The Christian and the Tyrant: Beza and Knox on Political Resistance Theory

By Richard C. Gamble

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

This article was originally prepared for reading at the Spring meeting of the American Society for Reformation Research at Western Michigan University, May 1983.

Introduction: Knox in Geneva

The years 1555–1559 found John Knox in Geneva, an exile and pastor. Some have said that this period was the most formative of his life. Certainly he had time to study the Scriptures, reflect upon his earlier thinking, and discuss his ideas with the various Protestant leaders living at that time in Geneva. “In this atmosphere of freedom, constant theological debate, discussion with refugees coming to settle or just passing through, Knox experienced a stimulation he had never known before.”[1] Knox was not in the city the whole of the four years; after staying in Geneva only a few months he returned to his homeland, soon again, however, to go back to Geneva (Sept. 13, 1556). From the time of his return with his wife and others to Geneva from Scotland, his life was filled with pastoring the English-speaking congregation,[2] made up of those who had been exiled from England and Scotland.

While still in Geneva, Knox received a call to return to Scotland. Since travel was dangerous and his first son had just recently been born, he was reluctant to go and sought out the advice of the Geneva ministers, including Calvin; they urged him to make the trip. After packing and getting as far as the city of Dieppe, he received word not to proceed further because the situation in Scotland had changed since he had first been asked to come. Knox stayed in Dieppe awaiting a reply to his request that he still be invited to come to Scotland. While he was waiting, he had time to reflect upon his political theories in light of the complex religious and political changes and events which were occurring in Scotland. It was in Dieppe that he wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. With no reply forthcoming from Scotland, he decided to make his way back to Geneva.

Upon his return to Geneva, Knox again settled into his pastoral responsibilities and received in the spring of 1558 the great honor of citizenship in the city. Finally with the death of Queen Mary and the succession of Queen Elizabeth, most of the English-speaking congregation departed from Geneva to travel to their homes. This left Knox without a congregation to pastor; he again made preparations for his journey to Scotland, leaving his family behind. Arriving once more at Dieppe, he spent some time there pastoring, waiting for a passport to travel through England to Scotland. Since it never came he traveled directly to Scotland. “His time in Geneva had so broadened his outlook on the whole movement, that he now saw the Reformation not just as an effort at religious reform, but as a movement to create a reformed Christian public and private life-style.”[3]

From this point on, the majority of our information concerning the Genevan reaction to the Scottish Reformation must be culled from the letters which were sent between Scotland and Geneva. Although there is not a plethora of information, there is certainly sufficient to draw a general picture of the situation.

I. The Correspondence

While in Geneva, Knox had established a cordial relationship with Calvin, a relationship which was maintained after Knox left Geneva in 1559. In a letter from Calvin to Knox, Calvin expresses his own personal affection as well as that of fellow pastors in Geneva for the Scottish reformer: “It was delightful not only to me, but to all the pious whom I made partakers of my joy, to bear of the very abundant success of your labors.” “Meantime, we are as much concerned for your dangers as if the warfare was common to us.” Calvin concludes by saying: “Farewell, excellent Sir and brother, most dear to us.”[4]

This friendly relationship may be observed in a letter written two years later. In the midst of a confusion brought about by the failure of a letter from Calvin to Knox to arrive in Scotland, Calvin had been rather displeased with the carriers, and Knox had apparently believed that he himself was in some measure to blame. Calvin assures Knox that “I neither said nor suspected that you in any way acted deceitfully.” He then closes the letter in a manner similar to the first: “Farewell, excellent Sir and brother, worthy of the heart’s affection.”

Commenting on the death of Knox’s wife he says: “Your widowerhood is to me grief and bitterness, as it ought to be.”[5] In the same year, 1561, Knox wrote to Calvin indicating that the correspondence between the two reformers was relatively frequent; Knox believed Calvin to be sufficiently close a friend to say: “I am a continual trouble to you, and I have no other to whom I can confide my anxieties.”[6]

Besides Calvin, Knox had also established a good relationship with Beza[7] and again the correspondence is our best guide for understanding that relationship. Five years after the death of Calvin, Beza wrote to Knox in response to the news that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had accepted the “Confessio et Expositio Simplex,”[8] written and approved by the Protestants of Switzerland. Beza mentions the pleasure that the acceptance caused in Geneva: “I intimated, both to yourself in private and to other brethren by letter, how agreeable and how pleasant to us all, and especially to the brethren in Zurich, was this your union with us in the Lord in all things, which too we trust will be everlasting, and stand firm against the very gates of hell.” He also wrote of his satisfaction at Knox’s incorporation of discipline within the church: “How well, my Brother, you act in uniting Discipline with Doctrine! I beseech and conjure you so to persevere.”[9] We see that there was the personal element of trust and respect between the pastors of Geneva and Scotland; Beza wrote:

Our whole Assembly salute you and all your colleagues much in the Lord, the common Author and Defender of this our union. I especially pray you, my Brother, that you will continually remember in your prayers me…; and Him in return I ask to support, by his holy and powerful Spirit, yourself and that illustrious deliverer of yours…. Nor do I ask this of you alone, my Brother, but also earnestly entreat it of your whole Assembly of most excellent and learned men, whom all may the Lord Jesus most effectually preserve, defend, and guard, to the glory of his name, and the sure and solid edification of all the churches, to which you are indeed a singular example.[10]

One of the most moving letters sent between the reformers, from Beza to Knox in 1572, is perhaps our best source for elucidating the Genevan reaction to the Scottish Reformation. There the unity between Geneva and Scotland as well as the intimate relationship between Beza and Knox is further underlined. Beza says: “Although, my Knox, we are in body separated by so great a distance both of land and sea, yet I have not the least doubt that there has always existed, and that there will exist to the last between us, that complete union of mind which is confirmed by the bond of one and the same spirit and faith.” The relationship between Knox and the entire city of Geneva is then expressed: “Truly I believe that this Church of Geneva especially is often in your thoughts, as we, in our turn, have you in continual remembrance before God, which most holy reciprocity of spirit almost solely sustains me, and you also where you are, as I think, amidst so great confusion of human affairs.” The Genevan response to the persecution and trials which were being undergone in Scotland is well documented also: “From the surest proofs, I infer that the Scottish churches are such, that the numerous and severe and continued attacks of Satan, the like of which I believe no nation has hitherto borne within so few years, have not succeeded in corrupting among them the purity of doctrine, or in changing the rule of strict discipline neglected by so many nations.”[11]

II. The Genevan Reaction to Knox’s Writings

If we were to examine exclusively the correspondence between Knox and Calvin, and that of Knox and Beza, the general impression would be that all was well on almost every front between them. This in fact was not the case, with Knox’s writings sometimes causing a furor. Calvin especially took great exception to parts of Knox’s writings.

The main book in question was The First Blast of the Trumpet, and Calvin was not alone in his disagreement with the volume. Of course there was a tremendous outcry against the book from England and possession of the book was punishable by death. The situation was an embarrassment to Calvin for a number of reasons; first, in June of 1558 Knox was granted citizenship in Geneva, after the publication of the book, but before there was time for much of an uproar to be sounded. Second, the book itself was published in Geneva, which would include Calvin under the cloud of suspicion. Third, Knox’s views were at variance with Calvin’s.

Calvin’s action in response to the book and the public outcry against it was decisive. First came the complaint against the book by the English Protestants at Strassburg. The complaint was given to Beza who passed it on to Calvin; at that time Calvin was informed of the book’s contents for the first time. Calvin himself responded to the Strassburg English and disassociated himself from Knox’s work. Afterwards, there was a ban against the sale of the book in Geneva.

Space limitations prohibit a detailed investigation of the differences between Calvin and Knox concerning proper government, but a limited survey may be helpful. Calvin wrote specifically in regard to this controversy to William Cecil, secretary to Queen Elizabeth, relating the history of his discussions with Knox concerning government by women. Calvin stated that it was not a natural state of affairs, but may be instituted by God under special circumstances. Of Knox’s book, Calvin says: “I testified in the most unequivocal manner that the public was not to be familiarized with paradoxes of that kind.”[12] Regarding the results which followed the publication of the book, Calvin says: “I think I had reason to fear…that for the inconsiderate vanity of one man, an unfortunate crowd of exiles would be driven from this city.”[13]

In terms of development, Knox was not the first “Britisher” to write concerning the nature of political power, nor was he the most original writer. Actually, he was probably dependent upon two men who wrote before him, Bishop John Ponet and Christopher Goodman. Ponet, writing his On Politicke Power in 1556, advocated the right of individual citizens to depose a wicked governor by force and even to kill a tyrant.[14] Goodman as well, publishing his How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed on January 1, 1558, may have influenced Knox in his promotion of removing evil rulers so that they do not pollute the people.[15]

These positions were not advocated by Theodore Beza. Beza explicitly rejected the argument for resistance which Knox made on the basis of the unbiblical nature of female government. We see the progression of Beza’s political thought with the appearance in 1554 of the De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis; here he asserted the right of resistance within the magistracy, since it is the office of the magistrate to protect the laws and the rights of the people.[16]

Later, in 1559, Beza constructed a Confession, the Confession de la foy chrestienne, which at first did not contain much information concerning political resistance. In the second edition, however, scarcely a year later, one finds a considerable expansion of the section on political resistance.

In this second edition is the continuation of earlier thought, that it was the duty of the individual within the society to obey the authority of the lesser magistrate over him. Yet, when those who hold legitimate power abuse that power, the lesser magistrate has the right to rebel. The individual citizen may passively disobey when he feels it necessary to obedience to God, but private persons have no right to exercise active disobedience.[17]

This leaves us with some issues surrounding the relationship between the Genevans and the Scots on their view of the nature of political resistance. First, although Beza did not advocate popular or citizen political resistance against local magistrates, he did give the lesser magistrates the right to rebel. Second, is it true that Beza would have countenanced Knox’s position concerning female monarchs? The implications of these issues are extremely significant, for they lead to the broader question: Is it in fact the case that in some of the earliest writings we have a conflict of opinion within the Reformed camp regarding political theory?

Of course there are scholars who take both sides of the question. Professor Robert M. Kingdon maintained in 1955 that Knox and Goodman probably knew of Beza’s De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis and further asserted that “Perhaps Beza was one of the men who supported the ideas of Knox and Goodman on female government when many other theologians remained dubious.”[18]

The judgment that Beza was perhaps supportive of Knox’s position regarding women monarchs is difficult to endorse. As can be seen in Beza’s Confession,[19] an allusion was explicitly inserted against Knox’s position regarding female rulers, although Knox was not mentioned by name.

It is this writer’s opinion that we have from the beginning of the Reformation a clear disagreement between Geneva and Scotland surrounding the nature of political resistance, which is at the heart of reformational thinking. A number of complicating factors must be remembered. Beza was probably writing with the consideration in mind of the independent city-states which one finds in France and other parts of Europe during the sixteenth century. Knox was thinking perhaps of a different type of political situation. It must also be granted that Beza was one of the first Protestants to advocate resistance to authorities; a number of articles have been written attempting to trace various precursors to Beza’s theory, perhaps going back to the Lutheran theologians in Magdeburg,[20] which we need to investigate. Yet the difference between Beza and Knox must be understood; although they both advocated the right to rebel, in the case of Beza it is a right of the lesser magistrate, not of the people.

III. A Brief History of the Roots of Reformation Political Resistance Theory

Current thought concerning political resistance theory, the conception that subjects can rebel against a king, asserts that the keystone for that theory is a statement written in 1550, entitled the “Magdeburg Confession.”[21] From that common root, both Lutheran and Reformed thought suposedly evolves.

Of course, in examining the beginnings of Protestant political resistance theory, we could spend a long time discussing the writings of Luther and Calvin themselves prior to 1550; certainly there is much debate regarding their respective positions.[22] Nevertheless, it seems most expedient methodologically to begin with the “Magdeburg Confession” to see if we can trace from there English and Genevan branches of thought. We will examine Calvin momentarily.

Looking first at the Confession itself, we note that the position is there put forth that the lesser magistrate must “defend himself and his subjects against such unjust force in order to preserve the true teaching, the worship of God together with body, life, goods, and honor.”[23] The question we want to ask is whether this is also the position of Knox and Beza.

As mentioned previously, Knox is especially dependent upon the earlier writings of John Ponet and Christopher Goodman. What is their relationship to the “Magdeburg Confession”? First, it is clear that there was little development of political resistance theory in Britain before the reign of Mary Tudor.[24] What little there was written before Ponet and Goodman, by Tyndale, Barnes, and Foxe, does not lend much assistance in demonstrating any British roots to Ponet and Goodman’s theory. In a sense, Goodman and Ponet were trailblazers: since there is precious little British material before their writing and since they both spent quite a bit of time in exile on the Continent, we may safely conclude that these two trailblazers began a course having received certain direction from the Continent.

There is certainly original material in Ponet’s work,[25] but his connections to the “Magdeburg Confession” are also apparent. As brought out in a recent article, one notes in chapters two and three of Ponet’s “Short Treatise” that rulers are to be subject to God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) and that civil authority is limited. In the sixth chapter of the Treatise which concerns rebellion against an evil governor, there is a great hesitation to give to the individual any rights to take up arms himself against the tyrant.[26]

Christopher Goodman takes Ponet’s theories and develops them further. Especially important for our study is the elaboration concerning the individual’s right to rebel. Goodman thinks that at times it is unlawful in the sight of God to obey the prince.[27] Furthermore, Goodman argues that women are never to be rulers.[28] These theories go beyond Ponet’s analysis and probably beyond the “Magdeburg Confession” as well.

As we look at Knox and the previously mentioned writers, we discover that there was a close personal relationship between him and Goodman,[29] as well as close similarities in their writings. As Hildebrandt says: “The two works were very similar; the main contention in both was that the kingdom of Anti-Christ must be suppressed at all costs, by the private individual acting according to his conscience if the duly constituted powers failed to live up to their responsibilities.”[30] We are also sure that Knox had read and was influenced by Ponet’s works.[31] Although the above-mentioned opinions concerning female rule and the individual’s right to resist superior powers addresses itself particularly to the situation of England and goes beyond the “Magdeburg Confession,” it is very probable that Knox had read the “Magdeburg Confession” and greeted it with approval. He cited it in a debate[32] with marked enthusiasm.

In the attempt to define the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory, one has much more difficulty with him than with Knox. Certainly there are similarities in his thought to the “Magdeburg Confession.” Yet other influences may also be observed. The first we will have to remember is that Beza’s theory and Knox’s are divergent on the important issue of the individual’s right to resist.

In determining sources for Beza, it would be well to begin earlier than do most writers to particularize his roots, not with the “Magdeburg Confession” but with Ulrich Zwingli’s Commentary on the True and False Religion. Published in 1525, this work was widely read among the Reformed; in the Commentary there is a section on magistrates. Zwingli’s theory defends obedience to an impious magistrate and considers whether it is right to question an ungodly magistrate. This political theory was taught by reformers after Zwingli’s death in 1531, notably Peter Martyr Vermigli.[33]

Martyr, who travelled widely in England and throughout the Continent, knew Beza in Geneva and John Ponet as well. It was actually Martyr’s library that Ponet used to compose his A Short Treatise of Politic Power. Martyr knew Ponet’s position concerning the individual’s right to rebel as well as Zwingli’s and consciously chose Zwingli’s over Ponet. We also have letters from Goodman in 1558 requesting Martyr to endorse his views, a request with which Martyr refused to comply.[34]

Actually, Martyr wrote against the positions of Ponet, Goodman, and Knox in his commentary on the book of Judges (1555). In this commentary he held to the more conservative position, namely that tyrants are given by God and as appointed from God they are to be patiently endured. A continuity may be observed here between Zwingli and Peter Martyr Vermigli.[35]

We have already noted, however, that Beza’s position is not as conservative as Martyr’s.[36] Where are the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory to be found? The answer to that question is probably in Calvin and the “Magdeburg Confession.”

First of all, Calvin explicitly rejects the private individual’s right to resist authority. He then maintains that magistrates of the people may restrain the king’s arbitrariness. Calvin’s reasoning is easy to follow, for he finds historical examples to demonstrate analogical relationships to his own thought: from Sparta, Rome, and Athens. It is interesting to note that in a little studied work of Zwingli, entitled “Der Hirt” (1524), he alludes, before Calvin does, to two of the three examples noted by Calvin. Yet whether there is direct Zwinglian influence here is difficult to establish.[37]

Actually these examples come directly from Roman law, and it is probable that Calvin was well trained in Roman law. This expression of Calvin’s, that a lesser legal body could restrain a tyrant, is seen as early as the 1541 edition of the Institutes. It is quite possible, but nearly impossible to directly establish, that the “Magdeburg Confession” of 1550 was not the pioneering political document that is claimed for it, in that Calvin had already written nine years earlier concerning some of its major thrusts.[38]

But before one makes a final judgment concerning the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory, it is necessary to investigate another possible source. That source would be Martin Bucer, the Strassburg theologian who influenced Calvin so deeply in so many ways, influenced Beza’s political thought either directly or via Calvin. Bucer’s ideas on the nature of secular government, expressed briefly as early as 1530 in the second edition of his commentary on Matthew, resemble Beza’s in many ways, in particular being very city-centered. An edition of Bucer’s commentary on the book of Judges, which contains a few brief anti-monarchic statements, was published in Geneva in 1554, the year after the publication of Beza’s “De haereticis.”[39]

Yet, as we have observed with Calvin as well, there is no direct citation of Bucer in Beza’s writings on the matter. Attempting to draw this part of our study to a close, we will take another look at Beza and the Magdeburg Confession.

To help us understand Beza’s theory itself, we can cite a part of Beza’s De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis. This was Beza’s first religious polemic, written as a defense of Calvin’s arguments for the burning of Servetus. Calvin’s arguments had been attacked by Castellion, and Beza defended the position that governments have a duty to put dangerous heretics to death. It was published in 1554. Beza says:

However the inferior Magistrate must, as much as possible, with prudence and moderation, yet constantly and wisely, maintain pure religion in the area under his authority. A signal example of this has been shown in our times by Magdeburg, that city on the Elbe…. When then several Princes abuse their office, whoever still feels it necessary to refuse to use the Christian Magistrates offered by God against external violence whether of the unfaithful or of heretics, I charge deprives the Church of God of a most useful, and (as often as it pleases the Lord) necessary defence.[40]

What exactly is the Magdeburg Confession? The city of Magdeburg in Germany had become Protestant in 1524, without the consent of its temporal ruler, the Archbishop.

In 1548, Magdeburg had taken the lead in North German armed defiance of the “Interim,” enacted by the Emperor and Electors of the Holy Roman Empire to suppress Protestantism wherever it had become established in the Germanies. In each instance, the elected councillors and councils of the city, pushed by popular clamor, had defiled constituted superior authority. Here was a dramatic example of armed resistance, led by inferior magistrates against regularly constituted superior authority.[41]

The principal Lutheran ministers of the city wrote a pamphlet describing the events and providing a rationale, and thus the name the Magdeburg Confession.

In conclusion, it is quite apparent that the Magdeburg Confession was influential in Beza’s theory. He directly cites the Confession with praise in his writings. Yet we must also note the independent influence of Calvin and possibly of Bucer as well. Magdeburg should not be seen as the exclusive source of Beza’s political theory, however, as some modern scholars want to assert.

Nevertheless, it appears that Beza’s position on popular or citizen revolt may have undergone some change.[42] Regarding the situation of private persons resisting an ungodly tyrant, it has been correctly asserted that at least prior to 1560 Beza never would have agreed with Goodman, Ponet, and Knox.[43] And although it seems reasonable to assume that this same disagreement would have persisted after 1560 as well, events such as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre may have caused Beza to change his opinion.

Conclusion: The Confessional Accord

Concluding our analysis of the Genevan reaction to the Scottish resistance theory it would be helpful to give a final important note concerning the confessional unity between Geneva and Scotland. In September of 1566 Knox and others in Edinburgh signed the “Confessio et Expositio Simplex” which had been accepted by the Protestants in Geneva and throughout Switzerland. Here is the best documentary basis to establish the close relationship between Scotland and Geneva. Even with the acceptance of this creed, however, we should remember that the Scots disagreed with the Genevans by refusing to celebrate Christmas and Easter, because there was no warrant to do so in the Bible.[44] Therefore, the situation between Scotland and Geneva was in general a unity amid diversity. The theological unity should be underlined in that Scotland truly declared itself to be following the theology of Calvin in accepting the confession, though there were still some points of disagreement. Also, although there was unity in political resistance theory that ungodly Sovereigns may be overthrown, there still remained diversity in the extent of popular involvement in opposing the prince or sovereign.[45] The Genevan reformation did find a home in Scotland; however it was a reformation that was adapted to a different culture and climate.

Notes

1. W. S. Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Scribner, 1974) 132.
2. On Knox’s sojourn in Geneva, cf. W. S. Reid, Trumpeter of God, 130-54; J. Ridley, John Knox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) 215–41. Concerning his pastoring the English congregation, cf. C. Martin, Les Protestants englais réfugiés a Genve au temps de Calvin, 1555–1560 (Genve: A. Julien, 1915); W. D. Maxwell, John Knox’s Genevan Service Book 1556 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1931).
3. Reid, Trumpeter of God, 154.
4. The Works of John Knox (ed. D. Laing; Edinburgh: Printed for the Wodrow Society, 1895) 6.95-98 (letter 43 Calvin to Knox, Nov. 8, 1559).
5. Ibid., 123f (letter 66 Calvin to Knox, April 23, 1561).
6. Ibid., 134 (letter 72 Knox to Calvin, October 24, 1561).
7. “I send you a specimen of the very extensive correspondence of Knox” (ibid., 550; letter 80 Beza to Bullinger, December 8, 1566).
8. Cf. the letter of the General Assembly to Beza, 1566 (ibid., 544ff).
9. Ibid., 562 and 565 (letter 85 Beza to Knox, June 3, 1569).
10. Ibid., 565.
11. Ibid., 613 (letter 100 Beza to Knox, April 12, 1572).
12. Letters of John Calvin (ed. Bonnet; Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1858) 4.47 (letter 538 Calvin to Cecil, May 1559).
13. Ibid., 48.
14. Cf. the text reprinted in Winthrop S. Hudson, John Ponet (1516?-1556) Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942).
15. Repr. 1972 Amsterdam and New York: Da Capo Press. In chapter 13, pp. 189f, Goodman says, “it is lawful for the people, yea it is their duetie to do it themselves as well upon their owne rulers and magistrate as upon other of their brethren, having the worde of God for their warrant, to which all are subiecte, and by the same charged to cast forthe all evill from them, and to cut off every rotten membre, for feare of infecting the whole body.” Later, the Scots Confession (1560) will list repressing tyranny with good works (chap. 14).
16. “When then several Princes abuse their office, whoever still feels it necessary to refuse to use the Christian Magistrates offered by God against external violence whether of the unfaithful or of heretics, I charge deprives the Church of God of a most useful and (as often as it pleases the Lord) necessary defense.” Cited by R. M. Kingdon, “The First Expression of Theodore Beza’s Political Ideas,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 46 (1955) 92.
17. The second edition of Point 5, Article 45, was reprinted in 1970 by Libraire Droz, Geneva, under R. M. Kingdon’s editorship as an appendix to the Du droit des Magistrats, 70-75. The Du droit des Magistrats, first published in 1574, clearly presents Beza’s position concerning the magistrates and the people’s responsibility to them.
18. Kingdon, “First Expression,” 96.
19. There he says: “Aucuns afferment le mesme touchant la domination des femmes, à l’opinion desquels toutesfois je ne puis accorder.” His discussion of female monarchs continues on the following pages. Beza, Du droit des Magistrats, 71f. Kingdon acknowledges Beza’s reference to Knox in the introduction to the work (p. x) but does not mention whether he would still agree with the position he took in the 1955 article mentioned above.
20. Cf. Kingdon, “The Political Resistance of the Calvinists in France and the Low Countries,” CH 27 (1958) 220–33; ibid., “Les idées politiques de Bze d’aprs son traitté de l’authorité du magistrat in la punition des hérétiques,” Bibliothque d’humanisme et renaissance 22 (1960) 565–69. Irmgard Höss, “Zur Genesis der Widerstandslehre Bezas,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 54 (1963) 198–214.
21. Robert M. Kingdon (“First Expression,” 94) says: “Beza did indeed know of the Magdeburg example, and that the sources of his resistance theory may hence have ultimate connection to the crude but rarely used resistance theory of certain early Lutherans.” “Beza deliberately links his arguments to that of the Magdeburg Bekenntnis” (Kingdon, “Political Resistance,” 228). “Magdeburg, of course, was not the only inspiration for the Calvinist theory of resistance” (ibid., 229). Esther Hildebrandt (“The Magdeburg Bekenntnis as a Possible Link between German and English Resistance Theories in the Sixteenth Century,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 [1981] 240) says that Beza “was most probably inspired by the ‘Magdeburg Bekenntnis’ and other Lutheran works.” Cf. also Höss, “Zur Genesis,” 270ff.
22. Cf. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 228ff; David H. Wollman, “The Biblical justification for Resistance to Authority in Ponet’s and Goodman’s Polemics,” Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982) 29f; Irmgard Höss, “Zur Genesis,” 201ff.
23. English translation of the text as found in Christianity and Revolution (ed. Lowell H. Zuck; Philadelphia: Temple University, 1975) 137.
24. Hildebrandt (“Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 227) says: “There is certainly little in early sixteenth century English political thought which would have inspired Ponet.” “On the English side there were no significant developments in resistance theories before Mary Tudor’s reign” (ibid., 238).
25. Hildebrandt (ibid., 240ff) outlines some of the original ideas: his breaking the tradition of passive disobedience, and placing limits upon civil authority.
26. Cf. ibid., 242ff.
27. Those circumstances are made clear in the title to the fifth chapter which reads “To obey man in anie thinge agaynst God is Vnlawfull ind playne disobedience” (Goodman, Superior Powers, 20). “For that can be no excuse for vs, thoghe he be Kinge, Quene, or Emperour that commandeth or threateneth vs. For what is Kinge, Quene, or Emperour compared to God?” (ibid., 46).
28. Extensive quotes could be made to support this point but only one is necessary: “Yf women be not permitted by Ciuile policies to rule in inferior offices, to be Counsellours, [etc.]: I make your selues iudges, whither it be mete for them to gouerne whole Realmes and nations” (ibid., 52).
29. Wollman, “Biblical Justification,” 33.
30. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 245. John W. Allen (A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960] 109f, 116f) sees the viewpoints of the two as nearly identical. For an opposing viewpoint, cf. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 2.228f.
31. Cf. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 246.
32. This was a debate during the General Assembly of 1564. For the text, cf. ibid., 246.
33. “Zwingli’s thoughts are so similar to Martyr that one thinks Martyr had reread Zwingli more than once” (Marvin W. Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed Tradition,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 69 [1978] 179).
34. Ibid., 174f and 185.
35. Ibid., 165.
36. This is the basic thesis of Marvin Anderson (“Royal Idolatry”) which is quite accurate.
37. For Calvin’s views, cf. Institutes 4.20.23; Commentary on 1 Thess 4:11; Commentary on Ps 101:5. Cf. also Institutes 4.20.31. For further information, cf. Josef Bohatec, Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Organismusgedankens (Breslau: Marcus, 1937) 82f; ibid., Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen: Böhlaus, 1934) 141. Anderson, “Royal Idolatry,” is the most recent writer to cite the references to Zwingli in Calvin (cf. pp. 159 and 179).
38. Cf. H. A. Lloyd, “Calvin and the Duty of Guardians to Resist,” and Peter Stein, “Calvin and the Duty of Guardians to Resist: A Comment” in JEH 32 (1981) 65ff and 69f.
39. Cf. Robert M. Kingdon, “First Expression,” 95.
40. As cited in Kingdon (ibid., 92).
41. Kingdon, “Political Resistance,” 227.
42. For example we observe in the introduction to his edition of Du droit des Magistrats, that Kingdon sees a change of mind in Beza on the matter of citizen revolt. This reasoning is based upon a short statement by Beza in the second edition of the Confessiones, appended to the text of Du droit. There Beza claims that it is easy for a magistrate to abuse his power and that this power is not infinite: “pource qu’il est facile d’abuser du nom de Magistrat, et aussi la puissance du vray Magistrat et legitime n’est pas infinie” (p. x). Because of this statement Kingdon is convinced that at this stage there is a change in Beza’s mind. Yet Kingdon himself reminds his readers that in the confession Beza asserts in principle that the individual citizen is under obligation to obey the magistrate. It is undoubtedly Beza’s position in De haereticus and in Du droit as well. Not advocating citizen revolt is also an established tradition within continental, Protestant political writings. There is a change in Beza’s theory of political resistance, a change which comes after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. He is convinced that the Huguenots, the Protestants in France, must acknowledge that they are fighting the legitimate authority of the crown of France. This demonstrates that Beza held his political theories not just to be theories, but activities that could righteously be performed. His activities and writings of the period do not demonstrate, however, that he considers the individual citizen righteously capable to bear arms against the sovereign unless he is following the lesser magistrate.
43. Dan G. Danner, “Christopher Goodman and the English Protestant Tradition of Civil Disobedience,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977) 61–73.
44. Cf. The Works of John Knox 6.547f (letter 80, the Scottish Assembly at St. Andrews to Theodore Beza, September 4, 1566).
45. It should be noted here that the present context of discussion revolves around early reformed writing and reaction to the Scottish Reformation. Discussion of later developments in Beza’s political theory goes beyond the limits of this article.