Renaissance to the Second Advent - Day 3

My name is William Haines from the Central Band's family. Good evening everyone. I'll just share my screen and we'll carry on from where we left off yesterday. To remind you, we are tracing God's providence. It says in the Divine Principle that God's two thousand year providence has prepared a democratic social and legal environment which will protect Christ's Second Advent. In order for there to be a foundation to receive the Messiah, there has to be a certain kind of spiritual community. This community consists of people living a spiritual life, worshipping God, and possessing an intelligent, questioning faith, genuinely interested in finding out more about God. It also involves the foundation of substance, meaning that people overcome their fallen nature. This aspect means that when someone comes along with new ideas that you may disagree with, you may argue with them, but you don't cancel them, you don't kill them, and you don't put them in prison. The foundation of substance for this law of the Second Advent is essentially freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. So when the Messiah comes, even though people might get really annoyed with him, they don't kill him because the foundation of substance has created a space where people are able to overcome their fallen nature and live in accordance with the moral law, such as 'do not kill' or 'do not murder.' This is really important.

God was able to establish this two thousand years ago with Judaism. There, you had a spiritual community and the moral law 'do not murder,' which made it possible for Jesus to come, to speak freely, and to engage in argument and discussion with other rabbis and religious leaders. Sometimes they agreed with him, and sometimes they didn't, but by the end of the day, he was safe because the law protected him. The problem, as we talked about before, was the Roman occupation. Jesus was arrested and put to death as a political subversive trying to overthrow Roman authority. Starting again, God is trying to create all this, and God's providence has prepared this. However, what we are interested in is human beings who do it because, as it says in the Principle, God's providence can only go forward because people have a conscience. To the extent that people respond to and follow their conscience, this is the extent to which God's providence can go forward.

Looking at tracing God's providence, we see which individuals, families, societies, and nations were able to create an environment where the Messiah could be protected and could work. We've been looking at developments in different places, and on Wednesday, we touched on the beginnings of the English Reformation. I want to come back to this because, as we know from the Principle, the able type liberal democratic society developed in England and then went to America. This is trying to make sense of this. We saw how England is the heir to the tradition of the Germanic tribes, which are fundamentally democratic and fundamentally desire liberty and freedom. However, with the Norman Conquest, Britain became a feudal society, almost totalitarian. But then things started to change. England was a Catholic country, and we looked at how Henry VIII came to the throne because he wanted a son as his heir for the stability of England. He wanted a divorce from the Catholic Church, but the Pope refused to grant it because he was under the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor, who Henry VIII had married his sister or cousin.

After exhausting all the different legal means within the medieval Catholic tradition, he tried his best to do everything legally but couldn't find a way. Parliament then passed an Act of Supremacy, which led to the Parliament changing the leadership of the Church. Henry VIII then became the Supreme Head of the Church of England on earth. The change of leadership meant that instead of the Pope being in charge, the King or Queen of England became in charge. However, Henry VIII wasn't a reformer; he was given the title 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope because he wrote a critique of Martin Luther. All he wanted was a divorce so he could remarry, but the Pope refused to do that. Henry was shocked to hear the Pope suggest he should take a second wife and have a son. He wanted a divorce, not two wives, and he certainly wasn't a bigamist. So he turned down the Pope's offer. The structure of the Church in England remained Catholic, and the theology remained Catholic. The Catholic Church in England was renamed the Church of England, so it wasn't a new church; it was just the old church under a slightly different name.

Eventually, Henry VIII died and had a son, Edward VI. He was brought up as a Protestant and became king at a young age, surrounded by Protestant advisers and churchmen. Under his reign, the structure of the Church remained Catholic, still having an Archbishop at the top, but the theology and practices became Protestant. The view of communion became Protestant, and the relationship with the Virgin Mary became more Protestant. Within the Church of England, there was a lot of controversy between these two different wings. Everyone remained a member of the Church of England, but there was controversy between the Catholic and Protestant wings. Some Catholics refused to accept the authority of what Henry VIII had done and remained Catholics. Even within the Church of England, there were some who were much more Catholic-oriented and some who were much more Protestant-oriented. The difficulty was always how to keep the whole show on the road.

Edward VI died quite young, and then his sister Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, became queen. She was a very devout and strict Catholic and returned the Church of England to papal authority and doctrine. Many Protestants within the Church of England resisted this return to papal control. As a result, 283 Protestant leaders, bishops, and archbishops were burned at the stake publicly. This really antagonised people, and some Catholic advisers warned that it was not a good idea, as it would only make people hate her. This is exactly what happened; 800 Protestants who didn't want to be burned at the stake left England and went into exile, many to Holland, but a significant number went to Geneva, where they came under the influence of John Calvin and became Calvinists. When Mary died childless, she had married King Philip of Spain, which was also an unpopular move because people didn't want a Spanish king and to become part of the Spanish Empire for political reasons.

When she died, Elizabeth, her sister, became queen. Elizabeth was a Protestant. King Philip tried to persuade Elizabeth to marry him, but there was a lot of pressure against that from Parliament, and Elizabeth didn't want to do it. She initiated what we call the Anglican Church, which is part of the Elizabethan Settlement. The Church remained Catholic in structure under her brother but became more Protestant in theology. Elizabeth tried to keep both sides happy, maintaining a Catholic structure while accommodating Protestant theology. She passed the Act of Supremacy, changing her title to 'Supreme Governor' instead of 'Supreme Head' of the Church of England. This title is still held by Queen Elizabeth II today. She also passed the Act of Uniformity to establish some uniform traditions within the Church of England, which was opposed by Catholics. One of these was the Book of Common Prayer, which all churches in every parish had to follow. This is essentially the same prayer book that is followed in the Church of England today, although it has been revised in the 20th century.

Elizabeth's attitude was that she had no desire to make windows into men's souls. She didn't mind if people disagreed with the Book of Common Prayer; she only cared that they attended church and took communion. When taking communion, it was up to individuals how they understood it—whether in a Catholic way as transubstantiation or in a Protestant way as symbols. However, many English Catholics could not accept this, leading to numerous attempts to subvert the Elizabethan Settlement and instigate rebellions to bring England back under papal authority. This required not just changing what was going on religiously but also politically. The Pope was unhappy with Elizabeth's actions and declared her a heretic, excommunicating her. He told English Catholics they did not need to obey the Queen and that their duty was to overthrow her and the Elizabethan Settlement. This situation is reminiscent of modern-day Islamist extremism trying to overthrow governments. During Elizabeth's reign, there were major plots by English Catholics to overthrow the Queen, with five major plots discovered and exposed, leading to the execution of the perpetrators. This is similar to how Islamist plots are exposed today.

People were trying to overthrow the establishment and the political and religious order. You can see that there were continued threats to Elizabeth's life, with the last major one during her reign being the Spanish Armada. Philip, who was quite unhappy, assembled a huge armada of ships to invade England and overthrow Elizabeth. However, the English fleet managed to defeat the Spanish Armada, aided significantly by the weather, as a big storm broke up the Spanish fleet, causing many of their ships to be wrecked. This is why we have the saying in England, 'God votes with the weather.'

What I am particularly interested in is the rise of Puritanism, as the Puritans were a major element that contributed to the formation of the United States of America. When Elizabeth came to the throne, many Protestant exiles returned to England from Geneva. During their time in Geneva, they became radicalised under the influence of John Calvin, advocating for republican government and further reforms than Elizabeth was willing to implement. They demanded the abolition of the episcopate, meaning they did not want any more bishops. They wanted priests to dress plainly, similar to ministers in Protestant churches, and they sought to pray spontaneously, guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than using an official prayer book. Additionally, they demanded an English edition of the Bible, as it had been illegal to possess English translations until that point.

Some of these reformers remained within the Church of England, seeking further reform, while others, known as Separatists, believed the church was unreformable from within. They separated from the Church of England and established their own independent congregations for worship according to their conscience, often meeting in homes. These Separatists were particularly prominent in East Anglia, with many being connected to Cambridge University, where several professors of theology and biblical studies were former reformers. This connection to Cambridge is significant, as many of the Puritans who migrated to America were graduates of the university, which later influenced institutions like Harvard.

The Separatists practiced a system where ministers were elected by the congregation rather than appointed by bishops. This structure included elected elders within the congregation, showcasing the origins of democracy that would later be seen in America. However, their actions led to trouble, with some being imprisoned. In 1593, several fled to Holland, particularly Amsterdam, while two were executed not for heresy but for sedition, as they were seen as undermining both the religious and political order. Elizabeth decided to banish them instead of executing more individuals, aiming to maintain stability in England.

Elizabeth's primary concern was not merely a religious issue but a political one. England had become separated from the rest of Europe, with Catholic nations attempting to restore Catholicism in England. The last thing she wanted was for England to descend into civil war, which would make it vulnerable to foreign invasion. Therefore, she sought to maintain a balance between Protestantism and Catholicism, trying to keep both sides content. She faced rebellions from Catholics and demands from extreme Protestants, realising that if the Church of England became more Protestant, it would strengthen the Catholic side, and vice versa. The Elizabethan settlement aimed to establish political stability in England, allowing it to remain strong against external threats.

When Elizabeth died childless, the question arose regarding her successor. Various courtiers had been plotting, and they decided to invite James VI of Scotland to become James I of England. James was the great-grandson of an English king, and although his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was Catholic and had been executed by Elizabeth, he was a Protestant. At that time, Scotland had largely become Protestant due to the influence of John Knox. Many reformers in England assumed that James would be sympathetic to their demands for further reform, but he was not as accommodating as they had hoped. However, he did agree to authorise a translation of the Bible into English, resulting in the King James Version, published in 1605.

James faced demands for the abolition of the episcopate but famously stated, 'No bishop, no king.' He understood that abolishing bishops could lead to demands for the abolition of the monarchy itself. He recognised that religious reform was intertwined with political reform, and he prioritised political stability over further religious changes. Consequently, he began to persecute the Separatists, leading to further migration to Holland. A couple of years after James I ascended the throne, a Catholic plot emerged to blow up Parliament, known as the Gunpowder Plot, which highlighted the intense connection between religion and political stability in England. When people claim that religious persecution was the sole reason for migration to America, it reflects a superficial understanding of the complexities of the situation.

In 1607, the first English settlers established Fort James, which later became Jamestown, primarily as a commercial settlement sponsored by the king. They grew tobacco for commercial purposes. A few years later, in 1619, the first slaves arrived in Virginia, having been captured from a Portuguese slave ship by English pirates. These pirates played a significant role in the development of English democracy, as their ships operated democratically, with captains elected by the crew. This democratic structure was a precursor to the political developments that would unfold in America.

They would divide all the money up amongst themselves. The captain would get a bigger share because he was in charge and running everything. However, the way in which they divided up the plunder and the treasure was democratically decided. The rules were also democratically decided. The first slaves went there, and then in 1620, a year later, the Mayflower arrived. The separatists who were in Holland at this stage were getting old. They had been there for a few years and found it difficult to maintain their congregation financially and spiritually because people needed work. Sometimes they had to go to different towns and villages within Holland to find employment. They realised that if they weren't careful, the whole project would dissolve and disappear. They thought about what to do; they couldn't go back to England, so they considered going to America. Other English businesses and companies were looking to sponsor settlers to go to America, and they got in contact with the London Company. They made an agreement and received permission from James I to travel from Holland to England and then from England to America to found a colony.

They boarded their boats, the Mayflower and another vessel that didn't make it because it wasn't well organised or seaworthy. On the Mayflower, there were separatists as well as other colonisers who came for commercial reasons, representing the London Company. On the way there, there were various disputes about who should be in charge. Up until then, James I or the London Company had issued a patent, a document that described the purposes of the colony and how it would be organised, including the rules that would govern it. However, they didn't have a patent yet, which led to arguments on the boat about what to do upon arrival. Some people argued that without a patent, there was no authority, meaning they could do their own thing without cooperation. Others felt that this would lead to the colony dissolving and fragmenting, which wouldn't work. They needed to establish some legitimate authority and a basis for making rules that everyone would accept and follow.

They came up with what is called the Mayflower Compact. They debated it for quite some time during the long journey, and then they wrote it down and all signed it. The document stated that they were loyal subjects of their sovereign Lord King James. They still saw themselves as loyal Englishmen, even though they were in dispute with the king, and they recognised his authority. They stated that they were undertaking this voyage for the glory of God, the advancement of the Christian faith, and the honour of their king and country. They aimed to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, as the southern part was Jamestown. They solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenanted and combined themselves into a civil body politic. This language is interesting; it indicates that they were taking this undertaking very seriously, based upon promises made in the presence of God and one another.

The idea of forming a civil body politic was inspired by what happened at Mount Sinai with Moses and the making of the covenant there. At Mount Sinai, all six hundred thousand Israelites made a covenant with God and with each other to form a civil body politic, creating a spiritual and political community. The language of covenant is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, specifically in the Mosaic covenant at Mount Sinai. Some may argue that the origins of democracy lie in ancient Greece, particularly Athens, but this is not true. The origins of the liberal democratic tradition lie almost exclusively in the Bible, particularly in Mosaic law and the desire to elect ministers within congregations. None of these people appealed to Greek philosophers for authority; they appealed entirely to the Hebrew Scriptures.

They formed a political association to enact just and equal laws that would be deemed most convenient for the general good of the colony. They agreed that as a community, they would make their own laws, which would apply equally to everyone. No one would be above the law, harking back to the principles established by Moses. These laws were not imposed by the state; they were laws that the people made for themselves, recognising their necessity for a fair and just community. The laws were for the general good of the colony, not for the king or the ruling class. This analysis reveals that they truly thought about their governance. Every president of the United States, during their inaugural address, references this covenant, except for Donald Trump, who did not follow this tradition.

They promised all due submission and obedience to the laws they had created. Because they made the laws, they should follow them; these were not laws imposed upon them but laws they had agreed to uphold. This reflects the democratic notion of law-making, where laws are not made by representatives but by the people themselves, akin to a form of direct democracy. They subscribed their names at Cape Cod, where they landed on the 11th of November in the year of our Lord 1620. At the same time, they recognised the authority of the king, which harkens back to the Magna Carta. They understood that they needed a king, but the king had to be under the law. This demand was established in the Magna Carta, which asserted that the king could not tax without consent and that no subject could be imprisoned without just cause.

In England, life continued to develop as Parliament asserted its right to control its own elections, opposing James and his privileges. They declared that their privileges were not a gift from the crown but a natural birthright of Englishmen. This concept was significant and later adopted by Americans, asserting that rights are not granted by the king or the state but are inherent from birth. This idea of natural rights became foundational in America, including the right to liberty of speech. The king and Parliament do not have the authority to grant freedom of speech; it is a birthright. This notion traces back to the traditions of the Germanic tribes and reflects the ongoing conflict against the authority established by William the Conqueror. The Petition of Right stated that no man could be taxed without consent, a principle echoed in America as 'no taxation without representation.' These battle cries articulated the English view of political theory.

I will take a break here and then we will look back at what was happening on the European continent. Following the Reformation initiated by Martin Luther in 1517, Europe experienced a series of religious wars. The Reformation first split Germany, where the northern princes supported Luther, rejecting the idea that the Pope had the authority to appoint or dismiss kings. Luther argued that the Pope and the Church should not interfere in political matters. As a result, northern Germany became Protestant, while southern Germany, particularly Bavaria, remained loyal to the Pope. This division led to conflict, with many lives lost and communities torn apart. The fighting continued until the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, which allowed princes to choose either Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism for their subjects, recognising the need for compromise in a divided nation.

The prince had the authority to decide on religious matters, and if someone did not want to follow the religion of their prince, they were given a certain amount of time to move to a principality that aligned with their preference, whether Catholic or Protestant. However, this created a politically, religiously, and socially destabilising situation. Once a prince made a decision, if a new heir came along with a different faith, they could not change the established religion. Thus, Germany became divided into Protestant and Catholic regions, unlike England, which had a more mixed religious landscape. In England, one might find a Church of England and a Catholic church on the same street, alongside a Baptist church and a Methodist church, creating a diverse religious environment. In contrast, many towns in Germany or Switzerland were predominantly either Catholic or Protestant.

This division did not remain confined to Germany; it led to the broader division of Europe, culminating in the Thirty Years' War from 1618 to 1648, fought between Catholics and Protestants. Northern countries like Sweden, which were Protestant, joined the conflict, as did the Catholic Spanish. The war had both religious and political dimensions, with the Austrian Habsburgs seeking to reassert their control over the Holy Roman Empire and establish Catholic rule. The French Bourbons allied with the Protestants to prevent Spanish dominance in Germany. This complicated religious war lasted for decades and is considered the most destructive conflict in European history. When people refer to religion causing wars, they often think of the Thirty Years' War, which resulted in the deaths of eight million people, a far greater percentage of the population than in the First or Second World Wars.

The war had devastating consequences, particularly in Germany, where the male population was reduced by about fifty percent in some areas, and even up to sixty percent in others. The map shows dark areas where over sixty-six percent of the male population perished, while lighter areas saw about thirty percent fatalities. The deaths were caused not only by fighting but also by disease and starvation, as armies often destroyed farms and food supplies. Many soldiers died from diseases contracted during battles, and the destruction of agriculture led to widespread starvation. The Swedish armies, often perceived as neutral and peace-loving, were responsible for the destruction of 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages, and 500 towns in Germany. This immense devastation resulted in significant social dislocation and financial problems across Europe.

Eventually, the exhaustion from the prolonged conflict led to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the end of the Habsburgs' attempts to control the Holy Roman Empire and establish an absolute state. The treaties established a new political order, recognising the sovereignty of independent states and non-interference in domestic affairs. This meant that governments could only manage their internal matters without external interference. The principles established by the Treaty of Westphalia have influenced international relations up until the end of the Cold War, and they resonate with contemporary discussions about sovereignty and self-governance, as seen in events like Brexit.

The fragmentation of Germany into various principalities weakened the nation, making it vulnerable to invasion, as seen when Napoleon rose to power in France. The lack of a unified German state made it easy for him to invade, and although the Prussians and other German states resisted, there was no single entity to mount a strong defence. This fragmentation was one of the main reasons Bismarck sought to unify Germany into a single state after Napoleon's defeat. The recognition of both Catholics and Protestants as legitimate faiths emerged from this period, leading to a mutual understanding that neither side would forcibly convert the other.

The Protestant Reformation, led by figures like Luther, was a traumatic event for Catholics, as it split Europe and challenged the authority of the Pope. Many Catholics struggled to comprehend how fellow Christians could reject the Pope's authority and the Catholic teachings on transubstantiation and the Mass. In response, the Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent, where cardinals and bishops discussed necessary reforms. They acknowledged some validity in Luther's critiques of church corruption and sought to restructure the Church to retain followers. The Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, became instrumental in engaging with Protestant intellectuals and promoting Catholicism through education and missionary work.

During this time, various spiritual movements emerged within the Catholic Church, aiming to revitalise Catholicism. While some actions, such as the Spanish Inquisition, were harsh and aimed at ensuring the orthodoxy of converts, many positive developments also occurred. The Church began to sponsor scientific research, established observatories, and introduced the Gregorian calendar to replace the Julian calendar. This period, known as the Counter-Reformation, saw a flourishing of beautiful music and art, particularly in cathedrals and monasteries, which remains evocative for those with a Catholic upbringing. The Divine Principle divides these historical periods, highlighting the Renaissance's influence on culture and spirituality, and the subsequent challenges faced by the Church during the Reformation.

The Renaissance, despite its potential for reform, ultimately failed to bring about significant change within the Church. The Catholic Church, rather than embracing the valid criticisms of figures like Jan Hus, William Wycliffe, and Martin Luther, became increasingly entrenched in its power structures. It clung to political authority, claiming the right to determine who could ascend to heaven or hell, and insisted that salvation was only possible through obedience to the Pope. This created a significant divide, as the Church, which was supposed to represent Abel's side, instead mirrored Cain's obstinacy. The tragedy of the Reformation was that it did not lead to the Church's reform; instead, it resulted in a fragmented Europe, weakened by division and conflict.

As the Catholic Church resisted reform, it became more dogmatic and defensive. The Protestant churches, too, lost much of their spiritual vitality, becoming sterile in their theological disputes. The more they argued, the more entrenched they became in their positions, leading to a cycle of defensiveness and apologetics. This focus on differences rather than commonalities has long plagued Christianity, with an emphasis on distinguishing beliefs rather than fostering dialogue. The need for an integrated conversation between Protestants and Catholics was essential for genuine reform and progress, yet the breakdown of communication only exacerbated divisions and extremism.

The Enlightenment emerged as a response to the religious wars that had ravaged Europe, with many intellectuals questioning the role of religion in causing conflict. They sought an alternative to religious authority, believing that a rational basis for ethics was necessary to avoid further wars. The Reformation had set the stage for this shift, as the emphasis on scripture led to intense biblical study. However, this scrutiny revealed contradictions within the Bible, prompting many to question its reliability as a moral guide. The Protestant Reformation, particularly through figures like Martin Luther, encouraged individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves, leading to a recognition of its complexities and inconsistencies.

As people began to challenge the moral teachings found in the Bible, they sought a new foundation for ethics based on reason rather than scripture. This shift gave rise to various ethical frameworks, including utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, which prioritised logic and experience over religious doctrine. The Enlightenment's emphasis on rationalism and empiricism marked a significant departure from the medieval synthesis established by thinkers like Aquinas, who had sought to harmonise faith and reason. The questioning of traditional doctrines, such as the Trinity, led to the emergence of sects that rejected established beliefs, further fragmenting the religious landscape.

Looking ahead, the next phase of this discussion will explore how the Enlightenment developed differently across various countries, including England, Scotland, France, Germany, and Russia. Each of these nations experienced unique challenges and responses to Enlightenment ideas, with some fostering democratic principles and others succumbing to materialism and atheism. The consequences of these developments were profound, influencing events such as the French Revolution, the rise of fascism, and the two World Wars. Understanding these historical trajectories is crucial, as they continue to resonate with the challenges faced by contemporary spiritual communities, which must navigate similar tensions between faith and reason.

Own extremists exist on both sides; some people are fundamentalists while others are not. That said, the point is always to keep the conversation going.