CHAPTER V

THE REFORMATION AND THE MONARCHOMACHISTS

THE great religious reformers themselves did little to enrich political thought or promote political freedom. Melanchthon declared that rulers have their power from the people and must not act contrary to their will, but this had no further results so far as his political philosophy is concerned. Luther, himself the originator of a revolutionary movement, though demanding freedom of thought and belief, advocated paternalism in political affairs, and turned away from the peasants who applied his principles to temporal matters. The demands of the peasants, as expressed in the famous Twelve Articles, would have changed the entire subsequent development of German history, and would, in many respects, have forestalled the reforms effected by the French Revolution. At times during the Peasants' War really modern thoughts were put forth. The "prophets" of Zwickau preached the equality and fraternity of all men.' The view was expressed during the war by some, that since all are children of one father and redeemed by the blood of Christ, there should no longer be an inequality of wealth or condition among men." That part of the uprising known as "Poor Conrad"

1 Zimmermann, Gesch. d. Bauernkriegs, I. p. 237.

2

Ranke, Deutsche Gesch, im Zeitalter der Reformation, 6. Aufl., II. p. 128.

demanded entire freedom and general equality.1 The most radical views of all were uttered by Thomas Münzer. He aimed at a complete transformation of the existing order of things. In many of his views he was centuries in advance of his contemporaries and anticipated the ideas later put forth by the Puritans, by Penn, Rousseau, and others.2 The third of the articles of Heilbronn demands that all cities and communes be reformed according to divine and natural law, agreeably to Christian freedom. The sixth article stipulates that all worldly laws hitherto in force are invalid and superseded by divine and natural law, and that the poor man should have equal right with the highest and wealthiest (1525). In the beginning Luther counselled peace and moderation to both princes and peasants. He condemned rebellion and considered it contrary to divine law. He believed that the gospel freed the souls of men, but not their bodies and property." When the peasants fell into extremes and committed excesses, Luther with harsh words urged the princes to proceed against them. This they did, taking a fearful vengeance. Luther later gave up his views on passive obedience, though reluctantly. Manly love of freedom and respect for justice supplanted the belief that blind submission was due to the demands of authority. He was forced to this position by circumstances. He had asserted his religious opinions in opposition to the powers that existed. They found many adherents. Favor

1 Zimmermann, Gesch. d. Bauernkriegs, I. p. 84. 2 Ranke, II. 144 et seq.; Zimmermann, I. 182.

3 Zimmermann, II. p. 374.

* Ermahnung zum Friede auff die 12 Artikel der Bauerschaft in Schwaben.

5 Ranke, II. 149.

able circumstances contributed to make the new faith a force. But at length the Emperor Charles V. intended to proceed against the Protestant heretics. Their destruction seemed imminent. Should they submit or resist? This was the question agitated by the Protestant theologians, jurists, and princes. Luther, Jonas, Bucer, and Melanchthon drew up an opinion in January, 1539, to the effect that subjects may defend themselves, yes, owe it to God as a duty incumbent upon them, to protect themselves in case the government or any person undertakes to compel them to accept idolatry and forbidden worship. The attempt of a ruler to exercise unjust power over his subjects is to be resisted. As the gospel confirms government, so it also confirms natural and divine rights. Every father is bound to protect wife and children against public murder. There is no difference between a private murderer and the emperor if the latter exercises unlawful power, for public violence puts an end to all duties of the subject to his lord by the right of nature.1 The Protestant princes waged the war of Schmalkalden against the emperor, their lawful sovereign, which shows that they gave up the idea of non-resistance.

While Lutheranism cannot be said to have exerted a great direct influence upon political thought and development, the case was very different with Calvinism. Calvin's ideal was a republic in which aristocratic and democratic elements were blended. He distinguished theoretically between State and Church, but was under the influence of the theocratic views of the Old Testament. He wished Christ and the Bible to reign in both Church and State. His State has a religious

1 Quoted in the art. on Luther in Bluntschli's Deut. Staatswörterbuch.

mission. We see this theocratic character of the Calvinistic church manifest itself subsequently in the congregations of the Puritans. The early settlers in New Haven and Massachusetts declare the laws of God to be binding upon them and to be the supreme laws of the colony and hold that the State realizes its purpose only by the intimate union with the Church.

Calvin does not teach the sovereignty of the people. He regards civil government as ordained of God, the source of all power. He does not acknowledge the right of subjects to rise up against authority, even against arbitrary power. It is true he makes an exception in case temporal rulers command what is contrary to the obedience due to God, but, as if he wished to excuse himself for doing so, insists upon obedience to government in all other respects.1

It is more probable that Junius Brutus, Hotman, Poynet, and other writers known as the Monarchomachists were influenced by the works of John Gerson, Pierre d'Ailly, and the other writers on the conciliar movement than by Calvin's political ideas, as is generally assumed. In France the remembrance of that period and of those famous publicists must still have been fresh at the time the Calvinistic writers put forth their views concerning the murder of tyrants. We shall see presently how the opinions of the great writers on church councils found their way to Scotland and became known to Knox and Buchanan.

Of greater influence than Calvin's political ideas was his system of church government. From it grew the Presbyterian and Congregational systems. Of the influence of Congregationalism on the growth of democ

1 Institutio, IV., c. 20, s. 32; Kampschulte, Johann Calvin, seine Kirche u, sein Staat, I. pp. 272, 273.

racy we shall treat later. Luther often spoke and wrote concerning the priesthood of all Christians, but the Lutheran system of church polity was not influenced by democratic principles. Calvin made the laity the vital part of his system, theoretically at least. He permitted the congregation of the faithful to choose their ministers, after these had been examined as to their faith, motives, and ability, and had been accepted as candidates by the body of ministers and by the council.1 Calvin says that it is in nowise to be conceded that the Church consists of the assembly of ministers alone. The pastors may not even excommunicate without the knowledge and approbation of the congregation. The concentration of his system lies in the consistory or presbytery. This body consists of clergy and laymen. The latter outnumber the former. The consistory represents the union of Church and State. Calvin's spirit dominated this body and exercised through it that censorship over the citizens of Geneva which transformed the character of that people and left its impress upon them for many generations.

2

The democratic ideas which manifested themselves at various times during Antiquity and the Middle Ages do not reappear in the writings of the great reformers. Their views were theocratic. They did not apply to temporal affairs the principles which underlay the great movement they inaugurated. But the consequences of these principles did not fail to make their appearance. The Reformation asserted the right of the individual to think for himself. It was a protest against the

1 Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, Opera X. 17. On the democratic tendencies of Calvinism, see Buckle, Civilization in England, I. 611.

2 Inst., IV., c. 12, s. 7; Kampschulte, pp. 268–270,