This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 03 December 2014, At: 13:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The European Legacy: Toward New

Paradigms
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cele20

Johannes Althusius’ Politica : The

Culmination of Calvin's Right of
Resistance
a
Matt McCullock
a
Department of Politics, International Relations and European
Studies , Loughborough University , Loughborough, Leicestershire
LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
Published online: 20 Nov 2006.

To cite this article: Matt McCullock (2006) Johannes Althusius’ Politica : The Culmination of
Calvin's Right of Resistance, The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 11:5, 485-499, DOI:
10.1080/10848770600842804

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10848770600842804

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 The European Legacy, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 485–499, 2006

Johannes Althusius’ Politica: The Culmination

of Calvin’s Right of Resistance

MATT MCCULLOCK

ABSTRACT Jean Calvin’s writings on the resistance to a tyrannical ruler appear as an addendum to his
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

Institutes of the Christian Religion, but despite their limited discussion, his followers based their own
writings on his original discussion of resistance. The most celebrated of these Calvinist tracts on resistance was
the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos written as a result of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. This article
argues that, whilst the Vindiciae is an important example of Calvinist resistance, an even more significant,
but forgotten, Calvinist resistance theory can be found in Johannes Althusius’ Politica Methodice Digesta,
Atque Exemplis Sacris Et Profanis Illustrata. Furthermore, the similarities in the social, political and
religious position of both Althusius and Calvin, as well as their geographical location in Emden and Geneva
respectively, allows Althusius’ work to be seen as the natural culmination of Calvin’s original work on the
right of resistance.

That work [the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos], of which the authorship is attributed to
Du Pleiss Mornay and not to Languet, is the most important book on the subject
[of resistance], previous to Locke’s work. Inferior in intellectual power to the work
of Althusius, it had a deeper contemporary influence, just because it was a livre
de circonstance and not a scientific treatise.1
Indeed, Althusius’ argument was simply a more sophisticated version of Mornay’s.2

In academic and religious circles, Calvin or Calvinist theories of resistance have been
discussed ad infinitum; but the re-emergence of Johannes Althusius’ Politica Methodice
Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris Et Profanis Illustrata (1614)3 has presented political theorists
with an as yet unused golden opportunity to re-evaluate certain aspects of Calvinist
resistance theory: most notably, and referring to J. Wayne Baker’s assertion in the
epigraph, Politica’s relationship to the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,4 the most celebrated
Calvinist theory of resistance to emerge from the French Wars of Religion. If, as
Baker asserts, Althusius did present a more sophisticated version of the Vindiciae, many
questions arise: firstly, if true, why is the name Johannes Althusius not synonymous

Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies, Loughborough University, Loughborough,
Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. Email: M.R.J.McCullock@lboro.ac.uk

ISSN 1084-8770 print/ISSN 1470-1316 online/06/050485–15 ß 2006 International Society for the Study of European Ideas
DOI: 10.1080/10848770600842804
 486 MATT MCCULLOCK

with Calvinist resistance theory? Secondly, how can this assertion be true, when on
first inspection the limited argument presented in chapter XXXVIII of Politica appears
to merely replicate that of Vindiciae?
Regarding the first question, Althusius’ name is not synonymous with Calvinist
resistance theory for the same reason that he is largely unknown in other political
discussions: his location in history. Whilst the Vindiciae resulted from the much-publicised
French Wars of Religion, Althusius lived an unassuming life in a corner of the
Holy Roman Empire and, although this means that historians of Germanic history of that
period discuss his work, his broader European prominence is limited. This unfamiliarity
breeds further reasons for Althusius’ general absence from European intellectual history.
Firstly, Politica’s potential as a source of theoretical discussion in several political areas
has yet to be realised. Secondly, his view of the state is comprised of notions that are
entirely alien to the modern notion of liberalism, and so the inclusion of his work
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

in contemporary discussions may be viewed as a regression. Thirdly, in an age when

Latin scholars are uncommon, the fact that the complete version of Politica is only available
in Latin severely limits its usage. Although Frederick Carney has translated an abridged
version into English, for some scholars it is ‘‘useless for any serious approach’’ to
Althusius’ work.5 Fourthly, the authors Althusius wrote in opposition to and their
subsequent dominance must be borne in mind. Jean Bodin, who wrote in response
to both the French Wars of Religion and the Calvinist right of resistance, argued that
a right to resist the Prince meant that the people were superior, and this appeared to be a
‘‘recipe of anarchy.’’6 Thus, Bodin has been cited as leading the strong reaction
against both Protestant and Catholic resistance theory.7 The centralised nature of the
political structure proposed by Bodin in The Six Books of the Commonwealth was later to
be championed by Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and, as a result, political theories that
‘‘went against the grain’’ were largely ignored or forgotten.
Alas, despite being called the ‘‘most profound political thinker between Bodin
and Hobbes,’’8 Althusius and his work were largely ignored or simply forgotten.
In order to test Baker’s assertion, and address the second question raised, we must
re-familiarise ourselves with Calvin’s original discussion on the right of resistance, in this
instance taken from the fourth book, chapter XX of the Institutes of the Christian Religion,
before identifying the commonalities that both Vindiciae and Politica share. This can be
achieved by identifying certain questions on tyranny in each work and then by examining
how, if at all, Politica presents a more elaborate or sophisticated version of the argument
in Vindiciae. The exploration of both texts will focus on two broader issues: who can resist
a tyrant, and the nature of tyranny. In the discussion of these questions, the article will
acknowledge Althusius’ replication of ideas and terms used in the Vindiciae, which in
itself does not mean that he merely plagiarised them; these ideas were not always
‘‘original’’ when used in the Vindiciae, so a degree of overlap should be expected
given the common pool of ideas used by authors of the period.
Following this exploration, I suggest why Politica represents a culmination of
Calvinist resistance theory, focusing on personal and geographical issues, as well as
theoretical issues, such as the nature of the tyrannical threat and the nature of the political
text itself. Before the discussion can proceed, it is necessary to address two questions:
why was there a need for resistance theories and what conditions brought them about?
What types of resistance theories are identifiable in European history prior to Althusius?
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 487

THE NEED FOR RESISTANCE THEORIES

For centuries in Europe the idea of disobedience was discouraged by both the rulers and
the Church, but two key events altered this state of affairs: the pinning of the Ninety-Five
Theses to the Church door in Wittenberg by Martin Luther in 1517 and the French Wars
of Religion. After Luther’s writings directly challenged the Church of Rome and found
adherents, the Holy Roman Empire was no longer religiously homogeneous. In the
north of the Empire especially, Princes and Cities were adopting the new Reformed
Faith, and this invariably lead to religious friction between the Lutherans and the Catholic
Emperor. In turn, this led to a position where the Lutherans had to develop some form
of resistance to the advances of the Emperor. Indeed, it has been argued that the
Lutheran’s initial resistance against Emperor Charles V, ‘‘made possible the very survival
of Protestantism.’’9
In the French Religious Wars, the French Calvinists, or Huguenots, were faced with
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

a situation akin to the Lutherans in the Empire: how to develop a theory of resistance
within an intellectual culture that for centuries had discouraged such political initiatives.
But, more importantly, how to develop a theory on resistance that would function so
long as the threat was in place, and one that would not lead to general anarchy.10
Furthermore, the French Wars also offer a Catholic theory of resistance, written by the
Catholic League, the Gallicans and the Jesuits, devised primarily when it appeared as
if Henri of Navarre, later Henri VI, would become the first Calvinist King of France.
Having sketched the evolution of the theories of resistance, it is important to
identify their key features. The first Reformed theory of resistance was by the Lutherans
and took its initial form in the Schmalkaldic League formed in 1530 to respond to the
Emperor’s threat to suppress the Lutherans by military force.11 The League, named after
the Saxon town in which the first meeting was held, was essentially a defence network
of Eight Princes and eleven cities of the Empire, who agreed on mutual assistance should
they be attacked on ‘‘account of the Word of God and the doctrine of the Gospel.’’12
Although this was primarily a military agreement, the lawyers of the two leaders of the
League, Hesse and Saxony, offered the justification for resistance. Bearing in mind
the concern to resist, but not to induce anarchy, the argument focused on the use of the
inferior magistrates against the Emperor. As the Emperor was elected, the Princes retained
control over the religion of their cities; thus, if the Emperor attempted to change this
by force, the inferior magistrates and Princes should resist, by force if necessary.13
Although the League initially suffered military defeats, a reorganised League eventually
forced the Emperor to concede to the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) that
allowed each Prince to decide on religious issues and brought an uneasy religious peace
to the Empire.
In terms of theories of resistance, the French religious wars generated far more than
the religious problems of the Empire. For the Calvinists, the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos
(1579) emerged in the aftermath of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) as the
most prominent example of resistance. Prior to this, in 1573, Francois Hotman published
the Franco Gallia, which explored the historical constitutional history of France and
found that throughout the monarch, initially elected, worked closely with Councils,
in whom the ultimate power of the state was vested.14 A year later, in 1574,
Theodore Beza published anonymously Du Droit des Magistrats sur les sujets, which
 488 MATT MCCULLOCK

contained many characteristics similar to Calvin’s original work, including passive

resistance and the division between three categories of persons: private people, inferior
magistrates, and the representatives who are the sovereign guardians of the people.15
The general Calvinist argument in Beza’s work regarding the inferior magistrates leading
the resistance thus fitted the need of the French Calvinist Party and justified their planned
programme of resistance.16
For the Catholics the situation was fundamentally different. Whilst they shared
similar principles to those of Reformed resistance, not only did they represent a majority
of the population, but the centralised structure of the Catholic Church fundamentally
differed from the ‘‘diffused’’ structure of the Reformed Churches. This did not
mean that there was a single Catholic theory of resistance, however. In relation to the
French Religious Wars, three different strands can be identified: the Catholic League,
whose emphasis was on the secular resistance against a tyrant and the appeals to the
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

Pope to remove a malevolent leader; the Gallicans, who sought to secure the
independence of the French Church from both the Pope and the French Monarch;
and the Jesuits, who sought adherence to the Pope, which cut through any national
affiliation.
Whilst there are three religious theories of resistance that emerged from the Holy
Roman Empire and the French Wars of Religion, the most well-known is undoubtedly
the Calvinist, not only as it played a significant role in the French Religious Wars, the
Dutch Revolt against the Spanish, and the Scottish deposition of Mary Stuart, but
because it enjoyed a theoretical dominance over both Lutheran and Catholic theories.
Amongst the Reformed religions, Calvinism played a dominant role due to the fact that
‘‘no great thinker or scholar rose from the ranks of Lutheranism.’’17 As a result, the
majority of serious political writings among Continental Protestants was largely the work
of orthodox and near orthodox Calvinists.18

CALVIN ON THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE

To understand Calvin’s theory of resistance, one must bear in mind his preference for
an ‘‘aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government’’19 and a belief in the
necessity of civil government. Indeed, ‘‘it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it,
its use among men being no less than that of bread and water, light and air, while
its dignity is much more excellent’’ (652). The key point in this promotion is the
replication of a hierarchical structure, and ‘‘obedience’’:
Under this obedience, I comprehend the restraint which private men ought to impose
on themselves in public, not interfering with public business, or rashly encroaching
on the province of the magistrate, or attempting anything at all of a public nature.
If it is proper that anything in a public ordinance should be corrected, let them not act
tumultuously, or put their hands to a work where they ought to feel that their hands
are tied, but let them leave it to the cognisance of the magistrate, whose hand alone
here is free. My meaning is, let them not dare to do it without being ordered (669).

After arguing for the necessity of civil government, obedience is discussed in what could
be called the ‘‘Holy Trinity’’ of civil government: the magistrate, who is the guardian
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 489

of the laws; the laws according to which the magistrate governs; and the people who are
governed by the laws and obey the magistrate (653). In relation to civil government and
the right of resistance, the relationship between the magistrate and the people is
paramount:

It is thereby intimated that they [the magistrates] have a commission from God,
that they are invested with divine authority, and, in fact, represent the person of God,
as whose substitutes they in a manner act (653).

Therefore, ‘‘the first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to entertain the most
honourable views of their office’’ (668), and this obedience to the magistrate is total;
even in the case of ‘‘impious kings’’ (670). For, as Calvin argues, while a magistrate
who maintains the people’s safety is the ‘‘highest gift of his beneficence,’’ those who are
tyrannical ‘‘are raised by him to punish people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

that sacred majesty with which he invested lawful power’’ (670) and should be held
in the same honour and reverence as the best of kings (671). Clearly, while the magistrate,
even if tyrannical, is invested by God, and as no man can resist the magistrate without
resisting God (669), on what does Calvin’s right of resistance rest?
Firstly, if a magistrate should become tyrannical, the individual should not
immediately attempt to remove him from office. Rather, the individual should call up the
remembrance of his own faults, ‘‘which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such
scourges’’ (673), and following this recognition, the individual must implore the help
of the Lord ‘‘in whose hands are the hearts of Kings’’ (674). If the people are unjustly
tyrannised by the magistrate, the Lord will appoint ‘‘from among his own servants’’
someone who is commanded to deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly
oppressed (674).
Thus far Calvin’s argument relies on what could be called the tyranny ‘‘towards
the people’’; that is, the individual must obey a tyrannical ruler as God mandates this
magistrate. However, there is also a second aspect, which, rather than resistance,
introduces the idea of ‘‘passive disobedience.’’ In the last section of the Institutes,
Calvin introduces the notion that a tyrant must be obeyed so long as this is not
incompatible with obedience to God:

We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord.
If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be
moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which
no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of
God (675).

Whilst this does not amount to an active right of resistance, Calvin does admit that he
knows of the ‘‘imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness’’
(675), affirming that ‘‘let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the
obedience which the Lord requires, when we endure anything rather than turn aside
from piety’’ (676).
If up to this point the discussion is theological, towards the end of chapter XX
of the fourth book of Institutes, the emphasis shifts to a brief political discussion,
where inferior magistrates are mentioned. It is the duty of these ‘‘popular magistrates’’ to
 490 MATT MCCULLOCK

‘‘check the undue license’’ of tyrannical kings, and Calvin shows no opposition to these
inferior magistrates:
If they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of people,
I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they
[the King] fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the
ordinance of God, they are appointed its guardians (675).

This can be understood as either Calvin including numerous instances of inferior

magistrates within a political system, such as the Seven Electors of the Holy Roman
Empire, or as his attempt to politicise the structure of resistance that is inherent in
his theological discussion. In a limited manner, Calvin does offer some clarification
in the last of the One Hundred Aphorisms: ‘‘The obedience enjoined on subjects does not
prevent the interference of any popular Magistrates whose office it is to restrain tyrants
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

and to protect the liberty of the people’’ (689). But it is clear that some confusion
remains: ‘‘Calvin did not define the role of the inferior magistrates, nor did he describe
the manner in which they were to exercise their vocation as guardians of the liberties
of the realm.’’20

VINDICIAE AND POLITICA: SIMILARITIES

We should expect to find similarities between the Vindiciae and Politica for two main
reasons: firstly, both contained discussions of resistance theory that were influenced by
Calvin’s original, albeit brief, discussion in The Institutes of the Christian Religion; secondly,
Althusius read the Vindiciae, as it was the best written and most widely read political
tract that came out of the French Wars of Religion. However, while Althusius was
‘‘much travelled and well received in orthodox Calvinist circles,’’ he was also influenced
by ‘‘Catholic authors who had an interest in constitutional government, and in the
ideological and institutional foundations capable of supporting it.’’21 Examples of
the Catholic influence on Althusius include Diego Covarruvia, often referred to as the
‘‘Spanish Bartolus’’ and the Jesuit Juan de Mariana whose De rege et regis institutione (1599)
earned him the notoriety as the prophet of tyrannicide, as he appeared to place less
emphasis on the deposition of the king by the representatives, and more on the ‘‘right
of the private man to kill a tyrant who prevented the assembly of the states or cortes.’’22

RESISTANCE TO A TYRANT
Following the original argument of Calvin’s Institutes, both the Vindiciae and Politica argue
that the resistance to a tyrant lay with the ‘‘popular magistrates,’’ such as the Ephors,23 and
not with the individual. For the Vindiciae, it is the role of either the people as a whole
(as it was this group who instigated the king), or the principal persons of the kingdom,
who represent the body of the people, to resist a tyrant.24 Indeed, these officers, ‘‘very
gravely sin against the covenant with God if they do not use force against a king
who corrupts God’s law or prevents its restoration, in order to confine him to proper
bounds’’ (157).
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 491

Due to the covenantal nature of the agreement between God, the King and the
People, the Vindiciae argues why the people as a whole would consent to be constrained
by God’s Law if they were not able to defend themselves from perjury and church
devastation. Rather, in making a covenant with his people, God ‘‘wished to give us
clear-cut evidence that the people had the right, not only of making covenant, but also
of performing it and enforcing its performance’’ (148): ‘‘It is, then, not only lawful for
Israel to resist a king who overturns the Law and Church of God, but if they do not
do so, they are guilty of the same crime and are subject to the same penalty’’ (149).
Similarly, for Althusius, the role of resistance to tyranny is placed in the hands
of the ‘‘optimates of the realm,’’ who, both collectively and individually, can and should
resist tyranny to the best of their ability (193). This ’’ability’’ is restricted in both works:
resistance will be in kind, that is, if the tyranny is by words, the resistance shall be with
words, and similarly for the use of force (Vindiciae, 149; Politica, 195). Althusius does
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

somewhat clarify this ‘‘use of force,’’ as not only to be used against force but also when
the tyranny has ‘‘so progressed in it that without armed force such tyranny cannot be
restrained, confined, or driven out’’ (195).
Whilst both texts discuss the relationship of the individual to resisting tyranny,
the undoubted influence of Calvin’s original argument means that the individual could
not resist the magistrate without resisting God (669). Both works argue that the use of the
sword was not given to the individual (Politica, 196), but only the sword of the spirit
was commended (Vindiciae, 155). This referred directly to Calvin’s assertion that all that
remains for the individual living under tyranny is to ‘‘implore the help of the Lord,
in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms’’ (674). Furthermore,
both texts follow Calvin’s lead by arguing that an individual under tyranny should flee
to another place to avoid disobedience (Vindiciae, 155; Politica, 196).
In addition, both texts introduce an international dimension:
If one prince transgresses the boundaries of religion and justice, a neighbouring
prince may religiously and justly go beyond the boundaries of his territory, not
to despoil the other of his lands, but to constrain him to his proper duty. And if the
neighbour does not do so, he is himself irreligious and unjust (Vindiciae, 198).

For Althusius, this claim is less assertive and definite, but the involvement of a third party
in resisting a tyrant is evident. In the armed struggle against a tyrant: ‘‘it is permitted to
enlist an army from among the inhabitants, confederates, friends, and others, just as against an
enemy of the fatherland and realm’’ (195; my emphasis).

THE DEFINITION AND NATURE OF TYRANNY

Both texts share a similar definition of a tyrant by arguing it is the opposite to a king
or just leader. In Vindiciae, a tyrant is one who has seized authority by ‘‘force or fraud’’
and who governs not in accordance with the law (185). Likewise for Althusius:
Tyranny is the contrary of just and upright administration. . . . A tyrant is therefore
one who, violating both word and oath, begins to shake the foundations and unloosen
the bonds of the associated body of the commonwealth (191).
 492 MATT MCCULLOCK

Furthermore, both texts add what could be called a ‘‘failing ruler’’ proviso to the
definition of tyranny. Due to the very nature of the human condition, that is body and
soul are mixed together (Vindiciae, 189), a ruler may not be perfect at all times. Even the
best rulers at some time or other are weak in the performance of their offices
(Politica, 191) or lack zeal in the public interest (Vindiciae, 190), but this does not
automatically make them tyrants. Nor is one to be treated as a tyrant who, having already
started on the road to tyranny, nevertheless does not obstinately and insanely persist
on it (Politica, 194). Rather, tyranny may be proclaimed when a Prince persistently
subverts the commonwealth (Vindiciae, 191) by acting contrary to the fundamentals
and essence of human association, and destroys civil and social life (Politica, 194).
In relation to the nature or ‘‘types’’ of tyranny, both texts share the distinction
widely employed since Bartolus, a fourteenth-century legal writer, between a tyrant
by practice (tyrannus exercitio) and a tyrant without title (tyrannus absque titulo).25 A tyrant
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

by conduct or practice occurs when a king persists in misrule in violation of the laws and
compacts on which he took a solemn oath (Vindiciae, 185). At this point, a subtle
difference appears between the two texts. While the Vindiciae sees both the tyrant
with and without title as being tyrants, Althusius ‘‘does not consider a tyrant without title
(tyrannus absque titulo) to be a tyrant at all, but only a private citizen who is an enemy
of the realm. The reason is that such a person never rightfully became its supreme
magistrate. Only a tyrant by practice (tyrannus exercitio) is a true tyrant’’ (Politica, 193, n. 6).
Despite this subtle difference, both books offer the same view of the resistance to a
tyrant without title.

RESISTANCE TO ‘‘TYANNUS ABSQUE TITULO’’

The Vindiciae offers three justifications for resisting a tyrant without title: nature instructs
us to defend our lives and liberty; the law of peoples, which establishes boundaries that
everyone is obliged to defend; and civil law, which, when broken by force of fraud,
makes resistance incumbent upon all people, because he ‘‘subverts the foundations
of the fatherland to which we are bound’’ (187–88). Equally, in Politica: ‘‘When a tyrant
without title invades the realm, each and every optimate and private person who loves
his fatherland can and should resist, even by his private authority without awaiting the
command of another’’ (197).
Furthermore, both arguments adopt a ‘‘might is right’’ policy to the resistance of
a tyrant without title. The three justifications offered in the Vindiciae apply ‘‘so long as
the tyranny is still in the process of formation’’ (189), that is, while the tyrant is still
without title. However, if the people are defeated by the tyrant, and obligated to him by
oath, there should no longer be resistance to this ‘‘legitimate magistrate’’ (Vindiciae, 189;
Politica, 196).

VINDICIAE TO POLITICA: DEVELOPMENTS

Whilst there are many similarities between the Vindiciae and Politica, there are also many
significant areas in which Althusius’ argument advances that of the Vindiciae. The first
is the scope of the discussion of tyranny, which includes a definition of the term
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 493

‘‘resistance’’ coupled with more elaborate discussions on when a tyrant may be resisted,
how a tyrant may be resisted and for how long. For Althusius ‘‘resistance’’
is the process by which the ephors impede the tyranny of the supreme magistrate
by word and deed. And when he is incurable, or the rights (jura) of the associated
body cannot otherwise be kept sound, well protected, and in good condition, or the
commonwealth free from evil, they depose him and cast him out of their midst (193).

This point may appear trivial, but in discussing resistance theory it is essential to define
what is meant by each term to avoid confusion.
Answering the question ‘‘when a tyrant may be resisted,’’ Althusius argues that the
initial act is for the tyranny to be ‘‘publicly acknowledged,’’ after which the Ephors will
call a council to ‘‘examine and judge the activities and deeds of the tyrant’’ (195). Whilst
the ephors play a central role in Politica, Althusius does add a proviso for the situation
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

in which there are no ephors. In this case, ‘‘public defenders and deliverers should be
constituted ad hoc by the people itself’’ (195).
On the question of the manner of resistance, Althusius’ first point is that the
resistance should be done by ‘‘defensive, not offensive means, namely by action within
the boundaries of the territory assigned to the resisting ephor’’ (195). On the final
question, ‘‘he is to be resisted so long as tyranny endures, and so far as he assails or acts
contrary to the declared covenant. He should be resisted until the commonwealth is
restored to its original condition’’ (196).
As Althusius presents a more thorough definition of tyranny, the tools and the
processes to combat it are also elaborated. For him, the role of the inferior magistrates,
or Ephors, is paramount, and the model he advocates is the ‘‘seven electors of
Germany.’’26 In a methodical discussion of the creation and role of the Ephors, Althusius
argues that one of their main functions is to resist a tyrannical magistrate (99–101),
and elaborates on this by distinguishing between general and specific Ephors. As the
former have both the power to create a magistrate and the consent of the people, it is
their role and duty to resist the tyrant. Indeed, Althusius furthers this claim by stating
that any individual who does not aid an Ephor in his struggle should be ‘‘considered
enemies and deserters’’ (193).
In relation to the specific Ephors, Althusius argues that they should defend the part
of the Empire which has been entrusted to their care. However, this does not mean that
an individual Ephor can ‘‘resist’’ a tyrant for personal gain, as ‘‘what is to be done
collectively by the estates or Ephors of the realm is not permitted to one of them when
the others do not consent’’ (194). What is meant by this statement is that, due to the
notion of consent amongst the Ephors, no individual Ephor may resist a tyrant in
this specific area and then continue to resist him outside of his own area with the aim
of becoming a tyrant himself.

THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO RESIST

The second major elaboration that Politica makes centres on the individual’s right to
resist. While both the Vindiciae and Politica deny the individual’s right to resist a tyrant,
Politica offers certain extraordinary scenarios when it may be permitted. For the Vindiciae,
 494 MATT MCCULLOCK

individuals have no right to resist on their own initiative ‘‘unless they have clearly
received an extraordinary calling’’ but these ‘‘callings’’ appear to revolve around driving
idolatry from their borders (158, 157). However, later in the text, there is a categorical
statement: ‘‘Private persons . . . have not been presented with the sword, either by the
God or by the people. Hence, if they draw the sword they are seditious, no matter
how just the cause may be’’ (195).
Whilst not ascribing such demanding obedience, Politica elaborates on possible
‘‘extraordinary callings.’’ An individual may resist ‘‘when manifest force is applied by
the magistrate to private persons, then in case of the need to defend their lives resistance
is permitted to them.’’ In this instance the individual is armed by both natural law and
the arrangement of constituting kings (196).
There are two final points that Politica elaborates upon, which appear to have been
influenced by the experience of the Huguenots: the right of secession and subsequent
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

self-defence; and the sole reason for tyrannicide. On the first issue:
One of the estates, or one part of the realm, can abandon the remaining body to which
it belonged and choose for itself a separate ruler or a new form of commonwealth
when the public and manifest welfare of this entire part altogether requires it, or when
fundamental laws of the country are not observed by the magistrate but are obstinately
and outrageously violated, or when the true worship and disclosed command of
God clearly require and demand that this be done (197).

In addition to this, the separated part also has the right to defend by force and arms its
new status against the realm from which it withdrew. This ‘‘secession’’ is possible due to
the federal ‘‘bottom-up’’ nature of the Commonwealth as described by Althusius in
Politica, where each subsequent level of association is comprised of the prior level. In this
manner, the prior levels form the latter levels of association to serve a common purpose,
and if this new level no longer serves the original purpose, then one part of or the prior
level as a whole can abandon the body, or a new form of rule can be agreed upon.
Finally, Althusius offers a single justification for tyrannicide: if the optimates
cannot remove a tyrant from office, and ‘‘if they cannot defend themselves against force
by any other means’’ they may kill the tyrant, and return the laws of the
commonwealth back to their original condition, or to put it another way,
the optimates actively remove the obstacle to the realisation of the just life for
which the commonwealth was formed, and ensure the original legal condition of the
commonwealth be returned to (196).

ALTHUSIUS’ ELABORATION ON THE ARGUMENT IN THE VINDICIAE

There are numerous reasons why Althusius was able to develop on the Vindiciae, most
notably among which is the time it was written: the Vindiciae was written in 1579, and
although the first edition of Politica appeared in 1603, the edition in which Althusius
discussed Tyranny and Its Remedies did not appear until 1610. Apart from the issue of time,
there are several other areas concerning the life, beliefs and political position of
Althusius that replicated Calvin’s life. In addition, the nature of threat posed to Emden,
where Althusius was syndic from 1604 to 1638, influenced his views on tyranny.
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 495

It is important first to clarify the political origins of Politica and the timing of the
inclusion of the discussion on tyranny. Althusius published Politica as a political doctrine
of organisation. This emphasis is evident in the fact that, despite discussing how each level
of association is formed, his main concern is that the association should fulfil the function
for which it was created. In this respect, Frederick Carney argues that Althusius has
no interest at all in theories of human rights, whether natural or civil.27 Althusius wrote
Politica while employed in ‘‘the school of federal theology’’ at the Herborn Academy,
which was influenced by the writings of Calvin and Bullinger.28 It was from here that one
of his students, Johann Alting, sent a copy of Politica to his father, Menso, one of Emden’s
distinguished clergymen.29 The Council of Emden subsequently took a favourable view
of Politica, as it served its cause in protecting Reformed Church liberties from
encroachment by the Lutheran counts of East Friesland.30 Althusius was offered the
position of Syndic or legal advisor of Emden, as Politica represented a theoretical
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

‘‘blueprint’’ and ‘‘justification’’ for this position. As Syndic, Althusius’ roles were defined
as advising the Council, representing the city at the county courts as well as at the
Imperial Diet and elsewhere, and assisting the Mayor and Council in legislation.31
In this way:
The first edition of 1603 had been written by a professor . . . who had not been
involved yet in political affairs. The second edition, however, contained much new
material that was inspired by Althusius’ actual involvement in the affairs of Emden,
including its relations with its neighbour, The Netherlands, and its dispute with the
Counts of East Friesland. In essence, he could see his theory in action in the struggle
for rights of the burghers against the count and the nobility.32

The second key point, and a continuation from the first, is that, while Althusius
was well versed in the Calvinist resistance theories, the original 1603 edition of Politica did
not contain chapter XXXVIII on tyranny: rather it emerged in the latter 1610 and 1614
editions. In addition Althusius’ second major work, Dicaeologicae Libri Tres (1617),
also contained a chapter (I, 113) entitled ‘‘The Abuse of Public Power’’ that is in part
a discussion of tyranny and its punishment.33
It is clear that the political environment in which Althusius wrote differed drastically
from that of the Vindiciae authors, and almost replicated the life of Jean Calvin himself;
indeed, in addition to serving as Syndic, in 1617 Althusius was elected an Elder of the
Church of Emden, and this ‘‘enabled him to coordinate the civil and ecclesiastical
jurisdictions of the city, and thus to exercise somewhat the same kind of influence in
Emden as Calvin did in Geneva.’’34
Like Geneva, Emden was a consolidated Calvinist community, as it was one of the
first cities in the Empire to adopt the Reformed faith (1526), and its position was
strengthened when in 1542, Countess Anna of East Friesland invited the Polish Calvin,
John à Lasco, to ‘‘reorganise’’ the city’s life.35 The predominant role played by Emden in
the Reformation was recognised by Calvin himself, who dedicated the Latin Catechism
(1545) to ‘‘the faithful ministers of Christ throughout East Friesland.’’36
Moreover, during the 1550s and 1560s, Emden, along with the Church of Antwerp
and the Calvinist Church in London, was the centre of the Dutch Revolt and the
Reformation in northern Europe. And for a short time, when Queen Mary closed the
London Church in 1553,37 and the Church in Antwerp was unable to function due to
 496 MATT MCCULLOCK

Spanish occupation, Emden became the focal point of both the Reformation and Dutch
Revolt, sending ministers to preach in the Netherlands and advising Dutch congregations
in ecclesiastical matters. Any resistance based on Emden’s experience would therefore
be more organised and geographically concentrated than that of the Huguenots.
This is not the only similarity Emden shares with Geneva, as both were
relatively autonomous cities in a larger sui generic association: the Swiss Confederation
for Geneva, and the Holy Roman Empire for Emden, and so part of a larger
multi-layered and multi-levelled ‘‘constitutional’’ order. Thus, Althusius’ argument was
better able to replicate Calvin’s structured nature of political society, with the inferior
magistrates constitutionally or contractually emplaced at each level.

THE NATURE OF TYRANNICAL THREAT

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

The immediate threat posed by the Count of East Friesland to Emden was unlikely to
result in the massacres experienced by the Huguenots, and so Althusius’ response to this
threat did not have to be as ‘‘severe’’ as that of the Huguenots. Having argued this point,
it did not mean that the threat to Emden was fictional.
Due to its position as the only Protestant port on the northern European coast and as
a result of the Spanish blockade of the other ports, the Council of Emden aspired, with
its increasing trade, to rise to the status of a free Imperial city. At the same time, the
territorial lord of East Friesland wanted to increase taxes in order to establish himself
as the absolute ruler over a modernised territorial state.38 The conflict between the two
factions resulted in the Count’s army invading the city. The response by the Emden
war council, led by Althusius, was to lock the city gates, and arrest the Count in his own
residence.39 After a brief period and a strenuous series of negotiations, which included
the King of England,40 the Count was released.
In 1625, when the newly enthroned Count arrived at the city walls expecting to be
greeted by the Emden Council, no-one arrived. Eventually, a delegate from the Council
went to the Count’s residence and explained that no-one had been there to greet him
as they were unsure which Gate the Count would use.41 As Thomas Hueglin notes,
the feeble excuse given by the City was meant to redress the power relationship between
the Count and the City. No longer would the City alone swear allegiance to the Count,
but the contract would entail mutual obligations.
What is clear from both examples is that the threat posed by the Count could not
be equated to that of the King of France, because the Count, while possessing an army,
was not involved in the ‘‘high’’ politics of the French Monarch. As a result, the threat
could best be described as ‘‘constitutional’’ or ‘‘structural,’’ and involved the loss
of Emden’s political autonomy or a restructuring of the ‘‘constitutional’’ order, rather
than a massacre of its inhabitants.

THE NATURE OF THE POLITICAL TREATISE

The most important reason why Althusius was able to elaborate on the argument in
the Vindiciae is the nature of the political treatise, namely, the purpose of and political
structure offered in both Vindiciae and Politica.
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 497

Firstly, unlike the Vindiciae, but like the Institutes, Politica was not written solely
as a tract on resistance to tyranny. Rather, it methodically laid out the social and political
order needed for a ‘‘just’’ life, so tyranny was dealt with in so far as it represented a threat
to the existing political order of civil association.
Secondly, whilst Vindiciae proposes ‘‘constitutional’’ resistance against a tyrant,
based on the contract between God, the king and the people, the contract is not
as developed as in Politica. Contractually, the Vindiciae argues that:
The obligation between the prince and people is reciprocal mutual. He promises to be
a just prince; they, to obey him if he is one. The people, therefore, is obligated to the
prince conditionally, he to the people absolutely (191).

Whilst Politica also discussed a reciprocal contract between the supreme magistrate and
universal association (121), Althusius’ elaboration of the Calvin inspired federal theology
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

renders the structure and make-up of the universal association far more complicated than
that proposed in the Vindiciae. In Politica the universal association consists of different
layers of associations (family, guild, hamlet, village, town, city, province) and each is
formed by a specific contract for a specific purpose. Consequently, the universal
association is nothing more than a contractual agreement between each prior level of
association.

CONCLUSIONS
In agreement with Baker’s assertion, I have sought to show that, despite the importance
given to the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos as a Calvinist text of resistance, Althusius’ Politica
represents a more sophisticated discussion on resistance. Whilst the two texts share many
similarities, this is due to the influence of Calvin’s original work and the ‘‘common pool’’
of authors, such as Bartolus, from which both Vindiciae and Politica drew influence.
The key factor that differentiates Politica from the Vindiciae is the period and the manner
in which it was written. As alluded to by Figgis in the epigraph, the Vindiciae represents
a livre de circonstance: a practical response to the events of the St. Bartholomew’s
Day Massacre, after which in many respects the Huguenots were fighting for their very
existence. Consequently, their ‘‘heroic’’ resistance meant that Calvinists who found
themselves in a similar predicament, would look to the Vindiciae for inspiration.
In comparison, the threat of tyranny for Althusius was unassuming. While the Count
of East Friesland and Emden did engage in minor military skirmishes, these could not be
equated with the battles and massacres experienced by the Huguenots. This is reflected
in the fact that Althusius did not write his discussion on tyranny until 1610, a full six years
after becoming the Syndic of Emden. Consequently, and this is a key difference between
the two texts, Althusius was able to naturally develop his theory over a number of years,
rather than being forced into a decision by an external factor.
A second key factor is the nature of the work. Like Calvin’s Institutes, Politica was not
written as a text solely dedicated to resisting tyranny. Rather, it proposed a constitutional
system that promoted a just and harmonious life, and tyranny was eventually discussed
as it posed a direct threat to this order. In this way, Althusius had the luxury of writing
 498 MATT MCCULLOCK

a theoretical text, which was influenced by a string of events, rather than having to write
a single text as a result of a single event.
A third key factor is the comparable position to Calvin that Althusius enjoyed.
Both were civil and ecclesiastical leaders of a city, which in turn was part of a larger
sui generic association. Accordingly, both authors shared a similar view of a federal
hierarchical and corporate structure, which was constitutionally ensured by the existing
political structure. Naturally, from this multi-levelled and ordered system, resistance is
easier to promote, as the structure needed is already in place.
This article does not attempt to detract from the influence of the Vindiciae but
to redress the balance by introducing a political text to the discussion, which proposes
a more sophisticated argument, for, until now, the Vindiciae has been held as the zenith
of Calvinist resistance theory. Thus, my aim has not been to remove the Vindiciae from
its lofty position, but to rightly place Politica alongside it.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

NOTES
1. John Neville Figgis, Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius.
2. J. Wayne Baker, ‘‘The Covenantal Basis for the Development of Swiss Political Federalism,
1291–1848,’’ PUBLIUS: The Journal of Federalism 23.1 (1993).
3. Politics Methodically Set Forth, and Illustrated with Sacred and Profane Examples.
4. Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants. The present discussion will use the version of the Vindiciae
that appears in Julian Franklin, ed., Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century
(New York: Pegasus, 1969).
5. Robert v. Friedeburg, ‘‘‘Self-Defence’ and Sovereignty: The Reception and Application
of German Political Thought in England and Scotland, 1628–69,’’ History of Political Thought
23.2 (2002): n. 81. In support of Carney, and a glaringly obvious point that Friedeburg appears
to overlook, is that in the modern age, there are limited scholars who read Latin competently
enough to read Politica in its original version. Whilst this fact does not remove the problems
with Carney’s translations, it does put it into some kind of perspective. If contemporary
non-Latin reading scholars were not meant to read Politica, then Althusius’ work would
remain largely unknown. However, and despite the translation problems, if the aim of
Carney’s work was to re-introduce Althusius into political debate, by translating Politica he
widens the scope of involvement. One of the authors who Carney has enabled to join
the Althusian debate is the ‘‘Doyen of Modern Federalism,’’ Daniel Elazar, who in the
introduction to the 1995 edition of Politica, openly admits he lacks a sufficient command
of Latin. Daniel Elazar, ‘‘Althusius’ Grand Design for a Federal Commonwealth,’’ in Johannes
Althusius, Politics Methodically Set Forth, and Illustrated with Sacred and Profane Examples [1614],
trans. Frederick Carney (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1995), xlix. In this respect, we owe
Carney a great debt for providing the English-reading public with the opportunity to read
Althusius’ magnum opus in translation and not to have to rely on assessments of the Latin
text by others (xlvi). Subsequent references to Politica are cited in the text.
6. Julian Franklin, introduction to Jean Bodin, On Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992), xxiii.
7. Richard Bonny, The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), 312.
8. Carl Friedrich, introduction to Politica Methodice Digests of Johannes Althusius (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1932), xv.
9. Robert Kingdon, ‘‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580,’’ in The Cambridge History
of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991), 200.
 Johannes Althusius’ Politica 499

10. The possibility of a right of resistance being used in an unrestricted manner by any individual
is a concern evident in both the writings of Luther and Calvin.
11. Kingdon, ‘‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory,’’ 200.
12. G. R. Elton, Reformation Europe, 1517–1559 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 104.
13. Kingdon, ‘‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory,’’ 201.
14. Ibid., 208.
15. R. H. Murray, The History of Political Science from Plato to the Present (Cambridge: W. Heffer &
Sons, 1929), 151.
16. Kingdon, ‘‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory,’’ 211.
17. H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (London: Edward Arnold, 1936), 560.
18. Carney, ‘‘Translator’s Introduction,’’ xxix.
19. Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [1560], trans. H. Beveridge (London: Calvin
Translation Society, 1846), 657; subsequent references to Institutes are cited in the text.
20. Winthrop Hudson, ‘‘Democratic Freedom and the Religious Faith in the Reformed
Tradition,’’ Church History 15 (1946): 188.
21. Carney, ‘‘Translator’s Introduction,’’ xxii, xxv.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 13:16 03 December 2014

22. J. H. M. Salmon, ‘‘Catholic Resistance Theory, Ultramontanism, and the Royalist Response,
1580–1620,’’ in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, ed. Burns, 241.
23. Calvin, Institutes, 675.
24. Stephanus Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [1579], in Constitutionalism and Resistance
in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Julian Franklin (New York: Pegasus, 1969), 151; subsequent
references to Vindiciae are cited in the text.
25. Carney, ‘‘Translator’s Introduction,’’ xxiii.
26. Ibid., xxi.
27. Ibid., xvi.
28. Daniel Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1991), 139.
29. Carney, ‘‘Translator’s Introduction,’’ xii; Friedrich, ‘‘Introduction,’’ xxix–xxx.
30. Graeme Murdock, Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe’s
Reformed Churches, c.1540–1620 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004), 73.
31. Friedrich, ‘‘Introduction,’’ xxxiv.
32. Baker, ‘‘The Covenantal Basis for the Development of Swiss Political Federalism,’’ 34.
33. Carney, ‘‘Translator’s Introduction,’’ 191, n. 1.
34. Ibid., xii.
35. Ibid., xi.
36. John McNeil, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962),
259.
37. Andrew Pettegree, Emden and the Dutch Revolt: Exile and the Development of Reformed
Protestantism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 24.
38. Thomas Hueglin, ‘‘Johannes Althusius and the Modern Concept of Civil Society,’’ in Civil
Society, Political Society and Democracy, ed. Adolf Bibič and Graziano Gigi Graziano
(Ljubljana: Slovene Political Science Association, 1994), 78.
39. Thomas Hueglin, ‘‘Johannes Althusius: Medieval Constitutionalist or Modern Federalist?’’
PUBLIUS: The Journal of Federalism 9.1 (1979): 17.
40. Thomas Hueglin, Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community
and Federalism (Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1999), 15.
41. Hueglin, ‘‘Johannes Althusius: Medieval Constitutionalist or Modern Federalist?’’, 9.