Zeal For Truth

This is part two in a two part series examining the similarities and differences in Vico and Calvin’s understanding of providence. Part one here.

Vico’s Providence
The differences in what providence is able to accomplish has consequences for one’s understanding of free will. Vico’s understanding of providence and free will is often difficult to make sense of. At some points he seems to suggest that providence cannot overcome a person’s will, yet at others it appears as if providence can. This can be seen when comparing sections 310 and 341.

In 310 Vico states:

And therefore it demonstrates the Catholic principles of grace: this it operates in man when his condition is one not of negation but of privation of good works, and hence of a potentially for them which is ineffectual; that is gives effect to this potentiality and this it therefore cannot act without the principle of free choice, which God aids naturally by His providence.

Yet in 341, Vico says:

Therefore it is only by divine providence that he can be held within these institutions to practice justice as a member of the society of the family, of the city, and finally of mankind.

In the first section Vico appears to be saying that mankind has the ability to do good works, and that ability is aided by providence, yet in the second section it is only by divine providence that mankind can be just which might negate free will. Since Calvin also has to deal with the issue of providence and free will, and he does so in a more direct way. It will serve us to examine his view at this point and then, returning to Vico’s to compare, attempt to make sense of the possible inconsistency.

Calvin’s Providence
Calvin’s understanding of providence does away with anything that can rightly be called a free will (Calvin does hold on to the term but removes choice from it as seen in Institutes II. II. VII.). He is clear when he says:

That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of scripture. (Calvin I. XVIII. I.)

There is no action that God does not govern by His providence, no chance, and no possibilities, everything is directly determined by God through His providence. Combined with the understanding that God is an all determining being is Calvin’s own unique take on biblical anthropology. Not only does he hold to the understanding that in the biblical fall mankind became corrupted, but also lost the ability to do any good work on his own which we shall see is more radical a position then Vico. Again Calvin is unambiguous;

All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace… (Calvin II. II. VI).

Although it would be easy to assume that Vico’s providence removes free will and makes God into some kind of being similar to Calvin’s God, the role for providence and the free will he imagines mankind as having must be less deterministic then what Calvin proposes. The fact that Vico speaks of providence aiding and not determining mankind shows that there is a vast difference in the way these two men understand God working among mankind, but how exactly does Vico’s understanding of providence and free will differ from Calvin?

The differences between the two thinkers starts with their understanding of the state of mankind. Although both agree that mankind has undergone some kind of corruption, the extent of that corruption is different. For Calvin, this corruption is total. There is nothing good left in mankind, all ability mankind may have had to do good before the fall is gone, and all that remains now is our capacity and drive to commit evil (Calvin II. II. XXVII.). Although Vico agrees with Calvin that mankind is corrupted, he would see Calvin as taking that corruption too far. When in section 310, Vico gives his most complete account of the fall of mankind he says; “…that man is not unjust by nature in the absolute sense, but by nature fallen and weak.” Vico seems then to hold a position that recognizes mankind being in a corrupt state, but a corrupt state that has only weakened their will to do good, not fully destroying it. This weakened will then allows Vico to hold on to the notion of a free will. The will may be partial to doing what is wrong, but it can be directed to do good. However, how can this be squared with Vico’s statement in section 341?

The Game
Section 341 is impossible to understand unless one keeps in mind what providence is for Vico, and even then it is difficult. Vico says in section 136 that providence occurs naturally, while divine grace is supernatural. This shows that although it is God who works divine providence, it appears to mankind as to be the natural way things come about. Vico has difficulty explaining how this works on the will of mankind but it seems almost as if the analogy of man in a game would be useful.

Mankind is living in a game developed by God and providence sets the rules that mankind has to work within. Mankind does have a free will to work within those rules, but those rules in the end direct the course of events. You can make a variety of moves within the game, but in the end you will end up at the end of the game in a way the rules allow. When this way of looking at providence is put onto section 341, what emerges is an understanding that mankind has a corrupt will that compels them to do things in their own best interest most of the time (Note here that Vico says that self love is the “chief guide” but not the only guide as it is in Calvin) to win the game, but that providence brings their actions to be used for good in spite of their intentions.

Because of the way that God has set up the world, what was intended for self-sanctification only is used to bring about good. The game, as the saying goes, is fixed, and it’s providence that fixed it. Vico can therefore have both a corrupt free will and good in the world because of his understanding of providence.

Hand’s Off or Hand’s On?
We have now begun to see how providence, and thereby free will, differs in Vico and Calvin, but how does the the differences in their understanding of God come to bare on this question? Although both Vico and Calvin would insist that their understanding of God is the Christian God, there are important differences between their two ideas. Vico’s God seems to have a hands-off approach to creation, while Calvin’s God continually has his hand in creation.

With Vico’s understanding of natural providence, God is removed from creation. He becomes much more a means to an end, than a personal religious deity. He has created the world, set things in motion through his ordering of providence, but now seems to have no reason to interact with His creation. His work in regards to providence is finished; He can sit back and let the machine run on it’s own. Vico does make room for God’s direct personal interaction with mankind in section 310 when he mentions supernatural divine grace separate from providence, but this seems to be almost an afterthought, his main thought regarding how civil society functions is intertwined with providence and that providence is impersonal. God for Vico is detached. He may begin with attempting to do justice to a biblical anthropology, but the kind of natural providence he uses to overcome it creates a god that is not the personal god of historic Christianity but a means to bring providence about.

Calvin on the opposite hand has a God who is personally involved in everything that happens. God does not remain at a distance like Vico’s God, but directs each and every action directly. Calvin’s God is not a means to an end - he is the center of Calvin’s thought. Yet, there are still similarities between Vico and Calvin in how God’s acting appears to mankind.

Vico may have a god who sets the world running and then leaves it, and Calvin may have a god who deals with every little aspect of the world, yet both don’t directly interact with mankind. Calvin’s god may be personally involved, but we don’t see him involved in every tiny detail. Although in theory He may be more active in providence then Vico’s god, in practice it would seem to make little difference to mankind which approach God takes.

The differences in their understanding of how God interacts with mankind, and thereby how providence operates, seem to be a result of the importance they place on Him in their work. For Vico, the question is: how can mankind progress? And the answer is providence, with God offered only as a way of allowing for progress. For Calvin the question is: what is the Christian religion? So he starts with God and works to providence and from there to mankind. Throughout his work Vico tries to keep within the biblical understanding of God, but his main concern is providing a coherent philosophy. Calvin on the other hand tries to set up a coherent philosophy, but his main goal is to explain scripture.