The central ideas of reformation movement
The central idea of the Reformation movement is, people have the right to resist the irreligious or un-Biblical functions or behaviour of the Pope and the church. Calvin and Calvinists believed that it was a religious duty to resist and immediately it became a part of Protestant theories and, after that, it constituted an important section of political theory of resistance.
Thus today what we call the right to resist had its humble origin in the Calvinist idea of religious right to resist. From the Calvinist concept the Huguenots further borrowed it and used it to protest the activities of kings.
In the second half of the sixteenth century the Huguenots of France strongly protested the in toleration in religion. It means that, in respect of religion, everyman or group of men has the right to pursue his own religious practices or principles.
This is called religious freedom and nobody can prevent anyone from practising his own religious practices. In this concept there lies a number of ideas such as religious toleration, right to religious freedom etc.
Huguenots for the first time demanded that everyone must be allowed to practise religious principles in his own way and for this practice there shall exist an atmosphere of religious toleration. This again formed an important part of political thought. It was also demanded that it is the duty of state authority to ensure the atmosphere.
Who are Huguenots? According to COD, Huguenot is a French Protestant of 16-17th centuries. Question is when the concept of religious duty to resist became transformed among Protestant theorists into a modern and strictly concept of a moral right of resistance.
The modern theory was first fully articulated by the Huguenots during the French religious wars in the second half of the 16th century.
Let us recapitulate:
Calvin and his followers propagated that every citizen has the right to protest any un-religious view or practice and it must be’ accepted or recognised. It was the central idea of the Reformation Movement.
Skinner says that the French Protestants first gave vent to it and subsequently it found support from people of the Netherlands. The claim of the Huguenots was subsequently accepted by the English revolutionaries of 1040s.
Calvin and Calvinists propagated that it is the religious right to protest or resist any religious principle if it is not acceptable. Huguenots borrowed this basic idea from the Calvinists and made it a main part of their protest. It is called “radical theory of resistance”.
Though Calvinists propagated the right to resist in the first half of the sixteenth century the Huguenots adopted it after the most heinous and cruel massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572. The St. Bartholomew Massacre was the consequence of religious in toleration.
One section of Christianity could not tolerate the other section and behind this in toleration there was no valid reason. The main argument of the Huguenots was that in religious matter there is no guarantee that everyone will have the same opinion, there may be differences and these differences must be accepted or tolerated. But another section could not accept this stand on many issues.
Some people may hold different opinion and Huguenots claimed that it must be accepted. They also said that opposite opinion must constitute the main body of thought. It is called the political concept of Huguenots. They further said that nobody can be deprived of the right to express his opinion. So, we find that though the origin of right to resist is religion it spread its wings in other spheres.
The religious war was intense in many parts of Europe and the royal authority in almost all the countries was directly or indirectly involved in the war. The interesting matter is that the kings and queens were anti-Protestant which meant that they were against the Huguenots.
The involvement of the kings and queens in the war of religion aggravated the situation. A large number of people took part in the war of religion. The greater parts of Europe were converted into battlefields of religion.
In this connection Ebenstein writes:
The anti-Protestant frenzy, carefully nursed, with the blessing of Rome, by the Royalist Catholic party, came to a climax in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (August 24,1572) in which thirty thousand Huguenots lost their lives.
It is believed that there was strong support of Catherine behind the massacre because she was panicked at the meteoric rise of the Huguenots and clandestinely she ordered the elimation of the Huguenots.
The Bartholomew Massacre created an unprecedented panic in entire Europe and the consequence was people of all sections of community began to feel the toleration in religion. After the massacre Catherine urged all sides of society to iron out all sorts of differences particularly religious differences.
The great Bartholomew Massacre failed the religious frenzy among a section of people. Rather, many of them were encouraged to propagate the uniformity in religion. In the seventies and eighties of the sixteenth century a new idea was floated and it is – one faith, one law, one king (une foi, une loi, une roi).
This slogan rejected the Huguenots’ stand on religious toleration. There was a dangerous pronouncement of a well-known person in this respect – “It is folly to hope for peace, repose and amity between peoples of different religions”.
The religious strife led to the absolutism. Amidst the religious controversy that created great tension in France and other countries of Europe Jean Bodin published his Six Books of a Commonwealth in 1576, four years after the notorious Bartholomew Massacre. In this book he enthusiastically argued for religious uniformity and dismissed the variety of religion.
He apprehended that variety of religion would destroy the unity of nation and jeopardise the maintenance of law and order. Bodin was an eyewitness of Bartholomew Massacre that occurred on 1572 and for this he blamed the Huguenots.
He said that the government must forbid the existence and practice of different religions. Only supreme power and strict law can do this Bodin’s reason was that it was the primary duty of the king or monarch to uphold the unity of nation and advance progress. But at the same time he should also look after the health and welfare of the commonwealth. For all these a prince must have enormous powers at his disposal.
Bodin further argued that a prince must ignore the arguments in favour of multiplicity of religions. Bodin claimed that variety of religious faith would lead to tensions and discord among people and this would endanger the security and unity of the nation. He further argued that all religions are based not so much upon demonstrations of reason as upon the assurance of faith and belief.
The summary of Bodin’s argument is that only a strong monarch can save a commonwealth from disunity and collapse. In his book Bodin favoured religious toleration. But his point was-the Huguenots must accept main argument of Christianity.
Some people say that Bodin strongly condemned the Bartholomew Massacre and, at the same time, intransigence of the Huguenots (Skinner).
Even after the Bartholomew Massacre of 1572 the enthusiasm of the Huguenots did not die down. They started their agitation in new form and added spirit because they were determined to establish their conception of religious toleration. The Huguenots were of firm opinion that every individual has the right to follow religion in his own way and faith.
They began to publish pamphlets and short literature and Vindiciae contra tyrannos is one such pamphlet which was published in 1579 and immediately it drew wide public attention.
Sabine says Vindiciae became one of the landmarks of revolutionary literature. It was republished again and again and was translated in several European languages. Its English translation is A Defence of Liberty against Tyrants.
The very title indicates that its author or authors (some people say that it was written by many) wanted to protest the tyrannical acts or behaviour of the rulers. The authors wanted to emphasise that no belief or faith could be imposed upon the general public in the name of religious unity.
Sabine calls it the Protestant attack on absolutism. The concept of absolutism was propagated in a clandestine way by several persons among which Bodin was frontrunner.
There are several parts of the Vindiciae and four among them are important in the first place, are subjects obliged to obey the princes if they command anything against the law of God!
Secondly, is it lawful to resist a prince who desires to nullify the law of God?
Thirdly, how far is it lawful to resist a prince who is oppressing or destroying the state and to whom, by what means and with what right is such resistance allowable? Finally, can neighbouring princes lawfully aid the subjects of other princes? These are the four important questions which Vindicae raised.
It has been asserted that Vindiciae offered a theory of accountability in the name of contract. In this pamphlet it has been said that there are two forms of contract inherent in this pamphlet.
The first type of contract was done between God, king and people. In this type of contract God was one party and king and people were another party.
The second was jointly a single party. There was another contract in which the king was one party and people formed the other party. The contract enshrined in the Vindiciae clearly states that the kings had no power or reason to claim that he was the representative of God on earth and God was the source of all the power which he would exercise.
By declaring this the king wanted to establish that for all his acts he was solely responsible to God alone. But the Vindiciae did not recognize the Divine Right Theory. But the author of the Vindiciae did not deny the existence of God and His role in the earthly affairs.
We may now look at the importance of Vindiciae. It is a fact that this pamphlet did not succeed in establishing the secular politics. It recognized the importance of God in political affairs. But Vindiciae succeeded in curtailing the powers of the king in a considerable extent. In the second contract the king was a party to the contract with the people.
This condition was designed to curb the power of the king Ebenstein has said that the idea of Vindiciae is a trusteeship. Speaking in terms of the Bible and Roman law, the Vindiciae refers to the king as a guardian or tutor.
The king must look after the general welfare of the people and any failure on his part will invite people’s protest. In other words, Vindiciae established that the king had no unlimited power.
Ebenstein says “The most powerful impact of the Vindiciae has been on Dutch and English thought. What the Huguenots wanted for France the Bloodless Revolution achieved for England in 1688.”
Ebenstein further observes that vindicial may not be regarded as a book of enormous importance but it is a rare book. The impact of this small book is felt by many.
Talking about the importance of Reformation in the vast arena of political science R N Berki (The History of Political Thought) says “Reformation comprised diverse schools of thought, the impact of which went in various directions. This opinion of Berki carries sufficient weight.
In the previous analysis we have made a modest attempt to show that Reformation laid the foundation stone of major concepts of political science such as democracy, absolutism, secularism in politics, constitutionalism, accountability of the ruler to the people, the contract theory whose central idea is both the ruler and the ruled are bound by contract.
Reformation has also thrown light on the nation-state. But this reference is not direct Decline in the power of the church and rise of monarchical authority provided strong impetus to the nation-state.
All these are issues of great importance. Reformation talks of people’s right to judge religious issues in their own way by applying their own views. Berki thinks that this is a form of popular sovereignty. Berki further maintains “Reformation acted as an agency of liberation and a spur to innovations in thought and to new forms of knowledge”. Reformation, to sum up, had created a new chapter in political science.
