Concerning the Rights of Rulers and the Duty Of Subjects

By Theodore Beza. Translation by Henry-Louis Gonin, edited by Patrick S. Poole

Introduction

      Theodore Beza was the hand-picked successor of John Calvin. When historians look at the direct results of Calvinism, for example the Civil-War/Revolution in England that began modern democracy on planet Earth, the question arises: Why Calvinism? What in Calvinism was so revolutionary, so activist, so cataclysmic as to explain sufficiently such events?

      Most historians see a multiplex of causes for the English Civil-War/Revolution, as we shall see in class -- the whole of PARIS GEM and perhaps more. Still, without Calvinist ideas and its inherent activism, all the other causes become background that pretty much existed in much of Europe -- a Europe that had attained no other such revolutionary democracy.

     A concentration of Calvinist ideas -- like confidence in eternal security, public education, election of elders and pastors by the suffragen congregation, a close definition of the electorate, the right of recall, plural authorities as checks-and-balances, the notion of a divine calling or vocation, the drive for a pure life outside the church building (sanctification), serious self-criticism summed up in the term 'Reformed', the idea of the reprobate as enemy -- these changed the face of Western Civilization forever as they came to bloody fruition in the English Civil-War/Revolution.

     In 1689 the blood ceased being spilled -- by an inch! -- as Calvinists compromised, thus producing the first democracy in a major state since Athens, over 2,000 years previous to 1689. And English Parliamentary democracy has endured. It has also spawned many others, including democracy in the U.S. But again, there had to be acceptable and practical principles of revolution for the colonies to get there. Well, here are some of those principles. Beza put them into a question-answer format:

The Text

Must Magistrates Always Be Obeyed As Unconditionally As God?

The will of almighty God is the eternal and immutable Rule of all Justice. It must be obeyed. As regards however the obedience due to Princes, they too would doubtless have to be obeyed always and unconditionally if they ruled constantly in accordance with the utterance of God. Since however theirs is often the contrary case, such obedience must be made subject to the following condition, namely that they command nothing impious, nothing unjust.

How Far Must Obedience Be Rendered Or Refused To Unjust Or Impious Commands?

Each man must consider what his station and calling demands, be it general and public or private. Does the Ruler command what God forbids (as Pharaoh did to the midwives of Egypt and Herod's to his accomplices when bidding them to slay all that were two years old)? Then you will rightly perform your duty if you do not carry out a command of that kind,

 How Can One Who Has Suffered Wrong At The Hands Of A Ruler Defend Himself?

The Lord Jesus and after Him all the Martyrs have by their example clearly shown that injustices should be patiently borne, to endure injury from all but to cause it to none. What then, will someone say, is there no remedy remaining against the supreme Ruler who abuses his authority and power in violation of all the precepts of divine and human rights? Nay, there is a remedy remaining derived from human institutions.

Whether Manifest Tyrants Can Lawfully Be Checked By Armed Force.

I must first lay down certain principles constituting as it were the foundations of the whole question. It is clear that people did not in the first instance originate from rulers, but whatever people desired to be ruled by a single monarch or by chief men elected by them were anterior to their rulers. Hence it follows that people were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary the rulers for the sake of the people.

But since those subordinate instruments of the kingdom have received this office from the supreme power, that they may be on their guard for the observance and protection of the laws among those who have been entrusted to their care, would it not be just according to all law, divine and human, that by reason of the oath taken by them to ensure the observance of the laws, somewhat greater (liberty of action) should be granted to these subordinate magistrates than to those (citizens) who are of entirely private station and without any public office? I therefore maintain that, if they are reduced to such unavoidable compulsion, they are certainly bound, even by means of armed force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of those who have been entrusted to their care and honor.

What may be done against unjust oppressors?

When he has been properly warned, those who wield the chief and highest authority in accordance with the laws of the kingdom can and even should consult the common weal.