The Reformation of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Chalvin - Opinions of the Reformers on the State and the Church
Monarkomaken
The term Monarkomaken in the general sense means anti-king, or against the king.
But indeed this understanding is less accurate because the teachings of the thinkers about the state and the law included in the monarchy are not at all anti or against the kings, not even or against the system of absolutism in general, but against or the offer is the excess.
This system of government of absolutism in many respects cannot escape the influence of theocracy which states that all things originate and are willed by God, because to say only that the state or king is sovereign, this is not clear.
Causes and Explanations
What is the reason? And from where did the king have that sovereignty? So their answer remains, that the king is sovereign by the will of God. This Not only in the field it turns out the consequences are very heavy.
Constitutionalism, but also in the field of religion, therefore if in the field of state arises the movement of the Monarchists then in the field of religion also arises the reforms carried out by the reformers.
The latter is actually not included in the discussion in the science of the state, but let us know if it has anything to do with its influence or influence in thinking about the state and the law.
Indeed, at the time the kings ruled with absolute power arose as a result also in the field of religion or belief, namely that the king could determine what religion should be embraced by his people. So in the field of religion then the flow of reform arose.
The Reformation of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Chalvin
The famous names of these reformers were: Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Chalvin.
They basically did not agree with the existing church organization at that time. Luther who initiated this movement, the reform movement in 1517, first attacked the evils of the church, namely the hierarchy of the church and the unscriptural church law, and which was only used to amass worldly wealth and power.
Then they gave new teachings. And this teaching causes that the theory of statehood based on religious propositions is rejected.
So the views on the state and theological laws are no longer satisfactory.
While Melanchthon was a staunch and humane thinker, Melanchthon was heavily influenced by Aristotle's teachings. Melanchthon emphasizes the laws of nature, which directly teach man what God's will is.
The country also teaches people to know God's will.
So the country has a Divine nature. So the state must teach the true religion.
Similar to Luther's stand, Melanchthon denies the existence of any coercive church law.
Because only the country has a compelling law, and the state is above the church. He rejected the world government. The form of country chosen by Melanchthon was Monarchy.
The next reformers were Zwingli, Zwingli was a politician, and Calvin was a scholar of law.
Zwingli and Calvin are Swiss.
Zwingli wants to protect the spirit of his country from the bad influences that come from outside, this is his main goal, in his opinion the country has the right to regulate the lives of its people based on their own will.
Thus Zwingli's teachings lead to a state of Democracy. While the movement from Calvin which later became known as Calvinism, became fighters for political freedom and pioneered the path to national independence and democracy.
Opinions of the Reformers on the State and the Church
Since Dante who lived in the years 1265- 1321 has been talked about the relationship between the country and the church in addition to the teachings that have existed since the beginning of the Middle Ages.
Dante talks about it in his book "De Monarchia".
The nature of Dante's book is anti-Pope. Because at that time the situation in both Rome and Italy was very chaotic as a result of the ongoing conflict between the followers of the king and the followers of the church.
According to Dante, in order to achieve peace in this world, a world government must be formed, while the country with the church must live side by side but on its own basis, to create and maintain as well. maintain world peace.
Because as long as there are two powers in this world, then there will always be disputes, and these disputes can only be resolved by a third party whose power is higher than the two powers.
Therefore, there must be a world government, which has the highest power, which can regulate everything, and which can maintain cooperation between countries and churches and nations in this world.
The king, according to Dante, gets his power directly from God, so it does not go through let alone depend on the Pope. The pope cannot interfere in worldly matters, and his duty is only to attain spiritual happiness. While the country pursues worldly happiness.
Luther's view of the relationship between the state and the church is that the relationship is not permanent, it is determined by circumstances.
The country often, says Luther, implements a political system that is actually not wanted by the state itself, because the action seems to be forced by circumstances against the state.
Meanwhile, if there is a split between the country and one of the churches.The attitude that can be taken by the state is with all sorts of efforts against religious beliefs, on the grounds that it will cause chaos in society. Meanwhile, if there is a split and or conflict within the church itself, the attitude of the State is not to interfere in the nature of the process of division, because it is considered a mere spirituality. While the duty of the country is to maintain common happiness which is worldly in nature.
But when the conflict becomes more intense, usually the religious people often not only use spiritual weapons, but also use force or the power of weapons.
In such a situation, the country has to intervene, and the country shows its power.
At first Luther's attitude toward the state and the church was very radical, in line with the religious teaching that people should not do anything contrary to their beliefs.
But by the arena of circumstances Luther was forced to change his attitude, which in essence Luther argued that the state was of Christian origin.
Christians can dismiss pastors who teach heretical religions.
The ruler of the country as a major member of Christianity can act as a representative of all Christians and must provide the tools of his power for the benefit of the execution of the will of the church.
The king as the representative of Christians can change the church, thus the king has power over the church.
And the king arbitrarily makes rules that are absolute.
This opinion differs from Calvin's opinion.
Luther and Calvin disagreed
Calvin's view of the relationship between the state and the church is based on the difference of duty between the state and the church.
Although both the state and the church must strive to have each person embrace the true religion and obey the commandments of God, but each has a different path or way.
The church uses its power over the human soul and directs its purpose to happiness in the hereafter.
While the country with its tools of power or tools, oversees human behavior that is external, so that it can be in accordance with the commands of God, so that man achieves happiness, but which is only external or worldly.
Calvinist teaching principles are :
God is sovereign, who has the highest power. The king rules by the will of God, and as a representative of God. If the king in his rule disregarded the commandments of God, then he became a tyrant or a tyrannical king, thus the purpose of Calvin's teaching was that in essence subject the king or state to the (commands) of God, or in other words , making the country an implementing tool from the will of the church.
Later in the field of reform constitution also gave rise to a new trend, namely the stream or the monarchomaken race.
The reason for the emergence of this stream (monarchomaken people) is because the king has absolute power, and this always creates excess, among other things the king can interfere in matters of religion, and even determine what beliefs should be embraced.
The purpose of the monarchs is to limit the power of the king who is absolute. So in principle they will not seek or lay new policies for a constitutional system, and will not oppose the existence of a government. But it will only find the basics and boundaries of the king's power, as well as what the reasons are and what actions can be taken if the king goes beyond those boundaries.
They raised the old question, which is about the relationship between the state and the church in different forms in the new situation that has been raised by the reformers and absolutism.
What is meant is disputes between countries and religions, which have indeed been seen in the writings of the reformers.
Does the king have the right to rule contrary to the rules of religion ?
This question can have two kinds of consequences.
First, if the answer is yes, this means that people agree with the emergence of the Tyranni. And people will be more obedient to the commands of people (kings) than the commands of God. Or in other words people agree with the power of absolutism.
Second, if the answer is no, this means that people must obey the commandments of God more than the commands of man (king). And thus religion has a revolutionary element in or against worldly power.
The struggle against absolutism has been going on since Calvin's time, with events in France in 1572 on August 24, known as the night of Bartholomew, at the command of a Catholic massacre.
Who are the monarchs, and what are their teachings ?
Names that can be mentioned including the Monarchs are Hotman, Brutus, Buchanan, Johannes Althusius, Mariana, Bellarmin, Suarez and Milton. Of all those who describe the teachings of the state and the law the most is Johannes Althusius.
Hotman in 1573 published a book by "Pranco Gallia".
The basics that Hotman used to oppose absolutism were not the basics of religious teachings, but the basics of historical teachings.
So Hotman is not a real monarchomaken, although people always classify it in that sense.
Brutus, a true monarchomaken textbook, was first published in 1579, entitled "Vindiciae contra Tyrannos" (legal instruments against the Tyranni).
The author is hiding behind the name Brutus.
The book is one of the principled reviews of resistance to kings with absolute power.
Buchanan is his full name George Buchanan. George Buchanan is a Scotsman.
In 1579 George Buchanan published the book "De Jure regni apud Scotos" (About the power of the king over the Scots).
Buchanan lived in the years 1506-1582.
George Buchanan was an educator, George Buchanan educated James who later became king of Scotland and England, in Scotland as James VI, while in England as James I. He ruled from 1603 to 1625.
Buchanan is a humanist. First George Buchanan sought to distinguish between the king and the Tyran. The king is the person who holds the government, who gains his power with the help of the people, and who exercises his government on the basis of justice. Otherwise, the King is a Tyran. And Tyran can be killed without punishment.
Mariana's full name is Juan de Mariana. Juan de Mariana is a Spanish scholar. In 1599 Juan de Mariana published his book "De Rege ac Regis Institutione" (About the king and his position).
The book "De Rege ac Regis Institutione" is specifically intended to be held by King Phillip III who ruled in Spain. Juan de Mariana's teachings have much in common with Buchanan's teachings, especially with regard to the limits of the king's power, and the assassination of the Tyrans. There are many similarities with the teachings of Niccolo Machiavelli, only its nature is a bit vague. While the spirit of the whole book somewhat states that the country, it as a society is inferior to the church, and has nothing to do with morality at all.
Bellarmin. Bellarmin was a cardinal, living from 1542-1621. Bellarmin is a Controversialist. His national philosophy was Controversial, due to the attitude of James who defended his stand on the sovereignty of God, which later gained resistance from the Jesuits to the sovereignty of his people.
Bellarmin argues that although the absolute monarchy is the best form of government in theory, it is because of the shortcomings of human morality that it has caused its practice to be very different.
This opinion has been justified in practice.
Bellarmin's famous book is: "Disputationes", which teaches that the Pope has no power in the worldly realm. And "Tractatus de Potestate Summi Pontivicus in Rebus Temporalibus" about the Pope's power in the worldly field.
Suarez. His full name is Francesco Suarez. Suarez is also a Controversialist. Suarez was a Spanish scholar, who lived from 1548 to 1617.
Suarez's teachings are written in his book "Tractatus de Ligibus ac Deo Legislatore" (Description of the law and God, the Lawgiver). The Suarez movement is referred to as the pioneer of Hugo de Groot.
Because Suarez has created inter-state law, and given the possibility of rebuilding natural law. This is in line with his opinion that no country can stand on its own without having relations with other countries.
In Suarez's opinion the state is a coalition of people who are a union because of deeds based on 'will' or because of general consent.
The whole of social has a general purpose and is a moral union that requires the power of regulation.
From his definition of this country the teachings of the sovereignty of the people have taken shape, as will be presented by Rousseau in the eighteenth century. And in many respects this teaching of Suarez, especially of sovereignty, has much in common with the teachings of Jean Bodin.
Milton. His full name is John Milton. Milton was a famous poet.
During Milton's lifetime he experienced the assassination of King Charles I. And because of his defenses Milton became famous.
Johannes Althusius or Johan Althaus. Johannes Althusius was a Calvinist monarch. In 1610 Johannes Althusius published his most famous book, "Politica Methodice Digesta" (A systematic system of constitutions, reinforced with examples from ordinary history and sacred history).
Althusius lived in 1568-1638.
In his opinion about the existence of the state of Althusius there are many similarities with the opinion of Aristotle, who said that the State is a family unit in its highest form, and that has various purposes, gradually the unity develops and eventually achieves its form as a nation. So his teachings are organic.
While Johannes Althusius' opinion on sovereignty is as follows: sovereignty is the supreme power to maintain everything that leads to the physical and spiritual interests of the members of the state, this power is in the people as a union.
About the ruler or king Althusius thinks that the ruler is appointed by the people to carry out the law, the appointment is done in an agreement, then the king here is bound by an agreement with the people to carry out the law, meanwhile the people promise to obey and submit to ruler or king, the people as a union can hold a match against a king who acts arbitrarily as a tyran. It is here that the monarchomical nature of Althusius is clearly seen.
While the nature of Calvinist Johannes Althusius is seen in his opinion that says that the state should not only organize the physical interests of its citizens, but also the interests of religion, morality, education and 'set rules about human behavior.
About the form of state Althusius argues that there is no other form of state, except the form of the sovereignty of the people. But the way he governs can be different. Because the government can be done by a single person, or by a council. Since in addition to the head of state or king there will always be a council that is responsible, then the form of government is always mixed, and there will never be a form of Monarchy, or Aristocracy, or Democracy as a pure form.
So from the teachings of Johannes Althusius it can be concluded that Johannes Althusius was one of the Monarchists who were greatly influenced by the teachings of Calvin.
His teachings on state thinking and the most important law among others are the question of: Where does it come from. the power of the king? And where does the power of the people come from? The latter is talked about because it later turns out that according to the teachings of Althusius the king's power came from the people.
So it has been said that Althusius was about to give new foundations to the king's power.
In the opinion of Johannes Althusius, the king ruled not by the will of God, but by the will of society, which society was the formation of individuals.
Then this society by way or by agreement gives its power to someone to rule in that country, this person is called a king. Therefore, it means that the original power is in the people.
Where does the power of the people or individuals come from ?
This is questioned or questioned because the person can only give something, if he himself has it.
Here the individuals give rights or power to the king, so then the individuals must have had power before.
According to Althusius the origin of the power of these individuals is from the agreement of society. By making the treaty, which is based on the will or will of the individuals themselves, the people then become a union, which has the right to rule, and then by way of a treaty of submission, the power is handed over to the king.
But the original rights or powers remain with the individual or the people. In this submission agreement, the people promised to obey the king. But because in this agreement the king is his own party or party, then if it turns out that the king deviates from the agreement, the people can rebel and shift or replace the king with a new king.
The question now is : what is the basis that causes the agreement to bind those who make the agreement? And what is the basis of the power available to the individual to make the agreement earlier.
According to Althusius this all comes from a law. So it is clear now that the basis of the king's power does not come from God. But it comes from or is based on a law. So there arose a new order concerning the power of the king, or a new principle, that is, the basis of law.
But what is meant by law here is not the law of the state or of the king or of God, but the law of nature, that is, the law which is set in force generally which does not depend on place and time. It means where and whenever the law applies. So his place is above the law made by the state, or the king. So the state or king does not have the highest power or sovereignty, which has is the people as a unit.
The embodiment of the above sovereignty is the law, which must be carried out by the king.
The king is bound or limited in his power by the previous law. If the king breaks the law, the people can stop him and even kill him.
With this discussion of the teachings of the monarchs, we come to the realm of thinking about the country and the laws of the seventeenth century, after going beyond that special sixteenth century.
Further the teachings of the laws of nature will undergo new developments, and will dominate the realm of thought about states and laws in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the era of absolute power.
People hope no longer for the rules of religion and morality, but for the abstract mind to put an end to the arbitrary actions of the ruling king with absolute power.
Also in addition people think that the solution will be achieved by raising the moral value of the personal person, who holds the power of the king.
But it is also clear that people will be faced with the question: what is the law of nature ? The answer will be discussed in or found in the discussion of thinking about the state and the law in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
