Prof. Dr. Luise Schorn-Schütte Lecture University of Padua Winterterm 2011/12 Politica Christiana Padua, November 2011 I. Introduction 7 Nov 2011 II. Politica

Prof. Dr. Luise Schorn-Schütte

Lecture University of Padua Winterterm 2011/12

Politica Christiana

Padua, November 2011

I. Introduction 7 Nov 2011

II. Politica Christiana 8/9/14/15/16 Nov 2011

III. Politica Christiana in England and Poland

21/22 Nov 2011

IV. The Catholic Politica Christiana 23 Nov 2011



II.1. Developments in ProtestantismII.2. Politico-Theological

FoundationsII.3. Differentiations in Lutheranism

a) 1529 Imp. Diet, Protestation b) L. Spengler, Philipp of Hesse c) Elisabeth of Calenberg,

Bugenhagen, Saxon Jurists, Joh. Wick, A. Osiander d) Ph. Melanchthon e) Debates after 1546-1548/50



II. 4. Politica Christiana in the 16th/17th Centuries

a) Lower and Upper Austria b) Joh. Gerhard; D. Reinkingk

III. European Politica Christiana 1. England 2. Poland

IV. The Catholic Politica Christiana in the German Empire

1. Overview 2. A. Contzen



I. IntroductionI. Introduction

1. Interlocking of Religion and Politics1. Interlocking of Religion and Politics = = central aspect of political and theological thought central aspect of political and theological thought in Early Modern Europe (16th/17th century) in Early Modern Europe (16th/17th century)

> Participation of jurists and theologians—> Participation of jurists and theologians—exchange of theological and juridical knowledgeexchange of theological and juridical knowledge

Replacement of the „Weber/Troeltsch“-hypothesis: Replacement of the „Weber/Troeltsch“-hypothesis: essential interlocking of religion and politicsessential interlocking of religion and politics



Max Weber 1864-1920Max Weber 1864-1920 Ernst Troeltsch 1865-1923 Ernst Troeltsch 1865-1923Prof. of Economy and SocialProf. of Economy and Social Prof. of Systematic Theology Prof. of Systematic TheologySciences (Freiburg, Heidel-Sciences (Freiburg, Heidel- and Philosophy (Bonn, Hei- and Philosophy (Bonn, Hei-berg, Munich)berg, Munich) delberg, Berlin) delberg, Berlin)



Confessions in Europe around 1560Confessions in Europe around 1560



2. The Reformation of 1517:2. The Reformation of 1517:

- Integration of religious aspects into - Integration of religious aspects into the secular/temporal worldthe secular/temporal world

-- Ends the special position of the clergy Ends the special position of the clergy - Establishes instead a congregational - Establishes instead a congregational

form of Christianity, lay churchform of Christianity, lay church- Secular authorities seen as - Secular authorities seen as

responsible for the protection of their responsible for the protection of their Christian subjectsChristian subjects



Martin LutherMartin Luther John Calvin John Calvin Ignatius of Ignatius of LoyolaLoyola

1483-15461483-1546 1509-1564 1509-1564 1491- 1491-15561556



3. Result: Three concurring concepts 3. Result: Three concurring concepts of secular/political authority:of secular/political authority:

Political Aristotelianism/ Monarchomachs/ Political Aristotelianism/ Monarchomachs/ Politica ChristianaPolitica Christiana

-Commonality: recourse to political -Commonality: recourse to political traditions of classical antiquity traditions of classical antiquity

-Idiosyncrasies: relation of the social order -Idiosyncrasies: relation of the social order to political authorityto political authority

Derived from these premises (cf. H. Derived from these premises (cf. H. Dreitzel):Dreitzel):

Fundamental traits of the three mentioned Fundamental traits of the three mentioned doctrines of authoritydoctrines of authority



a) Monarchomachsa) Monarchomachs

- Fundamental trait: autonomy of political Fundamental trait: autonomy of political theory from theologytheory from theology

- Political ideal: monarchia mixtaPolitical ideal: monarchia mixta- Moderate Monarchomachs in Germany Moderate Monarchomachs in Germany

affiliated to the concept of politica affiliated to the concept of politica christiana (e.g. Johann Heinrich Alstedt christiana (e.g. Johann Heinrich Alstedt 1588-1638, Hermann Kirchner 1562-1588-1638, Hermann Kirchner 1562-1620)1620)



b) Political Aristotelianismb) Political Aristotelianism

- Fundamental trait: consolidation of - Fundamental trait: consolidation of classical ancient traditions combined with classical ancient traditions combined with integration of new political theories (e.g. integration of new political theories (e.g. theory of sovereignty, power-oriented theory of sovereignty, power-oriented external enforcement of interests)external enforcement of interests)

- Definition of „politics“: “prudentia rem - Definition of „politics“: “prudentia rem publicam bene constituendi et recte publicam bene constituendi et recte administrandi”administrandi”



- Autonomy of politics from theology- Autonomy of politics from theology

- Rejection of all claims to participation - Rejection of all claims to participation from the estates and/or theologyfrom the estates and/or theology

- Aims at an increase in the efficiency of - Aims at an increase in the efficiency of government, both against government, both against Monarchomachs and MachiavellismMonarchomachs and Machiavellism

- Political ideal: monarchia- Political ideal: monarchia



c) Politica Christianac) Politica Christiana- Close proximity to the other political - Close proximity to the other political

theoriestheories

- Difference: no separation- Difference: no separation of politics and theology of politics and theology

- Instead: „eine Politik aus - Instead: „eine Politik aus der Bibel“ / “politics der Bibel“ / “politics derived from the Bible“ derived from the Bible“ (Dietrich Reinkingk (Dietrich Reinkingk

1590-1664)1590-1664)



Rex Unicus Esto: Allegory of Monarchy, 1624Rex Unicus Esto: Allegory of Monarchy, 1624Augsburg City HallAugsburg City Hall



Nec Unus Nec Omnes: Allegory of Aristocracy, aroundNec Unus Nec Omnes: Allegory of Aristocracy, around

1622/24, Augsburg City Hall1622/24, Augsburg City Hall



Res Mala Multorum Imperium: Allegory ofRes Mala Multorum Imperium: Allegory ofDemocracy, around 1622, Augsburg City HallDemocracy, around 1622, Augsburg City Hall



II. Politica ChristianaII. Politica Christiana

1. Development in German 1. Development in German Protestantism in the 16th CenturyProtestantism in the 16th Century

- Development as an independent theory of - Development as an independent theory of government since the 1530sgovernment since the 1530s

- as an answer to „daily politics“- as an answer to „daily politics“

- as a part of late medieval political and - as a part of late medieval political and theological communicationtheological communication



Objective:

Connecting the dynamics of religious-political conflicts not known before in the German Empire with the help of existing instruments of the constitutional order



-Politica christiana: answer to political conflicts raised by Reformation theology

- therefore: close cooperation between jurists and theologians in order to find common positions concerning constitutional law

- therefore: concept of Politica Christiana identifiable in textual genres relevant in everyday life: pamphlets, sermons, expertises



2. Foundations in Political Theology

- Government and authority = part of the order of God’s creation- Temporal order = founded on and governed by biblical norms - New concept of politics constituted by the Reformatory principle of „sola scriptura“



- Politica Christiana = expression for a space of political agency with its norms based on the Bible

- true for all Christian confessionstherefore Politica Christiana =

„normative practical social doctrine“ (H. Dreitzel)



Systematization according to M. Scattola (teologia politica):

a) Existence of a Christian natural law

b) Origins of government and authority from the Fourth Commandment

c) Validity of the order of three estates

d) Equal autonomy of the spiritual realm vis-à-vis the secular realm



Actualization of this systematic description in the Empire at the end of the 16th century within three different and specific confessional concepts of the church:

* Ecclesia est in res publica: Lutheran Protestantism

* Ecclesia est pars rei publicae: Calvinism/Reformed Protestantism

* Respublica est in ecclesia: Catholicism



Theory of Government in Systems of Political Theology in: ecclesiology and moral theory = interpretation of the Fourth Commandment

in: doctrines of government and mirrors of princes

in: doctrines of government based on juridical/legal legitimation

Conclusion: theological principles of interpretation seen as basis of political-theoretical argumentations



3. Differentiations:

Concept of Authority / Doctrine of the Three Estates / Limitation of Government in Lutheran Protestantism

- Contemporary context: debates in the Empire on the rights of Protestants against an Emperor threatening with military violence: Schmalkaldic War 1547



Development of the Schmalkaldic LeagueDevelopment of the Schmalkaldic League



Imperial Constitution in the 16th centuryImperial Constitution in the 16th century



- Massive amount of printedpublications between 1531 (foundation of Schmalkal-dic League) and 1550 (publication of the Confessio Magdeburgensis)

- Printed publications broughtup a public debate betweenthe 1530s and 1550s withthe participation of theolo-gians, jurists, noblemen, anderudite councillors



From the Preface of the Confessio Magdeburg.:

„Syllogism containing the Argument of the BookWhen the superior magistrate persecutes his subjects by force, against either natural or divine right, and also persecutes the true religion and cult of God, then the inferior magistrates must resist him by their mandate from God.The persecution that we have to suffer from our superiors properly makes a case of a suppression of our true religion and the true cult of God etc.It follows that our magistrate must resist this oppression according to the mandate from God.“







a) Steps of the Political Discourse:

1529: Debates in the Imperial Diet in Speyer

Result: Defensive leagues formed by Catholics and Protestants in order to repel potential military attacks, leading to an aggravation of the internal and external political situation



Problem: Lack of traditional instruments for solving such religious-political conflicts!

- April 1529: Protest of the Protestant minority at the Imperial Diet in Speyer against the majority decision made by Catholics (suspension of the resolutions of Worms): the “Honour of God and of the Conscience” injured by this majority decision



b) Central question since then: Is there a legitimate right for (potentially) military defense in case the Emperor would use military violence against Protestants?



Yes: if the Emperor neglects his duty to protect the subjects = argument of Roman Law. Can this right be justified by other grounds? Is there a biblical natural law?

These justifications represented by Landgrave Philipp of Hesse, Countess Elisabeth of Brunswick-Calenberg-Göttingen and others



Philipp of Hesse Elisabeth of Calenberg

1504-1567 1510-1558



No: no Christian is allowed to resist the authorities, even if they are unjust: vim vi repellere licet cannot be applied since it is not valid in the internal relation between the government and the subject.

In the contemporary debate, the Imperial Estates are considered as subjects of the Emperor, thus the problem of religion and violence becomes linked to a problem of the Imperial constitutionThis reasoning represented by Lazarus Spengler, scribe of the Nuremberg city council



Lazarus Spengler

1479-1534



Landgrave Philipp of Hesse argues against Spengler:- Imperial Estates and the Emperor are both parts of the Imperial Constitution with equal rights:superior and inferior magistrates (magistratus maior et minor) - the inferior magistrates elect the superior magistrate; they conclude a contract obligating the Emperor to maintain the law - in the case of his non-compliance it might be necessary to depose the Emperor to restore order, the estates’ duty of obedience is suspended.



This is described as self-defense („Notwehr”/“Gegenwehr“) by Philipp and jurists as well as theologians in the sense of Roman Law and feudal law. They also refer to the New Testament, Rom. 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” (imperative of historization)



c) Writings of Countess Elisabeth of Brunswick-Calenberg-Göttingen

„How far one must be obedient to the magistrates“ (1551): Old and New Testament:

1 Sam. 15:23: “(…) Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you from being king.”

Rom. 13:1



Elisabeth of Calenberg‘s Arguments:

-When holders of governmental power can be identified as a tyrant or even the Antichrist, there is no duty of obedience

-The superior magistrate has his power from God, but he does not constitute the authority (magistratum gerere)

- Resistance against an unjust or un-Christian magistrate is justified for all estates according to their office



-The right of self-defense („Gegenwehr“/ “Notwehr“) is derived from Roman Law and includes military counter-violence for the protection of the fatherland

-Emperor and estates are both superior magistrates, especially with regard to the Prince Electors; Imperial estates are not subjects of the Emperor

-Duty of the authorities: protect the good and pious, punish the wicked



- She characterizes the use of self-defense in order to repel an un-Christian government as natural law!

- Implication: precision of the concept of governmental authority based on the Fourth Commandment: magistrates = analogy of parenthood

- Violence can be used against authority that has lost its office/legitimacy



- Basis of this argument: combination of the concept of kingship from the Old Testament (e.g. King Saul neglecting his duties and being deposed, cf. 1 Sam. 15:10-26) with the ideal of the Fourth Commandment

- Every office has its own „instrument“:

authorities: sword clergy: Holy Word status oeconomicus = congregation: prayer



This concept of government already formulated in 1529 by Johannes Bugenhagen (1485-1558, church super-intendent in Saxony andprofessor at WittenbergUniversity) in his expertise for John, Prince Elector of

Saxony >See Text



- * Parallel arguments in an expertise by Saxon jurists around chancellor Brück (1530)

- Similar question: how can self-defense be justified?

- Their argument: reference to Roman and Canonical Law: they call it a natural right of self-defense



- both arguments combined by Johann Wick, syndic in the city of Münster (1530): based on Rom. 13:1 and 2 Corinth. 10:4-6 (“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.”) as well as on reference to Roman Law – binding the government to a legal concept

- Result: whoever opposes a government neglecting its duties is not a rebel, but re-establishes the just order!



- Another parallel in the arguments of church superindendent Andreas Osiander the Elder (1498-1552) in Nuremberg

- One ally in the city: legal advisor of the city council V. Kötzler

- Osiander will later work as advisor for Countess

Elisabeth



Two important arguments * Rom. 13,1 = government is

appointed by God; however, if it neglects its duties, obedience can be suspended.

Duty of the government: protect the good, punish the wicked



* The relation of authorities within the Empire is seen by Osiander as one of equals, the Empire constitutes an aristocracy:

- There is one magistratus superior (= the Emperor) and there are magistratus minores (= Imperial Estates)



Also important: Feudal relations: contract between

superior and inferior magistrates, resulting in a mutual legal obligation:

If the superior magistrate neglects his duty, obedience of inferior magistrates can be suspended.



d) Philipp Melanchthon’s Position(1497-1560)Philologist at Witten-berg University, closeassociate of M. Luther,combines Reformationthought with a strongHumanist influence (ideaof education)



- Gradually regards various forms of self-defense as justified by natural law since the late 1530s

- Lex naturae = doctrine of natural law, based on medieval traditions

- Regards ethics and natural law as identical

- Lex naturae is part of the order of creation, is implanted in mankind by God



- Argument supported by Roman Law: pater familias is allowed to defend his family – including not only wife and children, but also servants – by using violence

- Melanchthon’s identification: Both Roman Law and right of self-defense seen as divine natural law



e) Debate after Luther’s Death, 1546-1548/50

Justus Menius (1499-1558),„Von der Notwehr Unterricht“ (1547)

(Protestant theologian,active in Thuringia andSaxony, opponent ofthe Interim)



- Menius also emphasizes: self-defense as natural right

- Further justification: Pope and Emperor seen as Antichrist = apocalyptic variant

- Innovation: emphasis on the doctrine of the three estates

This link will become the characteristic trait of the Lutheran Politica Christiana



- Explanation for the relevance of this doctrine:

Ordo perpetuus = order of creation: identical to the unity of the three estates

Three estates (status):politicus: secular authorityecclesiasticus: clergyoeconomicus: community of patres

familias



- This characterization appears for the first time in Menius’ „Oeconomia“ (1529).

- There he connects the doctrine of the two regiments (spiritual and temporal) to the doctrine of the three estates: the latter unites the former!



- Also emphasized: origins of all authority: Ten Commandments, especially Fourth Commandment; all estates/offices united in the order of creation

- 1547: combination of the theory of self-defense with the doctrine of the three estates also as an answer to contemporary political conflicts (Schmalkaldic War)



- This interlocking means: all three estates/offices are on an equal footing, one has to supervise the others so that all duties are fulfilled, but no estate or office may intervene in the tasks of the others.

- An abuse of power, especially by the status politicus, must be prevented and publicly criticized by the other two estates.



- Result: Self-defense in a political sense cannot be performed by an individual, it is always the task of a social/political group defined by the concept of estates – this is to fend off all contemporary fears of illegitimate rebellion!



EXCURSUS: What is the Doctrine of the Three Estates?

(Visualization of Contemporary Political and Social Perceptions)



The Three Estates ofChristianity (between1530 and 1540) byBartholomäus Bruynthe Elder (1493-1555),renowned artist andcitizen of Cologne



Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586): The Sermon of John the Baptist (1549)



Petrarca-Meister (some-times identified withHans Weiditz, 1500-1536):The Tree of the Estates(1532)



*Bartholomäus Bruyn:Good order set in contrast to the

corrupt reality – three estates as the model for the good and time-tested order of medieval tradition (in the old form: clergy, nobility, commoners/yeomen!)



*Petrarca-Meister:No distinctive tripartite separation,

innovative: inclusion of an urban middle class

- Thus documents the emergence and inclusion of a new social group – necessity of change, however not revolutionary (against earlier Marxist interpretations)



*Lucas Cranach the Younger:Depicts John the Baptist’s criticism of

princes – extremely relevant in the Empire at that time

Appeal to the territorial princes (see text included in the painting) to control the Emperor, this constitutes the duty of the magistrates to their subjects = promise and bond of the authorities



The new social group of the (Protestant) clergy is seen for the first time as standing on the same level as the secular authorities, also acting as a monitor



Adoption of the doctrine of the three estates by jurists not traceable before the beginning of the 17th century

The argument for self-defense as a natural right is adapted by jurists simultaneously with Menius and Melanchthon.



*Basilius Monner (1500-1566; Protestant jurist and university professor):

Expertise (1546) for Johann Friedrich, Prince Elector of Saxony

- Natural right of self-defense of every individual independent of their social standing!

- Justification: Roman Law (private law): whoever is attacked can use violence to defend himself



*Authors of the Confessio Magdeburgensis (1550)

Adapting all arguments:- Interlocking of the right to self-

defense and the doctrine of the three estates

- Political function of the doctrine of the three estates is emphasized: limitation of power by separation of governmental powers!



RESULT:Jurists and theologians arguing

together in the same direction, but based on different traditions:

- Roman Law- Old Testament: unjust king- New Testament: Rom. 13 valid only in

combination with the duty of protection



- Biblical natural law: the right to self-defense is implanted to everyone

- Apocalyptic argumentation: Antichrist

- Doctrine of three estates: limitation of power



4. Politica Christiana at the End of the 16th and Early 17th Century: Conscience and the Office of the Magistrates

-Middle of the 16th century: religious and constitutional conflicts at the center of debates



- Arguments: „Burden of the conscience“ already relevant at the Imperial Diet of Speyer in 1529, but later superseded by the problem of self-defense and the doctrine of the three estates



---Change at the end of the 16th century: exemplary debates in Lower and Upper Austria since 1580



Duchies of Austria around 1400Duchies of Austria around 1400



a) Duties of the Authorities versus Consciences of the Estates (= Subjects)

- Re-Catholicizing implemented by the

Austrian government provokes the opposition of the estates: nobility and burghers mostly Protestants



-- Estates claim this to be a „burden on their consciences“ -- Demand for freedom of conscience and faith:-Authorities have acted against their duty of protection



Argument explicitly adapted from the debates in the Empire around 1548/50

- For the Austrian estates conscience was emphatically a religious category



- In accord with the contemporary conception, thus the same demand throughout Europe:Unmolested practice of religion = freedom of conscience



The right to defend oneself against governmental force in religious matters derived from Old and New Testament

- Bible seen as a sort of „political manual“ (Strohmeyer, p. 112)



Another combination of defensive rights based on political and theological arguments: „political theology and/or theological politics“

- The councillors of the prince simply reverse the argument:

The prince and other believers also have the right to their freedom of conscience as a religious freedom!



-Resulting in the contemporary problem of a priority of a freedom of conscience of different social groups:

- This is connected in Austria to a constitutional conflict: Confronted with these claims, what rights and duties do the secular authorities have? Must they protect their subjects and their freedom of conscience?



Queries regarding this problem sent to Lutheran Protestant theological faculties in the Empire: Wittenberg and Rostock -Expertises regarding the question: “To whom is obedience due in a higher priority: to the prince or to God and the commandments of faith?“-Understandably the expertises are reserved-Faculties concerned about an interference in external affairs



-Rostock expertise (1580): in spiritual matters, obedience was due to God, not to the Emperor, but subjects had to „suffer patiently whatever burden God laid on them, not avenge themselves, much less cause sedition, turmoil and bloodshed in the worldly regiment, but leave revenge to God and offer all Christian humility and meekness to the authorities.“



Wittenberg Expertises of 1582 and 1586:

-make a similar point: no active resistance even against unjust authorities, but passive obedience or emigration



Exceptional: Wittenberg expertise of 1585:

-does not explicitly endorse resistance, but presents more legal and theological arguments for resistance in case of aggravation

-reference to the Bible: Ten Commandments as basis of action.



- If the estates accepted the prince’s decree, this would constitute a renouncement of God and thus a grave sin- Moreover, it would lay a burden on the consciences of the estates’ subjects. Estates = inferior magistrates, they also must not accept this burden, it is their duty to protect the subjects- A rejection of the decree is not rebellion, but a re-establishment of the order of creation



Wittenberg expertise 1585:

„If the Emperor, who is the superior magistrate, gave an order or made you do something, but God in his word told you something else that was opposite to the Emperor‘s order, it would be your duty to abandon the Emperor and follow God alone.“



b) Conscience as a Theological Category-These arguments over the concept of conscience also led by theologians, but in another direction.-Example: Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-1575): orthodoxLutheran theologian and superindendent, professorat Jena University,ardent polemicist



-His concern: „political and theological action must be considerate of the consciences of those who are weak in their faith“ (H. Jürgens 2010)

- The concept of conscience emerging at the Imperial Diets in the early 16th century and regaining importance in the late 16th century was rooted in the constitutional debates in all European regions.



c) Provisional Result Elements of Politica Christiana undergo a transformation during the 16th century:

-New: debates on the concept of conscience-Old: biblical natural right to self-defense-Old: origin of authority in the Fourth Commandment-Old: doctrine of the three estates as an instrument to limit power



d) Developments during and after the Thirty Years’ War (1618 - 1664)

-The war brought up the question of a right to self-defense against a superior magistrate using military violence against his subjects

-



Two important positions in the debate in German-speaking countries:



Johann Gerhard Dietrich Reinkingk1582-1637 1590-1664Protestant theologian, Protestant jurist,superintendent in professor at GiessenThuringia, professor at University (Hesse),Jena University politician in Hesse,

later in Mecklenburg, Bremen, Schleswig and Holstein



crucial: an expertise of 1619 by J. Gerhard for his prince:

-Question: Is military interference to help another Protestant prince legitimate as a means of protection of one’s own confession?

- Can it be characterized as self-defense against the military intervention of the Emperor (inferior versus superior magistrate)?



-Central question for the German-speaking countries since 1618:

---What is the relation between a Catholic Emperor and Protestant Imperial Estates?---

* Gerhard’s expertise considers the contemporary variety of similar conflicts: Netherlands, France, England, Poland



Title page of Gerhard‘s tract „Resolution einer Frage (...)“, 1619, written under the pseudonym of Janus Rothger



-He argues against the Monarchomachs, with texts of classical antiquity and with references to the Bible

-Affirmation of a natural right of self-defense for the Imperial Estates

-But not for the territorial estates (hereditary government!)



-Empire = monarchia temperata, aristocracy, Emperor is bound to his oath of coronation and capitulations, elective monarchy, government based on contract



If the Emperor acts against his duties, the estates may or even must oppose him to restore the order = practical aspect of Politica Christiana

The expertise divides the government of the Empire into three legal spheres:

Natural / Divine / Temporal Law



-Imperial Estates are responsible for self-defense, they must represent the interest of salus patriae, the Empire is the patria.

-Gerhard also refers to the doctrine of the three estates and its effect to limit power in his “Loci Theologia” (1610-22):



- The right to nominate and appoint priests is given to the status oeconomicus as well as to the status politicus!



The participation of secular authorities in church affairs (in circa sacra) is not based on their status as magistrates but explicitly as members of the church (membrum principuum ecclesiae, i.e. as a prominent, but not governing member of the congregation!)

-



He adopts an ecclesiological concept that has already been mentioned in the context of the Lutheran Politica Christiana: ecclesia est in res publica







Dietrich Reinkingk- First jurist in the German-speaking

countries using the doctrine of the three estates as a systematic basis for his writings:

- 1616 for the first time in his dissertation

- 1619 in his Tractatus de regimine seculari et ecclesiastico

- 1653 extensively in his major work: „Biblische Policey“



*All works were widely read which contributed to the dissemination of the doctrine of the three estates:

It became the main Lutheran theory of government in the Empire

- its claim: validity of politica christiana beyond confessional boundaries!

- its content: practical advice for everyday action in government and administration



* Reinkingk characterizes the constitution of the Empire as monarchia

Skeptical about too great liberties (“libertät) for the estates

* But: basic principle of his theory of government:

Control of power by its limitation, in the case of tyrannical government the Imperial estates should be able to intervene.



- However, Reinkingk rejects the notion of a double sovereignty for the Empire, the Emperor is sole sovereign.

- He is controlled and limited in his power by his integration into the church (ecclesia) as its most important member (membrum praecipuum)!

- Therefore, Reinkingk also denotes the Empire as a monarchia mixta.



- The church is characterized as ecclesia particularis: a community of the three estates!

- Presupposes the existence of a biblical natural law = natural reason manifest in the Bible

„The Bible is God’s Book of Law.“





III. Politica Christiana in England and Poland

* Practical aspects of politica christiana important for German-speaking countries

It was not foremost a systematic doctrine of government by particular theorists

but*



Advice for political action after the Reformatory transformation: close cooperation between theologians and jurists

* Therefore also reception in other European regions; the respective regional context then led to independent developments.



1. The Example of England in the 16th Century

-1553: Mary Tudor(1516-1558) becomes Queen



= Re-Catholization of England, result:

- many English Protestants and their clergy flee into exile on the continent, especially to the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland (Antwerp, Amsterdam, Frankfurt am Main, Strasburg, Basel, Geneva)

-



Contact to the debates led in the Empire over self-defense („Notwehr/Gegenwehr“), the doctrine of the three estates, biblical natural law



1559: Elizabeth I (1533-

1603)becomes Queen of England



The theologians returned from their exile and combined the theoretical inspirations from the continent with the contemporary political situation in England and Scotland





- By this movement of reception and adoption, the European debate on the Politica Christiana was opened:

- Which criteria were developed further, which were adopted?



Main criteria (cf. Scattola):-Biblical natural law-Authority based on the Fourth

Commandment-Concept of conscience-Doctrine of three estates-Ecclesia est in res publica



1553 John Bale (1495-1563)Went into exile from London to Strasburg, had been a Protestant bishop under King Edward I



While in exile, he translated Luther’s „Warning to his Beloved Germans“, with a foreword by Melanchthon

- thus, the problem of the legitimacy of political-military self-defense was introduced to the English debate: Bale emphasized that there was a biblical natural law:



Magistrates who turn against the Word of God and against their own country lose their office, there is no duty of obedience.

The defense against such an unlawful attack is legitimate and does not constitute rebellion or sedition – it is the re-establishment of the order of creation!



* 1558 Christopher Goodman (1521/2-1603) goes into exile in Geneva

In one of his sermons he adopted the concept of „inferior magistrates“ (magistratus minor) from the German debates: also formulated the fundamental problems:



a) Who were the groups that could realize the right to self-defense?

b) What is the proper task of government?Goodman’s answers:

a) Nobility, burghers, erudite office-holders

b) Protect the good, punish the wicked



-One had to act against a government that neglected these duties

-Still problematic: the concept of inferior magistrates was linked to the context of German constitutional debates, but was no part of the English constitution:--there is no double authority



1556: „A Short Treatise of Politike Power“ by John Ponet (c. 1514-1556, Bishop of Winchester, fled to Strasburg)

Emphasizes that England is a res publica mixta (government by king and estates!), therefore clear limitation of power



Prince = Christian magistrateDuty to protect the subjectsActing against this duty, he becomes

a tyrantBiblical natural law allows for the

defense against such a tyrant(Deposition, military action) = biblical

right of self-defense



-Under Queen Elizabeth, these positions were heavily debated; the Queen rejected them, seeing in them an attack upon her own person and as potential rebellion

-The debate centred around the duty of the prince to act according to biblical and traditional norms

* For this precision of concepts, the following treatise was of great importance:



Thomas Bilson (1546/7-1616, Bishop of Winchester): “The True Difference between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion“ (1585)

Influenced by the German debates from the Schmalkaldic War (Saxony, Hesse, Magdeburg)



-Major points:Unlike the German Empire, England is

not an elective, but an hereditary monarchy:

however, even here the monarch must comply with the order founded on biblical and traditional (common) law

if he violates this order, biblical natural law allows self-defense against a tyrant

-



Custodians of this right: Nobility and burghers/commons, Bilson calls them “minor magistrates”

-Defense of traditional liberties



2. The Example of PolandThe constitutional tradition in Poland

has been formed by concepts of the limitation of power since the 14th/15th century:

-Regarding both spiritual authority (interventions of the Pope) and temporal government.

-strong tradition of medieval conciliarism in Poland!



- Results in the idea of a representation of the nobility in an institution within the constitutional order:

- Chamber of the Nobility (15th century)

- This relevance of conciliarism based on suggestions provided by the Council of Basel (1449), which stated for the church:



*Model of government: forma mixta-Council = represents Christ’s authority

on Earth-Pope = member of the council,

membrum ecclesiae, not head of the church!

The Pope seen as an executive office obligated to the council

*These ideas lived on during the attempts at a reform of the church in the late 15th and the early 16th century



Among others: Jan Ostroróg (1436-1501), Voivod of Poznan

*Wrote a treatise critical of the clergy at the end of the 15th century:

- Demand: equal coexistence of spiritual and secular law, i.e. Canonical and Roman Law

- Superordinate: natural law derived from the Bible

This reform movement was linked to the objective of minimizing the influence of the Pope.



*Very similar demands formulated a generation

later by Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski/ Modrevius (1503-1572)

Studied in Wittenberg, close contact with Melanchthon



1551: „On the Improvement of the Commonwealth“

Developed a very practical program of reform for the church and for the political order in Poland:

-Strengthening the idea of the community/congregation

-Right of defense against an unjust king-Biblical natural law



* These ideas especially influential in the three Prussian cities within Polish territory (West Prussia): Danzig, Elbing, Thorn

Majority of the population German and Protestant



Poland-Lithuania in the Early Modern PeriodPoland-Lithuania in the Early Modern Period



--Concept of the congregation reinforced during the Reformation

-interpreted in all towns and cities (also outside Poland, in the German Empire, in the Netherlands etc.) as a strengthening of the political community



Manifest in:the right to elect the parson

the right to repel an unjust government

origin of government in the Fourth Commandment



This Reformatory-Humanist tradition was integrated into the Polish debates in the 16th century:

-Limitation of power was a part of the Polish constitution in the 16th century

- Election of the King



- Recognition of fundamental rights and election oaths/capitulations

- Growing number of constitutional rights





- This was seen as a result of Roman Law and regional law: the concept of patria became relevant here.

- Poland criticized by authors such as Jean Bodin, who denied that Poland actually was a monarchy.



Counter-argument by the Danzig jurist Bartholomäus Keckermann (1572-1608):



- Only by such a limitation of powers could the threat of sinful and unjust kings be prevented

- No king was actually without sin and error, therefore such a control was reasonable

*



Accordingly, there was a clear distinction in the Polish debate between:

*monarchical power and

*absolute monarchy- The general consent was that a

monarchia mixta was the best form of government for Poland.



Conclusion for Poland- Humanist und conciliar reform

approaches of the 15th century were combined with the Reformation of the 16th century.

--Right of defense against unjust power

--Biblical natural law--monarchia mixta--Doctrine of three estates (in the

three big cities)



This interlocking influenced the debates on political reform in the 16th century and strengthened the constitutional order of an elective monarchy as well as the limitation of royal power.

This constitutes the Polish variant of a politica christiana.



Copyright for all texts and charts (unless explicitly cited from other works): Prof. Dr. Luise Schorn-Schütte.

English translation by Mircea Ogrin.

Documents

Prof. Dr. Luise Schorn-Schütte Lecture University of Padua Winterterm 2011/12 Politica Christiana Padua, November 2011 I. Introduction 7 Nov 2011 II. Politica