Calvin. History and Reception of a Reformation Week 4. The Spread of Calvinism Sequence 6. Rousseau and Calvin Hello! My name is Ghislain Waterlot and I am professor of philosophy and ethics at the University of Geneva's Theological Faculty. I will begin my remarks with a quote: "Calvin was, undoubtedly, a great man, but a man nonetheless, and what is worse,
a theologian: in fact, he had the self-pride of the genius who knows his own superiority and
resents that it may even be questioned: the majority of his colleagues were of similar
character; that they were more inconsequential makes them all the more contemptible." Whoever wrote this was not one to beat around the bush, and was clearly possessed of a strong animosity towards Calvin and his fellow Protestant pastors. Are these the words of an encyclopedist, such as Baron d'Holbach? Or perhaps the notoriously anticlerical philosopher Voltaire? No: their author is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau wrote these words at a very particular moment of his life, in 1764, shortly after his major works (including "On The Social Contract" and "Émile") were officially banned from
publication and distribution in Geneva. Rousseau was very resentful towards the community of Genevan pastors, whom he felt had been, if not responsible for this decision, at the very least insufficiently forceful in
opposing it. Let's take a step back now -- what was the relationship between Rousseau, Calvin and Calvinism? Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712. In 1728, at age 16, he left Geneva, absconding suddenly, without notifying anyone, from his position as apprentice to an engraver. Arriving in Savoy, he promptly converted to Catholicism. This conversion did not seem to pose any particular problem for him, and was no doubt a wise choice, since living as a Protestant in Savoy
would have exposed him to ostracization and potential persecution. The young Rousseau quickly acquired a reputation as a man of letters, so much so that despite his conversion to Catholicism, Geneva welcomed him back with open arms upon
his return to the city in 1754, at which point he returned to Protestantism. Once again, this did not seem to pose any particular problem for him. Two questions come to mind: 1) how may we interpret Rousseau's return to the Reformed faith of Geneva?
2) how did Rousseau relate to Calvin and, more generally, to Calvinism? As far as the first question is concerned, the first thing to consider is that Rousseau evolved considerably between 1728 and 1754. Once his philosophy was fully fleshed out, Rousseau considered belonging to one faith rather than another as unimportant, provided the faith to which one
adheres allows for the principles of "natural religion." What exactly are these principles? For Rousseau, there are four. The first is that there is a Creator of all things. The second is that this Creator expects us to act justly and charitably towards our fellow human beings. Third, our praiseworthy actions will be rewarded, whereas our evil deeds will be punished (though the punishment of the wicked is not in the afterlife but here on Earth). Fourth and final principle: everything does not end with the end of this life. The principles of natural religion, then, form a very basic creed. Any Christian religion is acceptable, whatever it may be, provided it does not violate this creed. For Rousseau, in fact, any religion that violates this creed is necessarily in contradiction with Jesus-Christ himself, who is the point of origin of the Christian creeds and who always
required of human beings that they love their neighbor as themselves -- regardless of origin or nationality. For what reasons, then, might one adhere to one faith rather than another? And why did Rousseau come back to the Protestant faith? Was it by chance, or was he being opportunistic? For Rousseau, the best faith, the confession one should choose, is that of one's own country, i.e. the faith in which one was brought up as a child. Thus Rousseau acted in a manner consistent with his beliefs when he returned to the Reformed faith. These beliefs had both an anthropological dimension -- we are permanently shaped by the religion we learn in childhood -- and a political dimension -- it is always a good idea to adopt the faith of
your country. Upon returning to Geneva and becoming a full-fledged citizen of the city, Rousseau therefore had a double incentive to convert back to Protestantism. Turning now to our second question: how did Rousseau regard the Church of Geneva, and its founder John Calvin in particular, from a theological point of view? The relationship was complicated, and it tended to vary based on actual events. Yet Rousseau displayed remarkable consistency as regards John Calvin in that he always considered him a great politician. For Rousseau, Geneva found its great politician in John Calvin. A well-known quote from "On The Social Contract" highlights the point: "Those who know Calvin only as a theologian much under-estimate the extent of his genius. The codification of our wise edicts, in which he played a large part, does him no less honour than
his 'Institutes'. Whatever revolution time may bring in our religion, so long as the spirit of patriotism
and liberty still lives among us, the memory of this great man will be for ever blessed." Calvin, then, was a great politician. In fact, the passage just quoted is from a section in which Rousseau discusses Lycurgus, the legendary founder of Sparta. On the other hand, Rousseau did not hold Calvin's contributions as a theologian in nearly the same esteem. The passage I quoted at the very beginning of today's sequence shows quite clearly that, in Rousseau's estimation, Calvin's theological ideas were destined to fade away over time,
unlike his contributions as a politician -- "so long as the spirit of patriotism and liberty
still lives among us"... Why such contempt for theology? Let's not forget that Rousseau lived during the Enlightenment, and though at times critical of the Enlightenment, he was not opposed to it. The philosophers of the Enlightenment tended, with few exceptions, to be suspicious and critical -- hostile, even -- when it came to theology and theologians. In their perspective, the religious conflicts that defined the previous centuries, and the dogmatic positions adopted by the warring churches, had destroyed theology's credibility. Theologians were perceived as people who, above all, wanted to control the thoughts of others and impose, often arbitrarily, the authority of their church. Rousseau, then, did not like theologians. Yet he thought that Protestant theologians should be expected to be different from the rest. Why? To answer, we'll need to address the third and final question of today's sequence: why did Rousseau consider that the Reformation theologians, including Calvin himself, betrayed
the spirit of the Reformation? As he explains at length in the second of his "Letters Written from the Mountain," Rousseau felt that the Reformed faith, and Protestantism in general, should have as its basic principle freedom of conscience. Of course, the Bible must be the starting point for any religion that purports to be Christian. A Reformed Protestant, therefore, always refers back to the Bible. But what exactly is his relationship to the Bible? Here, two things must be distinguished according to Rousseau: on the one hand, those precepts that are clear and unequivocal and, on the other, those that are obscure and uncertain. What in the Bible -- and in the New Testament especially -- can be considered clear and unequivocal? The commands to love God, to love one's neighbor as oneself, to do good, to avoid evil, and to put your faith in God and in the promise of life after death. What, on the contrary, is obscure and uncertain? The Trinity, for one. The modalities of the resurrection. The punishment reserved for the wicked. Several questions related to the Lord's Supper, such as the presence or not of the body of
Christ in the bread. The issue of incarnation. And many others as well... All these questions allow for a variety of answers. Each person should be able to answer these questions, as best she can, according to her conscience and convictions. No one should claim, by some authority which they cannot possibly hold, to impose an answer to these types of question. These questions cannot be definitively answered by the human mind. And it is absurd to claim that these questions are answered clearly and unequivocally by Scripture, as evidenced by the very fact that theologians have
been debating them endlessly for centuries. In their dogmatism and violence, theologians have shown that their main concern is not Christ and the love of God, but rather to exert power and authority over others. Thus, for Rousseau, the true intent of the Reformation was betrayed, at its very inception, by the Reformers themselves. Indeed, had they remained true to its intent, every question that remains obscure and uncertain in Scripture would have been left to each man and woman to decide for themselves. Every person would have been allowed to answer them as best they can. For the rest, the Reformation should have simply applied those principles of Christianity that are clear and unequivocal -- principles on which Jesus was perfectly clear,
leaving no room for doubt. Between the Bible and God, argued Rousseau, there should be only the conscience of the sincere Christian. By imposing dogma on things obscure, Protestants acted no differently than the very people they spent so much energy criticizing, the Catholics. In short, Rousseau's positions, as regards Scripture and matters theological, are ultimately quite reminiscent of those defended by Sébastien Castellion, whom you were introduced to
in an earlier lesson. Two centuries earlier, you'll remember, Castellion had vigorously opposed Calvin on the question of heretics. The main difference between Castellion and Rousseau revolves around Christology. Rousseau's conception of Christ was quite original, and tends to prefigure the emergence of the 19th century Unitarian movement, rather than to echo Castellion. In conclusion, we've seen that Rousseau's relationship to Calvin is one of contrasts. On the one hand, Rousseau admires Calvin as a political genius -- he viewed Calvin as a great legislator. On the other hand, he loathed the cocksure theologian who was so merciless towards heretics -- as you learned when you studied the Servetus Affair. Finally, Rousseau believed that, had Calvin remained true to the theology he purported to defend, he would never have written his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in the way that he did; he would have recognized the right of each person to freely interpret Scripture on the basis
of his or her own conscience. Needless to say, Rousseau is guilty, to some extent, of idealizing the ideals of the Reformation initiated by Luther. Rousseau defended a position which never occurred -- and never would have occurred -- to the major 16th century Reformers. Thus Rousseau's relationship to Calvin the theologian tells us more about a certain conception of Christianity that arose well after the Reformation. This conception features two major ideas: 1) the essence of Christianity belongs much more to its practice and morality than to theories and theological doctrines. 2) reason should have the ability to examine anything, without ever having to subject itself to the authority of a church. It is hard to fault Calvin for failing to adhere to principles that would only truly become accepted two centuries after his death.
