« The era of the Reformation » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
 
(26 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 20 : Ligne 20 :
{{Translations
{{Translations
| fr = L’ère de la Réforme
| fr = L’ère de la Réforme
| es =  
| es = La Edad de la Reforma
}}  
}}  


Ligne 52 : Ligne 52 :
[[Fichier:Lutherbibel.jpg|thumb|Luther's German Bible.]]
[[Fichier:Lutherbibel.jpg|thumb|Luther's German Bible.]]


Cité à comparaitre devant la Diète impériale par l'Empereur Charles-Quint, il se rend à Worms à mi-avril 1521, où il rend témoignage de sa foi; bientôt mis au ban de l'Empire, il ne doit la vie sauve qu'à l'Électeur de Saxe, qui le fait enlever et cacher au château de la Wartburg (1521-1522). S'il entame alors sa traduction allemande la Bible, ses thèses ne tardent pas à susciter des interprétations radicales, aussi bien chez les anabaptistes que chez les paysans qui en attendent des réformes sociales.  
He was summoned to appear before the Imperial Diet by Emperor Karl V and in mid-April 1521 he travelled to Worms, where he testified to his faith. He was soon banished from the Empire and only owed his life to the Elector of Saxony, who had him kidnapped and hidden in Wartburg Castle (1521-1522). Although he then began his German translation of the Bible, his theses soon gave rise to radical interpretations, both among the Anabaptists and among the peasants who expected social reform.  


Revenu à la vie publique, Luther, qui quitte en 1524 l'habit monastique et se marie en 1525 avec une ancienne cistercienne Katarina Von Bora, est contraint de préciser ses thèses dans un sens autoritaire à l'égard des uns et des autres, soulignant la nécessité du pouvoir temporel et le devoir de soumission à son égard : ‘’Sincère Admonestation à tous les chrétiens de se garder de toute émeute et de toute révolte’’ (1522); ‘’Traité de l'Autorité temporelle’’ (1523); ‘’Exhortation à la paix en réponse aux Douze Articles des paysans de Souabe’’ (1525); ‘’Contre les bandes pillardes et meurtrières des paysans’’ (1525), ‘’Missive sur le dur opuscule contre les paysans’’ (1525) et ‘’Si les Gens de Guerre peuvent être aussi en état de béatitude’’ (1526). Toujours plus conservateur sur le plan politique et social, Luther entre par ailleurs en conflit sur la question du libre arbitre avec Erasme (‘’Du libre arbitre’’ (1524)), auquel il répond par son traité ‘’Du serf-arbitre’’ (1525) ; il ne s'en oriente pas moins vers une réforme relativement plus modérée sur le plan religieux, s'en remettant aux Princes temporels pour l'organisation extérieure de l'Église.  
After returning to public life, Luther, who left the monastic habit in 1524 and married a former Cistercian, Katarina Von Bora, in 1525, was forced to clarify his theses in an authoritarian manner, stressing the need for temporal power and the duty of submission to it: Sincere Admonition to all Christians to refrain from all riots and revolts'' (1522); ''Treaty of the Temporal Authority'' (1523); ''Exhortation to peace in response to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia'' (1525); Against the looting and murderous gangs of peasants" (1525), "Missive on the hard pamphlet against the peasants" (1525) and "If the People of War can also be in a state of bliss" (1526). Luther was increasingly conservative on the political and social level, and also clashed with Erasmus on the question of free will ('Du libre arbitre' (1524)), to which he replied with his treatise ''On the Bondage of the Will'' (1525); he nevertheless moved towards a relatively more moderate reform on the religious level, relying on the Temporal Princes for the external organisation of the Church.  


Poursuivant son activité de traducteur de la Bible en allemand comme de professeur à la Faculté de théologie de Wittenberg et publiant encore son traité ‘’Des Conciles et de l'Église’’ et son Commentaire sur la Genèse, Luther voit cependant les dernières années de sa vie assombries par des polémiques toujours plus virulentes avec ses adversaires.  
Luther continued his work as a translator of the Bible into German and as a professor at the Wittenberg School of Theology, publishing his treatise "On Councils and the Church" and his Commentary on Genesis, but the last years of his life are clouded by increasingly virulent polemics with his opponents.  


Il meurt le 18 février 1546 dans sa ville natale, laissant une œuvre immense de théologien, d'exégète, de liturgiste et de polémiste, mais aussi de juriste et de politique, qui comprend près de cent volumes in-octavo.
He died on 18 February 1546 in his native town, leaving an immense body of work as a theologian, exegete, liturgist and polemicist, but also as a jurist and politician, comprising almost one hundred octavo volumes.


En publiant quelques années après le prince ses Les Quatre-Vingt-Quinze-Thèses en 1517 Luther va défier l’ordre catholique médiéval et lancer une attaque radicale contre l’église.
By publishing a few years after the prince his The Ninety-Fifth Theses in 1517 Luther defied the medieval Catholic order and launched a radical attack on the church.


Cette attaque radicale aura dans l’ordre politique des conséquences immenses. On ne peut comprendre la vision politique de Luther sans comprendre ses prémisses théologiques.  
This radical attack will have immense consequences in the political order. One cannot understand Luther's political vision without understanding his theological premises.  


Il faut attirer l’attention sur deux points ; la théologie luthérienne au fond repose sur une vision très noire, désespérante et pessimiste de la nature humaine. Cette vision désespérante se traduit par deux ruptures dans la théologie de l’époque, c’est-à-dire dans l’ordre du savoir religieux.
Attention must be drawn to two points; Lutheran theology at its core is based on a very black, despairing and pessimistic view of human nature. This despairing vision is reflected in two breaks in the theology of the time, i.e. in the order of religious knowledge.


La première rupture est celle de Saint Thomas d’Aquin qui est considérée comme l’un de père de l’Église catholique qui a surtout affirmé et réaffirmé que l’homme est capable d’appréhender le monde par sa raison. Quelque part, l’homme est doué naturellement de raison et peut comprendre le monde dans lequel il vit au contraire de Luther.
The first rupture is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who is considered to be one of the fathers of the Catholic Church, who above all affirmed and reaffirmed that man is capable of apprehending the world through his reason. Somewhere, man is naturally endowed with reason and can understand the world in which he lives, unlike Luther.


La deuxième rupture est qu’il va très clairement rompre tout comme Machiavel quelques années avant lui avec l’idéal humaniste de l’autonomie de la volonté ; les humanistes avaient affirmé que les individus étaient autonomes dans leur volonté de diriger notre vie, nous sommes maitres de notre destin.
The second break is that he, like Machiavelli a few years before him, very clearly broke with the humanist ideal of autonomy of will; humanists had affirmed that individuals were autonomous in their will to direct our lives, we are masters of our own destiny.


Pour Luther jusqu’en 1517 1518, si l’homme est libre dans les affaires courantes, il est en revanche totalement incapable d’assurer son salut et de choisir son destin d’une quelconque manière.  
For Luther until 1517 - 1518, while man is free in everyday affairs, he is totally incapable of ensuring his salvation and choosing his destiny in any way.  


Luther affirme qu’il est prétentieux de vouloir connaitre les dessins de dieu, « deus absconditus », il y a un dieu mystérieux qui quelque part sait et que nous ne savons pas ; le deuxième adage sur lequel Luther repose sa théologie est si l’homme ne peut rien faire, si l’homme ne peut connaitre son destin, n’est pas autonome dans la gestion et la maitrise de son destin c’est parce que dieu à un dessein impénétrable, mais surtout il peut tout, « omni potestas a deo », tout pouvoir vient de dieu.  
Luther asserts that it is pretentious to want to know God's designs, "deus absconditus," that there is a mysterious god somewhere who knows and we do not know; the second adage on which Luther based his theology is that if man can do nothing, if man cannot know his destiny, if man is not autonomous in the management and control of his destiny, it is because god has an impenetrable design, but above all he can do anything, "omni potestas a deo", all power comes from god.  


Quelque part, tout pouvoir provient de dieu, nous sommes dans l’incapacité absolue de maitriser notre destin et notre salut.  
Somehow, all power comes from God, we are absolutely unable to control our destiny and our salvation.  


Il est vrai que Luther est obligé de défendre une idée qui va l’obséder, si on ne peut contrôler son destin parce que les desseins de dieu sont impénétrables, si tout pouvoir vient de dieu et qu’on ne peut en aucune manière décider de son sort et de sont futur alors comment l’homme peut être sauvé, comment expliquer que certains hommes sont sauvés alors que d’autres ne le sont pas ?
It is true that Luther is obliged to defend an idea that will obsess him, if we cannot control our destiny because God's plans are impenetrable, if all power comes from God and we cannot in any way decide on our fate and our future, then how can man be saved, how can we explain that some men are saved while others are not?


Luther, jusqu’en 1517 1518, va faire reposer sa théorie sur le dogme de prédestination.
Luther, until 1517 - 1518, will base his theory on the dogma of predestination.


Quelque part, l’homme, pour Luther, est prédestiné, dieu a décidé qui peut avoir sa grâce et qui ne peut l’avoir.
Somewhere, man, for Luther, is predestined, God has decided who can have his grace and who cannot.


Cette vision est assez manichéenne et désespérante, donc la conclusion logique d’une telle vision des rapports entre lui et les hommes amène Luther à adopter la doctrine de la prédestination.
This view is rather Manichean and despairing, so the logical conclusion of such a view of the relationship between him and mankind leads Luther to adopt the doctrine of predestination.


Luther, face à cette vision assez déprimante du monde, s’est rendu compte qu’il allait un peu contre le mur avec cette vision prédéterminée.  
Luther, faced with this rather depressing vision of the world, realised that he was going a bit against the wall with this predetermined vision.  


À partir de 1517 1518, il a évolué, l’homme pragmatique a évolué, voulant critiquer l’Église catholique, reformer la religion en fondant sa propre doctrine sur la prédestination n’est pas très encourageant.  
From 1517 - 1518, he evolved, pragmatic man evolved, wanting to criticise the Catholic Church, reforming religion by basing his own doctrine on predestination was not very encouraging.  


De vouloir convaincre qu’on défend une nouvelle approche du religieux tout en prônant le dogme de la prédestination n’est pas convaincant. Le pragmatisme de Luther reprend l’homme lui faisant prendre compte de sa vision.
To want to convince people that one is defending a new approach to religion while advocating the dogma of predestination is not convincing. Luther's pragmatism takes the man back to his vision.


À partir de 1520, il propose une doctrine tout à fait nouvelle qui est la doctrine de la justification par la foi.  
Beginning in 1520, he proposes a completely new doctrine, which is the doctrine of justification by faith.  


Cette doctrine de la justification par la foi qui émerge dans les écrits de Luther à partir de 1518 peut se résumer d’une certaine manière en deux points.
This doctrine of justification by faith, which emerges in Luther's writings from 1518 onwards, can be summarized in a certain way in two points.


Au fond, si l’homme ne peut recevoir son salut par ses propres actions, si dieu décide de tout parce qu’omni potestas a deo, si l’homme ne peut recevoir son salut par ses propres actions, en revanche il peut recevoir la grâce de dieu c’est-à-dire sa foi en dieu quelque part sauve l’homme.
Basically, if man cannot receive his salvation through his own actions, if God decides everything because omni potestas a deo, if man cannot receive his salvation through his own actions, then he can receive God's grace, i.e., his faith in God somewhere saves man.


En d’autres termes, le fait d’exprimer sa foi, de prier et de croire va attirer l’attention de dieu sur nous et d’une certaine manière va attirer la grâce de dieu et nous libérer de nos péchés.  
In other words, expressing one's faith, praying and believing will draw God's attention to us and in a certain way will draw God's grace and free us from our sins.  


La foi est un choix humain, mais aussi un don de dieu.  
Faith is a human choice, but it is also a gift from God.  


La deuxième remarque pour expliquer ce qu’il entend par la justification par la foi est que l’homme est toujours un pécheur.  
The second remark to explain what he means by justification by faith is that man is always a sinner.  


L’homme reste profondément pêcheur pour Luther, la seule chance qu’il a pour être sauvé est de croire et d’exprimer sa foi haut et fort afin d’attirer l’attention de dieu.
Man remains a deep sinner for Luther, and the only chance he has of being saved is to believe and to express his faith loudly and clearly in order to attract God's attention.


Cette doctrine très importante dans l’ordre théologique et va s’accompagner et aura deux conséquences essentielles.  
This doctrine is very important in the theological order and will go hand in hand with and have two essential consequences.  
*c’est une nouvelle vision de l’église qui émerge, si l’homme doit attire le regard de dieu, si la foi de l’homme doit lui assurer le regard de dieu il n’a plus besoin d’un intermédiaire pour parler à dieu et agir entre lui et dieu, il s’adresse directement à dieu, la première conséquence théologique et un peu politique est qu’il y a dieu et les fidèles et non plus d’intermédiaires, c’est une attaque frontale de la tradition de l‘église en vigueur à l’époque.
*a new vision of the church is emerging, if man is to attract the gaze of god, if man's faith is to ensure that he is given the gaze of god he no longer needs an intermediary to speak to god and act between him and god, he is speaking directly to god, the first theological and somewhat political consequence is that there is god and the faithful and no longer intermediaries, it is a frontal attack on the tradition of the church in force at the time.
*c’est une vision non plus verticale de l’église avec dieu, le prêtre et l’homme et, mais une version horizontale qui se dessine ou il y a des hommes et des serviteurs de dieu a égalité
*It is no longer a vertical vision of the church with god, the priest and man, but a horizontal version in which there are men and servants of god on an equal footing.


Ces deux conséquences sont importantes, car elles permettent de comprendre la théorie politique qui va peu à peu émerger chez Luther à partir de 1518 1519. Si l’église n’a plus de raisons d’être alors les rapports de pouvoir vont changer.
These two consequences are important, as they provide an understanding of the political theory that gradually emerged in Luther from 1518 - 1519. If the church no longer had a raison d'être, then power relations would change.


== La philosophie luthérienne : théologie ==
== Lutheran philosophy: theology ==
La question est de savoir ce qu’ont apporté les réformés à la pensée et à la philosophie politique ; il y a une réflexion sur le droit de résistance. Comment de la théologie de Luther est-on arrivé à une réflexion sur le droit de résistance ?
The question is what did the reformed bring to political thought and philosophy; there is a reflection on the right of resistance. How did Luther's theology lead to a reflection on the right of resistance?


La philosophie luthérienne repose sur les principes de la justification de la doctrine par la foi, la vision pessimiste du monde et des hommes, cette vision qui repose sur la volonté de l’autonomie individuelle omni potestas a deo, cette affirmation de Luther lui permet d’avoir une vision pessimiste presque déprimante de la nature humaine.
Lutheran philosophy is based on the principles of the justification of doctrine by faith, the pessimistic view of the world and of people, a view that is based on the will to individual autonomy omni potestas a deo. Luther's assertion of the right of resistance gives him an almost depressing pessimistic view of human nature.


La théologie luthérienne à cette vision assez pessimiste de la nature humaine qui amène Luther à proposer également une nouvelle vision de l’église ; dans l’ordre théologique, pour Luther, puisque par la prière et la foi nous pouvons attirer l’attention de dieu et sa grâce alors nous n’avons plus besoin d’intermédiaire, une telle affirmation implique une redéfinition de la structure de l’église qui servait jusqu’en 1517 d’intermédiaire entre les hommes et dieu.  
Lutheran theology has this rather pessimistic view of human nature, which leads Luther to propose a new view of the church as well. In the theological order, for Luther, since through prayer and faith we can attract the attention of God and his grace so that we no longer need an intermediary, such an affirmation implies a redefinition of the structure of the church, which until 1517 served as an intermediary between men and God.  


L’église qui émerge peu à peu a donc une utilité différente, mais également une structure différente, Luther est parfaitement conscient que les fidèles ont besoin d’une institution pour se retrouver, mais si elle ne joue plus le rôle d’intermédiaire entre Dieu et les hommes elles jouent un rôle beaucoup plus organisationnel, elle existe et doit exister pour assurer le baptême, le mariage ainsi que les services mortuaires, mais la dimension sacrée de l’église avec Luther est fortement atténuée.  
The church that gradually emerges thus has a different purpose, but also a different structure. Luther is well aware that the faithful need an institution to find themselves, but while it no longer plays the role of intermediary between God and men it plays a much more organisational role, it does and must exist to provide baptism, marriage, and funeral services, but the sacred dimension of the church with Luther is greatly attenuated.  


Ces trois grandes propositions théologiques, ces postures théologiques ont des implications politiques. Quelles sont les implications politiques de la théologie luthérienne ?
These three major theological propositions, these theological postures, have political implications. What are the political implications of Lutheran theology?


On voit ces implications dans deux textes dont on peut dégager quatre conséquences politiques de la théologie luthérienne :
We see these implications in two texts from which four political implications of Lutheran theology can be drawn:


La première implication est un rejet massif et marqué d’un rôle quelconque juridictionnel, d’un pouvoir quelconque de l’église dans les affaires temporaires, en d’autres termes le monde de l’église doit se contenter d’organiser et de s’occuper du monde spirituel, mais ne doit en aucune manière avoir la prétention de se mêler du pouvoir des activés du pouvoir temporaire. C’est une stricte séparation des deux pouvoirs spirituels et temporels, mais surtout l’affirmation de l’impossibilité pour le pouvoir spirituel d’empiéter sur le pouvoir temporel.  
The first implication is a massive and marked rejection of any jurisdictional role, any power of the church in temporary affairs, in other words, the church world must be content to organize and care for the spiritual world, but must not in any way claim to interfere with the power of those in temporary power. This is a strict separation of the two spiritual and temporal powers, but above all the affirmation of the impossibility of spiritual power to encroach on temporal power.  


La deuxième conséquence est le refus de la critique de l’ordre juridique de l’église, ce qu’on appelle le droit canon qui est le droit de l’église qui régit les rapports au sein même de l’église, dans certaines facultés de droit il y a encore des chaires de droit canon. La conséquence politique est le rejet de ce droit canon, le droit des Romains doit être écarté parce qu’il est faux et il ne repose sur aucun fondement juridique et religieux cohérent.
The second consequence is the rejection of criticism of the church's legal order, the so-called canon law, which is the law of the church that governs relations within the church itself, in some law faculties there are still chairs of canon law. The political consequence is the rejection of this canon law, the law of the Romans has to be discarded because it is false and has no coherent legal and religious basis.


La troisième conséquence politique de cette nouvelle vision du monde est la contrepartie de la première conséquence, si les deux pouvoirs sont séparés, si le pouvoir spirituel ne doit pas empiéter sur le pouvoir temporel, le pouvoir temporel ne doit pas tenter d’influencer les affaires de l’église ; l’autorité politique et indépendante et doit le rester de l’autorité religieuse.  
The third political consequence of this new worldview is the counterpart of the first consequence, if the two powers are separated, if spiritual power must not encroach on temporal power, temporal power must not attempt to influence the affairs of the church; political authority is independent and must remain independent of religious authority.  


La quatrième conséquence découle un peu de la première et troisième conséquence est l’affirmation du pouvoir temporel comme devant jouer un rôle politique supérieur prééminent au pouvoir spirituel ; quelque part, il sépare les deux pouvoirs allant jusqu’au bout de sa logique : si les deux pouvoirs sont différents, le pouvoir politique doit toutefois dominer.  
Somewhat following on from the first and third consequences is the affirmation of temporal power as having to play a higher political role than spiritual power; somewhere it separates the two powers to the end of its logic: if the two powers are different, however, political power must dominate.  


Se dessine la figure du prince chrétien, c’est cette notion qui met ensemble une idée politique et une idée religieuse, le Prince chrétien doit, sans empiéter sur l’ordre spirituel, absolument appuyer la foi et l’évangile et suivre les commandements de dieu, être lui-même extrêmement pieu et respectueux de la religion chrétienne. Cette idée du principe chrétien est assez nouvelle, elle met ensemble l’idée que l’autorité politique doit exercer son pouvoir politique sans interférences avec le pouvoir religieux, mais en même temps doit défendre un certain nombre de valeurs ; l’idée d’un homme politique machiavélique dont la morale est très souple et très étrangère à Luther.  
The figure of the Christian prince emerges, it is this notion that brings together a political idea and a religious idea, the Christian prince must, without encroaching on the spiritual order, absolutely support the faith and the gospel and follow the commandments of God, being himself extremely pious and respectful of the Christian religion. This idea of the Christian principle is quite new, it brings together the idea that political authority must exercise its political power without interfering with religious power, but at the same time must defend a certain number of values; the idea of a Machiavellian politician whose morals are very flexible and very foreign to Luther.  


Le prince chrétien doit être un homme fort, mais doit défendre en même temps un certain nombre de valeurs, ce ne sont pas les valeurs humanistes, mais les valeurs chrétiennes. Fort logiquement et d’une certaine manière, c’est l’antimachiavel, oui au principe qui défend des valeurs, mais pas de valeurs humanistes, mais des valeurs chrétiennes.  
The Christian prince must be a strong man, but at the same time he must defend a certain number of values; these are not humanist values, but Christian values. Logically and in a certain way, it is the antimachiavel, yes to the principle, that defends values, but not humanist values, but Christian values.  


[[Image:De servo arbitrio.jpg|thumb|200px|Du serf-arbitre.]]
[[Image:De servo arbitrio.jpg|thumb|200px|On the Bondage of the Will.]]


Il ne faut pas faire de confusion, Luther a une conception tout à fait séparée du pouvoir religieux et du pouvoir politique, l’idée du prince chrétien ne revient pas à la mettre ensemble ; il est en faveur de l’autonomie politique, mais il défend l’idée que le pouvoir politique doit faire la promotion de valeurs chrétiennes.
Let there be no confusion, Luther has a completely separate conception of religious and political power, the idea of the Christian prince is not the same as putting it together; he is in favour of political autonomy, but he defends the idea that political power must promote Christian values.


En d’autres termes, il n’y a pas dans l’idée du prince chrétien l’idée de mélanger le pouvoir politique et religieux, mais il y a la volonté d’un pouvoir politique qui défend les valeurs religieuses pour peut-être soutenir une certaine cohérence au sein de la société.  
In other words, there is not in the idea of the Christian prince the idea of mixing political and religious power, but there is the will of a political power that defends religious values to perhaps support a certain coherence within society.  


Pour Luther, le prince est avant tout prince, mais Chrétien dans le sens ou il doit défendre les valeurs chrétiennes. En 1525, il rédige un ouvrage qui critique Érasme en dénonçant les idéaux humanistes d’Érasme, mais également le libre arbitre qui pour lui est une aberration puisque nous sommes prédéterminés par la volonté de Dieu, c’est le ''Traité Du serf-arbitre''.
For Luther, the prince is above all a prince, but Christian in the sense that he must defend Christian values. In 1525, he wrote a work that criticized Erasmus by denouncing Erasmus' humanistic ideals, but also the free will that for him is an aberration since we are predetermined by God's will, the ''On the Bondage of the Will''.<ref>Rougemont (de), Denis. “Luther Et La Liberté (À Propos Du Traité Du Serf Arbitre).” Luther Et La Liberté (À Propos Du Traité Du Serf Arbitre)&;(Avril 1937);Foi Et Vie; [https://www.unige.ch/rougemont/ Rougemont 2.0], Foi Et Vie (1928-1977), 1937, https://www.unige.ch/rougemont/articles/fv/193704.</ref>


== Pouvoir spirituel et Pouvoir temporel ==
== Spiritual Power and Temporal Power ==
Luther n’a pas une pensée politique au sens ou Aristote, Machiavel et Rousseau en ont une, mais Luther est important parce qu’il développe une vision qui donne au pouvoir politique et au Prince chrétien un rôle de plus en plus important ; peut-on résister à ce prince chrétien ? Est-ce que le citoyen à une marge de main œuvre face à cette figure du prince chrétien qui émerge avec un pouvoir remarqué et important ? Quelle est la position de Luther du point de vue de l’opposition politique ?  
Luther does not have a political thought in the sense that Aristotle, Machiavelli and Rousseau do, but Luther is important because he develops a vision that gives political power and the Christian prince an increasingly important role; can one resist this Christian prince? Does the citizen have a margin of manpower in the face of this figure of the Christian prince who emerges with notable and important power? What is Luther's position from the point of view of the political opposition?  


Luther a séparé le pouvoir et renforcé le pouvoir politique et la question est de savoir si on doit obéir à ce pouvoir politique ? Y a-t-il des cas de figure où les chrétiens sont en droit de désobéir au prince chrétien ?
Luther separated power and strengthened political power, and the question is whether one should obey this political power? Are there cases where Christians have the right to disobey the Christian prince?


Luther a une réponse particulière de plus en plus ambigüe ; lorsqu’on lit ses sermons et écrits religieux, on voit que la réponse qui émerge est clairement non.
Luther has a particular answer that is increasingly ambiguous; when one reads his sermons and religious writings, the answer that emerges is clearly "no".


Il est au fond quasiment impossible pour Luther à l’exception que le prince ordonne de blasphémer ou de renier sa foi, à moins d’un cas extrême Luther n’est pas un adepte des théories de la résistance ; en d’autres termes résister au souverain relève de l’erreur.
It is basically almost impossible for Luther except for the prince to order blasphemy or disavowal of his faith, unless in an extreme case Luther is not a follower of resistance theories; in other words, resisting the sovereign is a mistake.


Il a une position ambigüe qui a évolué, on voit un Luther pragmatique. Il y a une raison à ce qu’on appelait aujourd’hui le durcissement politique de Luther, la raison est liée au contexte.
He has an ambiguous position that has evolved into a pragmatic Luther. There is a reason for what is now called Luther's political hardening; the reason is context-related.


[[Fichier:95Thesen facsimile colour.png|thumb|300px|Fac-similé des 95 thèses]]
[[Fichier:95Thesen facsimile colour.png|thumb|300px|Facsimile of the 95 theses.]]


Luther lance en 1517 ses Quatre-Vingt-Quinze-Thèses révolutionnaires qui visent très clairement à renverser le pouvoir politique en place à Rome. Ces thèses ont un effet important en Europe et en Allemagne notamment, Luther est convoqué par l’empereur Charles V et est soumis à la question, l’église intervient, Luther est passé en jugement.
In 1517, Luther launched his Eighty-Fifth Revolutionary Theses, which were clearly aimed at overthrowing the political power in Rome. These theses had an important effect in Europe and Germany in particular. Luther was summoned by Emperor Charles V and subjected to the question, the church intervened, and Luther was put on trial.


Il quitte la Cour de l’empereur entre 1519 et 1520, il y a un complot pour l’assassiner voyant le danger qu’il pourrait représenter. Ce qui choque beaucoup Luther à l’époque est le principe de l’indulgence, l’église avait mis en place le système d’indulgence qui est la possibilité d’acheter son salut moyennant espèces permettant au fidèle de sentir bien et à l’église de renflouer ses caisses ; ce principe d’indulgence a heurté Luther.  
He leaves the emperor's court between 1519 and 1520, there is a plot to assassinate him seeing the danger he could represent. What shocked Luther greatly at the time was the principle of indulgence. The church had set up the system of indulgence, which is the possibility of buying one's salvation in exchange for cash, allowing the faithful to feel good and the church to replenish its coffers; this principle of indulgence offended Luther.  


L’église a très bien vu en Luther le danger, les premiers écrits contre le luthéranisme les comparent à la peste noire, l’église a perçu la puissance de la parole de Luther, c’est pourquoi elle a tenté d’intervenir auprès de l’empereur.
The church saw the danger in Luther very well, the early writings against Lutheranism compared them to the Black Death, the church perceived the power of Luther's word, and therefore tried to intervene with the emperor.


Il est sauvé parce qu’un prince électeur allemand le prend sous sa protection, il put vivre protégé pendant une dizaine d’années. L‘empereur du Saint Empire germanique est élu par sept grands électeurs, un des sept princes électeurs prend Luther sous sa protection. Luther et pris en charge par un prince puissant, Luther s’étaient fait protégé par un grand nombre de princes allemands qui s’étaient convertis aussi pour des raisons politiques parce que cela créait un contre-pouvoir, d’où un reversement de la théorie. Luther a très vite vu l’intérêt politique qu’il pouvait tirer.  
He was saved because a German Elector took him under his protection, and he was able to live protected for about ten years. The Kaiser of the Holy German Empire is elected by seven electors, and one of the seven prince electors takes Luther under his protection. Luther was protected by a powerful prince. Luther had been protected by a large number of German princes who had also converted for political reasons because this created a counter-power, hence the reversal of the theory. Luther very quickly saw the political interest he could draw from this.  


[[Image:Bundschuhfahne Holzschnitt 1539 Petrarcas Trostspiegel.jpg|thumb|left|Rebellious peasants surrounding a knight.]]
[[Image:Bundschuhfahne Holzschnitt 1539 Petrarcas Trostspiegel.jpg|thumb|left|Rebellious peasants surrounding a knight.]]


Entre 1524 et 1525 en Allemagne il y a en Souabe la révolte des paysans de Souabe qui ont trouvé dans le luthéranisme un certain nombre d’arguments pour se révolter, l’église ne doit plus avoir d’influence dans certains cas, on peut résister au prince. Il y a des révoltes paysannes très importantes et Luther a pris peur, il s’est rendu compte de la lecture radicale qu’on pouvait faire de ses écrits théologiques.
Between 1524 and 1525 in Germany there was a revolt in Swabia by the peasants of Swabia who found in Lutheranism a number of arguments for revolt, the church should no longer have any influence in some cases, one can resist the prince. There are very important peasant revolts, and Luther became afraid, he realised how radical a reading of his theological writings could be.


À partir de ce moment, il a commencé à formuler l’idée qu’il est erroné de s’opposer au pouvoir politique sauf dans de rares exceptions parce que le pouvoir vient de dieu et les politiques instaurées tiennent le pouvoir de dieu.
From then on, he began to formulate the idea that it is wrong to oppose political power, with rare exceptions, because power comes from God and the policies that are instituted hold the power of God.


Luther se rend compte que sa théologie est révolutionnaire, mais qu’une lecture radicale de sa théologie peut mener à des interprétations et des révoltes très puissantes. L’état des choses est la volonté de Dieu et on ne touche pas à la volonté de Dieu.
Luther realizes that his theology is revolutionary, but that a radical reading of his theology can lead to very powerful interpretations and revolts. The state of affairs is God's will, and God's will is not to be touched.


Luther écrit en 1525 un ouvrage intitulé ‘’Contre les bandes pillardes et meurtrières des paysans’’ ; en bon pragmatique, Luther a choisi son camp.  
Luther wrote a book in 1525 entitled "Against the Looting and Murderous Gangs of Peasants"; as a good pragmatist, Luther chose his side.  


Luther nous laisse avec une théologie révolutionnaire et une vision du politique extrêmement figée qui n’autorise pas et ne laisse pas de place à la résistance de l’individu face au pouvoir politique.  
Luther leaves us with a revolutionary theology and an extremely fixed vision of politics that does not allow and leaves no room for individual resistance to political power.  


Les successeurs de Luther, les réformés vont reprendre la théologie luthérienne, mais vont eux défendre le droit de résistance.
Luther's successors, the reformed, will take over Lutheran theology, but they will defend the right of resistance.


== À la noblesse chrétienne de la nation allemande ==
== To the Christian nobility of the German nation ==


[[Fichier:Christlicher-Adel-de.jpg|vignette|200px|À la noblesse chrétienne de la nation allemande.]]
[[Fichier:Christlicher-Adel-de.jpg|vignette|200px|To the Christian nobility of the German nation.]]
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_noblesse_chr%C3%A9tienne_de_la_nation_allemande
Le discours est un discours éminemment religieux, on ne recourt pas comme Machiavel aux écrits humanistes, les sources doctrinales de Luther sont les saintes Écritures.


Les exemples auxquels Luther recourt dans les deux textes sont des exemples bibliques, enfin le vocabulaire et les expressions sont certes religieux, mais méthodiquement choisis ; Luther sait très bien, invoque Dieu lorsqu’il faut l’invoquer et ne l’invoque pas quand il ne faut pas l’invoquer, il est politique quand il faut l’être.
The discourse is an eminently religious discourse, one does not resort like Machiavelli to humanist writings, Luther's doctrinal sources are the Holy Scriptures.  


Au début du texte, la critique institutionnelle de l’église est déjà très clairement là.
The examples Luther uses in both texts are biblical examples. Finally, the vocabulary and expressions are certainly religious, but methodically chosen; Luther knows very well, invokes God when it must be invoked and does not invoke him when it must not be invoked, he is political when it must be invoked.


{{citation bloc|J’ai rassemblé quelques articles qui touchent l’amendement de l’État chrétien, afin de les soumettre à la Noblesse chrétienne de la Nation allemande, au cas ou il plairait à dieu de se servir de l’état laïc pour porter secours à son Église, puisque l’état ecclésiastique, à qui cette tâche devrait plutôt incomber, s’est montré tout à fait négligent de ses devoirs.}}
At the beginning of the text, the institutional critique of the church is already very clear.


L’église ne remplit plus son rôle, Luther s’adresse à la noblesse allemande afin de jouer son rôle politique.  
{{citation bloc|I have collected a few articles on the amendment of the Christian state, in order to submit them to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in case it would please God to use the secular state to help his Church, since the ecclesiastical state, to whom this task should rather fall, has shown itself to be quite negligent in its duties.}}


Dans cette première page, on voit une critique à peine voilée de la position autonomiste et humaniste qui prône l’autonomie de la volonté.
The church no longer fulfils its role; Luther turns to the German nobility to play its political role.  


{{citation bloc|[…] dieu ne peut ni ne veut supporter qu’on entreprenne une bonne œuvre, en se fiant à sa seule raison et puissance.}}
On this first page, we see a thinly veiled criticism of the autonomist and humanist position that advocates autonomy of will.


Nous ne pouvons sur la seule base de notre raison prendre des décisions importantes.
{{citation bloc|[…] God cannot and will not allow us to undertake a good work, relying solely on his reason and power.}}


{{citation bloc|Plus grande est la puissance, plus grandes et la détresse si on n’agit pas humblement et dans la crainte de dieu. Si les Papes et les Romains ont réussi jusqu’à présent avec l’aide du diable à semer la discorde parmi les rois, ils sont capables de le faire maintenant encore, si nous agissons sans l’aide de Dieu, avec notre puissance et notre habilité propres.}}
We cannot make important decisions on the basis of reason alone.


Dieu nous aide dans notre action.
{{citation bloc|The greater the power, the greater the distress if one does not act humbly and in fear of God. If the Popes and Romans have succeeded so far with the help of the devil in sowing discord among kings, they are able to do so even now, if we act without God's help, with our own power and ability.}}


{{citation bloc|[…] les Romanistes se sont entourés de trois murailles grâce à quoi ils sont jusqu’ici protégés et ils ont empêché que quiconque puisse les réformer, si bien que la Chrétienté tout entière, a, de ce fait, atteint un état d’effroyable décadence.
God helps us in our action.


Premièrement, quand on leur a fait craindre le pouvoir temporel, ils ont posé pour principe de déclaré que le pouvoir temporel n’avait pas de droits sur eux, mais que par contre le pouvoir spirituel était supérieur au pouvoir temporel.}}
{{citation bloc|[…] the Romanists have surrounded themselves with three walls, thanks to which they have so far been protected and have prevented anyone from reforming them, so that the whole of Christendom has, as a result, reached a state of dreadful decadence.


Luther veut rééquilibre les choses, il est vrai que la division entre pouvoir spirituel et temporel est très ancienne, mais avec le temps l’église avait prétendue que le pouvoir temporel ne pouvait exister que par lui, entre l’an 800 et l’an 1400 l’église affirmait son pouvoir sur le pouvoir politique, les deux pouvoirs selon Luther doivent être limités à leur rôle.  
Firstly, when they were made to fear temporal power, they made it their principle to declare that temporal power had no rights over them, but that spiritual power was superior to temporal power.}}


{{citation bloc|Deuxièmement, quand on leur fait des remontrances avec la Sainte Écriture, ils établissent au contraire que nul n’a le droit d’interpréter la Sainte Écriture, si ce n’est le pape.}}
Luther wants to rebalance things, it is true that the division between spiritual and temporal power is very old, but over time the church had claimed that temporal power could only exist through him, between the years 800 and 1400 the church asserted its power over political power, both powers according to Luther must be limited to their role.  


On est dans une critique d’un dogme très important, c’est le dogme de l’infaillibilité, c’est l’idée que l’interprétation des saintes Écritures ne peut être faite que par l’église et ses serviteurs, Luther critique la prétention à l’exclusivité de la vérité.
{{citation bloc|Secondly, when they are reprimanded with Sacred Scripture, they establish on the contrary that no one has the right to interpret Sacred Scripture except the Pope.}}


{{citation bloc|Troisièmement, qu’on les menace d’un Concile et ils inventent que nul ne peut convoquer un Concile si ce n’est le Pape.}}
We are in a critique of a very important dogma, it is the dogma of infallibility, it is the idea that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures can only be made by the church and its servants, Luther criticizes the claim to the exclusivity of truth.


Ils ont une vision extrêmement étroite du pouvoir et c’est une erreur.
{{citation bloc|Thirdly, that they are threatened with a Council and they invent that no one can convene a Council except the Pope.}}


Attaquons-nous d‘abord au premier mur, c’est l’idée que l’église doit avoir une influence sur le pouvoir temporel.
They have an extremely narrow vision of power and that is a mistake.


{{citation bloc|Aussi en consacrant, l’Évêque ne fait-il rien d’autre que si, aux lieu et place de toute l’assemblée, il choisissait quelqu’un dans la foule de ceux qui possèdent tous un égal pouvoir et lui ordonnait d’exercer ce même pouvoir à la place des autres, tout comme si dix frères, enfants royaux, également héritiers, choisissaient l’un d’entre eux pour régner à leur place sur l’héritage, ils seraient toujours rois et égaux en pouvoir, alors que la charge de gouverner serait confiée à un seul.}}
Let's tackle the first wall first, which is the idea that the church must have an influence on temporal power.


Ce que Luther veut dire est qu’une église authentique devrait idéalement reposer sur une égalité des fidèles au point que l’évêque pourrait choisir un tel ou un tel pour qu’il exerce le rôle de prêtre, pour Luther nous sommes tous des prêtres potentiels.
{{citation bloc|Therefore in consecrating, the Bishop does nothing other than if, instead of the whole assembly, he chose someone from among the crowd of those who all possess equal power and ordered him to exercise that same power in the place of the others, just as if ten brothers, royal children, also heirs, chose one of them to reign in their place over the inheritance, they would always be kings and equal in power, while the office of governing would be entrusted to one.}}


{{citation bloc|Car du fait que nous sommes tous également prêtre, nul ne doit se mettre lui-même en évidence ni entreprendre, sans avoir été autorisé ni choisi par nous, de faire ce dont tous nous possédons également le pouvoir.}}
What Luther means is that an authentic church should ideally be based on an equality of the faithful to the extent that the bishop could choose such and such to exercise the role of priest, for Luther we are all potential priests.


Fondamentalement, il y a une idée très belle que l’église est une église qui doit quelque part procéder par élection. Ce qui se dessine est une vision horizontale de l’église ou les rapports sont beaucoup moins hiérarchisés.  
{{citation bloc|For since we are all equally priests, no one should make himself known or undertake, without having been authorised or chosen by us, to do what we all equally possess the power to do.}}


{{citation bloc|De ceci, il résulte qu’entre laïcs, prêtres, Princes, Évêques et, comme ils disent, entre le clergé et le siècle, il n’existe au fond vraiment aucune autre différence si ce n’est celle qui provient de la fonction ou de la tâche et non pas de l’état.}}
Basically, there is a very beautiful idea that the church is a church that must somehow proceed by election. What is emerging is a horizontal vision of the church where relationships are much less hierarchical.  


C’est une vision fonctionnaliste des individus, on est prêtre parce que c’est une fonction ; cette idée est très importante et encore aujourd’hui. C’est une vision fonctionnelle du pouvoir.
{{citation bloc|From this it follows that between laity, priests, Princes, Bishops and, as they say, between the clergy and the century, there is really no other difference except that which comes from the function or task and not from the state.}}


{{citation bloc|Le second mur est encore moins solide et il tient encore moins : à savoir qu’ils prétendent être seuls maîtres de l’Écriture, encore que, leur vie durant, ils ne l’étudient jamais, ils s’arrogent l’autorité exclusive et nous font accroitre par des paroles impudentes que le Pape ne peut se tromper dans le domaine de la foi, qu’il soit méchant ou bon, mais ils ne peuvent pas apporter à ceci le moindre commencement de preuve.}}
It is a functionalist vision of individuals, one is a priest because it is a function; this idea is very important and still today. It is a functional vision of power.


La critique que fait Luther est la prétention au monopole de l’interprétation revendiqué par l’église. L’enjeu à l’époque où le monde de l’édition est à peine apparu, l’enjeu est la connaissance du texte biblique, ce qui agace Luther est la prétention de l’église à interpréter la bible, il n’est pas d’accord avec cette méthode.
{{citation bloc|The second wall is even less solid and it holds even less: namely that they claim to be the sole masters of Scripture, even though they never study it throughout their lives, they arrogate to themselves the exclusive authority and make us increase by impudent words that the Pope cannot be mistaken in the field of faith, be he evil or good, but they cannot bring to this the slightest semblance of proof.}}


L’une des premières choses que Luther va entreprendre est la traduction en langue vernaculaire de la bible qui était en araméen pour certaines parties, en grec ancien pour d’autres et en latin pour une troisième ; l’enjeu pour Luther n’est pas seulement de dire et de dénoncer l’interprétation imposée par l’église, mais de joindre la théorie à la pratique en proposant une traduction de la Bible.  
Luther's criticism is the claim to a monopoly of interpretation claimed by the church. At a time when the world of publishing had barely emerged, what was at stake was knowledge of the biblical text. What annoyed Luther was the church's claim to interpret the bible; he did not agree with this method.


Les grands réformés et Luther ont en fait compris que derrière la traduction il y avait l’enjeu de la diffusion et l’enjeu de l’accès au texte, l’église ne peut plus affirmer certains préceptes, les individus auraient une compréhension différente.
One of the first things Luther was to undertake was the translation into the vernacular of the Bible, which was in Aramaic for some parts, in ancient Greek for others and in Latin for a third; the challenge for Luther was not only to say and denounce the interpretation imposed by the church, but to combine theory with practice by proposing a translation of the Bible.  


Ce second mur est la critique du monopole de l’interprétation, Luther a été un très grand traducteur faisant de la traduction un enjeu politique majeur.  
The Great Reformists and Luther in fact understood that behind the translation there was the issue of dissemination and the issue of access to the text, the church could no longer affirm certain precepts, individuals would have a different understanding.


{{citation bloc|Le troisième mur tombe de lui-même, si les deux premiers tombent, car, si le Pape agit contre l’Écriture, nous avons le devoir de porter assistance à l’Écriture de le réprimander et de l’obliger à obéir, selon la parole du Christ.}}
This second wall is the criticism of the monopoly of interpretation, Luther was a very great translator making translation a major political issue.  


La traduction de la Bible nous permettra une compréhension et un accès direct au texte qui permettra de contredire les interprétations de l’église et de critiquer le pape.
{{citation bloc|The third wall falls of its own accord if the first two fall, for if the Pope acts against Scripture, it is our duty to assist Scripture to rebuke him and compel him to obey, according to the word of Christ.}}


Ce qui est intéressant chez Luther est qu’il utilise les saintes Écritures pour assoir son appui.
The translation of the Bible will give us an understanding and direct access to the text which will allow us to contradict the interpretations of the church and to criticise the pope.


{{citation bloc|Ils n’ont aucun argument tiré de l’Écriture pour prouver qu’il appartient seulement au Pape de convoquer ou de confirmer un Concile, si ce n’est leurs propres lois qui n’ont de valeur quand dans la mesure où elles ne portent pas tort aux lois de Dieu, et de la Chrétienté.}}
What is interesting about Luther is that he uses the Holy Scriptures as a basis for his support.


Il n’existe aucun texte qui conteste le pouvoir que le pape s’est arrogé, pour cela il traduit et diffuse, en lisant les gens peuvent prendre connaissance du texte sacré par eux-mêmes.
{{citation bloc|They have no argument from Scripture to prove that it is only up to the Pope to convene or confirm a Council, except their own laws, which have no value when they do not harm the laws of God and Christianity.}}


== De l’autorité temporelle et dans quelle mesure on lui doit obéissance ==
There is no text that challenges the power that the Pope has arrogated to himself, for this reason he translates and disseminates, reading people can become acquainted with the sacred text on their own.


Luther réaffirme la séparation entre l’autorité temporelle et l’autorité spirituelle, mais c’est surtout dans ce texte important qu’il prend position contre le droit de résistance sauf exception.
== Temporal authority and the extent to which it is to be obeyed ==


{{citation bloc|[…] c’est pourquoi il me faut tourner mes efforts dans une autre direction et dire maintenant ce qu’ils ne doivent pas faire. J’espère qu’ils s’y conformeront aussi peu qu’ils ont suivi l’écrit susnommé, afin de rester des princes et de ne pas devenir des chrétiens ! Car Dieu Tout-Puissant a rendu fous nos princes, au point qu’ils s’imaginent pouvoir faire et commander ce qu’ils veulent à leurs sujets (et les sujets aussi se trompent s’ils croient qu’ils ont le devoir d’obéir à tout sans réserve), à tel point qu’ils se sont mus à commander aux gens de remettre les livres, et de croire et pratiquer selon leurs directives.}}
Luther reaffirms the separation between temporal and spiritual authority, but it is above all in this important text that he takes a stand against the right of resistance with few exceptions.  


Luther ici attaque la noblesse allemande parce qu’elle n’a pas usé de son pouvoir ou en a mal usé, les princes allemands n’ont pas su être des princes chrétiens, c’est un pouvoir mal mis en place qui crée un malaise entre la population et les princes allemands.
{{citation bloc|[…] That's why I have to turn my efforts in another direction and say now what they shouldn't do. I hope that they will do as little as they have followed the above-mentioned writing, so that they may remain princes and not become Christians! For Almighty God has driven our princes mad, so much so that they think they can do and command whatever they want to their subjects (and the subjects are also mistaken if they believe that they have a duty to obey everything without reserve), so much so that they have gone so far as to command people to hand over the books, and to believe and practise according to their instructions.}}


C’est une autre manière de corriger la lecture radicale de ses écrits, avant d’écrire son ouvrage ‘’Contre les bandes pillardes et meurtrières des paysans’’, il va s’adresser à la noblesse ; il met en garde la noblesse et les incite à se ressaisir afin d’anticiper les révolutions.
Luther here attacks the German nobility because they did not use their power or used it badly, the German princes did not know how to be Christian princes, it is a badly put in place power that creates a malaise between the population and the German princes.


C’est le premier ouvrage politique où il avertit des princes chrétiens de se comporter dignement et d’être politiquement responsable.  
This is another way of correcting the radical reading of his writings. Before writing his book "Against the looting and murderous gangs of peasants", he addressed himself to the nobility; he warned the nobility and urged them to pull themselves together in order to anticipate revolutions.


{{citation bloc|En premier lieu, nous devons donner un fondement solide à la loi et au glaive temporels, afin que personne ne doute que c’est par la volonté et l’ordonnance de Dieu qu’ils existent dans le monde.}}
This is the first political work in which he warns Christian princes to behave with dignity and to be politically responsible.  


Si tout pouvoir vient de dieu, de contester le pouvoir implique contester Dieu, c’est une justification théologique au pouvoir politique.
{{citation bloc|In the first place, we must give a solid foundation to the temporal law and the temporal sword, so that no one doubts that it is by God's will and ordinance that they exist in the world.}}


Il continue en affirmant que Dieu nous est relevé par la doctrine du christ. Il y a au fond au début de ce texte un dessin des fondements théologiques de la politique de Luther.
If all power comes from God, challenging power implies challenging God, it is a theological justification for political power.


C’est la justification théologique de la vision politique de Luther, cette justification théologique repose sur la division du monde et de l’ordre social en deux mondes : le royaume de Dieu et le royaume du monde.  
He goes on to assert that God is raised up for us by the doctrine of Christ. At the beginning of this text, there is basically a drawing of the theological foundations of Luther's politics.


Le royaume de Dieu regroupe les chrétiens, mais Luther est conscient que le monde n’est pas composé que de chrétiens, les non-chrétiens appartiennent à un autre monde qui n’est pas condamnable, mais c’est une réalité sociale qui est le royaume du monde ; le royaume de Dieu et le royaume du monde cohabitent.
This is the theological justification for Luther's political vision. This theological justification is based on the division of the world and the social order into two worlds: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world.  


La question se pose pour Luther, le raisonnement consiste à dire qu’il divise les hommes en deux mondes, celles et ceux qui appartiennent au royaume de Dieu et celles et ceux qui appartiennent au royaume du monde.
The kingdom of God includes Christians, but Luther is aware that the world is not composed only of Christians; non-Christians belong to another world that is not condemnable, but it is a social reality that is the kingdom of the world; the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world coexist.


Pour Luther, un bon chrétien n’aurait pas besoin de règles pour l’encadrer, très prosaïquement Luther dit que si on vivait tous sous le royaume de Dieu, nous n’aurions pas besoin d’un cadre légal pour limiter nos actions.
The question arises for Luther, the reasoning being that he divides men into two worlds, those who belong to the kingdom of God and those who belong to the kingdom of the world.


Le fait est, constate Luther, que nous ne sommes pas parfaits, il y a des bons-chrétiens, des mauvais chrétiens et que pour ceux qui appartiennent au royaume du monde, il faut de lois humaines : le prince est là afin d’être le « chef du royaume du monde », il est là pour véritablement diriger, appliquer la loi, la changer le cas échéant parce que le monde n’est pas idéal.
For Luther, a good Christian would not need rules to frame him. Very prosaically Luther says that if we all lived under the kingdom of God, we would not need a legal framework to limit our actions.


Le fait est que nous appartenons tous au royaume du monde puisque l’homme est pécheur, la définition de ceux qui appartiennent au royaume du monde.
The fact is," Luther notes, "that we are not perfect, there are good Christians, bad Christians, and for those who belong to the kingdom of the world, human laws are needed: the prince is there to be the 'ruler of the kingdom of the world', he is there to truly rule, to apply the law, to change it if necessary because the world is not ideal.


{{citation bloc|Car, étant donné que fort peu croient et que seule la minorité se comporte de manière chrétienne, en ne résistant pas au mal, voire en ne faisant pas eux-mêmes le mal, Dieu a créé pour les autres, à côté de l’état chrétien et du royaume de Dieu, un autre règne, et il les a soumis au glaive, afin que, quelque désir qu’ils en aient, ils ne puissent agir selon leur mauvaise nature, et afin que, s’ils le faisaient, ils ne puissent le faire sans crainte, ni en toute quiétude et avec succès.}}
The fact is that we all belong to the kingdom of the world because man is a sinner, the definition of those who belong to the kingdom of the world.


Les deux mots importants sont « la mauvaise nature», nous sommes d’invétérés pécheurs et donc le royaume de Dieu est un royaume idéal dirigé par un Prince chrétien.
{{citation bloc|For since very few believe, and since only the minority behave in a Christian manner, not resisting evil or even doing evil themselves, God has created for others, alongside the Christian state and the kingdom of God, another kingdom, and has subjected them to the sword, so that, no matter how much they desire it, they may not act according to their evil nature, and so that, if they do, they may not do it without fear, nor may they do it quietly and successfully.}}


Face à ce royaume du monde a-t-on le droit à certaines conditions de résister ?
The two important words are "evil nature", we are inveterate sinners and therefore the kingdom of God is an ideal kingdom ruled by a Christian Prince.


Pour Luther, tout pouvoir vient de dieu, s’opposer au pouvoir est s’opposer à dieu donc on ne s’oppose pas au pouvoir.
Faced with this kingdom of the world, are we allowed to resist under certain conditions?


{{citation bloc|Le Christ ne dit pas : Vous ne devez pas servir le pouvoir ni lui être soumis, mais « Vous ne devez pas résister au mal ». C’est comme s’il disait : Comportez-vous de telle manière que vous supportiez tout ; car vous ne devez pas avoir besoin du pouvoir de façon qu’il vous aide et serve, qu’il vous soit utile ou nécessaire ; mais à l’inverse, c’est vous qui devez l’aider et le servir, lui être utile et nécessaire.}}
For Luther, all power comes from God; to oppose power is to oppose God, so one does not oppose power.  


{{#ev:youtube|PEC1C4p0k3E|375|right|Discours inaugural de John Fitzgerald Kennedy.}}
{{citation bloc|Christ does not say: You must not serve power or be subject to it, but "You must not resist evil". It is as if he were saying: Behave in such a way that you bear everything; for you must not need the power so that it helps you and serves you, whether it is useful or necessary; but on the contrary, it is you who must help and serve it, be useful and necessary to it.}}


On voit très bien se mettre en place le principe de non-résistance. Kennedy prononça « Ne demandez pas ce que votre pays peut faire pour vous. Demandez ce que vous pouvez faire pour votre pays ».
<youtube>PEC1C4p0k3E</youtube>


Fondamentalement, on le voit très clairement, le principe de non-résistance en s’appuyant sur la parole du Christ émerge.
The principle of non-resistance is clearly being put in place. Kennedy said, "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".  


{{citation bloc|[…] vous demandez si, dans ces conditions, le chrétien peut, lui aussi, manier le glaive temporel et châtier les méchants, étant donné que les paroles du Christ […] le glaive ne peut exister parmi les chrétiens : c’est pourquoi vous ne pouvez le manier contre et parmi les chrétiens, puisqu’ils n’en ont pas besoin.}}
Basically, we can see very clearly, the principle of non-resistance based on the word of Christ is emerging.


Il pose la question de savoir si le chrétien peut porter le glaive, résister au pouvoir ; le chrétien est là pour servir dieu, servant dieu il ne peut pas et ne doit pas résister au pouvoir politique.
{{citation bloc|[…] you ask whether, under these conditions, the Christian can also wield the temporal sword and punish the wicked, since the words of Christ [...] the sword cannot exist among Christians: therefore you cannot wield it against and among Christians, since they have no need of it.}}


{{citation bloc|Ne soyez pas, je vous prie, assez sacrilège pour prétendre qu’un chrétien ne peut exercer ce qui est l’œuvre même de Dieu, son institution et sa création. Sinon, il vous faudrait dire aussi qu’un chrétien ne peut manger ni boire ni se marier, choses qui sont aussi des œuvres et des institutions de Dieu. Mais si cela est l’œuvre de la création de Dieu, cela est bon, et bon de telle sorte que chacun peut en faire usage de manière chrétienne et qui plaise à Dieu.}}
He asks whether the Christian can carry the sword, resist power; the Christian is there to serve God, serving God he cannot and must not resist political power.


Cela implique que les princes doivent être de bons chrétiens.
{{citation bloc|Please do not be so sacrilegious as to claim that a Christian cannot exercise what is the very work of God, his institution and his creation. Otherwise, you would also have to say that a Christian cannot eat, drink or marry, things that are also God's works and institutions. But if this is the work of God's creation, it is good, and good in such a way that everyone can make use of it in a Christian and God-pleasing way.}}


{{citation bloc|Et de même il serait bon et nécessaire que tous les princes fussent de bons et vrais chrétiens. Car le glaive et le pouvoir, en tant que service particulier de Dieu, incombent aux chrétiens plus qu’à tous les autres hommes sur terre. C’est pourquoi vous devez tenir le glaive et le pouvoir en aussi haute estime que l’état de mariage ou le travail des chams ou l’artisanat, qui ont, eux aussi, été institués par Dieu.}}
This implies that princes must be good Christians.


{{citation bloc|Car ceux qui exercent le pouvoir sont les serviteurs et les ouvriers de Dieu, qui châtient le mal et protègent le bien. Cependant, il faut laisser à chacun la liberté de s’en abstenir quand cela n’est pas indispensable, de même que l’on est libre de se marier ou non, de travailler la terre ou non, quand ce n’est pas nécessaire.}}
{{citation bloc|It would also be good and necessary that all the princes were good and true Christians. For the sword and power, as a special service of God, is more incumbent on Christians than on any other man on earth. Therefore you must hold the sword and power in as high esteem as the state of marriage or the work of the chams or the handicrafts, which have also been instituted by God.}}


Le principe qui est que ceux qui exercent le pouvoir sont des serviteurs et des ouvriers de dieu a deux conséquences, c’est la réaffirmation de l’idée de Prince Chrétien, le titulaire du pouvoir politique doit défendre les valeurs chrétiennes.  
{{citation bloc|For those who exercise power are the servants and workers of God, who chastises evil and protects good. However, everyone must be free to abstain from it when it is not necessary, just as one is free to marry or not to marry, to work the land or not, when it is not necessary.}}


Premièrement, les princes doivent servir les préceptes religieux, mais les fidèles doivent obéissance au prince parce qu’ils ne sont que les serviteurs de dieu et ont été mis en place par dieu, ensuite Luther réaffirme l’impossibilité de résister au prince ; la seule chose qu’il tolère est la non-obéissance, dans un seul cas si le prince ordonne de blasphémer ou de renier la religion chrétienne, c’est le seul cas ou la non-obéissance est tolérée pour Luther.  
The principle that those who exercise power are servants and workers of God has two consequences, it is the reaffirmation of the idea of the Christian Prince, the holder of political power must defend Christian values.  


Fondamentalement, il faut retenir que Luther est très hostile à la lecture radicale de ses idées et aux théories prônant la résistance politique.  
First, princes must serve religious precepts, but the faithful must obey the prince because they are only servants of god and were put in place by god; second, Luther reaffirms the impossibility of resisting the prince; the only thing he tolerates is non-obedience, in only one case if the prince orders blasphemy or denial of the Christian religion is non-obedience tolerated for Luther.  


Que devient la théorie de la résistance ? Qu’est-ce que le luthéranisme devient ?
Fundamentally, it must be remembered that Luther was very hostile to radical interpretations of his ideas and theories of political resistance.


Les ennemies de Luther vont comparer la Réforme à la peste noire parce que le luthéranisme s’est étendu de manière importante dans toute l’Europe.
What is happening to the theory of resistance? What becomes of Lutheranism?


== L'expansion du luthéranisme ==
Luther's enemies will compare the Reformation to the Black Death because Lutheranism spread significantly throughout Europe.
[[Fichier:Central Europe religions 1618.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Situation religieuse de l'Europe centrale en 1618, à la veille de la guerre de Trente Ans.]]


Luther va donner lieu à un certain nombre de disciples, le luthéranisme va se propager dans toute l’Europe ; cette expansion à deux conséquences importantes dans l’ordre politique :
== The spread of Lutheranism ==


La première conséquence importante et inversée de la seconde est que les princes, les rois et les monarchies d’Europe vont faire une lecture conservatrice de la théorie luthérienne, en d’autres termes beaucoup de princes et de rois convertis au luthéranisme et au protestantisme vont justifier leur pouvoir par les écrits de Luther. C’est une lecture monarchique et absolutiste de Luther, c’est une justification théologique dans la doctrine de la résistance de Luther.
[[Fichier:Central Europe religions 1618.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Religious situation in Central Europe in 1618, on the eve of the Thirty Years' War.]]


La deuxième conséquence politique de l’expansion du luthéranisme est l’inverse, on peut également faire une lecture radicale du luthéranisme, la lecture radicale n’était pas de défendre la théorie du droit de résistance, mais dit qu’il est du devoir des rois et des princes d’être de bons chrétiens, mais s’ils ne sont pas de bons chrétiens donc il faut les renverses.
Luther will give rise to a number of disciples, Lutheranism will spread throughout Europe; this expansion has two important consequences in the political order:


La théologie de Luther peut donner lieu à deux lectures différentes une lecture absolutiste et une lecture radicale.  
The first important and reverse consequence of the second is that the princes, kings and monarchies of Europe will make a conservative reading of Lutheran theory, in other words, many princes and kings converted to Lutheranism and Protestantism will justify their power through Luther's writings. It is a monarchical and absolutist reading of Luther, it is a theological justification in Luther's doctrine of resistance.


Laquelle a gagné ? Quelle lecture l’a emportée sur l’autre ?
The second political consequence of the expansion of Lutheranism is the opposite, one can also make a radical reading of Lutheranism, the radical reading was not to defend the theory of the right of resistance, but says that it is the duty of kings and princes to be good Christians, but if they are not good Christians then they must be overthrown.


C’est essentiellement la lecture radicale qui va l’emporter parce que le contexte de l’Europe va évoluer de telle manière que les protestants vont se sentir en perte de pouvoir, vont se sentir persécutés parfois et vont proposer à partir de 1530 jusqu’au 1560 une lecture radicale de la réforme et du luthéranisme.
Luther's theology can give rise to two different readings : an absolutist reading and a radical reading.  


Un homme va jouer un rôle important dans la promotion de cette lecture radicale permettant de défendre la foi reformée est Jean Calvin.
Which one has won? Which reading won out over the other?


=Calvin (1509-1564) et les théories de la résistance=
It is essentially the radical reading that will prevail because the context of Europe will evolve in such a way that Protestants will feel a loss of power, will feel persecuted at times and will propose from 1530 to 1560 a radical reading of the Reformation and Lutheranism.


Calvin va suivre Luther jusqu’à un certain point, mais va s’en distancer.  
One man who was to play an important role in promoting this radical reading in defence of the reformed faith was John Calvin.


== Biographie ==
=Calvin (1509-1564) and the theories of resistance=
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Calvin
[[Fichier:Jean Calvin.png|thumb|Portrait de Jean Calvin (date inconnue).]]


« Second Patriarche de la Réforme protestante » selon [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-B%C3%A9nigne_Bossuet Bossuet], Jean Calvin naît à Noyon en Picardie (France) le 10 juillet 1509 au sein d'une famille aisée.  
Calvin will follow Luther to some extent, but will distance himself from him.  


Son père, juriste issu d'une famille d'artisans, est un notable qui exerce, à côté de la charge de greffier communal, nombre de fonctions au service de l'évêque et du chapitre cathédral. Aussi, Jean Calvin reçoit-il une solide instruction ainsi qu’une éducation religieuse complète, son père le destinant soit à une carrière juridique, soit à une carrière ecclésiastique.  
== Biography ==
 
[[Fichier:Jean Calvin.png|thumb|Portrait of John Calvin (date unknown).]]
 
"Second Patriarch of the Protestant Reformation" according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-B%C3%A9nigne_Bossuet Bossuet], Jean Calvin was born in Noyon in Picardy (France) on 10 July 1509 into a well-to-do family.
 
His father, a lawyer from a family of craftsmen, was a notable who, in addition to being a municipal clerk, held a number of positions in the service of the bishop and the cathedral chapter. As a result, John Calvin received a solid education as well as a complete religious upbringing, as his father had intended him to pursue either a legal or an ecclesiastical career.
 
With this in mind, after receiving rudimentary grammar and rhetoric in his native town, he was sent to Paris in 1523, first to Collège de la Marche (1523-1524), where he took lessons from Mathurin Cordier (1479-1564), then to Collège Montaigu (1524-1528), soon earning the rank of Master of Arts, along with further ecclesiastical benefits at Noyon.
 
He soon completed his early philological training with a solid legal education at the Universities of Orléans (1528-1529) and Bourges (1529-1530) with the masters of legal humanism Pierre de l'Estoile (1480-1537) and André Alciat (1492-1550), obtaining his licence and then his doctorate in law.  


Dans cette perspective, après avoir reçu des rudiments de grammaire et de rhétorique dans sa ville natale, il est envoyé en 1523 à Paris, d'abord au Collège de la Marche (1523-1524), où il suit les leçons de Mathurin Cordier (1479-1564), puis au Collège Montaigu (1524-1528), obtenant bientôt le grade de maitre ès arts, parallèlement à un nouveau bénéfice ecclésiastique à Noyon.  
Although he came into contact with the German humanist Melchior Wolmar (1497-1561), who sought to win him over to Lutheranism, he nevertheless continued his philological training in Paris, where he attended the Collège de France of the Hellenists Guillaume Budé (1467-1540) and Pierre Danès (1497-1579), and published a scholarly commentary on "De Clementia" by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger Sénèque] in 1532.  


Il ne tarde pas à compléter sa prime formation philologique par une solide formation juridique aux Universités d'Orléans (1528-1529) et de Bourges (1529-1530) auprès des maîtres de l'humanisme juridique que sont Pierre de l'Estoile (1480-1537) et André Alciat (1492-1550), obtenant sa licence, puis son doctorat en droit.  
It was the following year that he rallied to the evangelical humanist and reformist circles in Paris, which took shape in his collaboration with the Sermon of All Saints' Day of the Rector of Nicolas Cop University, favourable to Lutheran theses (1533), and then especially in his conversion to the new faith. In May 1534, he began a new itinerant existence in the service of his faith.  


S'il entre alors en contact avec l'humaniste allemand Melchior Wolmar (1497-1561), qui cherche à le gagner au luthéranisme, il n'en poursuit pas moins sa formation philologique à Paris où il suit les cours au Collège de France des hellénistes Guillaume Budé (1467-1540) et Pierre Danès (1497-1579); et il publie lui-même un savant commentaire du ''De Clementia'' de [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9n%C3%A8que Sénèque] en 1532.  
After numerous peregrinations linked to the first persecutions in France, this existence will bring him to Basel, where he will publish the first edition of his "Institution of the Christian Religion" in 1536, and then to Geneva where he will remain [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farel Guillaume Farel] (1489-1565) (July 1536).  


C'est l'année suivante que se situe son ralliement aux milieux évangéliques humanistes et réformistes parisiens, qui prendra forme dans sa collaboration au Sermon de la Toussaint du Recteur de l'Université Nicolas Cop, favorable aux thèses luthériennes (1533), puis surtout dans sa conversion à la nouvelle foi. En mai 1534, il entame une nouvelle existence itinérante au service de sa foi.  
It was in this city, recently (May 1536) rallied to the new faith, that he would henceforth carry out his reformist work. Although he initially met with strong opposition, which led to his exile with Farel (April 1538) and his exile to Strasbourg, where he became friends with Martin Bucer (1491-1551), he was soon recalled by the Geneva authorities (autumn 1540), returning definitively to the city with which he associated his name in September 1541.  


Cette existence l'amènera, après de nombreuses pérégrinations liées aux premières persécutions en France, à Bâle, où il publiera en 1536 la première édition de son ''Institution de la Religion chrétienne'', puis à Genève où le retient [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Farel Guillaume Farel] (1489-1565) (juillet 1536).  
Since then, he definitively reorganised his Church (Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541)) and reformed its legal order (Edict of the Lieutenant (1542) and Civil Edict (1568)) and political (Political Edicts (1543)) as well as its moral order (Sumptuary Ordinances (1558, 1564)), and its school organisation (Order of the College and Academy (1559)).  


C'est dans cette ville, ralliée depuis peu (mai 1536) à la nouvelle foi, qu'il réalisera désormais son œuvre réformatrice. S'il se heurtera en un premier temps à une forte opposition, qui lui vaudra l'exil avec Farel (avril 1538) et le conduira à Strasbourg, où il se liera avec Martin Bucer (1491-1551), il ne tardera pas à être rappelé par les autorités genevoises (automne 1540), regagnant définitivement en septembre 1541 la Cité à laquelle il associera son nom.  
While Calvin will no doubt still have to fight the opponents of his reforms in Geneva itself, in the moral as well as in the doctrinal order (Affaires Sébastien Castellion (1543), Jérôme Bolsec (1551) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus Michel Servet] (1553)), his triumph was total from 1555 onwards, a turning point from which the Councils were entirely acquired and the magistrates, devoted to the ministers (pastors), worked to transform Geneva from a straw mattress City of fairs into a fundamentalist Republic governed by the sole Word of God, and into a true "Protestant Rome".  


C'est depuis lors qu'il réorganisera définitivement son Église (Ordonnances ecclésiastiques (1541)) et reformera son ordre juridique (Édit du Lieutenant (1542) et Édit civils (1568)) et politique (Édits politiques (1543)) comme son ordre moral (Ordonnances somptuaires (1558, 1564)), et son organisation scolaire (Ordre du Collège et de l'Académie (1559)).  
Calvin, in correspondence with his co-religionists from all over Europe, continued his work as a pastor and doctor, working on successive reeditions of his Christian Institution as well as his Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments; in doing so, he soon made Geneva the "Seminary of the Reformed Churches of France" and the metropolis of Protestantism.  


Si Calvin aura sans doute encore à combattre les adversaires de ses reformes à Genève même, dans l'ordre moral comme dans l'ordre doctrinal (Affaires Sébastien Castellion (1543), Jérôme Bolsec (1551) et [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Servet Michel Servet] (1553)), son triomphe sera total à partir de 1555, tournant à partir duquel les Conseils lui seront entièrement acquis et les magistrats, dévoues aux ministres (pasteurs), œuvreront à transformer Genève, de paillarde Cité des foires, en République fondamentaliste régie par la seule Parole de Dieu, et en véritable "Rome protestante".  
Leaving a considerable body of work consisting of more than fifty volumes, Calvin died on May 27, 1564, not without having provided for his succession at the head of the Venerable Company of Pastors, in the person of the Rector of the Academy, the Burgundian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beza Théodore de Bèze] (1519-1605).


C'est aussi que Calvin, en relation épistolaire avec ses coreligionnaires de toute l'Europe, n'en poursuivra pas moins son œuvre de pasteur et de docteur, travaillant aux rééditions successives de son Institution chrétienne comme à ses Commentaires de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament; ce faisant il ne tardera pas à faire de Genève le "Séminaire des Églises réformées de France" et la métropole du protestantisme.  
Calvin takes up Luther's theory, and more precisely the question of how he offers us this radical reading and how he defends the right of resistance.


Laissant une œuvre considérable de plus d'une cinquantaine de volumes, Calvin meurt le 27 mai 1564, non sans avoir pourvu à sa succession à la tête de la Vénérable Compagnie des Pasteurs, en la personne du Recteur de l'Académie, le Bourguignon [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odore_de_B%C3%A8ze Théodore de Bèze] (1519-1605).
== Theology of Calvin ==
[[File:Jean Calvin 1562.jpg|thumb|right|John Calvin at the age of 53. Engraving by René Boyvin.]]


Calvin va reprendre la théorie de Luther et plus précisément la question de savoir de quelle manière nous offre-t-il cette lecture radicale et comment défend-il le droit de résistance ?
Calvin's early writings stress the need to obey political authority. He supported a clear separation between state and church, but above all he stressed the need potestas a deo to respect the power willed by God.


== Théologie de Calvin ==
A careful reading of Calvin shows that he becomes increasingly ambiguous: While he basically agrees with Luther in his distrust of resistance in politics, he introduces a whole series of exceptions into his work. For Luther, the only exception is if the prince forces him to blaspheme or deny his faith.
[[File:Jean Calvin 1562.jpg|thumb|right|Jean Calvin à l'âge de 53 ans. Gravure de René Boyvin.]]


Les premiers écrits de Calvin soulignent la nécessité d’obéir à l’autorité politique. Il soutient une claire séparation entre l’État et l’église, mais surtout il souligne la nécessité potestas a deo soit de respecter le pouvoir voulu par dieu.  
Calvin expands these exceptions, emptying the prince of non-resistance and turning it into a principle of resistance. Gradually he will present cases in which magistrates can act, intervene on behalf of the body politic.


Une lecture attentive de Calvin montre qu’il devient de plus en plus ambigu : si sur le fond il rejoint Luther dans sa méfiance face à la résistance en politique, il introduit dans son ouvrage toute une série d’exceptions. Pour Luther, la seule exception est si le prince oblige à blasphémer ou renier sa foi.
Calvin is hostile to direct intervention by the body politic; however, although the body politic cannot basically rule by itself, he can mandate magistrates who can intervene with the political power, there is very clearly a vision and a broadening of the exceptions, the people cannot resist, but mandate people to do so or broaden the spectrum of possibilities.  


Calvin élargit ces exceptions vidant de sa substance le prince de non-résistance et en en faisant un principe de résistance. Il va peu à peu présenter des cas ou des magistrats peuvent eux agir, intervenir au nom du corps politique.
This is the very clear beginning of a justification of political resistance if this resistance is made by legitimate and legitimate magistrates.  


Calvin est hostile à une intervention directe du corps politique ; toutefois, bien que le corps politique ne puisse pas au fond diriger par lui-même, il peut mandater des magistrats qui peuvent intervenir auprès du pouvoir politique, il y a très clairement une vision et un élargissement des exceptions, le peuple ne peut résister, mais mandater des gens pour le faire ou élargir le spectre des possibilités.  
Calvin is really going to argue a thesis that has consequences in resistance: the question that occupies political philosophers is the following: Calvin read his classics of political philosophy and the works that reflect on the crucial question of who holds the imperium? Imperium is commonly translated as sovereignty. Who holds sovereignty?


C’est le début très clair d’une justification de la résistance politique si cette résistance est faite par des magistrats légitimes et légitimités.  
In Calvin's day, this debate about who holds the imperium, about the ability to hold the power to make and break the law, to enforce the law, who holds that sovereign power? Calvin is interested in this and is fiercely debated; the answer will somehow oblige him to cut a hole in it, or at least to open up even more of the breach in the right of resistance.


Calvin va véritablement soutenir une thèse qui à des conséquences dans la résistance : la question qui occupe les philosophes du politique est la question suivante : Calvin a lu ses classiques de la philosophie politique et les ouvrages qui réfléchissent à la question cruciale de savoir qui détient l’imperium ? On traduit communément l’imperium par le terme de souveraineté. Qui détient la souveraineté ?
To the question of who holds the imperium, Calvin will answer that it is the body politic that holds the imperium, and he delegates it to magistrates, to a prince. Delegation also means a break in this delegation, in other words we can decide not to delegate this power any more; if we delegate the power under certain conditions and they are not respected, we can take back the power.


À l’époque de Calvin, ce débat sur le détenteur de l’imperium, sur la capacité à détenir le pouvoir à faire et défaire la loi, à exécuter la loi, qui détient ce pouvoir souverain ? Calvin s’y intéresse et est âprement débattu ; la réponse va quelque part l’obliger d’une certaine manière à tailler en brèche ou en tout cas à ouvrir encore plus la brèche du droit de résistance.
Calvin in the name of an imperium held by a delegated political body will not only defend a right of resistance and in some cases an obligation of resistance, especially when the prince and magistrates betray and unjustly violate the contractual conditions given to them. By asserting that the body politic and the magistrates hold the imperium will very clearly nurture the possibility of resisting the prince.


À la question de qui détient l’imperium, Calvin va répondre que c’est le corps politique qui détient l’imperium et il le délègue à des magistrats, à un prince. Qui dit délégation, dit également rupture de cette délégation, en d’autres termes on peut décider de ne plus déléguer ce pouvoir ; si nous déléguons le pouvoir à certaines conditions et qu’elles ne sont pas respectées, on peut reprendre le pouvoir.
One must be careful because when one reads Calvin carefully one never sees a very clear statement of the cases in which one must resist, this is a time when censorship exists, a certain terminology must be used. Calvin in an often metaphorical language defends in some cases the right of resistance.


Calvin au nom d’un imperium détenu par un corps politique délégué va non seulement défendre un droit de résistance et dans certains cas une obligation de résistance notamment lorsque le prince et les magistrats trahissent et violent injustement les conditions contractuelles qui leur ont été données. En affirmant que le corps politique et les magistrats détiennent l’imperium va très clairement nourrir la possibilité de résister au prince.
Calvin gives political power, the body politic and the judiciary significant power; he is not a thurifer, he does not defend the right of resistance in every case, but in far more cases than Luther defended.


Il faut faire attention parce que lorsqu’on lit attentivement Calvin, on ne voit jamais chez Calvin une affirmation très claire des cas dans lesquels il faut résister, c’est une époque ou la censure existe, une certaine terminologie doit être utilisée. Calvin dans un langage souvent métaphorique défend dans certains cas le droit de résistance.
We had seen that John Calvin had to some extent taken up Luther's reticence about the right of resistance, and that he had gradually modified his point of view and opened up loopholes, exceptions that allowed and justified a form of resistance through the intermediary of the magistrates. If in Calvin's discourse omni potestas a deo and resistance is to be condemned, in fact it opens up the possibility for resistance to take place not directly by the body politic, but through the intermediary of higher magistrates.


Calvin donne au pouvoir politique, au corps politique et aux magistrats un pouvoir non négligeable ; il n’est pas un thuriféraire, il ne défend pas le droit de résistance dans tous les cas, mais dans des cas beaucoup plus nombreux que défendus par Luther.
Calvin has the idea that ideally resistance and disobedience are not a useful thing and a continuing process, but nevertheless, we can see a development in his discourse, he opens up this possibility. Calvin asserts himself as a priori opposed to the right of resistance at the beginning of his writings, and very soon he will open the possibility to resistance suggesting a series of exceptions making resistance and civil disobedience possible especially in the case of tyranny. This shift and this tension, which is also a contradiction in itself, is clearly visible. On the one hand, he does not wish to open the door to revolt in the tradition of Luther, but on the other hand Calvin is aware that one cannot endure everything.


Nous avions vu que Jean Calvin avait repris d’une certaine manière la réticence de Luther sur le droit de résistance et qu’il avait peu à peu modifié son point de vue et ouvert des brèches, des exceptions qui permettaient et justifiaient une forme de résistance par l’intermédiaire des magistrats. Si dans le discours de Calvin omni potestas a deo et la résistance doit être condamné, en fait il ouvre la possibilité à la résistance qui ne doit pas être fait directement par le corps politique, mais par l’intermédiaire de magistrats supérieurs.
== Institution of the Christian religion ==


Il y a chez Calvin l’idée que dans l’idéal la résistance et la désobéissance ne sont pas une chose utile et un processus poursuivi, tout de même, on voit très bien une évolution dans son discours, il ouvre cette possibilité. Calvin s’affirme comme, a priori, opposé au droit de résistance au début de ses écrits et très vite il va ouvrir la possibilité à la résistance suggérant une série d’exceptions rendant la résistance et la désobéissance civile possible notamment dans le cas de la tyrannie. On voit très bien ce glissement et cette tension qui est aussi une contradiction, il ne souhaite pas ouvrir dans la lignée de Luther la porte à la révolte, mais d’autre part Calvin est conscient qu’on ne peut tout subir.
[[File:CalvinInstitutio.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Cover of the latest edition of the 'Institution of the Christian Religion' which summarises its theology.]]


== Institution de la religion chrétienne ==
He explains this in a text from 1536 entitled "Institution of the Christian religion"; he questions in chapter XX what civil government is. What does he mean by civil government? What is the scope of the government's powers? Can it be resisted and disobeyed?
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_de_la_religion_chr%C3%A9tienne
[[File:CalvinInstitutio.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Couverture de la dernière édition de l'''Institution de la religion chrétienne'' qui résume sa théologie.]]


Il s’en explique dans un texte de 1536 qui s’intitule ''Institution de la religion chrétienne'' ; il s’interroge au chapitre XX sur ce qu’est le gouvernement civil. Qu’entend-il par un gouvernement civil ? Quelle est l’étendue des compétences du gouvernement ? Peut-on lui résister et désobéir ?
{{citation bloc|We must now turn our attention to the second, which is responsible for establishing only civil justice and reforming social morality. If this subject seems far removed from the theology and faith that I deal with, further developments will show, however, that I am right to approach it together with this doctrine. Above all, because today there are violent anarchists who would like to overthrow the order in the city, even though it is established by God. On the other hand, those who flatter the rulers, by making an excessive apology for power, almost make them play at being gods.}}


{{citation bloc|Il convient maintenant de nous préoccuper du second à qui il revient d’établir seulement une justice civile et réformer la moralité sociale. Si ce sujet semble éloigné de la théologie et de la foi que je traite, la suite des développements montrera, pourtant, que c'est à juste titre que je l'aborde ensemble avec cette doctrine. Surtout, parce qu'aujourd'hui, il y a des anarchistes violents qui voudraient renverser l'ordre dans la cité, bien qu'il soit établi par Dieu. D'autre part, ceux qui flattent les gouvernants, en faisant une apologie démesurée du pouvoir, les font quasiment jouer à être des dieux.}}
The title the differences between civil and spiritual government show that Calvin is in line with Luther's division of the world into the civil and spiritual worlds.


Le titre les différences entre le gouvernement civil et le gouvernement spirituel montrent que Calvin est dans la lignée de Luther où il divise le monde entre le monde civil et le monde spirituel.
There is an adherence to Luther's philosophy, but although he is Luther's descendant, he distances himself on one point.


Il y a une adhésion à la philosophie de Luther, mais bien qu’il soit le descendant de Luther, il prend ses distances sur un point précis.
{{citation bloc|We must now turn our attention to the second, which is responsible for establishing only civil justice and reforming social morality. If this subject seems far removed from the theology and faith that I deal with, further developments will show, however, that I am right to approach it together with this doctrine. Above all, because today there are violent anarchists who would like to overthrow the order in the city, even though it is established by God.}}


{{citation bloc|Il convient maintenant de nous préoccuper du second à qui il revient d’établir seulement une justice civile et réformer la moralité sociale. Si ce sujet semble éloigné de la théologie et de la foi que je traite, la suite des développements montrera, pourtant, que c'est à juste titre que je l'aborde ensemble avec cette doctrine. Surtout, parce qu'aujourd'hui, il y a des anarchistes violents qui voudraient renverser l'ordre dans la cité, bien qu'il soit établi par Dieu.}}
It is a criticism of the Protestant radicals who made a radical reading of Luther's theses by using Luther's political theology to overthrow the rulers of Europe. Calvin is a thought of order in the good sense of the word, omni potestas a deo.


C’est une critique vis-à-vis des radicaux protestants qui ont fait une lecture radicale des thèses de Luther en utilisant la théologie politique de Luther afin de renverser les souverains d’Europe. Calvin est une pensée de l’ordre dans le bon sens du terme, omni potestas a deo.
{{citation bloc|On the other hand, those who flatter the rulers, by making an inordinate apology for power, almost make them play at being gods.}}


{{citation bloc|D'autre part, ceux qui flattent les gouvernants, en faisant une apologie démesurée du pouvoir, les font quasiment jouer à être des dieux.}}
On the one hand, he denounced violent anarchists and all those who flattered princes and kings; on the other, Luther had a certain tolerance for political power; Calvin tried to find a middle way between those who held power and those who wanted to overthrow everything. There is a middle way that is possible.  


D’un côté, il dénonce les anarchistes violents et de l’autre tous ceux qui flattent les princes et les rois, Luther avait une certaine tolérance vis-à-vis de pouvoir politique ; Calvin tente de trouver une voie médiane entre celui qui détient le pouvoir et ceux qui veulent tout renverser. Il y a une voie du juste milieu qui est possible.  
[[Image:Vergós Group Saint Augustine Disputing with the Heretics Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Augustine in controversy with heretics.]]


[[Image:Vergós Group Saint Augustine Disputing with the Heretics Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Augustin en controverse avec des hérétiques.]]
It takes up the arguments of Luther and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo Saint Augustine], the two worlds must work in convergence.


Il reprend les arguments de Luther et de [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Augustin Saint Augustin], les deux mondes doivent travailler en convergence.
{{citation bloc|The spiritual kingdom gives us, already on earth, a foretaste of ineffable and eternal happiness. The purpose of the temporal regime of government is, as long as we live in human society, to watch over and provide for the outward series of God, to watch over pure doctrine and religion, to protect the welfare of the Church, to help us observe the necessary equity, to promote civil justice in the field of morals, for the common peace and to maintain law and order for the good of all.}}


{{citation bloc|Le règne spirituel nous procure, déjà sur la terre, un avant-goût du bonheur ineffable et éternel. Le but du régime temporel du gouvernement est, tant que nous vivons dans la société des humains, de veiller sur la série extérieure de Dieu et de subvenir à ses besoins, de veiller sur la pure doctrine et la religion, de protéger le bien-être de l’Église, de nous aider à observer l’équité nécessaire, de promouvoir une justice civile dans le domaine des mœurs, en vue de la paix commune et de maintenir la loi et l’ordre pour le bien de tous.}}
There is a definition of "purposes of the state", but there is a Calvinian definition and rephrases on purposes of the state.


Il y a une définition des « buts de l’État », mais il y a une définition de Calvin et des reformés sur les buts de l’État.
From paragraph three on, the responsibility of the civil government one gets the feeling that Calvin is not at all favourable to any form of resistance, one must not change the established order, omni potestas a deo.  


À partir du paragraphe trois, la responsabilité du gouvernement civil on a le sentiment que Calvin n’est pas du tout favorable à une quelconque forme de résistance, il ne faut pas modifier l’ordre établi, omni potestas a deo.  
{{citation bloc|For the time being, we only wish to point out that to reject it is inhumanly barbaric, since it is as necessary for human beings as bread, water, sunlight and air, and its function is even greater (...) In short, it ensures the public exercise of religion among Christians and the maintenance of good relations among all.}}


{{citation bloc|Pour le moment, nous voulons seulement indiquer que vouloir le rejeter, c'est faire preuve d'une barbarie inhumaine, puisqu’il est aussi nécessaire à l’être humain que le pain, l'eau, le soleil cl l'air; et sa fonction est encore bien plus grande (…) En résumé, il veille sur l'exercice public de la religion parmi les chrétiens le sur le maintien de bonnes relations entre tous.}}
This chapter III is a definition of the very existence of the government and a marked reluctance for any form of resistance.


Ce chapitre III est une définition de l’existence même du gouvernement et d’une réticence marquée pour toute forme de résistance.
Subchapters V, VI governments are the servant of civil justice, VII and VIII assert the importance of government for living together, but the near impossibility for individuals to resist government in any case in an exaggerated way.


Le sous chapitre V, VI les gouvernements sont le serviteur de la justice civile, VII et VIII affirme l’importance du gouvernement pour le vivre ensemble, mais la quasi-impossibilité pour les individus de résister en tout cas de manière exagérée au gouvernement.
He opens a parenthesis from Chapter VIII where he paints a non-monarchical vision of power : Almost like Machiavelli's preference for the aristocratic form - according to Plato the aristocrat is the aristocracy of knowledge - Calvin uses the term aristocratic government.


Il ouvre une parenthèse à partir du Chapitre VIII où il peint une vision qui n’est pas monarchique du pouvoir : Calvin va presque comme Machiavel privilégier la forme aristocratique - selon Platon l’aristocrate est l’aristocratie du savoir -, Calvin emploie le terme de gouvernement aristocratique.
Calvin did not believe in the monarchical system as such, but believed in the government of many who would rule the city for the good of all. It is easy to see that there are hints of mechanisms that call for Machiavelli and the Florentine, even Venetian, vision of the executive.


Calvin ne croit pas au système monarchique en tant que tel, mais croit au gouvernement de plusieurs qui pour le bien de tous dirigeraient la cité. On voit très bien qu’il y a des relents de mécanismes qui appellent Machiavel et la vision florentine, voire vénitienne, de l’exécutif.
{{citation bloc|If one compares these three categories of government that I have presented, the second, government by a small number of people who ensure the freedom of the people, seems to me preferable, not in itself, but because it does not often happen - it is even a miracle - that kings behave in such a way that their will never deviates from fairness and righteousness.}}


{{citation bloc|Si l’on compare ces trois catégories de gouvernement que j’ai présentées, lea seconde, à savoir le gouvernement par un petit nombre de personnes qui assure la liberté du peuple, me semble préférable, non pas en elle-même, mais parce qu’il n’arrive pas souvent – cela tient même du miracle – que les rois se conduisent si bien que leur volonté ne s’écarte jamais de l’équité et de la droiture.}}
It is a clear and firm criticism of the monarchy, the regime of kings is not a regime where it is a miracle that righteousness and justice can reign, it aims at the power of the King of France; it takes refuge in Geneva, making it the bastion of French-speaking Protestantism. Machiavelli wouldn't have said otherwise with the idea of government of a few.


C’est une critique claire et ferme envers la monarchie, le régime des rois n’est pas un régime où cela relève du miracle permettant à la droiture et la justice de régner, il vise le pouvoir du roi de France ; il se réfugie à Genève en faisant le bastion du protestantisme de langue française. Machiavel n’aurait pas dit autre chose avec l’idée de gouvernement d’un petit nombre.
{{citation bloc|In fact, the best government is one where there is a well-tempered freedom that is destined to last for a long time (...) it will be on their part a thought that is not only crazy and useless, but bad and fruitless.}}


{{citation bloc|En fait, le meilleur gouvernement est celui où règne une liberté bien tempérée et destinée à durer longtemps (…) ce sera de leur part une pensée non seulement folle et inutile, mais mauvaise et infructueuse.}}
Resistance is a crazy and fruitless thought, but the government of a few is a good thing.


La résistance est une pensée folle et infructueuse par contre le gouvernement de quelques-uns est une bonne chose.
In sub-paragraph 22, "Respect for the authorities", there is the question of the duty to resist.


Dans le sous-paragraphe 22, ‘’Le respect des autorités’’, il y a la question du devoir de résistance.
{{citation bloc|The first duty of the subjects towards their superiors is to hold their functions in high esteem, recognising them as given by God, and for this reason manifesting to the authorities the honour and respect due to those who are lieutenants and representatives of God.}}


{{citation bloc|Le premier devoir des sujets vis-à-vis de leurs supérieurs est d'avoir en grande estime leurs fonctions, les reconnaissant comme données par Dieu, et pour cette raison, manifestant. aux autorités l'honneur et le respect que l’on doit à ceux qui sont lieutenants er représentant de Dieu.}}
Political authority represents god, so it is extremely difficult to resist, and this reluctance to resist continues to be affirmed in Chapter XXIII.


L’autorité politique représente dieu, il y est donc extrêmement difficile de résister, cette réticence à la résistance est continuée d’être affirmée au chapitre XXIII.
Calvin should not be made a thinker of divine right, he separates political power from god's power, yet political power holds some of its power from god's power.  


Il ne faut pas faire de Calvin un penseur du droit divin, il sépare le pouvoir politique du pouvoir de dieu, toutefois le pouvoir politique détient une partie de son pouvoir du pouvoir de dieu.  
When the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV Sun King (Louis XIV)] says that he holds his power as god and that he bases his power politically in the very existence of god, it is a different approach. Calvin does not say that the governing elite holds its political power as god. The king of France justifies his plique power with a pseudo power of divine right, but for Calvin the ruler does not hold his power by divine right, but by the men who have entrusted him with it, he is somehow adoubled and imbued with the spirit of god who wanted him to be the head of state.


Quand le [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV Roi Soleil (Louis XIV)] dira qu’il détient son pouvoir de dieu et qu’il fonde politiquement son pouvoir dans l’existence même de dieu, c’est une démarche différente. Calvin ne dit pas que l’élite qui est chargée de gouverner détient son pouvoir politique de dieu. Le roi de France justifie son pouvoir plique par un pseudo pouvoir de droit divin or pour Calvin le gouvernant ne tient pas à son pouvoir par un droit divin, mais par les hommes qui lui ont confié, il est d’une certaine manière adoubé et imprégné de l’esprit de dieu qui a voulu qu’il soit à la tête de l’État.
For Calvin all power comes from God, and thus all political power derives in some way from the legitimacy of God's will. The kings of France who would later tell them that they held their authority by divine right was a somewhat different approach, since all their legitimacy in their view and in any circumstances rested on God's will.  


Pour Calvin tout pouvoir vient de dieu, par là même tout pouvoir politique tient quelque par une partie de sa légitimité de la volonté divine. Les rois de France qui eux diront plus tard qu’ils détiennent leur autorité de droit divin est une démarche un peu différente, toute leur légitimité selon eux et dans n’importe quelle circonstance reposant sur la volonté de Dieu.  
Calvin does not want a politician to be able to do anything and everything in the name of God. The monarchies of divine right in the early 17th and 18th centuries justified their political authority in the name of divine right by the idea that they held the power of God.


Calvin ne veut pas qu’un homme politique puisse faire tout et n’importe quoi au nom de Dieu. Les monarchies de droit divin au début XVIIème siècle et XVIIIème siècle justifient leur autorité politique au nom du droit divin au nom de l’idée qu’ils détiennent le pouvoir de dieu.
Calvin was aware of the dangers of the precept omni potestas a deo. For Calvin, all power comes from God, but not every politician can do everything in the name of God, nor can he justify his political action or any political action in the name of God. For monarchies of divine right, all power comes from God and they can do everything because all power comes from God.


Calvin est conscient des dangers du précepte omni potestas a deo. Pour Calvin, tout pouvoir vient de dieu, mais tout homme politique ne peut tout faire au nom de Dieu, il ne peut justifier son action politique ou n’importe quelle action politique au nom de Dieu. Pour les monarchies de droit divin, tout pouvoir vient de dieu et ils peuvent tout faire parce que tout pouvoir vient de dieu.
It is the great difference with Calvin that does not justify any action in the name of God, the cursor is not in the same place, it is the use of this principle that is different, the instrumentalization of this principle is different by Calvin and those who claim divine right.


C’est la grande différence avec Calvin qui ne justifie pas toute action au nom de Dieu, le curseur n’est pas au même endroit, c’est l’utilisation de ce principe qui est différent, l’instrumentalisation de ce principe diffère par Calvin et ceux qui se revendiquent de droit divin
In other words, Calvin makes god the theological basis of political power, whereas the king of France makes the political basis of theological power; Calvin does not want political power and authority to justify its power by the existence of God, whereas the French monarchies justified their political action by the fact that they held their power through god.


En d’autres termes, Calvin fait de dieu le fondement théologique du pouvoir politique alors que le roi de France fait du fondement politique le pouvoir théologique ; Calvin ne veut pas que le pouvoir et l’autorité politique justifie son pouvoir par l’existence de Dieu alors que les monarchies françaises justifiaient leur action politique par le fait qu’elles détiennent leur pouvoir par dieu.
There is something of God's will in every political authority, but this does not justify that it can do everything.


Il y a quelque chose de la volonté de Dieu dans toute autorité politique, mais cela ne justifie pas qu’elle puisse tout faire.
{{citation bloc|It follows something else: honouring and respecting the authorities in this way, we must obey them by observing their orders, either by paying taxes, or by taking on a task that is part of the common defence, or by obeying any other order (...) Let no one be mistaken about this. Since one cannot resist rulers without resisting God, if it seems possible to resist a weak government without authority, let us be careful because God is strong and armed enough to punish contempt for his ordinances. Moreover, in this obedience I include the measure that private citizens must have in public affairs (...) I mean that individuals do not have to act without an intermediary.}}


{{citation bloc|Il s’ensuit autre chose : honorant et respectant ainsi les autorités, nous devons leur obéir en observant leurs ordonnances, soit en payant les impôts, soit en prenant en charge une tâche qui relève de la défense commune, soit en obéissant à tout autre ordre (…) Que personne ne se trompe à ce sujet. Puisqu’on ne peut pas résister aux gouvernants sans résister à Dieu, s'il semble possible de résister à un gouvernement faible et dépourvu d’autorité, prenons garde parce que Dieu est fort et assez armé pour punir le mépris que l’on a de ses ordonnances. De plus, dans cette obéissance, j'inclus la mesure que doivent avoir, dans les affaires publiques, les citoyens privés (…) Je veux dire que les particuliers n’ont pas à se mettre en action sans intermédiaire.}}
We must obey the political authority and the rulers, we must not resist them without an intermediary. Somehow it shows that non-resistance has gone from non-resistance to non-resistance without an intermediary, which turns the problem around. This will allow him to clearly recognise the possibility of resistance, he turns the argument of non-resistance on its head, but not under any conditions.


Nous devons obéissance à l’autorité politique et aux gouvernants, nous ne devons pas lui résister sans intermédiaire. Quelque part, il montre que de la non-résistance est passée à la non-résistance sans recourir à un intermédiaire ce qui retourne le problème. Cela va lui permettre de clairement reconnaître la possibilité de résister, il retourne l’argument de la non-résistance, mais pas à n’importe quelle condition.
Calvin says that all power comes from God, it is madness to resist political authorities, he adds that it is madness to resist without intermediaries: he opens the door to the possibility of resistance, but not under any conditions.  


Calvin affirme que tout pouvoir vient de dieu, c’est une folie de résister aux autorités politiques, il ajoute que c’est une folie de résister sans intermédiaires : il ouvre la porte à la possibilité de résister, mais pas à n’importe quelles conditions.  
In sub-chapter XXXI - title; Calvin is confronted with the question of whether there are no situations in which one must resist, he cannot conclude that one can never resist.


Dans le sous-chapitre XXXI – titre ; Calvin est confronté à la question de savoir s’il n’y a pas de situations dans lesquelles on doit résister, il ne peut conclure qu’on ne peut jamais résister.
As he wants to frame resistance, he is hostile to resistance, but we can see that he is not hostile to it, but he wants to frame resistance by using intermediaries.  


Comme c’est une pensée de l’ordre il veut encadrer la résistance, il est hostile à la résistance, mais on s’aperçoit qu’il n’y est pas hostile mais il veut encadrer la résistance en recourant à des intermédiaires.  
{{citation bloc|Indeed, if there were, in our time, magistrates established in defence of the people to curb the excessive ambition or freedom of kings - as there were in ancient times among the Spartans with their ephors, among the Romans with their popular defenders and among the Athenians with their demarcations and, as today in every kingdom when the three states are assembled - I would not forbid them at all to oppose and resist the intemperance or cruelty of kings in the exercise of their office. I even think that, if they saw how the kings abusively mistreated the poor people and acted as if this were not the case, they should be accused of perjury and treason against the freedom of the people, when they should have recognised that they were ordained the protectors of it by the will of God.}}


{{citation bloc|En effet, s'il existait, il notre époque des magistrats établis pour let défense du peuple afin de réfréner la trop grande ambition ou la liberté des rois - comme il en existait autrefois chez les Spartes, avec les éphores, chez les Romains avec leurs défenseurs populaires et chez les Athéniens avec leurs démarques et, comme aujourd’hui dans chaque royaume lorsque les trois états sont assemblés - je ne leur défendrais pas du tout de s'opposer et de résister à l’intempérance ou à la cruauté des rois dans l'exercice de leur fonction. J’estime même que, s’ils voyaient combien les rois maltraitaient abusivement le pauvre peuple et faisaient comme si cela n'était pas, cette attitude devrait être accusée de parjure et de trahison vis-à-vis de la liberté du peuple, alors qu'ils devaient se reconnaître en avoir été ordonnés les protecteurs par la volonté de Dieu.}}
Calvin opened the door under certain conditions to resistance to the king and especially to certain kings who abused their power and authority. Resistance is possible, but under certain conditions. Kings who were not instituted by God but whose power rests on theological foundations have betrayed God's will by behaving abusively; as such, the adage omni potestas a deo no longer applies.


Calvin ouvre la porte à certaines conditions de manière encadrée notamment à la résistance au roi et particulièrement à certains rois qui abusent de leur pouvoir et de leur autorité. La résistance est possible, mais à certaines conditions, les rois qui n’ont pas été institués par Dieu, mais dont une partie du pouvoir repose sur des fondements théologiques ont trahi la volonté de Dieu en se comportant de manière abusive ; à ce titre l’adage omni potestas a deo ne joue plus.
In subchapter XXXIII The limits of our obedience to men we must remember :


Au sous-chapitre XXXIII Les limites de notre obéissance aux hommes il faut retenir :
{{citation bloc|If they come to command us to do things against the Lord, we must not put up with it. We must have no regard for the dignity of superiors, which we respect, when it is subject to the power of God, which is the only true power above all others.}}


{{citation bloc|S’ils viennent à nous commander des choses contre le Seigneur, nous ne devons pas le supporter. Il ne faut, en ce domaine, n’avoir aucun égard à la dignité des supérieurs, que l’on respecte, lorsqu’elle est soumise à la puissance de Dieu, qui est la seule véritable au-dessus de toutes les autres.}}
This argument is a response to Luther's argument that it is resistance in the case of blasphemy or in the case of a political decision that invites us to renounce and deny our faith. In this text Calvin tries to hold a middle position between the need to obey political authority and the impossibility of obeying in all circumstances, he tries to place himself "on Luther's left".


Cet argument est une réponse de l’argument de Luther, c’est la résistance en cas de blasphème ou en cas de décision politique qui nous invite à renoncer et à renier notre foi. Dans ce texte Calvin essaie de tenir une position médiane entre la nécessité d’obéissance à l’autorité politique et l’impossibilité d’obéir en toutes circonstances, il essaie de se situer « à la gauche de Luther ».
He believes that Luther's dogma of non-resistance has no future and is erroneous, but he does not want to go as far as radical anarchists go.


Il pense que le dogme de non-résistance prôné par Luther est sans avenir et erroné pais il ne veut pas allé jusqu’où vont les anarchistes radicaux.
"Yes" to the principle of resistance insofar as it is framed through intermediaries who are magistrates, "no" to revolt at all costs and to resistance in all circumstances.


« Oui » au principe de la résistance dans la mesure où elle est cadrée passant par des intermédiaires qui sont des magistrats, « non » à la révolte à tout prix et à la résistance en toutes circonstances.
Calvin is between Luther and the last group of Protestants who will say "yes" to resistance in any circumstance, the monarchomaques. Since Luther there has been a shift towards the right of resistance which is not yet affirmed as a right, but in Calvin as a possibility, political resistance will become a right with the third wave of reformers who will make resistance a real right, the monarchomachs.


Calvin est entre Luther et le dernier groupe de protestants qui diront « oui » à la résistance en toute circonstance, ce sont les monarchomaques. Depuis Luther, il y a un glissement vers le droit de résistance qui n’est pas encore affirmé comme un droit, mais chez Calvin comme une possibilité, la résistance politique deviendra un droit avec la troisième vague de reformés qui feront de la résistance un vrai droit, ce sont les monarchomaques.
= The Monarchomachs =


= Les monarchomaques =
If we translate the term monarchomach it is literally "who is against magistrates". Monarchomachs will play an important role in defining the right of resistance that is so important in the concept of the state. If Luther and Calvin were more "lukewarm", if Calvin opened the possibility for resistance and civil disobedience, it is up to the monarchomachs to put forward a real political theory of resistance.
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchomaque
Si on traduit le terme monarchomaque cela est littéralement « qui est contre les magistrats ». Les monarchomaques vont jouer un rôle important dans la définition du droit de résistance tant important dans le concept d’État. Si Luther et Calvin ont été plus « tièdes », si Calvin a ouvert la possibilité à la résistance et à la désobéissance civile, il appartient aux monarchomaques d’apposer une véritable théorie politique de la résistance.


Pourquoi ? Comment se fait-il que dans les années 1570 les théories de la résistance émergent ?  
Why? Why is it that in the 1570s theories of resistance emerged?  


Il y a des raisons liées au contexte : Luther écrit en 1520 1523, Calvin entre 1520 1536, il se passe un certain nombre d’évènements dans le contexte qui explique le virage et la radicalisation des protestants ; c’est le contexte des guerres de religion.
There are contextual reasons: Luther wrote in 1520 - 1523, Calvin between 1520 - 1536, there are a number of events in the context that explains the turn and radicalisation of the Protestants; it is the context of the wars of religion.


À partir de 1540 en Europe, dans le Saint Empire Romain Germanique, en France et un peu en Angleterre, il y a des authentiques guerres de religions entre catholiques et protestants.
From 1540 onwards in Europe, in the Holy Roman Empire of Germany, in France and to some extent in England, there were authentic wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants.


[[File:Peace-of-augsburg 1555.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Representatives of the German estates at the Augsburg conference discuss the possibilities of a religious peace.]]
[[File:Peace-of-augsburg 1555.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Representatives of the German estates at the Augsburg conference discuss the possibilities of a religious peace.]]


Les reformés doivent défendre leur foi donc ils se radicalisent politiquement ; les guerres de religion en Allemagne sont très importantes et closes en 1555 presque 20 ans après la publication de l’ouvrage de Calvin, le Saint Empire romain germanique qui vit ces guerres de religion de façon importante voit la paix arriver à Augsbourg qui scelle le destin du Saint Empire Romain Germanique entre État protestant et État catholique selon [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cujus_regio,_ejus_religio le principe « Cujus regio, ejus religio »] qui veut dire « à chaque règne sa religion », cela revenait à dénoncer le principe suivant : on adopte la religion du prince de l’État dans lequel on vit.  
The reformed had to defend their faith, so they became politically radicalised; the religious wars in Germany were very important and ended in 1555, almost 20 years after the publication of Calvin's book, the Holy Roman Empire, which experienced these religious wars in a significant way, saw peace arrive in Augsburg, which sealed the fate of the Holy Roman Empire between the Protestant and Catholic states according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio the principle "Cujus regio, ejus religio"] which means "to each kingdom its own religion", this was tantamount to denouncing the following principle: one adopts the religion of the prince of the state in which one lives.  


C’est une division confessionnelle à la [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paix_d%27Augsbourg paix d’Augsbourg de 1555].  
This is a confessional division in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Augsburg Augsburg peace of 1555].  


L’Angleterre connaît aussi comme le Saint Empire Romain Germanique des affrontements à partir de 1535 entre protestants, anglicans et catholiques ; les choses s’apaisent à partir de 1547 et surtout à partir de l’avènement d’Élisabeth I d’Angleterre qui à partir des années 1560 apaise et protège les protestants et leur donne des droits.
Like the Holy Roman Empire, England also experienced clashes between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics from 1535 onwards; things calmed down from 1547 onwards and especially after the advent of Elizabeth I of England, who from the 1560s onwards appeased and protected Protestants and gave them rights.


À partir de 1555 et 1560, l’Allemagne et l’Angleterre sont plus ou moins apaisées en ce qui concerne les guerres de religions ; un arrangement a été trouvé afin de vivre ensemble et vivre sa foi.
From 1555 and 1560, Germany and England were more or less pacified with regard to the religious wars; an arrangement was made to live together and live one's faith.


Le pays qui n’a pas conclu d’accord est la France qui entre en guerre de religion à partir de 1540, les guerres de religions font rage en France pendant 30 40 ans, des régions passent sous la domination politique des protestants, d’autres qui restent fidèles au catholicisme.
The country that did not reach an agreement was France, which entered into a religious war from 1540, religious wars raged in France for 30 - 40 years, some regions came under the political domination of Protestants, others remained faithful to Catholicism.


[[Fichier:Francois Dubois 001.jpg|thumb|200px|Le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy joua un rôle essentiel dans l'émergence des thèses monarchomaques.]]
[[Fichier:Francois Dubois 001.jpg|thumb|200px|The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre played an essential role in the emergence of monarchical theses.]]


Il faut retenir la date de 1572 qui est la date du massacre de la Saint Barthélémy où des dignitaires protestants sont assassinés par des dignitaires catholiques, ce massacre va véritablement affoler le monde protestant, ce n’est pas pour rien que les ouvrages monarchomaque nous allons voir furent publier.  
We must remember the date of 1572, which is the date of the St Barthélémy massacre where Protestant dignitaries were assassinated by Catholic dignitaries, this massacre was to really panic the Protestant world, it is not for nothing that the monarchical works we are about to see were published.  


Il faut résister à la monarchie française qui ne veut pas laisser de droits aux protestants, il faut résister, à partir d’une résistance religieuse les monarchomaques vont proposer une résistance politique. Les monarchomaques en France à partir de 1560 après le massacre de la Saint Barthélémy - les reformés français - vont se réveiller et lutter pour leur survie.
It is necessary to resist the French monarchy which does not want to leave any rights to the Protestants, it is necessary to resist, starting from a religious resistance the monarchomacs will propose a political resistance. The monarchomachs in France from 1560 after the St Bartholomew's Day massacre - the French reformed - woke up and fought for their survival.


Les monarchomaques qui sont théoriciens du droit de résistante sont François Hotman qui publie en 1573 une année après la Saint Barthélémy ''Franco-Gallia'', Theodore de Bèze qui publie en 1574 ''Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets'', en 1579 on suppose qu’il est un texte signé Junius Brutus est Hubert Languet qui publie un pamphlet qui s’intitule ''Défense de la liberté contre les tyrans.'' Que ce soit la ''Franco-Gallia, Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets'' et ''Défense de la liberté contre les tyrans,'' ont marqué la pensée des monarchomaques et fait avancer la théorie du droit de résistance''.''
The monarchomacs who are theorists of the right of resistance are François Hotman who published in 1573, one year after Saint Barthélémy, "Franco-Gallia", Theodore de Bèze who published in 1574 "Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets", in 1579 it is supposed that it is a text signed by Junius Brutus and Hubert Languet who published a pamphlet entitled "Défense de la liberté contre les tyrants" (Defence of freedom against tyrants). Whether it was the ''Franco-Gallia, Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets'' and ''Défense de la liberté contre les tyrants,'' marked the thought of the monarchomachs and advanced the theory of the right of resistance''.''.


Les monarchomaques sont des protestants reformés radicaux qui veulent défendre le droit.  
The monarchomachs are radical reformed Protestants who want to defend the law.  


La première remarque est que ces traités n’ont pas de finalité démocratique, il ne faut pas faire des monarchomaques les premiers démocrates des temps modernes, il ne s’agit pas de défendre la souveraineté du peuple, il s’agit avant tout de défendre le droit à l’existence de la foi reformée et du protestantisme, c’est une question de survie religieuse, ils n‘ont pas d’ambitions politiques autres que défendre la religion réformée.
The first remark is that these treaties do not have a democratic finality, we should not make the monarchomachs the first democrats of modern times, it is not a question of defending the sovereignty of the people, it is above all a question of defending the right to existence of the reformed faith and Protestantism, it is a question of religious survival, they have no political ambitions other than to defend the reformed religion.


C’est un conflit spirituel qui motive les monarchomaques, pas un conflit politique ; leurs intentions ne sont pas a priori politiques.
It is a spiritual conflict that motivates the monarchs, not a political conflict; their intentions are not a priori political.


Au moment où ils obtiennent gain de cause avec l’Édit de Nantes de 1598, leurs revendications s’estompent parce qu’ils ont eu des garanties religieuses importantes ; leur motivation est essentiellement religieuse et non pas politique ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’on va instrumentaliser leur théorie en politique.
When they won their case with the Edict of Nantes of 1598, their claims faded because they had important religious guarantees; their motivation was essentially religious and not political, which does not mean that their theory will be instrumentalized in politics.


La deuxième remarque est qu’on trouve chez les monarchomaques un certain nombre d’idées :  
The second remark is that a certain number of ideas can be found among the monarchs:  
*ils sont tous partisans de l’idée que le gouvernement qu’il soit roi ou plusieurs personnes ne peut tout faire, le gouvernement a passé un contrat avec les gouvernés ; pour les monarchomaques ils ont une vision du pouvoir politique contractualise, le prince ne peut pas tout faire religieusement et politiquement, il est tenu par un contrat qu’il a passé avec ses gouvernés.
*they are all partisans of the idea that the government, whether it is a king or several people, cannot do everything, the government has made a contract with the governed; for the monarchomachs they have a vision of political power that is contractualized, the prince cannot do everything religiously and politically, he is bound by a contract that he has made with his governed.
*un souverain, prince, roi indigne qui ne respecte pas les termes du contrat c’est-à-dire le respect, la justice et l’équité, peut être déposé soit renversé ; cette idée est la résistance possible, certains iront même comme Junius Brutus jusqu’à défendre l’idée qu’on peut tuer un roi qui ne respecte pas un certain nombre de règles fondamentales et qui devient un tyran, ils sont partisans de tyrannicide.
*a sovereign, prince, unworthy king who does not respect the terms of the contract, that is to say respect, justice and equity, can be deposed or overthrown; this idea is the possible resistance, some will even go as far as defending, like Junius Brutus, the idea that one can kill a king who does not respect a certain number of fundamental rules and who becomes a tyrant, they are partisans of tyrannicide.
*Fondamentalement, ils appuient leurs arguments sur la tradition scholastique. On trouve beaucoup d’arguments scholastique, c’est-à-dire qui mettent en avant l’importance des institutions et des constitutions de l’équilibre des pouvoirs beaucoup plus que sur les vertus et les qualités des gouvernants. Les monarchomaques ne sont pas tant intéressés de savoir qu’un gouvernement a des peurs ou n’en a pas, mais ils sont intéressés à créer un système qui garantisse des droits. Beaucoup de leurs arguments vont être pris à partir de 1648 pour toute la problématique du droit des minorités, on va y puiser des arguments qui visent à garantir des droits constitutionnels aux minorités.  
*Fundamentally, they base their arguments on the scholastic tradition. There are many scholastic arguments, that is to say, arguments that emphasise the importance of institutions and constitutions in the balance of power much more than on the virtues and qualities of rulers. Monarchomachists are not so much interested in whether a government has fears or not, but they are interested in creating a system that guarantees rights. Many of their arguments will be taken from 1648 onwards for the whole issue of minority rights, they will draw arguments that aim to guarantee constitutional rights to minorities.  


La troisième remarque est qu’au fond ils ont une vision du mot « peuple » très traditionnelle. En d’autres termes, le peuple, pour un monarchomaque, est pris dans son ensemble en tant que corps politique, comme une personne morale. C’est une sorte de communauté. En aucun cas lorsqu’un monarchomaque parle de peuple, il pense individu autonome qui se pensent comme peuple.
The third remark is that basically they have a very traditional view of the word "people". In other words, the people, for a monarchomaque, is taken as a whole as a political body, as a legal person. It is a kind of community. In no case when a monarchomachist speaks of people, he thinks of autonomous individuals who think of themselves as a people.


== François Hotman - Franco-Gallia, 1573 ==
== François Hotman - Franco-Gallia, 1573 ==
Ligne 543 : Ligne 544 :
[[Fichier:François Hotman.jpg|thumb|François Hotman.]]
[[Fichier:François Hotman.jpg|thumb|François Hotman.]]


* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Hotman
There are four arguments that are indicative of the constitutional position of the monarchomachs.


On trouve quatre arguments qui sont révélateurs de la position constitutionnelle des monarchomaques.
When Hotman published "Franco-Gallia", a work that was a great success, he went back to the history of France to go against the idea that the king holds all the powers, when we read the French constitution we realize that the Frankish monarchy was elective, elected by bodies of the state, the dimension of the election was lost with time; the French monarchy must be based on the elective principle.  


Lorsque Hotman publie ''Franco-Gallia'', ouvrage qui eut un fort succès, il se replonge dans l’histoire de France pour aller contre l’idée que le roi détient tous les pouvoirs, lorsqu’on lit la constitution française on se rend compte que la monarchie franque était élective, élue par des corps de l’État, la dimension de l’élection s’est perdue avec le temps ; la monarchie française doit être fondée sur le principe électif.  
The second argument is that royal power in France has always been limited by a Public Council that represents the different elements of the kingdom's population, the States General. Hotman says that the king claims to have all the powers, but first of all the constitution does not say so and in the past there were institutions that limited the king's power.


Le deuxième argument est que le pouvoir royal a toujours été en France limité par un Conseil Public qui représente les différents éléments de la population du royaume, ce sont les États généraux. Hotman dit que le roi prétend avoir tous les pouvoirs, mais d’abord la constitution ne l’indique pas et autrefois des institutions limitaient le pouvoir du roi.
The third argument is that when you read the French constitution, which at the time were the fundamental laws of the kingdom, you realise that the Public Council held the imperium, the real sovereign power, sovereignty was in fact not held by the king alone: the king's power was limited.


Le troisième argument est lorsqu’on lit attentivement la constitution française, qui était à l’époque les lois fondamentales du royaume, on se rend compte que le Conseil Public détenait l’imperium, le vrai pouvoir souverain, la souveraineté n’était en fait pas détenue par le roi seul : le pouvoir du roi était limité.
The fourth argument is that, basically, the king could not take important decisions about taxes, foreign policy, etc. without the approval of this Public Council; the picture Hotman paints is one that provoked a lot of criticism at the time from supporters of the law and centralised, monarchical power.


Le quatrième argument est qu’au fond, le roi ne pouvait pas prendre de décisions importantes concernant les impôts, la politique étrangère, etc. sans l’accord de ce Conseil Public ; le tableau que nous dépeint Hotman est un tableau qui provoque à l’époque beaucoup de critiques des partisans du droit et d’un pouvoir centralisé et monarchique.
It proposes a radically different reading of the laws that the royal jurists were making. His work will make a lot of noise, it will challenge the authority of the king.  


Il propose une lecture radicalement différente des lois que les juristes royaux faisaient. Son ouvrage ferra beaucoup de bruit, il va contester l’autorité du roi.  
Basically, Hotman developed a theory of the supremacy of the intermediate body, which is in a way the ancestor of the theory of popular sovereignty.  


Fondamentalement, Hotman va développer une théorie de la suprématie du corps intermédiaire qui est d’une certaine manière l’ancêtre de la théorie de la souveraineté populaire.  
To say that the king does not have sovereignty alone, but that it is within a council, an "assembly" that delegates some of its powers to the king is a new and innovative idea, especially a radical idea that runs counter to the dominant ideology of the French monarchy.


De dire que le roi n’a pas la souveraineté seule, mais qu’elle est au sein d’un conseil, d’une « assemblée » qui délègue certaines de ses compétences au roi et une idée nouvelle et novatrice, surtout c’est une idée radicale qui va à l’encontre de l’idéologie dominante de la monarchie française.
The king does not have all the powers and the king cannot do everything because the monarchy at the beginning was a monarchy limited in its power.


Le roi n’a pas tous les pouvoirs et le roi ne peut pas tout faire parce que la monarchie au départ était une monarchie limitée dans son pouvoir.
== Théodore de Bèze - On the law of magistrates on their subjects, 1574 ==


== Théodore de Bèze - Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets, 1574 ==
This text is a development of Calvin's draft on the right of resistance; in 1574 he published the magistrates' law, which was the first treatise defining the conditions for exercising the right of resistance.


[[Fichier:Bèze, Théodore de (1519-1605) - 1596 - inc Boissard, J.J Bibliotheca chalcographica -1652-69.gif|thumb|Portrait de Théodore de Bèze en 1596.]]
His work is an authentic treatise on resistance, Theodore de Bèze is marked by Hotman.
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odore_de_B%C3%A8ze
Ce texte est un développement de l’ébauche que Calvin avait fait sur le droit de résistance; il publie en 1574 du droit des magistrats qui est le premier traité qui définit les conditions d’exercice du droit de résistance.  


Son ouvrage est un authentique traité de résistance, Théodore de Bèze est marqué par Hotman.
Theodore de Bèze's starting point is first of all the affirmation that one must obey God and that all power comes from God, he turns this adage around.


Le point de départ de Théodore de Bèze est tout d’abord l’affirmation qu’on doit obéir à dieu et que tout pouvoir vient de dieu, il retourne cet adage.
If all power comes from God, this means that there are circumstances in which man must disobey human law in the very name of his fidelity to God; if all power comes from God, there are cases or situations in which man must disobey not divine law but human law. It is because God holds power that one can disobey a human power, one simply cannot disobey and resist it in any way.


Si tout pouvoir vient de Dieu, cela signifie qu’il existe des circonstances où l’homme doit désobéir à la loi humaine au nom même de sa fidélité à dieu ; si tout pouvoir vient de dieu, il y a des cas ou des situations où l’homme doit désobéir non point à la loi divine, mais à la loi humaine. C’est parce que dieu détient le pouvoir qu’on peut désobéir à un pouvoir humain, simplement on ne peut pas lui désobéir et lui résister de n’importe quelle manière.
His treatise on resistance is extremely marked, he defends two ideas that take up the theory of the contract in particular: firstly, there is a first idea that the tyrant by usurpation must be deposed, he distinguishes two forms of tyranny, he can be deposed and one must resist the legitimate tyrant, that is to say the one who has legitimately inherited the throne, but becomes a tyrant in the very exercise of power.


Son traité de résistance est extrêmement marqué, il défend deux idées reprenant notamment la théorie du contrat : il y a tout d’abord une première idée que le tyran par usurpation doit être déposé, il distingue deux formes de tyrannies, il peut être déposé et il faut résister au tyran légitime c’est-à-dire celui qui a légitimement hérité du trône, mais devient un tyran dans l’exercice même du pouvoir.
In France, the king's son succeeds the king, the legitimate tyrant is a tyrant who is legitimate in the sense that he has the right to reign, but becomes a tyrant in the very exercise of power.


En France, le fils du roi succède au roi, le tyran légitime c’est un tyran qui est légitime en ce sens qu’il a le droit de régner, mais devient un tyran dans l’exercice même du pouvoir.
Up to him a tyrant by usurpation could be deposed, but what is new with De Bèze is that a legitimately crowned king can also be deposed and can be resisted.


Jusqu’à lui un tyran par usurpation pouvait être déposé, en revanche ce qui est nouveau avec De Bèze est qu’un roi légitimement couronné peut également être déposé et on peut lui résister.
The second idea is that he cannot be resisted in any way, in Theodore de Bèze the intermediaries are the lower magistrates.  


La deuxième idée est qu’on ne peut lui résister de n’importe quelle manière, chez Théodore de Bèze les intermédiaires sont les magistrats inférieurs.  
Théodore de Bèze is in favour of political resistance through the intermediary of the lower magistrates.  


Théodore de Bèze est favorable à la résistance politique par l’intermédiaire des magistrats inférieurs.  
{{citation bloc|This is therefore the origin of the republics and Potentates reported for good reason to God, who is not the author of all good. Homer's words were congealed and he wanted to put an end to this, calling the infant kings of Jupiter and shepherds of the peoples.}}


{{citation bloc|Telle est donc l’origine des républiques et Potentats rapportée pour bonne raison à Dieu aucteur de tout bien. Ce qu’Homere mesmes a bien congeu et voulu delcarer, appelant les Rois nourrissons de Jupiter et pasteurs des peuples.}}
From this point of view De Bèze is quite classical, all power comes from God. Nevertheless, he started his chapter with an important sentence.


De ce point de vue De Bèze est tout à fait classique, tout pouvoir vient de dieu. Il a tout de même commencé son chapitre par une phrase importante.
{{citation bloc|therefore that the peoples are not created for magistrates, but magistrates for the peoples.}}


{{citation bloc|par conséquent que les peuples ne sont pas créés pour les magistrats, mais au contraire les magistrats pour les peuples.}}
The roles must not be reversed, kings are there to serve the body politic and not the other way round, magistrates have duties towards the body politic.


Il ne faut pas inverser les rôles, les rois sont là pour servir le corps politique et non l’inverse, les magistrats ont des devoirs vis-à-vis du corps politique.
{{citation bloc|Everyone therefore confesses, when it comes to the duty of magistrates, that they can be admonished, or even, if need be, frankly reprimanded when they go astray from their office. But if it is a question of repressing or chastening, according to their own merits, the tyrants who are all manifest, then there are some who so recommend patience and prayers to God, that they call seditious, and condemn as false Christians all those who present their collars.}}


{{citation bloc|Chacun doncq confesse, quand il est question de parler du devoir des magistrats, qu’il es loisible de les admonnester, voire mesmes en un besoin les reprendre franchement quand ils se fourvoient de leur office. Mais s’ils es question de reprimer ou mesmes chastier selon leurs demerites les tyrans tous manifestes, alors il y en a qui recommandent tellement la patience et les prieres à Dieu, qu’ils appellent seditieux, et condamnent comme faux chrestiens, tous ceux qui presentent leur col.}}
It is a barely veiled criticism of Luther, he criticizes all those who want to resist or complain, some recommend patience and prayer to the point of saying that those who want to resist are wrong.


C’est une critique de Luther à peine voilée, il critique tous ceux veulent résister ou se plaindre, certains recommandent la patiente et la prière au point que de dire que ceux qui veulent résister se trompent.
{{citation bloc|This is a very slippery passage, and yet I would again ask the readers to remember what I said a little earlier, at the end not to draw the wrong conclusions from what I have to say on this point. I therefore praise Christian patience as a very recomendable virtue among other virtues, and recognise that it is necessary to encourage men in it, as being the one that takes away the prize of eternal bliss. I detest seditions and all confusion, as horrible monsters (...) I deny that for all this it is not lawful for oppressed peoples to use just remedies in conjunction with repentance and repentance; and these are the reasons on which I base myself.}}


{{citation bloc|Ce passage st fort glissant, et pourtant je prie derechef les lecteurs se souvenir de ce que j’ai dit un peu auparavant, à la fin de ne tirer mauvaise consequence de ce que j’ai à dire sur ce point. Je louë doncques la patience chrestienne comme tres recommaendable entre toutes autres vertus, et recognoi qu’il y faut songneusement encourager les hommes, comme estant celle qui emporte le pris de la félicité eternelle. Je deteste les seditions et toute confusion, comme monstres horribles (…) je nie que pour tout cela il ne soit licite aux peuples oppressez d’une tyrannie toute manifeste d’user de justes remedes conjoints avec la repentance et les pieres ; et voici les raisons sur lesquelles je me fonde.}}
It is not true that we cannot resist, there are cases where we can resist and where we must resist.  


Cela n’est pas vrai qu’on ne peut résister, il y a des cas où l’on peut résister et où l’on doit résister.  
On the other hand, the case and the king who has become a tyrant in the very exercise of his power, there are clearly cases where it is necessary and a duty to resist; one cannot simply take to the streets, De Bèze is a thought of order, which is why it is necessary to have recourse to intermediate magistrates who are the transmission belt between the political power and the body politic.  


En revanche, le cas et le roi qui est devenu un tyran dans l’exercice même de son pouvoir, il y a clairement des cas où il faut et c’est un devoir de résister ; on ne peut tout simplement descendre dans la rue, De Bèze est une pensée de l’ordre c’est pourquoi il faut recourir aux magistrats intermédiaires qui sont la courroie de transmission entre le pouvoir politique et le corps politique.  
What is the duty of the submissive to the legitimate sovereign has become an overt tyrant, one must resort to the subordinate and inferior magistrates. It is the magistrates who are truly the receptacle of the people's resistance.


Quel est le devoir des subjets envers le souverain legitime estant devenu tyran manifeste, il faut recourir aux magistrats subalternes et inférieurs. Ce sont les magistrats qui sont véritablement le réceptacle de la résistance des populations.
{{citation bloc|I come now to the lower Magistrates, who are, as it were, in a subordinate degree, between the sovereign of the house of a King, and more likely to assign to a King than to a King's Kingdom, but those who hold public offices and the State, either in connection with the administration of Justice, or because of war, call for this cause in a monarchy Officers of the Crown, and more likely to assign to the King's Kingdom than to the King, being these two quite different things.}}


{{citation bloc|Je vien maintenant aux Magistrats inférieurs et qui sont comme en degré subalterne, entre le souverain de la maison d’un Roi, et plustot affectez à un Roi qu’à un Roiaume, mais ceux-là qui ont les charges publiques et de l’Estat, soit touchant l’administration de Justice, soit du fait de la guerre, appelez pour ceste cause en une monarchie Officiers de la couronne, et plustot du ROiaume que du Roi, estant cces deux choses bien differentes.}}
The lower magistrate is the officer of the crown, it is the magistrate who represents the king, it is the representative of the king, it is not the prince or the high nobility, but it is a lower nobility and especially people who hold an important political position and represent the crown.


Le magistrat inférieur est l’officier de la Couronne, c’est le magistrat qui représente le roi, c’est le représentant du roi, ce n’est pas le prince ni la haute noblesse, mais c’est une petite noblesse et surtout des gens qui occupent une fonction politique importante et représentant de la couronne.
De Bèze goes further, he asserts an essential idea: if the lower magistrates are the channel through which the body politic can complain and resist the king's decisions, they are so because they are custodians of part of the sovereignty.


De Bèze va plus loin, il affirme une idée essentielle : si les magistrats inférieurs sont le canal par lequel le corps politique peut se plaindre et résister aux décisions du roi, ils le sont parce qu’ils sont dépositaires d’une partie de la souveraineté, ils sont détenteur d’une partie de la souveraineté.
{{citation bloc|they remain in their estates as they are, just as sovereignty also remains in its entirety (...) But from a cost, then that these inferior officers of the kingdom have received, by virtue of their sovereignty, the observation and maintenance of the ties between those who have been appointed to them, to which they are obliged by reason of the sage (from whom they cannot absolve them from the coupe of the one, (Who of the King became Tyrant, and manifestly transgresses the conditions under which he was received as King and under which he was sworn) is it not reasonable, by every divine and human right, that something should be permitted to such inferiors Magistrates for the duty of their oath and conversation of laws, more than to those who are at all deprived and without charge?}}


{{citation bloc|ils demeurent en leurs estats tels qu’ils estoient, comme aussi la souveraineté demeure en son entier (…) Mais d’une costé, puis que ces officiers inférieurs du roiaume on receu, de par la souveraineté, l’observation et maintenance des loix entre ceux qui leur sont commus, à quoi-mesmes ils sont astreints par sement (duquel ne les peut absoudre la coulpe de celui, qui de Roi est devenu Tyran, et transgresse manifestement les conditions sous lesquelles il avoit esté receu Roi et lesquelles il avoit jurees) n’est-il pas raisonnable, par tout droit divin et humain, que quelque chose soit permise à tels inférieurs Magistrats pour le devoir de leur serment et conversation des loix, plus qu’à ceux qui sont du tout personnes privees et sans charge ?}}
Since they have a parcel of sovereignty, don't they have a role to play?


Comme ils ont une parcelle de souveraineté n’ont-ils pas un rôle à jouer ?
{{citation bloc|I therefore say that, if they are reduced to such and such a necessity, they are bound (by force of arms if possible) to provide for the salvation of those in their charge against a manifest Tyranny.}}


{{citation bloc|je di donc que, s’ils sont reduits à telle necessité, ils sont tenus (mesmes par armes si fait se peut) de pourvoir contre une Tyrannie toute manifeste, à la salvation de ceux qu’ils ont en charge.}}
In certain circumstances even by the use of arms, lower or subordinate magistrates have a duty, even by the use of arms, to resist or even to lay down the legitimate tyrant, admittedly at first, but who gradually drifts away and whose power gradually becomes arbitrary and abusive.  


Dans certaines circonstances mêmes par l’utilisation des armes, les magistrats inférieurs ou subalternes ont le devoir, de résister même par les armes de résister voir de déposer le tyran légitime, certes au départ, mais qui à peu à peu dérive et dont le pouvoir et peu à peu devenu arbitraire et abusif.  
The right to resist is recognised and even becomes a duty to resist for these inferior magistrates.


Le droit de résistance est reconnu et devient même un devoir de résistance pour ces magistrats inférieurs.
One author will go so far as to say that the right of resistance is a sacred right even if it costs the tyrant his life, another will say that one can kill the tyrant who takes advantage of the rules through arbitrariness, that is the last of the monarchomachs.  


Un auteur ira jusqu’à dire que le droit de résistance est un droit sacré même si cela coûte la vie au tyran, un autre dira qu’on peut tuer le tyran qui se prévaut des règles par l’arbitraire, c’est le dernier des monarchomaques.  
Theodore de Bèze had toppled and opened the way for the right of resistance by making it a duty where individuals go through lower magistrates to resist.


Théodore de Bèze avait basculé et ouvert la voie au droit de résistance en en faisant un devoir où les individus passent par des magistrats inférieurs pour résister.
Luther clearly said no to resistance in politics, for Calvin in some cases only by opening the door to a series of exceptions, de Bèze said that resistance had to be resisted under specific conditions.  


Luther dit clairement non à la résistance en politique, pour Calvin dans certains cas seulement en ouvrant la porte à une série d’exceptions, de Bèze dit qu’il faut résister à des conditions de mise en œuvre précise.  
Junius Brutus' 1579 book Defending Freedom from Tyrants provides an understanding of the radical break in the right of resistance; this book is very important.


L’ouvrage Défense de la liberté contre les tyrans de Junius Brutus de 1579 permet de comprendre la rupture radicale du droit de résistance ; cet ouvrage est très important.
== Junius Brutus - Defence of freedom against tyrants, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 1579 ==


== Junius Brutus - Défense de la liberté contre les tyrans, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 1579 ==
This is the most popular work, the one that has had an echo as well, if not greater, than de Bèze's 1574 work of theory entitled ''On the Right of Magistrates over their Subjects''. This work has been edited and republished 23 times, translated into seven languages, but above all it will be republished in vernacular languages such as English seven times, French six times, and German three times.  
* Article wikipédia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos
Cet ouvrage est l’ouvrage le plus populaire, celui qui a eu un écho aussi si ce n’est pas plus grand que l’ouvrage de 1574 de théorie de de Bèze intitulé ‘’Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets’’. Cet ouvrage est édité et réédité 23 fois, traduit dans sept langues, mais surtout il sera réédité dans des langues vernaculaires comme l’anglais sept fois, le français six fois, et l’allemand trois fois.  


<gallery mode="packed" widths="200px" heights="200px">
<gallery mode="packed" widths="200px" heights="200px">
Ligne 638 : Ligne 635 :
</gallery>
</gallery>


C’est un pamphlet anonyme intitulé ''Vindiciae contra tyrannos'' signé Junius Brutus qui est dans sa forme un ouvrage classique qualifié de scholastique, il pose des questions et donne des réponses très méthodiques ; le monarchomaque qui en est l’auteur soit Hubert Languet soit Du Plessis-Mornay, le protestant à l’origine de cet ouvrage adopte une formule très scholastique dans la construction même de son pamphlet.
It is an anonymous pamphlet entitled ''Vindiciae contra tyrannos'' by Junius Brutus, which is in its form a classical work qualified as scholastic, it asks questions and gives very methodical answers; the monarchomach who is the author, either Hubert Languet or Du Plessis-Mornay, the Protestant who wrote it, adopts a very scholastic formula in the very construction of his pamphlet.


Ces questions sont au nombre de quatre :  
There are four such questions:  
*les sujets doivent-il obéir a un prince qui ordonne quelque chose qui va à l’encontre des lois de dieu ? Luther s’était déjà posé la question en tranchant par la négative, mais c’est une question que les monarchomaques se posent également, tous les partisans de la réforme vont se poser cette question.
*Do subjects have to obey a prince who orders something that goes against God's laws? Luther had already asked himself this question by deciding in the negative, but it is a question that monarchomachs ask themselves as well, and all supporters of reform will ask themselves this question.
*est-il légitime de résister à un prince qui s’écarte de la loi de dieu ?
*Is it legitimate to resist a prince who deviates from the law of god?
*est-il légitime de résister à un prince qui opprime le corps politique soit qui fait montre d’autorité et d’autoritarisme ?
*Is it legitimate to resist a prince who oppresses the body politic or who shows authority and authoritarianism?
*les monarques voisins peuvent-ils venir à la rescousse de sujets et d’individus tyrannisés dans leur propre pays ?  
*Can neighbouring monarchs come to the rescue of subjects and individuals tyrannized in their own country?  


Les réponses sont : « non », « oui », « oui », « oui ».
The answers are "no", "yes", "yes", "yes".


« Non » à la première question, Junius Brutus est dans la tradition luthérienne et calviniste, « oui » il est légitime de résister à un principe qui s’écarte de la loi de Dieu, « oui » pour Junius Brutus très clairement, et pour la dernière question la réponse est « oui ».
"No' to the first question, Junius Brutus is in the Lutheran and Calvinist tradition, 'yes' it is legitimate to resist a principle that deviates from God's law, 'yes' for Junius Brutus very clearly, and for the last question the answer is 'yes'.


La partie la plus intéressante de ces questions est les deux dernières plus précisément ; de poser la question et de dire qu’il est légitime de résister à un prince qui opprime l’État et sans mentionner un prince qui viole les lois de Dieu, montre que la théorie de la résistance et le principe de résistance en politique est une vision séculière.
The most interesting part of these questions is the last two more precisely; to ask the question and to say that it is legitimate to resist a prince who oppresses the state, and without mentioning a prince who violates the laws of God, shows that the theory of resistance and the principle of resistance in politics is a secular vision.


C’est la première fois dans l’histoire de la philosophie et notamment de la philosophie politique qu’une théorie séculière ne justifie pas la résistance du point de vue de la violation des lois divines, mais dit que si on ne me respect pas en tant qu’être il et possible de résister au pouvoir.
It is the first time in the history of philosophy and especially political philosophy that a secular theory does not justify resistance from the point of view of violating divine laws, but says that if I am not respected as a being it is possible to resist power.


Pour affirmer cette vision séculière, il faut souligner le mot consentement ; le monarchomaque qui écrit ce texte défend une vision séculière de la résistance et une vision de l’autorité politique qui repose sur le consentement du corps politique.
To affirm this secular view, the word consent must be stressed; the monarchomach who writes this text defends a secular view of resistance and a view of political authority that is based on the consent of the body politic.


Autrement dit, il est très clairement affirmé qu’un monarque est au service du corps politique dont il détient le pouvoir, d’une certaine manière le corps politique, le monarque n’est que le représentant du corps politique qui lui a délégué le pouvoir.
In other words, it is very clearly stated that a monarch is at the service of the political body whose power he holds, in a way the political body, the monarch is only the representative of the political body that has delegated power to him.


Cette vision est importante parce que pour la première fois dans l’histoire de la pensée jusque il y a véritablement des théoriciens de la politique et du droit qui affirme que l’autorité politique suprême ne détient pas son pouvoir d’une quelconque hérédité, mais détient avant tout son pouvoir du consentement du corps politique qui lui a délégué ce pouvoir.  
This view is important because for the first time in the history of thought there are actually political and legal theorists who affirm that the supreme political authority does not hold its power by any heredity, but holds its power above all by the consent of the political body that has delegated that power to it.  


L’imperium soit la souveraineté n’est pas détenu par la monarchie, mais par le corps politique qui véritablement délègue l’exercice de cette souveraineté au monarque.  
Imperium, or sovereignty, is not held by the monarchy, but by the political body that actually delegates the exercise of this sovereignty to the monarch.  


Fort logiquement, la conclusion est sans appel, si on délègue le pouvoir est qu’on abuse de la délégation de ce pouvoir, alors celui qui en a hérité peut être tué ; ce texte fait l’apologie du tyrannicide de l’autorité politique devenue tyran qui peut être éliminé en vertu du principe fondateur du consentement.  
Quite logically, the conclusion is indisputable: if the delegation of power is abused, then the one who inherited it can be killed; this text is an apology for the tyrannicide of political authority that has become a tyrant that can be eliminated by virtue of the founding principle of consent.  


Junius Brutus passe d’un droit de résistance à un devoir de résistance, c’est un ouvrage novateur.
Junius Brutus moves from a right of resistance to a duty of resistance, it is an innovative work.


La quatrième question ouvre la porte à l’internationalisation du conflit entre protestants et catholiques, d’internationaliser le combat des calvinistes qui doivent faire appel à des monarques protestants qui pourraient les aider.
The fourth question opens the door to the internationalisation of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, to internationalise the struggle of the Calvinists who have to call on Protestant monarchs who could help them.


Les deux grandes puissances en 1579 en Europe sont l’Angleterre et les Provinces unies libérées du joug espagnol devenues indépendantes ; l’argument vise très clairement à dire que si les protestants français sont sujets à de l’arbitraire, il est de leur devoir de faire appel à un prince protestant afin de leur venir en aide.  
The two great powers in Europe in 1579 were England and the United Provinces freed from the Spanish yoke, which had become independent; the argument was very clear that if French Protestants were subject to arbitrary rule, it was their duty to call on a Protestant prince to help them.  


{{citation bloc|Nous auons montré ci deant, que c’est Dieu qui inflitue les Rois, qui les eflit, qui leur donne les Royaumes. Maintenant nous difons, que c’eft le peuple qui eftablit les Rois, qui leur met les fceptres és mains, & qui par fes fuffrages aprouve leur election.}}
{{citation bloc|We have shown here that it is God who influences the Kings, who elects them, who gives them kingdoms. Now we say that it is the people who establish the kings, who put the kings in their hands, who put their fetters in their hands, and who by festive festivities approve their election.}}


Si tout pouvoir vient de dieu, les rois ne tiennent leur pouvoir que du corps politique et par le consentement du peuple.
If all power comes from God, kings derive their power only from the body politic and by the consent of the people.


{{citation bloc|Alors du confentement de tout le pleuple, Saul, dit l’hiftoire, fut nommé Roy.}}
{{citation bloc|Then from the confluence of all the pleople, Saul, known as the hiftoire, was named King.}}


Saint Paul doit sa nomination au consentement du corps politique.  
Saint Paul owes his appointment to the consent of the body politic.  


{{citation bloc|en fomme, puis qu’il n’y eut iamais homme, qui nafquift avec la couronne fur la tefte, & le fsceptre en la main, que nul ne peut eftre Roy de par foy ni regner fans peuple : & qu’au contraire le peuple puiffe eftre peuple fans Roy, & ait efté long temps auant qu’auoir des Rois, c’eft chofe trefaffeure, que tout Rois ont efté premierement eftablis par le peueple.}}  
{{citation bloc|And that there never was a man, who was born with the crown on his head, & the sceptre in his hand, that no one can be king by faith nor rule without a people: & that on the contrary the people can be people fans king, & that it was a long time before there were kings, that all kings were first established by the people.}}  


C’est un discours « pseudo-révolutionnaire », c’est chose assurée que tout roi a été établi par le peuple.  
It's a "pseudo-revolutionary" discourse, it's a sure thing that every king was established by the people.  


{{citation bloc|Or ,ce que nous difons de tout le peuple vniuerfellement, doit eftre auffi entendu, comme dit a efté en la feconde Queftion, de ceux qui en tout royaume ou ville reprefentent legitimement le corps du peuple, & qui ordinairement font appelez les Officiers du roaume () les Officiers du royaume, reçoyuét leur autorité du peuple, en l’enffemblee generale des Eftats.}}
{{citation bloc|Now, what we say of all the people universally must also be understood, as was said in the second Question, by those who in any kingdom or city legitimately represent the body of the people, & who ordinarily call the Officers of the kingdom (...) the Officers of the kingdom, receiving their authority from the people, in the general assembly of the States.}}


II y a l’idée de la représentation en politique qui est affirmée ici ; les représentants légitimes du corps du peuple sont les officiers du peuple.
There is the idea of representation in politics that is affirmed here; the legitimate representatives of the body of the people are the officers of the people.


Il y a l’ébauche de l’idée de représentation politique :
There is the draft of the idea of political representation:


{{citation bloc|Si le prince pourfuit , & ne fe foucie point des diuerfes remonftrances qu’on luy aura faites, ains vife feulemét à ce but de pouvoir comettre impunément tout le mal qui luy plaira : alors il eft coupable de tyranie, & peut-on pratiquer cotre luy tout ce que le droit & une iufte violéce permettent cotre un tyran.}}
{{citation bloc|If the prince pursues, & does not care about the various admonitions which will have been made to him, then he is guilty of tyranny, & can one practice against him all that the law & a just violation permit against a tyrant.}}


Il y a l’affirmation du droit et du devoir de résistance.
There is the affirmation of the right and duty of resistance.


{{citation bloc|Davantage, nous auons prouvé que que tous Rois reçoiuent leur dignité Royale de la main du peuple : que tout peuple confideré en un corps eft par deffus & plus grand que le Roy : qu’iceluy Roy eft tant feulement premier fouuerain fouuerneur & feruiteur du Royaume, qui n’a pour maiftre & vray Seigneur que le peuple.}}
{{citation bloc|Further, we have proved that all Kings receive their Royal dignity from the hand of the people: that every people considered in one body is above & greater than the King: that the King is so much only first sovereign governor & servant of the Kingdom, whose master & true Lord is only the people.}}


Le souverain est le peuple et parce qu’il est souverain il peut déposer et tuer le roi usurpateur ; toute cette vision est explicitée aux pages 210, 211 et 212 Junius Brutus va justifier la nécessité de tuer le roi tyran. La souveraineté du peuple est déléguée dans la personne du monarque qui détient son pouvoir que par le consentement et que Rousseau appelle la volonté populaire.
The sovereign is the people and because he is sovereign he can depose and kill the usurping king; all this vision is explained on pages 210, 211 and 212 where Junius Brutus will justify the need to kill the tyrant king. The sovereignty of the people is delegated in the person of the monarch who holds his power only by consent, which Rousseau calls the popular will.


Ce dernier pamphlet monarchomaque eut un retentissement colossal, avec lui s’achève la vaste réflexion depuis Luther sur les conditions de résistance en politique.
This last monarchomach pamphlet had colossal repercussions, and with it ends the vast reflection since Luther on the conditions of resistance in politics.


Avec Junius Brutus s’achève la vision la plus radicale du droit de résistance qui est devenue un devoir de résistance. Les monarchomaques ouvrent la voie à un déplacement de l’idée même de souveraineté ; pour Junius Brutus de dire que les rois détiennent le pouvoir de la volonté du peuple est un renversement capital et fondamental du pouvoir politique. C’est une vision plus radicale et ascendante du pouvoir qui se dessine et qui avec les monarchomaque et plus précisément Theodore de Bèze et Junius Brutus s’imposent.
With Junius Brutus ends the most radical vision of the right of resistance which has become a duty of resistance. The monarchomachs paved the way for a shift in the very idea of sovereignty; for Junius Brutus to say that kings hold the power of the will of the people is a capital and fundamental overthrow of political power. It is a more radical and ascending vision of power that is taking shape and which, together with the monarchomachs, and more precisely Theodore de Bèze and Junius Brutus, is imposing itself.


Ces ouvrages vont marquer les esprits provoquant une secousse dans l’ordre conceptuel ; il appartiendra à un homme de reprendre la main et de clarifier cette notion de souveraineté qui avait complètement quitté le pouvoir royal afin de se retrouver dans le corps politique, c’est Jean Bodin.
These works were to mark the minds causing a jolt in the conceptual order; it was up to one man to take back the reins and clarify this notion of sovereignty which had completely left royal power in order to find itself in the body politic, and that man was Jean Bodin.


= Annexes =
= Annexes =

Version actuelle datée du 11 novembre 2020 à 19:03


Languages

Luther (1483 - 1546) and the principles of Lutheranism[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

We cannot understand the concept of the State if we are satisfied with Machiavelli's contribution, we must also look at the contribution of the Reformation. This thought emerged in Germany in the 1520s, and one man was to play a crucial role: Luther.

Luther is the second 'play' in the presentation. We will first discuss his theory and then the political implications of his theory.

Biography[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Martin Luther.

Martin Luther, an emblematic figure of the Protestant Reformation, was born in Eisleben in Thuringia on 10 November 1483 to a family of peasant origin.

The son of a miner who had reached a certain material wealth, he attended the municipal Latin school at a very early age, then the cathedral school in Mansfeld, where he received a humanistic education (1491-1497). He continued his studies in Eisenach, where he learnt Latin and German, and at the age of 17 he entered the University of Erfurt, where he received a degree in the arts (humanities), for which he was awarded the title of Master of Arts in 1505.

While his father intended him to study law, which he began in May 1505, he decided to enter the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt in mid-July 1505 after a serious personal crisis.

Ordained priest, he began theological studies in the summer of 1507 in Erfurt; he continued his studies at the University of Wittenberg, where he was promoted to doctor of theology in October 1512 and was awarded a chair of Sacred Scripture, where he taught and commented for years on the various parts of the Old and New Testaments, the first German translation of which he produced from 1521 onwards.

The Pope signing and selling indulgences seen as the Antichrist by Lucas Cranach the Elder according to Martin Luther's "Passional Christi und Antichristi" (1521).

After a trip, for the affairs of his order, to Rome in 1510, where the spectacle of the Renaissance Pontifical Court did not fail to edify him, he was deeply moved by the campaign for indulgences launched by Pope Leo X in 1515, when he began his course on the Epistle to the Romans, familiarising himself with certain mystical currents and becoming aware of what would be his fundamental revelation: justification by faith.

His inner development then led him to take a public stand against indulgences by posting 95 theses on the virtue of indulgences on October 31, 1517 on the doors of the castle church and the University of Wittenberg.

Invited to withdraw, he refused, took part in a few public disputes in 1518-1519 and ended up being condemned by the Pope in the Bull Expurge Domine of 15 June 1520, which he burned publicly in Wittenberg in December.

It was the same year that he published his great reformist writings setting out his conception of faith and the Church: the Appeal to the Christian nobility of the German nation on the amendment of the Christian state, the Prelude to the Babylonian captivity of the Church and the On the freedom of the Christian.

Luther's German Bible.

He was summoned to appear before the Imperial Diet by Emperor Karl V and in mid-April 1521 he travelled to Worms, where he testified to his faith. He was soon banished from the Empire and only owed his life to the Elector of Saxony, who had him kidnapped and hidden in Wartburg Castle (1521-1522). Although he then began his German translation of the Bible, his theses soon gave rise to radical interpretations, both among the Anabaptists and among the peasants who expected social reform.

After returning to public life, Luther, who left the monastic habit in 1524 and married a former Cistercian, Katarina Von Bora, in 1525, was forced to clarify his theses in an authoritarian manner, stressing the need for temporal power and the duty of submission to it: Sincere Admonition to all Christians to refrain from all riots and revolts (1522); Treaty of the Temporal Authority (1523); Exhortation to peace in response to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia (1525); Against the looting and murderous gangs of peasants" (1525), "Missive on the hard pamphlet against the peasants" (1525) and "If the People of War can also be in a state of bliss" (1526). Luther was increasingly conservative on the political and social level, and also clashed with Erasmus on the question of free will ('Du libre arbitre' (1524)), to which he replied with his treatise On the Bondage of the Will (1525); he nevertheless moved towards a relatively more moderate reform on the religious level, relying on the Temporal Princes for the external organisation of the Church.

Luther continued his work as a translator of the Bible into German and as a professor at the Wittenberg School of Theology, publishing his treatise "On Councils and the Church" and his Commentary on Genesis, but the last years of his life are clouded by increasingly virulent polemics with his opponents.

He died on 18 February 1546 in his native town, leaving an immense body of work as a theologian, exegete, liturgist and polemicist, but also as a jurist and politician, comprising almost one hundred octavo volumes.

By publishing a few years after the prince his The Ninety-Fifth Theses in 1517 Luther defied the medieval Catholic order and launched a radical attack on the church.

This radical attack will have immense consequences in the political order. One cannot understand Luther's political vision without understanding his theological premises.

Attention must be drawn to two points; Lutheran theology at its core is based on a very black, despairing and pessimistic view of human nature. This despairing vision is reflected in two breaks in the theology of the time, i.e. in the order of religious knowledge.

The first rupture is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who is considered to be one of the fathers of the Catholic Church, who above all affirmed and reaffirmed that man is capable of apprehending the world through his reason. Somewhere, man is naturally endowed with reason and can understand the world in which he lives, unlike Luther.

The second break is that he, like Machiavelli a few years before him, very clearly broke with the humanist ideal of autonomy of will; humanists had affirmed that individuals were autonomous in their will to direct our lives, we are masters of our own destiny.

For Luther until 1517 - 1518, while man is free in everyday affairs, he is totally incapable of ensuring his salvation and choosing his destiny in any way.

Luther asserts that it is pretentious to want to know God's designs, "deus absconditus," that there is a mysterious god somewhere who knows and we do not know; the second adage on which Luther based his theology is that if man can do nothing, if man cannot know his destiny, if man is not autonomous in the management and control of his destiny, it is because god has an impenetrable design, but above all he can do anything, "omni potestas a deo", all power comes from god.

Somehow, all power comes from God, we are absolutely unable to control our destiny and our salvation.

It is true that Luther is obliged to defend an idea that will obsess him, if we cannot control our destiny because God's plans are impenetrable, if all power comes from God and we cannot in any way decide on our fate and our future, then how can man be saved, how can we explain that some men are saved while others are not?

Luther, until 1517 - 1518, will base his theory on the dogma of predestination.

Somewhere, man, for Luther, is predestined, God has decided who can have his grace and who cannot.

This view is rather Manichean and despairing, so the logical conclusion of such a view of the relationship between him and mankind leads Luther to adopt the doctrine of predestination.

Luther, faced with this rather depressing vision of the world, realised that he was going a bit against the wall with this predetermined vision.

From 1517 - 1518, he evolved, pragmatic man evolved, wanting to criticise the Catholic Church, reforming religion by basing his own doctrine on predestination was not very encouraging.

To want to convince people that one is defending a new approach to religion while advocating the dogma of predestination is not convincing. Luther's pragmatism takes the man back to his vision.

Beginning in 1520, he proposes a completely new doctrine, which is the doctrine of justification by faith.

This doctrine of justification by faith, which emerges in Luther's writings from 1518 onwards, can be summarized in a certain way in two points.

Basically, if man cannot receive his salvation through his own actions, if God decides everything because omni potestas a deo, if man cannot receive his salvation through his own actions, then he can receive God's grace, i.e., his faith in God somewhere saves man.

In other words, expressing one's faith, praying and believing will draw God's attention to us and in a certain way will draw God's grace and free us from our sins.

Faith is a human choice, but it is also a gift from God.

The second remark to explain what he means by justification by faith is that man is always a sinner.

Man remains a deep sinner for Luther, and the only chance he has of being saved is to believe and to express his faith loudly and clearly in order to attract God's attention.

This doctrine is very important in the theological order and will go hand in hand with and have two essential consequences.

  • a new vision of the church is emerging, if man is to attract the gaze of god, if man's faith is to ensure that he is given the gaze of god he no longer needs an intermediary to speak to god and act between him and god, he is speaking directly to god, the first theological and somewhat political consequence is that there is god and the faithful and no longer intermediaries, it is a frontal attack on the tradition of the church in force at the time.
  • It is no longer a vertical vision of the church with god, the priest and man, but a horizontal version in which there are men and servants of god on an equal footing.

These two consequences are important, as they provide an understanding of the political theory that gradually emerged in Luther from 1518 - 1519. If the church no longer had a raison d'être, then power relations would change.

Lutheran philosophy: theology[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The question is what did the reformed bring to political thought and philosophy; there is a reflection on the right of resistance. How did Luther's theology lead to a reflection on the right of resistance?

Lutheran philosophy is based on the principles of the justification of doctrine by faith, the pessimistic view of the world and of people, a view that is based on the will to individual autonomy omni potestas a deo. Luther's assertion of the right of resistance gives him an almost depressing pessimistic view of human nature.

Lutheran theology has this rather pessimistic view of human nature, which leads Luther to propose a new view of the church as well. In the theological order, for Luther, since through prayer and faith we can attract the attention of God and his grace so that we no longer need an intermediary, such an affirmation implies a redefinition of the structure of the church, which until 1517 served as an intermediary between men and God.

The church that gradually emerges thus has a different purpose, but also a different structure. Luther is well aware that the faithful need an institution to find themselves, but while it no longer plays the role of intermediary between God and men it plays a much more organisational role, it does and must exist to provide baptism, marriage, and funeral services, but the sacred dimension of the church with Luther is greatly attenuated.

These three major theological propositions, these theological postures, have political implications. What are the political implications of Lutheran theology?

We see these implications in two texts from which four political implications of Lutheran theology can be drawn:

The first implication is a massive and marked rejection of any jurisdictional role, any power of the church in temporary affairs, in other words, the church world must be content to organize and care for the spiritual world, but must not in any way claim to interfere with the power of those in temporary power. This is a strict separation of the two spiritual and temporal powers, but above all the affirmation of the impossibility of spiritual power to encroach on temporal power.

The second consequence is the rejection of criticism of the church's legal order, the so-called canon law, which is the law of the church that governs relations within the church itself, in some law faculties there are still chairs of canon law. The political consequence is the rejection of this canon law, the law of the Romans has to be discarded because it is false and has no coherent legal and religious basis.

The third political consequence of this new worldview is the counterpart of the first consequence, if the two powers are separated, if spiritual power must not encroach on temporal power, temporal power must not attempt to influence the affairs of the church; political authority is independent and must remain independent of religious authority.

Somewhat following on from the first and third consequences is the affirmation of temporal power as having to play a higher political role than spiritual power; somewhere it separates the two powers to the end of its logic: if the two powers are different, however, political power must dominate.

The figure of the Christian prince emerges, it is this notion that brings together a political idea and a religious idea, the Christian prince must, without encroaching on the spiritual order, absolutely support the faith and the gospel and follow the commandments of God, being himself extremely pious and respectful of the Christian religion. This idea of the Christian principle is quite new, it brings together the idea that political authority must exercise its political power without interfering with religious power, but at the same time must defend a certain number of values; the idea of a Machiavellian politician whose morals are very flexible and very foreign to Luther.

The Christian prince must be a strong man, but at the same time he must defend a certain number of values; these are not humanist values, but Christian values. Logically and in a certain way, it is the antimachiavel, yes to the principle, that defends values, but not humanist values, but Christian values.

On the Bondage of the Will.

Let there be no confusion, Luther has a completely separate conception of religious and political power, the idea of the Christian prince is not the same as putting it together; he is in favour of political autonomy, but he defends the idea that political power must promote Christian values.

In other words, there is not in the idea of the Christian prince the idea of mixing political and religious power, but there is the will of a political power that defends religious values to perhaps support a certain coherence within society.

For Luther, the prince is above all a prince, but Christian in the sense that he must defend Christian values. In 1525, he wrote a work that criticized Erasmus by denouncing Erasmus' humanistic ideals, but also the free will that for him is an aberration since we are predetermined by God's will, the On the Bondage of the Will.[4]

Spiritual Power and Temporal Power[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Luther does not have a political thought in the sense that Aristotle, Machiavelli and Rousseau do, but Luther is important because he develops a vision that gives political power and the Christian prince an increasingly important role; can one resist this Christian prince? Does the citizen have a margin of manpower in the face of this figure of the Christian prince who emerges with notable and important power? What is Luther's position from the point of view of the political opposition?

Luther separated power and strengthened political power, and the question is whether one should obey this political power? Are there cases where Christians have the right to disobey the Christian prince?

Luther has a particular answer that is increasingly ambiguous; when one reads his sermons and religious writings, the answer that emerges is clearly "no".

It is basically almost impossible for Luther except for the prince to order blasphemy or disavowal of his faith, unless in an extreme case Luther is not a follower of resistance theories; in other words, resisting the sovereign is a mistake.

He has an ambiguous position that has evolved into a pragmatic Luther. There is a reason for what is now called Luther's political hardening; the reason is context-related.

Facsimile of the 95 theses.

In 1517, Luther launched his Eighty-Fifth Revolutionary Theses, which were clearly aimed at overthrowing the political power in Rome. These theses had an important effect in Europe and Germany in particular. Luther was summoned by Emperor Charles V and subjected to the question, the church intervened, and Luther was put on trial.

He leaves the emperor's court between 1519 and 1520, there is a plot to assassinate him seeing the danger he could represent. What shocked Luther greatly at the time was the principle of indulgence. The church had set up the system of indulgence, which is the possibility of buying one's salvation in exchange for cash, allowing the faithful to feel good and the church to replenish its coffers; this principle of indulgence offended Luther.

The church saw the danger in Luther very well, the early writings against Lutheranism compared them to the Black Death, the church perceived the power of Luther's word, and therefore tried to intervene with the emperor.

He was saved because a German Elector took him under his protection, and he was able to live protected for about ten years. The Kaiser of the Holy German Empire is elected by seven electors, and one of the seven prince electors takes Luther under his protection. Luther was protected by a powerful prince. Luther had been protected by a large number of German princes who had also converted for political reasons because this created a counter-power, hence the reversal of the theory. Luther very quickly saw the political interest he could draw from this.

Rebellious peasants surrounding a knight.

Between 1524 and 1525 in Germany there was a revolt in Swabia by the peasants of Swabia who found in Lutheranism a number of arguments for revolt, the church should no longer have any influence in some cases, one can resist the prince. There are very important peasant revolts, and Luther became afraid, he realised how radical a reading of his theological writings could be.

From then on, he began to formulate the idea that it is wrong to oppose political power, with rare exceptions, because power comes from God and the policies that are instituted hold the power of God.

Luther realizes that his theology is revolutionary, but that a radical reading of his theology can lead to very powerful interpretations and revolts. The state of affairs is God's will, and God's will is not to be touched.

Luther wrote a book in 1525 entitled "Against the Looting and Murderous Gangs of Peasants"; as a good pragmatist, Luther chose his side.

Luther leaves us with a revolutionary theology and an extremely fixed vision of politics that does not allow and leaves no room for individual resistance to political power.

Luther's successors, the reformed, will take over Lutheran theology, but they will defend the right of resistance.

To the Christian nobility of the German nation[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

To the Christian nobility of the German nation.

The discourse is an eminently religious discourse, one does not resort like Machiavelli to humanist writings, Luther's doctrinal sources are the Holy Scriptures.

The examples Luther uses in both texts are biblical examples. Finally, the vocabulary and expressions are certainly religious, but methodically chosen; Luther knows very well, invokes God when it must be invoked and does not invoke him when it must not be invoked, he is political when it must be invoked.

At the beginning of the text, the institutional critique of the church is already very clear.

« I have collected a few articles on the amendment of the Christian state, in order to submit them to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in case it would please God to use the secular state to help his Church, since the ecclesiastical state, to whom this task should rather fall, has shown itself to be quite negligent in its duties. »

The church no longer fulfils its role; Luther turns to the German nobility to play its political role.

On this first page, we see a thinly veiled criticism of the autonomist and humanist position that advocates autonomy of will.

« […] God cannot and will not allow us to undertake a good work, relying solely on his reason and power. »

We cannot make important decisions on the basis of reason alone.

« The greater the power, the greater the distress if one does not act humbly and in fear of God. If the Popes and Romans have succeeded so far with the help of the devil in sowing discord among kings, they are able to do so even now, if we act without God's help, with our own power and ability. »

God helps us in our action.

« […] the Romanists have surrounded themselves with three walls, thanks to which they have so far been protected and have prevented anyone from reforming them, so that the whole of Christendom has, as a result, reached a state of dreadful decadence.

Firstly, when they were made to fear temporal power, they made it their principle to declare that temporal power had no rights over them, but that spiritual power was superior to temporal power. »

Luther wants to rebalance things, it is true that the division between spiritual and temporal power is very old, but over time the church had claimed that temporal power could only exist through him, between the years 800 and 1400 the church asserted its power over political power, both powers according to Luther must be limited to their role.

« Secondly, when they are reprimanded with Sacred Scripture, they establish on the contrary that no one has the right to interpret Sacred Scripture except the Pope. »

We are in a critique of a very important dogma, it is the dogma of infallibility, it is the idea that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures can only be made by the church and its servants, Luther criticizes the claim to the exclusivity of truth.

« Thirdly, that they are threatened with a Council and they invent that no one can convene a Council except the Pope. »

They have an extremely narrow vision of power and that is a mistake.

Let's tackle the first wall first, which is the idea that the church must have an influence on temporal power.

« Therefore in consecrating, the Bishop does nothing other than if, instead of the whole assembly, he chose someone from among the crowd of those who all possess equal power and ordered him to exercise that same power in the place of the others, just as if ten brothers, royal children, also heirs, chose one of them to reign in their place over the inheritance, they would always be kings and equal in power, while the office of governing would be entrusted to one. »

What Luther means is that an authentic church should ideally be based on an equality of the faithful to the extent that the bishop could choose such and such to exercise the role of priest, for Luther we are all potential priests.

« For since we are all equally priests, no one should make himself known or undertake, without having been authorised or chosen by us, to do what we all equally possess the power to do. »

Basically, there is a very beautiful idea that the church is a church that must somehow proceed by election. What is emerging is a horizontal vision of the church where relationships are much less hierarchical.

« From this it follows that between laity, priests, Princes, Bishops and, as they say, between the clergy and the century, there is really no other difference except that which comes from the function or task and not from the state. »

It is a functionalist vision of individuals, one is a priest because it is a function; this idea is very important and still today. It is a functional vision of power.

« The second wall is even less solid and it holds even less: namely that they claim to be the sole masters of Scripture, even though they never study it throughout their lives, they arrogate to themselves the exclusive authority and make us increase by impudent words that the Pope cannot be mistaken in the field of faith, be he evil or good, but they cannot bring to this the slightest semblance of proof. »

Luther's criticism is the claim to a monopoly of interpretation claimed by the church. At a time when the world of publishing had barely emerged, what was at stake was knowledge of the biblical text. What annoyed Luther was the church's claim to interpret the bible; he did not agree with this method.

One of the first things Luther was to undertake was the translation into the vernacular of the Bible, which was in Aramaic for some parts, in ancient Greek for others and in Latin for a third; the challenge for Luther was not only to say and denounce the interpretation imposed by the church, but to combine theory with practice by proposing a translation of the Bible.

The Great Reformists and Luther in fact understood that behind the translation there was the issue of dissemination and the issue of access to the text, the church could no longer affirm certain precepts, individuals would have a different understanding.

This second wall is the criticism of the monopoly of interpretation, Luther was a very great translator making translation a major political issue.

« The third wall falls of its own accord if the first two fall, for if the Pope acts against Scripture, it is our duty to assist Scripture to rebuke him and compel him to obey, according to the word of Christ. »

The translation of the Bible will give us an understanding and direct access to the text which will allow us to contradict the interpretations of the church and to criticise the pope.

What is interesting about Luther is that he uses the Holy Scriptures as a basis for his support.

« They have no argument from Scripture to prove that it is only up to the Pope to convene or confirm a Council, except their own laws, which have no value when they do not harm the laws of God and Christianity. »

There is no text that challenges the power that the Pope has arrogated to himself, for this reason he translates and disseminates, reading people can become acquainted with the sacred text on their own.

Temporal authority and the extent to which it is to be obeyed[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Luther reaffirms the separation between temporal and spiritual authority, but it is above all in this important text that he takes a stand against the right of resistance with few exceptions.

« […] That's why I have to turn my efforts in another direction and say now what they shouldn't do. I hope that they will do as little as they have followed the above-mentioned writing, so that they may remain princes and not become Christians! For Almighty God has driven our princes mad, so much so that they think they can do and command whatever they want to their subjects (and the subjects are also mistaken if they believe that they have a duty to obey everything without reserve), so much so that they have gone so far as to command people to hand over the books, and to believe and practise according to their instructions. »

Luther here attacks the German nobility because they did not use their power or used it badly, the German princes did not know how to be Christian princes, it is a badly put in place power that creates a malaise between the population and the German princes.

This is another way of correcting the radical reading of his writings. Before writing his book "Against the looting and murderous gangs of peasants", he addressed himself to the nobility; he warned the nobility and urged them to pull themselves together in order to anticipate revolutions.

This is the first political work in which he warns Christian princes to behave with dignity and to be politically responsible.

« In the first place, we must give a solid foundation to the temporal law and the temporal sword, so that no one doubts that it is by God's will and ordinance that they exist in the world. »

If all power comes from God, challenging power implies challenging God, it is a theological justification for political power.

He goes on to assert that God is raised up for us by the doctrine of Christ. At the beginning of this text, there is basically a drawing of the theological foundations of Luther's politics.

This is the theological justification for Luther's political vision. This theological justification is based on the division of the world and the social order into two worlds: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world.

The kingdom of God includes Christians, but Luther is aware that the world is not composed only of Christians; non-Christians belong to another world that is not condemnable, but it is a social reality that is the kingdom of the world; the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world coexist.

The question arises for Luther, the reasoning being that he divides men into two worlds, those who belong to the kingdom of God and those who belong to the kingdom of the world.

For Luther, a good Christian would not need rules to frame him. Very prosaically Luther says that if we all lived under the kingdom of God, we would not need a legal framework to limit our actions.

The fact is," Luther notes, "that we are not perfect, there are good Christians, bad Christians, and for those who belong to the kingdom of the world, human laws are needed: the prince is there to be the 'ruler of the kingdom of the world', he is there to truly rule, to apply the law, to change it if necessary because the world is not ideal.

The fact is that we all belong to the kingdom of the world because man is a sinner, the definition of those who belong to the kingdom of the world.

« For since very few believe, and since only the minority behave in a Christian manner, not resisting evil or even doing evil themselves, God has created for others, alongside the Christian state and the kingdom of God, another kingdom, and has subjected them to the sword, so that, no matter how much they desire it, they may not act according to their evil nature, and so that, if they do, they may not do it without fear, nor may they do it quietly and successfully. »

The two important words are "evil nature", we are inveterate sinners and therefore the kingdom of God is an ideal kingdom ruled by a Christian Prince.

Faced with this kingdom of the world, are we allowed to resist under certain conditions?

For Luther, all power comes from God; to oppose power is to oppose God, so one does not oppose power.

« Christ does not say: You must not serve power or be subject to it, but "You must not resist evil". It is as if he were saying: Behave in such a way that you bear everything; for you must not need the power so that it helps you and serves you, whether it is useful or necessary; but on the contrary, it is you who must help and serve it, be useful and necessary to it. »

The principle of non-resistance is clearly being put in place. Kennedy said, "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

Basically, we can see very clearly, the principle of non-resistance based on the word of Christ is emerging.

« […] you ask whether, under these conditions, the Christian can also wield the temporal sword and punish the wicked, since the words of Christ [...] the sword cannot exist among Christians: therefore you cannot wield it against and among Christians, since they have no need of it. »

He asks whether the Christian can carry the sword, resist power; the Christian is there to serve God, serving God he cannot and must not resist political power.

« Please do not be so sacrilegious as to claim that a Christian cannot exercise what is the very work of God, his institution and his creation. Otherwise, you would also have to say that a Christian cannot eat, drink or marry, things that are also God's works and institutions. But if this is the work of God's creation, it is good, and good in such a way that everyone can make use of it in a Christian and God-pleasing way. »

This implies that princes must be good Christians.

« It would also be good and necessary that all the princes were good and true Christians. For the sword and power, as a special service of God, is more incumbent on Christians than on any other man on earth. Therefore you must hold the sword and power in as high esteem as the state of marriage or the work of the chams or the handicrafts, which have also been instituted by God. »

« For those who exercise power are the servants and workers of God, who chastises evil and protects good. However, everyone must be free to abstain from it when it is not necessary, just as one is free to marry or not to marry, to work the land or not, when it is not necessary. »

The principle that those who exercise power are servants and workers of God has two consequences, it is the reaffirmation of the idea of the Christian Prince, the holder of political power must defend Christian values.

First, princes must serve religious precepts, but the faithful must obey the prince because they are only servants of god and were put in place by god; second, Luther reaffirms the impossibility of resisting the prince; the only thing he tolerates is non-obedience, in only one case if the prince orders blasphemy or denial of the Christian religion is non-obedience tolerated for Luther.

Fundamentally, it must be remembered that Luther was very hostile to radical interpretations of his ideas and theories of political resistance.

What is happening to the theory of resistance? What becomes of Lutheranism?

Luther's enemies will compare the Reformation to the Black Death because Lutheranism spread significantly throughout Europe.

The spread of Lutheranism[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Religious situation in Central Europe in 1618, on the eve of the Thirty Years' War.

Luther will give rise to a number of disciples, Lutheranism will spread throughout Europe; this expansion has two important consequences in the political order:

The first important and reverse consequence of the second is that the princes, kings and monarchies of Europe will make a conservative reading of Lutheran theory, in other words, many princes and kings converted to Lutheranism and Protestantism will justify their power through Luther's writings. It is a monarchical and absolutist reading of Luther, it is a theological justification in Luther's doctrine of resistance.

The second political consequence of the expansion of Lutheranism is the opposite, one can also make a radical reading of Lutheranism, the radical reading was not to defend the theory of the right of resistance, but says that it is the duty of kings and princes to be good Christians, but if they are not good Christians then they must be overthrown.

Luther's theology can give rise to two different readings : an absolutist reading and a radical reading.

Which one has won? Which reading won out over the other?

It is essentially the radical reading that will prevail because the context of Europe will evolve in such a way that Protestants will feel a loss of power, will feel persecuted at times and will propose from 1530 to 1560 a radical reading of the Reformation and Lutheranism.

One man who was to play an important role in promoting this radical reading in defence of the reformed faith was John Calvin.

Calvin (1509-1564) and the theories of resistance[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Calvin will follow Luther to some extent, but will distance himself from him.

Biography[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Portrait of John Calvin (date unknown).

"Second Patriarch of the Protestant Reformation" according to Bossuet, Jean Calvin was born in Noyon in Picardy (France) on 10 July 1509 into a well-to-do family.

His father, a lawyer from a family of craftsmen, was a notable who, in addition to being a municipal clerk, held a number of positions in the service of the bishop and the cathedral chapter. As a result, John Calvin received a solid education as well as a complete religious upbringing, as his father had intended him to pursue either a legal or an ecclesiastical career.

With this in mind, after receiving rudimentary grammar and rhetoric in his native town, he was sent to Paris in 1523, first to Collège de la Marche (1523-1524), where he took lessons from Mathurin Cordier (1479-1564), then to Collège Montaigu (1524-1528), soon earning the rank of Master of Arts, along with further ecclesiastical benefits at Noyon.

He soon completed his early philological training with a solid legal education at the Universities of Orléans (1528-1529) and Bourges (1529-1530) with the masters of legal humanism Pierre de l'Estoile (1480-1537) and André Alciat (1492-1550), obtaining his licence and then his doctorate in law.

Although he came into contact with the German humanist Melchior Wolmar (1497-1561), who sought to win him over to Lutheranism, he nevertheless continued his philological training in Paris, where he attended the Collège de France of the Hellenists Guillaume Budé (1467-1540) and Pierre Danès (1497-1579), and published a scholarly commentary on "De Clementia" by Sénèque in 1532.

It was the following year that he rallied to the evangelical humanist and reformist circles in Paris, which took shape in his collaboration with the Sermon of All Saints' Day of the Rector of Nicolas Cop University, favourable to Lutheran theses (1533), and then especially in his conversion to the new faith. In May 1534, he began a new itinerant existence in the service of his faith.

After numerous peregrinations linked to the first persecutions in France, this existence will bring him to Basel, where he will publish the first edition of his "Institution of the Christian Religion" in 1536, and then to Geneva where he will remain Guillaume Farel (1489-1565) (July 1536).

It was in this city, recently (May 1536) rallied to the new faith, that he would henceforth carry out his reformist work. Although he initially met with strong opposition, which led to his exile with Farel (April 1538) and his exile to Strasbourg, where he became friends with Martin Bucer (1491-1551), he was soon recalled by the Geneva authorities (autumn 1540), returning definitively to the city with which he associated his name in September 1541.

Since then, he definitively reorganised his Church (Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541)) and reformed its legal order (Edict of the Lieutenant (1542) and Civil Edict (1568)) and political (Political Edicts (1543)) as well as its moral order (Sumptuary Ordinances (1558, 1564)), and its school organisation (Order of the College and Academy (1559)).

While Calvin will no doubt still have to fight the opponents of his reforms in Geneva itself, in the moral as well as in the doctrinal order (Affaires Sébastien Castellion (1543), Jérôme Bolsec (1551) and Michel Servet (1553)), his triumph was total from 1555 onwards, a turning point from which the Councils were entirely acquired and the magistrates, devoted to the ministers (pastors), worked to transform Geneva from a straw mattress City of fairs into a fundamentalist Republic governed by the sole Word of God, and into a true "Protestant Rome".

Calvin, in correspondence with his co-religionists from all over Europe, continued his work as a pastor and doctor, working on successive reeditions of his Christian Institution as well as his Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments; in doing so, he soon made Geneva the "Seminary of the Reformed Churches of France" and the metropolis of Protestantism.

Leaving a considerable body of work consisting of more than fifty volumes, Calvin died on May 27, 1564, not without having provided for his succession at the head of the Venerable Company of Pastors, in the person of the Rector of the Academy, the Burgundian Théodore de Bèze (1519-1605).

Calvin takes up Luther's theory, and more precisely the question of how he offers us this radical reading and how he defends the right of resistance.

Theology of Calvin[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

John Calvin at the age of 53. Engraving by René Boyvin.

Calvin's early writings stress the need to obey political authority. He supported a clear separation between state and church, but above all he stressed the need potestas a deo to respect the power willed by God.

A careful reading of Calvin shows that he becomes increasingly ambiguous: While he basically agrees with Luther in his distrust of resistance in politics, he introduces a whole series of exceptions into his work. For Luther, the only exception is if the prince forces him to blaspheme or deny his faith.

Calvin expands these exceptions, emptying the prince of non-resistance and turning it into a principle of resistance. Gradually he will present cases in which magistrates can act, intervene on behalf of the body politic.

Calvin is hostile to direct intervention by the body politic; however, although the body politic cannot basically rule by itself, he can mandate magistrates who can intervene with the political power, there is very clearly a vision and a broadening of the exceptions, the people cannot resist, but mandate people to do so or broaden the spectrum of possibilities.

This is the very clear beginning of a justification of political resistance if this resistance is made by legitimate and legitimate magistrates.

Calvin is really going to argue a thesis that has consequences in resistance: the question that occupies political philosophers is the following: Calvin read his classics of political philosophy and the works that reflect on the crucial question of who holds the imperium? Imperium is commonly translated as sovereignty. Who holds sovereignty?

In Calvin's day, this debate about who holds the imperium, about the ability to hold the power to make and break the law, to enforce the law, who holds that sovereign power? Calvin is interested in this and is fiercely debated; the answer will somehow oblige him to cut a hole in it, or at least to open up even more of the breach in the right of resistance.

To the question of who holds the imperium, Calvin will answer that it is the body politic that holds the imperium, and he delegates it to magistrates, to a prince. Delegation also means a break in this delegation, in other words we can decide not to delegate this power any more; if we delegate the power under certain conditions and they are not respected, we can take back the power.

Calvin in the name of an imperium held by a delegated political body will not only defend a right of resistance and in some cases an obligation of resistance, especially when the prince and magistrates betray and unjustly violate the contractual conditions given to them. By asserting that the body politic and the magistrates hold the imperium will very clearly nurture the possibility of resisting the prince.

One must be careful because when one reads Calvin carefully one never sees a very clear statement of the cases in which one must resist, this is a time when censorship exists, a certain terminology must be used. Calvin in an often metaphorical language defends in some cases the right of resistance.

Calvin gives political power, the body politic and the judiciary significant power; he is not a thurifer, he does not defend the right of resistance in every case, but in far more cases than Luther defended.

We had seen that John Calvin had to some extent taken up Luther's reticence about the right of resistance, and that he had gradually modified his point of view and opened up loopholes, exceptions that allowed and justified a form of resistance through the intermediary of the magistrates. If in Calvin's discourse omni potestas a deo and resistance is to be condemned, in fact it opens up the possibility for resistance to take place not directly by the body politic, but through the intermediary of higher magistrates.

Calvin has the idea that ideally resistance and disobedience are not a useful thing and a continuing process, but nevertheless, we can see a development in his discourse, he opens up this possibility. Calvin asserts himself as a priori opposed to the right of resistance at the beginning of his writings, and very soon he will open the possibility to resistance suggesting a series of exceptions making resistance and civil disobedience possible especially in the case of tyranny. This shift and this tension, which is also a contradiction in itself, is clearly visible. On the one hand, he does not wish to open the door to revolt in the tradition of Luther, but on the other hand Calvin is aware that one cannot endure everything.

Institution of the Christian religion[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Cover of the latest edition of the 'Institution of the Christian Religion' which summarises its theology.

He explains this in a text from 1536 entitled "Institution of the Christian religion"; he questions in chapter XX what civil government is. What does he mean by civil government? What is the scope of the government's powers? Can it be resisted and disobeyed?

« We must now turn our attention to the second, which is responsible for establishing only civil justice and reforming social morality. If this subject seems far removed from the theology and faith that I deal with, further developments will show, however, that I am right to approach it together with this doctrine. Above all, because today there are violent anarchists who would like to overthrow the order in the city, even though it is established by God. On the other hand, those who flatter the rulers, by making an excessive apology for power, almost make them play at being gods. »

The title the differences between civil and spiritual government show that Calvin is in line with Luther's division of the world into the civil and spiritual worlds.

There is an adherence to Luther's philosophy, but although he is Luther's descendant, he distances himself on one point.

« We must now turn our attention to the second, which is responsible for establishing only civil justice and reforming social morality. If this subject seems far removed from the theology and faith that I deal with, further developments will show, however, that I am right to approach it together with this doctrine. Above all, because today there are violent anarchists who would like to overthrow the order in the city, even though it is established by God. »

It is a criticism of the Protestant radicals who made a radical reading of Luther's theses by using Luther's political theology to overthrow the rulers of Europe. Calvin is a thought of order in the good sense of the word, omni potestas a deo.

« On the other hand, those who flatter the rulers, by making an inordinate apology for power, almost make them play at being gods. »

On the one hand, he denounced violent anarchists and all those who flattered princes and kings; on the other, Luther had a certain tolerance for political power; Calvin tried to find a middle way between those who held power and those who wanted to overthrow everything. There is a middle way that is possible.

Augustine in controversy with heretics.

It takes up the arguments of Luther and Saint Augustine, the two worlds must work in convergence.

« The spiritual kingdom gives us, already on earth, a foretaste of ineffable and eternal happiness. The purpose of the temporal regime of government is, as long as we live in human society, to watch over and provide for the outward series of God, to watch over pure doctrine and religion, to protect the welfare of the Church, to help us observe the necessary equity, to promote civil justice in the field of morals, for the common peace and to maintain law and order for the good of all. »

There is a definition of "purposes of the state", but there is a Calvinian definition and rephrases on purposes of the state.

From paragraph three on, the responsibility of the civil government one gets the feeling that Calvin is not at all favourable to any form of resistance, one must not change the established order, omni potestas a deo.

« For the time being, we only wish to point out that to reject it is inhumanly barbaric, since it is as necessary for human beings as bread, water, sunlight and air, and its function is even greater (...) In short, it ensures the public exercise of religion among Christians and the maintenance of good relations among all. »

This chapter III is a definition of the very existence of the government and a marked reluctance for any form of resistance.

Subchapters V, VI governments are the servant of civil justice, VII and VIII assert the importance of government for living together, but the near impossibility for individuals to resist government in any case in an exaggerated way.

He opens a parenthesis from Chapter VIII where he paints a non-monarchical vision of power : Almost like Machiavelli's preference for the aristocratic form - according to Plato the aristocrat is the aristocracy of knowledge - Calvin uses the term aristocratic government.

Calvin did not believe in the monarchical system as such, but believed in the government of many who would rule the city for the good of all. It is easy to see that there are hints of mechanisms that call for Machiavelli and the Florentine, even Venetian, vision of the executive.

« If one compares these three categories of government that I have presented, the second, government by a small number of people who ensure the freedom of the people, seems to me preferable, not in itself, but because it does not often happen - it is even a miracle - that kings behave in such a way that their will never deviates from fairness and righteousness. »

It is a clear and firm criticism of the monarchy, the regime of kings is not a regime where it is a miracle that righteousness and justice can reign, it aims at the power of the King of France; it takes refuge in Geneva, making it the bastion of French-speaking Protestantism. Machiavelli wouldn't have said otherwise with the idea of government of a few.

« In fact, the best government is one where there is a well-tempered freedom that is destined to last for a long time (...) it will be on their part a thought that is not only crazy and useless, but bad and fruitless. »

Resistance is a crazy and fruitless thought, but the government of a few is a good thing.

In sub-paragraph 22, "Respect for the authorities", there is the question of the duty to resist.

« The first duty of the subjects towards their superiors is to hold their functions in high esteem, recognising them as given by God, and for this reason manifesting to the authorities the honour and respect due to those who are lieutenants and representatives of God. »

Political authority represents god, so it is extremely difficult to resist, and this reluctance to resist continues to be affirmed in Chapter XXIII.

Calvin should not be made a thinker of divine right, he separates political power from god's power, yet political power holds some of its power from god's power.

When the Sun King (Louis XIV) says that he holds his power as god and that he bases his power politically in the very existence of god, it is a different approach. Calvin does not say that the governing elite holds its political power as god. The king of France justifies his plique power with a pseudo power of divine right, but for Calvin the ruler does not hold his power by divine right, but by the men who have entrusted him with it, he is somehow adoubled and imbued with the spirit of god who wanted him to be the head of state.

For Calvin all power comes from God, and thus all political power derives in some way from the legitimacy of God's will. The kings of France who would later tell them that they held their authority by divine right was a somewhat different approach, since all their legitimacy in their view and in any circumstances rested on God's will.

Calvin does not want a politician to be able to do anything and everything in the name of God. The monarchies of divine right in the early 17th and 18th centuries justified their political authority in the name of divine right by the idea that they held the power of God.

Calvin was aware of the dangers of the precept omni potestas a deo. For Calvin, all power comes from God, but not every politician can do everything in the name of God, nor can he justify his political action or any political action in the name of God. For monarchies of divine right, all power comes from God and they can do everything because all power comes from God.

It is the great difference with Calvin that does not justify any action in the name of God, the cursor is not in the same place, it is the use of this principle that is different, the instrumentalization of this principle is different by Calvin and those who claim divine right.

In other words, Calvin makes god the theological basis of political power, whereas the king of France makes the political basis of theological power; Calvin does not want political power and authority to justify its power by the existence of God, whereas the French monarchies justified their political action by the fact that they held their power through god.

There is something of God's will in every political authority, but this does not justify that it can do everything.

« It follows something else: honouring and respecting the authorities in this way, we must obey them by observing their orders, either by paying taxes, or by taking on a task that is part of the common defence, or by obeying any other order (...) Let no one be mistaken about this. Since one cannot resist rulers without resisting God, if it seems possible to resist a weak government without authority, let us be careful because God is strong and armed enough to punish contempt for his ordinances. Moreover, in this obedience I include the measure that private citizens must have in public affairs (...) I mean that individuals do not have to act without an intermediary. »

We must obey the political authority and the rulers, we must not resist them without an intermediary. Somehow it shows that non-resistance has gone from non-resistance to non-resistance without an intermediary, which turns the problem around. This will allow him to clearly recognise the possibility of resistance, he turns the argument of non-resistance on its head, but not under any conditions.

Calvin says that all power comes from God, it is madness to resist political authorities, he adds that it is madness to resist without intermediaries: he opens the door to the possibility of resistance, but not under any conditions.

In sub-chapter XXXI - title; Calvin is confronted with the question of whether there are no situations in which one must resist, he cannot conclude that one can never resist.

As he wants to frame resistance, he is hostile to resistance, but we can see that he is not hostile to it, but he wants to frame resistance by using intermediaries.

« Indeed, if there were, in our time, magistrates established in defence of the people to curb the excessive ambition or freedom of kings - as there were in ancient times among the Spartans with their ephors, among the Romans with their popular defenders and among the Athenians with their demarcations and, as today in every kingdom when the three states are assembled - I would not forbid them at all to oppose and resist the intemperance or cruelty of kings in the exercise of their office. I even think that, if they saw how the kings abusively mistreated the poor people and acted as if this were not the case, they should be accused of perjury and treason against the freedom of the people, when they should have recognised that they were ordained the protectors of it by the will of God. »

Calvin opened the door under certain conditions to resistance to the king and especially to certain kings who abused their power and authority. Resistance is possible, but under certain conditions. Kings who were not instituted by God but whose power rests on theological foundations have betrayed God's will by behaving abusively; as such, the adage omni potestas a deo no longer applies.

In subchapter XXXIII The limits of our obedience to men we must remember :

« If they come to command us to do things against the Lord, we must not put up with it. We must have no regard for the dignity of superiors, which we respect, when it is subject to the power of God, which is the only true power above all others. »

This argument is a response to Luther's argument that it is resistance in the case of blasphemy or in the case of a political decision that invites us to renounce and deny our faith. In this text Calvin tries to hold a middle position between the need to obey political authority and the impossibility of obeying in all circumstances, he tries to place himself "on Luther's left".

He believes that Luther's dogma of non-resistance has no future and is erroneous, but he does not want to go as far as radical anarchists go.

"Yes" to the principle of resistance insofar as it is framed through intermediaries who are magistrates, "no" to revolt at all costs and to resistance in all circumstances.

Calvin is between Luther and the last group of Protestants who will say "yes" to resistance in any circumstance, the monarchomaques. Since Luther there has been a shift towards the right of resistance which is not yet affirmed as a right, but in Calvin as a possibility, political resistance will become a right with the third wave of reformers who will make resistance a real right, the monarchomachs.

The Monarchomachs[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

If we translate the term monarchomach it is literally "who is against magistrates". Monarchomachs will play an important role in defining the right of resistance that is so important in the concept of the state. If Luther and Calvin were more "lukewarm", if Calvin opened the possibility for resistance and civil disobedience, it is up to the monarchomachs to put forward a real political theory of resistance.

Why? Why is it that in the 1570s theories of resistance emerged?

There are contextual reasons: Luther wrote in 1520 - 1523, Calvin between 1520 - 1536, there are a number of events in the context that explains the turn and radicalisation of the Protestants; it is the context of the wars of religion.

From 1540 onwards in Europe, in the Holy Roman Empire of Germany, in France and to some extent in England, there were authentic wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants.

Representatives of the German estates at the Augsburg conference discuss the possibilities of a religious peace.

The reformed had to defend their faith, so they became politically radicalised; the religious wars in Germany were very important and ended in 1555, almost 20 years after the publication of Calvin's book, the Holy Roman Empire, which experienced these religious wars in a significant way, saw peace arrive in Augsburg, which sealed the fate of the Holy Roman Empire between the Protestant and Catholic states according to the principle "Cujus regio, ejus religio" which means "to each kingdom its own religion", this was tantamount to denouncing the following principle: one adopts the religion of the prince of the state in which one lives.

This is a confessional division in the Augsburg peace of 1555.

Like the Holy Roman Empire, England also experienced clashes between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics from 1535 onwards; things calmed down from 1547 onwards and especially after the advent of Elizabeth I of England, who from the 1560s onwards appeased and protected Protestants and gave them rights.

From 1555 and 1560, Germany and England were more or less pacified with regard to the religious wars; an arrangement was made to live together and live one's faith.

The country that did not reach an agreement was France, which entered into a religious war from 1540, religious wars raged in France for 30 - 40 years, some regions came under the political domination of Protestants, others remained faithful to Catholicism.

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre played an essential role in the emergence of monarchical theses.

We must remember the date of 1572, which is the date of the St Barthélémy massacre where Protestant dignitaries were assassinated by Catholic dignitaries, this massacre was to really panic the Protestant world, it is not for nothing that the monarchical works we are about to see were published.

It is necessary to resist the French monarchy which does not want to leave any rights to the Protestants, it is necessary to resist, starting from a religious resistance the monarchomacs will propose a political resistance. The monarchomachs in France from 1560 after the St Bartholomew's Day massacre - the French reformed - woke up and fought for their survival.

The monarchomacs who are theorists of the right of resistance are François Hotman who published in 1573, one year after Saint Barthélémy, "Franco-Gallia", Theodore de Bèze who published in 1574 "Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets", in 1579 it is supposed that it is a text signed by Junius Brutus and Hubert Languet who published a pamphlet entitled "Défense de la liberté contre les tyrants" (Defence of freedom against tyrants). Whether it was the Franco-Gallia, Du droit des magistrats sur leurs sujets and Défense de la liberté contre les tyrants, marked the thought of the monarchomachs and advanced the theory of the right of resistance..

The monarchomachs are radical reformed Protestants who want to defend the law.

The first remark is that these treaties do not have a democratic finality, we should not make the monarchomachs the first democrats of modern times, it is not a question of defending the sovereignty of the people, it is above all a question of defending the right to existence of the reformed faith and Protestantism, it is a question of religious survival, they have no political ambitions other than to defend the reformed religion.

It is a spiritual conflict that motivates the monarchs, not a political conflict; their intentions are not a priori political.

When they won their case with the Edict of Nantes of 1598, their claims faded because they had important religious guarantees; their motivation was essentially religious and not political, which does not mean that their theory will be instrumentalized in politics.

The second remark is that a certain number of ideas can be found among the monarchs:

  • they are all partisans of the idea that the government, whether it is a king or several people, cannot do everything, the government has made a contract with the governed; for the monarchomachs they have a vision of political power that is contractualized, the prince cannot do everything religiously and politically, he is bound by a contract that he has made with his governed.
  • a sovereign, prince, unworthy king who does not respect the terms of the contract, that is to say respect, justice and equity, can be deposed or overthrown; this idea is the possible resistance, some will even go as far as defending, like Junius Brutus, the idea that one can kill a king who does not respect a certain number of fundamental rules and who becomes a tyrant, they are partisans of tyrannicide.
  • Fundamentally, they base their arguments on the scholastic tradition. There are many scholastic arguments, that is to say, arguments that emphasise the importance of institutions and constitutions in the balance of power much more than on the virtues and qualities of rulers. Monarchomachists are not so much interested in whether a government has fears or not, but they are interested in creating a system that guarantees rights. Many of their arguments will be taken from 1648 onwards for the whole issue of minority rights, they will draw arguments that aim to guarantee constitutional rights to minorities.

The third remark is that basically they have a very traditional view of the word "people". In other words, the people, for a monarchomaque, is taken as a whole as a political body, as a legal person. It is a kind of community. In no case when a monarchomachist speaks of people, he thinks of autonomous individuals who think of themselves as a people.

François Hotman - Franco-Gallia, 1573[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

François Hotman.

There are four arguments that are indicative of the constitutional position of the monarchomachs.

When Hotman published "Franco-Gallia", a work that was a great success, he went back to the history of France to go against the idea that the king holds all the powers, when we read the French constitution we realize that the Frankish monarchy was elective, elected by bodies of the state, the dimension of the election was lost with time; the French monarchy must be based on the elective principle.

The second argument is that royal power in France has always been limited by a Public Council that represents the different elements of the kingdom's population, the States General. Hotman says that the king claims to have all the powers, but first of all the constitution does not say so and in the past there were institutions that limited the king's power.

The third argument is that when you read the French constitution, which at the time were the fundamental laws of the kingdom, you realise that the Public Council held the imperium, the real sovereign power, sovereignty was in fact not held by the king alone: the king's power was limited.

The fourth argument is that, basically, the king could not take important decisions about taxes, foreign policy, etc. without the approval of this Public Council; the picture Hotman paints is one that provoked a lot of criticism at the time from supporters of the law and centralised, monarchical power.

It proposes a radically different reading of the laws that the royal jurists were making. His work will make a lot of noise, it will challenge the authority of the king.

Basically, Hotman developed a theory of the supremacy of the intermediate body, which is in a way the ancestor of the theory of popular sovereignty.

To say that the king does not have sovereignty alone, but that it is within a council, an "assembly" that delegates some of its powers to the king is a new and innovative idea, especially a radical idea that runs counter to the dominant ideology of the French monarchy.

The king does not have all the powers and the king cannot do everything because the monarchy at the beginning was a monarchy limited in its power.

Théodore de Bèze - On the law of magistrates on their subjects, 1574[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This text is a development of Calvin's draft on the right of resistance; in 1574 he published the magistrates' law, which was the first treatise defining the conditions for exercising the right of resistance.

His work is an authentic treatise on resistance, Theodore de Bèze is marked by Hotman.

Theodore de Bèze's starting point is first of all the affirmation that one must obey God and that all power comes from God, he turns this adage around.

If all power comes from God, this means that there are circumstances in which man must disobey human law in the very name of his fidelity to God; if all power comes from God, there are cases or situations in which man must disobey not divine law but human law. It is because God holds power that one can disobey a human power, one simply cannot disobey and resist it in any way.

His treatise on resistance is extremely marked, he defends two ideas that take up the theory of the contract in particular: firstly, there is a first idea that the tyrant by usurpation must be deposed, he distinguishes two forms of tyranny, he can be deposed and one must resist the legitimate tyrant, that is to say the one who has legitimately inherited the throne, but becomes a tyrant in the very exercise of power.

In France, the king's son succeeds the king, the legitimate tyrant is a tyrant who is legitimate in the sense that he has the right to reign, but becomes a tyrant in the very exercise of power.

Up to him a tyrant by usurpation could be deposed, but what is new with De Bèze is that a legitimately crowned king can also be deposed and can be resisted.

The second idea is that he cannot be resisted in any way, in Theodore de Bèze the intermediaries are the lower magistrates.

Théodore de Bèze is in favour of political resistance through the intermediary of the lower magistrates.

« This is therefore the origin of the republics and Potentates reported for good reason to God, who is not the author of all good. Homer's words were congealed and he wanted to put an end to this, calling the infant kings of Jupiter and shepherds of the peoples. »

From this point of view De Bèze is quite classical, all power comes from God. Nevertheless, he started his chapter with an important sentence.

« therefore that the peoples are not created for magistrates, but magistrates for the peoples. »

The roles must not be reversed, kings are there to serve the body politic and not the other way round, magistrates have duties towards the body politic.

« Everyone therefore confesses, when it comes to the duty of magistrates, that they can be admonished, or even, if need be, frankly reprimanded when they go astray from their office. But if it is a question of repressing or chastening, according to their own merits, the tyrants who are all manifest, then there are some who so recommend patience and prayers to God, that they call seditious, and condemn as false Christians all those who present their collars. »

It is a barely veiled criticism of Luther, he criticizes all those who want to resist or complain, some recommend patience and prayer to the point of saying that those who want to resist are wrong.

« This is a very slippery passage, and yet I would again ask the readers to remember what I said a little earlier, at the end not to draw the wrong conclusions from what I have to say on this point. I therefore praise Christian patience as a very recomendable virtue among other virtues, and recognise that it is necessary to encourage men in it, as being the one that takes away the prize of eternal bliss. I detest seditions and all confusion, as horrible monsters (...) I deny that for all this it is not lawful for oppressed peoples to use just remedies in conjunction with repentance and repentance; and these are the reasons on which I base myself. »

It is not true that we cannot resist, there are cases where we can resist and where we must resist.

On the other hand, the case and the king who has become a tyrant in the very exercise of his power, there are clearly cases where it is necessary and a duty to resist; one cannot simply take to the streets, De Bèze is a thought of order, which is why it is necessary to have recourse to intermediate magistrates who are the transmission belt between the political power and the body politic.

What is the duty of the submissive to the legitimate sovereign has become an overt tyrant, one must resort to the subordinate and inferior magistrates. It is the magistrates who are truly the receptacle of the people's resistance.

« I come now to the lower Magistrates, who are, as it were, in a subordinate degree, between the sovereign of the house of a King, and more likely to assign to a King than to a King's Kingdom, but those who hold public offices and the State, either in connection with the administration of Justice, or because of war, call for this cause in a monarchy Officers of the Crown, and more likely to assign to the King's Kingdom than to the King, being these two quite different things. »

The lower magistrate is the officer of the crown, it is the magistrate who represents the king, it is the representative of the king, it is not the prince or the high nobility, but it is a lower nobility and especially people who hold an important political position and represent the crown.

De Bèze goes further, he asserts an essential idea: if the lower magistrates are the channel through which the body politic can complain and resist the king's decisions, they are so because they are custodians of part of the sovereignty.

« they remain in their estates as they are, just as sovereignty also remains in its entirety (...) But from a cost, then that these inferior officers of the kingdom have received, by virtue of their sovereignty, the observation and maintenance of the ties between those who have been appointed to them, to which they are obliged by reason of the sage (from whom they cannot absolve them from the coupe of the one, (Who of the King became Tyrant, and manifestly transgresses the conditions under which he was received as King and under which he was sworn) is it not reasonable, by every divine and human right, that something should be permitted to such inferiors Magistrates for the duty of their oath and conversation of laws, more than to those who are at all deprived and without charge? »

Since they have a parcel of sovereignty, don't they have a role to play?

« I therefore say that, if they are reduced to such and such a necessity, they are bound (by force of arms if possible) to provide for the salvation of those in their charge against a manifest Tyranny. »

In certain circumstances even by the use of arms, lower or subordinate magistrates have a duty, even by the use of arms, to resist or even to lay down the legitimate tyrant, admittedly at first, but who gradually drifts away and whose power gradually becomes arbitrary and abusive.

The right to resist is recognised and even becomes a duty to resist for these inferior magistrates.

One author will go so far as to say that the right of resistance is a sacred right even if it costs the tyrant his life, another will say that one can kill the tyrant who takes advantage of the rules through arbitrariness, that is the last of the monarchomachs.

Theodore de Bèze had toppled and opened the way for the right of resistance by making it a duty where individuals go through lower magistrates to resist.

Luther clearly said no to resistance in politics, for Calvin in some cases only by opening the door to a series of exceptions, de Bèze said that resistance had to be resisted under specific conditions.

Junius Brutus' 1579 book Defending Freedom from Tyrants provides an understanding of the radical break in the right of resistance; this book is very important.

Junius Brutus - Defence of freedom against tyrants, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 1579[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This is the most popular work, the one that has had an echo as well, if not greater, than de Bèze's 1574 work of theory entitled On the Right of Magistrates over their Subjects. This work has been edited and republished 23 times, translated into seven languages, but above all it will be republished in vernacular languages such as English seven times, French six times, and German three times.

It is an anonymous pamphlet entitled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus, which is in its form a classical work qualified as scholastic, it asks questions and gives very methodical answers; the monarchomach who is the author, either Hubert Languet or Du Plessis-Mornay, the Protestant who wrote it, adopts a very scholastic formula in the very construction of his pamphlet.

There are four such questions:

  • Do subjects have to obey a prince who orders something that goes against God's laws? Luther had already asked himself this question by deciding in the negative, but it is a question that monarchomachs ask themselves as well, and all supporters of reform will ask themselves this question.
  • Is it legitimate to resist a prince who deviates from the law of god?
  • Is it legitimate to resist a prince who oppresses the body politic or who shows authority and authoritarianism?
  • Can neighbouring monarchs come to the rescue of subjects and individuals tyrannized in their own country?

The answers are "no", "yes", "yes", "yes".

"No' to the first question, Junius Brutus is in the Lutheran and Calvinist tradition, 'yes' it is legitimate to resist a principle that deviates from God's law, 'yes' for Junius Brutus very clearly, and for the last question the answer is 'yes'.

The most interesting part of these questions is the last two more precisely; to ask the question and to say that it is legitimate to resist a prince who oppresses the state, and without mentioning a prince who violates the laws of God, shows that the theory of resistance and the principle of resistance in politics is a secular vision.

It is the first time in the history of philosophy and especially political philosophy that a secular theory does not justify resistance from the point of view of violating divine laws, but says that if I am not respected as a being it is possible to resist power.

To affirm this secular view, the word consent must be stressed; the monarchomach who writes this text defends a secular view of resistance and a view of political authority that is based on the consent of the body politic.

In other words, it is very clearly stated that a monarch is at the service of the political body whose power he holds, in a way the political body, the monarch is only the representative of the political body that has delegated power to him.

This view is important because for the first time in the history of thought there are actually political and legal theorists who affirm that the supreme political authority does not hold its power by any heredity, but holds its power above all by the consent of the political body that has delegated that power to it.

Imperium, or sovereignty, is not held by the monarchy, but by the political body that actually delegates the exercise of this sovereignty to the monarch.

Quite logically, the conclusion is indisputable: if the delegation of power is abused, then the one who inherited it can be killed; this text is an apology for the tyrannicide of political authority that has become a tyrant that can be eliminated by virtue of the founding principle of consent.

Junius Brutus moves from a right of resistance to a duty of resistance, it is an innovative work.

The fourth question opens the door to the internationalisation of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, to internationalise the struggle of the Calvinists who have to call on Protestant monarchs who could help them.

The two great powers in Europe in 1579 were England and the United Provinces freed from the Spanish yoke, which had become independent; the argument was very clear that if French Protestants were subject to arbitrary rule, it was their duty to call on a Protestant prince to help them.

« We have shown here that it is God who influences the Kings, who elects them, who gives them kingdoms. Now we say that it is the people who establish the kings, who put the kings in their hands, who put their fetters in their hands, and who by festive festivities approve their election. »

If all power comes from God, kings derive their power only from the body politic and by the consent of the people.

« Then from the confluence of all the pleople, Saul, known as the hiftoire, was named King. »

Saint Paul owes his appointment to the consent of the body politic.

« And that there never was a man, who was born with the crown on his head, & the sceptre in his hand, that no one can be king by faith nor rule without a people: & that on the contrary the people can be people fans king, & that it was a long time before there were kings, that all kings were first established by the people. »

It's a "pseudo-revolutionary" discourse, it's a sure thing that every king was established by the people.

« Now, what we say of all the people universally must also be understood, as was said in the second Question, by those who in any kingdom or city legitimately represent the body of the people, & who ordinarily call the Officers of the kingdom (...) the Officers of the kingdom, receiving their authority from the people, in the general assembly of the States. »

There is the idea of representation in politics that is affirmed here; the legitimate representatives of the body of the people are the officers of the people.

There is the draft of the idea of political representation:

« If the prince pursues, & does not care about the various admonitions which will have been made to him, then he is guilty of tyranny, & can one practice against him all that the law & a just violation permit against a tyrant. »

There is the affirmation of the right and duty of resistance.

« Further, we have proved that all Kings receive their Royal dignity from the hand of the people: that every people considered in one body is above & greater than the King: that the King is so much only first sovereign governor & servant of the Kingdom, whose master & true Lord is only the people. »

The sovereign is the people and because he is sovereign he can depose and kill the usurping king; all this vision is explained on pages 210, 211 and 212 where Junius Brutus will justify the need to kill the tyrant king. The sovereignty of the people is delegated in the person of the monarch who holds his power only by consent, which Rousseau calls the popular will.

This last monarchomach pamphlet had colossal repercussions, and with it ends the vast reflection since Luther on the conditions of resistance in politics.

With Junius Brutus ends the most radical vision of the right of resistance which has become a duty of resistance. The monarchomachs paved the way for a shift in the very idea of sovereignty; for Junius Brutus to say that kings hold the power of the will of the people is a capital and fundamental overthrow of political power. It is a more radical and ascending vision of power that is taking shape and which, together with the monarchomachs, and more precisely Theodore de Bèze and Junius Brutus, is imposing itself.

These works were to mark the minds causing a jolt in the conceptual order; it was up to one man to take back the reins and clarify this notion of sovereignty which had completely left royal power in order to find itself in the body politic, and that man was Jean Bodin.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  • Teisseyre Charles. Le prince chrétien aux XVe et XVIe siècle, à travers les représentations de Charlemagne et de Saint Louis. In: Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur public. 8e congrès, Tours, 1977. L'historiographie en Occident du Ve au XVe siècle. pp. 409-414.
  • Vindiciae contra tyrannos. (2016, mars 3). Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Page consultée le 09:11, avril 4, 2016 à partir de http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos&oldid=123930726.
  • Paul-Alexis Mellet. Les Traités Monarchomaques. Confusion des temps, résistance armée et monarchie parfaite (vers 1560-vers 1600).. Genève, Droz, pp.568, 2007, Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 434, 978-2-600-01139-6.
  • Belmessous, S. (2014). THE PARADOX OF AN EMPIRE BY TREATY. Empire by Treaty: Negotiating European Expansion, 1600-1900, 1.
  • Murray, A. H. (1956). Franco-Gallia of Francois Hotoman, The. Butterworths S. Afr. L. Rev., 100.
  • Johnston, R. P. (2005). Jean Jacques Burlamaqui and the theory of social contract. Historia Constitucional, (6), 331-374.
  • “How Do People Rebel? Mechanisms of Insurgent Alliance Formation.” The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/home/research/research-news.html/_/news/research/2018/how-do-people-rebel-mechanisms-o
  • BBC. (2018). The Thirty Years War, Germany, The Invention of... - BBC Radio 4. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015c342 [Accessed 7 Aug. 2018].
  • Université de Genève. “Calvin - Histoire Et Réception D'une Réforme.” Coursera, https://www.coursera.org/learn/calvin#about

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. Alexis Keller - Wikipedia
  2. Alexis Keller - Faculté de droit - UNIGE
  3. Alexis Keller | International Center for Transitional Justice
  4. Rougemont (de), Denis. “Luther Et La Liberté (À Propos Du Traité Du Serf Arbitre).” Luther Et La Liberté (À Propos Du Traité Du Serf Arbitre)&;(Avril 1937);Foi Et Vie; Rougemont 2.0, Foi Et Vie (1928-1977), 1937, https://www.unige.ch/rougemont/articles/fv/193704.