Author's Preface to the Reader, 2

Having laid these foundations, I proceed to show what civil government is, what its supreme power is, what its different forms are, and how it comes into being. I show which rights individuals intending to establish civil government must necessarily transfer from themselves to the supreme power, whether vested in one person or in an assembly; unless they do so, there will plainly be no civil government, and the right everyone has to everything—the rights of war—will remain. Next I distinguish its various forms: monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, paternal dominion, and the dominion of masters over servants. I explain how each is constituted and compare their respective advantages and disadvantages. I also set out what destroys government and what duties belong to whoever holds supreme rule. Finally, I explain the natures of law and sin, and distinguish law from counsel, from covenant, and from what I call right. All this I gather under the title Dominion.

In the final part, entitled Religion, I seek to show that the right I have established by strong reasoning in the preceding discussion as belonging to sovereign powers over their subjects does not conflict with sacred Scripture. First, it does not conflict with divine right, since God by nature rules over all rulers—that is, through the dictates of natural reason. Second, God himself exercised a particular dominion over the Jews by virtue of the ancient covenant of circumcision. Third, God now rules over us Christians by virtue of our covenant of baptism. Thus, as we see, the authority of supreme rulers, or civil government, is in no way contrary to religion.

Finally, I explain the duties necessarily required of us to enter the kingdom of heaven. From clear testimonies of holy Scripture, interpreted as all interpret them, I plainly demonstrate and conclude that the obedience I have declared due from individual Christian subjects to their Christian princes cannot in the slightest degree conflict with the Christian religion.

You have seen my method; now hear what moved me to write. I was studying philosophy for the sake of my mind, and had gathered its first elements in every field. Arranging these gradually into three sections, I intended to write them so that the first would treat body and its general properties; the second, the human being and his particular faculties and passions; and the third, civil government and the duties of subjects. The first section, therefore, would have comprised first philosophy and certain elements of physics, considering the principles of time, place, cause, power, relation, proportion, quantity, figure, and motion. The second would have dealt with imagination, memory, understanding, reasoning, appetite, will, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable, and similar matters. I have already shown you what the last section covers. While I was planning, arranging, and composing these matters thoughtfully and slowly—for I reason only; I do not wrangle—it happened that my country, a few years before civil war broke out, was seething with questions concerning the rights of sovereignty and the obedience owed by subjects. These were the true heralds of the war to come; they caused me to put the other matters aside and bring this third section to completion. Thus what came last in my plan appeared first in time. This was all the more fitting because I saw that, resting on its own principles sufficiently established by experience, it needed neither of the earlier sections. Nor did I write it from a desire for praise. Even if I had, I could have defended myself on the fair ground that very few do anything worthy of praise without caring to receive it. Rather, I wrote for your sake, readers, persuaded that once you rightly grasped and thoroughly understood the teaching I present here, you would choose to endure with patience some inconveniences under government—human affairs cannot be without them—instead of disturbing the public peace through confidence in your own opinions. You would judge the justice of what you intend to do not by private people's persuasion and counsel, but by the laws of the realm, and would no longer let ambitious men wade through streams of your blood to reach power for themselves. You would think it better to enjoy your lives under the present government, though perhaps not the best, than to wage war for a reform benefiting others in another age, while you yourselves are either killed or worn out by old age. Moreover, I hoped that you would regard as enemies and spies, not fellow subjects, those who refuse to acknowledge themselves subject to the civil magistrate and seek exemption from every public burden, yet wish to live under his jurisdiction and expect his protection against the violence and injuries of others. And I hoped you would not rashly receive as God's word everything they publicly or privately claim to be so. More plainly: if any preacher, confessor, or casuist says that God's word permits the supreme ruler—indeed, any private individual—to be put to death lawfully without the ruler's command, or that subjects may resist, conspire, or covenant against the supreme power, do not believe them under any circumstances, but immediately disclose their names. Whoever approves these reasons will also approve my purpose in writing this book.

Lastly, I have followed this rule throughout the discourse. First, I have not attempted to define what concerns the justice of individual actions, leaving these matters to determination by the laws. Second, I have not disputed the laws of any particular government—that is, I have not specified the laws of any one country, but explained what the laws of all countries are. Third, I have not suggested that less obedience is due to an aristocracy or a democracy than to a monarchy. In my tenth chapter I have indeed tried to persuade people through arguments that monarchy is the most advantageous form of government; this one proposition, I admit, is not demonstrated in the whole book but only advanced as probable. Nevertheless, I say expressly throughout that every form of government must have a supreme and equal power. Fourth, I have avoided disputing the positions of theologians, except when those positions deprive subjects of their obedience and shake the foundations of civil government. Finally, I did not wish to publish rashly something that might prove unnecessary. Accordingly, I circulated a few copies of what I had written privately among friends, so that, learning the opinions of others, I might correct, temper, and clarify whatever appeared mistaken, severe, or obscure.

I found that three things provoked the bitterest objections: that I had given civil powers too much scope—so the clergy said; that I had utterly abolished liberty of conscience—so the sectarians said; and that I had placed princes above civil law—so the lawyers said. Their criticisms did not trouble me greatly, for in raising them each group was merely pursuing its own interests, except that they moved me to tie the knots a little tighter.

But some have been troubled by the principles themselves: human nature, the authority or right of nature, the nature of covenants and contracts, and the origin of civil government. Since their objections follow common sense more than passion, I have added annotations in some places, hoping to satisfy their differing views. Finally, I have tried to offend no one except those whose principles are contradicted by mine, and whose tender minds take offense at the slightest difference of opinion.

If, then, you encounter passages sharper and less certain than they ought to be, remember that they were written not so much to uphold parties as to establish peace, by a man whose rightful grief at his country's present calamities might charitably be allowed some latitude. My only request, readers, is that you receive them with an impartial mind.

With these foundations in place, I go on to explain civil government, its supreme power, and its different forms. I show how it comes into being and which rights individuals who intend to establish it must transfer to the supreme power, whether held by one man or an assembly. Unless they transfer those rights, there is no real civil government. Everyone keeps a right to everything—in other words, the rights of war remain. Next I distinguish monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as well as a father’s rule over his children and a master’s rule over his servants. I explain how each is established and compare its advantages and disadvantages with those of the others. I also explain what destroys government and what duties belong to its supreme ruler or rulers. Finally, I explain the nature of law and sin. I distinguish law from advice, from compact, and from what I call right. All this belongs to the part titled Dominion.

The last part is titled Religion. My earlier arguments firmly establish the rights of sovereign powers over their subjects. To show that these rights do not conflict with sacred Scripture, I first show that they do not conflict with God’s right. God rules all rulers by nature—that is, through the commands of natural reason. Second, I consider God’s special dominion over the Jews under the ancient covenant of circumcision. Third, I consider how God now rules us Christians under our covenant of baptism. The authority of supreme rulers, or civil government, is therefore not in any way contrary to religion.

Finally, I explain which duties are required of us to enter the kingdom of heaven. Using clear evidence from Scripture, interpreted as everyone interprets it, I plainly demonstrate and conclude that the obedience I say individual Christian subjects owe their Christian princes cannot conflict with Christianity in the slightest.

You have seen my method. Now let me tell you why I wrote the book. I was studying philosophy for my own satisfaction. I had gathered its first principles in every field and gradually organized them into three sections. I planned to write the first on bodies and their general properties; the second on human beings and their special abilities and feelings; and the third on civil government and the duties of subjects. The first section would have covered fundamental philosophy and some basic physics, considering time, place, cause, power, relation, proportion, quantity, shape, and motion. The second would have dealt with imagination, memory, understanding, reasoning, appetite, will, good and evil, honor and dishonor, and similar subjects. I have already told you what the third section covers. While I was planning, arranging, and slowly and thoughtfully composing these sections—for I reason rather than argue—my country grew heated with disputes about the rights of government and the obedience due from subjects. This was a few years before the civil wars broke out, and those disputes were clear signs of the approaching war. They made me set aside the other subjects and complete this third section first. Thus the section that was last in my plan appeared first. I was more willing to publish it because its own principles are well enough known through experience that it does not need the earlier sections. I did not write it to win praise, though if I had, I could fairly excuse myself by saying that very few people do praiseworthy things without wanting approval. I wrote it for you, my readers. I believed that once you grasped and fully understood this teaching, you would choose to bear some disadvantages of government patiently, since human affairs cannot be free of them, rather than stubbornly disrupt the public peace. You would judge the justice of what you were about to do by the laws of the realm, not the advice and persuasion of private individuals. You would no longer let ambitious people wade through your blood to reach power. You would consider it better to live under your current government, even if it is not the best, than to wage war for a reform that will benefit others in a later age while you yourselves are killed or worn down by age. Moreover, some people refuse to recognize the civil ruler’s authority or shoulder public burdens, yet want to live under his jurisdiction and be protected from others’ violence and wrongdoing. I hoped you would regard them not as fellow subjects but as enemies and spies. I also hoped you would not rashly accept as God’s word everything they claim to be so, whether publicly or in private. Let me be plainer. If any preacher, confessor, or adviser on moral questions says that God’s word permits a chief ruler, or even any private person, to be lawfully killed without the chief ruler’s command, or that subjects may resist, plot, or make covenants against the supreme power, do not believe that adviser. Report his name at once. Whoever agrees with these reasons will also approve of my purpose in writing the book.

Finally, I have followed these rules throughout. First, I do not define what makes particular actions just. I leave that to the laws. Second, I do not debate the laws of any particular government or identify the laws of any one country. Instead, I explain what laws all countries have in common. Third, I do not suggest that less obedience is owed to an aristocracy or a democracy than to a monarchy. In my tenth chapter, I do offer arguments to persuade readers that monarchy is the most advantageous form of government. This is the one point in the whole book that I admit I have not demonstrated but have presented only as probable. Everywhere, however, I expressly say that every form of government requires supreme power of equal strength. Fourth, I do not dispute any positions held by theologians except those that free subjects from obedience and undermine civil government. Last, to avoid publishing something unnecessary through poor judgment, I did not make my work public as soon as I finished it. Instead, I privately gave a few copies to friends. By learning what others thought, I could correct mistakes and make difficult or unclear points gentler and clearer.

The strongest objections I received were these: churchmen said I gave civil authorities too much power; members of religious sects said I had abolished freedom of conscience entirely; and lawyers said I had put princes above the civil laws. These criticisms did not trouble me much, since those men were simply defending their own interests. At most, the objections moved me to tighten my arguments further.

Others have had some doubts about the principles themselves: human nature, the authority or right of nature, the nature of compacts and contracts, and the origin of civil government. Their objections came more from common sense than from their passions. For their sake, I have added annotations in several places. I hope these will answer their concerns. Finally, I have tried not to offend anyone except those whose principles my arguments contradict, and whose sensitive minds are easily offended by any disagreement.

So if you find some statements sharper and less certain than they should be, please remember that they were made to establish peace, not to support a faction. Their author has good reason to grieve over his country’s present disasters, and you may kindly allow him some freedom of expression. His only request, readers, is that you receive these statements with an open mind.