This may seem like a strange beginning to the Enlightenment with its definite secular underpinnings, yet various strains of Reformation Christianity contributed not only the beginning, but many of the Enlightenment's fundamental ideas like the dignity of humanity and individualism, checks and balances on the state and a rejection of absolute tyrrany, widespread education and the freedom of choosing and living a life of meaningful labor and upward economic mobility (vocation).  Particular ideas too came out of the Reformation and influenced western liberal life, like the vote, power of the citizen (congregation) body, plural leadership, confidence in human abilities, congressional legislation and deliberation (the Synod) etc.

      It is also true that many of these ideas go back centuries, behind and before the Reformation -- many back to Classical Antiquity -- while others were being worked out in original form by Enlightenment figures -- 'something old, something new, something borrowed...'

        First we can see a short re-statement of Bishop Bossuet's Divine Right Absolutism transferred now to England's King James I's True Law of Monarchy. Then we can see two Calvinist pieces finding a basis to resist absolutist tyranny.  James I's son would be the first King executed in this long struggle of political will. It would take the French and the Americans a century or so to catch on to these ideas, and when they did, every corner of the world became interested in the results -- democracy, freedom, individual rights.

KING JAMES VI,

THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES (1598

           The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of divers members: For as fathers, the good Princes, and Magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselves to their subjects. And for all other well-ruled Commonwealths, the style of Pater patriae [i.e., father of the country] was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. And the proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all members thereof: For from the head, being the seat of judgment, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body, so doth the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head, and the execution according thereunto belongs to the rest of the members, every one according to their office....

        And now first for the father's part ... consider, I pray you what duty his children owe to him, & whether upon any pretext whatsoever, it will not be thought monstrous and unnatural to his sons, to rise up against him, to control him at their appetite, and when they think good to slay him, or cut him off, and adopt to themselves any other they please in his room: Or can any presence of wickedness or rigor on his part be a just excuse for his children to put hand into him? And we see by the course of nature, that love used to descend more then to ascend...
         And for the similitude of the head and the body, it may very well fall out that the head will be forced to cut off some rotten member (as I have already said) to keep the rest of the body in integrity: but what state the body can be in, if the head, for any infirmity that can fall to it, be cut off, I leave it to the reader's judgment....

         As to this contract alleged made at the coronation of a King, although I deny any such contract to bee made then, especially containing such a clause irritant as they allege; yet I confess, that a king at his coronation, or at the entry to his kingdom, willingly promises to his people, to discharge honorably and truly the office given him by God over them: But presuming that thereafter he break his promise unto them never so inexcusable; the question is, who should be judge of the break, giving unto them, this contract were made unto them never so sicker, according to their allegiance. I think no man that hath but the smallest entrance into the civil law, will doubt that of all law, either civil or municipal of any nation, a contract cannot be thought broken by the one party, and so the other likewise to be freed therefrom, except that first a lawful trial and cognition be had by the ordinary judge of the breakers thereof: Or else every man may be both party and judge in his own cause; which is absurd once to be thought.

         Now in this contract (I say) between the king and his people, God is doubtless the only judge, both because to him only the king must make count of his administration (as is oft said) as likewise by the oath in the coronation, God is made judge and revenger of the breakers: For in his presence, as only judge of oaths, all oaths ought to be made. Then since God is the only judge between the two parties contractors, the cognition and revenge must only appertain to him: It follows therefore of necessity, that God must first give sentence upon the King that breaketh, before the people can think themselves freed of their oath. What justice then is it, that the party shall be both judge and party, usurping upon himself the office of God, may by this argument easily appear: And shall it lie in the hands of headless multitude, when they please to weary off subjection, to cast off the yoke of government that God hath laid upon them, to judge and punish him, by whom they should be judged and punished....

        Not that by all this former discourse of mine, and apology for kings, I mean that whatsoever errors and intolerable abominations a sovereign prince commit, he ought to escape all punishment, as if thereby the world were only ordained for kings, & they without controlment to turn it upside down at their pleasure: but by the contrary, by remitting them to God (who is their only ordinary Judge) I remit them to the sorest and sharpest schoolmaster that can be devised for them: for the further a king is preferred by God above all other ranks & degrees of men, and the higher that his seat is above theirs, the greater is his obligation to his maker. And therefore in case he forget himself (his unthankfulness being in the same measure of height) the sadder and sharper will his correction be; and according to the greatness of the height he is in, the weight of his fall will recompense the same: for the further that any person is obliged to God, his offence becomes and grows so much the greater, then it would be in any other.

Concerning the Rights of Rulers and the Duty Of Subjects
By Theodore Beza. Translation by Henry-Louis Gonin, edited by Patrick S. Poole

Theodore Beza shared much with his mentor John Calvin:  Both had law degrees, both were dedicated to the reform movement at Geneva and both studied and taught the language, logic, lessons and theology of the Bible.          Beza succeeded Calvin at Geneva, and became the intellectual and spiritual leader of the Huguenots. Following is one of his most important writings on the relationship of church and state, religion and politics -- never tame subjects then or now!

 Must Magistrates Always Be Obeyed As Unconditionally As God?

          The will of almighty God is the eternal and immutable Rule of all Justice. It must be obeyed. As regards however the obedience due to Princes, they too would doubtless have to be obeyed always and unconditionally if they ruled constantly in accordance with the utterance of God. Since however theirs is often the contrary case, such obedience must be made subject to the following condition, namely that they command nothing impious, nothing unjust.

How Far Must Obedience Be Rendered Or Refused To Unjust Or Impious Commands?

         Each man must consider what his station and calling demands, be it general and public or private. Does the Ruler command what God forbids (as Pharaoh did to the midwives of Egypt and Herod's to his accomplices when bidding them to slay all that were two years old)? Then you will rightly perform your duty if you do not carry out a command of that kind

How Can One Who Has Suffered Wrong At The Hands Of A Ruler Defend Himself?

          The Lord Jesus and after Him all the Martyrs have by their example clearly shown that injustices should be patiently borne, to endure injury from all but to cause it to none. What then, will someone say, is there no remedy remaining against the supreme ruler who abuses his authority and power in violation of all the precepts of divine and human rights? Nay, there is a remedy remaining derived from human institutions.

Whether Manifest Tyrants Can Lawfully Be Checked By Armed Force.

           I must first lay down certain principles constituting as it were the foundations of the whole question. It is clear that people did not in the first instance originate from rulers, but whatever people desired to be ruled by a single monarch or by chief men elected by them were prior to their rulers. Hence it follows that peoples were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary the rulers for the sake of the people.
          But since those subordinate instruments of the kingdom have received this office from the supreme power, that they may be on their guard for the observance and protection of the laws among those who have been entrusted to their care, would it not be just according to all law, diving and human, that by reason of the oath taken by them to ensure the observance of the laws, somewhat greater (liberty of action) should be granted to these subordinate magistrates than to those (citizens) who are of entirely private station and without any public office? I therefore maintain that, if they are reduced to such unavoidable compulsion, they are certainly bound, even by means of armed force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of those who have been entrusted to their care and honor.

What may be done against unjust oppressors?

         When he has been properly warned, those who wield the chief and highest authority in accordance with the laws of the kingdom can and even should consult the common weal.

          Following the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, Calvinist ideas became more radical.  Calvinists, now shoved up against the wall, applied the logic of  their political ideas on the state and their congregational ideas of polity.

          The results were nothing short of revolutionary!  The France had killed off so many Calvinists that the revolution would occur not in Paris (the liberals would do that in 1789) but in London. England had, as a result of students from Geneva like John Knox, a large minority of Reformed churches. Scotland in particular had a majority, and that majority was loosely united by a Presbyterian organization.

A DEFENCE OF LIBERTY AGAINST TYRANTS

Philippe Duplessis-Mornay    

          The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods.... Kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create, or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor accountable to none. To raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have Kings: they make and unmake their subjects: they have power of raising, and casting down: of life and of death: judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of their subjects like men at the chess. A pawn to take a bishop or a knight, and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the king is due both the affection of the soul, and the service of the body of his subjects....

        Those good princes and magistrates are said properly to defend themselves, who environ and fortify by all their means and industry the vine of Christ, already planted, to be planted in places where it has not yet been, lest the wild boar of the forest should spoil or devour it. They do this (I say) in covering with their buckler, and defending with their sword, those who by the preaching of the gospel have been converted to true religion, and in fortifying with their best ability, by ravelins, ditches, and ramparts, the temple of God built with lively stones, until it have attained the full height, in despite of all the furious assaults of the enemies thereof. We have lengthened out this discourse so far, to the end we might take away all scruple concerning this question.

THE THIRD QUESTION: Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth oppress or ruin a public state, and how far such resistance may be extended: by whom, how, and by what right or law it is permitted.

       For so much as we must here discuss the lawful authority of a lawful ruler, I am confident that this question won't be in the least acceptable to tyrants and wicked rulers. But it's no wonder that those who acknowledge no law but their own whims are deaf to the voice of that law which is grounded upon reason....

Kings are made by the people

        We have shown before that it is God that appoints and chooses kings, and who gives them their kingdoms. Now we say that it is the people who establish kings, puts the sceptre into their hands, and who with their support, approves the election. God would have it done in this manner so that kings should acknowledge that after God, they hold their power and sovereignty from the people. And that this would then encourage them to concentrate and direct all their efforts on the benefit of the people without being puffed with any vain imagination that they were created from material more excellent than other men, for which they were raised so high above others; as if they were to command our flocks of sheep, or herds of cattle. But let them remember and know that they are made no different than anyone else, raised from the earth by the voice and acclamations of the people, raised as it were, on their shoulders to their thrones, that they might afterwards bear on their own shoulders the greatest burdens of the commonwealth.

         Many ages before that, the people of Israel demanded a king. God gave and appointed the law of royal government contained in the 17th chapter, verse 14 of Deuteronomy: "Thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me like as all the nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose from amongst thy brethren, etc." You see here that the election of the king is attributed to God, but he is established by the people....

        Because none were ever born with crowns on their heads and sceptres in their hands, and because no man can be a king by himself, nor reign without people (whereas on the contrary, the people may subsist by themselves, and did so, long before they had any kings), it must of necessity follow that kings were at the first constituted by the people. And although the sons and dependents of such kings, inheriting their fathers' virtues, may seem to have rendered their kingdoms hereditary to their offspring, and that in some kingdoms and countries, the right of free election seems of a sort buried, nevertheless in all well-ordered kingdoms, this custom still exists. The sons do not succeed the fathers before the people have first, as it were, re-established them by their new confirmation. Neither were they acknowledged in quality as inheriting it from the dead, but were approved and accounted kings only when they were invested with the kingdom, by receiving the sceptre and diadem from the hands of those who represent the majesty of the people. ...

The whole body of the people is above the king

        Now, since the people choose and establish their kings, it follows that the whole body of the people is above the king. This is because he who is established by another is under that person, and he who receives his authority from another is less than the person from whom he derives his power. ... Furthermore, it must necessarily be, that kings were instituted for the people's sake, neither can it be, that for the pleasure of some hundreds of men, and without doubt more foolish and worse than many of the other, all the rest were made, but much rather that these hundred were made for the use and service of all the other, and reason requires that he be preferred above the other, who was made only to and for his sake. Just as for a ship's voyage, the owner appoints a pilot over her who sits at the helm and makes sure she maintain her course and not run aground. The pilot, while on duty, is strictly obeyed by the crew and even by the owner of the vessel despite the fact that he is a servant as well as the least in the ship. The only thing that makes a pilot different than the rest of the crew is that he serves in a better place than they do....