Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
X. But here, it seems, arises an important and difficult question.
If by the law of God all Christians are forbidden to kill,[1432]
and the prophet predicts respecting the Church, that “they
shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the
Lord,”[1433]
how can it be compatible with piety for magistrates
to shed blood? But if we understand, that in the infliction
of punishments, the magistrate does not act at all from
himself, but merely executes the judgments of God, we shall
not be embarrassed with this scruple. The law of the Lord
commands, “Thou shalt not kill;” but that homicide may
not go unpunished, the legislator himself puts the sword into
the hands of his ministers, to be used against all homicides.[1434]
To hurt and to destroy are incompatible with the character of
the godly; but to avenge the afflictions of the righteous at
the command of God, is neither to hurt nor to destroy. Therefore
it is easy to conclude that in this respect magistrates are
not subject to the common law; by which, though the Lord
binds the hands of men, he does not bind his own justice, which
he exercises by the hands of magistrates. So, when a prince
forbids all his subjects to strike or wound any one, he does not
prohibit his officers from executing that justice which is particularly
committed to them. I sincerely wish that this consideration
were constantly in our recollection, that nothing is
done here by the temerity of men, but every thing by the
authority of God, who commands it, and under whose guidance
we never err from the right way. For we can find no valid
objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice
of God be restrained from the punishment of crimes. But
if it be unlawful for us to impose restraints upon him, why do
we calumniate his ministers? Paul says of the magistrate,
that “He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister
of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth
evil.”[1435]
Therefore, if princes and other governors know that
nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience,
and if they desire to approve their piety, justice, and integrity
before God, let them devote themselves to this duty. This
motive influenced Moses, when, knowing himself to be destined
to become the liberator of his people by the power of the Lord,
“he slew the Egyptian;”[1436]
and when he punished the idolatry
of the people by the slaughter of three thousand men in
one day.[1437]
The same motive actuated David, when, at the
close of his life, he commanded his son Solomon to put to death
Joab and Shimei.[1438]
Hence, also, it is enumerated among
the virtues of a king, to “destroy all the wicked of the land,
that he may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the
Lord.”[1439]
The same topic furnishes the eulogium given
to Solomon: “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness.”[1440]
How did the meek and placid disposition of Moses
burn with such cruelty, that, after having his hands imbrued
in the blood of his brethren, he continued to go through the
camp till three thousand were slain? How did David, who
discovered such humanity all his lifetime, in his last moments
bequeath such a cruel injunction to his son respecting Joab?
“Let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace;” and
respecting Shimei: “His hoar head bring down to the grave
with blood.” Both Moses and David, in executing the vengeance
committed to them by God, by this severity sanctified
their hands, which would have been defiled by lenity.
Solomon says, “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness;
for the throne is established by righteousness.”[1441]
Again: “A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment, scattereth
away all evil with his eyes.”[1442]
Again: “A wise
king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over
them.”[1443]
Again: “Take away the dross from the silver,
and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away
the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established
in righteousness.”[1444]
Again: “He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are
an abomination to the Lord.”[1445]
Again: “An evil man
seeketh only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be
sent against him.”[1446]
Again: “He that saith unto the
wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse,
nations shall abhor him.”[1447]
Now, if it be true justice for
them to pursue the wicked with a drawn sword, let them
sheathe the sword, and keep their hands from shedding blood,
while the swords of desperadoes are drenched in murders; and
they will be so far from acquiring the praise of goodness
and justice by this forbearance, that they will involve themselves
in the deepest impiety. There ought not, however, to
be any excessive or unreasonable severity, nor ought any cause
to be given for considering the tribunal as a gibbet prepared
for all who are accused. For I am not an advocate for unnecessary
cruelty, nor can I conceive the possibility of an
equitable sentence being pronounced without mercy; of which
Solomon affirms, that “mercy and truth preserve the king;
and his throne is upholden by mercy.”[1448]
Yet it behoves the
magistrate to be on his guard against both these errors; that
he do not, by excessive severity, wound rather than heal; or,
through a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into a mistaken
humanity, which is the worst kind of cruelty, by indulging
a weak and ill-judged lenity, to the detriment of multitudes.
For it is a remark not without foundation, that was anciently
applied to the government of Nerva, that it is bad to live
under a prince who permits nothing, but much worse to live
under one who permits every thing.
XI. Now, as it is sometimes necessary for kings and nations
to take up arms for the infliction of such public vengeance, the
same reason will lead us to infer the lawfulness of wars which
are undertaken for this end. For if they have been intrusted
with power to preserve the tranquillity of their own territories,
to suppress the seditious tumults of disturbers, to succour the
victims of oppression, and to punish crimes,—can they exert
this power for a better purpose, than to repel the violence of
him who disturbs both the private repose of individuals and
the general tranquillity of the nation; who excites insurrections,
and perpetrates acts of oppression, cruelty, and every
species of crime? If they ought to be the guardians and defenders
of the laws, it is incumbent upon them to defeat the
efforts of all by whose injustice the discipline of the laws is
corrupted. And if they justly punish those robbers, whose injuries
have only extended to a few persons, shall they suffer
a whole district to be plundered and devastated with impunity?
For there is no difference, whether he, who in a hostile manner
invades, disturbs, and plunders the territory of another to
which he has no right, be a king, or one of the meanest of
mankind: all persons of this description are equally to be considered
as robbers, and ought to be punished as such. It is
the dictate both of natural equity, and of the nature of the
office, therefore, that princes are armed, not only to restrain the
crimes of private individuals by judicial punishments, but also
to defend the territories committed to their charge by going
to war against any hostile aggression; and the Holy Spirit, in
many passages of Scripture, declares such wars to be lawful.
