CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Of Civil Government (part 1 of 2)
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Of Civil Government
Since we have established that there are two kinds of government in man, and have already spoken sufficiently of the first—which resides in the soul or the inner man and concerns eternal life—the present place requires us to explain the second, which pertains only to the establishment of civil justice and the regulation of outward conduct.
Before proceeding further into this subject, we must recall the distinction previously made, lest we fall into the error common to many and carelessly confuse two things that are entirely different.
When such persons hear that the gospel promises a liberty which acknowledges no king or master among men but submits to Christ alone, they imagine that they receive no benefit from this liberty so long as they see any earthly power raised above them. They therefore suppose that nothing can prosper unless the whole world is transformed into a new order in which there are neither courts, laws, nor magistrates, nor anything else of the kind which they imagine restricts their liberty.
But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present transitory life and the eternal life to come, will likewise understand clearly enough that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are very different things.
Since it is a Jewish folly to seek and confine Christ’s kingdom beneath the elements of this world, let us rather consider—as Scripture plainly teaches—that the fruit we receive from the grace of Christ is spiritual. Let us therefore take diligent care to preserve within its proper bounds the liberty promised and offered to us in Christ.
Why does the same Apostle who commands us to stand firm and not submit again to a yoke of bondage elsewhere instruct servants not to be troubled by their earthly condition, unless spiritual liberty can very well coexist with civil servitude?
Stand firm, therefore, in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not submit again to a yoke of bondage.
Were you called while a servant? Do not be troubled by it.
In the same sense we must understand his other statements:
In the kingdom of God there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, servant nor free.
And again:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, servant nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
By these statements he means that it makes no difference what condition we occupy among men or under the laws of what nation we live, since the kingdom of Christ does not consist in any of these things.
Yet this distinction is not intended to make us regard civil government as something polluted or as having no relevance to Christians.
It is true that certain fanatics today speak in this manner. They say that because through Christ we have died to the elements of this world and have been transferred into the kingdom of God among heavenly things, it is beneath us and unworthy of our high calling to occupy ourselves with the impure and profane cares belonging to worldly affairs, from which Christians ought to remain entirely removed.
“What purpose do laws serve,” they ask, “without lawsuits and judicial proceedings? And what do lawsuits have to do with a Christian? Indeed, if it is unlawful to kill, what need have we of laws and courts?”
But as we have recently warned that this kind of government differs from the spiritual and inward kingdom of Christ, we must likewise understand that it is in no way opposed to it.
That spiritual kingdom already begins within us upon earth a certain foretaste of the heavenly kingdom, and within this mortal and transitory life a certain foretaste of immortal and incorruptible blessedness.
The purpose of temporal government, however, is to order our life in human society during the time we must live among men; to form our conduct according to civil justice; to reconcile us with one another; and to maintain and preserve common peace and tranquility.
I confess that all these things would be unnecessary if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, brought this present life to an end. But if it is the Lord’s will that we should journey upon earth while aspiring toward our true country, and if such aids are necessary for our journey, then those who would separate them from man deprive him of his human nature.
They allege that such perfection ought to exist in the Church of God that it would itself be sufficient in place of all laws. But they foolishly imagine a perfection that could never be found in human society.
For since the insolence of the wicked is so great and their malice so rebellious that it can scarcely be restrained by the severity of laws, what may we expect from them if they perceive that they possess unbridled license to do evil, when even force can scarcely prevent them from committing it?
There will be a more suitable occasion later to discuss the usefulness of civil government. For the present, we wish only to make clear that to reject it is an inhuman barbarity, since it is no less necessary among men than bread, water, sunlight, and air—and its dignity is far greater still.
Civil government does not merely provide that men may eat, drink, and be sustained in life, although it includes all these things by making it possible for them to live together. It serves a higher purpose: that idolatry, blasphemies against the name of God and his truth, and other public offenses against religion may not be openly promoted and spread among the people; that public tranquility may not be disturbed; that everyone may be preserved in possession of what belongs to him; and that men may conduct their affairs together without fraud or injury.
In sum, its purpose is that a public form of religion may exist among Christians and that humanity may be maintained among men.
Nor should it seem strange that I now assign to civil government the duty of properly ordering religion, a responsibility which I appeared above to remove from the authority of men. For I no more permit men here to devise laws according to their own pleasure concerning religion and the manner of worshiping God than I did before. I do, however, approve of a civil order that takes care that the true religion contained in the law of God is not publicly violated and polluted with impunity.
If we consider each part of civil government separately, the following order will help readers understand what judgment should be formed concerning the whole.
Civil government consists of three parts. The first is the magistrate, who is the guardian and preserver of the laws. The second is the law, according to which the magistrate governs. The third is the people, who must be governed by the laws and obey the magistrate.
Let us therefore consider first the office of the magistrate: whether it is a lawful calling approved by God, what duties belong to it, and how extensive its authority is. Second, we shall consider by what laws a Christian commonwealth ought to be governed. Finally, we shall consider in what manner the people may make use of the laws and what obedience they owe to their rulers.
As for the office of magistrates, our Lord has not only testified that it is acceptable to him, but has also adorned it with honorable titles and thereby commended its dignity to us in a singular manner.
To state the matter briefly, all those established in positions of authority are called “gods.” This title must not be regarded as insignificant, for it demonstrates that they have received their commission from God, are authorized by him, and in some measure represent his person as his deputies.
I have said, “You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”
This is not an interpretation of my own devising, but Christ’s own explanation:
If Scripture called those gods to whom the word of God came—
What does this mean except that they have received a charge and commission from God to serve him in their office and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges they appointed over the cities of Judah, to administer justice not in the name of men but in the name of God?
You shall not show partiality in judgment, but shall hear the small as well as the great. You shall not fear the face of man, for the judgment is God’s.
Take heed what you do, for you judge not for man but for the Lord, who is with you in judgment.
To the same purpose belongs what the Wisdom of God declares through the mouth of Solomon: that by him kings reign, counselors administer justice, princes maintain their authority, and the judges of the earth judge equitably.
By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
This is equivalent to saying that kings and other rulers do not obtain their power upon earth merely through human perversity, but through the providence and holy ordinance of God, who is pleased to govern human society in this manner.
Saint Paul plainly demonstrates the same thing when he numbers governing among the gifts of God, which, being distributed in different ways among men, must be employed for the edification of the Church.
He who governs, let him do so with diligence.
In that passage, however, he speaks of the council of elders appointed in the primitive Church to preside over public discipline, an office which he calls “governments” in the Epistle to the Corinthians.
God has appointed in the Church... helps and governments.
Nevertheless, since we see that civil authority is directed toward the same end, there is no doubt that he commends to us every kind of lawful preeminence. He shows this still more clearly when he enters into a direct discussion of the subject. For he teaches that every such authority is an ordinance of God, and that none exist which have not been established by him. He further declares that rulers are ministers of God, appointed to honor those who do good and to execute the vengeance of his wrath upon those who do evil.
To the same purpose we should also consider the examples of the holy men, some of whom received kingdoms, such as David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others held positions of government and high office under kings, such as Joseph and Daniel; while still others were entrusted with the leadership of a free people, such as Moses, Joshua, and the judges. From these examples we know that their station was acceptable to God, as he himself declared. We must not doubt, therefore, that civil authority is a calling not only holy and lawful before God, but also most sacred and honorable among all callings.
Magistrates ought continually to keep this in mind, since such a consideration may serve both as a powerful spur to urge them to perform their duty and as a wonderful consolation, enabling them patiently to bear the difficulties and vexations that attend their office. For to what great integrity, prudence, clemency, moderation, and innocence ought they to conform and regulate themselves when they know that they have been appointed ministers of divine justice? With what confidence would they dare admit any injustice into their tribunal when they understand it to be the throne of the living God? With what boldness would they pronounce an unjust sentence with the mouth which they know has been appointed to serve as an instrument of God’s truth? With what conscience would they sign any wicked ordinance with the hand which they know has been appointed to write the judgments of God?
In short, if they remember that they are God’s representatives, they must devote all their effort and care to presenting to men, in all their conduct, something like an image of God’s providence, protection, goodness, gentleness, and justice. Moreover, they must always keep before their eyes that, if all those are accursed who perform the work of God deceitfully when it concerns the execution of vengeance, then much more are those accursed who act deceitfully in so just a calling.
Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat wished to exhort their judges to perform their duty, they could find nothing better to stir their hearts than what we have just related: “Consider what you do, for you do not exercise judgment on behalf of men, but in the name of God, who is with you in judgment. Now therefore, let the fear of God be upon you. Take care what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God.” In another place it is said that God has taken his place in the assembly of the gods and that in the midst of the gods he executes judgment. This ought deeply to affect the hearts of rulers, for by it they are taught that they are, as it were, God’s lieutenants, and that they must give an account to him of the charge entrusted to them.
And rightly should this warning sharply prod them. For if they commit any wrong, they not only injure the people whom they unjustly oppress, but also offend God, whose sacred judgments they defile. Yet they may also receive abundant consolation from considering that their calling is neither profane nor foreign to a servant of God, but is a most holy office, since they perform and execute the very office of God.
On the contrary, those who are not satisfied with so many testimonies of Scripture, but still condemn this sacred calling as something wholly contrary to Christian religion and piety—what else do they do but mock God himself, upon whom fall all the reproaches directed against his ministry? Indeed, such people do not reject rulers merely so that they may not reign over them; rather, they reject God altogether. For if this was truly said by our Lord concerning the people of Israel, because they had rejected the rule of Samuel, why should it not also be said today of those who take the liberty of speaking evil against all the authorities ordained by God?
But they object that our Lord forbids all Christians to concern themselves with kingdoms or positions of authority when he tells his disciples that the kings of the nations exercise dominion over them, but that it must not be so among them, where he who is first must become the least. What excellent interpreters! A dispute had arisen among the apostles as to which of them should be regarded as possessing the greatest dignity. Our Lord, in order to restrain this vain ambition, declares that their ministry is not like earthly kingdoms, in which one man holds precedence as head over all the others. But how, I ask, does this comparison diminish the dignity of kings? Indeed, what does it prove at all, except that royal government is not the apostolic ministry?
Furthermore, although there are various forms and kinds of rulers, they do not differ in this respect: we must receive them all as ministers ordained by God. For Paul included all these kinds when he said that there is no authority except from God. And the form least pleasing to men is commended in Scripture in a special manner above all the others—namely, the lordship and dominion of a single ruler. Because it carries with it the common subjection of all except the one man to whose will it subjects everyone else, it has never been agreeable to all men of excellent and lofty spirit. But Scripture, to counter this perversity of human judgment, expressly affirms that kings reign by the providence of divine wisdom and particularly commands that kings be honored.
Indeed, it is a vain occupation for private individuals, who possess no authority to order public affairs, to dispute about which form of civil government is best. Moreover, it is rash to make an absolute determination, since the chief consideration lies in the circumstances. Even if the various forms of government were compared apart from their circumstances, it would not be easy to determine which was most beneficial, so nearly equal are they, each having its own advantages.
Three forms of civil government are commonly reckoned: monarchy, which is the rule of one person, whether he is called a king, duke, or by some other title; aristocracy, which is government administered by the leading and distinguished men; and democracy, which is popular government, in which each member of the people possesses authority.
It is certainly true that a king, or anyone else to whom supreme rule belongs, may easily degenerate into a tyrant. But it is just as easy, when the prominent men possess authority, for them to conspire together to establish an unjust domination. And it is easier still, where the people possess authority, for them to stir up seditions.
Moreover, if we do not fix our eyes upon a single city alone, but look at and consider the whole world together—or even turn our attention to different countries—we shall certainly find that it was not without the providence of God that different regions were governed by different forms of civil government. For just as the elements cannot be held together except by an unequal proportion and tempering, so civil governments cannot be properly maintained except by a certain inequality
Yet there is no need to demonstrate all these things to those for whom the will of God is sufficient reason. For if it is his pleasure to appoint kings over kingdoms and other kinds of rulers over free peoples, it is our duty to submit and render obedience to whatever rulers govern the place where we live.
We must now briefly explain the office of magistrates, as it is described by the Word of God, and show wherein it consists. Jeremiah admonishes kings to execute judgment and justice, to deliver the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor, not to mistreat strangers, widows, or orphans, to do no injury, and not to shed innocent blood. Again, Moses commands the governors whom he had appointed in his place to hear the causes of their brethren; to render justice to anyone who sought it, whether against his brother or against a stranger; to show no partiality in judgment, but to do justice to the small and the great alike; and not to be turned aside by fear of men, since judgment belongs to God.
I pass over what is written elsewhere: that kings must not multiply horses, set their hearts upon covetousness, or proudly exalt themselves above their brethren, but must diligently meditate upon the law of God throughout their lives. Likewise, judges must turn aside neither to one side nor the other and must accept no gifts. Many similar teachings are commonly read throughout Scripture.
For in undertaking here to explain the office of magistrates, my purpose is not so much to instruct them in what they ought to do as to show others what a magistrate is and for what purpose he has been ordained by God. We see, therefore, that magistrates are appointed as protectors and guardians of public peace, decency, innocence, and good order, and that they must devote themselves to maintaining the common safety and peace of all.
Since they cannot accomplish this unless they defend the good against the injuries of the wicked and come to the aid of those who are oppressed, they are therefore armed with power to restrain and severely punish evildoers, whose wickedness disturbs the public peace. Indeed, experience confirms the saying of Solon that every commonwealth depends upon two things: the rewarding of the good and the punishment of the wicked. If these two things are removed, the whole order of human society is dissolved and brought to nothing.
For many have little concern to do good unless they see virtue rewarded with some honor. On the other hand, the evil desires of the wicked cannot be restrained unless they see vengeance and punishment ready at hand. These two duties are also included in the prophet’s command to kings and other rulers to execute judgment and justice.
Justice consists in receiving the innocent under one’s protection: maintaining, defending, supporting, and delivering them. Judgment consists in resisting the boldness of the wicked, restraining their violence, and punishing their offenses.
But here a difficult and weighty question arises: whether all Christians are forbidden to kill. For if God forbids it in his law, and if the prophet foretells concerning the Church of God that within it no one shall hurt or harm another, how can magistrates shed human blood without offending against godliness?
But if, on the other hand, we understand that the magistrate, in punishing, does nothing on his own authority, but merely executes the judgments of God himself, this scruple will not greatly trouble us. It is true that the law of God forbids killing. Yet, so that murderers may not remain unpunished, the Lord places the sword in the hands of his ministers to be used against them. It does not belong to believers to afflict or harm anyone. But to avenge, at God’s command, the injuries suffered by the good is neither to harm nor to afflict.
It is therefore easy to conclude that, in this respect, magistrates are not subject to the general law. For although by that law the Lord binds the hands of all men, he does not bind his own justice, which he executes through the hands of magistrates. In the same way, when a prince forbids all his subjects to bear weapons or wound anyone, he does not thereby prevent his officers from executing the justice which he has specifically entrusted to them.
I wish that we would always keep this consideration before our eyes: that in this matter nothing is done through human rashness, but by the authority of God, who commands it to be done. Under his direction one never departs from the right path. For when we consider this, we shall find nothing to condemn in public punishment, unless we intend to prevent the justice of God from punishing crimes. But if we are not permitted to impose a law upon God, why do we slander the ministers of his justice? “They do not bear the sword in vain,” says Saint Paul, for they are ministers of God, appointed to serve his wrath and to take vengeance upon those who do evil.
Therefore, if princes and other rulers recognize that nothing is more pleasing to God than their obedience, and if they desire to please him by godliness, justice, and integrity, let them devote themselves to the correction and punishment of the wicked.
Moses was certainly moved by this conviction when, knowing that by the power of the Lord he had been appointed to deliver his people, he put the Egyptian to death. He was moved by it again when he punished the people’s idolatry with the death of three thousand men.
David also was moved by such zeal when, near the end of his life, he commanded his son Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death.
How did the spirit of Moses, so gentle and gracious, become inflamed with such severity that, having stained his hands with the blood of his brethren, he did not cease killing until three thousand had been slain? How did David, a man of such great gentleness throughout his life, make so inhumane a testament with his dying breaths, commanding his son not to allow the gray heads of Joab and Shimei to go down to the grave in peace?
Surely both of them, in executing the vengeance entrusted to them by God, sanctified their hands by that cruelty—if cruelty it ought to be called—whereas they would have defiled them by showing pardon. “It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,” says Solomon, “for a royal throne is established by justice.”
Again, it is said that the king who sits upon the throne of judgment looks upon all the wicked—that is, in order to punish them. Likewise, “A wise king scatters the wicked and turns the wheel over them.” Again, “Remove the dross from the silver, and the goldsmith will produce the vessel he desires; remove the wicked man from the presence of the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness.” Again, both he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are an abomination to God. Likewise, the rebellious man brings calamity upon himself, and a messenger of death is sent against him. Again, peoples and nations curse the man who says to the wicked, “You are righteous.”
Now, if the true exercise of justice consists in pursuing the wicked with drawn sword, rulers who abstain from all severity and keep their hands free from blood while the swords of the wicked are drawn to commit murder and violence make themselves guilty of great injustice. Far from deserving praise for justice or goodness, they deserve condemnation.
Nevertheless, I also mean that no excessive or unduly harsh severity should be mixed with this, and that the judgment seat must not become a gallows already erected. For I do not wish to favor any unrestrained cruelty or to say that a good and just sentence can be pronounced without clemency. Clemency must always have a place in the counsel of kings and, as Solomon says, is the true preservation of the royal throne. Therefore, it was well said by one of the ancients that clemency is the chief virtue of princes.
But a magistrate must guard against both extremes: lest by excessive severity he wound more than he heals, or by a foolish and superstitious affectation of clemency become cruel through his kindness, abandoning everything through his indulgence to the great injury of many. For it was not without reason that this saying was formerly used: it is hard to live under a prince who permits nothing, but far worse under one who leaves everything without restraint.
Since it is sometimes necessary for kings and peoples to undertake war in order to execute such justice, we may conclude from the same principle that wars directed toward this end are lawful. For if power has been given to them to preserve the peace of their country and territory, to suppress the seditions of contentious men and enemies of peace, to aid those who suffer violence, and to punish crimes, could they employ it for any better purpose than to break and overthrow the efforts of those who disturb both the private peace of individuals and the common tranquility of all, and who seditiously stir up riots, violence, oppression, and other crimes?
If rulers are to be the guardians and defenders of the laws, they must break the efforts of all those whose injustice corrupts the order established by law. Indeed, if they rightly punish robbers who have injured only a few people, should they allow an entire country to be ravaged by acts of robbery without intervening? It makes no difference whether the person who invades another’s territory, to which he has no right, in order to commit plunder and murder, is a king or a man of low estate. All such persons must be regarded as robbers and punished accordingly.
Here, however, magistrates must take great care not to yield in the least to their own desires. On the contrary, whenever they must administer punishment, they must refrain from anger, hatred, and excessive severity. Indeed, as Saint Augustine says, because of their common humanity they ought to have compassion upon the person whom they punish for his own crimes.
If they must take up arms against enemies—that is, against armed robbers—they must not seek a trivial occasion for doing so. Even when such an occasion presents itself, they must avoid it unless compelled by great necessity. For if we ought to do even better than the pagans taught—and one of them said that war should have no other end than the pursuit of peace—then surely every means must be attempted before resorting to arms.
In short, whenever blood must be shed, magistrates must not allow themselves to be carried away by private passion, but must be governed by concern for the public good. Otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power, which was not given to them for their private advantage, but to be employed in the service of others.
From this right to wage war it follows that garrisons, alliances, and other military provisions are also lawful. By garrisons I mean armed forces stationed in frontier towns for the protection of the whole country. By alliances I mean confederations formed among neighboring princes so that they may assist one another if trouble should arise within their territories and jointly resist the common enemies of mankind. By military provisions I mean all supplies and preparations pertaining to the conduct of war.
It seems fitting to add one final point: the taxes and revenues received by princes are their lawful income. Nevertheless, they must employ them chiefly in meeting the expenses of their office. They may also lawfully use them to maintain their household dignity with suitable generosity, since this is in some measure connected with the majesty of their office.
Thus we see that David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, and the other holy kings—as well as Joseph and Daniel—lived magnificently at public expense, according to the rank in which they had been placed, without offense to their consciences. Moreover, we read in Ezekiel that large possessions were assigned to kings by the ordinance of God. Although in that passage the prophet describes the spiritual kingdom of Christ, he nevertheless takes as his pattern a just and lawful human kingdom.
On the other hand, princes must remember that their domains are not so much private revenues as resources to be applied to the public good of the whole people, as Saint Paul himself testifies. Therefore, they cannot squander them without injuring the public. Indeed, they ought rather to consider them the very blood of the people, which it would be most cruel and inhuman not to spare.
Furthermore, they must understand that their levies, taxes, and other forms of tribute are nothing other than subsidies for public necessity, and that to burden the poor common people with them without cause is tyranny and robbery.
These observations do not encourage princes to engage in extravagant spending or disorderly generosity. Indeed, there is no need to inflame their desires, which are already far more ardent than they ought to be. But because it is essential that they undertake nothing unless they can do so with a sound conscience before God—and lest, by daring beyond what is lawful, they fall into contempt of God—it is fitting that they understand what they are permitted to do.
Nor is this teaching unnecessary for private individuals, for by it they will learn not to criticize and condemn the expenditures of princes merely because they exceed the measure and custom ordinarily observed by others.
After magistrates come laws, which are the true sinews—or, as Cicero calls them, the souls—of every commonwealth. Without laws magistrates cannot possibly continue, just as laws in turn are preserved and maintained by magistrates. Therefore, nothing could be more aptly said than to call the law a silent magistrate and the magistrate a living law.
When I promised to explain by what laws a Christian commonwealth ought to be governed, I did not mean that I would enter into a lengthy discussion about which laws would be best. Such a discussion would be endless and would not suit our present purpose. I shall merely indicate briefly and in passing what kinds of laws it may lawfully employ before God and by which it may be justly governed among men.
I would even have omitted this matter altogether had I not seen that many fall into dangerous error concerning it. For some deny that a commonwealth is rightly ordered if, after setting aside the civil polity of Moses, it is governed by the ordinary laws of other nations. I leave it to others to consider how dangerous and seditious this opinion is. It will be sufficient for me at present to show that it is entirely false and foolish.
First, we must observe the common distinction by which the whole law of God given through Moses is divided into three parts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Each part must be considered separately so that we may properly understand what does and does not apply to us.
Meanwhile, no one should be troubled by the fact that the judicial and ceremonial laws are themselves included under morality. For although the ancients who devised this distinction were well aware that the ceremonies and judgments related to morals, they nevertheless saw that both could be changed or abolished without corrupting or diminishing good morals. For this reason, they did not call these two parts moral, but reserved that name for the part upon which true moral integrity depends.
We shall begin, then, with the moral law. Since it contains two principal points—the first commanding us to honor God sincerely with pure faith and piety, and the second commanding us to be united with our neighbor in true love—it is the true and eternal rule of righteousness ordained for all people, in whatever country they may live and at whatever time, if they desire to regulate their lives according to the will of God. For this is his eternal and unchangeable will: that he should be honored by us all and that we should love one another.
The ceremonial law was a form of instruction for the Jews—that is, an elementary teaching which our Lord was pleased to give that people as an exercise during their childhood, until the fullness of time should come, when he would reveal the realities that were then represented in shadows.
The judicial law, which was given to them for their civil government, taught them certain rules of justice and equity by which they might live peaceably together without harming one another. Now, just as the observance of the ceremonies belonged to the doctrine of piety, which is the first part of the moral law, because it nurtured the Jewish Church in the reverence of God, it was nevertheless distinct from true piety itself. In the same way, although their judicial law had no other end than the preservation of that same love commanded in the law of God, it nevertheless possessed its own distinct character, which was not itself contained in the commandment of love.
Therefore, just as the ceremonies were abolished while true religion and piety remained entirely intact, so also those judicial laws may be annulled and abolished without violating the duty of love in any way. If this is true—and certainly it is—then every nation is free to enact whatever laws it judges beneficial, provided that they are framed according to the eternal rule of love. Thus, although they differ in form, they all arrive at the same end.
I do not mean that we should regard as laws those barbarous and brutish ordinances which, for example, rewarded thieves with a certain prize, permitted indiscriminate sexual relations between men and women, or established other practices still more vile, outrageous, and detestable. Such ordinances are contrary not only to all justice, but also to all humanity.
What I have said will become clear if in every law we consider the following two things: the enactment of the law and the equity upon whose reason the enactment is founded. Equity, because it is natural, is always the same for every people. Therefore, all laws throughout the world, whatever their subject, ought to conform to the same equity.
As for particular statutes or ordinances, because they are connected with circumstances upon which they partly depend, there is no difficulty in allowing them to differ, provided that they all tend toward the same end of equity.
Since the law of God which we call moral is nothing other than a testimony of the natural law and of the conscience which our Lord has impressed upon the hearts of all men, there is no doubt that the equity of which we now speak is fully declared in it. Therefore, this equity alone must be the aim, rule, and end of all laws.
Furthermore, all laws that are framed according to this rule, directed toward this end, and limited by this standard ought not to displease us, however much they may differ either from the Mosaic law or from one another. The law of God forbids stealing.
In Exodus we may see what penalty was appointed for theft under the civil government of the Jews. The oldest laws of other nations punished thieves by requiring them to repay twice what they had stolen. Later laws distinguished between open and concealed theft. Some proceeded as far as banishment, others to flogging, and still others to death.
The law of God forbids bearing false witness. Among the Jews, a false witness suffered the same penalty that the falsely accused person would have incurred had he been convicted. In some other countries the penalty was merely public disgrace, while in others it was death by hanging.
The law of God forbids murder. All the laws of the world agree in punishing murderers with death, although they employ different forms of execution. Yet amid this diversity they all tend toward the same end. Together they pronounce a sentence of condemnation against the crimes condemned by the eternal law of God—namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false testimony. They differ only in the severity of their penalties, and uniformity in this respect is neither necessary nor expedient.
There are regions that would quickly be overrun by murder and robbery unless they imposed severe punishments upon murderers. There are times that require penalties to be increased. And there are nations that need to be severely corrected for some particular vice toward which they are more inclined than others. Should not anyone who objects to such diversity—which is especially suited to maintaining obedience to the law of God—be judged exceedingly malicious and hostile to the public good?
Some commonly object that injury is done to the law of God given through Moses when it is abolished and other, newer laws are preferred to it. But this objection is exceedingly frivolous. The laws established by rulers in their respective countries are not simply preferred to the Mosaic law as though they were inherently better, but are adopted according to the conditions and circumstances of the time, place, and nation.
Moreover, the Mosaic law is not thereby abrogated or annulled, since it was never commanded to us Gentiles. For our Lord did not administer it through the hand of Moses in order that it should be proclaimed to every nation and observed throughout the whole earth. Rather, having received the Jewish people under his particular protection, care, guidance, and government, he also chose to be their particular lawgiver. And, as befitted a good and wise lawgiver, he showed particular regard in all these laws for the welfare of that people.
It remains for us now to consider the last matter we proposed: in what way the Christian community may make use of laws, courts, and magistrates; what honor private individuals owe to their rulers; and how far their obedience ought to extend.
Many consider the office of magistrates useless among Christians and maintain that Christians may not appeal to them, since all vengeance, coercion, and litigation are forbidden to them. But since Saint Paul plainly testifies, on the contrary, that magistrates are God’s ministers for our good, we understand from this that it is God’s will that by their power and assistance we should be defended against the malice and injustice of the wicked and live peaceably under their protection.
Now, if they would have been given to us by God for our protection in vain unless we were permitted to make use of such a good and benefit, it plainly follows that we may appeal to them and seek their assistance without offense. But here I must deal with two kinds of people.
For there are many who burn with such a passion for litigation that they are never at peace within themselves unless they are contending with others. Moreover, they never begin their lawsuits without deadly hatred and an unrestrained desire to injure and take revenge, and they pursue them with hardened obstinacy until their adversary is ruined. Meanwhile, so that they may appear to do nothing but what is right, they defend such perversity under the pretense of seeking justice.
But it does not follow that, because a person is permitted to compel his neighbor through a court of law to make restitution, he is therefore permitted to hate him, desire to harm him, or pursue him obstinately and without mercy. Let such people therefore learn this principle: legal proceedings are lawful only for those who use them rightly.