(David) Several comments under Tim's post on "Calvin on submission to the civil magistrate" deserve particular attention. Mason mentions Calvin's teaching on civil government in Book IV of the Institutes and suggests that Calvin's views more closely parallel a two-kingdom approach than one-kingdom. Todd quoted Calvin's commentary on Luke 12:14 to make essentially the same argument:
"There appear to have been chiefly two reasons why he declined the office of a judge. First, as the Jews imagined that the Messiah would have an earthly kingdom, that the Messiah would reign in the manner of earthly princes. He wished to guard against doing any thing that might countenance this error. If they had seen him divide inheritances, the report of that proceeding would immediately have been circulated. Many would have been led to expect a carnal redemption, which they too ardently desired; and wicked men would have loudly declared, that he was effecting a revolution in the state, and overturning the Roman Empire.
"Nothing could be more appropriate, therefore, than this reply, by which all would be informed, that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual. Let us learn from this to regulate our conduct by prudence, and to undertake nothing which may admit of an unfavorable construction.
"Secondly, our Lord intended to draw a distinction between the political kingdoms of this world and the government of his Church; for he had been appointed by the Father to be a Teacher, who should divide asunder, by the sword of the word, the thoughts and feelings, and penetrate into the souls of men, (Hebrews 4:12,) but was not a magistrate to divide inheritances This condemns the robbery of the Pope and his clergy, who, while they give themselves out to be pastors of the Church, have dared to usurp an earthly and secular jurisdiction, which is inconsistent with their office; for what is in itself lawful may be improper in certain persons."
And of course, to all this I say, "Amen and amen." Yes, absolutely. I have no quarrel with such a two-kingdom approach, in fact I emphatically agree with Calvin that is it wicked for pastors of the Church "to usurp an earthly and secular jurisdiction." What I don't agree with is those radical two-kingdomers who suggest that a two-kingdom view forbids the pope to influence the civil magistrate.
In and through this discussion of Calvin, radical two-kingdom advocates have continually neglected to mention the practice of Calvin, as though his practice can be assumed if his words are appropriated. But this is where things fall apart for those who would make their radical two-kingdom view Calvin's own; Calvin was intimately involved in the governance of Geneva--not as a member of the Council, but as a pastor giving constant and explicit advice to the council.
Let's always remember that Calvin was no hypocrite and no fool. He didn't write as he did on the spiritual kingdom of Christ and then immediately forget everything he said when it came to the governance of Geneva. We must understand Calvin's writings in these matters through the lens of his actual practice, and his practice bore no resemblance to the civil castration of God's ministers championed by today's advocates of the "spirituality of the Church."
Calvin's spiritual church flexed powerful civil muscles. His two kingdoms overlapped. His two kingdoms had one paramount authority and he was unashamed to proclaim the authority of God--and His revealed will--over both spheres.
