Papers by Michael L Monheit
Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno, 1996
The Sixteenth Century Journal, 1993
Calvin, Beza and Later Calvinism: Papers Presented at the 15th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society April 7-9, 2005
Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, LIX:2, 1997, 263-282
Journal of The History of Ideas, 58:1, 21-40, Jan 1997
This article won the Selma V. Forkosch Prize for Best Article, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1... more This article won the Selma V. Forkosch Prize for Best Article, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1997.
Guillaume Budé, Andrea Alciato and Pierre de l’Estoile engaged in a debate in which they considered not only the meaning of a particular passage from the Corpus iuris civilis (D.1.16.9.1), but also the more general question of how one should go about interpreting problematic passages. Budé applied his humanist skills to suggest that the Corpus contained many errors and inconsistencies, while the jurist Andrea Alciato applied humanist assumptions to defend its integrity. Estoile, likewise a jurist, also defended its integrity, but by applying deeply scholastic assumptions drawn from the medieval tradition of Roman legal interpretation. The future reformer Jean Calvin was a minor participant in this debate as a student and defender of both Estoile and his friend and fellow Estoile student, Nicolas Duchemin.
Sixteenth Century Journal, 23:2, Summer 1992, 267-287
Conference Presentations by Michael L Monheit
This research stems from a larger project that contrasts Calvin's abstentionist view of the Mass ... more This research stems from a larger project that contrasts Calvin's abstentionist view of the Mass with the more accommodative views of Martin Bucer and Gérard Roussel. Calvin regarded the Mass as an unmitigated form of idolatry, of a piece with Catholic honoring of saints, with the ancient Hebrews' worship of the calf, and with pagan polytheistic worship. In the 1541 Institutes he viewed the "carnal" imagination as capable of both good and evil. But when sinful affections collaborate with it, idolatry results. The leading culprits are pride-especially its particular forms of outrecuidance and arrogance-and vanity. This collaboration advances false knowledge of God-works righteousness that denies God's implacable justice, and belief that material objects can harbor divine power. Moreover, the Mass provides escape from a sin-ridden fear that I call a craven fear of God.
Even in a Reformed Supper, Calvin feared that the ceremony, in which eucharistic elements appeal to the "carnal" imagination, can evoke sinful affections and so idolatrous beliefs. The preaching he required for it evokes godly affections constituted by godly knowledge. In its preparation he sought to evoke a horror-at-self, humility and faith, the supreme godly affection (much like the sequential experiences of justification in the Reply to Sadoleto). These affections swamp pride and vanity. In the Supper proper, his model sermons warn against idolatrous interpretations and evoke an ongoing godly fear of God coupled with faith in God's mercy. This preaching of faith and fear holds the sinful affections at bay in believers.
Calvin wove a complex analysis of the religious affections into his 1541 French Institutes. Altho... more Calvin wove a complex analysis of the religious affections into his 1541 French Institutes. Although he wrote no separate treatise as did Jonathan Edwards, he offered a consistent analysis of two nexes of affections, one godly, the other sinful.
The godly nexus, limited to the elect, includes three kinds of godly fear, humility, and faith. Central to all forms of godly fear is the recognition of God's unmeetable justice. Calvin subsumed the godly affections under two different relationships with God, citing Malachi 1:6, "The son honors his father, and the servant his master. If I am your father, where is the honor you owe me? If I am your master, where is the fear?". To the lord/servant relationship he ascribed two kinds of fear; to that of father/son, faith and the third kind of fear.
The nexus of sinful affections includes two kinds of false faith, several forms of pride, vanity, ambition, and a sin-ridden fear of God. These sinful affections dominate those not (yet) justified but remain powerful in those chosen as well. Among them are ones central to idolatry, to the affirmation of works righteousness and to other false beliefs. Calvin interconnected the affections within each nexus in fairly precise ways. This research is significant in suggesting that Calvin's sharp contrast of the godly to the sinful affections contributed to the often-violent religious polarization of the sixteenth century. For it involved the attribution of the sinful nexus to all Catholics, whether ardent or potentially sympathetic to reform.
This research also adds to our knowledge of Calvin's anthropology, by shedding light on just how he regarded sin as functioning in those he classified as damned, and how both sin and grace functioned in those he classified as saved.
Finally, this research contributes to the current vigorous discussion of how to conceptualize what we call emotions; various forms of the term "affection" are central to this discussion, and an important locus for it is Early Modern Europe. here I consider Calvin's use of "affection," and the ways he conceptualized specific affections and their interconnections.
Uploads
Papers by Michael L Monheit
Guillaume Budé, Andrea Alciato and Pierre de l’Estoile engaged in a debate in which they considered not only the meaning of a particular passage from the Corpus iuris civilis (D.1.16.9.1), but also the more general question of how one should go about interpreting problematic passages. Budé applied his humanist skills to suggest that the Corpus contained many errors and inconsistencies, while the jurist Andrea Alciato applied humanist assumptions to defend its integrity. Estoile, likewise a jurist, also defended its integrity, but by applying deeply scholastic assumptions drawn from the medieval tradition of Roman legal interpretation. The future reformer Jean Calvin was a minor participant in this debate as a student and defender of both Estoile and his friend and fellow Estoile student, Nicolas Duchemin.
Conference Presentations by Michael L Monheit
Even in a Reformed Supper, Calvin feared that the ceremony, in which eucharistic elements appeal to the "carnal" imagination, can evoke sinful affections and so idolatrous beliefs. The preaching he required for it evokes godly affections constituted by godly knowledge. In its preparation he sought to evoke a horror-at-self, humility and faith, the supreme godly affection (much like the sequential experiences of justification in the Reply to Sadoleto). These affections swamp pride and vanity. In the Supper proper, his model sermons warn against idolatrous interpretations and evoke an ongoing godly fear of God coupled with faith in God's mercy. This preaching of faith and fear holds the sinful affections at bay in believers.
The godly nexus, limited to the elect, includes three kinds of godly fear, humility, and faith. Central to all forms of godly fear is the recognition of God's unmeetable justice. Calvin subsumed the godly affections under two different relationships with God, citing Malachi 1:6, "The son honors his father, and the servant his master. If I am your father, where is the honor you owe me? If I am your master, where is the fear?". To the lord/servant relationship he ascribed two kinds of fear; to that of father/son, faith and the third kind of fear.
The nexus of sinful affections includes two kinds of false faith, several forms of pride, vanity, ambition, and a sin-ridden fear of God. These sinful affections dominate those not (yet) justified but remain powerful in those chosen as well. Among them are ones central to idolatry, to the affirmation of works righteousness and to other false beliefs. Calvin interconnected the affections within each nexus in fairly precise ways. This research is significant in suggesting that Calvin's sharp contrast of the godly to the sinful affections contributed to the often-violent religious polarization of the sixteenth century. For it involved the attribution of the sinful nexus to all Catholics, whether ardent or potentially sympathetic to reform.
This research also adds to our knowledge of Calvin's anthropology, by shedding light on just how he regarded sin as functioning in those he classified as damned, and how both sin and grace functioned in those he classified as saved.
Finally, this research contributes to the current vigorous discussion of how to conceptualize what we call emotions; various forms of the term "affection" are central to this discussion, and an important locus for it is Early Modern Europe. here I consider Calvin's use of "affection," and the ways he conceptualized specific affections and their interconnections.
Guillaume Budé, Andrea Alciato and Pierre de l’Estoile engaged in a debate in which they considered not only the meaning of a particular passage from the Corpus iuris civilis (D.1.16.9.1), but also the more general question of how one should go about interpreting problematic passages. Budé applied his humanist skills to suggest that the Corpus contained many errors and inconsistencies, while the jurist Andrea Alciato applied humanist assumptions to defend its integrity. Estoile, likewise a jurist, also defended its integrity, but by applying deeply scholastic assumptions drawn from the medieval tradition of Roman legal interpretation. The future reformer Jean Calvin was a minor participant in this debate as a student and defender of both Estoile and his friend and fellow Estoile student, Nicolas Duchemin.
Even in a Reformed Supper, Calvin feared that the ceremony, in which eucharistic elements appeal to the "carnal" imagination, can evoke sinful affections and so idolatrous beliefs. The preaching he required for it evokes godly affections constituted by godly knowledge. In its preparation he sought to evoke a horror-at-self, humility and faith, the supreme godly affection (much like the sequential experiences of justification in the Reply to Sadoleto). These affections swamp pride and vanity. In the Supper proper, his model sermons warn against idolatrous interpretations and evoke an ongoing godly fear of God coupled with faith in God's mercy. This preaching of faith and fear holds the sinful affections at bay in believers.
The godly nexus, limited to the elect, includes three kinds of godly fear, humility, and faith. Central to all forms of godly fear is the recognition of God's unmeetable justice. Calvin subsumed the godly affections under two different relationships with God, citing Malachi 1:6, "The son honors his father, and the servant his master. If I am your father, where is the honor you owe me? If I am your master, where is the fear?". To the lord/servant relationship he ascribed two kinds of fear; to that of father/son, faith and the third kind of fear.
The nexus of sinful affections includes two kinds of false faith, several forms of pride, vanity, ambition, and a sin-ridden fear of God. These sinful affections dominate those not (yet) justified but remain powerful in those chosen as well. Among them are ones central to idolatry, to the affirmation of works righteousness and to other false beliefs. Calvin interconnected the affections within each nexus in fairly precise ways. This research is significant in suggesting that Calvin's sharp contrast of the godly to the sinful affections contributed to the often-violent religious polarization of the sixteenth century. For it involved the attribution of the sinful nexus to all Catholics, whether ardent or potentially sympathetic to reform.
This research also adds to our knowledge of Calvin's anthropology, by shedding light on just how he regarded sin as functioning in those he classified as damned, and how both sin and grace functioned in those he classified as saved.
Finally, this research contributes to the current vigorous discussion of how to conceptualize what we call emotions; various forms of the term "affection" are central to this discussion, and an important locus for it is Early Modern Europe. here I consider Calvin's use of "affection," and the ways he conceptualized specific affections and their interconnections.