Kelly argues that Calvinism has played a greater role than most now realize in laying the foundations of modern free society. He argues that most historians would agree at least "that the Calvinist view of man's original dignity, his present fallenness, and his possibility of redemption helped lead to a salutary development of civil means both of limiting man's tyrannical propensities and of protecting his dignity and liberty" and that "the influence of important Calvinist ideas (such as limitation and balance of powers) on 17th and 18th-century civil polities represented a benevolent application of the Christian religion." Kelly goes on to say that there was a later tendency by secularizing forces to obscure the religious sources of these ideas.
Calvin's emphasis on the fallenness of man, with his observation of man's "propensity to seize, increase and abuse power for personal ends rather for the welfare of the many" formed the logical underpinnings for later government principles such as consent of the governed and separation and balance of powers.
His view of the need to limit human power evolved significantly over the course of his life and studies. Writings early in his career indicate he supported the imperial Roman concept that the King was above the law, or more precisely that he was the law. However, his experience and studies led him gradually toward a doctrine of active resistance against wicked authorities, first by lesser magistrates and then even by individuals. This idea was not new, having been implicit in the Roman Catholic conciliar understanding of church authority (i.e. the right of a church council to oust an evil pope), medieval Roman law allowing German electors to depose a Holy Roman Emperor and Luther's warning to the German people about the need for resistance against political corruption, but the Calvinists were the ones to most fully popularize and implement it in later years.
From our perspective, Calvin's biggest mistakes were not recognizing the importance of church-state separation and individual liberty. It was left for the Anabaptists to discover those aspects of freedom and lay that portion of the foundation for modern liberty.
Because of its adversarial position with respect to the Catholic French State during the 1500s, the Calvinist French Huguenots were forced to further develop Calvin's implicit ideas regarding the limits of state power in view of the ultimate authority of God.
...to be continued
Introduction (1)
1: John Calvin and Geneva (3)
- Calvin's Lifelong Political Concern (4)
- Medieval and Renaissance Influences (5)
- Calvin Becomes Protestant (9)
- Calvin's Difficult Relationship with Geneva (11)
- Calvin's Belief in "Two Kingdoms" (15)
- Calvin's View of Law (19)
- The Centrality of the Church in Society (23)
- No Toleration of Heresy (26)
- The Christian's Right of Resistance (29)
- Calvin, Both Conservative and Progressive (31)
- Notes (32)
2: Calvinism in France: The Huguenot Experience (37)
- The Huguenots: An Influential Minority in France (38) [rvw bookmark ?]
- Huguenot Revolutionary Tracts (40)
- Constitutional Arguments for Civil Resistance (44)
- Change from Covenant to Constitution (46)
- International Influence of Huguenot Thought (47)
- Notes (48)
3: Calvinism in Scotland: Controversy and Triumph (51)
- Three Concepts of Post-Reformation Scottish Government (52)
- Scottish Development of the Covenant Concept (53)
- Knox Goes Beyond Calvin (54)
- Legal Consolidation of Scottish Reformation (56)
- "Higher Authorities" and the Highest Authority (58)
- Knox and the Old Testament (60)
- A New Concept of "Political Rights" (61)
- Continuing Church-State Struggles in Scotland (62)
- The Church of Scotland: Presbyterian or Episcopalian? (64)
- The "Two-Kingdoms" Concept of Presbyterians (66)
- Covenanting Ideas and the "Glorious Revolution" (69)
- Parliamentary Union of Scotland and England: Later Problems (71)
- Similarity of Presbyterian and Catholic Church-State Views? (72)
- Notes (73)
4: Calvinism in England: The Puritan Struggle and Its Results (77)
- The English Reformation (77)
- Who Were the Puritans? (81) [Richard Hooker pic?]
"At the heart of the Puritan controversy with the Elizabethan Church settlement was their Calvinist inspired 'regulative principle,' according to which all spheres of life - church, home, state, and vocation - are to be specifically regulated according to the commands and principles of the Word of God" (82). "This stream of Augustinian-Calvinist thought has never ceased to be represented in the Church of England ... Yet in the time of Elizabeth another school of theology arose [Satanic?] in conscious opposition to Puritan Calvinism, which defended the mediating Anglican establishment in a very powerful way in part through the reintroduction of Aristotelian Thomistic natural law theology by Richard Hooker (1553/4-1600) in his epoch-making Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity ... [he] circumvented both the Puritan appeal to Scripture and the Catholic appeal to Church tradition by going behind both to the primary source of authority: natural law, which is implanted in people's minds by God and comes to full expression in the state ... [to] later Puritans ... [this] tended to focus on the constructions of the mind of man rather than the revelation of God ... [and] would appear over a century later in English deism and in the Continental secularist Enlightenment, which drew so much of its original inspiration from English deism. In this later movement, nature would attempt to destroy grace, but such an outcome would never have been conceived of, much less intended, by Hooker and his anti-Puritan followers" (83-4, ahh, but it was by Satan, who probably planted the tender seed!). Hmmm, makes me worry about RJN's emphasis on 'natural law' in FT! Perhaps send him a lte?
- The Puritan Revival (84)
- 17C English Revolution (85)
- "No Bishop, No King" (88)
- English Common Law: Truth and Myth (88)
- The King: A Revolutionist? (90)
As the king and his court sought to encroach into civil society by overriding common law (via e.g. the courts of High Commission and Star Chamber), the "common lawyers, Puritans, and commercial classes" brilliantly and truthfully (and portentiously for the American Revolution) portrayed themselves as the "conservative, counter revolution (though needless to say, this interpretation would not be accepted by supporters of the court or by most of Europe)." Witness the clarity of vision made possible by properly observing God's sovereignty, often turning made-made ideas and conceptions on their head, and vice versa; the danger of conceptual drift w/o that anchor. This backs up the point made in br-ttif that the Am. Rev. was an essentially conservative phenomena, though often portrayed as 'radical' or 'philosophe' based.
- Events Leading Up to the English Civil War (90)
- Scottish Developments and the English Parliament (92)
"Just as absolutist 'divine right' monarchy was ultimately based on naturalistic principles, so the religious and civil liberties of the Scottish Second Reformation were based on an opposite philosophy: a God-centered approach to life, rooted in salvation in accordance with biblically derived principles of transcendent law superior to nature and thus standing judge over the political considerations of the mind of man" (93). Key point, although liberals love to portray Calvinists (and Christians generally) and authoritarian, anti-freedom, it is precisely their Calvinist committment to God's sovereignty that enables strong limits to be placed on all human govt authority. This may seem ironic, but if so, its due to massive and unending liberal indoctrination (br-ttif's 'liberal history lesson' repeated ad infinitim). Summary:
- Belief in God => freedom
- no God => govt becomes 'god' => no freedom!
- The Long Parliament (94)
- The Westminster Assembly (96)
Given the breath of fresh air this body created in furthering correct theology, good civic govt and liberty of all types, its tragic to think of how degraded the Presbyterians and Episcopalians have become in the meantime (see br-exod, "Dying of the Light", ...). Satan definitely attacks keepers of the Truth. Still, the dream persists of an effective institutional "keep" for correct biblical theology, civics, etc. doctrine. One that's 'slippage' proof! ('would that spoil some vast eternal plan?' from Fiddler on the Roof)
- Changes in the Work of the Westminster Assembly (99)
- The Scottish Commissioners (100)
There were 8 in all (4 clergy, 4 lay elders) representing two parties; "the old order in Scotland [and] 'the movement party in the South' i.e. the Puritans" (117). Robert Douglas, Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, the Earl of Cassilis, Lord Maitland belonged to one side (old order?), and Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, Archibald Johnston of Warriston to the other. Douglas and Cassilis never went to London, so there were actually only 6 there.
- Parties in the Westminster Assembly (101)
The most highly disputed issue was of church govt. "The majority party in the Westminster Assembly was by far the Presbyterians ... The Independents were a small but able [2nd] party who 'held the entire power of govt to belong to each separate congregation; and they practically admitted no Church censure but admonition' ... the 3rd and smallest party [were] the Erastians 'so called from Erastus, a physician at Heidelberg ... His theory was that the pastoral office is only persuasive ... The punishment of all offenses ... belonged ... exclusively to the civil magistrate. The tendency of this theory was ... to make [the Church] completely the mere 'creature of the state'" (102). The last was "backed by the vast majority of the House of Commons ... especially the lawyers, whereof they are many ... [strongly influenced by the Erastian Richard Hooker] in 1646 2/3 of Parliament was made up of worldly, profane men [who wanted to minimize Church influence]" (103). Hmmm, already culture wars!
- Assembly Debates on Church Government and Conflict with Parliament (103)
- Articles of Faith (109)
The Calvinists had sought at the Westminster Assembly a "Two Kingdoms" approach, with separate power spheres for church and state, but they failed in the face of a Parliament jealous of its newfound power (recently wrestled from the king) and unwilling to share it with any church establishment. Once again (familiar pattern, contra ttif's 'liberal history lesson' which sees religion as the main source of authoritarianism), "as anti-Puritanism ... increased [after 1660], the theology and practice of divine right kingship and centralized statist control also increased. The English reaction against the Calvinists' belief in 2 concurrent kingdoms - church and state with consequent separation, limitation, and balance of powers under the critical guidance of transcendent law ... was not an isolated event in late 17C Europe ... part of the intellectual climate of that time, which was preparing the way for the 18C Enlightenment ... a move away from both Calvinism AND traditional Roman Catholicism" (112)
- Notes (114)
5: Calvinism and Government in the American Colonies (119)
- Puritan Revivals and American History (119)
- Local and Colonial Government (121)
- Holy Commonwealth and Great Awakening (125)
- The American Revolution and Constitutional Settlement (129)
- A "Presbyterian Rebellion" (131)
- Notes (136)
Conclusion (139)