Mark David Hall and his cohorts have shown an undeniably powerful, reformed/Calvinistic component driving the political-theological dimensions of the American founding. The "Calvinist resisters" as they have been termed, because they taught a privilege/right/duty to "resist tyranny." Here is Mark quoting John Adams on the matter:
In 1787, John Adams wrote that John Ponet’s Short Treatise on Politike Power (1556) contains “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke.” He also noted the significance of Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. ...
Other names in this tradition might include Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame and John Knox, who lead the reformation of the Church of Scotland. Calvin, as part of the political leadership of the City State of Geneva, saw a theological unitarian named Michael Servetus executed for heresy. To the extent that Calvin's 16th and 17th century "resisters" spoke on the matter, to a man, they supported Servetus' execution. A later generation of reformed thinkers, including America's founders John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and others would not have supported what happened to Servetus because by that time they had accepted principles of liberty of conscience as taught by John Locke and his successors.
Locke was not necessarily the first figure to argue for the right to freely practice and publicly speak on matters that others view as heretical. But, it's important to note that they came from outside of the Calvinist/reformed tradition. The Dutch Arminians and the American Roger Williams anticipated Locke. However, America's founders, including ministers preaching from the pulpit, were much likelier to invoke Locke than Williams, or other sources who may have anticipated Locke.
This is ironic for numerous reasons, one of which is that Roger Williams founded an American colony. And to the extent that orthodox Christians like Witherspoon might wish to invoke a traditional orthodox Christian on the behalf of the proposition of "liberty of conscience" for all, they had that in Williams but instead turned to Locke, a putative Christian, but unorthodox, and who posited a notion of "state of nature/social contract and rights" that was, as Leo Strauss put it, "wholly alien to the Bible."
Whatever contributions the reformed Calvinist types contributed to the notions of political liberty in the American founding, it's not right to credit them for the notions of liberty of conscience/religious liberty that America's founders endorsed. For that we would have to credit other Christian traditions and the Enlightenment.
3 comments:
“Reformed Calvinists Deserve Credit for Political Liberty.”
Do they now? As it turns out, the concept of mixed government leading to political and civil stability is as old as Sparta. And , starting with the Italian Renaissance, and the restoration of ancient texts, through the Enlightenment, new secular ideas spread via humanist philosophers and legislators as well as within the realms of Roman Catholic and Protestant churchmen. These ideas developed on parallel tracks.
Let’s look back a bit and see where the reformed Calvinists ideas come from. And, as it turns out, Adam’s gives us the answer.
Adams: “There have been three periods in the history of England, in which the principles of government have been anxiously studied, and very valuable productions published, which at this day, if they are not wholly forgotten in their native country, are perhaps more frequently read abroad than at home. – The first of these periods was that of the Reformation as early as the writings of Machiavel himself [referencing Ponet], who is called the great restorer of the true politics.”
“The writer is clearly for a mixed government …..” This is where Adams cites “Ponnet.”
By including reference to Machiavelli, who cites Lycurgus [Legendary lawgiver of Sparta, credited with the formation of its eunomia ('good order'); ca, 11th century BC – early 9th century BC], Adams shows a clear throughline, regarding the concept of mixed government, to the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and lawgivers.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius (Book I, Chapter II), written around 1513.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch11s1 dot html
"For a Monarchy readily becomes a Tyranny, an Aristocracy an Oligarchy, while a Democracy tends to degenerate into Anarchy. So that if the founder of a State should establish any one of these three forms of Government, he establishes it for a short time only, since no precaution he may take can prevent it from sliding into its contrary, by reason of the close resemblance which, in this case, the virtue bears to the vice"
+++
“Thus sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check.”
+++
“Amongst those justly celebrated for having established such a constitution, beyond doubt merits the highest praise. He organized the government of Sparta in such manner that, in giving to the king, the nobles, and the people each their portion of authority and duties, he created a government which maintained itself for over eight hundred years in the most perfect tranquillity, and reflected infinite glory upon this legislator. On the other hand, the constitution given by Solon to the Athenians, by which he established only a popular government, was of such short duration that before his death he saw the tyranny of Pisistratus arise. And although forty years afterwards the heirs of the tyrant were expelled, so that Athens recovered her liberties and restored the popular government according to the laws of Solon, yet it did not last over a hundred years; although a number of laws that had been overlooked by Solon were adopted, to maintain the government against the insolence of the nobles and the license of the populace. The fault he had committed in not tempering the power of the people and that of the prince and his nobles, made the duration of the government of Athens very short, as compared with that of Sparta.”
+++
Machiavelli goes on to evaluate the progress of Rome to achieve such a mixed form of governance. Thus, Machiavelli strongly advocated for a mixed government (or mixed republic) because it combines the elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to minimize the vices of each. He believed this "tension" creates stability, famously noting that mixed bodies have longer existence and require regular renewal to survive.
And, speaking of non-Reformed Calvinist sources, Cicero (ca., 106–43 B.C.) championed a mixed constitution (res publica mixta) as the most stable and just form of government, blending monarchy (consuls), aristocracy (Senate), and democracy (popular assemblies). He argued this balance prevents degeneration into tyranny, oligarchy, or anarchy, directly influencing modern concepts of checks and balances.ca.,
And then there was Plato (ca. 427 BC –347 BC) Aristotle (ca, 384 BC–322 BC) ………
Post a Comment