Presentation Transcript

1. Justifying Resistance

   Religion & Religious Change in England, c.1470-1558
2. Q: ‘Whether obedience is to be rendered to a magistrate who enforces idolatry and condemns true religion’. [subtext: can we get rid of a monarch who does…..?] John Knox to HenrichBullinger, 1554
3. The Reformation had strengthened monarchy by uniting Church & State But divisions of faith also weakened monarchy: Royal Supremacy – duty to propagate the Word. Raises questions about those who shirk that duty…. Do you obey a monarch who does not follow the Word of God? The paradox of the ‘new’ monarchy:
4. 30 years into the Reformation, the tide appeared to be turning….. Germany: Charles V defeated the Schmalkaldic League in 1547 1548 Augsburg Interim – Lutheranism outlawed Considerable exile of Reformation leaders England: EVI dead; Mary I taken the throne and Protestantism overthrown Scotland: 1540s: Reformation with government support 1547: Alliance with France in response to English aggression 1554: Regency of Mary of Guise (most powerful Catholic family in France/Europe) France: Henry II established new heresy courts Brink of civil war European context – concern about Protestantism’s future:
5. Luther conservative; Calvin ‘radical’: Largely because Luther very hesitant on the issue of resistance. But Luther did not speak for Lutherans. Calvin and ‘passive obedience’: Calvinists initially not defend Church with pen/sword Committed to passive political obedience: Lutheran ‘Two Kingdoms’ theory Pauline doctrine of absolute non-resistance (Romans) All power ordained by God; no powers except those ordained by God. ‘Let no man deceive himself here. For since the magistrate cannot be resisted without God being resisted at the same time…..’ Tyrants raised up by God to punish wicked people. 1536 edition of Institutes Calvin not really consider tyranny: If people implore God’s help, He may raise up avengers Not an assertive approach 1530s/ 1540s – ‘Anabaptist problem’ Time of inherent conservatism unfavourable to resistance theory Traditional historiography:
6. Reformation inherently rebellious: ‘Protestant’ arise from the protest of Princes from the withdrawal of privileges from Lutherans at the Diet of Speyer (1529) Princes – not theologians – who took the initiative. Culminate in the declaration of war on Charles V in 1546: Fundamental question: how could a prince resist an emperor? Phillip of Hessesought consultation….. The Lutheran tradition:
7. A) Constitutional theory of Government: God ordained ALL government – a corporate sense of the term. Superior magistrates can therefore be opposed by lesser ones in the event that they overstep God’s law. B) Private law theory of Government: Distinction between the God-ordained OFFICE of government; And the MAN who holds it. If a ruler oversteps the remit of the OFFICE, becomes a private person culpable under the law. Two theories:
8. Feudal theory of the constitution St. Paul referred to territorial sovereigns in a given region: Princesand Emperor wielded God-given power These powers referred to a specific and legally restricted office Therefore all had legal obligations to one another; AND to ensuring the salvation of their subjects. Two results: 1) Permitted resistance of the Emperor 2) And to maintain that all powers were ordained by God. Martin Bucerdeveloped: Pauline non-resistance: private men should not resist Different in case of public men ‘Powers’ ordained by God, but who counts as ‘powers’? God dispersed power to many people to order human affairs to the best effect. Together theses men are the ordained powers of God. Duty of these rulers is not to rule as they please but ‘to preserve the people of God from evil’. If prime duty to uphold FAITH; legal for inferior magistrates to resist a superior one. Type a) resistance - Constitutional theory of resistance:
9. Private law – in some circumstances violent resistance not an injury Canon law – sometimes acceptable to resist the unjust judge: 1) where the judge ‘proceeds according to his own jurisdiction, but unjustly’ 2) Where acts outside his jurisdiction, and therefore as a private person Charles V fell under 2) Matters of faith not within his remit ChVacting outside of his office and therefore a tyrant. Note: it is the MAN, not the God appointed OFFICE, who is resisted. 1530s other Lutheran theologians develop: Lazarus Spengler; Phillip Melanchthon Tolerate magistrates who breach God’s law if those breaches not severe Idolatry only circumstance where private citizen could kill a magistrate Self-defence of the commonwealth akin to that of a private individual But who had the right to act on behalf of the commonwealth? Type b) resistance – Private law theory of resistance:
10. By the Schmalkaldic War (1546-47) Lutheran resistance theory very aggressive No longer the case that a magistrate ceased to be a magistrate if exceeded his authority (and thus became a private citizen) Rather, if a ruler fails in their obligations to God they commit an atrocious crime on their subjects Cease to count as a power ordained by God at all Is this not close to calling for regicide? Lutheran developments:
11. ‘Traditional’ understanding – Calvinists more radical and developed a more pronounced resistance theory than Lutherans. But, Calvinists actually indebted to Lutherans & developed their ideas. Especially the constitutional theory ofBucerabout the DUTY of magistrates to resist on behalf of the commonwealth Theodore Beza, The Punishment of Heretics by the Civil Magistrate (1554) essentially re-stated Bucer’s position Calvin & the Reformed
12. European Calvinists: English/Scottish Calvinists: Equivocal position in Southern Germany/ Switzerland Aiming to promote Reformed Protestantism in France Not promote resistance too sternly because: Might anger Catholic government Easy to accuse of sedition More radical Because – up to mid 1550s – their position more secure When lost their status, prepared to push beyond Bucer and exploit the PRIVATE LAW argument. England unique: unequivocal statement of the private-law argument being used as the key justification for the lawfulness of rebellion. An important distinction:
13. Peter Martyr, Commentaries upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (1558) Constitutional theory (in essence re-stated Bucer) St. Paul not refer to highest magistrates as ‘ordained by God’ but ALL magistrates Submission is limited to those who obeyed the law Office is ordained by God and is good; a man may use and office for evil Not a doctrine of absolute non-resistance; superior magistrates can be removed by inferior. John Ponet, A Short Treatise of Politic Power: Bishop of Winchester under Edward VI Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought to Obeyed of their Subjects (1558): Genevan exile Had been Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford Some examples:
14. Ponet & Goodman – three principles God had LIMITED the character of monarchy Duty to uphold good order and godliness. Here ‘Royal Supremacy’ the potential to unmake a king, rather than make absolute. Rulers ordained to fulfil an office for the benefit of the commonwealth To do GOOD, not EVIL The executors of God’s law must never act contrary to God’s law and the laws of nature
15. Destroy people, not protect Private law arguments – ruler who does so exceeds office & is therefore no different from a private citizen Ponet: ‘if a prince rob and spoil his subjects, it is theft, and as a theft ought to be punished’; ‘if he kill and murder them contrary or without the laws of his country, it is murder, and as a murderer he ought to be punished’. Goodman re: Romans 13. Magistrates ‘ordained [by God] to see justice ministered’. If they ‘transgress God’s laws themselves….then have they lost that honour and obedience which otherwise their subjects did owe to them, and ought no more to be taken as magistrates’. Tyrants therefore no longer public persons (divinely ordained); but private persons treated as private persons. Ruler who fails in divine duties:
16. If ‘kings and rulers are become altogether blasphemers of God, and oppressors and murders of their subjects’ then ‘ought they to be accounted no more for kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men, and to be examined, accused, condemned and punished by the law of God, whereunto they are and ought to be subject’ (subtext: punishment for idolatry in the Old Testament is…………DEATH) Goodman:
17. If all authorities were ordained by God, is God the author of evil in the world? Goodman/Ponet – logically impossible Study Kingdom of David: Rulers originally chosen by God & then ratified by the chosen people (the Godly) People must choose the king that God appoints (the one who obeys God’s law) How know? Bucer/ Knox/ Goodman – ruler who fears God’s law and resists idolatry Now it is THE PEOPLE who can resist a monarch; not just a lower magistrate: Covenant theology – every member of the Godly a ‘signer’ of the Covenant to keep God’s law and ensure that commonwealth ruled by no other law. All of the Godly have promised to keep the covenant Resistance to a tyrant, therefore, a DUTY If fail to resist a tyrant God will punish the Godly because breaking the covenant. ROYAL SUPREMACY HAD GIVEN ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER CHURCH – BY THE MID 1550S THAT AUTHORITY AS MUCH A BURDEN/PROBLEM AS AN ENHANCEMENT OF MONARCHICAL POWER The Problem of Evil:
18. John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous regiment of women (1558): Too late for Mary I; managed to hugely offend Elizabeth I Revealing about Scottish events at a time in which the English Reformation was being ‘settled’ by Elizabeth: Scottish Reformation a coup against another female rule, Mary of Guise The Appellation (1558) – appeal against death sentence imposed on him by Catholic bishops in 1556: Constitutional theory Nobility of Scotland ordained by God as public authorities But God placed caveats on them Never permitted to rule as tyrants; rather to use their authority to protect commonwealth from tyrants Urges them to mount a Calvinist revolution in Scotland – does so in explicitly religious terms. ‘To hear the voice of the eternal your God, and unfeignedly to study and follow his precepts’ and ‘promote to the uttermost of your powers the true religion’ and ‘defend your brethren and subjects whom he has put under your charge and care’ Requires the removal of a ‘persecutor of Christ’s members’. For Knox – this adhered to Pauline obedience Paul – in Knox’s eyes – made the distinction between the office and the magistrate English thinkers:
19. Context for Mary’s reign & the burnings Importance of European development on English/Scottish thought Conclusion: