What Have the Church Fathers Taught About the Church, the State, and Good Governance?

What has the church since its beginnings taught about the State, its proper relationship to the Church, and the proper ends of civil government? This sampling of church fathers and reformers will take us from Irenaeus to Tertullian, Clement, Lactantius, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, Augustine, John of Damascus, Pope Gregory VII, John of Salisbury, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, John Wyclif, Sir Thomas More, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Richard Hooker, and Hugo Grotius have said on these questions. These reflections come from Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan's From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought.

Part I. The Patristic Age

1. An Apologetic Miscellany
The sourcebook begins with “Apologetic Miscellany” that outlines some of the church fathers’ apologetics for the Christian faith. While defending the doctrines of Christianity, these apologetic letters also account for the relation of Christians to the state and to society as a whole. The following passages are considered:
- In his First Apology, Justin Martyr emphasizes that the kingdom that the Christians are seeking is not a human one, but rather, the kingdom of God (p. 11).
- The anonymous Letter to Diognetus portrays the Christian church as a political society disseminated throughout other political societies. The church is depicted as the “soul” of society.
- Bishop Theophilus of Antioch, in his To Autolycus, Book 1, depicts Christians as loyal citizens of the empire who are to honor the emperor “not by worshipping him but by praying for him” (p. 14). In this way, they will be doing the will of God.

2. Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus (ca.130-200) writes that the God-given role of civil rulers is to maintain the division between good and evil through the law. He describes the divine nature of earthly rule, which has been “appointed by God for the benefit of the nations” (p. 17). The devil lied when he said that civil power was delivered to him, for in truth, all power belongs to God, who distributes it according to His will. Three kids of rulers exercise civil authority: (i) mild, educative rulers; (ii) tyrannical, arbitrary rulers; and (iii) harsh, but not unjust rulers.

3. Tertullian
Tertullian (160-230) was a Carthage lawyer and a priest at the turn of the third century whose church was touched by a charismatic movement known as Montanism. In 206, Tertullian joined the Montanist sect’s prophetic movement, which is similar to today’s Pentecostal movement, and separated from the Church in 211 or 213. He later separated from the Montanists, founding a sect that became reconciled with the Catholic Church under St. Augustine. In his Apology, Tertullian fiercely repudiated the church as a political society; he recognized only “the universe” as the state of his citizenship (p. 26). In The Military Chaplet, Tertullian opposed Christians’ accepting military office, unless their faith came after they are already soldiers (p. 27).

4. Clement of Alexandria
Clement’s (ca. 150-ca. 215) Stromateis brings in classical thought to interact with Christian theology. He argues, for example, that Plato was influenced by Moses when he criticized political institution that sought to develop no more than military virtues (p. 35). Clement examines the relation between nomos (law), logos (word) and divine Logos (Word of God), arguing that those who obey the law must have some knowledge of the law giver (p. 36). He distinguishes between three kinds of kingship: (i) the divine that is the rule of God; (ii) the kingly rule of the active part of the soul; and (iii) the rule of conquest.

5. Origen
In his Against Celsus, Origen (ca. 185 - 254), one of the more controversial of the church fathers, makes a cogent case for the place of Christians in civil society. Christians are not antipolitical and do not oppose the emperor; rather, they believe the emperor has been divinely ordained by God and honor and are to pray for him.

6. Lactantius
The Christianity of Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320) contrasts itself to classical thought and a demoralized culture. In his Divine Institutes, Lactantius examines the Greek idea of justice. According to Plato, justice “consists in equality, since all are born in an equal condition” (p. 48). All must therefore possess all things in common. Yet this line of reasoning leads Plato to state that even marriages should be in common. Such a view of justice, according to Lactantius, subverts the virtues of chastity and fidelity. Rather, “justice is not expressed in outward conditions … but operates wholly upon the human mind” (p. 49). Reaching justice means abolishing ambition and self-importance. Community is not a matter of possessions but rather, of minds filled with virtue.

7. Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius (ca. 263 – ca. 339) was the first systematic church historian. We read in his speeches the idealization of Constantine. In his speech for the Thirtieth Anniversary of Constantine’s Accession, he writes that Constantine is “dear to the supreme Sovereign himself” (p. 62). The Christian emphasis on peace plays a role for Eusebius in welcoming Constantine’s achievements, for Constantine’s wars are seen as wars that will end future wars.

8. Ambrose of Milan
Ambrose (ca. between 337 and 340 – 397) was bishop of Milan during the Arian heresy. Although Arianism was settled in the First Council of Nicaea in 325, it continued, though with a decreasing following, well into Ambrose’s years as bishop.
It is perhaps in Ambrose’s Sermon against Auxentius that most clearly portrays the clash between the sphere of the Church and the sphere of the State, as the Church sought to carve out for itself a space within civil society. When the emperor had summoned Ambrose and Auxentius, a bishop who had become dangerously associated with the Homoian heresy, to a hearing, Ambrose did not comply. Instead, he defied the emperor and asserted that matters of faith “must be dealt with in the church before the people” (p. 68). Ambrose writes that “the emperor is within the church, not above it” (p. 75).
In these excerpts, we read about a confrontation between the bishop of Milan and the emperor that marks the church as it began carving out a space for itself in the public square. Indeed, the episode represents more than a clash between the church and the emperor; it is representative of the birth of Western democracy as the church is formed as an independent sphere within civil society, just as guilds, private associations, and corporations would later carve out their own spaces within civil society.

9. John Chrysostom
The writings of John Chrysostom imply some level of objection to private property, but his true objection is not to the mere possession of material things, but rather, to their unjust acquisition. For instance, he points to Abraham and to Job as righteous men who, though they were wealthy, should not be condemned. This is because Job was “enriched by God” (p. 102) and the bulk of Abraham’s wealth was not held in material things, but rather, in livestock that was “born in his house” (p. 102). The property of Abraham, like that of Job, was thus justly acquired. As for the gold Abraham sent Rebekah, it was obtained through “gifts brought back from Egypt, acquired without violence or wrong” (p. 102).
At the same time, Chrysostom, in agreement with the Scriptures’ admonition to “those who desire to be rich [and thereby] fall into temptation” (1Ti 6:9), recognizes the snare to which the accumulation of wealth can lead. He views the distribution of wealth as a reversal to the evil that wealth accumulation can cause. He accordingly attributes the grace that was on the Apostles in Acts 4:33 to their charitable giving to the church, such that “there was not a needy person among them” (p. 100).
Some of Chrysostom’s language at first glance can be easily interpreted as condemnations of private property per se. Yet a closer reading suggests that the true object of his scorn is the accumulation of wealth for the sake of wealth. For example, he criticizes those who refer to material possessions as “goods,” for those who greedily accumulate such things cannot be said to be “good” (p. 101).
However, in other accounts, Chrysostom’s condemnation of wealth borders on the extreme. He says that it is “simply not possible” for “anyone who has wealth [to] be good” (p. 103). This has some resonation with Christ’s words to the rich ruler who asked how to inherit eternal life: “sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (Luk 18:22). Yet at the same time, Christ acknowledges that it may be possible for the rich to enter heaven, though it would be “harder for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle” (Mar 10:25).

10. Augustine
Augustine deals a great deal with justice and moral order by comparing the divine law to the human law and examining how the latter should reflect the former. In the dialogue in On Free Choice of the Will, Evodius, with Augustine’s agreement, distinguishes between the human law and the divine law—a “very secret law” authored by divine providence (p. 114). The human law punishes only those acts necessary to “keep peace among ignorant men” (p. 114). Accordingly, not every vice is to be punished by the human law. Yet this does not mean that the divine law will not avenge the one who commits it.
He goes on to examine whether the observance of Old Testament laws continues to be mandated in the New Covenant (p. 115-116). He rejects the Manicheans’ argument that the Old Testament laws were abolished by Christ. Although the Old Testament laws were not abolished, they are not universally applicable to the church. Removing from the discussion the cultural and ritualistic features of Old Testament law, Augustine argues that of the remaining laws, Christians are not to observe those which were fulfilled in Christ. The rest of the laws, such as the honoring of one’s parents or the prohibition of graven images, remain in place.
Augustine then focuses on the moral function of the old and the new laws. While the old laws set minimal restraints, the new laws bring to light the underlying purpose of the old laws: love. Both the old and new laws thus serve the same moral end in different ways. For example, both the Old Testament law, “an eye for an eye,” as well as Christ’s commandment to “turn the other cheek” (Mat 5:39) are aimed at checking the vehemence of hatred. The former does so by prohibiting unjust avengement and the latter does so by prohibiting any avengement at all. The latter fulfills the former by commanding believers to in all things act in love.

Part II. Late Antiquity
Late Antiquity refers to the period over which barbarian invasion gradually weakened the Roman Empire.

1. Pope Gelasius I
After the Council of Chalcedonia in 451, the Church experienced its first schism. The non-Chalcedonian churches split off from the orthodox catholic Church. The emperor Zeno attempted to mend the rift with a union formula that had some success with the Eastern Churches, but was ultimately caused a rift with the Western Church and a break in communion in 484 between Pope Felix III and the Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople. With Zeno’s union formula in place in the East, the succeeding emperor, Anastasius, leaned towards the non-Chalcedonian churches’ monophysite heresy.
Pope Gelasius I (d. 496), who was emperor Anastasius’s contemporary, inherited this difficult situation. He viewed as part of his role as the universal pope to confront Anastasius, the universal emperor, on the latter’s doctrinal errors.
Within this context, we find the writings of Gelasius, which define the relationship between the authority of the episcopate and the power of the empire. For the first time in this anthology, we find in Gelasius’ writings papal claims to universal primacy over the church and over emperors. Gelasius states in part: “if the faithful ought in general to submit to the priesthood as a whole when it handles divine mysteries rightly, how much more should deference be shown to the occupant of the highest see, chosen by divine sovereignty to be first among priests and held in religious honor by the whole church ever since” (p. 179).

2. Agapetos
We know nothing more about Agapetos than the fact that he was a deacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. In this pithy work of seventy two apothegms, Agapetos instructs the emperor Justinian on matters of benevolence, law, justice, and ethics. In his writings, the notion of rex lex—the king is under the law—comes forward. Agapetos instructs Justinian to keep the very laws that Justinian has compiled. He writes that the emperor will in this way “demonstrate the majesty of the law, by being … the first to respect it; and so, too, it will be clear to [the] subjects that breaking the law has its perils” (p. 184).

3. Justinian
The Byzantine emperor Justinian (483-565) attempted to restore the Roman Empire, which fell at the end of the fourth century, but instead disrupted the Romanization of the Germanic tribes and their conversion to Christianity. He is instead remembered for his hallmark achievement, the systematization and codification of the Roman law.
The codification reveals a vision of Christian society and the perspective of a Christian emperor of his task as governor. For example, we see from these excerpts that it was not only the West that blended the distinction between the Church and State, but rather, as early as Justinian in the East, the distinction was blurred. The laws also reveal a polity where religious liberty was substantially checked. For example, if someone seeking public office should simulate acceptance of orthodox doctrine, is later found to have a wife or children who clings to the heresy, and does not lead them to the truth, he is to be ejected from his public office (p. 191). Furthermore, whatever he bequeathed to a heretical person was to be forfeited to the public treasury (p. 192).
Justinian, like Gelasius, highlights the dual functions of the priesthood (which is in service of the things of God) and empire (which provides government and care for the concerns of men). However, he does not view the priesthood or the pope as in any way superior in function or in importance to the empire. Rather, the emperor is charged with “the integrity of priests” (p. 194).

4. Gregory I
Pope Gregory I (540 – 604) was one of the towering Christian thinkers of his day. He reigned in a Rome depleted by Justinian’s unsuccessful wars. Gregory’s model was to make the episcopate the model of rule within Christian society; temporal rulers would imitate and reverence their spiritual counterpart. He provided a general account of government, “temporal and ecclesiastical, equally applicable to kings and emperors, abbots and bishops” (p. 195).

5. John of Damascus
John of Damascus (ca. 670 – ca.750) was an Arab Christian monk who lived in the peak of the iconoclast controversy when Emperor Leo III ordered the destruction of sacred image sand icons in 726. A council at Hieria in 754 supported his view, yet the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 repudiated the former, claiming that it was not a true ecumenical council, because only a portion of the church’s bishops were present and they were unduly swayed by the emperor.
In his Second Speech against Those Who Reject Images, John contrasts the Old Testament practice where a dead body was reckoned a “defilement” to anyone who touched it (p. 213) with the New Covenant practice of celebrating Christ, his mother the Virgin Mary, and of the saints, who have defeated and disgraced the devil and his angels. Depicting these figures in icons is to celebrate Christ’s victory over death. Yet John goes a step further, condemning one who refuses to reverence and honor the sacred images as “an enemy of Christ and the holy Theotokos and the saints” (p. 213).
John goes on to discuss the relationship between the spheres of the king and of the church. The church is to hold independence in its affairs: “Kings have no right to make laws for the church,” which is to be governed by apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (p. 213). “Kings have responsibility for political welfare, pastors and teachers for the state of the church” (p. 214).
John’s view of the church’s relationship to the king can be contrasted with that of Gelasius. While Gelasius claims that the emperors ought to show deference to the Pope of the Church, John states that the church defers to the king “in the affairs of life, in tax and revenue and privileges, and in all of our affairs that are your responsibility” (p. 214). This can be contrasted with Gelasius’s language stating that Peter was “chosen by divine sovereignty to be the first among priests” and that the Pope of Rome was by “Christ’s own words set over all [and] the venerable church has always acknowledged and devoutly accepted [him] as Primate” (p. 179).
John closes with a discussion of tradition and of its importance in determining certain doctrines or truths that remain unwritten, such as the wherabouts of the crucifixon of Christ on Calvary. He quotes Paul’s 2 Letter to the Thessalonians to support his view: “therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2Th 2:15).

6. The Donation of Constantine
The Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini), which bears Constantine’s name, is considered to be a document forged by a Roman cleric. It has nonetheless been used by later reforming popes and to justify the universality and supremacy of the Roman papacy over lay rulers and over the church of the East. In it, Constantine purportedly states that he was blessed and healed by the hands of Pope Sylvester, who is “seen to have been set up as the vicar of God’s Son on earth” and who is to have “rule as well over the four principal sees, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in all the world” (p. 229).

Part III. The Early Middles Ages
The editors point out that starting from the eighth century, the “care” of the church entrusted by Christ to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and in John 21:15-17 was constructed as a “sovereign jurisdiction from which authority descended to the subordinate jurisdictions” (p. 232). This construction came to depend on an extension of the “power of the keys” beyond the realms o purgatory and penance, to the external government of the church. In earlier times, this power of the keys “had designated the general clerical authority of convicting sinners and declaring absolution, or at most the apostolic authority of the whole episcopate, [but was] now to be reserved for the sovereign rule of St. Peter’s vicar over the Christian world” (p. 233). Within this context, the concept of plenitude potestatis, which refers to the pope’s plenitude of power in moral, legislative, and judicial spheres, came into being.

1. Gregory VII
The monk Hildebrand (ca. 1030-85) in 1073 became Pope Gregory VII, the initiator of the Papal Revolution that liberated the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church from control by emperors, kings, and feudal lords and sought to subject these temporal rulers to the Church. The Papal Revolution, which spanned from 1075-1122, was initiated by Gregory VII, who sought to “defeat both lay and episcopal recalcitrance through unrelenting assertion of Rome’s unrivaled authority” (p. 241) and believed that the “subjection of the lower ranks of the church, both clerical and lay, to papal authority was … required by the justice (iustitia) and the law (ius) of Christ” (p. 232).
Many of these views imbue the list of papal prerogatives known as the Dictatus Papae (1075), which proclaims that it is lawful for the pope alone to “enact new laws according to the needs of the time” (no. 7) and that “the Roman Church has never erred, nor ever, by the witness of Scripture, shall err to all eternity” (no. 22) (p. 242). Gregory bases his view on Christ’s words to the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:18-19: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

2. Norman Anonymous
“Norman Anonymous” (ca. 1080/90 – ca. 1156) is the name of the author of a series of antipapal royalist tracts that argue that both king and priest at their consecration receive the sacramental image of Christ. Earthly kings are to rule over the laity and clergy, assure unity, order, and welfare (p. 251), institute bishops, administer divine justice, punish violations of God’s law, call councils (p. 251). Unlike Gregory VII, who interprets Matthew 16:19 to mean that the Pope is given the keys to heaven through apostolic succession (p. 243), Norman Anonymous reads it to mean that the keys belong not to the priest, but to the king (p. 257-58).

3. Bernard of Clairvaux
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was one of the members of the monastic reform movement. He believed that the greatest subversion of the church came from “papal collusion with the worldly greed and ambition of Christians, especially prelates, through the ecclesiastical appeals system” (p. 268-9). In his On Considerations, he writes that the pope was not elected to rule; he has been called to ministry, not to dominion (p. 271), and has been bestowed with stewardship, not possession of the world (p. 273). In this way distinguishing between worldly and spiritual rule, he describes the pope’s weapon against defectors and corrupters of the faith “invincible arguments that they either correct their error, if that is possible, or, if it is not, that they lose their authority and the means of corrupting others” (p. 274).

4. John of Salisbury
John of Salisbury (1115/20 – 1180) was an English ecclesiastical bureaucrat who became bishop of Chartres and who was on intimate terms with Henry II, Pope Adrian IV, and Thomas Becket, a member of archiepiscopal household. Distinguishing the ancient philosophers who defined human life as consisting of “a rational soul and a corruptible flesh” (p. 279), he argues that the flesh takes its life from the soul. He also draws a distinction between the eternal justice of God, whose law is equity, and the justice of the rulers, whose laws are their own statutes. By this period in time, the notion of a “higher law” that transcends the positive law is clearly recognized.

5. Bonaventure
In his A Defence of the Mendicants, Bonaventure (1217-74) provides a “theological and legal clarification of the practice of absolute poverty” (p. 310). It is within the way of evangelical perfection by fulfilling the spiritual counsels of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount of practicing poverty (Mat 19:21), obedience (Mat 16:24), and chastity (Mat 19:12). Bonaventure thus calls men to become “naked” like Christ by using only the barest necessities and giving away all superfluous goods, of working manually without remuneration, of depending chiefly on alms for daily sustenance, and of renouncing legal ownership of goods.
Bonaventure points to the book of Acts, which describes the company of believers who “had all things in common” (Act 4:32) and sold their lands and houses and laid the proceeds “at the apostles’ feet” (Act 4:35). Yet this should not be taken to mean that the apostles had property; rather, the common ownership belonged to the mass of believers (p. 315). Thus, in modeling the apostles, the Christian is to live by means of the simple use of material goods, not through their ownership, possession, or usufruct (p. 318).

6. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas (ca. 1225-74) towers as a giant of the Western Church in a way that is rivaled by only Augustine. Both Aquinas and Augustine engaged in a synthetic conversation with classical thought, which resulted in an Aristotelian inspiration in Aquinas and a Platonic bent in Augustine.
In his Summa Theologica (Summary Treatise on Theology), Aquinas deals with the human law and its relationship to the natural law. He holds that positive law, to the extent that it is just or rational, “derives from the natural law” (p. 325). For example, in the sphere of property, he equates ownership as the “legal positiving of the natural right of dominion that serves its primary purpose, the use of the earth’s resources for the benefit of all, when its moral limits are observed” (p. 326). The purpose of this positive law is the “benefit of the commonwealth” (p. 347), and it achieves this end by depending on natural law. When ownership begins to stray from this end, the legal positivizing becomes a perversion, not a true law.
On another level is what Aquinas calls the “eternal law,” which is the eternal and unchanging Will of God. Although we cannot see it, we can see its effects through the rational orderliness of the universe. All things are “regulated and measured” in it and “somehow share in it, in that their tendencies to their own proper acts and ends are from its impression” (p. 342).
Aquinas then introduces into his legal system what he calls the “divine law.” It is necessary because the human law is inherently limited: men can only make laws on outward and observable behavior; they are not competent to judge on inward hidden thoughts and motions. True right and justice thus require a fourth kind of law—¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬the “divine law” (p. 343). This law can only be known through special revelation from God through the Scriptures, which is the promulgation of the Eternal Law. The divine law also does what the human law inherently is unable to do: to “[miss] nothing and [leave] no evil unforbidden or unpunished” (p. 343).
Within this framework, Aquinas contrasts custom, which cannot acquire “the force of law against divine or natural law” (p. 350-51). He thus quotes Isidore, who states, “Let usage bow to authority, and reason and law prevail over vicious habits” (p. 351).
Aquinas moves on to discuss money, and in many ways reiterates what was stated by earlier church fathers: the exchange of commodity for money is “open to criticism because it “feeds the acquisitive urge which knows no limit but tends to increase to infinity” (p. 360). Thus, while he does not condemn commerce qua commerce as anything vicious or lacking in virtue, he recognizes the dangerous path that commerce can take when taken out of its proper end.

Part IV. The Late Middle Ages
Our prior readings took us through a history in which the papacy of the Roman church quickly grew in power as Gelasius and other popes asserted their rule over the entire church and over the civic sphere. This resulted in a collision between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII, who would ultimately claim divinely granted jurisdictional supremacy over the king and the right to “judge universally in temporal matters” (p. 397). King Philip IV reacted by curtailing curial finances as well as the independence of the Catholic Church in France.

1. John of Paris
Within the context of this dispute, the French theologian and monk John of Paris (Jean Quidort) (ca. 1250-1306) wrote his treatise On Royal and Papal Power, which appeared just before the pope’s bull in 1302, which would lead to the pope’s arrest by the French government before a general council, in which John pledged to cooperate. By drawing on the ideas of conciliar or communal representation and election, John’s treatise is one of the most eloquent articulations supporting the royal cause. John also counters the notion of papal plenitude potestatis by arguing that Christ had endowned the apostles with an exclusively sacramental power.
In his treatise, John seeks to strike a balance between the view of those who contend that the church is to have no power in temporal affairs and those who contend that Christ’s kingdom was of the human kind. He thus argues that “it is not wrong for prelates to have lordship and jurisdiction in temporalities” (p. 400). Yet he counters the view that the secular power is somehow “contained within the spiritual power and is established by it” (p. 401). He views the pope’s power as being limited; he is but a steward of the community of ecclesiastical property, and thus may not command whatever he wills. Rather, his power is for building up, and it may not be used arbitrarily. The pope could even be deposed if he takes the property of churches “for reasons other than the common good” (p. 403). As applied to lay property, the pope is even less the lord of it, for any power that Christ had over lay property was not granted to Peter and the apostles.
John goes on to vindicate the right of church people to judge issues concerning the pope when he palpably commits some wrong. Everyone is bound to both give and receive fraternal correction, even those who stand above us in honor. Even “Paul withstood [Peter] to his face because [Peter] was blameworthy” (p. 411). Yet before any one corrects or looks to hold the pope accountable, he should first give every effort to interpret the pope’s pronouncements according to their most reasonable colors, rather than interpret them as constituting some novelty or as contradicting Scripture.

2. Dante Alighieri
Dante (1265-1321) was an Italian poet best known for his Divine Comedy. Dante grew up in an era of feuding Italian states dominated by tumult and struggles for power. Perhaps it was this experience that led him to cast his faith in the Roman Empire, which with its strong central government alone enabled man to live in all-encompassing peace. In his Monarchia, Dante presents a naturalistic apology for the Roman Empire, arguing that the Roman people “acquired universal empire by divine and natural right” as a just reward for their virtue (p. 413), which is expressed in their “pious and public-spirited action to establish the universal common good” (p. 414).
Like John of Paris, Dante questions the pope’s claim of plenitude potestatis by arguing that the head of the empire is to be independent of the head of the church. He concludes his apology by stating that “monarchy is necessary for the perfect order of mankind in this world” and to the “well-being of the world” (p. 422).

3. Marsilius of Padua
Marsilius of Padua (1275/80-1342/43) was an Italian reformer and scholar who authored the revolutionary Defensor pacis (Defender of the Peace), where he argued for the independence of the Roman Empire from the papacy. Marsilius was a strong advocate of the notion of popular consent for both secular government and for the governance of the church. While at the University of Paris, he argued that the Church should be subordinate to the State. His ideas came to pass in some nations during the Reformation, where the State would govern the Church.

4. William of Ockham
William of Ockham (1285?-1347) was an English scholastic philosopher perhaps best known for propounding the idea of nominalism, the doctrine that reality is grounded in particular and that universals have no real existence. As a result of nominalism, everything that transcends experience is denied and the reality which is perceived by the intellect is banished, leaving only what is perceived by the senses as having any true validity. One may argue that modern empiricism was the natural consequence of Ockham’s work.
Ockham’s writings deal with a wide range of topics. In his Dialogue on Papal and Royal Dignity, he argues that the legitimate correction of erring believers requires a clear demonstration of their errors. He further argues that the pronouncements of a general council are not infallible and are not “necessarily the work of extraordinary divine inspiration or revelation (like the writing of Scripture)” (p. 455). Other topics he explores include supreme poverty and divine and human right.

5. John Wyclif
John Wyclif (1330-84) was an English lay theologian, translator, and church reformer who leaned towards and was influenced by Augustinian thought. His writings reflect a growing anti-papalist sentiment and an opposition to the papal occupants occasioned by the Catholic schism. He argues that God must have two representatives in his church: “the king in temporal matters and the priest in spiritual” (P. 509).
Wyclif distinguishes between natural (evangelical) lordship, which is instituted by God and rests on justice, and civil lordship, which is occasioned by sin and rests on human institution. The relationship between the two can be paralleled to the difference between gospel law (divine law) and the human law: just as the gospel law is the “perfect and sufficient regime of Christian community and needs no supplement from human laws, so the [human law] either interprets and applies the commandments of Christ or opposes them with contrary and irrelevant demands” (p. 486).

6. Jean Gerson
Gerson (1363-1429) was a French scholar, theologian, and lead conciliarist churchman who embarked on diplomatic missions to negotiate with the rival popes to end the papal schism. In On Church Power and the Origin of Law and Right, Gerson defines the church’s hierarchy and clerical nature and makes clear that the church’s power is the “power which was supernaturally and specially granted by Christ to his apostles and disciples” (p. 520), not to the body of individual believers.
As to the pope’s claim that the representative authority of general councils depends on the pope’s authority, Gerson argues that although the pope does hold the plentitude of church power “considered in its height” (as exceeding other authorities), this plenitude of church power, “considered in its breadth, is not as such in the pope alone” (p. 525). Rather, this authority is held up in the power of the General Councils, which “necessarily include the papal authority” (p. 526), who must convoke it. However, if a pope destructively refuses to convoke a council, then the Council should ask as if there were no pope and must assemble and organize itself. Under such circumstances, the General Council acts with its full authority.

7. John Fortescue
John Fortescue (ca. 1395-ca. 1477) was a practitioner of English common law whose legal career came to an abrupt end after King Henry VI was deposed. At that time, Fortescue set off to write his treatise On the Nature of the Law of Nature, which drew on the law of nature to support the right of royal succession in kingdoms. Drawing on an English natural law tradition, Fortescue argued that the kingly power “took its origin under and from the law of nature, and by it always was and is regulated” (p. 533).

8. Nicholas of Kues
Nicholas of Kues (1401-1464) was a cardinal of the Catholic Church from Germany (Holy Roman Empire). He argues that an essential requirement for a universal council is that it be “constituted of the five patriarchal sees” (p. 542) and goes on to make a sweeping argument that the canons reached at the universal church councils were based on the natural law (p. 544).

Part V. The Renaissance and Reformation

1. Thomas More
Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535) was an English statesman who opposed Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon and refused to take an oath of royal supremacy recognizing Henry’s supremacy over the English church. As a result of this refusal, More was subsequently imprisoned and beheaded.
More’s two books of Utopia were completed in 1516. In them, More describes an ideal, righteous society and criticizes the obtuse complicated formulations of the civil law by contrasting it with the “few laws” that instruct and institute in Utopia (p. 567). These give “less circumstance of words, and the truth shall sooner come to light,” while the judge weighs the words of “him whom no lawyer hath instruct with deceit” (p. 568). In his work, More assaults private property “as an institutionalization of human pride” (p. 559) and argues that the practice of entangling international alliances is more harmful than beneficial (p. 568-9).

2. Desiderius Erasmus
Erasmus (1466-1536) was a Dutch theologian who was celebrated as the prodigy of sixteenth-century humanism and as the champion of the Renaissance in northern Europe. He was zealously dedicated to the New Testament and to synthesizing Christian doctrine with earlier movements, such as Roman Stoic moralism. He would later be accused by Martin Luther of exalting human reason at the expense of personal faith.
In his The Complaint of Peace, Erasmus argues that war should be hateful to the virtuous, conscientious prince: “If the chief desire of a good prince should be that his subjects are as good as they can be, he ought to loathe war as the cesspool of every iniquity” (p. 580). However, Erasmus does not repudiate just war theory; he simply views war as a last resort that may be required by the obligations of governing (p. 571).

3. Martin Luther
a. To What Extent Temporal Authority Should Be Obeyed
Luther establishes the biblical basis for civil law and the “sword” by anchoring his arguments in Romans 13:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-14, and Genesis 9:6. However, the power of the sword would not be applicable to a world composed of true believers, where government, the sword, and law would have no place. It is the unrighteous who need the law to command, instruct, and compel, but good trees require no instruction to produce good fruit. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that Christians should not submit to the governing authorities, which are necessary because Christian live among unbelievers. So important is the state that Christians should esteem it “as highly as the estate of marriage, or husbandry, or any other calling which God has instituted” (p. 589).
b. The Sermon on the Mount
Luther argues that the meaning of Matthew 5:38-39—“You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”—is not that we are to literally turn the other cheek to our enemies. Rather, it is that every Christian should “willingly and patiently suffer whatever is his lot, without seeking revenge or hitting back” (p. 597). However, Luther states that Christians may not go to court or defend themselves (p. 598). However, a Christian could serve in the secular office of an administrator, prince, or judge (p. 598-99). For the Christian to refuse to defend himself on account of this text would be like a Christian woman who would refuse to defend her children “from a dog or a wolf” because she believed that a Christian must not defend himself (p. 599). His views can be harmonized with the Biblical mandate to seek justice, but have mercy, for it is “permissible to use orderly procedure in demanding and obtaining your right,” but “not to have a vindictive heart” (p. 600).
Luther does not read literally Christ’s mandate to “give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away” (Mat 5:42). In these words, “Christ is not telling me to give what I have to any scoundrel that comes along and to deprive my family of it” (p. 602); rather, Christ is commanding that we help the poor and badly off with genuine need.
c. Trade and Usury
Luther’s opposition is not against trade per se, but rather, to the abuses and sins of trade. He criticizes the merchant raises the price of a good not because of its inherent value or because of the effort that he expends in securing it, but because the purchaser has a great need for it. To fix this problem, Luther proposes price fixing through temporal authorities that “compute the costs of all sorts of wares and accordingly set prices” (p. 603). Luther also casts his trust in “kings and princes” to forbid the purchase of goods from merchants in distress at unconscionable prices (p. 608).
He goes on to point out the irreparable harms caused by the common practice of one person’s becoming surety for another, which causes the surety to trust excessively in himself (p. 605), and he criticizes the practice of lending as it was exercised in his days. Quoting Luke 6:35 (“Lend, expecting nothing in return”), Luther argues that one should lend freely, and if the item lent is not returned, to let it go as a gift.

4. The Schleitheim Articles
The Schleitheim Articles were landmarks in the theological basis of Anabaptism. The articles establish the following seven points: (i) baptism should be performed on only adults who have “learned repentance, amendment of life, and faith” (p. 633); (ii) those who have given themselves to the Lord in following his commandments who fall into sin are to be admonished twice, and on the third time, “punished or banned publicly” (p. 633); (iii) those who wish to break bread in memory of Christ must first be baptized; (iv) the regenerate must be separated from evil, unregenerate people and from the unreformed and insufficiently reformed churches; (v) ministers should have completely good reputations to lead all in prayer and breaking bread and should be provided for by the community that ordained them; (vi) use of the civil “sword,” which is intended for use outside of the perfection of Christ, is to be rejected by true believers in the church—only the ban is to be implemented; and (vii) Christians should not take oaths, since Christ “forbids his followers all swearing, either truthfully or falsely” (p. 636).

5. Philipp Melanchthon
Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) was a leading church reformer, translator, and theologian who systematized Luther’s thought. He is most renowned for his Loci Communes Theologici, a theological exposition by scriptural themes. In it, he divides the divine law of Moses into three parts:
- Lex moralis. This is also called the “eternal law” or the law of God about virtues and against sin. It is principally contained in the Decalogue.
- Lex cerimonialis. These are temporal church laws that are concerned with external works, such has sacrifices, which were established for a certain time.
- Lex judicialis. These are temporal laws dealing with civil government in the areas of justice, inheritance, and peace. Like the lex cerimonialis, the lex judicialis is intended only for Biblical Israel before the coming of Christ.
The purpose of these laws is to: (i) foster external or civil morality; (ii) pronounce the wrath of God on sin and the sinner; and (iii) educate the faithful in God’s will (p. 651).
Melanchthon then deconstructs some of the errors and “lies” proposed by monks that argue that lives of poverty and chastity merit forgiveness of sins, as well as the errors of the Anabaptists who argue that Christians “should not own property, but should have all things in common” (p. 659). By pointing to the seventh commandment, which prohibits stealing, he argues that the existence of private property is presumed in Scripture. The abandonment of one’s goods in the mistaken belief that begging for alms is a holy work is a grave mistake. To beg for bread is to be a thief, and the cloisters “have always been full of thieves” (p. 660).

6. John Calvin
The work of John Calvin (1509-64) transformed Reformation history. Calvin further polarized the two-kingdoms model of the church and state into parallelisms. Calvin argues, for example, that “he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated” (p. 669). As for the attitude of Christians towards rulers, who are in Calvin’s view divinely ordained by God, we are to honor the rulers, in accordance with the words of Peter to “honor the king” (1Pe 2:17).
On the question of usury, Calvin asserts that there is no Scripture that totally bans the practice. Although Christ commands us to lend expecting nothing in return (Luk 6:35), he never prohibits the practice of usury. He similarly deconstructs arguments voiced by earlier fathers, such as Chrysostom, against merchants and lenders of money, by showing that through such practices, wealth can be generated. He concludes that “we ought not to judge usury according to a few passages of Scripture, but in accordance with the principle of equity” (p. 683).

7. John Knox
John Knox (1505-72), the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, was a Scottish clergyman and a leader of the Protestant Reformation. While in exile in Calvin’s Geneva, he wrote in the wake of Mary Tudor’s (Bloody Mary’s) measures in re-Catholicizing England. His writings advocate the civil defense of the divine law against unjust policies of monarchs by lower magistrates whose duty is to remove their sovereigns in the last resort.
Knox calls the commonwealth to its duty of resisting Queen Mary, a “wicked woman” and “traitoress” (p. 688). He condemns those who stand in “ungodly silence” as Mary sheds the blood of fellow Protestant Christians (p. 688). Knox goes as far as calling the nobility, judges, and rulers to their duty of resisting Mary and having her “punished to the death” (p. 692). For their failure to resist the queen and thereby their implied consent to her acts, they will be equally punished for their guilt (p. 694).

8. John Ponet
Ponet (ca. 1514-56) was an Edwardian bishop exiled in Strasbourg who formulated tracts exhorting the civil commonwealth to fulfill its duty in terms indebted to Reformed theology and Renaissance classicism. He argues that capital punishment instituted in Genesis 6:9 applies only to the body and its life, not over the soul and conscience. He further argues that under certain circumstances, it is lawful to kill a tyrant.

9. Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos
The Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos (1579) (Lat., Legal Remedy against Tyrants) was a Hugeunot tract written as a response to the Catholic policy of King Henri III of France (1551-89) of persecuting dissidents. It explores the plight of Christians whose king commands obedience to laws that violate the law of God. If such a situation were to arise, the subject would first be bound to the law of God, which has unlimited jurisdiction, over that of a king, whose jurisdiction is limited, because God institutes and ordains the king with temporal authority.
Drawing on Old Testament covenantal themes, natural law, and Roman law, the tract establishes a covenantal basis for civil government. Because it is the people who establish kings with their consent and election, “kings should acknowledge that after God they hold their power and sovereignty from the people” (p. 718). Because the constitution of the monarchy is established through a covenant between the king and the people, the people may resist the king when his acts threaten the commonwealth.

10. Francisco Suárez
Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) was a Jesuit priest who has been generally accepted as the greatest Spanish scholastic thinker. He was nominated by King Philip II to the Prime Chair of Theology in Coimbra, which he accepted in 1597. His most controversial writings addressed a controversy between Dominicans and Jesuits over the relationship between divine grace and human freedom.
Suárez’s Laws and God the Lawgiver is largely constructed as a commentary on Aquinas’s Summa. In it, Suárez defines the law of nations as the positive human law that that is created by custom. Like the natural law, it is solely about inter-human relationships and includes commands, prohibitions, and concessions (permissions). Unlike the natural law, however, the law of nations does not necessarily derive from clear inference from natural principles. It cannot thus be unchanging as the natural law is. Suárez additionally distinguishes between the law of nations, which are based on custom, and the civil law, which is written.
Suárez attacks the proposition that war is evil in and of itself. He instead argues that it is not forbidden to Christians or contrary to Christian charity. He goes as far as stating that offensive war is not a per se evil, but he tempers this by stating that war is generally wrong to undertake, but it is justified when the following three conditions are met: (i) it is waged by a legitimate authority; (ii) there is a just and serious cause; and (iii) it is properly and fairly conducted from its inception, in its prosecution, and in victory (p. 737). This implies that no intrinsic wrong will be done to innocent people.

Part VI. The Seventeenth Century

1. Richard Hooker
Richard Hooker (1554-1600), one of the principal voices of Anglican theological thought, was an Anglican priest who criticized the Presbyterian position as being “scripturally unsound, epistemologically naïve, and politically irresponsible” (p. 743). In his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker tried to deprive the Puritans of the theoretical justification of their reforms and to offer the Church of England a self-accounting. In chapter 10 of Book 1, Fortescue delineates the human positive law, which is “available by consent” (p. 750), “through its inseparable relationship to the origin and authority of government” (p. 744). The groundwork for international law anchors the law of nations “in natural human desire for universal society and fellowship, by … making the authority of international law over commonwealths tantamount to that of the civil law over private persons” (p. 745).

2. Johannes Althusius
Althusius (1557-1638) was a jurist and Calvinist political philosopher known for his Politica Methodice Digesta (Politics Methodically Digested). His writings blend Calvinist, Catholic, scholastic, and humanist sources in a framework with covenantal, constitutional, and pluralist features. He studied law at the Universities of Köln, Basel, and Geneva and obtained a doctorate in both civil and ecclesiastical law. During his studies, he came under the influence of the French Huguenots (Calvinists). His writing thus has a strong undertone of covenant as the basis for modern political society. In his Politics, he puts forward a federalist worldview where all social and political union is covenantal. He grounds all human covenants in two biblical Israeli covenants: (i) the “ecclesiastical covenant” between God, the king, and the people, where the king and people agree to worship God in truth in response to His promise to bless them; and (ii) the “civil covenant” between the king and the people’s representatives, where the elected magistrate promises to abide by the stipulated conditions of his rule in exchange for the people’s obedience to him (p. 759).

3. William Perkins
William Perkins (1558-1602) was a Cambridge clergyman who led the Puritan movement in the Church of England. In his Treatise of Christian Equitie, Perkins explores the virtue of Christian equity, which men are to use in their affairs with others for the maintenance of justice and peace. Equity informs the law but may be used to substitute the application of the law in the interest of moderation and mercy. Perkins appeals to a higher law when invoking the alteration of a punishment. The application of equity reflects man’s creation in the image of God, and thus points back to God.
Perkins discusses the two forms that equity may take: public equity, which is practiced in public meetings and assemblies, such as in courts, councils, and parliaments, and private equity, which is exercised between men in private affairs. The latter implies four duties: (i) to bear with natural infirmities; (ii) to grant the benefit of the doubt; (iii) to depart from our right at times; and (iv) to forgive private and personal wrongs.

4. The Convocation Book
The Convocation Book (1606) came about during the radicalization of the English constitutionalist tradition while the Roman Church was polemically reasserting older papalist doctrines about the right of popes to depose kings. The Convocation Book associates royal power with the patria potestas that belonged to Adam as a gift of creation. Furthermore, it links the royal power to the priestly power. The book was a controversial one that fed into the English Civil War.

5. Hugo Grotius
Grotius (1583-1645) was a Dutch jurist and diplomat whose writings established the basis of modern international law based on natural law. Two substantive themes underlie his political work: the teleological significance of all existence and the universal competence of divine law. In his On the Right of War and Peace, Grotius explores the notion of just war and what is just conduct in war. Defining “just” as not inconsistent with the nature of a society of rational beings, outlines the circumstances under which a war can be justly executed.

A History of the English Revolution

Realizing that a sound understanding of American constitutional history is not possible without an understanding of the English Revolution, I have prepared the following brief history of the major events of the English Civil War, Interregnum, and Glorious Revolution:

A. Events Leading to the Protection of Individual Rights in England

1. King James I (1603–1625)
King James I was an unpopular King who had a tumultuous relationship with Parliament and denied the basic rights and freedoms of his subjects. He considered the king to be as the head of a body, the father in a family (the king is parens patriae), and a god (resembling divine power on earth), and held that it was sedition for a subject to dispute what the king may do.

2. King Charles I (1625–1649)
King James’ son, Charles I, similarly held views of the absolute sovereignty of the king, which caused friction with prominent leaders in society. In many ways, he acted tyrannically and arbitrarily in denying his subjects basic rights. When he was unable to raise funding from Parliament to finance his military exploits, Charles imposed required the wealthy to pay loans and imprisoned subjects who failed to pay. In the Five Knights’ Case (K.B. 1627), five landowners resisted the forced loans. Charles, believing the actions of the landowners to be criminal, ordered them to prison and denied them a trial by a prosecutor. The landowners argued that the King had violated their rights under the Magna Carta, but the court held that the order of the King was enough of a justification to hold the prisoners, even without a formal charge.
The king’s acts led to rising tension among his subjects and between him and Parlaiment. The Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament would eventually condition their cooperation with Charles in raising taxes on the king’s signing of the Petition of Right, which protected several rights that endure to this day, including taxation only with representation and the prohibition of arbitrary imprisonment. It also protected the rule of law and petitioned the king to remove stationed soldiers and mariners who obliged the citizens to receive them into their homes. Although Charles signed this Petition, he largely ignored it and continued to tax without Parliamentary approval.

3. The English Civil War and the Execution of King Charles I

a. Rising Tensions
During his reign, Charles I continued with the support of his judges to punish those who opposed his taxation and military campaigns. Parliament attacked his judges and impeached his advisors, and forced him to agree to abolish a prerogative court where criminals were frequently tortured. Charles feared that Parliament was trying to usurp his power, and Parliament feared that the King and his Archbishop Laud, were seeking to return the English State Church back to Roman Catholicism.
In 1640, a Puritan-dominated Parliament provoked Charles by voting to establish the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Charles reacted by bringing troops into the House of Commons to arrest its leading members. The Parliament reacted in turn by raising an army of its own to bring down the Stuart Monarchy.

b. Civil War, Trial, and Execution of the King
Civil war between Parliamentarians and Royalists ensued from 1642 to 1649. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) civil wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament. The king was finally defeated militarily and tried in 1649 for “Treason and High Misdemeanours.”
Throughout the trial, Charles repeated the charge that the court had no authority to try him, and he refused to enter a plea. The President replied that the king was being tried “in the name of the people of England,” but the king never submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. The idea that the king was above the law, a principle that both King James and Charles adopted, was abolished in the trial. The court held that the king was accountable to the people and to the laws, and could be punished for violating the public trust, and yet there were no members of the Upper House present the court and the court’s claim that its authority derived “from the people” was highly dubious.. This was a view articulated by Milton, who stated that “it is lawful, and has been held so through all ages, for any, who have the power, to call to account a tyrant or wicked king, and after due conviction, to depose and put him to death.”[1], [2]
At the conclusion of the trial, the king was sentenced to death and was executed on January 30, 1649. Thereafter, more armed conflict broke out between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The Civil War ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

B. The Interregnum, Restoration, Glorious Revolution, and English Bill of Rights

1. The Interregnum
Beginning with the execution of Charles I in 1649 and ending with the restoration of Charles II in 1660, England was marked by a period of parliamentary and military rule known as the Interregnum. This period of English history was comprised of a Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell (1653-58) and of a Protectorate under his son, Richard Cromwell (1658-59).
Oliver Cromwell emerged as the central power holder of England after the execution of Charles I. Cromwell led brilliant military victories throughout Ireland, Scotland and continental Europe, and quashed rebellions ruthlessly. He dissolved Parliament on multiple occasions when dissatisfied with its results, and his rule came close to something akin to a military dictatorship. Some have suggested that this centralization of power was necessary in a realm whose government was historically marked by a powerful executive. In the absence of a king, Cromwell was forced to take on this role.
At the death of Cromwell, the country degenerated into near anarchy. Cromwell’s son, Richard, tried to lead the country but, lacking his father’s military prowess and ruthlessness, was unable to work effectively with Parliament.

2. The Restorations of the Stuart Monarchy
Under these tense circumstances, a radical change was undertaken. General Monck, commander of troops in Scotland, believing the only way to restore order under the Protectorate of Richard Cromwell was to restore the Stuart Monarchy, brought the formerly purged members of Parliament back to their seats. The new Parliament set up a Council of State that invited Charles II back to the throne.
Charles II followed a policy of forgiving the parliamentarians for their policies of the past. However, the old power struggle between the Monarch and Parliament continued. With so much animosity against Catholicism during his reign, Charles II naturally feared that when he died, his openly Catholic brother James II would be unable to hold the throne.

3. The Glorious Revolution
When Charles II died, James II succeeded to the throne and introduced the Declaration of Indulgence to legitimize his appointment of Catholics throughout England to posts formerly reserved to Protestants. Many read the Declaration of Indulgence as establishing Catholicism. This, coupled with the fact that James II’s Catholic wife unexpectedly gave birth to a son (thus transferring succession of the throne to a Catholic), sparked a revolution among Protestants. The opposition to continued Catholic rule invited William III (William of Orange, France) and his wife Mary (James’ daughter) to vie for the English throne and thus assure a Protestant succession. William mobilized an army, but without shedding any blood, ascended to the throne in 1689 in what was known as the “Glorious Revolution.”
As a result of the Glorious Revolution, Protestant denominations gained new favor in the kingdom. The Church of England, while continuing to receive support from the state, came to coexist with the Calvinist denominations that had initiated the Revolution in 1640. Christian subjects were no longer required to adhere to the Anglican Church.

4. The English Bill of Rights
The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689 to confirm William and Mary’s rule in England. Reacting to the purported attempt of James II to “subvert and extirpate” Protestantism from England, the Bill of Rights enumerated several rights exclusive to English Protestants, including the right to sit on the throne. The Bill of Rights echoed many of the elements of the Petition of Right in 1628 under King Charles, such as the prohibition of taxation without representation and of standing armies in times of peace. The list of rights enumerated foreshadows the American Bill of Rights.

[1] Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649). Milton, dealing with the right of the people to execute a guilty king, argues that political power comes from the consent of the people, who have a right to execute a guilty sovereign, as in the case of King Charles I. The central role of the consent of the governed in his paradigm foreshadows the views that Locke and the Founders would later adopt.
[2] Further justification for the execution of the king can be found in the political thought of Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes argues that government is needed to maintain peace and order, which contrast the state of nature in which man naturally finds himself. Like Milton, Hobbes maintains that the state derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle that is instrumental in inspiring the American Revolution. Like Locke, Hobbes views man as fallen, but argues that sin and liberty do not have inherent meaning; rather, they are defined by whatever the sovereign prohibits, in the case of sin, or, in the case of liberty, whatever the sovereign permits.

Acton University 2009

SESSION 1
CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY: FREEDOM AND VIRTUE
SAMUEL GREGG

A. Introduction
The term “liberty” has been used by peoples throughout history—by the Greeks, the English, French revolutionaries, Marxists, etc.—and all groups have used the term in a different way. However, to truly understand liberty, we must not examine it as independent from truth or morality. Liberty is not to be understood as the right to do whatever one wishes; construed as such, one may come to understand it not as liberty but as slavery to sin.

B. Christian Virtuous Liberty – Freedom for Excellence
1. Liberty Integrated with Morality and Truth
The Christian understanding of liberty is to be viewed as “freedom for excellence.” In the Hebrew Scriptures, sin was always associated with slavery. One who sinned was often given up to slavery or slavery was given as a consequence for a people as a result of sin. The Christian notion of morality is highly demanding because happiness is seen as the result of the response to Christ’s call to live in the Truth according to a perfection that goes beyond the Mosaic law. St. Paul speaks of liberty in Christ and calls Christians to find the best that can be found and contemplate what is true and beautiful and virtuous. His writings are filled with references to stoicism that his gentile Greek audience would understand. At the very beginning of the church, there is a collaboration of faith and virtue and the integration of the classical virtues into faith. Augustine heeds great attention to the classical virtues.
2. Thomas Aquinas: Freedom for Excellence
For Aquinas, free choice is a matter of choosing good. Freedom, or free choice is based on two spiritual capacities: reason and will. Humans are free and in control of their actions because of their rational inclination to truth and to happiness. If a child with no training or discipline plays the piano, the result sound will be a barbaric and cacophonic expression of human freedom. It may seem like sin is an expression of human freedom, but it really is not. However, if the student engages in training by taking his natural inclination to play the piano and wills himself to learn it, he would be acquiring self-mastery. So it is with sin and virtue. We can achieve self-mastery to overcome sin and realize virtue in our lives.
3. Potential Objection
- It seems too Greek and Aristotelian and ignores grace, the scriptures, and faith
- Response: Augustine and Aquinas draw just as much from Scripture as they do from classical philosophy. Augustine grounds all of the virtues on Christian love. They are doing what St. Paul did: using philosophical contexts to clarify the scripture.

C. Freedom of Indifference
The alternative of freedom for excellence is freedom of indifference. This was articulated in the Fourteenth Century by William of Ockham, perhaps most responsible for what we today call “freedom of indifference.” He is the father of an alternative vision of human liberty: the nominalist vision of liberty that we have today. He is the chief exponent of nominalism: there are no universals such as the virtues, of universal human nature. According to his view, the absolutes are merely labels that have no inherent meaning. Freedom is simply a neutral faculty of choice; the will is man’s defining attribute. Nominalism implies that revelation is irrational and God is irrational.

D. Consequences of Freedom of Indifference
Nominalism holds that it doesn’t matter what we choose, just as long as we are free to choose. This leaves us in a world of indeterminate wills. We no longer have a God of love, but a God of obligations whose will clashes with ours. Nominalism prohibits us from treating good and evil and right and wrong and ultimately leads to Nietzsche’s arbitrary use of power.

E. What is to Be Done?
To make the Christian case for virtuous liberty in a nominalist world, we must live our lives in a non-nominalist manner by rehabilitating reason in the Christian faith. We should remember that the resurrection in the earliest Christian Church was presented to the rational assent of others. It was never forced upon anyone who was called to the submission of the Apostles. Rather, we read in the book of Acts how early believers, watching the Apostles as they performed signs and wonders, came to faith in Christ and in His resurrection. It was a process of reason that brought them to faith: as they watched the miracles, they concluded that there was something happening beyond the natural. This in turn convicted them that the signs and wonders were to be attributed not to some superstitious truth or religious doctrine, but rather, to the True God that the Apostles were preaching. Deprived of reason, faith becomes subject to feelings and emotion. Ultimately, when not anchored in reason, faith may degenerate into a form of superstition whereby people interpolate their own wills into God’s Word and ultimately worship nothing but their own selfish desires. When St. Peter stood up and presented his declaration in Acts 2:14 and following, he didn’t present it as an opinion, but rather, as truth for apprehension. He appeals to forensics, arguing with respect to the resurrection of Christ that we all are witnesses (Act 2:32). This is an appeal to reason; Peter is showing that because we have witnesses who saw this resurrection, it is therefore true.
In a sense, Luke also appeals to reason in the prelude to the Gospel under the same name, where he says, “It seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus” (Luke 1:3). The Blessed Augustine wrote that an act of faith is ultimately an act of reason and that faith in God is reasonable. Christianity is the religion of the Logos: it was never unreasonable. Some of Christ’s disciples did not understand Him until the day of Pentecost, but His teaching was nonetheless reasonable.

SESSION 2
LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW
MICHAEL MILLER

A. Introduction
1. Connection to Anthropology
Aristotle tries to deal with the good life to conclude what it is. It’s not pleasure and it’s not honor. What holds on that no one can take away is the life of virtue. The purpose of the polis is the good and perfection of its members. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is freedom for excellence. John Paul II said that the problem with socialism is anthropological in nature.
2. Example of the problem
How do free persons live together? Even with the modern secular idea: you still have the problem of resolving conflicts between exercises of liberty. When should you use legal coercion to deter people from choosing ends/activities that diminish their freedom for excellence? He wants to lay a groundwork for the state.

B. Historical Influence of Christianity on Limited Government
The sources of political liberty vary according to how we define “liberty.” Some would pin it to the Glorious Revolution of 1688; others to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, to the Declaration of Independence, or to the French Revolution. Still others would trace it to the Enlightenments. Matthew 22:1 teaches that the state is to be limited: “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Christians are to call for our rulers, but not to them. Christians thus did not consider the state to be the source of all truth. Constantine declared effectively that Caesar was no longer God when he did not subject the church to him. As a manifestation of higher law thinking to which even the Emperor must submit, we can consider the confrontation of Bishop Ambrose of Milan with Emperor Theodosius I for the latter’s slaughter of seven thousand residents of Thessalonica at the end of the fourth century.
Christianity insisted that the state was to be limited. This is why totalitarian regimes always tried to limit or destroy Christianity. Totalitarianism is essentially about subjecting every part of citizens’ lives to the State. This includes citizens’ thoughts and faith.

C. Anthropology and Theological and Moral Analysis
Sound Christian doctrine draws on both human flourishing and fallibility.
1. Human Flourishing
Humans are social beings and we need others to flourish and to live a life of virtue.
2. Human Fallibility and the Reality of Sin
Humans are good but fallen. There is a need for coercion as a form of deterrence or punishment to implement justice. The Core Competence of the State is Punishing Evildoers; Roman 13:4 states that the authority does not bear the sword in vain.
3. Natural Law and Moral Limits
Natural law makes it evident that some things are intrinsically evil. Positive law must be subordinate to natural law. If it’s a serious violation of the moral law, you have the obligation to say no. Thrasymachus in Plato argues that justice is the right of the stronger. Christianity says no.

D. Jurisprudence: Principles for Application
1. Common Good
This allows groups and individuals to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.
2. Rule of Law
We must distinguish between the rule of law and the rule of men. The law is not meant to be arbitrary. There is to be due process and the enforcement of contracts. One of the problems in many of developing countries is that contracts are not enforced.
3. Subsidiarity
The Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity holds that things that should be administered by the most local level possible, and high-level government should only be involved in handling what cannot be dealt with effectively locally. For example, the family should take care of citizens’ moral upbringing; the state should provide their defense. The Protestant version of subsidiarity is the Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty.”
4. Morality and the Limits of Law
How Far Should the Law Go? Should the Law Forbid All Evil? Aquinas said that we should not regulate and criminalize fornication, even though it is immoral and against God’s law. Why? Because if you did, it would create a massive intrusive state. Lord Acton: the Government should leave the feeding of the people and enriching of the people to the enterprise of others.

E. Conclusions: Gnostic Temptation
Avoid utopianism, which Christianity does not promote.


SESSION 3
THE ECONOMIC WAY OF THINKING
JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE, PH.D

A. Introduction
Morse founded the Ruth Institute that promotes marriage among young people on university campuses. Slogan: “One man, one woman, for life.”

B. The Premises of Economic Science
1. There is a Truth to be Discovered
Economics believes there is such a thing as truth. In other areas of the university, the idea of “truth” is treated with hostility. This premise of an absolute truth is something that has undergirded all of the sciences of the West. This is why the west has chemistry whereas other societies have had alchemy. Others have had astrology; we have astronomy. Why? It is because Christianity has led us to believe that there is a truth out there.
2. Other Premises
The study of economics also presumes that there is a such thing as human nature and people respond to Incentives in a systematic and predicable way.

C. Economics Studied in Two Ways
1. Study of Scarcity
This is probably the most common approach to the study of economics. This means that human wants are infinite, but material resources are scarce. Economic science is thus seen as the business of allocating these scarce resources among society.
Note: scarcity applies to the material world. In the spiritual world, we can think in terms of abundance, not scarcity, of such concepts as grace or love. The core problem of the human condition, as we see from Genesis, is not a matter of scarcity (they had all the fruit they could consume), but rather, one of the human will.
2. Study of Exchange or Trade
This is the approach of Adam Smith, who saw people engaging in trade. This gave him insight as to what wealth really was: people engage in trade in a voluntary fashion if each one believes that he will be better off as a result of the trade.

D. Basic Economic Principles
1. People Respond to Incentives
Because people respond to incentives, you can predict what people are going to do based on these incentives. Most economists realize that people are motivated by more than money; they are also motivated by factors such as non-monetary benefits and prestige.
2. Opportunity Cost is the Correct Understanding of Costs
This view considers what else one can be doing with his time. Many of us at Acton University are giving up some income that we could have earned if we had not taken off. This is reflected in the current volunteer army versus the former conscription army; the government has decided that it is a better investment in working with only those who volunteer to join the army, for investing in their formation and training will likely have long term results since they will stay in the armed forced.
3. Prices Convey Information
F. A. Hayek is associated with the importance of prices in the market, which convey an enormous amount of information to both buyers and producers.

E. Basic Institutions of a Free Market
1. Private Property
Private property is significant because it means that someone is in charge of a resource and cares what happens to it.
2. Voluntary Exchange and Free Association
The whole institution of contract law is of key importance.
3. Profit and Profit-Seeking
There needs to be acceptance that some capital will be destroyed but that it will be transformed into a more useful capital. Competitors are there to assure that businesses do not charge too much or seek too much profit.
4. Rule of Law
The rule of law ensures stable rules that enable people to plan their economic activities. An investor cannot do anything significant if he thinks that the rules will suddenly change. The rule of law ensured that the West would develope so well.

SESSION 4
MYTHS ABOUT THE MARKET
PHILIP BOOTH

A. Lecturer’s Bio
Philip Booth is Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at the Cass Business School in London. He is also the Editorial and and Programme Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). The IEA, which was established by Anthony Fisher, is the first free market institute in the world. With the exception of the IEA’s journal, the web site (www.iea.org.uk) allows users to download everything the IEA produces, including the monograph Catholic Social Teaching and the Market.

B. Myths About the Market
1. Myth One: the Market Economy Encourages Greed and Selfishness
This argument holds that we need government to attenuate the worst effects of greed and selfishness. In reality, self-interest, which is not selfishness, is an important motivator in an economy. As Adam Smith has said that it is not from “the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Ultimately, a business must be mindful of the other, or it will go out of business. Might markets foster selfishness? In truth, they might foster the acquisition of material things, since capitalist societies tend to produce a great deal of material goods.
2. Myth Two: Minimum Wages Help the Poor
It may be that minimum wages help some poor at the expense of other poor people, but they do not help the poor globally. In the UK, the minimum wage is 5.75 £ (about $7). In the US, it’s about 60% of that level. What does the minimum wage mean? We are banning people who are willing to work for a certain wage from taking certain employment.
The UK low-pay commission said that the minimum wage has lifted up the wages of the lowest paid with no consequent loss of jobs. However, this study was undertaken soon after the minimum wages were implemented and thus did not take into consideration the full extent of the long term effects.
A US study, in contrast, showed that a 10% rise in minimum wage causes a 2-6% reduction in youth employment.
3. Myth Three: The Financial Crash Was Caused by Unfettered, Deregulated Markets
It is widely accepted that the crash of the 1930s was caused by greed. But the Fed assured market actors that it would lower interest rates if there was a crisis. This led to booming asset prices and low savings. Mismanagement of monetary policy is at the root of all financial crises.
4. Myth Four: Globalization Leads to Increased Inequalities
Some argue that globalization leads to increased income differences. There are actually two distinct questions: (i) the extent to which globalization has reduced poverty; and (ii) the extent to which it has reduced income differences.
Regarding the second question, according to the Catholic Compendium of Social Doctrine, there are many indications that point to a trend of increasing inequalities, both between advanced countries and developing countries, and within industrialized countries. But this may be because of the failure of some states to participate in globalization.
Absolute poverty has decreased rapidly in the globalized world. Thus, even if it is true that income disparities have increased, there are fewer poor people, and this is more important than the fact that there are wider wealth gaps between the rich and some poor people.
If present trends continue, the middle class will rise from 7.6 % of the world population in 2006 to 16.1 % in 2030.


DINNER LECTURE
THE AMERICAN FOUNDING AND NATURAL LAW
ROBERT GEORGE

A. Biography
Robby George holds a Masters in theology and a JD from Harvard. He plays the banjo and works to defend America’s founding principles. He is on the board of editors of First Things (with Rabbi Novak, affiliated with the Conservative movement in Judaism and then shifted to the Union for Traditional Judaism).

B. Lecture
1. Introduction
There is a lot of disinformation about what natural law is. Natural law theory is in essence a natural account of the fulfillment of human persons and the communities they form. One should choose and act in ways that are compatible with the human spirit. This includes rights that people possess by virtue of being members of humanity. These are rights that no person conferred and that no government can therefore take away. It is not like the right to a drivers license or some other revocable right. Rather, we are dealing with economic and other rights that we have by virtue of our human nature. No one has improved on Aristotle’s definition of man, the paragon of creation, as a “rational animal” (or “reasonable animal”). A person can be morally and spiritually strong, but physically debilitated.
Though we are individuals, we are individuals that are social by nature. Natural law theorists, however, reject both strict individualism and collectivism. Collectivism tends to subordinate the well-being of the individual to the interests of the larger unit. Neither group does justice to the person—a rational animal within a locus of rights and responsibilities.
2. Natural Rights
Are natural rights hard-wired into our nature? Human rights cannot be treated as the English utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1748-1831) would say—towards the greatest good. Immanuel Kant though says that we should treat humans as ends and never as a means only. He is referring to both how we treat others and ourselves; we should avoid even acts that degrade our own humanity by treating ourselves as mere instruments of satisfaction.
One natural right that belongs in the set is the right of an innocent person not to be killed, for it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. This is why abortion, euthanasia, and killing of noncombatants in war are considered by Catholicism to be wrong. Robert George wrote the book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, where he argues that all human life is worthy of the defense of life and where he rebukes people like Peter Singer and Ronald Dworkin who argue that not all people are subject to this protection. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that God leads man not only through his instincts, but also through his reason, the logos that God freely shares with man. But whether or not one recognizes Biblical authority or believes in God, it is clear that man has certain inherent rights.
3. Shortcomings of Skepticism
David Hume, the father of modern skepticism, argued that reason is to be the slave of the passions. For him, the human experience is illusory and the ends people pursue are given by non-rational factors. People believe they are choosing for reasons, but that is an illusion. They believe they are acting under free will, but ultimately, there are sub-rational forces—feelings and emotions that Hume labels as “the passions”—that influence them. What this means is that Hitler’s goal, motivated by sub-rational passions, was to kill a lot of Jews. Mother Tereas’s goal was to save people in Calcutta. Reason cannot judge either goal; it can only be used to further each person’s respective goal.
4. Natural Law and Religious Freedom
It is often regarded as an embarrassment to natural law thinking the fact that medieval natural law thinkers denied some rights, such as religious liberty. This is partly because they misunderstood the idea of religious liberty, thinking it meant what the French revolution came to mean. But with Vatican II, Catholicism came to realize that religious liberty is not only about the right to believe what one wishes, but also the right to propagate one’s religion in the public square.
This is founded on the obligation of each person to pursue religious truth and follow it according to his conscience. The Church was thus showing that we each have an obligation to contemplate and consider religious questions, yet this right is today violated across the globe.

C. Conclusions
We may in the future see natural law depicted as an oppressive hidden form of religion.


SESSION 5
WEALTH AND POVERTY IN SCRIPTURE
JONATHAN WITT, PH.D.

A. Two Extreme Views
1. The Prosperity Gospel
The Prosperity Gospel was predominantly articulated by Jim and Tammy Bakker. Jim Bakker eventually went to jail for quick rich schemes to take advantage of his flock, but when he was released, he repented and wrote a book.
Proof texts for the Prosperity Gospel include the following:
- Luke 6:38: “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
- Deut. 28:11-13: “And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them.”
- John 15:7: “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.”
Countering the teachings of the Prosperity Gospel, we can consider the biblical teaching that the giants of the faith led hard lives. In fact, all but one of the apostles was martyred; according to tradition, St. John was the only apostle to die a natural death, but he spent his life exiled on the Island of Patmos. Faith and obedience to God does not thus necessarily guarantee material prosperity.
2. Liberation theology
Gustavo Gutiérrez is perhaps the best known name in liberation theology, which seeks to free the poor from oppression and emphasizes that the poor often abound in spiritual richness.
Proof texts for liberation theology include the following:
- Luke 6:20b-25: “Then He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, For you shall be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, For you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets. "But woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, For you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, For you shall mourn and weep.”
- Luke 16:13b: “You cannot serve God and mammon.”
- Luke 18:24-25: “And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."”
- Luke 16:19-25: “"There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.”
o NOTE: the Lazarus in this story is fictional, but there is a non-fictional Lazarus depicted in the Gospels who does rise from the dead. This thus shows that the dead can come back into the work of the living.
o However, the effect of the resurrection of the non-fictional Lazarus was not the repentance of the religious people; rather, the Pharisees sought to kill him.
- Acts 2:44-45: “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.”
Among liberation theology-mind youth, Che Guevara stands out as a hero, but in reality, he was a mass murderer. The youth view him as a rebel for the poor, but he was really a murderous Marxist.

B. The Bible Upholds Private Property
Genesis 23 depicts the negotiation between Ephron and Abraham about the purchase of land for burying in the cave of Machpelah from the Canaanites. Ephron insists that Abraham take the field, but Abraham insists on paying for it. In the end, Ephron puts a price on the field and Abraham pays it to him. The valuing of the land, and the subsequent purchase, is one of the earliest accounts that we have in the Bible of the ownership and transfer of private property. Clearly, then, private property is in the scripture and

C. The Rich Young Ruler in Context
We read in Matthew 19 the story of the rich young ruler (some translations call him a “rich young man”) who held wealth as an idol. Jesus told the man, “come, follow Me” (Matt 19:21), but the man “went away sorrowful” (Matt 19:22). We must note that the sin of the young man was not the wealth in and of itself, but rather, that it prevented the man from following Jesus. It is possible that Christians hold wealth, but they must be willing to give up everything at any point to go and follow Jesus.

D. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus
In this parable, the rich man is sent to be tormented in hell while Lazarus, who sat at his door with sores, was sent to Abraham’ s bosom. According to St. John Chrysostom, the rich man was punished not because he was rich, but because he was cruel and inhuman; he violated the commands to give alms to the poor. The poor man who rested in the bosom of Abraham was praised not because he was poor, but because he bore his poverty with thankfulness.

E. The Rich and the Eye of the Needle
Christ remarked on “how hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:25). Yet he conceded “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27). The point to remember is that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10a). It is not money in and of itself that is the problem. Rather, it is the love of money.
Luke, in the book of Acts, mentions wealthy Christians as people in good standing. Matthew interprets Luke in stating that “blessed are the poor in spirit,” Matt. 5:3a.

F. God Doesn’t Want Everyone to be Poor
Rather, he wants the rich to love the poor. We read in 1 John 3:17: “But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” There were gleaning laws in Levitcus which stated: “you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10) and “when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22).
Similarly a system was set up to protect the poor in the “year of jubilee”: “if one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if his redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. Or if the man has no one to redeem it, but he himself becomes able to redeem it, then let him count the years since its sale, and restore the remainder to the man to whom he sold it, that he may return to his possession. But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession” Lev. 25-28).

G. Why Riches Are Dangerous
Riches are dangerous because they tempt us to depend on ourselves and on our riches, rather than on God. But riches should not be viewed as a curse.


SESSION 6
POVERTY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: GOOD INTENTIONS—SOUND ECONOMICS
MICHAEL MILLER

A. Introduction
Pope Benedict gave a speech where he said, “we need to expand reason beyond the empirical.” We should shift from asking “why is there poverty,” which is abundant, to “why is there wealth,” which is rare. We can shift the focus from “what can international institutions do” to “what can the poor do.” This is a very important topic for Christians, since Jesus exhibited a care and a concern for the poor.

B. Reality of Poverty
Let us consider the following facts: 3 billion people live on less than $2/day (adjusted for purchasing power); 840 million people do not have enough to eat; 1 billion people lack access to clean water; 2 billion lack access to sanitation; 1-3 million die each year from malaria; 10 million from preventable diseases; and 3 million people die each year from AIDS.
Many responses have been devised, including bi-lateral and international assistance; the planning of the IMF, World Bank, USAid, the UN, and development agencies; Official Development Assistance (ODA) population control programs, Structural Adjustment Packages (SAP), debt relief, and billions in aid.

C. What Has Happened?
Despite all of these efforts, aid has largely been ineffective. There is no correlation between aid and economic growth. Lord Peter Bauer argued that foreign aid created the “Third World” and hostility to the West and has politicized development by attaching political strings to development. It has caused a colonial mentality: people are incapable and need help. But we should recognize that people need to do it for themselves.
Aid can be imperialist, with assistance given contingent upon family planning. Barak Obama’s first act in government was to reverse the Mexico Protocol in order to fund abortions in the developing world.

D. ONE Campaign
The ONE Campaign, whose slogan is “Make poverty history,” seeks to fight corruption in the developing world, to increase aid to 1% of the federal budget, to fight malaria and AIDS, and to achieve debt cancellation and trade reform. It uses celebrity appeal to achieve these ends.

E. Causes of Poverty
Among the causes of poverty are corruption, poor institutions, and a lack of accountability.

F. Fallacies about Poverty
Fallacies about poverty include:
- The view that wealth creation is a zero-sum game (poverty for some is caused by others’ wealth);
- Over-population is a cause of poverty;
- People are only consumers, not producers.
- Countries cannot develop without aid.
- Capitalism only benefits the rich.

G. Can Anything be Done?
There is no panacea for development, but we can focus on the causes of success. Hernando de Soto argues that the problem in the developing world is not a dearth of assets, but rather, the inability of entrepreneurs to turn assets into capital that can be used to produce wealth. We thus need to create economic freedom because God created us to be free and to have dominion. One needs space to live out his freedom to act as a co-creator.
We can consider the following cases as examples for lessons: Germany and Japan; Argentina v. Canada; and Hong Kong v. China.

SESSION 7
ISLAM, FREEDOM, AND FREE MARKETS
MUSTAFA AKYOL

A. Introduction
We cannot say that Islam is based on or represented by all of the violence that we see in the media. After all, Christianity is not to be judged by violence in its own past, such as the Inquisition. According to Bernard Lewis’s What Went Wrong, if we go back to the Middle Ages, we find the most liberal regimes to be in the Islamic world (p. 156).

B. Overcoming the Tribe
Prior to Islam, the Arab society was shaped by the desert and by the values of the desert. The social structure was based on tribalism. The individual had little chance to survive outside of the tribe. Individuals came and went but the tribe was what was important. The Arabs did not believe in the afterlife and they thus saw the individual as unimportant. The immortality that man could achieve is in the tribe and continuation of its spirit (Karen Armstrong).

C. The Birth of the Individual
With the advent of Islam, Mohammed started preaching a new message: the individual has importance and is to live on forever; the tribe is unimportant when compared to the immortality of man’s soul. The German Hans Küng emphasized this. Human dignity was taught in Islam. In addition, Islam introduced rights for the weak. For example, women were very oppressed, and it gave them rights to property, to inheritance, and to choose their husband. Prior to that, one would pay a dowry to the father; but in post-Islamic society, the dowry would be paid directly to the woman as a security in the event she was divorced. In this society, even animal rights were introduced.

D. Islam is a religion of the sword and spread by the sword
It is true that Islam spread by the sword. Mohammed waged wars with pagans during the expansion of Islam. This is because Muslims believed the rule of Islam was good. But while they spread the rule of Islam, they did not require anyone to submit to Islam. The Qur’an states that “if your Lord had willed, all the people would have faith. Do you think you can force people to be believers?” (Qur’an 10:99).
In Muslim-ruled territories, the pagans were not tolerated, but Christians and Jews, called “the people of the book,” were tolerated, but were required to pay a tax for their protection, since they were not required to serve in the military (the Muslims were). The Ottoman Empire eliminated this rule, yet some non-Muslims didn’t like it because they preferred avoiding the military service. The system was actually in many ways more liberal than Europe, which is why many Jews would come to the Middle East.
Islam is very tolerant of Christians, stating in the Qur’an that Christians are even “the best friends for Muslims,” because they are not arrogant and have wise men in their quarters. However, Islam criticizes the doctrine of the Trinity. Theologically, from a Muslim point of view, Christians are not viewed as antagonistic.

E. The Role of Shariah
Some examples of Sharia law, such as the stoning of women to death, come not from the Qur’an, but from the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states that if “evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.”
Things may seem extreme in the Sharia, but when one considers that torture was at the time considered the norm, or that the English common law punished theft with death, the Sharia becomes just one more of many legal systems.
Shariah has five basic purposes: the protection of life, religion, lineage, intellect (hence the ban on alcohol and drugs), and property. With respect to the protection of property, it should be noted that the longest verse in the Quran is about how to sign a contract. Furthermore, the Qur’an banned usury.
One notable fact about the Shariah law is that in Medieval Islam, the state (the Sultan/Caliph) didn’t make the law; rather, it was made by the Islamic scholars of the day. The Sultan could not do whatever he wanted; he was bound by the law.

F. Islam’s Influences
Islam gave rise to the birth of capitalism in the Arab world. Mohammed said, “Nobody has ever eaten a better meal than that which he has earned by working with his own hand.”
Furthermore, Islam preserved the scholars of ancient Athens and offered them to the West. Greek philosophy was lost in the Middle Ages and the Muslim scholars translated them into Arabic. At the time, one would learn Arabic and go somewhere to Muslim Spain or the Middle East to discover Aristotle or other Greek scholars.

G. What Went Wrong
Today, many Muslims are closed off to whatever is Western. What changed? It started off with changes in world trade routes that left the Middle East poorer than it was when it was at the center of trade. Another explanation considers that the Muslim world did not change much, but that rather, the West changed. The question might be: “what went right in the West?” rather than “what went wrong in the Middle East”? The Muslims became self-satisfied about their past and were not curious as to what was happening in Europe. Thus, the developments in European trade, insurance, and legal institutions that led to wealth creation in Europe went largely unassimilated in the Muslim world.

H. Rationalists versus Literalists
There has been a battle in Islam between rationalists versus literalists.
1. Rationalists
The rationalists believe in contextual revelation coupled with reason. They argue that the Qur’an is created and should be interpreted allegorically and non-literally. They also argue that we have reason to interpolate with revelation.
The Mutazili School was the most representative of rational Islam. As Karen Armstrong wrote in A History of God, “justice is the essence of God. He can’t wrong anybody. He can’t enjoin anything contrary to reason” (p. 164).
2. Traditionists
The traditionalists are focused on literalist revelation plus the “sayings” of Mohammed. They follow the Hadiths, or reports of the sayings and activities of Mohammad and his companions. They argue that, rather than try to reason, we should look at Mohammed’s sayings and mimic his acts. This became the Sunna or traditions of Mohammed.
The Hanbali School was the most representative of this branch of Islam. Ibn Hazm captures its philosophy when he stated, “God is not bound by even his won word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us.” This developed into Wahhabism.
3. Ashari
Ashari was a scholar who tried to effect a synthesis of both schools. However, he was closer to the Hanbali side. This later became the tradition of the Sunni Arab world.
4. Maturidi
Maturidi’s view is a close variant of the Ashari view. He came along and this became the official doctrine of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire.


SESSION 8
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION
JOHN COURETAS

A. Introduction
This is the second lecture on Orthodoxy at Acton. We hope to get a survey of the scholarly literature on globalization and on Orthodox economic thinking.

B. Lecture
1. Basic Overview of the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church is located in many lands that are pluralistic in nature. Freedomhouse has a list of countries that can be said to fit into “Orthodox grouping” if either Orthodox Christians are the majority or it has had an impact on the cultural development of the nation. These countries include: Greece, Russia, Georgia, Finland, Lebanon, Syria, and many others. The Ukraine is also one of these countries, but the Orthodox Church is divided between Moscow and another autocephalous church, called the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (there is a lot of grayness as to which one is official).
Orthodox Holy Tradition began with the apostles and goes on to eternity. It is deeply colored by its history, which too often has been tragic. That’s why Orthodoxy is known as the “church of the martyrs.” The greatest persecution was not in Rome, but in Stalin’s Russian and in Romania. Albania declared itself atheist and expropriated churches.
2. The Orthodox View of Globalization
There is a deep suspicion that Orthodox hold towards globalization based on competition with the West and especially with Rome. Orthodoxy sees itself as the protector of cultural identity: to be Greek is to be Orthodox. It is not unusual for Greek poetry to be recited at a Greek Independence Day celebration at a Greek Orthodox Church. This suspicion is based on cultural protectionism of the Orthodox people.
Papism and Protestantism have been influenced on a theoretical and theological level by Augustine in his view of predestination. Unfortunately, the Protestants have been unable to separate themselves from this.
In the words of one Orthodox writer, globalization is an “alien ideology imported by the Franks [Western Christians].” Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, in his book, Facing the World, wrote profound things about globalization. He talks about promoting and resisting a globalization that puts forward a global oligarchy and traces globalization to: (i) technology; (ii) the collapse of the entire world of ideas of the former Soviet block; (iii) actions and decisions of large states and international organizations, which show that globalization is no longer an independently developing idea but is of the economically powerful, such as multinationals. The models of globalization are based on the West, on Western ideas, and on mdels of life that have self-serving goals. The Eastern Orthodox feel helpless that they can’t control the vicious images that are disrupting the lives of families.
A group of US Orthodox bishops in the millennium statement highlighted that in many countries under socialism, Orthodox Christians suffered greatly. At the same time, they state that capitalism does not leave a place for faith in God; capitalist culture is shaped by the bottom line. These bishops are leveling Marxism with the capitalist economy. This is somewhat ironic, because the Orthodox churches in America, unlike those in Greece, are independent of and do not depend on the government for their support. They spread up through the money won by immigrants, who have done very well economically in the US. They view technology and everything else that came with capitalism, including consumerism, as tracing back to Western scholasticism (the rationalization of revealed truth). They thus see themselves as the innocent bystanders of a phenomenon that can be linked to the Franks.
3. The East-West Rift
The lay Orthodox theologian Nicholas Zernov pinpoints the “end of fellowship” between the East and the West on the date of the sacking of Constantinople. He also points to 1185 AD, when Thessaloniki was sacked by Latin Crusaders and was marked by drunken soldiers dancing atop altars. These events of the past are partially responsible for an anti-West feeling in the Orthodox world today that continues to manifest itself as anti-globalization. Many Orthodox consider globalization as a threat to Orthodoxy and thus as a threat to Orthodox nations as well.
Ioannis Stefanidis treats some of these questions in Anti-Americanism in Greece.
4. Orthodox Identity
In 2000, there was an uproar when the government eliminated the “religion” checkbox on the new identity cards. Many in Greece declared that “first we are Orthodox, then we are Europeans.” The mentality is that “history teaches that Europeans were always out to harm us.” The Greek people cling to an identity associated with the church. Some have stated that “the race owes itself to the Church.”
After the fall of Communism, nationalist passions ignited by non-Orthodox missionaries coming into the Orthodox world, especially into Russia. Protestants said they would “Christianize” or “bring the Bible to” Russia, but the Russian government branded the proselytizers as cults. In 2002, when John Paul set up four parishes in Russia, Russia asked it to be downgraded to “administrations.”
5. “The Ambivalent Orthodox”
In “The Ambivalent Orthodox” (Journal of Democracy, Apr. 2004), Elizabeth Prodromou argues that the Orthodox see pluralism as a way of “subordination” or “oppression.” She says that outside of Greece, the Orthodox people have little experience with democracy.
There is thus a great deal of hesitance and suspicion towards change and pluralism. However, the economic life in Orthodox cultures in practice (not theory) is often distinct. The economic practice is at odds with ideological campaigns against Western ideas and the market economy. It is apparent how Orthodox Christians who have fled to the West have flourished under the Diaspora. Furthermore, since the founding of Byzantium, the Orthodox have been producers and traders in the world trade. The Greeks have flourished in world shipping (Leonos, etc.) and entrepreneurial exploits. In fact, before the current economic crisis, most ships belonged to the Greeks and more than 60% of China’s imports came to Europe through Greece.
The Dumbarton-Oaks edition of the History of Byzantium states that economic thinking was acceptable to the Byzantines. It was not profit that was considered to be unclean, but rather, profit made by the oppression of the poor. The Byzantines allowed for the lending of money at interest for everyone except to clerics. Furthermore, Constantinople dominated world trade routes in markets. The wealth of the city attracted merchants from all over the world.


SESSION 9
BUSINESS AS MORAL ENTERPRISE
MICHAEL MILLER

A. Introduction
Business is a moral enterprise that not only benefits the individual, but also society. It plays an important role in developing a flourishing human life.

B. The Purpose and Legitimacy of Business
Milton Friedman argued that the social responsibility of a business is to make profits for shareholders. Peter Drucker, a Christian and the “father of management,” argues that the purpose of business is to create a customer. John Paul II writes that the profit is not the only factor that counts for a business; rather, there are other factors that are important for the life of the business. He prefers using the expression “business economy” or “free economy” to the word “capitalist,” which is a Marxist coined term.
Business is an example of civil society that is based on the natural right of free association. If an entrepreneur does not serve a legitimate social need, he will not make a profit.

C. The Role of Business in Society: Business and the Common Good
A moral enterprise should have a positive effect on the common good. Business makes significant contribution to the common good, such as technological innovation. A disciplined business person needs to have virtue, courage, temperance, and the spiritual gifts of faith, hope, and love, especially when working with customers and especially coworkers. All of these values are intrinsic to the business enterprise. It is not extrinsic, such as the charitable work that a business can undertake.

D. Work in Scripture: Theological Reflections
Work comes before the fall; God tells Adam and Eve to work the garden and to be fruitful and multiply. Man is created in the image of God and receives a the mandate to subdue the earth and to be creative. Proverbs continually speaks about the importance of work and of the dangers of greed. Even Jesus, a carpenter, demonstrates the dignity of work. Throughout the Christian tradition—Catholic and Protestant—we see praise for work and the moral necessity of using one’s talents wisely. Among others, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Baxter speak of work in a positive light.
The master tells the servant that his being faithful in the small matters (“well done good and faithful servant”) gives him authority over the big matters. Jesus is acknowledging the value of work and its ability to build virtue. Jesus warns us about wealth (“it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle”), but never says that it is inherently evil.
Paul exhorts the thief not to steal but to work with his own hands to provide a useful service (Eph 4:28). He also says that if man does not work, he should not eat. We are to embrace the “sweat of the brow.”
At the same time, scripture gives warnings. Work on its own does not make man whole, and it can become an idol. Rest is necessary for a flourishing life. We are to keep the Sabbath –a holy day, or “holiday,” to worship God.

E. Conclusion
Business is how most people make their livelihood and meet their needs. It is a model of innovation that has been a force for lifting people out of poverty, creating opportunities, and curing disease while enabling leisure and a rich life. Work is not the ultimate purpose or end of life, but should be recognized for its own value. John Paul says that “it is always man who is the purpose of work.” It’s a balanced vision that warns us about greed; we are not to seek only gold.


SESSION 10
MORALITY AND ECONOMICS OF TAXATION
PHILIP BOOTH

A. Some Comments on Taxation and Related Issues from Papal Encyclicals
Mr. Booth believes it is important to consider these thoughts because the ideas have been issues examined throughout the history of the Catholic thought, and regardless of whether one is Catholic, the opinions and recommendations of the Pope can be informative and can shed new light on old questions.
In Rerum novarum, Pope Leo XIII says that “Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possession of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages.” In paragraph 15, he states, “The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or industry; and that ideal equality about which they [the socialists] entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.” Pope Leo also believes that property ownership was critical to the poor. Wherefore the Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes (para 49).
Who is to say that it is right for government to take money from some people to give to others? What if one person was saving in a responsible manner all of his life in order to plan for retirement; does the government have the right to seize this money to distribute it to another person who perhaps was not saving and working as hard and thus does not merit it?
Markets allow for a peaceful allocation of resources, and yet Christians are attracted to a soft left approach. Rather, the Christian view should be to restrain the government to spend the public’s money on redistribution and intervention schemes.
There even comes a point where tax rates become ineffective. The Laufer curve shows that there comes a point beyond which if the government raises taxes, it will actually reduce revenues to the government. This is because, once taxes reach a certain level, people will begin to work less or they will hide their income. This maximum point is somewhere in the field of 40-60% of income. Thus, in the EU, if taxation is around 50%, then governments must tax all people relatively equally in order to reach this 50% margin, since if the EU taxes the very wealthy at a rate that is above 60%, they will either stop working as hard or will avert their taxes. In such a system where the poor are taxed as much as the rich, one ends up with a flat tax that the poor will resist as unfair.

B. Taxation and the Family
Marginal taxation can stifle families. The UK offers a telling example. The UK taxation and finance system makes it very expensive to get married. If a couple is living apart, and the woman is raising the children but is not working, she is eligible for benefits. However, if she marries the father of her children, she will lose these benefits. This is perhaps why so many low-income couples in England remained unmarried when compared to high-income earners.


SESSION 11
ISLAMIC CAPITALISM AND ENTREPRENEURS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD
MUSTAFA AKYOL

A. Islam vs. Islamisim
A man at a conference that Mr. Akyol attended demonstrated some extreme ideas by arguing that the whole world should be united under the Caliphate. This helped Mustafa understand the difference between Islam and Islamism. When we leave aside this anti-West and anti-capitalist rhetoric, Islam tells a different story. In fact, the longest verse in the Qur’an is about how to properly sign a business contract. As the Frenchman Maxime Rodinson states in Islam and Capitalism, the Quran encourages economic activity.

B. Charity or Collectivism?
The Qur’an also puts a great deal of emphasis on charity and taking care of the poor. Some Muslims therefore take a socialist approach towards government.

C. “Allah Governs the Market”
When he was asked to lower the price of certain goods being sold, Mohammed refused to do so, stating that “Allah governs the market.” Similarly, the Qur’an and Islamic tradition emphasizes the importance of trade, and this is why trade has been so central in the Middle East.
In the Middle Ages, the Arabs were very open to new ideas and to innovation. They were busily translating the best of the classical Greek writings and undertaking great advances in the sciences throughout the Muslim world. Even the check (“cheque”) as we know it today originated in the Middle East.

D. What Went Wrong?
The Wahabis were very backwards until they discovered oil under their soil. They thus became quite wealthy, but this “discovered” wealth did not transform their societies and ways of thinking.
Turkey, with an openness towards progress and modernity, is a different case. It has never been a colony and has even joined NATO. Most Turks regard the US in a very favorable light because it protected Turkey from Communism.

E. Conclusion
Islam is not a monolithic religion that does not admit for differences in belief and thought. There has been a checkered history of both Islamic statism and Islamic capitalism.


CLOSING DINNER
PIETY AND TECHNIQUE
FR. SIRICO

A. Introduction of Fr. Sirico by Kishore Jayabalan, Director of Acton Institute in Rome
Not that many priests live up to the vocation that the priesthood places on them, but Fr. Sirico certainly does.

B. Address
Fr. Sirico grew up in the Brooklyn of the 1950s, a multicultural city. He remembers numbers tattooed on the hand of his neighbor across the hall, Mrs. Schneider. When Fr. Sirico asked his mom what these numbers meant, she explained that in some parts of the world, people are branded, just as animals are, so that their owners would always be known. As of that tender age, Fr. Sirico understood what human dignity meant and how it has been violated.
After many years of interaction, Fr. Sirico turned left and went to Hollywood to participate in many protests and sit-ins. He once came across a young man who was right-wing and lashed out against him for his ideologies, but the young man stared back at him and said, “you are delightfully dumb; I am going to take it upon myself to educate you.” The young man came over Fr. Sirico’s home with a pile of books, including F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and Von Mises’s Human Action.
Based on a conversation with a priest, Fr. Sirico eventually set off to seminary, but upon arriving, he found under the name “Liberation Theology”everything he left back in Hollywood.

C. Conclusion
The French Thomistic philosopher Etienne Gilson once said that “piety is never a substitute for technique.” We cannot merely construct a society worthy of the human person unless we know how to; technique is necessary. We cannot feed the poor unless we understand business and how to produce food and to build homes. If we are ever going to be sanctified in this world, it will be by means of this world. Today, people think that piety alone suffices, but technique is essential.