The first thing to remember is that sometimes, writers and interpreters of history "slant" their appropriation of the past a little more generously than a strict historian does.
Second, it would be impossible (I believe) for anyone to accurately describe the occasional support thrown to so-called "revolutions" by religious Calvinists--or more specifically, a church or theologian--support that ignored the doctrine of "the lesser magistrate." It also helps to distinguish between a "rebellion" and a "revolution." Revolutions are (if the name is taken seriously) literally an overturning, or a turning-on-the-head of a pre-existing order. In general, they are barbaric and cruel to the least members of a society, and capricious toward the elite--witness the French or Russian revolutions.
Rebellions, on the other hand, occasionally take the form of providing for the health and well-being of a people, put-upon by lords and despots who overstep their God-given ministry. This is where the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, or "interposition," takes its rightful place. A man occupying an intermediate position of authority (and it's very important to maintain a good doctrine of civil "ordination" here) may lawfully resist unjust violence from above, even to the point of arms. This is a complex application of the 6th commandment, the law against murder. If a private citizen has certain limited self-defense rights, and the duty to save the lives of others (especially those in his own house, under his authority), then it is reasonable to conclude that according to the nature of the office of the lesser magistrate, he has the duty within the bounds of his jurisdiction to safeguard the lives and property of his subjects, even against unlawful assertions by emperors.
There are times when Christians are simply called to the duty of suffering, to hope in the
highest of lords, the King of Kings, to come and defend them against "lesser powers" who are clearly in rebellion against Him, see Ps.2. So it is an exaggeration to say that Calvin, Knox, and later disciples of theirs taught a constant "duty" of all Christians to overthrow "evil" governments (even if terms that sound amenable to that thought can be found scattered in, and drawn contextless from, their writings. These men also taught the duty of Christians to suffer-long, and pray for God to raise up a legitimate Othniel or Samson, or in some other way deliver his people from cruel tyrants.
If we look at the history of the covenant people, we also see that God himself had a hand in the break-up of the kingdom after Solomon. God called Jereboam by his prophet to rise to the power in the Ten Tribes. He forbade Rehoboam war to reunite the divided kingdom; and he at other times refused the kings of Judah his aid in conflict with the "rebels" in the north. He had authorized the rebellion. Thus, he alone could authorize a reuniting of the kingdoms, on terms of his own determination.
Now, those examples only describe what
may be done consonant with divine rule; and do not (in this age without Theocracy) describe infallibly what should or must be done in a wide range of circumstances. No prophet is anointing that "lesser magistrate," with specific orders from heaven to break up a kingdom, or topple a government. In fact, the majority of history and lands thus far show Christ's citizens (of a kingdom not-of-this-world) living as pilgrims in a foreign country. Our interest in the political fortunes of the nations we inhabit does not always coincide with either side of a secular conflict. We may be forced to choose sides. We may think ourselves strongly justified in standing on one side, even while dear brothers stand against us! Such are sad, tragic days. And we may not get the right-and-wrong of the situation clarified until Judgment Day.
In general, the best rule to follow is to keep one's ultimate citizenship most clear in one's mind. And then, seek to glorify God--either by submission to our Providential lot (praying that we may live peaceable and godly lives in the world); or in some cases moved to take up with a just cause, which seeks to preserve what is good and orderly (rather than revolution), if need be by taking up arms under a leader of legitimate authority and giftedness.
