The unyielding Luther and Calvin
Oppression by the oppressed. About brave reformers who tolerated no contradiction. About Luther as a desk scholar, chatterbox, pawn and marketer. And about Calvin's reign of terror.
This article is about the Reformation and its causes. Luther and Calvin play leading roles. And: how much religious toleration could the reformers muster within their own movements? To reveal the answer in advance: not much. Luther and Calvin were self righteous prigs who could not tolerate contradiction. God and the Holy Scriptures were on their side. There was no bargaining with that.
(This is a fairly long article; it may not make it all the way through your email. It's better to read the article online or in the Substack app.)
The Reformation
In January 1518, the curia, the pope's secretariat, received a letter from the Archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht von Brandenburg. He had received a letter from an Augustinian monk, a certain Martin Luther. That Luther took offence to a monk of another order, Johann Tetzel. Tetzel was in charge of selling indulgences. With indulgences one could obtain forgiveness of one's sins from the church for a fee. Luther had strong objections to this. Theologically and morally it made no sense, he thought. Luther wanted to have a public debate with Tetzel, and in anticipation of this, he had published 95 theses, which he also sent to his archbishop.
Unfortunately, Albrecht himself was up to his armpits in this business of indulgences. He had to, because he had bought his position as archbishop, for which he had gone deeply into debt. Dynastic interests of his family, the highly noble Hohenzollern, required him to acquire a position of power and prestige. He had set up a construction with the Pope, to whom he also owed money. The faithful were told that the proceeds would benefit the construction of the new St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican (it's still there, you’ve seen it). But in reality only half of the proceeds were spent on this; the other half was deducted from Albrecht's debt.
Albrecht did what he was supposed to do with the letter: escalate. Let Rome look into the matter. I am having a problem with an impudent monk from Wittenberg, he wrote, here are his theses, what should I do with them? The Curia also responded by the book. A competent theologian had to look at the content of the statements. And the head of Luther's monastic order was ordered to talk some sense into the agitated monk.
The Pope's involvement will initially have been peripheral at most. Leo X had other things on his mind. The youngest pope ever was a well-read man and comes across as sympathetic. He was intelligent and pious, a bon vivant and a patron of the arts. In the previous episode we read that he protected Erasmus against the conservative forces in the church. He had no interest in theological peddlery. As head of the powerful Florentine house of De' Medici and as head of the ecclesiastical state, his attention was focused on high politics. He was an important player in the ongoing political and military conflicts between the European superpowers. Wheeling and dealing with power and money, that's what Leo's job came down to. And the treasury was constantly empty, especially because the war against the advancing Ottoman Empire also had to be financed. War was an expensive hobby, and he had also inherited that embarrassingly half-built basilica from his predecessor, a dent in his prestige.
There had always been hassle within the church. Usually it all ended with a fizzle, that's why you had a church hierarchy; they had centuries of experience in this. And if things really got out of hand, there was always the Inquisition, and they were certainly not gentle. The reformer Jan Hus was able to discuss this from the stake a century earlier.
In January 1518, no one could have imagined that it was code red for the church. We need historians to explain why things could get so out of hand, in retrospect. We will go through the most important causes one by one below:
Luther's personality
The emergence of book printing
Shifting balance of power between the German princes and the church
The influence of humanism
A man called Luther
Theologically, Luther's objections to indulgences were not isolated; he had started to develop his own theory about grace, salvation and related woolly theological terms, which in essence can be expressed very down-to-earth, namely: how to get into paradise after death?
It is unlikely that Luther had a schism in mind with his 95 theses on indulgences. He sought attention for customs that he found objectionable. He had previously sought polemics against scholasticism, but that subject did not hold much interest. Too theological. With indulgences it was different. Initially, these indulgences were still in great demand, but the church had started to really milk that source of income. The church people saw through this, so Luther's protest fell on fertile ground. In no time, Luther's attacks were reprinted all over Germany. Erasmus also took note of it with approval; he forwarded a copy to Thomas More in England.
Luther had to justify himself in debates. Characteristic of Luther was that he easily allowed himself to be pushed into a corner and then fled forward. For example, a debate about indulgences with a shrewd theologian eventually culminated in the question of papal authority. Instead of backing down, Luther declared that papal authority had no foundation. He also unintentionally ended up in polemics, which he often peppered with vulgar insults. His audience loved it, but his friends held their breath. The pyre was beckoning.
That quality could easily have been fatal for Luther, but he did have some other qualities. First of all, Luther was a charismatic and amiable man. It was just fun dining with him. Friends went through fire for him.
And Luther had another special talent: a fine sense of publicity. He had a good sense of which topics he could strike a chord with his readers. He was very aware of his public image, and guarded it carefully. He was involved in the design of his publications and provided portraits that depicted him favourably. And above all: he was a great writer. Theologians certainly did not excel in concise and readable writings, but Luther could do that. And not only in easily readable Latin, but also in the vernacular: German. In two years he became the most read author in Europe. Everyone was talking about the Luther affair.
The disruption of the printing press
The church was used to the path of silent diplomacy, with a note here and a subtle threat there. Very effective, but Luther armed himself with a new tool: that of publicity, especially thanks to the printing press. The church had no experience with this yet. In this way, an obscure theologian at an insignificant university in an almost barbaric corner became a formidable threat to the powerful church.
The printing press with movable type was invented in Mainz in 1455. A printer could produce more pages in one day than a copyist could in a year. The invention was very popular. Within a few decades, every European city had one or more printing houses. Authors could now peddle their ideas much more easily, and printed books had finally become affordable to most literate citizens. Until then, they had to go to libraries, usually owned by the church, to read books copied by monks. There was now room to distribute books outside the control of the church.
Perhaps it is best to think of the revolution that the Internet has meant for us. What happens when a democratic mass medium suddenly emerges? Information is widely available and traditional assumptions are being challenged. Debate, polarisation, and verbal abuse arise, and authority is challenged. That was exactly the effect of the printing press.
The printing press arrived just in time for Luther, and he made full use of it, with dozens of publications and pamphlets. Without the printing press we probably would never have heard of Luther.
Europe, the boardgame
Luther lived and taught in Wittenberg, an insignificant town on the Elbe, on the periphery of the German Empire. That town was the capital of an equally puny principality in Saxony. But that tiny principality was headed by a high noble lord: Friedrich III, the Elector of Saxony. Saxony was part of the Holy Roman Empire (roughly modern-day Germany). According to ancient custom, only seven nobles in that empire determined who would become the new emperor. Hence the word elector. So Friedrich had a small country, but he had a right to be taken into account. Anyone who wanted to become emperor had to befriend the electors, which usually involved significant pledges or large sums of money.
Friedrich never turned his back on the Church of Rome, but he protected his Luther. Luther thus became a pawn in a great game of chess. First of all, Friedrich thought it was nice that the fame of that damn Luther reflected on his silly university in Wittenberg. But there was more going on.
German princes preferred to go their own way with as little outside interference as possible. But because Germany was such a patchwork of principalities, it was a piece of cake for the foreign superpowers to turn the German princes against each other. The kings of France, Spain and England and the Pope enjoyed that game. Albrecht von Brandenburg, remember, that archbishop with debts, was a rival of Elector Friedrich. He was bishop of no fewer than three dioceses, giving him two of the seven votes as elector in the appointment of a new emperor. And with those votes he carried out the agenda of the Pope, with whom he was deeply overdrafted. Albrecht also had ecclesiastical authority over Friedrich's principality, much against Friedrich's wishes. Friedrich found it wonderful that Albrecht was trapped by Luther's insistence on indulgences.
Just when the Luther affair began to unfold, the German emperor died. There had to be a successor. Ultimately, the king of Spain was chosen, Charles V. Charles' advantage was that he was so busy running his enormous empire, with the French king, the Pope and the Ottomans as opponents, that he had no time for Germany at all. Since his election in 1520, he hardly had time to interfere with Germany for no less than ten years. This allowed the Reformation to continue without significant imperial intervention.
Cynical as I am, I have been looking for the opportunist Luther, who used schemes and plots to promote his faith, gain political influence and play princes against each other. But it turns out that's not how it happened. Luther was hardly a player. Wheeling and dealing were not his thing. He was first and foremost a theologian who wrote down his thoughts, preached and published. Moreover, he was far too clumsy for intrigue, too undiplomatic. Although of course he wasn't backward; he knew exactly how the wheels spun.
Why then did German princes choose Luther's side? It really started from the bottom up. His books sold like hot cakes; the literate people loved him, and he also managed to convince many fellow priests and pastors, and through them the parishioners. In this way, like wildfire, he got the citizenry of many cities under his influence, and therefore ultimately also their city council. The German princes who took his side also seem to have done so out of conviction. But it also suited them well that the Catholic hierarchy in their country had to tone down a bit. That certainly played a role, also in a financial sense, I'll delve into that later. And Luther showed himself loyal and docile to the princes. Luther knew full well that he needed powerful friends.
Humanism
In the time of Erasmus and Luther, humanism had Europe in its intellectual grip. Traces can also be found in Luther's work. I already wrote that Erasmus' message was essentially: back to the core. Cut off the Romish deposits from the gospel; seek the faith that Jesus and Paulos had in mind. Luther agreed with this, although he was not an expert on Greco-Roman civilization. Luther was not a humanist, but he picked up the spirit of the times. Literate citizens began to have access to written sources. They could and wanted to judge for themselves. That was also the spirit of the times, from which Luther benefited. The bourgeoisie dared to act more independently of the church, to think for themselves.
But Luther also experienced other influences: those of the Rhineland mystical tradition, including passive surrender to God's purpose. And although he had nothing good to say about scholasticism, he was strongly influenced by the theology of Augustinus and by mediaeval nominalism, from which he got his theory of salvation through faith.
Luther's toleration
Judging from his profane vituperation, Luther had little patience for dissidents. But it wasn't just barking: Luther could also bite.
Luther's wrath affected, among others, the German theologian Sebastian Franck (1499-1542), whose insights on freedom of conscience seem surprisingly modern. Like many of his Protestant colleagues, Franck started out as a Catholic priest and was carried away by the wave of renewal caused by the Lutheran Reformation. But Franck's insights did not please Luther one bit. He was forced to flee to relatively free Strasbourg, but when he published his Chronica: Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel in 1531, his liberal views were too controversial even there. In the book he illustrated, based on church history, how many good and pious people had been persecuted for heresy over the centuries. Franck was imprisoned and later banished from the city. When he fled to Ulm and started a printing business there, Luther's long arm reached him again. He was first banned from publishing and later had to leave the city under pressure from Luther. Fortunately, Franck's life ended well. He moved to the relatively liberal city of Basel, where Luther and Calvin had less influence and where fairly mild theologians were in charge. Franck's last three years in Basel went well. He was admitted to a guild as a book printer, acquired citizenship of the city, remarried and was able to afford a house. He died there in 1542 as a wealthy man.
Luther was in favour of freedom of conscience, but that did not mean that everyone could freely think whatever came to his mind. In Luther's view, freedom of conscience actually only applied to people who exposed errors. In practice these were the Lutherans. Because they were right, and the Catholic Church was wrong. For example, he had little sympathy for Anabaptists and Zwinglians (see later). They were heretics, and they deserved the death penalty for their dangerous and wrong ideas.
Just as with the early Catholic Church, we see with Luther that his initially broad-minded views narrowed as he gained more power. That was apparently the price that was due for forming a church organisation.
The Reformation as a movement
Luther put the camel’s nose into the tent (apart from Zwingli, about which more later). But the Reformation movement quickly fragmented. This was partly due to Luther's unyielding attitude, which tolerated no contradiction. But I already wrote that it was a time of polarisation. It is almost impossible to imagine, but just as the public debate is now divided over issues such as migration or the climate, it was then about religion. Does bread and wine really turn into blood and flesh at the Eucharist, or is that just a figure of speech? Not only theologians were at odds with each other over such issues, but also church members. Not only between Catholics and Protestants, but also between Protestants themselves. It became a mess, with hundreds of Protestant theologians, each with their own following, and many theologically uneducated but passionate idealists also started their own community of believers.
Lutherans became the largest Protestant movement in Germany, but were gradually overtaken internationally by followers of Calvin. We will discuss these later, but first a brief overview of the most important other movements:
The Anabaptists formed an important 'third movement', but consisted of a colourful group. I wrote before about the apocalyptic Anabaptist community in Munster; the Anabaptists owed their bad reputation to that. But the mainstream Anabaptists were good people who were mainly characterised by their view that religion should be a conscious individual choice. Religious coercion generally did not appear in their dictionary. The best-known Anabaptists today are communities such as the Mennonites and the Amish who opt for pacifism, seclusion and an aversion to modernity. In addition, there are the mainstream Baptists, a missionary movement with a large international following, which is now very diverse theologically. Well-known Baptists were John Smyth and Martin Luther King. The American presidents Truman, Carter and Clinton were also Baptists.
The Swiss Reformation of Huldrych Zwingli. Zwingli's rebellion against Roman decadence began as a village pastor a few years before Luther, but was initially little noticed. In fact, he was promoted by his bishop to pastor of Zurich's main church. Only then did Zwingli's Protestant movement gain steam. Theologically, Zwingli fell somewhere between Erasmus, Luther and Calvin. He also tried to penetrate to the core of Christianity; according to him this consisted of faith and worship. For him, Christianity was more than theology: Christianity should dominate your entire life, a total integration of the individual and the community in the service of the higher. Zwingli believed that Christian tasks such as charity and education should be provided by the government; this would make the distinction between church and state disappear. Zwingli's insights influenced Calvinism and later also English Puritanism.
The rationalists: liberal movements that considered faith a personal matter and who thought intellectualistically and interconfessionally. These were the communities that were inspired by Erasmus and later by thinkers such as Sebastian Franck, Sébastien Castellio and Dirck Volkertsz. Coornhert. These thinkers took the lead in thinking about religious toleration.
The Socinians, who strongly believed in free will, and who were sceptical of the divine nature of Jesus. These Socinians were abundant in Poland and Romania at the time; related societies internationally are the Unitarians, which have a strong following, especially among the intellectual elite. Isaac Newton, Albert Schweitzer and Thomas Jefferson were among the best-known sympathisers.
The mystics and spiritualists: believers who cared little about church organisation, preferring to withdraw and experience their personal bond with God internally. Well-known Protestant mystics and spiritualists were the older Sebastian Franck, Kaspar Schwenckfeld and Emanuel Swedenborg.
The English Reformation only gained momentum when Henry VIII broke with papal authority in 1534. The Anglican Church that emerged from this was nominally Protestant, but there was no radical break with Catholic tradition. The church did make a distinction between the biblical sacraments (baptism and Eucharist) and the non-evangelical sacraments. Celibacy for priests was immediately abolished.
For many on the British Isles, these reforms did not go far enough; a Puritan movement arose that advocated radical austerity and very strict regulations. The movement had strong Calvinist features. In the 17th century, the Puritans would try to take over government in England, to no avail, which led large parts of the Puritan community to decide to establish religiously pure colonies in the United States. Culturally and religiously, that Puritan influence still makes itself felt there.
The emergence of Calvin
There was also dissatisfaction with the Church of Rome in France. The king was close to the pope, which made them unpopular among the nobility and in the cities. Those circles in particular were receptive to the Reformation. But Luther, a German, had little support in France. The French were waiting for a French reformer. He presented himself as Jehan Cauvin (who internationalised his name: Jean Calvin), from Picardy, in the north of France. He came from a good catholic family.
Calvin studied theology at the same scholastic college in Paris as Erasmus a generation earlier, but he complained much less about it. After a degree in theology and a law degree, Calvin came into contact with humanists and Lutherans. There is no spectacular conversion story; gradually he became convinced of the corruption of the Romish rite. In 1534 he resigned from his church position and left France, fleeing the first wave of Protestant persecutions initiated by the king.
In the Protestant exile of Basel he worked on his main work Institutio Christianæ Religionis, the first version of which he published in 1536. The Institutio was well received. Calvin published in both Latin (for international audiences) and French (for the domestic market). He had the advantage that the major theological debates between the Reformers had already been conducted, so he could draw conclusions that were seen by many as 'the last word'. Calvin was also a clear thinker and writer; he wrote an easily accessible work, despite the complicated subject matter.
Calvin's theology
Protestants were inclined to magnify mutual theological differences, but mutual similarities were greater. To illustrate: Luther, Zwingli and a handful of reformers met in Marburg in 1529 to settle their differences. They were able to agree on 14 of the 15 statements. Only regarding transubstantiation did the differences prove to be irreconcilable. And don't level out the egos.
The theological difference between Calvin and the other Reformers was therefore subtle, but the differences would lead to a completely different religious culture, as we will soon see.
A hot topic among reformers was and remained the issue of free will and predestination. In the previous episode I already reflected on that subject. Calvin also made a big deal about this. According to him, free will does not exist, everything is predestined, and the tickets for paradise have already been registered. But as mortals we know nothing in advance. Calvinists therefore see God's hand in every event, no matter how miserable. That gave (and still gives) believers enormous strength to endure even the worst 'trials'.
But why bother if everything is already predestined? Well, said Calvin, if you as a creature are working for the kingdom of God, then that must mean that you have been chosen.
Another theme that set Calvin apart from the rest was the issue of original sin. Luther described sin primarily as an evil from without. It is not without reason that the Devil is a main character in Luther's writings. According to Calvin, evil was within ourselves. We are naturally sinful creatures, prone to lying, stealing, and sexually and alcoholically overindulging. That was also the cause of the erring church: it had fallen into the grip of sin and succumbed to temptations. The only way to overcome those temptations was to live a disciplined life in God's community. We must help each other to stay on track.
Geneva under Calvin
The citizens of Geneva would experience how this disciplined life should turn out according to Calvin. Calvin had decided to move to Strasbourg in 1537, where he envisioned a quiet life, writing and studying. But in 1541 the city of Geneva made an appeal to him. The city had declared its independence and renounced the Church of Rome. Calvin had preached there for a while a few years earlier, but the city council was reluctant; Calvin hadn't gotten his way. But now Calvin was given a free hand to establish a true kingdom of God there. The study room scholar was given the opportunity to realise his ideals.
It became a city that the ayatollahs of Iran would envy. Sobriety became the norm. Clothing with ornaments or expensive fabrics was banned, as were excessively extravagant hairstyles or footwear in which women's toes were visible. Elders were appointed to visit households, keep track of the sins of all citizens, and report them to the pastors. Poor and sick care was only provided to citizens with an impeccable life. Sermon attendance was mandatory for everyone, several days a week. If you failed to attend, arrived late, or fell asleep, you would be fined. The city was infested with informants, and citizens had to snitch on each other. A consistory was established, functioning as a kind of inquisition, in which Calvin played an active role. All serious cases of blasphemy, foul-mouthing, adultery, fornication, gossip and quarrelling, witchcraft and heresy were presented. Fines and detention were the order of the day. For the more serious cases, banishment from the city was reserved. Heresy and witchcraft were punishable by death. In Calvin's 23 years in power, 58 civilians were executed in a city of 10,000 inhabitants.
Calvin burns a heretic, angering his former protégé
The Spanish Protestant physician and theologian Miguel Serveto published views on the Trinity in 1553 that differed from those of Calvin. Calvin filed a report with the Council of Geneva. Publishing theological views contrary to those of Calvin was a punishable offence in that city. The city council sentenced and executed Serveto the same year, for heresy. He was burned alive.
Protestant circles reacted with shock to Serveto's execution. History had repeated itself: just as in early Christianity, the persecuted had become the persecutors. The Protestant scholar Sébastien Castellio had initially been a protégé of Calvin, but was later insulted by Calvin several times; he had acted a little too boldly towards his patron. It earned him the wrath of the Calvinists. Like Franck, he had to flee and was hunted throughout Europe, eventually finding a safe haven in Basel.
Serveto's execution by Calvin enraged Castellio. He published an anonymous pamphlet from Basel, De haereticis, an sint persequendi (On heretics, whether they should be persecuted, 1554), in which he explained in detail and with reference to countless Bible texts why the persecution of heretics against the will of God. Castellio cited a number of church fathers in his work and a whole series of like-minded contemporaries. It reads like a catalogue of tolerant thinkers in the 16th century. It resulted in a sharp polemic with Calvin and his second Theodore de Bèze, which provides a clear insight into the opposing views on freedom of religion in the 16th century. Castellio's argument was clearly relativist in nature:
Although there are almost as many opinions as there are people, there is hardly a faith that does not condemn all others and that wants sole rule. Hence all those banishments, chains, captivity, pyres, galleys, and the wretched fury that daily punishes those who differ with the powerful on matters that have been disputed for centuries and still remain unresolved.
— Sébastien Castellio, De haereticis, an sint persequendi (1554)
There was no delay in a response from Geneva. Both Calvin and De Bèze wrote their defence. Calvin saw himself as the one called by God to proclaim the truth and he was convinced that it was his duty to defend that truth, as the Old Testament prophets had once done. Serveto's views regarding the Trinity were incorrect, and therefore heresy. Furthermore, Calvin referred to Augustinus who had found that the heretical Donatists deserved the death penalty. He failed to mention that Augustine had actually said that the death penalty should not be imposed, even if it was deserved.
De Bèze went the extra mile. If freedom of religious thought were allowed, nothing would be left of Christian teaching. Whoever served to defend it was a tool of Satan and freedom of conscience was a devilish doctrine. The most important task of society is to maintain religion. Faith is essential to salvation; society must protect itself against blasphemy that directs souls toward eternal death. The secular authorities had the task of punishing heretics and, in serious cases, putting them to death, as you would kill a mad dog.
Calvin acknowledged in his defence that the church had been a victim of persecution for centuries, and that it is better that Christians do not harm each other. However, authorities who are endowed with the grace of God have the God-given right to execute criminals. The church did indeed have a role in that persecution, namely to ensure that the magistracy acts in accordance with the Word of God. Since Serveto's denial of the Trinity was a punishable offence in Geneva, and was also contrary to the word of God, the pyre for Serveto was legitimised.
Calvin's argument was similar to that on the basis of which the Catholic Church consistently legitimised the actions of the Inquisition. He hid behind secular authority. Curious what Castellio had to say about that.
Castellio did not directly address the separation of church and state. He ignores the argument that the state is responsible for the execution. Instead, he continues to personally accuse Calvin as the one responsible for Serveto's execution. And that's actually how it was. If Calvin had not gotten into trouble with Serveto, the latter would never have been executed. Castellio emphasises that one should only repay violence with violence. Since Serveto had not used violence, but only had a dissenting opinion, his execution had been disproportionate.
The Reformation, the religious wars, the merciless persecution of Protestants by the Inquisition, but also the execution of Serveto by Calvin led to a debate in theological circles about freedom of conscience in religion. Advocates of heretical persecutions, including Calvin, argued that the unity of the church must be safeguarded:
they hid behind the fact that the church never carried out death sentences (they left that to the secular authorities),
they appealed to Jesus' statement "compel them to come",
reference was made to Augustinus’ view of the Donatists,
and according to Tomasso d'Aquino's view from 1265 that sinners should be killed if they threaten to contaminate the community with their sinfulness.
The importance of unity in the church community took precedence over individual freedom of conscience. Jesus' instruction to leave the judging to God was conveniently ignored.
Church and state according to Luther and Calvin
One of the points of contention between Luther and Calvin was the separation of church and state. Luther was interested in a state church, Calvin was not. Confusingly, Calvin had no objection whatsoever to the state operating as an extension of the church.
Luther started out as an idealist: he had had enough of the corruption in the church of Rome and wanted to return to the core: an autonomous, spiritual community of believers. But he had no clear-cut ideas about how to proceed, practically speaking. Only gradually was he forced to think about it. Only after the German Peasants' War (1524-1525) did his views on this crystallise, especially in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Luther had already built up a strong position of power and had several German princes on his side. This was partly due to his attitude in the Peasants’ War, in which he refused to side with the rebels, even if they, being Protestants, opposed a Catholic monarch. Luther was a man of law and order.
On the other hand: the church was to be autonomous and sovereign in spiritual matters. Princes had no say in ecclesiastical matters.
Everyone must decide what they believe is best at their own risk. People do not enter heaven or hell by my authority. Nor can they force me to believe anything. Faith is an individual matter of conscience. This does not detract from (the authority of) the secular rulers. They should mind their own business and allow people to believe what they want. Faith is free and no one can be forced to believe.
— Martin Luther, Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei (1523)
But as his own church community grew in importance, that view began to change. For example, initially he had no objection to those horrible Catholics continuing to practise their own religion in Lutheran areas, but within a few years he had already changed his opinion:
Our government does not force anyone to profess the evangelical faith, it only suppresses external abominations.
— Martin Luther, Letter to Georg Spalatin (1525)
That sounds quite tolerant, but by those “external abominations” he specifically meant the Catholics, who were, after all, under the authority of the arch enemy in Rome: the Pope.
Luther gradually developed a theory in which the monarch rules 'by the grace of God'. As long as the monarch promotes and protects the true Protestant faith, he has legitimacy in Luther's view. This is how the Lutheran state churches came into being.
Many German princes began to scratch their heads, especially in areas where the population had already converted to Luther's rebellious movement. Luther promised the monarch legitimacy, but another consideration was simply pragmatic: the Roman Church had a lot of meddling in all principalities. The Roman Church was a major landowner and essentially no monarch or city had freedom to act without the consent of the local archbishop. For many princes and cities, the possibility of getting rid of this, and the prospect of expropriating church property, was worth the risk of a conflict with the emperor, armed if necessary.
Calvin apparently went further in the separation of church and state. They were two separate bodies, with separate responsibilities, although the state had a duty to support the church. But religion and the state were absolutely not separated. The church had no formal say over the state, but the state was bound by God's laws. The state had a duty to establish religion, to protect the worship of God, to promote piety and to defend the position of the church. He would prefer to see free elections, but the church would absolutely not abstain from voting advice.
Admittedly, Calvin did adhere to the democratic rules of the game in Geneva. The city council was freely elected, and there were also voters who did not like Calvin's theo-terror. They just as well had the right to vote; and Calvin accepted democratic decision-making. But once he had acquired the majority, he had few further scruples. And in 1555 he had his main opponents in the city, led by the moderate Perrin family, arrested, expropriated and exiled. Now the opposition was done for.
The toleration of the Reformation
The Reformation would lead to the debate about religious toleration, but things were not going well with the religious toleration under Luther and Calvin in particular. Both Luther and Calvin worked to suppress dissent within their own ranks. Luther used his influence to make life difficult for dissidents, even if they had fled outside his sphere of influence. Calvin did the same, with Castellio among others. And he established a true reign of terror in Geneva, where dissidents even ended up on the scaffold.
As we approach the formation of modern religious toleration, it is time to deepen the concept. Let’s break down the concept of religious toleration:
Is there room for contradiction within one's own religious community?
Is there room for deviant behaviour within one's own religious community?
Related to this: how far-reaching are the religious norms on the daily lives of believers? After all: the more drastic the standards, the more 'opportunity' for toleration.
How severe are the sanctions if a believer wants to leave the religious community?
What view does religion have on the separation between church and state? Because the state also has power over citizens who do not belong to the religious community.
Related to this: how much room is there for norm-deviating behaviour outside one's own religious community?
Does the religious movement have a monopoly on the truth, or does it recognize that there can be other paths to salvation?
How much space should competing religions be given? For example, do they have the same rights and privileges? Are they allowed to actively focus on missions and conversion of believers?
As you have read, religious toleration within the Protestant communities was not good. Contradiction was not tolerated, the norms were strict, heresy and apostasy1 were punishable, there was hardly any separation between church and state, relations with other faiths were hostile, and one's own faith was the only path to salvation. There was hardly any freedom or equal rights for competing religions.
The development towards more internal toleration in the Christian churches is still ongoing; it’s a matter of centuries. We will go into this in more detail at the end of this series.
Externally, between the communities themselves, and in particular the Church of Rome and the Protestants, they were literally at war with each other. We will talk about that in the next episode: how did the Christian churches learn to live with each other?
Further reading
A brief overview of Luther's theology can be found in the Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Luther's second Philipp Melanchthon (1530-1540).
Luther's Tischreden (1531-1546) provide a fascinating insight into his world of thought: assistants wrote down Luther's comments at the dining table at his home. Also partly available in English.
Martin Luther, Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei (1523)
Jean Calvin, Institutio christianæ religionis (1536-1559), online available in several languages
Sébastien Castellio, De haereticis, an sint persequendi (1554), also available online in French.
Jean Calvin, Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate (1554)
Théodore de Bèze, De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis libellus (1554)
Steven Ozment, The age of reform 1250-1550. An intellectual and religious history of late medieval and reformation Europe (1980)
Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther (2015)
Carlos Eire, Reformations. The early modern world 1450-1650 (2016)
For those who want to read more extensively, I can particularly recommend the latter, the excellent and readable book by the Cuban scholar Carlos Eire, professor at Yale.
This was the eleventh newsletter in a long series: Toleration and Christianity. An overview of all articles in this series can be found in the overview article Toleration in the history of Christianity.
The next episode is about religious toleration after the Reformation. To maintain the focus, the series on Morality and toleration will have to wait a little longer.
Istanbul, 21 October, 2023
In Calvin's Geneva in 1632, the theologian Nicolas Antoine was sentenced to be burned at the stake for wanting to convert to Judaism. Formally, this is not heresy but apostasy, apparently also a mortal sin among Protestants at that time. And from 1540 to 1612, no fewer than twelve theologians in Anglican England were burned at the stake for heresy, namely Lutheran or Mennonite beliefs. The number of Catholics who met their end due to Protestant violence because of their beliefs cannot be expressed in figures, there were so many. And vice versa, of course, at least as many.