Resistance Theory, or the study of
how different groups and individuals came to justify their opposition to
authority, has emerged as a pivotal battlefield for modern historians. In recent years, this battle seems to be
waged by scholars who advocate for either the Protestant Reformers or
Enlightenment thinkers as being the principal agents whose teachings and
efforts proved most significant in fostering the ideas behind Resistance Theory. And while efforts have been made to bridge
both the ideas of Protestant Reformers and Enlightenment thinkers into a
cohesive narrative that explains the origins of Resistance Theory, the gap
between these supposed rivals remains.
The 17th century witnessed
significant political and social upheaval in England, particularly with regards
to how nobility and citizenry came to define their relationship to one another.
In many respects, this era was the defining
period for how Western Civilization would negotiate the bond between rulers and
subordinates and the duties of each. It
is during this era that a group known as the Levellers emerged as a powerful
and potent voice that came to embody many of the key elements of Resistance
Theory. Led by their fearless advocate
John Lilburne, the Levellers developed a unique justification for opposition to
authority that came to personify the very best of both the Protestant Reformers
and the Enlightenment thinkers, making them the quintessential bridge that ostensibly
links these apparent rivals.
The Protestant Arguments for Resistance Theory
To better understand how the
Levellers serve as a bridge linking both the Protestant and Enlightenment contributions
to Resistance Theory, a general review of some of the key arguments behind both
the Protestant and the Enlightenment ethic is warranted. For the Protestant camp, scholars have, in recent
years, insisted that many if not most of the ideas deemed special to
Enlightenment thinkers were present in the Reformed traditions of Protestant
Reformers. In essence, it was the fires of
Protestantism, sparked and fueled by the difficulties of the Reformation, in
which early reformers found the justifications to oppose their authority
figures.
This is no small claim, since
Christianity itself had served as the justification behind Divine Right
Kingship throughout Europe. One example
of this subjugation was the way in which Paul’s admonition to the Romans was
afforded significant (or even histrionic) significance in what the Medieval
world would call the Divine Right of Kings.
Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers. For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation...For he is the minister of God to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath
upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but
also for conscience sake.[2]
One would be hard pressed to find a set of verses in all
Christian scripture that have caused more anxiety and debate in the study of
Resistance Theory than these few words from Paul. For centuries they came to dominate much of
the public discourse on the question of how a “good Christian” should submit to
authority, and when “righteous rebellion” to God’s chosen leaders was
warranted. Divine Right Kingship was not
some passing fad that simply faded with time but rather was the bedrock for
organizing the whole of society. As one
historian of Divine Right Kingship put it:
That the ideal State is the kingdom of God upon earth,
and that no other can be an object of veneration to a Christian, is the notion
that lies at the heart of Medieval Europe…the Pope, as most plainly the
depositary of Divine Authority, afterwards the Emperor, as called to his office
by God’s election and appointment, claims to be the true and supreme head of
the Christian commonwealth, by Divine Right of the Lord of the world.[3]
God’s division of responsibility between Pope and King meant
that matters both spiritual and temporal had been given their divine
sanction. For the common Christian, this
meant that both religious and governmental superiors exercised substantial
influence on a laity now made fully dependent upon their will and pleasure.
Scholars who
advocate for the Reformation Era as the nucleus of Resistance Theory ideology
are quick to point to figures like John Wycliffe, who paved the way for later
Protestant Reformers by attacking these foundations of Divine Right
Kingship. Wycliffe is significant because
he not only opposed the rulers of his time, but he also led a movement of
followers who took up his cause and carried it to the masses. Known as
the Lollards by their detractors, these followers of Wycliffe breathed new
oxygen into the fire that Wycliffe had ignited through his extremely incendiary
rhetoric. Wycliffe was never one to shy away from taking shots at the
ecclesiastical authorities of his time, particularly bishops, abbots and monks,
whom he called “heretics” who “sacrifice unto idols…even more than the
sacrifices of the priests of Baal” and whose form of worship “give their
attention to ritual, flattery detraction and falsehood, rejecting scripture and
neglecting to rebuke sin.”[5] And
to his secular leaders, Wycliffe was equally harsh, calling the reign of King Richard,
II not sanctioned by divinity.[6]
These teachings, spread throughout
Europe by both Wycliffe and his Lollards, posed a clear threat to both the authority
of the Church and the king, and served as the inspiration for later Protestant
Reformers who would take up Wycliffe’s mantle and advocate for opposition to
authority. In addition, the fact that England already
seemed to embrace a spirit of reform before the Reformation even began
indicates that the fires of popular dissent were already spreading before
Luther or Calvin ever came on the scene.
As one historian has noted, “The ingredients of early Protestantism
proved already numerous in the reign of Henry VIII, yet among them Lutheranism
may scarcely be regarded as predominant, and Calvinism as yet remained almost
negligible…we may now confidently ascribe a role of some importance on the
popular level to the still vital force of Lollardy.”[7]
When Luther, Calvin, etc. finally
come on the scene, the initial flame of resistance to authority had already
been stoked. The Reformers themselves
took the torch of Resistance Theory and added their ow unique perspectives to
the narrative. For men like Luther and
Calvin, the issue of opposition to authority was as divisive (if not more so) as
issues like sacraments, baptism and Biblical infallibility. For example, Martin Luther’s understanding of
the Apostle Paul’s admonition to “be subject unto the higher powers” that are
“ordained of God” (as found in Romans, 13) were not subject to man’s personal
interpretation. In other words, there
were limits to how far one could oppose his Sovereign. As Luther stated in his commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, Romans, chapter 13 was “truly a most important piece of the New
Testament.”[8] And like the rest of his emerging theology,
Luther encapsulated his understanding of Romans, 13 into the framework of his
emerging theology on grace vs. works. As
Luther stated:
You must not understand the word law here in human
fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not
be done. That's the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the
law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths
of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart
and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as
hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart.[9]
Luther added clarity to his position on Romans, 13 when he
stated unequivocally that leaders were to be obeyed, even when they are
evil. As he stated, “subjects are to be
obedient and are even to suffer wrong from their tyrants.” Luther defended this position when he wrote:
There are some who abuse this office, and strike and
kill people needlessly simply because they want to. But that is the fault of
the persons, not of the office, for where is there an office or a work or
anything else so good that self-willed, wicked people do not abuse it?...Ultimately,
they cannot escape God’s judgment and sword. In the end God’s justice finds
them and strikes, as happened to the peasants in the revolt.[10]
In Luther’s mind the words of Paul as found in Romans were
crystal clear. A Christian needed to
take extreme care, considering the words of scripture before choosing to rebel against
their God-chosen authorities. And as
Paul pointed out, support for one’s authority was God’s will, even when those
leaders were in the wrong. These concepts
were not lost on Martin Luther, as evidenced by his words and teachings which
endorse caution and submission as opposed to outright opposition.
Martin Luther was not the lone voice of
the Protestant Reformation who saw limitations to one’s opposition of
authority. Years later, John Calvin
would also weigh in on the matter of how far was too far when it came to open
opposition to one’s divinely sanctioned leader.
In his own commentary on the Book of Romans, Calvin spoke openly about
one’s Christian duty to oppose authority.
He wrote:
[Paul] calls them the higher powers, not the supreme, who possess the chief authority, but
such as excel other men…And it seems indeed to me, that the Apostle
intended by this word to take away the frivolous curiosity of men, who are
won’t often to inquire by what right they who rule have obtained their authority;
but it ought to be enough for us, that they do rule; for they
have not ascended by their own power into this high station, but have been
placed there by the Lord’s hand. And by mentioning every
soul, he removes every exception, lest any one should claim an
immunity from the common duty of obedience.[11]
And while Calvin acknowledged the
Christian duty to oppose unrighteous authority, he too expressed his opinion regarding
the limitations expressly mentioned in Paul’s message to the Romans. In his Institutes on the Christian Religion,
Calvin writes, "We are to be subject not only to the authority of
those princes who do their duty towards us as they should, and uprightly, but
to all of them, however they came by their office, even if the very last thing
they do is act like [true] princes."
Calvin also noted, “[w]e must honour [even] the worst tyrant in the
office in which the Lord has seen fit to set him"[12] In other words, John Calvin shared Martin
Luther’s hesitation regarding opposition for authority. There were clear limitations that had to be
respected, even if a tyrant was ruling in the most unrighteous of ways.
It may seem somewhat contradictory in
nature to read Reformers like Calvin and Luther both sanctioning and opposing
the concept of opposition to authority, but this contradiction illustrates the
complexity that is found in Resistance Theory.
Protestant Reformers knew and understood that problems existed in the
church hierarchy, and that said problems could not be ignored. But at the same time, they also felt that
absolute opposition constituted a potential breakdown of the social hierarchy, not
to mention a blatant disregard for the admonitions of God found in holy
scripture. As one historian who
advocates for the Protestant origins of Resistance Theory has reminded us, the Reformers
never meant to overthrow the established order but rather to help cleanse the
faith by “returning the church to where it should be.”[13] A complete coup d’etat was never something
they would have sanctioned. Fellow
Reformer Philip Melanchthon supports this understanding of resistance to authority
when he wrote:
But here the question is asked: If
violation of civil laws is a mortal sin, what should be thought about the
violation of ecclesiastical laws which are laid down by bishops?
I answer: First of all, one must not obey traditions while militate against a
commandment of God, whether they originated with magistrates that bear the sword or
with bishops, because one must obey God rather than men.[14]
The Era of the Protestant Reformation
was witness to the proliferation of a vast number of different Protestant
denominations. This proliferation of
Protestant denominations was at least in part inspired by the idea that an individual
could read and interpret scripture for himself.
Prominent theologians such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and others argued
that conscience, guided by one's personal interpretation of scripture, should
take precedence over the dictates of religious and political authorities. This
elevation of conscience as a moral compass was the foundational concept of how
the Protestant Reformation furthered the cause of Resistance Theory.[15]
One of the primary issues many
historians have with giving Protestant Reformers credit for helping to give birth
to resistance theory has to do with the doctrines found in Protestantism
itself.[16] For example, if humanity is in a state of
total depravity and God has chosen, of his own free will, his select few to be
saved by unconditional election, how does resistance to authority become a
thing in the first place?
What these skeptics fail to recognize is the fact that the
Protestant Reformation was not a movement conceived in a bubble and limited to
a small geographic location, in a specific period of history. Instead, the Protestant Reformation was a
living, growing movement that spread far and wide, and was never officially
concluded at any specific moment of the past.
The Reformation continued to move forward, influencing various nations,
cultures, and historic periods. Consequently,
we must then be forced to look at the evolution of resistance theory in the
same light as we see a living, evolving and changing Reformation. The Protestant Reformation did not live and
die simply with Luther or Calvin, and the same is true of resistance
theory.
The Enlightenment Arguments for Resistance Theory
This apparent contradiction or limitation
on the justification for opposition to authority is where skeptics of the
Protestant Reformation model for the origins of Resistance Theory tend to focus
their criticism. Protestant Reformers
went only so far in their arguments directed to inspire opposition. It is that limitation that makes some
historians lean toward the thinkers of the Enlightenment as being the actual
gatekeepers for Resistance Theory. As these historians will regularly point out,
The Protestant Reformation advanced the cause of Resistance Theory only as far
as it benefited their respective Protestant doctrine. Beyond that, there was no need to champion
the cause of open defiance to the political authorities.
For scholars
of the Enlightenment persuasion being the principal motivation behind
Resistance Theory, an appeal to the words of men like John Locke, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and others constitute the bulwark of Resistance Theory
doctrine.
Beginning with Locke, these scholars
are quick to demonstrate how the empirical approach of Enlightenment thinkers breathed
new life into old institutions. Locke’s
views on religion have been thoroughly dissected by scholars of all stripes. And while many historians are quick to point
out that Locke was anything but orthodox in his religious persuasions, one
would be extremely hard pressed to say that Locke cared nothing for religion at
all. As one biographer of John Locke put
is, “Locke was concerned not only with religious toleration by the state, but
also with mutual toleration of different sects, churches and their members.”[18]
And with this toleration, John Locke
was free to explore avenues of thought that were not necessarily available to
his predecessors like Calvin or Luther.
For example, Locke’s interpretation of Romans, 13 presents several
unique points that not only build off of earlier opinions of key Protestant Reformers,
but also present a clear path for resistance theory to flourish:
That these rules are given to Christians, that were
members of a heathen commonwealth, to show them that, by being made Christians
and subjects of Christ’s kingdom, they were not, by the freedom of the gospel,
exempt from any ties of duty, or subjection, which by the laws of their
country, they were in, and ought to observe, to the government and magistrates
of it…But, on the other side, these rules did not tie them up, any more than
any of their fellow-citizens, who were not Christians, from any of those due
rights, which, by the law of nature, or the constitutions of their country,
belonged to them. Whatsoever any other of their fellow-subjects, being in a
like station with them, might do without sinning, that they were not abridged
of, but might do still, being Christians…That St. Paul, in this direction to
the romans, does not so much describe the magistrates that then were in Rome,
as tells whence they, and all magistrates, everywhere, have their authority;
and for what end they have it, and should use it. And this he does, as becomes his prudence, to
avoid bringing any imputation on Christians, from heathen magistrates,
especially those insolent and vicious ones of Rome, who could not brook any
thing to be told them as their duty, and so might be apt to interpret such
plain truths, laid down in a dogmatical way, into sauciness, sedition, or
treason, a scandal cautiously to be kept off from the Christian doctrine![19]
Unlike Luther and Calvin, Locke believed that the “magistrate”
was meant to protect the masses from a tyrant, and absolute allegiance to God’s
Sovereign was not absolute. In other words,
Locke understood Paul’s admonition to the Romans to be a loose guide but not an
absolute admonition to always acquiesce to one’s leader. Locke made this position clear when he wrote, “Our
present King William…in the consent of the people, which being the only
one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any
prince in Christendom.”[20] Contrary to the words of Protestant
Reformers, Locke gives the specific
understanding that submission to one’s leader was contingent upon the rules of
law and the consent of the people, which was absent from the Protestant
arguments for opposition to authority.
Scholars
advocating for the Enlightenment model for Resistance Theory do not rely on
Locke alone. Other thinkers like Baron de
Montesquieu made mention of how authority was never meant to receive absolute
sanction without limitation. As he wrote
in The Spirit of Laws, “The political liberty, of the
subject, is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of
[their] safety. In order to have this liberty. It is requisite the government
be so constituted as one [person] need not to be afraid of another.” Thomas Hobbs echoes these sentiments in his
legendary work Leviathan when he wrote:
Because the major part hath by consenting voices
declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that
is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be
destroyed by the rest. For if he voluntarily entered into the congregation of
them that were assembled, he sufficiently declared thereby his will, and
therefore tacitly covenanted, to stand to what the major part should ordain:
and therefore if he refuse to stand thereto, or make protestation against any
of their decrees, he does contrary to his covenant, and therefore unjustly.
There is no
dispute that Enlightenment teachings had spread a great deal across
Europe. The dissemination of such ideas
inspired important writings that would contribute to the concept of Resistance Theory. One of the most important of these writings
was the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against
Tyrants), written at some point in the middle of the sixteenth century, which
was an anonymous treatise that defiantly suggested that the people at large were
never responsible for obeying their king.
Appealing to biblical examples in which opposition to authority was
warranted by God himself, the Vindiciae portrayed the relationship
between king and subordinate as a covenant in which all honor and reverence to
God’s laws was promised by the monarch, who in turn received the adoration and
allegiance of his subjects. Any violation
of this arrangement was a breach of the covenant and merited the wrath of God’s
vengeance.[23]
Another important document inspired
during this time was that of Scottish Presbyterian minister Samuel Rutherford,
who in the 17th century published his landmark work Lex Rex (The
Law is King) which openly and defiantly challenged the concept of Divine Right
Kingship. As Rutherford put it, “The
people have power over the king by reason of his covenant and promise. —
Covenants and promises violated, infer co-action, de jure, by law.”[24]
In the minds of scholars who favor
Enlightenment thinking as being the chief motivator behind Resistance Theory,
it is obvious that the ideas of Locke, Hobbs, Rutherford, etc. are the engines
behind the justification for resistance to authority. Protestant Reformers came up short, and
therefore do not deserve the ultimate credit for Resistance Theory. It is in the Enlightenment that Western
Civilization found its justification for the eventual revolutions and
oppositions to kings that would ultimately spread throughout Europe and the Americas.
John Lilburne, The Levellers, and Uniting the Protestant/Enlightenment
Models
As already
stated, the concept of Resistance Theory has become a virtual tug-o-war between
scholars advocating for the Protestant Reformers vs. those in favor of
Enlightenment thinkers, each vying for ultimate control of the narrative behind
opposition to authority. And while these
debates have yielded much fruit, they have failed to consider how both models
have been adopted in the past. The
legacy of John Lilbure and the Levellers is one that merges the best arguments
of both the Protestant and the Enlightenment traditions, creating a seamless
narrative that gives credence to the whole of Resistance Theory.
When we consider the legacy of John
Lilburne, the English writer and activist who is often credited with being the
first to argue for “human free born rights,” we must consider what it was that
inspired him in the first place. Lilburne
Biographer Pauline Gregg notes that John Lilburne was a man who “had a sense of
destiny” who had “amalgamated all that had preceded him.” Lilburne’s “sense of destiny” certainly accounts
for his willingness to boldly decry and lambast the leaders of his time, which
gave him tremendous clout during the critical years of the English Civil
War. As another Lilburne Biographer
states, “Lilburne was a key figure in the religious opposition of Charles I…and
was a significant player in the rift of parliamentary coalition…Lilburne’s
positions, then and now, help mark out our own positions in relation to
political tyranny.”[26]
In his writings and public
declarations, Lilburne employed the ideas of both Protestant Reformers and
Enlightenment thinkers to justify his blatant opposition to authority. He constructed his understanding on both the
backs of men like Luther and Calvin, while at the same time throwing punches
with the arms of Locke and Hobbes. This
amalgamation of both the Protestant and the Enlightenment ideas eventually gave
birth to a concept of Resistance Theory that embodied the best of both
worlds.
A perfect example of this fusion of
Protestant and Enlightenment arguments can be found in Lilburne’s famous
pamphlet, “To all the Freeborne People of England” in which Lilburne states, “No
power on earth can lawfully force or compel me to believe otherwise than my own
conscience dictates.”
Here, Lilburne invokes the Protestant
notion of individual conscience as a justification for opposing authority and
interpreting scripture for oneself. At
the same time, Lilburne appealed to the Enlightenment idea regarding natural
rights and natural law when he stated, “Liberty of conscience, being every
man's natural right…it is not to be judged or cut off by human authority, but
by the Word of God.” Lilburne reiterates this Enlightenment theme
of natural rights in his pamphlet “England’s Birthright Justified when he
writes, “I am born a free-born Englishman, and have as much right to my liberty,
to my just propriety, and to my body and soul as any Lord in England.”
By appealing to the natural rights of individuals, Lilburne argued that
authority should be limited and accountable to the people it governed.
Lilburne’s work inspired his
supporters, known as The Levellers, to take up the cause of opposition to
authority. The Levellers came to detest
the religious domination of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England,
which is where the root of their opposition to authority began to sink deeply
into the ground. The Levellers
successfully synthesized both Protestant and Enlightenment concepts to
construct a robust justification for opposition to authority. As one scholar has noted, “By combining the
Protestant emphasis on individual conscience and the Enlightenment focus on
reason and natural rights, [the Levellers] developed a comprehensive framework
for challenging authoritarian rule.” In essence, this became the Leveller’s hallmark
contribution to Resistance Theory.
In terms of their ability to merge
both the Protestant and Enlightenment models, the Levellers took from each
model the best that each camp had to offer.
From the Protestant model the Levellers were profoundly influenced by
the idea of covenant theology, which emphasized the contractual nature or
relationship between God and humanity at large.
In essence, the Levellers found in the Protestant concept of covenant
theology and framework in which could be constructed a model for the
relationship between one’s sovereign and the masses at large. This model would inspire Protestant Reformers
to advance their interpretation of Resistance Theory and would filter all the
way down to the Levellers who not only adopted the idea but made it their
own. As Historian Tim Rees notes, this “dichotomization
of the covenant tradition into unilateral and bilateral approaches is helpful in
the analysis of seventeenth-century English developments.” A seventeenth century England that the
Levellers were more than just a little bit familiar.
In contrast, the preeminent concept
that the Levellers gleaned from Enlightenment teachings is the concept of natural
law and the social contract theory. On
the surface, these ideas share much in common with the Protestant idea of covenant
theology, but they differ greatly on the specifics. The Enlightenment principles found in the “State
of Nature” as Thomas Hobbes argued, were such that each man would seek after
his own desires unless a “social contract” was established in which man gave up
a portion of his freedom for the greater good. For the Levellers, this meant that allegiance
to one’s ruler was contingent upon that greater good, and if that were to be violated,
opposition to authority was warranted.
The Levellers, inspired by this Enlightenment
concept of the “State of Nature” emphasized reason and rationality as essential
tools for political and social reform. As a result, the Levellers brought
together both the idea of the social contract and covenant theology into one
cohesive doctrine that inspired and drove their understanding of opposition to
authority. The Levellers sought to
create a society where decisions were made based on logical analysis and
spiritual conviction. This created a healthy
aversion to the idea of blind adherence to traditional or divinely sanctioned
authority.
The Leveller’s unique interpretation
of opposition to authority allowed them to oppose not only King Charles during
the English Civil War, but also the reign of Oliver Cromwell in the aftermath
of the King’s demise. As he stated in
his formal 1748 opposition to Oliver Cromwell and what he believed to be a
tyrannical government, John Lilburne and the Levellers wrote:
Insomuch as we who upon these grounds have laid out
ourselves every way to the uttermost of our abilities — and all others
throughout the land, soldiers and others who have done the like in defense of
our supreme authority and in opposition to the king — cannot but deem ourselves
in the most dangerous condition of all others: left without all plea of
indemnity for what we have done, as already many have found by the loss of
their lives and liberties either for things done or said against the king, the
law of the land frequently taking place and precedency against and before your
authority, which we esteemed supreme, and against which no law ought to be
pleaded. Nor can we possibly conceive how any that in any ways assisted you can
be exempt from the guilt of murders and robbers by the present laws in force if
you persist to disclaim the supreme authority, though their own consciences do
acquit them as having opposed none but manifest tyrants, oppressors and their
adherents.[33]
Lilburne would eventually go so far as to be imprisoned, on
multiple occasions, for his assertions and beliefs, along with a large number
of his Leveller followers. By promoting
opposition to authority, through the many written pamphlets, letters and other
written forms, John Lilburne and the Levellers advanced the cause of Resistance
Theory throughout England. The critical
formative years of the English Civil War witnessed tremendous upheaval in ways
that had not previously been experienced by the English populace.
Naturally,
the opposition to authority on the part of the Levellers landed them in trouble
with the powers of their era. Faced with
numerous trials for heresy, the Levellers were faced with the grim prospect of imprisonment
and even death, but also with the opportunity to spread their message even further
to both the masses and the governing elite alike. In his work, “Voicing Dissent,” Historian John
Arnold notes that the heresy trials of the Levellers presented “unprecedented
opportunities” for the “dissemination of the Leveller’s teachings.” In short, these heresy trials presented the
Levellers with the chance to disseminate teachings and materials that had previously
been consigned to pamphlets, petitions, etc. often published under pseudonyms
due to censorship and potential punishment.
Conclusion
The Levellers' clever combination of both
Protestant and Enlightenment ideas significantly contributed to the political
and philosophical discourse of their time. The Levellers' synthesis of
Protestant and Enlightenment ideas serves as a testament to the transformative
power of intellectual cross-pollination. Their ability to draw upon diverse
philosophical and religious traditions allowed them to construct a
comprehensive and persuasive theory of resistance. As such, the Levellers' legacy remains an
important chapter in the history of political thought, highlighting the
potential for fruitful dialogue and synthesis between different intellectual
traditions. By incorporating the
principles of covenant theory, natural laws/rights and the social contract, the
Levellers provided the perfect Rorschach test for Western Civilization to
oppose oppressive leadership. Their work
continues to resonate in modern democratic societies, shaping the concepts of
freedom, equality, democracy and citizen participation in government.
.png)
