Calvin's Geneva: Church & World in ordered tasks

Rev. Paolo de Petris

1) The terms of the  question

The political conception of J. Calvin has been subjected to a wide range of interpretations so that a " communis opinio" appears nowadays very difficult to be reached. Particularly the contribution of Calvin's theology to the birth of democracy and liberty has been until now one of the most debated and discussed. It is well known that the most famous and influential version of the thesis associating Protestantism and Progress was offered by G. W. F. Hegel, who in his " Philosophy of History" ( trans. J Sibree, New York, 1956, p.417 and p. 444) pointed out that in Germany the eclaircissement was conducted in the interest of Theology, in France it immediately took up a position of hostility to the church. This was possible in part because the protestant world itself..... advanced so far in thought as to realize the absolute culmination of self consciousness. This is the essence of the Reformation: Man is in his very nature destined to be free.

The idea of a kinship between Protestantism and political and social progress has became a common place among liberal Protestants. The boldest and most prolific representative of the above point of view was no doubt Emil Doumergue who in his Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps ( 7 vols, Lausanne, 1899-1927, p 212) , argued straightforwardly that Calvin deserved the title of founder of the modern world.

The idea of some inner connections between Protestantism and some aspects of modernity was taken up by Max Weber ( see The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) according to whom the Calvin's conception of vocation would constitute the basis of the modern capitalism.

After the Great War the tide of Protestant opinion turned against the fathering of modernity on the Reformation. The most eminent among these thinkers was Karl Barth whose "dialectical Theology" or "Theology of crisis" emphasized the infinite distance between a radically transcendent God and sinful man, in effect constituting a repudiation of the link between Protestantism and modernity. Among the other representatives of the above trend it needs to quote Marc Edward Cheneviere who in his La pensee politique de Calvin (Paris, 1937) insisted that there is no spiritual kinship between the Reformation and modern democracy , not to mention W. Allen who in his A History of Political Thought in the 16th Century ( New York, 1928) has observed that if the essence of Protestantism was a claim to liberty for the individual " then " certainly Calvin was not a Protestant".

In the heap of these different interpretations the reconstruction of the historical truth can appear to be problematic even because Calvin didn't write an extended formal treatise on government We find the most systematic treatise on this topic on the 4^ book of the Institutions of Christian Religion. A preliminary observation springs up immediately about Calvin's view of government : the brevity of his treatments. It appears almost to be an afterthought. A glance at the title "The External Means or Aids by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and holds us therein" can give the impression that Church and State will be given balanced treatments. On the contrary the Church received 93 percent of the attention, the State only 7 percent So it appears" prima facie" that Calvin was not much interested in the State. He was chiefly a theologian devoted to reform the church and his utterances on the political questions were only incidental and at any rate always closely connected with his theological basis.

In fact the Calvin's deepest concern was neither the world nor its history, neither the worldly orders nor the social life, neither the formation of economy , nor conduct of life. His main concern was only God, God's word, God's authority, God's truth, God's Gospel. In the light of the above situation that often has been misunderstood, it seems unavoidable to draw the only possible conclusion: it means we cannot understand the Calvin's political perspective without taking in account his theological background.

2)The theological leitmotif of Calvin's Theology:"Soli Deo Honor et Gloria"

But which was the leitmotif of Calvin's theology? Calvin scholarship possesses an abundance of studies which have proceeded to identify it in his doctrine :

of Predestination ( see Schweitzer," Die protestantische Central Dogmen", pp. 1-18 and L. Boetner, "the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", Grand Rapids, 1968);

of Knowledge of God (see Dowey, "Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology", pp. 41-49);

of Church ( see Milner, " Calvin's Doctrine of the Church", pp.1-5).

Generally among the above one the most diffuse answers has been the second; it means the doctrine of predestination. As a matter of fact a more careful analysis of the coordinates of Calvin's theology permits to single out another conclusion, that moreover some years ago H Troelsch singled out in his "The social teaching of the Christian Churches" (New York:Macmillan , 1931, p.583):

To Calvin the chief point is not the self centered personal salvation of the creature, and the universality of the divine Will of Love, but it is the Glory of God, which is equally exalted in the holy activity of the elect and in the futile rage of the reprobate

In our opinion the Troelsch's analysis hits the mark! In fact the common denominator of Calvin's writings was that one to teach that God's glory extended beyond the fate of the individual soul and encompassed the whole of creation, as he emphatically pointed out, by stating

For our salvation was a matter of concern to God in such a way that, not forgetful of Himself. He kept His glory primarily in view, and therefore, created the whole world for this end, that it may be a theatre of His Glory" In latin the phrase sounds "Totum mundum hoc fine condidisse, ut gloriae suae theatrum foret" (Consensus Genevensis C.O. 8:294)

This preoccupation directed at any rate to safeguard Glory and Honour of God was the constant factor and unifying element of Calvin's theology. The evidences confirming the above point of view are innumerable. In the Geneva's Catechism, one of the first documents , we find this meaningful statement to the question What is the chief end of human life? the answer sounds unequivocal:

We are all created to this end that we may know the majesty of our Creator; and having come to know it, that we might venerate it above all else, and honour it with all fear, love and reverence.

Human beings are living not to satisfy their needs of eternity or to give meaning to their lives, but to glorify God . In the above statement there is a deep rooted truth inasmuch as desire for personal salvation turns out to be very often a very selfish act Thereof Calvin was extremely aware to the point that his strong emphasis on the" Sola Gloria Dei" undercut every act tainted with self-seeking.True morality ought to be directed toward God alone.

To this connection In his reply to Cardinal Sadolet (O.S. 1:363-364) Calvin wrote :

"It is not very sound theology to confine a man's thought so much to himself, and not to set before him, as the prime motive for his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God. For we are born first of all for God, and not for ourselves. As all things flowed from Him and subsist in Him, so, says Paul (Rom.11,36), they ought to be referred to Him. I acknowledge, indeed, that the Lord, the better to recommend the glory of His name to men, has tempered zeal for the promotion and extension of it by uniting it indissolubly with our salvation. But since he has taught that this zeal ought to exceed all thought and care for own good and advantage, and since natural equity also teaches that God does not receive what is His own, unless He is preferred to all things, it certainly is the part of a Christian man to ascend higher than merely to seek and secure the salvation of his own soul. I'm persuaded, therefore, that there is no man imbued with true piety who will not consider as insipid that long and laboured exhortation to zeal for heavenly life, a zeal which keeps a man entirely devoted to himself and does not, even by one expression, arouse him to sanctify the name of God.

This doctrine lies on two presuppositions. Firstly we were created for no other end and to live for no other cause than that God may be glorified in us (C.R. 24:362; 26:270), as Calvin himself writes:

We are not our own; therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our deliberations..... We are not our own; therefore let us, as possible, forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are God's; to Him, therefore, let us live and die. We are God's; therefore let His wisdom and will preside in all our actions.O how well a man has profited if he has recognized that he is not his own and has taken the lordship and rule of himself away from his own reason and handed it over God (Institutions, 3,7,1)

Secondly the fact of our redemption constitutes

the end for which God has chosen us by gratuitous goodness; this is why He maintains and continues His grace toward us, that we might glorify Him not only with our mouths but in the whole of our life (C.R.26:225)

In short Calvin did not think of men as a change agents , but as servants of God. The Kingdom of God, not their personal salvation, the Glory of God, not their welfare, was to be their only goal.

3)Justification and sanctification; mutual relationships.

But, if the goal of Christian life is the glorification of God, which is its starting point ? To answer to the above question we have to dwell briefly on the teaching of justification by grace trough faith that has been always regarded by all the Reformers the "articulum stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae " and "the substance of piety" ( Institutions, 3,15,7 ).

According to Calvin men throughout the sacrifice of the cross operated by Jesus Christ have been justified once for all by God and have obtained the remission of sins. Therefore from now on the dominant motivation of their lives becomes not to strive in order to obtain salvation but to demonstrate their gratitude towards God.

In fact when a person has been reconciled to God, that person is in position to do good works. In summary, justification by faith alone becomes the presupposition of the Christian life and the" conditio sine qua non" of moral life conceived as the human response to the gracious activity of God. Calvin continually during his life exhorted human beings to meditate on God's goodness, firmly repudiating servile fear as the motivation of the Christian life

The above interpretation of Christian life inspired a vigorous and aggressive spirit in history. In Scotland and in England the Reformed churches sought to build the new Jerusalem. The puritans who moved to New England were not simply seeking freedom to worship God as they liked, but they tried to establish a Christian society. In his relation to God the Christian was a soldier of the Lord in conquest of the world, the flesh and the devil. He was God's elect instrument to fulfill His purposes. So the metaphor of the Christian as soldier became the most important and dominant designation given by Calvin to the Christian life, as he reminded by stating

Now we have a more general doctrine, that we are all soldiers of our Lord Jesus Christ and that our condition is such that is necessary for us to fight, not only for a day, but for all our life (C.R.27:612).

The condition of military discipline is such that as soon as a soldier has enrolled himself under a general, he leaves his house and all his affairs and thinks of nothing but war; and in like manner, in order that we may be wholly devoted to Christ, we must be free from all the entanglements of this world..... Everyone who wishes to fight under Christ must relinquish all the hindrances and employments of the world and devote himself unreservedly to the warfare (C.R.52:361)

Paul Wernle in his "Der Evangelische Glaube nach den Hauptschriften der Reformatoren" (Tuebingen, J.C. B. Mohr, 1919) has written that the Calvinist ethic produced a particular type of person, the "hero" and he was right In fact the word "hero" became the most frequent earmark of Christian life which was used by Calvin .The believers were called to cultivate a

spirit of invincible fortitude and courage, which might serve to sustain them under the weight of all calamities.

Nevertheless we must keep in mind that unlike the stoic heroism, who was not touched with compassion, the heroism according Calvin's interpretation was the human response to God's gracious activity in human life and in the world, born out of confidence in the promises of God.

4)The battlefield of sanctification: History as theatre of God's Glory

One important consequence stems from the above accentuation .The battlefield of this heroic perspective is not restricted to religious area , but to whole daily life.

The believer is not called to leave the world and enter a monastery, but to enter fully into the life of the world, and thus to transform it. Calvin's insistence that the believer could be called by God to serve Him in every sphere of worldly existence lent a new dignity and meaning to history, that from the Reformation on started playing an important role at least from twofold perspective.

In the first place history was regarded again as the sphere in which God worked .

In the second place it became the sphere in which human beings have to realize the purposes of God. Every person has been entrusted by God for the performance of a task. Every work is a sacred trust, because all the Christian life stand under the claim of the eternal will of God.

In the light of consideration that the all created order functions as "the theatre of God's Glory", the arena of divine action, the believers were actively involved in God's purpose for creation carrying on His purposes in history.

The fact that the whole human existence was conceived under the claim of the Eternal will of God meant that every aspect of life became important No area of life can escape from the sovereignty of God. In the above perspective the task of the church becomes identical with that one of the state: it means the upholding of the Honour and the Glory of God. In this enterprise ministers and magistrates are implied to be partners in a rough equality.

5) The roles of Church and State and their relationships

It is only by keeping in mind the above theological framework that we can understand the Calvin's steadfast preoccupation to define exactly roles and tasks both of Church both of State, because at stake was nothing else than the Glory of God. The importance of the Church for Christian life was in Calvin's perspective at least threefold.

In the first place, the divine acts which constitute the church originate, sustain and direct the Christian life.

In the second place, the Church is the communion of Saints in which the Christian are united not only with Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, but also with one another.

Finally the Church provides the governmental and disciplinary environment which is suitable for the work of the Holy Spirit.

In perspective that " the Church could not hold together unless a settled government were agreed on" the Calvin's Ordonnances intended to legislate for the whole of Church life. According to Calvin a well ordered Church has to live under the supervision of the Consistory, (who was composed of 12 elders, two chosen by the Small Council, four from the Council of the sixty and four from the Council of the two hundred, all nominated by the Smaller Council) and not by the Church. But what exactly was the task of the Consistory?

This institution has been much criticized, because it has been considered as an inquisitorial organ with which Calvin imposed an unbearable tyranny on the city. Our own age has completely neglected church discipline. Believers carry on their lives in an individualistic fashion and consider that they have to give an account to nobody and are responsible only to the judgement of God.

The Calvin's perspective was completely different. There couldn't be a watershed between faith and daily responsibilities and the task of the Consistory was to watch over the practice of received doctrine, to recall the hesitant, to admonish the weak and the fallen, in order to win them back rather than to frighten them away.

As Alister McGrath has pointed out in his"A life of John Calvin", p. 113,

The Consistory was the guarantor of the discipline which Calvin's experience at Strasbourg had led him to recognize as essential to the survival of the reformed church. Its primary function was to deal with those whose religious views were sufficiently devious to pose a threat to the established religious order at Geneva. Persons whose behaviour was regarded as unacceptable for other reasons, pastoral or moral were to be treated in the same way. Such individuals were in the first instance to be shown the error of their ways; should this fail, the penalty of excommunication was available as a deterrent. This, however, was an ecclesiastic rather than a civil penalty; the miscreant might be denied access to one of the four annual communion services at Geneva, but he could not be subjected to any civil penalty by the Consistory itself. The city council, perennially jealous of its authority, had insisted that "all this is to take place in such a manner that the ministers have no civil jurisdiction, nor use anything but the spiritual sword of the Word of God....nor is the Consistory to detract from the authority of the Seigneurie or ordinary justice. Civil power is to remain unimpeded"

In fact Consistory's discipline turned out to be a magnificent cure of souls exerted in common by pastors and laymen over the weaker members of the church.

Its preoccupation was after all nothing else to safeguard the Honour and the Glory of God. The body of Christ had not to be infested by rotting members. The enemies of the Church had not to be able to poke fun at the so-called disciples of Christ. Especially the Sacrament of fellowship and love had to be preserved from profanation.

The same preoccupation aiming to safeguard God's Glory at all costs underlaid Calvin's statements on State. The earliest and most notable of these statements, which cover a period of about twenty five years ,is the letter to Francis I of France, which served as an introduction to the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and was written in August 1535.

In this letter, that wanted to be a defence of the French Protestant minority against the charges of heresy and sedition, Calvin wrote:

But it shall be yours, Sire, not to turn away your ears or thoughts from so just a defence, especially in a cause of such importance as the maintenance of God's glory unimpaired in the world , the preservation of the honour of divine truth and the continuance of the Kingdom of Christ uninjured among us. This is cause worthy of your throne. This consideration constitutes true royalty, to acknowledge yourself in the government of your kingdom to be the minister of God. Where the Glory of God is not the end of government there is no legitimate sovereignty, but usurpation ( Introduction of Institution).

The same considerations were shared some years later in one letter to Sigismond Augustus, King of Poland:

Your Kingdom is extensive and renowned, and abound in many excellencies; but its happiness will then only be solid, when it adopts Christ as its chief ruler and governor, so that it may be defended by his safeguard and protection; for to submit your sceptre to him is not inconsistent with that elevation in which you are placed, but it would be more glorious than all the triumph of the world.(C.R.13:282)

 

Beyond the above references we find the most well constructed treatise on State in the last book of "the Institutions of the Christian Religion", and precisely the forth.

Here Calvin distinguishes sharply between the spiritual realm of piety and reverencing God and the temporal or political realm responsible for laying down laws and the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. In making this distinction he sounded much like Luther on the two regiments, a distinction he associated with a dualistic conception of human being .

Man is under two kinds of government, one spiritual, by which the conscience is formed to piety and the service of God; the other political by which man is instructed in the duties of humanity and civility, which are to be observed in an intercourse with mankind. There are generally, and not improperly, denominated the spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction, indicating that the former species of government pertains to the life of the soul and that the latter relates to the concerns of the present state, not only to the provision of food and clothing, but to the enactment of laws to regulate a man's life among his neighbours by the rules of holiness, integrity and sobriety.

For the former has it seat in the interior of the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct; one may be termed a spiritual kingdom and the other a political one. But these two, as we have distinguished them, always require to be considered separately.(3,19,15)

Who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul , between this present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in understanding, that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very different and remote from each other(4,20,1)

On the other hand separation doesn't mean distinction, as Doumerge has aptly pointed out, for the simple reason that there is one Lord Jesus Christ who is the Lord of Church and of State.

But as we have just suggested that this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and internal reign of Christ, so it ought to be known that they are in no respect at variance with each other. For that spiritual reign, even now upon earth , commences within us some preludes of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and transitory life affords us some prelibation of immortal and incorruptible blessedness; but this civil government is designed, as long as we live in this world, to cherish and support the external worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite for the society of men, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and tranquillity(4,20,2).

Therefore the only State power in the world is that which is based on Christ.

It has often been suggested that Theocracy was for Calvin the ideal order. It is nevertheless important to clarify what this nuanced term might mean.

If this term implies a political regime in which civil authority is dominated by clergy, it is easily demonstrable that Calvin firmly refused this option, because in his opinion church and state should work together under a common Lord and for a common purpose. On the other hand he never succeeded in establishing and anyway never intended to establish a theocracy at Geneva.

If the term theocracy means an order in which all authority derives from God, Calvin was no doubt a theocratic thinker because he placed the totality of society under the sovereignty of God. He didn't give up the medieval ideal of the "Corpus Christianorum". He only set about to make out the Corpus Christianum and the Corpus Christi one and the same. Calvin's understanding of civil government, may be considered theocratic in this latter, less threatening sense of the word.

In his opinion God is involved in matter of orders and government, either through the clergy, or through the notion of civil authority itself, which ultimately derives from Him. In nutshell in Calvin's opinion State, as well church, were under the sovereignty of God.

Church and State should work together under a common Lord and for a common purpose(C.R.29,659-660). The tasks assigned are different , and neither has the right to usurp the powers of the other. Doumergue has summarized the relation of Church and State in Calvin's thought in the following way:

The Christian State is a creation of God, just as is the Christian Church: two creations of the same God. These two creations can therefore be autonomous and independent, without ceasing to concur in a common activity. The Church is not Christian because the State forces it to be; no Caesar-papacy. The State is not Christian because the Church forces it to be: no theocracy .(Jean Calvin," Les hommes et les choses de son temps," Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1899-1927, 5,411)

In Calvin's opinion State is God's ordinance and a remedy for human perversity, even if its authority doesn't derive from human perversity but from the ordinance of God .

Christians should be very careful to avoid two mistakes. On the one hand they must not attempt to subvert this ordinance established by God (Institutions, 4,20,21).

The Church doesn't supplant the State and only those who

foolishly imagine a perfection which can never be found in any community of men

believe that the State can be dispensed with. To entertain such a thought is inhuman barbarism, for the State is as

necessary to mankind as bread and water, light and air, and far more excellent ( Institutions, 4,20,3).

On the other hand the Christians must not

extol the State power beyond all just bounds by opposing it to the authority of God (Institutions, 4,20,1)

The political state has functions directly connected with religion. It protects and supports the worship of God, promotes justice and peace and is a necessary aid in our earthly pilgrimage toward heaven. Calvin insisted on the benefits of state in combatting offenses against religion, securing tranquillity, safeguarding private property, promoting honesty and other virtues and maintaining a public form of religion among christians and humanity among men. Magistrates are the guardians of the laws. Theirs is a holy calling. More specifically magistrates represent "God's tribunal on earth". Their first responsibility is the administration of justice as lesser judges, subordinate to the Supreme Judge, to whom they are accountable. Rulers must suppress wickedness and vice. But social discipline seemed more important to Calvin; chaos would everywhere result, he believed, if government were relaxed. Without government and laws, he declared,

It would be far better for us to be wild beasts wandering in the forests, for we know how ferocious are human passions. Unless, therefore, there is some restraint, the condition of wild beasts would be better than ours.(Com. IS.34,12)

When crime is left unpunished

it pollutes the whole country(Com. IS.34,12).

For this reason every tyranny is preferable to anarchy.

Calvin was no doubt hostile to monarchy as a form of government He favored a republic and he articulated his republicanism with clarity and force in the last chapter of Institutions by recommending a blend of aristocracy and democracy as superior to all other forms of government.

Even though Calvin regarded State in very positive way, nevertheless he tried to safeguard during his ministry the independence of Church from State control.

For I do not allow men to make laws respecting religion and the worship of God now, any more than I did before(Institutions, 4,20,3).

The state is not free to dictate laws to the church, but is obliged to protect it. There is common ground here between Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, but Calvin gave to the State a somewhat larger sphere of action than did the medieval doctor and in this perspective he was no doubt closer to the position of a Marsiglio of Padua even if he was not a prophet of a secularized State. In fact he exempted the State only from the control of an ecclesiastical Hierarchy, not from the sovereignty of God. The sword belongs to the State, but the task of preaching the Gospel belongs to the Church

For the Church has no power of the sword to punish or to coerce, no authority to compel, no prisons, fines, or other punishments, like those inflicted by the civil magistrate. Besides, the object of this power is, not that he may profess his repentance by a voluntary submission to chastisement The difference therefore is very great; because the church does not assume to itself what belongs to the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by the church (Institutions, 4,11,3).

"Pious kings", Calvin wrote, "leave to the church her jurisdiction and to priests the duties assigned them by the Lord"(Letter to Myconius, Mar, 14,1542, C.O. XI.379). The clergy, on the other hand, must exercise no civil authority

It is interesting to point out that when these principles were called into question and the independence of Church was imperiled, Calvin preferred to leave Geneva in 1538 rather than to come to compromises. Otherwise after his return to Geneva too, his problems started again so that he was forced to fight an uphill battle for the independence of church in the performance of its tasks of preaching and discipline. The first argument under discussion was to whom the right of excommunication and readmission belonged, to the Consistory or to the Council. Under the Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques, it seemed to Calvin that this right was vested in the Consistory. His opponents , led by Ami Perrin, held that only the city council could impose such a penalty. Although Perrin and his supporters were not against to the Reformation, nevertheless they objected strongly to Calvin's system of discipline.

Two classic cases of this conflicting jurisdiction have been offered by Fred Graham in his "The Constructive Revolutionary John Calvin "(John Knox Press, p. 39).

A young man and woman would be brought before the Consistory accused of having sexual relations before marriage. After hearing their defense or confession, the Consistory would find them guilty, deny them the Supper, and remand them to the next Council meeting for punishment.

The Council, which included several Consistory members would hear the Consistory's report and sentence the couple to bread and water for several days, plus assessing a fine. After the sentence came the point of confusion. The couple would again appear before the Council, be warned and freed. The Council thought that the sentence and warning terminated the case and admitted the couple back into full communion with the church. Not so Calvin and the other pastors. They demanded that the Consistory hear the couple again to see if their repentance was genuine. If it was, then they were readmitted to the Cene. But if not, they were still excommunicate even if the civic legalities had been served.

The second case was to whom the authority in the services of worship belonged.

In October of 1549, Calvin complained to the Council about the burden of daily preaching, from which we can infer that the original Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday schedule of services had grown to one a day.

The Council received his complaint calmly, made no effort to reduce the number of services, but merely ordered that the preachers should shorten their sermons. It even appointed four of its members to see that its order was obeyed...... So went Calvin's dictatorial powers in Geneva.

In the light of the above facts it seems clear that Calvin authority in Geneva even at the better time was purely moral as it is demonstrated by the difficulties his successors faced after his death. As a matter of fact the city Council was not willing of surrending its authority to anyone.

Otherwise , as Alister Mc Grath has rightly pointed out in his "A life of John Calvin"( Basil Blackwell, p.109)

His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly through preaching, consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion. Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority, he has no civic jurisdiction, no right, to coerce others to act as he wished, Calvin could and did urge, cajole and plead ; he could not however , command.

Therefore the charge of Stephan Zweig according to whom Calvin ruled Geneva with a rod of iron appears to be completely unfounded. In fact how is it possible to call a man a dictator who was never in any of the councils of the town, did not receive the citizenship of Geneva until four years before his death and never had a police force or an army at his disposal?

Even the responsibility of the trial, condemnation and execution of Servetus is to be held to City Council at a period when it was particularly hostile to Calvin. Even it is not possible to dwell upon this subject , it needs to remind that the Consistory was bypassed altogether by the council in its efforts to marginalise Calvin from the affair. The official prosecutor was a perrinist (Claude Rigot).The Council ( in which the Perrinists were the greater part ) not the Consistory, delivered the sentence. The Calvin's role in this case was subsequently that of technical advisor and not of prosecutor .

6)The right of resistance

Regarding the problem of the attitude of Christians towards State, Calvin alternated conceptions that can seem to be conflicting to one another.

In his opinion the believers should honour the magistrates because their first duty is

to entertain the most honourable sentiments of the magistrates function, which he knows to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as God's ministers and viceregents (Institution, 4,20,22).

This rule of obedience applies even to tyrannical rulers who seem to be in no sense representatives of God .Calvin believed , like Luther, that even wicked rulers have been appointed by God. Although blinded with pride such rulers"despise the rest of the world as if their splendor and dignity distinguished them from the common condition of men.

Resistance to them is equivalent to "resisting God Himself "and Calvin condemned it firmly. No doubt he knew well that there are rulers who are evil, nevertheless he insisted that the Christians must:

.submit to the government, not only of those princes who discharge their duty to us with becoming integrity and fidelity, but of all who possess the sovereignty , even though they perform none of the duties of their function (Institutions, 4,20,25)

This principle of obedience can be taken for the conservatorism and in this perspective it has been often interpreted. But underlying this conservative traditional position were very untraditional assumptions. Even though Calvin accepted the political absolutism , he was no apologist for it. He accepted it on practical grounds ,not because the law of God established it as the perfect form of government His originality was to combine a conservatorism trait together with revolutionary theories , by singling out some exceptions to the duty of obedience.

The first and more explicit of these ones is in The Institutions of 1559.

But in the obedience which we have shown to be due to the authority of governors, it is always necessary to make one exception, and that is entitled to our first attention, that it do not seduce us from obedience to Him, to whose will be the desires of all things ought to be subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty all their sceptres ought to submit. And , indeed , how preposterous it would be for us, with a view to satisfy men, to incur the displeasure of Him on whose account we yield obedience to men (Institutions, 4,20,32).

This exception is not given a very large place but it was developed more in some sermons. The authority of Jesus Christ ought to be valued not only more than all the liberty of this world , but also more than all earthly kingdoms and empires (See, the Commentary on Daniel, 6:22, in C.R. 27:459-460).It is clear that even if Calvin did not carry this principle of disobedience to any of its logical conclusions, nevertheless his teaching has been the germ that has permitted to his followers to fight strenuously for the liberty. The Huguenots of the Cevennes, the Beghines in Holland, the Puritans in New England, the confessors of Hitler's Germany have shown that , when the Glory of God is threatened, men can resist oppression.

In other words Calvin's greatest contribution to political theory is not to be found in any specific proposals but in his theology. The insistence upon the lordship of God before whom all human beings are equal and the insistence on the sinfulness of all people when translated into political actions were powerful incentives for a political order of checks and balances. In addition the doctrine of election which rooted human existence in the will of God and dignified the concrete, historical lives of ordinary people with the purposes of God likewise shaped the political order

Only in the above perspective Calvin indirectly contributed toward the modern understanding of modern human rights standing against the abuses of power in his time.