顧，恩待，防衛，申辯和解放無辜者；施行審判就是壓抑膽大者，制裁強暴者，並懲罰無法無天者。
　　十、但是這裡有一個重要而困難的問題發生了。倘若一切基督徒都被神的律法禁止，不可殺人（出20： 13），而先知以賽亞對教會也預言說：「在我聖山的遍處，這一切都不傷人不害物，這是主說的」（賽11：9；65：25），那麼，官吏流人的血，如何能與信德相融洽呢？但若我們了解官吏施刑，完全不是出於本身，只是執行神的判斷，那麼，我們就不會受窘。主的律法命令說：「不可殺人，」但殺人者不能不受懲罰，所以立法者將刀交與施刑吏，來處置一切犯殺人罪的（創9：6；出21：12）。傷害毀滅本與信徒的品性不相符，但是奉神的命，為義人伸冤，既不是傷害，也不是毀滅。所以我們容易推斷說，在這一方面，長官並不受一般律法管制；主雖藉律法約束人的手，卻並不拘束他自己的公義，這公義是他藉官吏的手來施行的。所以，一位君主雖禁止人民打人傷人，卻並不禁止官吏施行那特別委託給他們的公義。我希望大家總要牢記，凡官吏所作的都不是出於人的專擅，而是出於神的權威，是為他所命令的；在他的領導之下，他們決不會錯誤。因為我們對秉公行刑，並不能找出有力的反對理由，除了我們要阻止神用公義去懲罰惡行。但阻止上帝，若是不合法的，那麼我們為何要誹謗他所任命的官吏呢？保羅說，作官的「不是空空的佩劍，他是神的用人，是伸冤的，刑罰那作惡的」（羅13：4）。所以君主和臣宰若知道什麼事也不比服從神更蒙悅納，並且他們若要在神面前證實他們的虔誠，公義，和正直，最好是專心致志於此職責。摩西是為這動機所影響，他既知道自己由神的權能註定作同胞的解放者，「他就把埃及人打死了」（出2：12），而且他一天曾殺戮三千人，又刑罰百姓敬拜偶像的罪（出32：26- 28）。大衛也是為這動機所影響，在臨終的時候，遺命他的兒子所羅門，要把約押和示每處死（王上2：5-9）。因此，君王的德行之一乃是「要滅絕國中所有的惡人，好把一切作孽的，從主的城裡剪除」（詩101：8）。同樣，詩篇作者歌頌所羅門說：「你喜愛公義，恨惡罪惡」（詩45：7）。以摩西的溫和恬靜的性情來說，他為何如此殘酷暴發，雙手既已染上弟兄的血，還遍歷帳幕，直至殺戮三千人呢？大衛一生注重人道，他於臨終時遺命其子如此殘忍對待約押，「不容他白頭安然下陰間」，又對待示每「使他白頭見殺，流血下到陰間」，他為何能留下如此殘忍的遺命呢？摩西與大衛在執行神所付託他們的報復上，他們的雙手因嚴厲而成為聖潔，若果寬宥，反倒要被沾污了。所羅門說：「作惡為王所憎惡；因國位是靠公義堅立」（箴16：12）。又說：「王坐在審判的位上，以眼目驅散諸惡」（箴20：8）。又說：「智慧的王簸散惡人，用碌碡滾軋他們」（箴20：26）。又說：「除去銀子的渣滓，就有銀子出來，銀匠能以作器皿。除去王面前的惡人，國位就靠公義堅立」（箴25：4，5）。又說：「定惡為義的，定義人為惡的，這都為主所憎惡」（箴17：15）。又說：「惡人只尋背叛，所以必有嚴厲的使者，奉差攻擊他」（箴17：11）。又說：「對惡人說，你是義人的，這人萬民必咒詛，列邦必憎惡」（箴24：24）。倘若拔劍追討惡人乃是真的公義，那麼當橫行無忌的惡人刀上染滿了血時，你若收刀入鞘，不去追討，這種容忍，不但不能讚美為善良和公義，反而是最大的不義。然而你不可過於殘酷，更不可把法庭作為一切被告的絞架。因為我既不贊成不必要的殘酷，也不以為公平的判決可能沒有仁慈。所羅門說：「王因仁慈和誠實，得以保全他的國位，也因仁慈立穩」（箴20：28）。長官理當戒懼，免得在兩方面犯錯誤：在一方面他不可過於殘酷，以致傷害勝於醫治；在另一方面他不可迷信寬仁，陷入錯誤的人道主義 ——其實是極大的殘酷——以致姑息惡人，貽害大眾。在羅馬皇帝涅珥瓦（Nerva）時，有一句名言：生活在一個什麼都不容許的君主之下，固然是壞的，但生活在任何事都容許的君主之下，那就更壞了。
　　十一、既然君主和國家有時必須執干戈，為公眾除害，照樣我們可以推知，那為此一目的而有的戰爭，也是合法的。因為他們既經接受權力，保衛領土安寧，綏靖叛亂，解救民困，懲罰罪行；那麼，他們執行權力，豈有什麼事比擊退那足以擾亂個人安全和國家治安的暴行，背叛，壓迫，殘暴，和種種不法的事更美好的嗎？倘若君主是應該保障法律的，他們就有本分將一切足以敗壞法律的惡勢力擊敗。倘若他們懲罰那為害少數人的強盜，是合理的話，難道他們可以容許整個地區被人劫掠蹂躪，而不加懲罰嗎？凡侵略，擾亂，劫掠他人領土的，不問他是君王或最下流的人，都該算為強盜，加以處罰。因此，照天理和職務的性質說來，君主武裝，不但是要用公義的懲罰來制裁個人的罪行，而且是要用戰爭來保護領土，抵抗侵略。聖靈在很多經文上也宣布，這種戰爭是合法的。
　　十二、倘若有人提出反對理由，說新約並沒有什麼教訓或例子，足以證明基督徒可以作戰，我就回答說，第一，古時作戰的理由，至今仍為有效；反之，沒有理由可以阻止君主保護人民。第二，使徒的著作不會對這題目有明顯的表示，因為他們的目的不是要組織國家政府，而是要說明基督屬靈之國。最後，他們的著作暗示政治並不因基督降世而有所改變。用奧古斯丁的話來說：「倘若基督教的教訓反對一切戰爭，那麼，當兵丁求問怎能得救時，他們就當蒙指導去拋棄兵器，放棄軍職；然而他們所得的勸告，乃是：『不要以強暴待人，也不要訛詐人，自己有錢糧就當知足』（路3：14）。吩咐他們有錢糧就當知足，這自然不是禁止軍人的生活。」但是長官在這裡都當極其謹慎，決不可順著自己的情感衝動行事。反之，他們若要施行懲罰，必須不發烈怒，不懷仇恨，不趨過激。他們理當如奧古斯丁所說的：「即令對他們所刑罰的罪人，也當存憐憫的心。」他們若要用武力來對付一個武裝強盜般的仇敵，也不當輕易尋找機會，甚至機會臨到，也不當利用，除非是迫不得已。有一位異教作者曾主張說，戰爭的顯然目的是為恢復和平。我們若要比他高出一籌，就當於未從事戰爭之前，力圖解決之方。總之，他們必不可為個人的動機所左右，必須以大眾的利益為前題；不然，他們就是濫用所賦予他們的權力，這權力不是為一己的利益，而是為造福別人。再者，由於有這作戰的權利，駐戍，聯盟，和其他軍備才算合法。駐戍，乃是指駐紮軍隊於城市，以保衛一國的邊疆。聯盟，乃是指鄰國的君主彼此訂盟，若遇有騷亂興起，他們就彼此援助，聯合他們的武力，抵抗人類的公敵，軍備，乃是指作戰所用的各種準備。
　　十三、最後，我想必須說，貢賦和稅收乃是君主的合法財源；此項財源，他們固然首當用來支付公費，但也可用來維持皇家的豪華，這是與政府的尊榮密切有關的。所以我們見到大衛，約沙法，希西家，約西亞以及其他虔敬的君王，還有約瑟和但以理，由於他們所居的職位，都是使用公款，卻並不算是違反了虔誠。我們又在以西結書上讀到，要將一塊廣大土地劃歸與王（結48：21，22）；在這段經文上，先知雖然是述說基督屬靈的國，然而他是借用世人合法的國度來作為模型。在另一方面，君王自己應當謹記，照保羅所說，國家的財源並非是他們私人的收入（參羅13：6），而是全體人民的歲收，所以不可浪費，否則不免違反公義；他們理當視此項財源為人民之膏血，若不加愛惜，乃是極大的殘暴不仁；各種賦稅只當視為補助國家的需要，若無緣無故增加人民的這種負擔，即是暴虐的搶奪。這些事並不鼓勵君主極盡奢侈，其實他們的慾望業已充分激發了，而毋須再火上加油。凡他們所圖謀的，既必須在神的面前存無虧的良心，那麼，為求使他們免除虛浮的自信心和輕視神的心，就必須教訓他們知道，他們的權利有著什麼限度。這一種教訓對於百姓也並不是無用的。他們從這教訓須知君王雖然超過普通生活的限度，但他們卻不當鹵莽放縱去批評。
　　十四、我們從官吏進而討論法律。法律是國家政制的神經系統，或照西色柔借用柏拉圖的說法，它乃是國家的靈魂。沒有法律，官吏無從存在；反過來說，沒有官吏，法律沒有力量。法律可說是不言的官吏，而官吏乃是發言的法律。雖然我已經應許將基督教國家應當用來治理的法律指明，可是論到最好的法律，乃是一個範圍很廣的題目，與我們當前的目的不符，所以誰也不應希望在此有一詳盡的討論。我只要簡單提到，基督教的國家應有何種法律，才可算在神面前是虔誠的，而在人間算是公道的。即是這一點，我也願意緘默不言，不過我知道有許多人在這一點上陷入了危險的錯誤，認為一個只為各國的普通法律所治理，而將摩西律法疏忽了的國家，組織就不完善。這種意見的危險和煽亂性，我讓別人去考察，我只要表明它是虛妄愚昧的就夠了。我們必須注意，摩西所頒神的律法，通常是區分為道德律，禮儀律和裁判律；這幾種律法必須分別加以查考，好叫我們可以確定何者屬乎我們，何者不屬乎我們。也不要有人因禮儀律和裁判律都包含在道德律之內而感到惶惑。因為那最先如此區分的古人，並非不知道這兩種律是和道德行為有關的；然而只因這兩種律可以改變或取消，而不影響道德，所以不稱呼它們為道德律。他們只用道德律一名來稱呼那些為純正的道德和聖潔生活的永久標準所不能或缺的律。
　　十五、因此，首先我要討論那包括在兩個主要條文中的道德律，一是命令我們用純潔的信心和虔誠崇拜神，一是吩咐我們用至誠的愛對待別人。這律，我認為是公義的真實永恆律，是為萬世萬國凡願意順服神旨意的人而定的。因為神永恆不變的旨意，就是要我們都崇拜他，也要我們彼此相愛。禮儀律乃是主為猶太人在訓蒙時期而用的，直等到「時候滿足」（加3：24，4：4），他就要對世人完全彰顯他的智慧，並顯明那向來由預表約略表出來之事的真像。裁判律是給他們作為政治上的憲法，為的是要教導他們一些公道和正義的規則，好使他們和平無害，彼此相處。正如禮儀雖然屬於虔誠，使猶太教會崇拜上帝，可是它與虔誠的本身有別；照樣裁判律雖然僅是為求保存神的永恆律所命令的愛，然而它與愛的本身也有別。所以正如禮儀可以作廢，而並不破壞或損傷虔誠；照樣雖然一切裁判律都被取消，愛的規律和本分仍然是我們永遠當遵行的。倘若這是真的，那麼，各國都有自由制定適合本身的法律，只要它們是按照愛的永恆律所制定的。這樣，它們雖在形式上不同，但是有同一目的。至於那些獎勵行竊和納妾，以及其他更惡劣，更可咒詛，更悖謬的野蠻法律，我以為它們遠非法律；因為它們不只是違反正義，更是違背人道。
　　十六、為求更明了這一點，我們考慮法律，應分為兩方面，即法律的制定，及其所根據的公道。公道既本於自然，乃對全人類是一樣的，因此關於任何事件的法律，都當以同樣的公道為目的。個別的法案和規律既然與情況有關，又多少以情況為轉移，就可以隨情況而不同，只要它們都是以公道為目的。既然上帝的律法中那稱為道德律的，無非是自然律和神在人心中所銘刻的良心，那麼，我們所說的整個公道律，就都包含在其中了。所以，惟有這公道才應當作為一切法律的範圍，規律，和目的。凡是按照這個規律，循著這個目標，限於這個目的所立的法律，我們就沒有理由來非難，不管它們是和猶太人的律法怎樣不同，或彼此不同。上帝的律法禁止偷竊。猶太人對賊的處罰，可以在出埃及記上看出來（出22：1以下）。別的國家最古的法律，以加倍償還懲罰偷竊。後來的法律對於明搶暗竊加以分別。有的處以放逐，有的處以鞭笞，有的處以死刑。在猶太人中作妄證者所受的處罰，恰是他用妄證所企圖加於人的處罰（申19： 18，19）。對作妄證者有些國家剝奪其公權，有些國家處以絞刑，有些國家處以十架苦刑。一切法律都將殺人罪犯處以死刑，只是方式各有不同。各國對於犯姦淫者，處罰嚴厲不一。但是，我們看到在各種不同的處罰中，目的則一。因為它們對凡為神的永恆律法所定為罪的惡行，諸如殺人，盜竊，姦淫，妄證等，都贊同予以處罰，不過處罰的方式不一致，然而這種一致既是不必須的，也是不適用的。一個國家，倘若對殺人罪不處以可資警戒的懲罰，則將為謀殺和劫掠的惡行所摧毀。在某個時代懲罰也許必須更嚴厲。倘若一個國家為騷動所擾亂，由這種擾亂所產生的邪惡，就須以新的法案來糾正之。戰爭時期，干戈擾攘，若不以勝於通常的懲罰，使人生畏懼之心，則一切人道行將被遺忘。當飢荒瘟疫時期，若不施行更嚴厲的處置，則萬事將趨於混亂。某一個民族若不受最嚴厲的約束，它也許更易於傾向某種罪惡。這種法律的不同性，本來是為求最能遵守神的律法，凡討厭它的，乃是怎樣暴露他嫉視公益呢？因為有些人提出反對，說，將神給摩西的律法取消，而代以別的法律，這對摩西的律法，乃是一種侮辱，他們所提出的這種反對是毫無根據的。因為我們並未愛好別的法律，過於摩西的律法，我們其所以更贊同別的法律，並不是根據對兩種法律的比較，而是根據它們更適合於時間，地方和國家的情形；而且那些從來就未曾給我們的，他們不能說我們將之取消了。因為主藉著摩西的手所頒的律法，並不是頒給列國一律遵行的。他既將猶太民族歸他特別看管，扶持，和保護，就樂意特別作他們的立法者。他既是一個賢明的立法者，就在他所給與的律法上，都特別注意到他們的特殊情況。
　　十七、現在我們要討論最後一點，即基督徒的社會從法律，裁判，和長官得到什麼利益；與這個問題相連的，還有一個問題，那就是人民當怎樣對長官表示尊敬，且當順服到什麼程度。許多人以為官吏之職在基督徒中間沒有用處，因為他們既不可報復訴訟，就不可向官吏求助。但保羅明明說，官吏「是神的用人，是與人有益的」 （羅13：4），我們從此就知道，官吏是神所命的，靠他的權柄，我們得免於惡人的惡意和傷害，平安穩妥地度日。除非我們利用官吏的幫助，官吏乃是徒然被派了。這足以證明，我們向官吏求助，並不是不合福音的。這裡我要對付兩種人。有許多人好訴訟，他們若不與人紛爭，就總不快樂；他們爭訟，存恨人的心，懷報復之念，頑強不可和解，直至使對方趨於毀滅才罷休。同時他們為求免得被人看為行了不義，乃以求得公道為口實，來掩飾自己的剛愎。一個人固然可以用訴訟來從從鄰舍取得公道，他卻並沒有自由去仇恨他，蓄意害他，或是不存憐憫的心逼迫他。
　　十八、所以這種人必須知道，訴訟對那些用之得當的人是合法的；原告和被告對訴訟的正當用法乃是：第一，若原告自身或財產受了損傷，要求官吏保護，就可提出控訴，要求公道賠償，但不要心存報復，或嚴酷的忿恨，也不要喜好爭競，寧可準備放棄權利，遭受若干損失，而不可仇恨敵方。第二，被告被傳，要按期出庭，儘力用最好的理由為自己辯護，不懷忿怒，只存一個維持自己正當權利的念頭。反之，他們的心若存惡意，為妒嫉所敗壞，為忿怒所激昂，為報復所刺激，或為爭競的狂熱所燃燒，以致減損愛心，則所有最正直的訴訟，也都不免是邪惡。因為一切基督徒的箴規應當是：不問自己的案情如何有理，但若對敵方毫不存仁愛之心，又不感到爭端好像已經用和解的調處決終止了，那麼什麼訴訟也都不算是正常的。有人或者要反對說，在訴訟中這種溫和是從未實行過的，倘若能找到這樣的一個例子，那真是奇事。我承認在這敗壞的時代，正直的訴訟人是罕有的；但是訴訟的本身若不為外來的邪惡所沾污，仍不失為一善良純正之舉。可見長官的援助是神的聖潔恩賜，我們當謹慎，使它不為我們的過失所玷污。
　　十九、那些積極指斥一切訴訟的人理當知道，他們這樣作，乃是指斥神的命令，也是指斥那對潔凈的凡物都潔凈的恩賜之一。他們不免是指責保羅犯了罪。因為他曾抗議那誣告他的人，暴露他們的狡詐與惡意；他在審判官面前，維護他羅馬公民的特權；而且在必要時，他從那不公道的巡撫而上訴於該撒。這並不違反基督徒不當存報復心的禁令，也將報復之念擯於一切基督徒法庭之外。因為在民事訴訟上，一個人若不存天真純樸的心，以法官為公眾的保護人，把自己的案子交託於他，毫不存以惡報惡的心，他就不算是行得對。至於在更重要的刑事案件上，我們要原告控訴不懷報復之念，不因私人所受的損失而憤慨，除抗拒惡人使之不為害大眾以外，不再有別的動機。若將報復心擯除了，就並沒有干犯基督徒不可報復的教訓。也許有人還要提出反對說，基督徒不但不可存報復的心，而且還要等待主親施報應，因為主應許扶助蒙冤受屈的人，替他們報復，所以凡為自己或他人求官吏干涉的，乃是跑到天上保護者伸冤報應的前頭去了。但是這種說法，遠與事實不符。因為審判官所施的報復，不當視為人的報復，乃是神的報應，因為照著保羅的話，主是用官吏來為我們施行報應。
　　二十、我們也並沒有違背基督的吩咐和禁令，說：「不要與惡人作對，有人打你的右臉，連左臉也轉過來由他打；有人想要告你，要拿你的裡衣，連外衣也由他拿去」（太5： 39，40）。在這段話中，主要他僕人的心不存報復之念，寧願自己再三受害，而不思報復；我們也並不勸他們拋棄這種忍耐心。基督徒真應該如同生來便應擔當損害和斥責的，應忍受惡人的不義，欺詐，和恥笑的；不但如此，而且他們在這一切邪惡之下也都當忍耐；那就是說，他們心中寧靜泰然，在忍受一種磨難后，準備再受磨難，一生只希望永遠背負十架。同時他們要替那咒詛他們的人祈禱，祝福，對那傷害他們的行善（太5：44），努力達到他們惟一的勝利，即是「以善勝惡」（羅12：21）。有了這種心情，他們就不會如法利賽人所教訓的，要圖報復，「以眼還眼，以牙還牙」；卻要如基督所教訓的，在自己的身體財產受損害時，隨即饒恕人（太5：38-40）。然而這種鎮靜和溫和並不阻擋他們一方面對敵人存友誼心，另一方面求援官吏來保存他們自己的財產；或者為著公益，使犯人伏法，即令他們知道他難免要受死刑的處分。因為奧古斯丁很正確地解釋說，這一切教訓的目的，乃是要叫「一個公義的信徒，隨時準備忍受那些為他願望變為善良之人的惡行，好使善人增多，而不至以惡報惡，使自己也列於惡人的數中；其次，這些教訓涉及內心的慈愛，多於外表的行為；好使我們心中的隱密處，可以有忍耐和仁愛，而同時在外表的行動中，對那些我們認為當以仁慈相待的人，仍可作有益的事。」
　　二十一、通常的反對理由，說保羅對訴訟一概加以指斥，乃是不對的（參林前6： 1-8）。從他的話我們容易知道，哥林多的教會有好訟之風，致使基督的福音和他們所信仰的宗教，受到了不信的人的指責和非難。保羅第一譴責他們無節制的紛爭，致使不信的人輕看福音；第二譴責他們在弟兄中竟有如此多的爭端，因為他們不但不肯忍受一點損失，而且彼此貪圖別人的產業，無故彼此陷害。所以他所指斥的，乃是這種爭訟，而並不絕對反對一切爭執。但是他宣稱，他們不肯忍受財產的損失，卻寧願從事爭訟來保存它，這完全是一種軟弱或惡行。每一損失既是如此觸怒他們，叫他們為極小的事情去爭訟，所以保羅說，這足證明他們最易為人觸怒，不夠忍耐。基督徒自然是當在凡事上寧可讓步，而不涉訟，因為一涉訟，心中就難免不對弟兄動怒懷恨。但是一個人若能不損愛心而來保護他的財產，而且假如損失對他太嚴重了，他就可以如此行，而並不違反保羅的話。總之，正如我們一開始就提到的，愛心能給人最好的忠告；因為凡沒有愛心的訴訟，或是凡不按照愛心進行的訟事，無疑都是不公平不合虔誠的。
　　二十二、百姓對官吏，第一應當對他們的職司存最尊敬的心，認它為上帝所委託給官吏的權柄，因此就尊敬官吏為神的僕人和代理人。有些人對官吏雖然十分順從，毫不願意沒有官吏來叫他們順從，因為他們知道官吏對公益乃是必要的；然而他們卻認為官吏本身不過是一種少不得的惡而已。但是彼得對我們別有命令，因他命令我們「尊敬君王」（彼前2：17）。所羅門說：「要敬畏主與君王」（箴24：21）。彼得所用的「尊敬」一辭，包括誠懇坦白的重視；而所羅門將君王和主連在一起，乃是以一種神聖的尊敬和尊嚴歸於君王。保羅所給官吏的稱讚，也是可堪注意的，他說，我們「必須順服，不但是因為刑罰，也是因為良心」（羅馬13：5）。這乃是說，百姓理當順服君王和官吏，不僅是因為懼怕他們的權柄，如同人向來屈服於一個武裝的敵人，因知抵抗會立刻引起報復；而且是因為對君王和官吏服從，就是對授權給他們的上帝服從。我所說的，不是指官吏個人，好像人帶上尊嚴面具，就可以文飾無知，殘暴，和窮凶極惡一般，以致將應當歸於德行的讚美來歸於邪惡；我所說的，乃是指職分本身值得尊重；所以無論是誰來作我們的治理者，只因他們的職位，就當受我們的尊敬。
　　二十三、百姓既傾心尊敬官吏，跟著有另一個本分，以表示他們的服從，即聽從命令，繳納賦稅，履行公務，負擔有關國防的責任，並遵守其他命令。保羅對羅馬人說：「在上有權柄的，人人當順服他。凡拒抗掌權的，就是拒抗神的命令」（羅13： 1，2）。他寫信給提多說：「你要提醒眾人，叫他們順服作官的，掌權的，尊他的命，預備行各樣的善事」（多3：1）。彼得勸人說：「你們為主的緣故，要順服人的一切制度；或是在上的君王；或是君王所派罰惡賞善的臣宰」（彼前2：13，14）。再者，百姓為求表明他們的服從並非是虛假的，而是誠懇熱烈的，保羅勸他們當在神面前為治理他們的長官求福。他說：「我勸你第一要為萬人懇求，禱告，代求，祝謝；為君王和一切在位的也該如此；使我們可以敬虔端正；平安無事的度日」（提前2：1，2）。在這裡人不要自欺，因為抗拒官吏，無非就是抗拒神。雖然對一個沒有武力的官長似乎可以輕視而無虞，然而神卻有能力對那蔑視他的人施行報應，以免別人效尤。在這順服之下，我也包括人對公務所當有的自製，他們若未奉命，就不當干涉國家的事，或是貿然擅取官吏的職務，或是承擔任何公務。倘若在公家的行政上有何事件須予以糾正，他們不可激起騷亂，或自行動手，但要使官吏知道這事，因他乃是惟一有權來糾正公事的。我是說，他們若沒有受命，就不當有所舉動；他們一旦受了政府的命令，他們也就接受了公權。因為正如我們慣稱君王的策士為他的耳目，照樣可稱凡被他委任執行命令的為他的膀臂。
　　二十四、我們所描寫一個克盡職責的官長，乃是國父，是詩人所稱為人民的牧者，和平的保人，公義的護衛者，無辜人的伸冤者；凡不贊成這樣一個政府的，真應被看為心神錯亂的。但是，差不多歷代都有一些君王，完全不理政事，不顧一切，縱情恣欲；另有一些君王，自私自利，出賣法律，特權，和判決；又有些君王，掠奪平民的產業，以供自己窮奢極欲；還有些君王，暴戾縱恣，搶劫民房，淫人妻女，屠殺嬰兒。許多人不承認這種人是配得服從的君王。因為在這種不但與長上的職位完全不符，而且與任何人也不相稱的反常的行動中，他們既然看不見那理當由官吏所彰顯的上帝的形像，也看不見那作神的差役的證據——即「不叫行善的懼怕，乃是叫作惡的懼怕，」刑罰那作惡的，稱讚那行善的——所以他們並不認為這種官長有聖經所稱讚的尊嚴和權威。人心自然是深惡痛恨暴君，敬愛賢君。
　　二十五、但是，我們若注意神的話，它就要使我們深入一層，叫我們不僅對那些以正直誠信來治理的君王服從，而且對一切掌權者，甚至對不盡職的政府，也當服從。因為主雖證明官長是他寬仁所賜的保障人民安全的殊恩，並向官長自己規定了本分的範圍，然而他同時又宣布，不管官吏的品格如何，他們的政權只是從神而來；那些為公眾的福利從政的，固然真是神的恩慈的鏡子和雛形，而那些以殘暴不仁來治理的，也是神興起來懲罰百姓的不義的；所以他們都擁有神賦予一切合法權威的神聖尊嚴。關於這一點，我要加上一些證明。不義的君王是神忿怒對世人所施的審判，這並不需費力便可證明，因為據我看，沒有人會否認：這種君王不啻是劫掠我們財產的強盜，沾污我們的床的淫徒，或是企圖謀殺我們的刺客，因聖經把這些禍患都列於神所降的咒詛中。但是我們要提出世人心中不易接納的道理，即是品格最壞和最不配受尊敬的人，若擁有政權，乃真是擁有了主對他的差役所賜施行判斷和公義的尊貴的神權；所以百姓對這種官吏也當以敬重賢君的禮來服從。
　　二十六、首先我要請讀者注意聖經所常正確提到的，那即是神在設立國度和指派君王事上有特別的安排。但以理說：「神改變時候，日期，廢王，立王」（但2： 21）；又說：「好叫世人知道，至高者在人的國中掌權，要將國賜與誰，就賜與誰」（但4：17）。這種經文在聖經中各處都有，特別是在這本先知書上。征服耶路撒冷的尼布甲尼撒的品格是大家都知道的。他侵略別國，遷徙別國人民。然而主藉著先知以西結的口宣布說，他已將埃及地賜給他，以酬勞他攻打推羅（結 29：18-20）。但以理也對他說：「王啊，你是諸王之王，天上的神已將國度，權柄，能力，尊榮，都賜給你；凡世人所住之地的走獸，並天空的飛鳥，他都交付你手，使你掌管這一切。」（但2：37，38）。但以理又對他孫子伯沙撒王說：「至高的神曾將國位，大權，榮耀，威嚴，賜與你父尼布甲尼撒；因神所賜他的大權，各方各國各族的人，都在他面前戰兢恐懼。」（但18：19）。當我們聽到尼布甲尼撒被神立為王，又當我們想起上天命令我們敬畏並尊敬君王，我們就不要猶豫將神已賜與最壞的暴君的尊榮歸給他。撒母耳指責以色列民，將他們從他們的王所要受的遭遇警告他們，說：「管轄你們的王必這樣行：他必派你們的兒子為他趕車，跟馬，奔走在車前；為他耕種田地，收割莊稼，打造軍器。必取你們的女兒為他製造香膏，作飯烤餅。也必取你們最好的田地，葡萄園，橄欖園，賜給他的臣僕。你們的糧食，和葡萄園所出的，他必取十分之一，給他的太監和臣僕。又必取你們的僕人和婢女，健壯的少年人，和你們的驢，供他的差役。你們的羊群他必取十分之一，你們也必作他的僕人」（撒上8：11-17）。當然君王無權利作這一切的事，因為律法好好訓誨了他們，理當節制；但這稱為權利，乃是從人民必須服從，不得自由拒抗一方面來說。好像撒母耳是說，你們的君王要貪得無厭，你們也無權制止，你們只得聽命服從。
　　二十七、但是最可注意的經文，乃是先知耶利米的一段話，這話雖然頗為冗長，我卻要引證，因為它最明顯地解決了這整個的問題。他說：「我用大能和伸出來的膀臂，創造大地和地上的人民，牲畜，我看給誰相宜，就把地給誰。現在我將這些地，都交給我僕人巴比倫王尼布甲尼撒的手。列國都必服事他和他的兒孫，直到他本國遭報的日期來到。無論那一邦，那一國，不肯服事這巴比倫王尼布甲尼撒，我必用刀劍，飢荒，瘟疫，刑罰那邦，所以要服事巴比倫王，便得存活」（耶27： 5-9，12）。可見主要人對那又可憎惡又殘暴的君王大大表示順服和尊敬，乃只因他據有王權；他是因天命而坐王位，達於崇高的王權，這王權乃是不可侵犯的。倘若我們的心目中常常記得，甚至最不義的君王也是那設立一切君王的天命所立的，那麼我們就不會存煽亂的心，以為可照一個君王的行為去對待他，而不必順服一個不盡職分的君王。
　　二十八、誰也不能說，這是專給以色列人的命令。因為我們必須注意到主所提出的理由。他說：「我已將這些地交給尼布甲尼撒；所以要服事他，便得存活」。是以，主顯然將國度賜與了誰，我們就應對誰服從。他一將誰升於王者之尊，便宣布了他樂意叫誰掌權。聖經對於這問題有一般的解答。所羅門說：「邦國因有罪過，君王就多更換」（箴28：2）。約伯說：「他放鬆君王的綁」，那就是說，剝奪他們的權柄；「又用帶子捆他們的腰」（伯 12：18），那就是說，恢復他們昔日的尊榮。若承認這一點。那麼我們就只能服事王權而存活。先知耶利米也記述主給他百姓的另一命令，說：「我所使你們被擄到的那城，你們要為那城求平安；為那城禱告主，因為那城得平安，你們也隨著平安」（耶29：7）。在此我們看到以色列人，既被剝奪一切的財產，攆出自己的居處，被驅逐流亡被擄為奴，卻受了命令要為征服他們的求福；這並不像我們都受了命要為那逼迫我們的禱告一樣，而是求主使那王的國得享太平，好叫他們在王的管治下平安度日。同樣，那為神指定作王，並受了聖油膏抹的大衛，雖毫無理由地受掃羅逼迫，卻因主曾立那追趕他的人為王，所以他以掃羅為神聖。他說：「我的主，乃是主的受膏者，我萬不敢伸手害他，因他是主的受膏者」；又說：「我愛惜你，說，我不伸手害我的主，因為他是主的受膏者」（撒上24：6，10）又說：「有誰伸手害主的受膏者而無罪呢？我指著永生的主起誓，他或被主擊打，或是死期到了，或是出戰陣亡。我在主面前，萬不敢害主的受膏者」（撒上26：9 -11）。
　　二十九、最後，對一切治理的人，不管他們的品格如何，我們都當敬愛；這一點我常重複提出，好使我們知道，我們不要考查統治者的本身如何，只求知道，主叫他們擔任這種職分，且對這職分賦予了不可侵犯的尊嚴就是了。有人要說，統治者對他們的百姓也有當盡的本分。那是我已經承認的。但是若有人根據這個道理推論說，只有對公義的統治者才應服從，那就是極壞的理論。因為丈夫對妻子，父母對兒女，也都有當盡的本分。倘若父母違反聖經所說不要惹兒女的氣（西3： 21）的教訓，過分嚴厲和發怒；倘若丈夫對他所當愛惜為軟弱器皿的妻子（弗5：25；彼前3：7）加以藐視並折磨，難道兒女就此當少順服父母，或妻子當少聽從丈夫嗎？甚至對那些殘暴不仁的，他們仍當服從。人人既都當不去過問別人的本分，但要專願自己的本分，凡服在他人權下的，就當特別注意這一點。因此，倘若我們為一個殘暴的君王所苦惱；為一個貪婪奢侈的君王所掠奪；為一個逸樂懈怠的君王所疏忽；或是因著我們的信仰，為一個邪惡褻瀆的君王所逼迫，那麼我們就當首先省察自己違背神的罪過，無疑，神是用這些苦惱來管教我們。這樣我們的急性就可以用謙卑來抑制。我們當想到我們無權糾正這些邪惡，只能求主幫助，因他掌管一切君王的心和一切國度的變遷。只有「神站在有權力者的會中，在諸神中行審判」（詩82：1）；至於世上的君王和審判官，凡不肯以嘴親他兒子的（詩： 2：10-12），和「那些設立不義之律例，為要屈枉窮乏人，奪去我民中困苦人的理，以寡婦當作擄物，以孤兒當作掠物的」（賽10：1，2），神必定使他們驚惶，趨於滅亡。。
　　三十、神在這裡表現了他奇妙的善良，權能，和安排，因為他有時興起他的一些僕人，為民眾伸冤，授命他們刑罰那不義的君王，拯救那些被壓迫的人民；有時又假手於那些別有用心之人的忿怒，來達成這一目的。這樣，他假手於摩西，使以色列民從法老的專制中解放出來；假手於俄陀聶，將以色列人從古珊利薩田的壓迫中解放出來，並假手於別的王和士師，將他們從別的苦軛中解救出來。他假手於埃及人，征服推羅的狂傲；假手於亞述人，征服埃及人的驕縱；假手於迦勒底人，征服亞述人的凶暴，並在古列王征服瑪代人後，假手於瑪代人和波斯人，征服巴比倫的自恃。以色列和猶太諸王，雖受了神無數的恩典，卻仍然忘恩背叛，神有時假手於亞述人，有時假手於巴比倫人，來壓制懲罰他們。他們都是施行他報應的差役，不過方式不一而已。前者是受神合法的使命，施行報應，毫未違反天命所賜與王者的尊嚴，他們既受了天命，以在上者征伐在下者，正如王處罰屬下一樣合法。後者雖照著神所樂意指點的，於無意中作了他的工，然而他們心中所存的，只有邪惡。
　　三十一、不管我們對人的行為抱什麼意見，主總是藉著這些行為來作他的工，毀壞暴君血腥的王權，推翻專制的政府。君王宜傾聽，戒懼。但是同時我們當極其謹慎，不得輕視或干犯長官的權威，這權威既是神以最莊嚴的命令設立的，就是該受最大尊重的，即令它為最不配的人所掌有，且為他們的不義所敗壞了。糾正暴政，雖是神所施的報應，我們卻不能便斷定說，這是交託給我們了，因為我們除服從和忍受之外，並沒有受別的命令。這一個道理是我專對私人而言。因為今日若有長官被任命來保護百姓來制裁王權，如古時的五長官（Ephori）對拉克代門人(Lacedaimonians)的諸王，或民眾法官對羅馬的執政官，或市區行政長官（Demarchi）對雅典的元老院施行制裁，又如今日各國三院級議會執掌權柄，我非但決不禁止他們行使職權來反對君王的殘暴或虐政，我反倒認為他們若縱容君王來壓迫人民，乃是極不信不義的，因為他們明知自己是為神派立保障人民自由的，卻把它欺詐地出賣了。
　　三十二、但是我們在順服政府權威一事上，首先應有一個為我們所應注意的例外，那就是說，我們不當因此被誘惑而不順服神，因為神的旨意, 乃是一切君王所當服從的；神的命令，乃是君王的一切命令所當屈服的；神的尊榮，乃是君王的一切王權所當順從的。我們若是為求討人的喜悅，而招致那叫我們順服人之神的憎惡，這真是何等荒謬的事呀！主乃是萬王之王；他一開聖口，眾人首先只當聽從他，其次，當服從那些治理者，但只在主里服從他們。倘若他們的命令違反上帝，就當置若罔聞，也不要顧及他們的尊榮，因為我們使這尊榮服從至高無比的神的權威，對它並無損害。根據這個原則，但以理不聽從王不敬虔的諭令，否認自己犯了罪（但6：22），因為王已經越權，不但對人有損，而且伸手反對神，貶損了自己的權威。在另一方面，以色列人因太順從王不敬虔的意旨而被定罪。因為當耶羅波安製造金牛犢的時候，百姓聽從他的意旨，離開神的殿，皈依這種新迷信。他們的後裔也同樣輕易順從拜偶像之王的命令。所以先知嚴厲地責備他們 「樂從人的命令」（何5：11）。王宮中的諂媚者不能以謙卑為借口來原諒自己，來欺騙常人，來否認那拒絕服從一切王命的人為合理。他們這樣行，好像神既立凡人為治理者，就放棄了他自己的權柄似的；又好像人若順從那賜王權的主，就把王權貶損了似的；其實在主面前，即令天上掌權的，也都要恐懼戰兢。我知道若是我們如此堅貞，眼見將有何等大的危險等待著我們，因為君王被人疏忽，他忍不住要大發烈怒；如所羅門說：「王的震怒，如殺人的使者」（箴16：14）。但是屬天的使者彼得既已宣布說：「順從神，不順從人是應當的」（徒5：29），我們就要安慰自己說，我們若情願忍受任何苦難，而不離棄虔誠，我們就真是履行了神所命令我們的服從。保羅為求使我們不喪膽，以另一思想來激勵我們，那就是說，基督以重價救贖了我們，叫我們不順從人敗壞的意旨，更不順從他們的不敬虔（參林前7：23）。

Chapter 20.

20. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
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.
The second part treats of Laws, their utility, necessity, form, authority, constitution, and scope, sec. 14-16. The last part relates to the People, and explains the use of laws, courts, and magistrates, to the common society of Christians, sec. 17-21. Deference which private individuals owe to magistrates, and how far obedience ought to be carried, sec. 22-32.


Sections.

Last part of the whole work, relating to the institution of Civil Government. The consideration of it necessary,
1. To refute the Anabaptists.
2. To refute the flatterers of princes.
3. To excite our gratitude to God.
Civil government not opposed to Christian liberty. Civil government to be distinguished from the spiritual kingdom of Christ.
Objections of the Anabaptists,
1. That civil government is unworthy of a Christian man.
2. That it is diametrically repugnant to the Christian profession. Answer.
The answer confirmed. Discourse reduced to three heads,
1. Of Laws.
2. Of Magistrates.
3. Of the People.
The office of Magistrates approved by God.
1. They are called Gods.
2. They are ordained by the wisdom of God. Examples of pious Magistrates.
Civil government appointed by God for Jews, not Christians. This objection answered.
Divine appointment of Magistrates. Effect which this ought to have on Magistrates themselves.
This consideration should repress the fury of the Anabaptists.
Three forms of civil government, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy. Impossible absolutely to say which is best.
Of the duty of Magistrates. Their first care the preservation of the Christian religion and true piety. This proved.
Objections of Anabaptists to this view. These answered.
Lawfulness of War.
Objection that the lawfulness of War is not taught in Scripture. Answer.
Right of exacting tribute and raising revenues.
Of Laws, their necessity and utility. Distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Law of Moses.
Sum and scope of the Moral Law. Of the Ceremonial and Judicial Law. Conclusion.
All laws should be just. Civil law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated.
Of the People, and of the use of laws as respects individuals.
How far litigation lawful.
Refutation of the Anabaptists, who condemn all judicial proceedings.
Objection, that Christ forbids us to resist evil. Answer.
Objection, that Paul condemns law-suits absolutely. Answer.
Of the respect and obedience due to Magistrates.
Same subject continued.
How far submission due to tyrants.
Same continued.
Proof from Scripture.
Proof Continued. (from Jeremiah 27)
Objections answered.
Considerations to curb impatience under tyranny.
Considerations considered.
General submission due by private individuals.
Obedience due only in so far as compatible with the word of God.
(How civil and spiritual government are related, 1-3)
1. Differences betweeen spiritual and civil government

Having shown above that there is a twofold government in man, and having fully considered the one which, placed in the soul or inward man, relates to eternal life, we are here called to say something of the other, which pertains only to civil institutions and the external regulation of manners.

For although this subject seems from its nature to be unconnected with the spiritual doctrine of faith, which I have undertaken to treat, it will appear, as we proceed, that I have properly connected them, nay, that I am under the necessity Of doing so, especially while, on the one hand, frantic and barbarous men are furiously endeavouring to overturn the order established by God, and, on the other, the flatterers of princess extolling their power without measure, hesitate not to oppose it to the government of God. Unless we meet both extremes, the purity of the faith will perish. We may add, that it in no small degree concerns us to know how kindly God has here consulted for the human race, that pious zeal may the more strongly urge us to testify our gratitude.

And first, before entering on the subject itself, it is necessary to attend to the distinction which we formerly laid down, (Book 3 Chap. 19 sec. 16;, et supra, Chap. 10:,) lest, as often happens to many, we imprudently confound these two things, the nature of which is altogether different. For some, on hearing that liberty is promised in the gospel, a liberty which acknowledges no king and no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think that they can receive no benefit from their liberty so long as they see any power placed over them. Accordingly, they think that nothing will be safe until the whole world is changed into a new form, when there will be neither courts, nor laws nor magistrates, nor anything of the kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty. But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated. Seeing, therefore, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under the elements of this world, let us, considering, as Scripture clearly teaches, that the blessings which we derive from Christ are spiritual, remember to confine the liberty which is promised and offered to us in him within its proper limits. For why is it that the very same apostle which bids us "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage," (Gal. 5: l,) in another passage forbids slaves to be solicitous about their state, (1 Cor. 7: 21,) unless it be that spiritual liberty is perfectly compatible with civil servitude? In this sense the following passages are to be understood: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female," (Gal. 3: 28.) Again:" There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all," (Col. 3: 11.) It is thus intimated that it matters not what your condition is among men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all consist.

2. The two "governments" are not antithetical

Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestial, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what ends they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity. As to their allegation, that there ought to be such perfection in the Church of God that her guidance should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can he found in the community of men. For while the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so stubborn, that it can scarcely be curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would be done by those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see perfect impunity for their wickedness?

(Necessity and divine sanction of civil government, 3-7)
3. The chief tasks and burdens of civil government

But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed, (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together;) this, I say, is not its only object, but it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man's property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men.

Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.

But the reader, by the help of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three: The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he governs; and the People, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let us consider then, first, What is the function of the magistrate? Is it a lawful calling approved by God? What is the nature of his duty? What the extent of his power? Secondly, What are the laws by which Christian polity is to be regulated?. And, lastly, What is the use of laws as regards the people? And, What obedience is due to the magistrate?

4. The magistracy is ordained by God

With regard to the function of magistrates, the Lord has not only declared that he approves and is pleased with it, but, moreover has strongly recommended it to us by the very honourable titles which he has conferred upon it. To mention a few. When those who bear the office of magistrate are called gods, let no one suppose that there is little weight in that appellation. It is thereby intimated that they have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act. This is not a quibble of mine, but is the interpretation of Christ. "If Scriptures" says He, "called them gods to whom the word of God came." What is this but that the business was committed to them by Gods to serve him in their office, and (as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they were appointing over each of the cities of Judah) to exercise judgement, not for man, but for God? To the same effect Wisdom affirms, by the mouth of Solomon, "By me kings reigns and princes decree Justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth," (Prov. 8: 15, 16.) For it is just as if it had been said, that it is not owing to human perverseness that supreme power on earth is lodged in kings and other governors, but by Divine Providence, and the holy decree of Him to whom it has seemed good so to govern the affairs of men, since he is present, and also presides in enacting laws and exercising judicial equity. This Paul also plainly teaches when he enumerates offices of rule among the gifts of God, which, distributed variously, according to the measure of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of Christ for the edification of the Church, (Rom. 12: 8.) In that place, however, he is properly speaking of the senate of grave men who were appointed in the primitive Church to take charge of public discipline. This office, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he calls "kuberneseis", governments, (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Still, as we see that civil power has the same end in view, there can be no doubt that he is recommending every kind of just government.

He speaks much more clearly when he comes to a proper discussion of the subject. For he says that "there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God;" that rulers are the ministers of God, "not a terror to good works, but to the evil," (Rom. 13: 1, 3.) To this we may add the examples of saints, some of whom held the offices of kings, as David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others of governors, as Joseph and Daniel; others of civil magistrates among a free people, as Moses, Joshua and the Judges. Their functions were expressly approved by the Lord. Wherefore no man can doubt that civil authority is in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful, but the most sacred and by far the most honourable, of all stations in mortal life.

5. Against the "Christian" denial or rejection of magistracy

Those who are desirous to introduce anarchy object that, though anciently kings and judges presided over a rude people, yet that, in the present day that servile mode of governing does not at all accord with the perfection which Christ brought with his gospel. Herein they betray not only their ignorance, but their devilish pride, arrogating to themselves a perfection of which not even a hundredth part is seen in them. But be they what they may, the refutation is easy. For when David says, "Be wise now therefore O you kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth," "kiss the son, lest he be angry" (Psalm 2: 10, 12,) he does not order them to lay aside their authority and return to private life, but to make the power with which they are invested subject to Christ, that he may rule over all. In like manner, when Isaiah predicts of the Church, "Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens and nursing- mothers," (Isaiah 49: 23,) he does not bid them abdicate their authority; he rather gives them the honourable appellation of patrons of the pious worshipers of God; for the prophecy refers to the advent of Christ. I intentionally omit very many passages which occur throughout Scripture, and especially in the Psalms, in which the due authority of all rulers is asserted. The most celebrated passage of all is that in which Paul admonishing Timothy, that prayers are to be offered up in the public assembly for kings, subjoins the reason, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," (1 Tim. 2: 2.) In these words, he recommends the condition of the Church to their protection and guardianship.

6. Magistrates should be faithful as God's deputies

This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that "does the work of the Lord deceitfully" a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred, - "Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts," (2 Chron. 19: 6, 7, compared with Deut. 1: 16, &c.) And in another passage it is said, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods," (Psalm 82: 1; Isaiah 3: 14,) that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them. This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are the ambassadors of God.

7. The coercive character of magistracy does not hinder its recognition

In regard to those who are not debarred by all these passages of Scripture from presuming to inveigh against this sacred ministry, as if it were a thing abhorrent from religion and Christian piety, what else do they than assail God himself, who cannot but be insulted when his servants are disgraced? These men not only speak evil of dignities, but would not even have God to reign over them, (1 Sam. 8:7.) For if this was truly said of the people of Israel, when they declined the authority of Samuel, how can it be less truly said in the present day of those who allow themselves to break loose against all the authority established by God? But it seems that when our Lord said to his disciples, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve," (Luke 22: 25, 26;) he by these words prohibited all Christians from becoming kings or governors. Dexterous expounders! A dispute had arisen among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. To suppress this vain ambition, our Lord taught them that their ministry was not like the power of earthly sovereigns, among whom one greatly surpasses another. What, I ask, is there in this comparison disparaging to royal dignity? nay, what does it prove at all unless that the royal office is not the apostolic ministry? Besides though among magisterial offices themselves there are different forms, there is no difference in this respect, that they are all to be received by us as ordinances of God. For Paul includes all together when he says that "there is no power but of God," and that which was by no means the most pleasing of all, was honoured with the highest testimonial, I mean the power of one. This as carrying with it the public servitude of all, (except the one to whose despotic will all is subject,) was anciently disrelished by heroic and more excellent matures. But Scripture, to obviate these unjust judgements, affirms expressly that it is by divine wisdom that "kings reign," (cf. Prov. 8:15) and gives special command "to honour the king," (Prov. 24:21; 1 Peter 2:17.)

(Forms of government, and duties of magistrates. Issues of war and taxation, 8-13)
8. The diversity of forms of government

And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances. And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility; so equal are the terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. And as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay, even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been appointed guardians from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country.

But should those to whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased him to appoint kings over kingdoms and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and submit.

9. Concern for both Tables of the Law

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of Him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule.

Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased, (Judges 21: 25.)

This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety.

In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, "Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood," (Jer. 22: 3.) To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, "Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked," (Psalm 82: 3, 4.) Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgement; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgement is God's," (Deut. 1: 16.) I say nothing as to such passages as these, "He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;" "neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;" "he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;" "and it shall be with him and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;" "that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren," (Deut. 17: 16-20.) In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. "A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that has an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me," (Psalm 101: 4-6.)

But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power to curb manifest evildoers and criminals, by whose misconduct the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon's saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of states totters and falls to pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue, and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute "judgement and righteousness," (Jer. 21: 12; 22: 3.) It is righteousness (justice) to take charge at the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgement to withstand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence and punish their faults.

10. The magistrates' exercise of force is compatible with piety

But here a difficulty and, as it seems, a perplexing question arises. If all Christians are forbidden to kill, and the prophet predicts concerning the holy mountain of the Lords that is, the Church, "They shall not hurt or destroy," how can magistrates be at once pious and yet shedders at blood?

But if we understand that the magistrate, in inflicting punishment, acts not of himself, but executes the very judgements of God, we shall be disencumbered of every doubt. The law of the Lord forbids to kill; but, that murder may not go unpunished, the Lawgiver himself puts the sword into the hands of his ministers, that they may employ it against all murderers. It belongs not to the pious to afflict and hurt, but to avenge the afflictions of the pious, at the command of God, is neither to afflict nor hurt. I wish it could always be present to our mind, that nothing is done here by the rashness of man, but all in obedience to the authority of God. When it is the guide, we never stray from the right path, unless, indeed, divine justice is to be placed under restraint, and not allowed to take punishment on crimes. But if we dare not give the law to it, why should we bring a charge against its ministers? "He beareth not the sword in vain," says Paul, "for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil," (Rom. 13: 4.) Wherefore, if princes and other rulers know that nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience, let them give themselves to this service if they are desirous, to approve their piety, justice, and integrity to God.

This, was the feeling of Moses when, recognising himself as destined to deliver his people by the power of the Lord, he laid violent hands on the Egyptian, and afterwards took vengeance on the people for sacrilege, by slaying three thousand of them in one day. This was the feeling of David also, when, towards the end of his life, he ordered his son Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death. Hence, also, in an enumeration of the virtues of a king, one is to cut off the wicked from the earth, and banish all workers of iniquity from the city of God. To the same effect is the praise which is bestowed on Solomon, "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness."

How is it that the meek and gentle temper of Moses becomes so exasperated, that, besmeared and reeking with the blood of his brethren, he runs through the camp making new slaughter? How is it that David, who, during his whole life, showed so much mildness, almost at his last breath leaves with his son the bloody testament, not to allow the grey hairs of Joab and Shimei to go to the grave in peace? Both, by their sternness, sanctified the hands which they would have polluted by showing mercy, inasmuch as they executed the vengeance committed to them by God. Solomon says, "It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by righteousness." Again, "A king that sitteth in the throne of judgement, scattereth away all evil with his eyes." Again, "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them." Again, "Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness." Again "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Again, "An evil man seeketh only rebellion, therefore an evil messenger shall be sent against him." Again, "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him."

Now, if it is true justice in them to pursue the guilty and impious with drawn sword, to sheath the sword, and keep their hands pure from blood, while nefarious men wade through murder and slaughter, so far from redounding to the praise of their goodness and justice, would be to incur the guilt of the greatest impiety; provided, always, they eschew reckless and cruel asperity, and that tribunal which may be justly termed a rock on which the accused must founder. For I am not one of those who would either favour an unseasonable severity, or think that any tribunal could be accounted just that is not presided over by mercy, that best and surest counsellor of kings, and, as Solomon declares, "upholder of the throne," (Prov. 20: 28.) This, as was truly said by one of old, should be the primary endowment of princes.

The magistrate must guard against both extremes; he must neither, by excessive severity, rather wound than cure, nor by a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into the most cruel inhumanity, by giving way to soft and dissolute indulgence to the destruction of many. It was well said by one under the empire of Nerva, It is indeed a bad thing to live under a prince with whom nothing is lawful, but a much worse to live under one with whom all things are lawful.

11. On the right of the government to wage war

As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.

12. Restraint and humanity in war

But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) "if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said, (Luke 3: 14,) Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve," (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.)

But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says, (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24,) "even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;" or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.

On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include every thing pertaining to the military art.

13. Concerning the right of the government to levy tribute

Lastly, we think it proper to add, that taxes and imposts are the legitimate revenues of princes, which they are chiefly to employ in sustaining the public burdens of their office. Theses however, they may use for the maintenance of their domestic state, which is in a manner combined with the dignity of the authority which they exercise. Thus we see that David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, and other holy kings, Joseph also and Daniel, in proportion to the office which they sustained, without offending piety, expended liberally of the public funds; and we read in Ezekiel, that a very large extent of territory was assigned to kings, (Ezek. 48: 21.) In that passage, indeed, he is depicting the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but still he borrows his representation from lawful dominion among men.

Princes, however, must remember, in their turn, that their revenues are not so much private chests as treasuries of the whole people, (this Paul testifies, Rom. 13: 6,) which they cannot, without manifest injustice, squander or dilapidate; or rather, that they are almost the blood of the people, which it were the harshest inhumanity not to spare. They should also consider that their levies and contributions, and other kinds of taxes, are merely subsidies of the public necessity, and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without cause.

These things do not stimulate princes to profusion and luxurious expenditure, (there is certainly no need to inflame the passions, when they are already, of their own accord, inflamed more than enough,) but seeing it is of the greatest consequence that, whatever they venture to do, they should do with a pure conscience, it is necessary to teach them how far they can lawfully go, lest, by impious confidence, they incur the divine displeasure. Nor is this doctrine superfluous to private individuals, that they may not rashly and petulantly stigmatise the expenditure of princes, though it should exceed the ordinary limits.

(Public law and judicial procedures, as related to Christian duty, 14-21)
14. Old Testament law and the law of nations

In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law.

As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men.

This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.

We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

15. Moral, ceremonial, and judicial law distinguished

The moral law, then, (to begin with it,) being contained under two heads, the one of which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him, and mutually love one another.

The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures, (Gal. 3: 24; 4: 4.)

The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly.

And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual.

But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.

16. Unity and diversity of laws

What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end.

Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws.

Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17.)

The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to "do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brothers" (Deut. 19: 19.) In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others, hanging; in others, crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amid this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law at God, viz., murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in a troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law.

The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.

17. Christians may use the law courts, but without hatred and revenge

It now remains to see, as was proposed in the last place, what use the common society of Christians derive from laws, judicial proceedings, and magistrates. With this is connected another question, viz., What deference ought private individuals to pay to magistrates, and how far ought obedience to proceed? To very many it seems that among Christians the office of magistrate is superfluous, because they cannot piously implore his aid, inasmuch as they are forbidden to take revenge, cite before a judge, or go to law. But when Paul, on the contrary, clearly declares that he is the minister of God to us for good, (Rom. 13: 4,) we thereby understand that he was so ordained of God, that, being defended by his hand and aid against the dishonesty and injustice of wicked men, we may live quiet and secure. But if he would have been appointed over us in vain, unless we were to use his aid, it is plain that it cannot be wrong to appeal to it and implore it.

Here, indeed, I have to do with two classes of men. For there are very many who boil with such a rage for litigation, that they never can be quiet with themselves unless they are fighting with others. Law-suits they prosecute with the bitterness of deadly hatred, and with an insane eagerness to hurt and revenge, and they persist in them with implacable obstinacy, even to the ruin of their adversary. Meanwhile, that they may be thought to do nothing but what is legal, they use this pretext of judicial proceedings as a defence of their perverse conduct. But if it is lawful for brother to litigate with brother, it does not follow that it is lawful to hate him, and obstinately pursue him with a furious desire to do him harm.

18. The Christian's motives in litigation

Let such persons then understand that judicial proceedings are lawful to him who makes a right use of them; and the right use, both for the pursuer and for the defender, is for the latter to sist himself on the day appointed, and, without bitterness, urge what he can in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and for the pursuer, when undeservedly attacked in his life or fortunes, to throw himself upon the protection of the magistrate, state his complaint, and demand what is just and good; while, far from any wish to hurt or take vengeance - far from bitterness and hatred - far from the Armour of strife, he is rather disposed to yield and suffer somewhat than to cherish hostile feelings towards his opponent. On the contrary when minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted by envy, burning with anger, breathing revenge, or, in fine, so inflamed by the heat of the contest, that they, in some measure, lay aside charity, the whole pleading, even of the justest cause, cannot but be impious. For it ought to be an axiom among all Christians, that no plea, however equitable, can be rightly conducted by any one who does not feel as kindly towards his opponent as if the matter in dispute were amicably transacted and arranged. Some one, perhaps, may here break in and say, that such moderation in judicial proceedings is so far from being seen, that an instance of it would be a kind of prodigy. I confess that in these times it is rare to meet with an example of an honest litigant; but the thing itself, untainted by the accession of evil, ceases not to be good and pure. When we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a sacred gift from God, we ought the more carefully to beware of polluting it by our fault.

19. Against the rejection of the judicial process

Let those who distinctly condemn all judicial discussion know, that they repudiate the holy ordinance of God, and one of those gifts which to the pure are pure (Titus 1:15), unless, indeed, they would charge Paul with a crime, because he repelled the calumnies of his accusers, exposing their craft and wickedness (Acts 24:12f), and, at the tribunal, claimed for himself the privilege of a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; 22:1,25), appealing, when necessary, from the governor to Caesar's judgement-seat (Acts 25:10-11).

There is nothing contrary to this in the prohibition, which binds all Christians to refrain from revenge, a feeling which we drive far away from all Christian tribunals (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 5:39; Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19). For whether the action be of a civil nature, he only takes the right course who, with innocuous simplicity, commits his cause to the judge as the public protector, without any thought of returning evil for evil (Rom. 12:17), (which is, the feeling of revenge;) or whether the action is of a graver nature, directed against a capital offence, the accuser required is not one who comes into court, carried away by some feeling of revenge or resentment from some private injury, but one whose only object is to prevent the attempts of some bad man to injure the commonweal. But if you take away the vindictive mind, you offend in no respect against that command which forbids Christians to indulge revenge.

But they are not only forbidden to thirst for revenge, they are also enjoined to wait for the hand of the Lord, who promises that he will be the avenger of the oppressed and afflicted. But those who call upon the magistrate to give assistance to themselves or others, anticipate the vengeance of the heavenly Judge. By no means, for we are to consider that the vengeance of the magistrate is the vengeance not of man, but of God, which, as Paul says, he exercises by the ministry of man for our good, (Rom. 13: 4.)

20. The Christian endures insults, but with amity and equity defends the public interest

No more are we at variance with the words of Christ, who forbids us to resist evil, and adds, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Matth. 5: 39, 40.) He would have the minds of his followers to be so abhorrent to everything like retaliation, that they would sooner allow the injury to be doubled than desire to repay it. From this patience we do not dissuade them. For verily Christians were to be a class of men born to endure affronts and injuries, and be exposed to the iniquity, imposture, and derision of abandoned men, and not only so, but were to be tolerant of all these evils; that is, so composed in the whole frame of their minds, that, on receiving one offence, they were to prepare themselves for another, promising themselves nothing during the whole of life but the endurance of a perpetual cross. Meanwhile, they must do good to those who injure them, and pray for those who curse them, and (this is their only victory) strive to overcome evil with good, (Rom. 12: 20, 21.) Thus affected, they will not seek eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, (as the Pharisees taught their disciples to long for vengeance,) but (as we are instructed by Christ) they will allow their body to be mutilated, and their goods to be maliciously taken from them, prepared to remit and spontaneously pardon those injuries the moment they have been inflicted.

This equity and moderation, however, will not prevent them, with entire friendship for their enemies, from using the aid of the magistrate for the preservation of their goods, or, from zeal for the public interest, to call for the punishment of the wicked and pestilential man, whom they know nothing will reform but death. All these precepts are truly expounded by Augustine, as tending to prepare the just and pious man patiently to sustain the malice of those whom he desires to become good, that he may thus increase the number of the good, not add himself to the number of the bad by imitating their wickedness. Moreover, it pertains more to the preparation of the heart which is within, than to the work which is done openly, that patience and good-will may he retained within the secret of the heart, and that may be done openly which we see may do good to those to whom we ought to wish well, (August. Ep. 5: ad Marcell.)

21. Paul condemns a litigious spirit, but not all litigation

The usual objection, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul, (1 Cor. 6: 6,) is false. It may easily be understood front his words, that a rage for litigation prevailed in the church of Corinth to such a degree, that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and the whole religion which they professed, to the calumnies and cavils of the ungodly. Paul rebukes them, first for traducing the gospel to unbelievers by the intemperance of their dissensions; and, secondly, for so striving with each other while they were brethren. For so far were they from bearing injury from another, that they greedily coveted each other's effects, and voluntarily provoked and injured them. He inveighs, therefore, against that madness for litigation, and not absolutely against all kinds of disputes.

He declares it to be altogether a vice or infirmity, that they do not submit to the loss of their effects, rather than strive, even to contention, in preserving them; in other words, seeing they were so easily moved by every kind of loss, and on every occasion, however slight, ran off to the forum and to law-suits, he says, that in this way they showed that they were of too irritable a temper, and not prepared for patience. Christians should always feel disposed rather to give up part of their right than to go into court, out of which they can scarcely come without a troubled mind, a mind inflamed with hatred of their brother. But when one sees that his property, the want of which he would grievously feel, he is able, without any loss of charity, to defend, if he should do so, he offends in no respect against that passage of Paul. In short, as we said at first, every man's best adviser is charity. Every thing in which we engage without charity, and all the disputes which carry us beyond it, are unquestionably unjust and impious.

(Obedience, with reverence, due even unjust rulers, 22-29)
22. Deference

The first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to entertain the most honourable views of their office, recognising it as a delegated jurisdiction from God, and on that account receiving and reverencing them as the ministers and ambassadors of God. For you will find some who show themselves very obedient to magistrates, and would be unwilling that there should be no magistrates to obey, because they know this is expedient for the public good, and yet the opinion which those persons have of magistrates is that they are a kind of necessary evils. But Peter requires something more of us when he says, "Honour the king," (1 Pet. 2: 17;) and Solomon, when he says, "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king," (Prov. 24: 21.) For, under the term honour, the former includes a sincere and candid esteem, and the latter, by joining the king with God, shows that he is invested with a kind of sacred veneration and dignity. We have also the remarkable injunction of Paul, "Be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake," (Rom. 13: 5.) By this he means, that subjects, in submitting to princes and governors, are not to be influenced merely by fear, (just as those submit to an armed enemy who see vengeance ready to be executed if they resist,) but because the obedience which they yield is rendered to God himself, inasmuch as their power is from God.

I speak not of the men as if the mask of dignity could cloak folly, or cowardice, or cruelty, or wicked and flagitous manners, and thus acquire for vice the praise of virtue; but I say that the station itself is deserving of honour and reverence, and that those who rule should, in respect of their office, be held by us in esteem and veneration.

23.Obedience

From this, a second consequence is, that we must with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens which relate to the common defence, or in executing any other orders. "Let every soul", says Paul, "be subject unto the higher powers." "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God," (Rom. 13: 1, 2.) Writing to Titus, he says, &quotut them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," (Tit. 3: 1.) Peter also says, "Submit yourselves to every human creature," (or rather, as I understand it, "ordinance of man,") "for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well," (1 Pet. 2: 13.) Moreover, to testify that they do not feign subjection, but are sincerely and cordially subject, Paul adds, that they are to commend the safety and prosperity of those under whom they live to God. "I exhort, therefore," says he, "that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," (1 Tim. 2: 1, 2.)

Let no man here deceive himself, since we cannot resist the magistrate without resisting God. For, although an unarmed magistrate may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed, and will signally avenge this contempt.

Under this obedience, I comprehend the restraint which private men ought to impose on themselves in public, not interfering with public business, or rashly encroaching on the province of the magistrate, or attempting any thing at all of a public nature. If it is proper that any thing in a public ordinance should be corrected, let them not act tumultuously, or put their hands to a work where they ought to feel that their hands are tied, but let them leave it to the cognisance of the magistrate, whose hand alone here is free. My meaning is, let them not dare to do it without being ordered. For when the command of the magistrate is given, they too are invested with public authority. For as, according to the common saying, the eyes and ears of the prince are his counsellors, so one may not improperly say that those who, by his command, have the charge of managing affairs, are his hands.

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.

27. The case of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah ch. 27

But the most remarkable and memorable passage is in Jeremiah. Though it is rather long, I am not indisposed to quote it, because it most clearly settles this whole question. "I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand," (Jer. 27: 5-8.) Therefore "bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live," (v. 12.) We see how great obedience the Lord was pleased to demand for this dire and ferocious tyrant, for no other reason than just that he held the kingdom. In other words, the divine decree had placed him on the throne of the kingdom, and admitted him to regal majesty, which could not be lawfully violated. If we constantly keep before our eyes and minds the fact, that even the most iniquitous kings are appointed by the same decree which establishes all regal authority, we will never entertain the seditious thought, that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, and that we are not bound to act the part of good subjects to him who does not in his turn act the part of a king to us.

28. General testimonies of Scripture on the sanctity of the royal person

It is vain to object, that that command was specially given to the Israelites. For we must attend to the ground on which the Lord places it - "I have given the kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar; therefore serve him and live."(Jer. 27). Let us doubt not that on whomsoever the kingdom has been conferred, him we are bound to serve. Whenever God raises any one to royal honour, he declares it to be his pleasure that he should reign. To this effect we have general declarations in Scripture. Solomon says - "For the transgression of a land, many are the princes thereof," (Prov. 28: 2.) Job says "He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle," (Job 12: 18.) This being confessed, nothing remains for us but to serve and live.

There is in Jeremiah another command in which the Lord thus orders his people - "Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace," (Jer. 29: 7.) Here the Israelites, plundered of all their property, torn from their homes, driven into exile, thrown into miserable bondage, are ordered to pray for the prosperity of the victor, not as we are elsewhere ordered to pray for our persecutors, but that his kingdom may be preserved in safety and tranquillity, that they too may live prosperously under him. Thus David, when already king elect by the ordination of God, and anointed with his holy oil, though ceaselessly and unjustly assailed by Saul, holds the life of one who was seeking his life to be sacred, because the Lord had invested him with royal honour. "The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him seeing he is the anointed of the Lord." "Mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord's anointed," (1 Sam. 24: 6, 11.) Again, - "Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?" "As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed," (1 Sam. 26: 9-11.)

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).

(Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)
30. When God intervenes, it is sometimes by unwitting agents

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.