9/11 QUESTIONS

The Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine and the philosopher John Locke embraced a very different political philosophy regarding revolution from John Calvin. As Christians, it is important that we understand these different views and ask ourselves which of the views is scriptural. The issue is particularly relevant today as America debates whether to assist political revolutions in other countries. Such assistance is generally termed a “war of liberation.” If “popular revolutions” against a government are right, then foreign assistance of such revolutions would also seem to be right. However, if “popular revolutions” against a government are wrong, then foreign assistance of such revolutions would also seem to be wrong.

Building the Foundations for the Free Society: Finding Common Ground in the Political Theory of Saint Robert Bellarmine and John Locke

Robert Bellarmine and John Locke, to the casual observer, could not be further apart philosophically speaking. They were born in different countries, lived in different centuries, followed different faiths and ultimately trained in different schools of thought. Robert Bellarmine was schooled in the tradition of Saint Thomas Aquinas and classical philosophy. John Locke, known by some as the father of liberalism, was trained in the school of empiricism. He came from England, a country that had successfully erased most of the remnants of the Catholic faith that had for centuries played such an important role in its society and way of life. The intellectual milieu in which Locke was born was vehemently opposed to the traditional school of scholasticism in which thinkers like Aquinas held such a prominent role. For these reasons it may seem hard to believe that these two men would find common ground on anything. Their theology and systems of philosophy seem so opposed to one another that any possible similarities would seem hard to come by. The fact of the matter is that their political philosophy is very comparable. To assert that Locke’s political theory is in agreement with Bellarmine is a bold statement, and may be hard for many to believe. Both share several points in common, the importance of consent, the naturalness of the formation of government and the importance of popular sovereignty. It is very likely, although not well known, that Locke himself was well read in the works of Bellarmine, but since Catholicism was such a social taboo at the time in England, he never openly admitted to it. A careful reading of Locke’s Second Treaties on Government will speak for itself and reveal the striking similarities between these two great men. The political tradition of these men would serve as a blueprint for the Founders of the United States, contributing immensely to the establishment of one of history’s greatest free societies.

Locke and Bellarmine share the idea of popular sovereignty. During the counter-Reformation, Bellarmine in his writings sought to counter the Divine Right of Kings theory held by many Protestant kings. Such rulers, believing their authority to rule came directly from God, placed themselves above the natural rule of law. Bellarmine’s response to this assertion was that while authority to rule does come ultimately from God, the people are the primary vessels of that authority and they in turn entrust it to a capable ruler of their choice. Following the medieval tradition, he advocates the notion of popular sovereignty, “Political power resides immediately in the whole multitude as in an organic unit. The Divine law has not given it to any particular man; therefore, it has given it to the multitude.”¹ Thus Bellarmine would hold that if an unjust ruler ever betrayed the trust of the people, they would have a right to take that authority away since the rule of the tyrant has become illegitimate. The importance of consent is implied with Bellarmine’s theory of popular sovereignty since the people would consent to have this or that form of government. A legitimate ruler is only legitimate when the people have consented to his rule. Those who hold to the Divine Right of Kings theory would deny that the people, under any circumstance, could ever take away the right of the ruler to rule no matter how tyrannical or unjust he may become. Similarly, Locke in his Second Treaties of Government, argues against Sir Robert Filmer who promulgated the theory of Divine Right of Kings.

Locke argues against the arbitrary rule of Kings who place themselves above the rule of law. “Where ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law transgressed to another’s harm.”² Locke would similarly hold that power is not given by God directly to the king to rule arbitrarily. Rather he argues that the ruler governs by the law of nature and that the people always retain ultimate authority. “And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body.”³ This passage clearly reveals Locke’s conviction that in the event of tyranny, the people have the right to resist, and he sets himself firmly opposed to those advocating rule by Divine Right. Locke may refer to “nature” rather than “God”. This however was a common way of implicitly referring to God without explicitly making reference to a Divine power. This was common practice at the time. Bellarmine and Locke held that God, through the natural law, bestowed the power of government upon the people and they accordingly transfer that power to a ruler. Locke is a strong advocate of popular consent, “The governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people."⁴ He makes this even clearer when he says, “The beginning of political society depends upon the consent of the Individuals, to join into and make one society.”⁵ Thus both Locke and Bellarmine are in agreement on the primacy of popular sovereignty. A related issue has to do with the natural origins of government.

Bellarmine is consistent with classical political tradition in holding that the origins of the state are natural. As Aristotle taught, the state is a natural outgrowth of the community. Contrary to Hobbes and Rousseau, Bellarmine does not believe that society develops as a result of an artificial social contract. Bellarmine elaborates upon his theory on the origin of the state when he says, “Moreover, this power (political power) exists by the natural law, since it does not depend upon the consent of man; for whether they will or not they must be governed by someone lest they be willing to perish; which is not human.”⁶ Thus according to Bellarmine, man naturally comes together to form a state so as to create an arbitrating body. Locke, on the other hand, is often misunderstood in this regard.

Locke believes, with Bellarmine, that man forms a state in order to ensure order and maintain peace.

“For hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof to make laws for him as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance is due. And this puts man out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth by setting up a judge on earth with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries.”⁷

It is true that Locke believed in a state of nature, however his state of nature differs significantly from that of Hobbes and Rousseau. Man within the state of nature and man within the social contract is, more or less, the same according to Locke. Whereas Hobbes and Rousseau view the social contract as the only means by which men can live together civilly. Thus Locke, with Bellarmine, sees the formation of the state as a natural occurrence. “Twas natural for them to put themselves under a frame of government, which might best serve to that end; and choose the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in their wars, and lead them out against their enemies, and in this chiefly be their ruler.”⁸ Clearly Locke believes that the formation of government is natural. It would be fair to say that the need for a state of nature in Locke’s theory seems unnecessary. Fr. Fagothey offers his criticism of Locke’s state of nature, “Locke’s opinion is good insofar as it makes society natural to man, but there seems to be no evident need for a social contract in the way he describes.”⁹ In other words, since man is essentially no different within or without the state of nature, there seems little need for one in Locke’s theory of society. Saint Robert Bellarmine and John Locke thus remain in agreement on the importance of consent, the nature of popular sovereignty and the natural origins of the state.

One must read John Locke carefully in order to make the connection between his political theory and that of Robert Bellarmine. Many view Locke as a radical revolutionary and as one of the heralds of the Enlightenment, whose aim was a social and intellectual movement that espoused many beliefs that were contrary to the Catholic Church. While many of Locke’s philosophical conclusions were erroneous, his political theory is remarkably traditional and sound. The connection between Locke and Bellarmine is significant because of Locke’s great influence on the American Founding. Many of the Founding Fathers were well read in John Locke’s works and based their new government on his theories about the nature of a participatory form of government. An important connection can thus be made between the American founding and Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Catholic theologian. The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are based upon the principles of popular sovereignty, the importance of the people’s consent, the purpose of government and the natural origin of the state. Undoubtedly the American founding is a success story in the history of democratic republics. Americans must remember with gratitude all those involved, whether directly or indirectly, in the founding of this free nation. Among those to be thankful for are John Locke and especially Saint Robert Bellarmine, whose contribution to political thought remains to this day largely unnoticed.

Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J., Right and Reason, (Tan Books and Publishers, INC. Illinois, 1958), 387.

Next, let’s consider the political philosophy of Calvin. The excerpt below is taken from his Institutes:

This chapter consists of two principal heads,—I. General discourse on the necessity, dignity, and use of Civil Government, in opposition to the frantic proceedings of the Anabaptists, sec. 1-3. II. A special exposition of the three leading parts of which Civil Government consists, sec. 4-32.

The first part treats of the function of Magistrates, whose authority and calling is proved, sec. 4-7. Next, the three Forms of civil government are added, sec. 8. Thirdly, Consideration of the office of the civil magistrate in respect of piety and righteousness. Here, of rewards and punishments—viz. punishing the guilty, protecting the innocent, repressing the seditious, managing the affairs of peace and war, sec. 9-13. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. The answer confirmed. Discourse reduced to three heads, 1. Of Laws. 2. Of Magistrates. 3. Of the People.

4. 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.

5. Civil government appointed by God for Jews, not Christians. This objection answered.

6. Divine appointment of Magistrates. Effect which this ought to have on Magistrates themselves.

8. Three forms of civil government, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy. Impossible absolutely to say which is best.

9. Of the duty of Magistrates. Their first care the preservation of the Christian religion and true piety. This proved.

14. Of Laws, their necessity and utility. Distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Law of Moses.

15. Sum and scope of the Moral Law. Of the Ceremonial and Judicial Law. Conclusion.

16. All Laws should be just. Civil Law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated.

…22. 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 or flagitious 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. 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, “Put 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 anything at all of a public nature. If it is proper that anything 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. 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 interest, venally prostitute all rights, privileges, judgments, 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 magistrate, 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 execration, than to look up to just kings with love and veneration.

25. But if 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 a 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 his 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.65 ⁶⁸⁶ 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 judgment, 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. 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, 25). 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 hath 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 hath he given into thine hand, and hath 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 oliveyards, 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-l7). 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. 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 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. 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.” 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 causelessly 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 eyes spare 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” (l Sam. 24:9-11).

29. 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 oftener, 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, and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love and to spare as the weaker vessels; 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.65 ⁶⁸⁷ “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” 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 judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless.

30. 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. But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves,65 ⁶⁸⁸ 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 fradulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.

32. 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 anything 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 anything 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 contemned. 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 consideration (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. END OF THE INSTITUTES.”

It should be noted that neither Bellarmine's view nor Filmer's view represents the mainstream historic reformed position. Unlike Filmer's Divine Right of Kings Theory, John Calvin recognized the responsibility of Parliaments and lesser magistrates to uphold God's law against wicked injustices perpetrated by kings. In other words, the king's power was not politically unlimited. However, John Calvin and mainstream historic reformed theology disagreed with a "popular" citizens' revolution based in "popular consent" and "popular sovereignty". For example, it was right that the Puritan Parliament did not cooperate with King Charles I's illegal acts, but the Boston Tea Party (carried out by the members of a Masonic Lodge in Boston) was not right.

Finally, let’s ask ourselves which of these two different views is Biblical. Did Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul advocate popular revolution against the tyranny of the Roman Caesar? Or did they advocate submission whenever submission was not contrary to God’s law? Did they not view the solution to Roman tyranny as coming from the preaching of the gospel which would usher in reformation?

PURITAN NEWS WEEKLY

By J. Parnell McCarter

Puritan News Service