ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about the history and political ideas of Melanchthon.
History of Melanchthon:
Philip Melanchthon was one of the trusted and beloved disciples of Luther. But intellectually and temperamentally he was opposite to his master. Luther was rough, aggressive and fearless.
On the contrary, Melanchthon was refined, conciliatory and timid. He had developed a deep sense of humanistic spirit. Melanchthon had a great devotion and respect for classical learning, antiquity and, finally, Aristotelian ethics and politics. Aristotelian Philosophy could not create any positive impact on Luther.
In spite of these differences the two reformers had certain similarities. Both suffered from inconsistency of thought. Melanchthon and Luther started their agitation on the basis of teachings of the Bible as the starting point. That is, agitation was based on scriptures. Both attacked papacy vehemently and held the church responsible for the evils of society.
Melanchthon, like Luther, believed that without continuous agitation and other forceful means the papacy— the chief source of evils—could not be changed or amended. Luther wanted to cut the wings of the church and his disciple followed him.
Melanchthon, like Luther, opposed the monastic ideals as incompatible with the unity and equality of believers in a Christian Commonwealth. Melanchthon denied political power to the Pope. Both Luther and Melanchthon were nationalist leaders.
Unity of the nation and peace were of prime considerations to both. Melanchthon once said “deliberate disobedience against the worldly authority, and against true or reasonable laws, is deadly sin, sin which God punishes with eternal damnation if we obstinately continue in it”.
Political Ideas of Melanchthon:
1. Natural Right and Natural Law:
Melanchthon’s theological and political system is based on his conception of natural law as well as natural right. But there is hardly any fundamental difference between the two. According to Melanchthon natural law has two sources—one is God and the other is man himself.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Natural law is perception which God has implanted in the mind of human beings of the practical principles. These principles relate to the existence of God and to the institutions which promote his glory. The precepts of natural law relating to God and institutions are to be found in the Decalogue.
The precepts say what determines man’s duty towards God and towards his fellowmen. People from different civil institutions. Although these institutions conduct the relations among men, they ultimately glorify God.
It is thus obvious that man’s obedience to God and his relations with his fellowmen both are based on natural law and this is nothing but the revelation of God. But according to Melanchthon there is another source of natural law and this is the nature or end of man himself.
This furnishes certain universal principles. For example, man is a social being and he adapts himself with the social life. He forms a relation with other men and in this way social intercourse develops which also changes with the change of time and circumstances. From the social life, many form certain rules or principles for the smooth and comfortable running of social living.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This Melanchthon has called right or natural living. Both the institutions and the laws, although derived from the revelations of God and nature or end of man, are natural and right.
Naturally, man, with his united knowledge and experience, cannot challenge the natural law. Not only Melanchthon, a large number of thinkers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century laid their undiluted faith on the immense importance of natural law and natural right. Even after the seventeenth century this faith continued.
Melanchthon’s concept of property is based on his idea of natural law or right. Man has the right to own property and enjoy it. But he has no right to steal the possessions of others. Nor has he the right to misuse the property.
On the basis of this principle the fabulous amount of property owned by monasteries was confiscated which had far-reaching repercussions upon social, political and economic affairs.
Melanchthon has defined liberty in the following words:
“That condition in which each is permitted to have his own and citizens are not compelled to act contrary to what is lawful and proper.”
From this definition it is clear that the citizens will not be forced to do improper and unlawful acts. It is to be remembered that liberty conforms to the natural law in both senses. Slavery is not also incompatible with the law of nature.
2. Concept of State and State-Church Relation:
Melanchthon’s concept of state is not different from what other thinkers of the period said. Though the state is a civil and political organisation it is covered with religious beliefs and ideals.
The rulers of the state must always scrupulously follow the wills of God and scriptures. None has any right to disobey the will of God.
In all matters the will of God is final. He repeatedly said it. Melanchthon’s political ideas are completely mixed with religious beliefs. But this is not new.
Since the state is the creation of God it discharges the God-ordained functions. Its duty is to promote true religion and prohibit the false worship and prevent unchristian or irreligious activities.
To materialize all these objectives the state shall introduce corporal punishments for the offenders. If the state fails to achieve this objective, it will not be able to ensure peace and tranquility in society. It shall promote morality and proper discipline. The magistrate on behalf of the state shall extirpate false worship and heresies.
Melanchthon has said that what is heresy and what is blasphemous shall be decided by a specially constituted council. The secular ruler under normal circumstances cannot interfere with the activities of the council. But in complicated cases the intervention of the secular authority becomes inevitable and in those cases the magistrate will adopt adequate measures against the offenders including the prescription of punishment.
Like Luther, Melanchthon thought that the aberration and accumulation of property on the part of the church were the root causes of corruption and moral degradation. So he suggested that the church property would be confiscated in the name of religious activities. Church misused this property. It could keep that amount which was absolutely necessary for its maintenance.
Melanchthon denied coercive power to ecclesiastic authority. He believed that the making of law and its execution fell within the jurisdiction of the secular ruler. Popes and bishops cannot claim separate treatment from ordinary citizens. They are subordinate to political power.
Melanchthon was a nationalist and, because of his nationalist feeling, he rejected the theory of universal empire. He favoured national governments ruled by kings. World should be divided into separate independent territories. From the scriptures he draws the conclusion that the independent kingdoms are helpful in many respects.
There is always tendency for the kings to be tyrants. Rulers of small kingdoms are subject to various limitations and the possibility of being tyrant becomes less. In different kingdoms there are different rules, laws and ecclesiastical institutions and all these limit the power of monarchs.
3. Doctrine of Obedience:
Melanchthon declares:
“Deliberate disobedience against the worldly authority, and against true or reasonable laws, is deadly sin, sin which God punishes with eternal damnation if we obstinately continue in it.”
Like Luther, Melanchthon did not approve any disobedience. It is the duty of the religious-minded citizens to obey the law of the prince even though the laws are unjust or unreasonable. It is beyond the competence of individuals to judge the reasonability or un-reasonability of any law.
They should not forget that the rulers of the kingdoms are sent by God and they are simply translating the wishes of God and executing his laws. They are not doing anything deliberately.
Naturally, there is hardly any scope on the part of the people to express their discontent against the rulers. Melanchthon has compared the disobedience to sacrilege. By showing disrespect to the authority, citizen’s will-gain nothing. Disobedience is sin and for sin they will again be severely penalized and their salvation will be delayed.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He has recognized that tyrants are the worst kinds of rulers. Even then people should not try to disobey them because they are also representing God.
He mentions the caveat that we should obey God rather than men, but he insists on the continuing duty of every subject to be patient with reasonable rulers, even if mistakes and defects occur in their government. On this plea, he did not support the peasant revolt.
It was the belief of Melanchthon and many other thinkers that since all rulers are given by God to fulfill his own purposes, it follows that they have a duty to rule the people not as they themselves want but rather as God wants.
God is the real ruler and there is none above God. The law is God’s but not of king’s. The king rules in accordance with the wishes and law of God In short, God is the supreme authority and all are his servants.
Hence to disobey a king will mean to disobey God. Melanchthon has given a very beautiful account about the nature of obedience and duty. He, however, did not think about obedience in our sense.