In 2017 we are celebrating the 50[th] anniversary of the reformation. This long-awaited event gives us, lawyers, a great opportunity to think about the heritage of the Reformation in the world of law. It is a widely accepted view that the Reformation generated social changes that go beyond the Christian religion. These effects cover the social phenomena regulated by law and also legislation itself. The Protestantism of 1517 came to life with the intention of revolutionizing the religion and the church.[1] The aim of the reformers was to lead the church back to the foundation laid down in the Holy Bible and ensure that the religious life of the individuals is exclusively in line with the Word. However, as religion and the church existed deeply embedded in the society, the changes in the religious life resulted in influencing other fields of social life, too. In my opinion the freedom of religion was the very first step in the long history of the improvement of fundamental rights and therefore the first right guaranteed by the state. At the religious peace of Augsburg, which was the turning point of the heated period of the German Protestantism, the liberties of the Enlightenment or the later liberalism did not emerge at all. The freedom of religion was in strong relationship with other spheres of social and state life therefore the reformers necessarily had to look for answers to the questions of social and state life. This is the way how Luther and Calvin faced questions like the relationship of the state and the church, the obedience to the state, or the law as a fundamental social factor. Naturally, they struggled to give teleological answers. At the same time we must not forget about two circumstances related to our topic. One is that theology and social science were walking hand in hand. The other is that both outstanding reformers studied law, moreover, Calvin is known as a significant lawyer of his age.
In his conception of state Luther makes a distinction between two kingdoms, the kingdom of World and God. It is important that basically both kingdoms are governed by God. In the wordly kingdom it is done through law and sword, while in the spiritual kingdom through the gospel.[2] Below I am giving a short summary of Luther's view on law as governmental tool.
In accordance with Luther's two kingdoms theory those people belong to the kingdom of God who believe in Christ while the kingdom of the world is for the evil. In the former God rules through the Holy Spirit and via the law and sword in the latter. Those who live in the heavenly kingdom do not need worldly law because the Holy Spirit in their heart teaches them and distracts them from misdeeds. So the righteous do not need worldly power or law, as they "do of their own accord much more than all laws and teachings can demand". But the unrighteous do not do anything righteous therefore need the law to teach them, enforce and urge them to do good.[3] Luther, as a matter of fact, defines two governance tools which are present in in our lives together and side by side but which must not be confused.
According to Antal Birkás the two kingdoms are actually the two dimensions of God's governance. In this context the kingdom of world is a tool of ruling the "external man" that is mainly described by criminal law features.[4] As for me in his work on the authority in the world Luther does not talk about the two dimensions of God's realm but about the two kinds of tools. The Holy Spirit as a tool is reserved for the Christians, "those who really believe in Christ". However, he also concludes that "one can hardly find one real Christian among thousands".[5] The means of the worldly law is an external force with legislation and means of sword for those who are not Christian. It is needed according to Luther because "although they want to, they must not do evil deeds".[6]
The boundaries of the legislative function of the temporal power is laid down by Luther as follows. "The worldly authority has laws that cannot extend further than body, wealth, and external existences. As God cannot allow and want anyone else to govern the soul. Because of this wherever temporal authority descends to creating law for the soul reaches out into God's competence and only gouges and abuses the soul."[7] Elsewhere Luther discloses the freedom of conscience in the actual circumstances of the era as a field of the existence of the sovereign individual which cannot be naturally achieved by the legislation of the state.[8]
As we can find the wordly law among the tools of the worldly authority and the spiritual law
- 154/155 -
among the tools of the spiritual authority these must be sharply demarcated, which does not mean that God does not rule the worldly kingdom. Luther made a distinction between the temporal and spiritual law not only from the viewpoint of the legislative authority but also from the subject of the regulation. The temporal power practices the power of legislation concerning all those subjects that are externally materialised and the spiritual legislator helps to guide in the subjects of spiritual matters. This way these legislative authorities do not create competing but complementary legal orders. Luther describes the temporal and spiritual legal orders as follows. "As we have always tought people to recognise and subject themselves to the civil law and respect it because the Gospel is not against people's laws: we cannot nullify people's right stemming from the Bible to protect themselves even against the emperor or anyone else acting for him."[9]
Luther considers the possibility of the human law conflicting with God's rules so Christian people find themselves in the crossfire of the legal order of the two kingdoms. Which do they have to obey? He finds the answer in the lines of Matthew's gospel: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."[10] From this line from the Bible he deducts that in case the order of the ruler is against the commandment of God, Christians have to act against the ruler. And in if there is a punishment for that, they are obliged to take it on.[11]
The change in Luther's point of view in 1530 resulted in some inconsistency. Until then he had required the obedience to the wordly authority independently from the nature or behaviour of the authority.[12] He claimed that taking revenge is God's task and he finds the necessary way without Christian people having to be involved in a riot.[13] He only accepted the passive resistance in case the order of the ruler affected spiritual matters.[14] In 1530 Luther changed his mind as a result of the caesar's violence and found that if the ruler is dictatorial, as a final solution against his menaceful behaviour the possibility and right of counterpace is open for Christians.
It is worth examining what Luther thought about the temporal authority over clergymen: "Every soul (so even the Pope, I think) has to obey the authority because it does not in vane carry a weapon but serves God with it to punish the evil and praise the kind. Because although it works in the world, the temporal authority is the institution of the Christianity therefore spiritual order,"[15] So in worldly matters (over which God reigns as well) like the body, wealth, and external existences Luther places the church under the temporal authority. And this way under the legislation, too. Elsewhere he concludes the following: "Therefore I say the temporal authority is ordered by God to punish the evil and protect the kind so it is essential to practise this authority freely without any boundaries over the whole christianity regardless of the person who can be a bishop, a priest, a monk, a nun or anything else."[16]
Luther did not intend to create a new church organisation structure or challenge the necessity of canon law, he simply called for the abolishing or the radical modification of the papal code. He did not mention abolishing the canon law. Luther did not challenge the role of law but the way the papal authority used it. He contrasted the rules of catholic law with the doctrines of mercy based on the gospel.[17] The lines in his writing to the aristocracy of Germany are good examples for this claiming that this great blessing and authority of Christianity and Christian public policy were almost annuled by the roman canon law and made unknown to us.[18] It is percievable that he refused the role of the canon law that endangered the Christian social life and the purity of practice of religion and not other social roles of law or its role in the church.
He sees the function of wordly law in the establishment of order and its maintenance by the power of the sword.[19] He considered order a thing from God. This is also true connected to social order keeping in mind that one of the aims of the evil is to cause harass. He sees God's intention of creating in the social order so he reckons it should be protected and the only appropriate tool is the power of the sword. For Luther natural law, which is not the same as the laws of nature, and law itself are basically God's eternal and stable will. Based on this law is a science of God's will. However, it is only true about those reputed unto justice in Christ. Men fell out of the eternal Christian law as a consequence of their Fall and break-away from their Creator. Their nature deteriorated so much according to Luther that they are unable to want good of their own accord or act that way.[20] That is why we need regulations which force fallen people to be good. At the same time God left the "silent, almost indistinct and overshadowed voice of the law of nature" for people and also the ability to hear it.[21] So inspite of the fact that human nature seceded from God Luther is still able to involve natural law in his conception and this is how he defines God's
- 155/156 -
will. Nevertheless human law does not belong to this category.
Luther's concept of natural law is partly shown in this quote: "Jurists give a false description and definition the law of nature, as if people and mindless animals were the same. But people as the lords of nature should differ from the other beasts and animals in the law of nature, too, and should be superior. So jurists would talk better and truer if they said the law of nature is partly the law of animals. However, on the other hand the law of nature does not apply to animals as they have no law at all, only humans have. This way the term law of nature is absolutely not the right expression because law is actually what must happen... In every law there is the imperative of 'debet' but one cannot orders pigs to eat so jurists cannot control the law of nature as it stems from the human reason. Law is not like an animal that can be reproduced or a tree that grows fruit even if it is not preached or talked about; law is inferior to teology and cannot be reproduced but it has to be done and enforced or else it is breeched. Nevertheless if the natural law is given to and ordered for people, as jurists suppose, anything could be done."[22]
Considering Luther's words it is obvious that the laws of nature and natural law are not terms of the same content. The law is commandments which must happen and it is an obligation. The laws of nature do not have to be observed, they automatically happen that way (just like the rule of 5+3=8). The laws of nature reflect Maker's will but as these rules involve the animal world, too, which do not have real law, this cannot be the basis of human law. At the same time it does not mean that Luther rejects contemplating about about natural law at all but he but sets boundaries on the basis of the evangel. He defines the requirement of common sense as an important benchmark which is even superior to the written law.[23] The emperors' task is not only the enforcement of law but to serve the justice, equity, and rightfullness.
Luther does not abolish temporal power which governs in its own realm. He rather draws a line between the temporal and clerical entities. Mo-rover, he makes a difference between the tools of the two powers. He believes if this temporal power would want to incorporate the gospel into their reign, they would make two mistakes. On the one hand it deteriorates the gospel by simply making it another law, on the other hand it deteriorates the world. Because if someone "wants to govern the world by the gospel and abolishes all worldly law and sword... tell me what he will accomplish by this? He sets the wild and evil beasts free from their bounds and chains, the evil will abuse the gospel under the name Christian" quotes Nygren Anders from Luther.[24]
According to Luther's teaching Christians have to obey the temporal authority but only because this external discipline is important because of the neighbours and the maintenance of wordly life. Luther juxtaposes these two authorities in front of God. Parallelly, believers have to adapt to the temporal authority and even facilitate its work. Furthermore, they have to obey God.[25] Luther defines the barriers of the temporal authority saying that it is concerning the external things like life or wealth. The soul or conscience do not belong under that power because only God who judges the souls can control them. Every authority shall act exclusively where they can see, know, or judge. The matters of the soul can only be clear in front of god and it would be useless to force someone to have a faith if it is against their conscience.[26] This is how Luther did not reach the idea of splitting the church and the state and often seeked for the protection of the church in the courts of the monarchs.
Calvin shares Luther's views from many aspects. He also raises the idea of the two kingdoms. However, kingdom for him rather means government, while Luther mainly meant a community. Besides this Calvin attributes an outstanding role to the public government that is responsible for the maintenance of the order. The aim of ensuring the order is to provide the peace necessary for living the religius life required by God. So the practice of the terminal authority must serve the pure aims of the churches as ordered by God. In the Institutes it is concluded as follows. "The most celebrated passage of all is that in which Paul, admonishing Timothy, that prayers are to be offered up in the public assembly for kings, subjoins the reason, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:2). In these words, he recommends the condition of the Church to their protection and guardianship."[27]
Calvin is keen to give an answer to the apparent controversy between the Christians' freedom of soul and the obedience towards the church. His starting point is that every power comes from God. Therefore neither the monarch, nor the people of the republic can for the sovereignty as if it was theirs. As a result of this Calvin refuses the king's direct right to practice the authority as well as the sovereignty of the nation. The sheer sovereignty is God's. He finds the establishment of a civil government necessary in order to maintain the order and create laws for everday life.[28]
- 156/157 -
Calvin includes law in the means of maintaining public order. "To what end, they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do with courts? ... As to their allegation that there ought to be such perfection in the Church of God that her guidance should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can be found in the community of men."[29] By saying this he stepped up against the fans who thought that as we were already in God's kingdom in the world, society can be governed by the means of the gospel. That is why Calvin claims that the perfection present in God's kingdom can never be seen in the world so although the gospel is sufficient means to govern in God's world, it is impossible to do the same in the world.
He examines civilian life from three aspects: the authority as the guard of the law; the law based on which the power is exercised; and the people who are forced to observe the law enforced by the authority giving it a great responsibility. The laws are the strongest nerves of the state which "do not have any power at all without the authority."[30] The laws of the world both apply to the governing authority and the subjected citizens. According to Calvin they are based on moral law whose core is two commandments: unconditional love and respect of God and the mutual love of other people. Calvin extends the term of moral laws to involve laws of nature where the benchmark of the instructions is the requirement of equity.[31] He defines the relationship between the authority and worldly laws saying that law is soundless authority and the authority is live law.[32] Nonetheless the authority also have to obey the law not standing above it and as the part of the society not free from the constraint of the law.[33]
The lawyer and theologian mainly marked out from the line of reformers because of his church organising activities and later became an outstanding personality. Compared to Luther he gave a greater significance to the church discipline and the organisation of the church. So in his works we can meet a better-organised viewpoint on the relationship of law, state, and church. The organising principle is the total separation of the state and the church. The power of the church is considered to be a spiritual authority with three components such as the doctrine, the legislation, and the courts.[34] The power of the state does not mean a neutral power stemming from the theory of the separation but real power maintained by secular means that is needed for the operation of the church. He quotes Paul related to the nature of authority. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God"[35] ....."Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."[36] Naturally, this is not only related to the ecclestical authority in his opinion. Nevertheless, he mentions this in the Institutes about the ecclestical authority as well. By this he emphasizes that the authority of both kinds comes from God as the only sovereign. He does not consider it possible that the authority over people comes from people.[37] Being subject to the authority is a general commandment, a principle. When defining the connection between obedience and conscience he concludes that if the law is against the needs of the spiritual governance, the law does not bind the conscience as only God is able to control it. However, in case of good and just laws the general rule applies which says they must be observed as this is God's will. On the contrary, the situation is different if law imposes a new way of worshipping God and applies constraint in free things.[38]
In Béla Szathmáry's viewpoint Calvin prefers the voluntary complience to the coercion of law as we define these terms today. This way he places being subject to the civilian government as a spiritual freedom into the sphere of the individual's soul and also being subject to the worldly authority is attached to the civilian servitude which is described by the voluntary complience with God's will.[39] So Calvin puts the emphasis on the individual's conscience. The conscience itself is the work of God in the soul. By saying this he lays down the core of the freedom of conscience, the starting point of many other liberties. The main distinctive feature of the freedom of conscience for Calvin is that this liberty is free from external human constraint even that of the law's. The conscience is the area of the human existence that is subordinate to the only sovereign God.
It clearly shows the importance of the freedom of conscience for Calvin that when the city council of Geneva made a decision concerning religious matters without the ministers that he thought was incompatible with gospel he refused to administer holy communion rather than acting against his conscience. As a consequence he was exiled from Geneva. The liberated freedom of conscience did not only bring religious but substantial political changes, too. Calvin did not exclusively set people free from the clergy but from the worldly authority as well because reformation denied that the au-
- 157/158 -
thority should control all the aspects of the private sphere without any limit. It was the first time when an area of people's life had been defined as one to be free from state authority. All this means the declaration of freedom of conscience. Bancroft aptly says that the fanatics of calvinism are the fanatics of freedom because in their fight for freedom their faith was a part of their army and their most loyal ally in the battle.[40] Calvin sets conscience free from the authority of church law as well by declaring that in case of church regulations one has to avoid taking them as matters of salvation.[41] It does not mean from his part that he does not consider church legislation necessary, what is more, he looks at the set of church rules as the nerves of the body without which the human life is disabled. He only accepted the organisation and the procedures of the church as areas governed by the church.[42]
We must add that the voluntary complience on a conscientious basis has theological grounds. Conscience in in people's life is the ability to recognise God's will. According to Calvin's theology the jurisdiction of the state are ordered by God so acting against it is acting against God. Based on this conscience requires obedience from people. And the people owe to the Magistrate obedience, paying taxes, and keep the public order laid down in the law.[43]
His reformer views on the clerical arbitration are also worth mentioning. In an era in which clerical arbitration played an important role besides the state jurisdiction the questions of competency and the applicable law inevitably came up. In case of church arbitration it was the canon law based on Roman law. Its main characteristics are that it is universal and has an "international standing", superior to any other laws. And as it was compiled by the pope, it naturally served his authority. In adition, its very complicated structure and lots of exceptions made law enforcement very difficult.[44] Nonetheless it included every area of life so clerical authorities often made judgements in worldly matters.[45]
In spite of this Calvin states that clerical jurisdiction is to be restricted to moral discipline and considered it to be the tool of spiritual governance.[46] The church does not bear the right of sword so it cannot punish, force, imprison, fine, or apply any similar measures.[47] The worldly authority has this kind of power. So Calvin thinks that the temporal authority has to clean the church from indignation using the means at hand. In return the church owes to help the authority not to sin so much.[48]
In secular matters Calvin does not accept the authority of the church and vice versa. Just like Luther he reckons the worldly empire should be governed by worldly means and the spiritual empire by spiritual means.[49] His opinion about the institution of marriage can be brought up as an example. The church law insisted on gaining the acknowledgement as positive law in the field of family law (marriage, registration of birth) for the longest time. In 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran ordered the public marriage in front of the church and the announcement of the marriage. From this on family law practically belonged to the church. Already in 1535 Calvin declared that the right of matrimony should be independent from the church law.[50] As a response to the ambitions of the reformation the Council of Trent in 1545 decreed the marriage and birth registration. This made it obvious that the church (the Catholic church) held itself competent in establishing further barriers for matrinomy because the canonical form was a compulsory requirement of the valid marriage.[51]
The reformer defines two aims of the church law to be reached. On the one hand he finds it important that in the congregation everything happens ornately and with appropriate dignity. On the other hand the regulations of the church must serve the purpose of maintaining the order of the society with the help of the ties of humanity and moderation.[52] This not only defined the aim of church law but also set the canon of humanity and moderation as Christian values. These requirements also cover the graduation and proportionality which adapt to the skills and abilities. Moreover, moderation prevents people from extremity and exaggeration.[53] As André Biéler concluded: "God wants us to have relationship and equality between us: everyone must be provided what they need based on their opportunities and nobody should have too much and nobody should have too little."[54] The legal role of the world similarly to Luther's view he finds in establishing and maintaining the order with the power of the sword.[55] The worldly law itself is the device of the worldly authority so it has to serve its aims mentioned before.
Béla Szathmáry aptly shows what effect Calvin's constitution had on the improvement of law. He outlines seven church and state structure solutions which describe calvinism and visible in the later periods of the improvement of law as well. They
- 158/159 -
are as follows. 1. Every person is equal because as sinners we all need mercy; 2. Every position in the church must be filled in by election; 3. Ministers are also equal and there is no hierarchy; 4. Congregations are independent, complete churches and have the same rights. This will serve as an example for the contractual establishment of state; 5. The nationwide organisations of the church are built up from the bottom; This shows the way to the later parliamentary system; 6. The life and church discipline of the congregations are managed by the elders chosen from the members. This is one of the best examples of the division of the church and state structure. The presbytarian arbitration could have been the basis of the theory of the division of power; 7. Laws are the basis of the system of government. And government power is not without limit. With this Calvin plants the seeds of the constitutional state.[56]
Now two comments are worth making. The first is that although the influence of Calvin's work can still be identified in the improvement of the democratic state of law, moreover, it served as an example, the democratic elements in the structure of the church and the state do not stem from the political term of democracy as we mean it today, rather from the gospel directly. The equality, the principle of election, the divine origin of the power and its limited way of people practising it all reach back to to the old church in the centuries after Christ. It was the time when the church did not back away from the Gospel. Calvin did not look for the structure of the democratic state or the picture of the ideal state but seeked to show the way back to the gospel. At the same time Calvin realised that God's laws cannot be interpreted independently from place and time. In his opinion the laws given to the Jewish were to guide the life of one particular nation in one particular time.[57] Calvin's merit among others is that he found the right measure for the social development based on the gospel and adopted it in a form appropriate for the era ensuring their later reception. It appears in the fact as well that in spite of Luther he mentions authority chosen by the people. It is a great sign of how different social circumstances the two reformers worked in. Luther was basically the subordinate of a more feudal emperor, while Calvin was a citizen of a more democratic city-state.[58] The principles of the political structure based on religious standards were useful for the latter development of state though they did not directly stem from that as sovereignty as the key element of modern democracies provides a totally different basic principle than what Calvin believed, namely that all authority is from God. However, it is indisputable the long way towards the idea of secularized democracy has protestant roots and it is also incontestable that Calvin's state structure still gives a good example on this way.
My other comment is that the greatest influence of all is that Calvin sets conscience free from both worldly and church authority and on the basis of the religious freedom he lays down the fundamentals of freedom of speech and opinion. Before the reformation the freedom of thought was almost unknown as the church defined the way of social and philosofical thinking. Those who did not adopt this soon had to face inquisition. Therefore I think democracy and the liberal freedom rights cannot be separated for the calvinism. Calvin writes as follows: "Because of people's caducity and mistakes it is safer and more appropriate if they practise authority together so that they can help, teach, and warn one another if one of them wants to go further than they should and as judges or masters they can control their passion.....In addition, the authority must strive not to allow the restriction or breech of the freedom that it is ordered to protect."[59]
Naturally, Calvin did not talk about democracy or liberalism as they were terms of a subsequent era. Nevertheless, if we accept that the foundations of today's democracy can be found in calvinism, we also have to accept that the liberties have the same roots. The calvinist liberalism conspicuously differs from the principles of the liberalism in the 20[th] century. Firstly, Calvin does not announce the freedom of individuals purely based on their biological existence. On the contrary, he claims that as creatures of God they only owe to account to the creator. The freedom of conscience is not the freedom of belief but a form of the relationship with God by which people can make a decision between good and bad as a moral individual. In this decision the individual is independent from the state, church, and other people. There are two commandments in the gospel that restrict the freedom of conscience.[60] Stemming from this one is responsible for and has obligations towards their neighbour, other people. The system of the calvinist liberties is based on the obedience to God and the recognition that the freedom of Christian people can only spread until it hinders others rights, mo-rover, bear the responsibility for them.[61] The responsibility for the community and the individual's obligations interpreted as a constitutional restriction give a sharp characteristic to the constitu-
- 159/160 -
tion. The basis of this seemingly new approach can be found in Calvin's work, too. ■
NOTES
[1] Historically the start of the Reformation is tied to 31 October 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg cathedral.
[2] Julius Bodensieck: The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. Minnesota 1965. 2423.
[3] Luther Márton: A világi felsőségről In: Masznyik Endre: D. Luther Márton egyházszervezői iratai III. kötet. Pozsony 1906. 369.
[4] Birkás Antal: Luther és Kálvin jogfilozófiai és politikai filozófiai nézetei. PhD értekezés. Miskolci Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar Deák Ferenc Állam- és Jogtudományi Doktori Iskola 2008. 75.
[5] Luther Márton: A világi felsőségről i.m. 369, illetve 371. (Temporal Authority)
[6] Luther Márton: uo.
[7] Luther, Márton: uo. 386.
[8] Vö. Luther Márton: uo. 389.
[9] Eric W Gritsch.: Isten udvari bolondja. Luther Márton korunk perspektívájából. Bp. 2006. 183.
[10] Biblia, Máté evangéliuma 10,28
[11] Luther recommends the following option for these con-flicts:"I must obey with my body and wealth, so should you order in accordance with your power in the world, I will obey. But if you order me to share your faith and throw my books away, I do not have to obey as you cannot order where you have no right or power." The reformer adds that if a punishment is imposed and the emperor takes the disobedient person's wealth away, they should be happy because they are worth suffering for the Word.
[12] Cf. Martin Luther: Hű intés a zavargásoktól és lázadásoktól való óvakodás tárgyában, Bölcs Frigyes választófejedelmhez írt levél. In: Masznyik Endre: D. Luther Márton egyházreformáló iratai. III. kötet, Pozsony 1906.183.
[13] Martin Luther: Lehet-e üdvösséges a katonák hivatása is? In: Masznyik Endre: D. Luther Márton egyházreformáló iratai. II. kötet. Pozsony 1906
[14] Luther Márton: A világi felsőségről (Temporal Authority), i.m. 386.
[15] Luther Márton: A Német nemzet keresztyén nemességéhez (To the Christian nobility of the German nation) In: Luther Márton művei I. kötet, translated by: dr. Masznyik Endre Pozsony 1905. 31.
[16] Luther Márton: uo. 30.
[17] Harry Loewen: Luther and the Radicals: Another Look at Some Aspects of the Struggle Between Luther and the Radical Reformers Ontario 1974. 28.
[18] Luther Márton: A Német nemzet keresztyén nemeseihez i.m. 28. (To the Christian nobility of the German nation)
[19] Jack Hughes Robinson: John Calvin and the Jews, New York 1992. 56.
[20] Prőhle Károly: Luther Márton négy hitvallása. (Martin Luther's four credoes) Bp. 1996. 288-289.
[21] Frivaldszky János: Természetjog (Natural Law). Bp. 2001. 164.
[22] Luther Márton: Asztali beszélgetések (Table Talks). Bp. 1983. 191-192.
[23] "Because of this reason the emperor must manage law better than the sword and reasonably decide when and where law shall be used strictlty or eased in order to let reason always be beyond the law and remain the main law and master of all laws." Luther, Márton: A világi felsőségről, i.m. (Temporal Authority) 399-400.
[24] D. Nygren Anders: Az állam és az egyház (State and Chrurch). Evangélikus Theologia 1947.6.
[25] Jos Colijn: Egyháztörténelem (Church History). Bp. 2001. 167-169.
[26] Luther Márton: A világi felsőségről. i.m. 387. (Temporal authority)
[27] Kálvin János: A keresztyén vallás rendszere. (Institutio), Pápa 1910. 755.
[28] Szathmáry Béla: Kálvin és a kálvinizmus aktualitása a világban és az egyházban.(Calvin, the calvinism and their actuality today in the world and church) http://srta.tirek.hu/data/attachments/2011/05/17/K%C3%A1lvin_%C3%A9s_a_k%C3%A1lvinizmus_aktualit%C3%A1sa_a_vil%C3%A1gban_%C3%A9s_az_egyh%C3%A1zban.pdf
[29] Kálvin János: Institutio i.m. 748-749.
[30] Buzogány Dezső: Kálvin állam- és társadalomszemlélete. Magyar Tudomány 2010. 2. sz.
[31] Szathmáry Béla: Kálvin a kortársunk. (Our contemporary Calvin) In: Kálvin időszerűsége: Tanulmánykötet Kálvin János teológiájának hatásáról Magyarországon Bp. 2009. 381.
[32] Kálvin János: Tanítás a keresztény vallásra. (Institutio), (fordította: dr. Békési Andor) Bp. 1991. IV. 20.15 296.
[33] Kálvin János: uo. IV. 20.16 297.
[34] Kálvin János: Institutio (Bp.) i.m. IV. 8.1 238.
[35] Biblia: Pál római levele 13,1
[36] Biblia: uo. 13,5
[37] Abraham Kuyper: Lectures on calvinism, Six Lectures Delivered at Princeton University 1898. 86.
[38] Kálvin János: Institutio i.m. Bp. IV. 10. 5 246-247.
[39] Szathmáry Béla: Kálvin és a kálvinizmus aktualitása a világban és az egyházban. http://srta.tirek.hu/data/attachments/2011/05/17/K%C3%A1lvin_%C3%A9s_a_k%C3%A1lvinizmus_aktualit%C3%A1sa_a_vil%C3%A1gban_%C3%A9s_az_egyh%C3%A1zban.pdf
[40] George Bancroftt: History of the United States of America, Fifteenth Edition; Boston 1853. I, 464.
[41] Kálvin János: Institutio Bp. i.m. IV. 10.27 249.
[42] Kálvin János: uo.
[43] Kálvin János: uo. IV. 20. 15.
[44] Richard Friendenthal: Luther élete és kora. Bp. 1983. 302. (Luther's life and age)
[45] From the beginning church courts made decisions concerning marrital matters. They had exclusive competence in matters related to clergymen. The Holy See dealt with arguments of charitable last wills, usury, perjury, treason, and personal issues of widows and orphans. Later they had nothing to do with real estate or loss of stock. Besides these there were cases of mixed nature so cases could be filed at either court.
[46] Kálvin János: Institutio. i.m Bp.: IV. 11.1 251.
[47] Kálvin János: Institutio i.m. Bp. IV. 11.3 252.
[48] Kálvin János: uo. IV. 11.4 253.
[49] Charles. Hodge: Discussions in Church Policy. New York 1878. 104-106.
[50] Joachim Staedtke: Kálvin János i.m. 2009. 19. o.
[51] Szuromi Szabolcs Anzelm O. Praem.: Az egyházi házasságra vonatkozó kánoni előírások történetének vázlata Iustum Aequum Salutare 2008. 3. sz. 45.
[52] Kálvin János: Institutio i.m. Bp. IV. 10. 28 249.
[53] Ádám Antal: A középmérték és az értékpluralitás elméletének íve. Közjogi Szemle 2010. 2. sz. 2.
[54] André Biéler: The social Humanity of Calvin. Richmond 1964. 33.
[55] Jack Hughes Robinson: John Calvin and the Jews, New York 1992. 56.
[56] Szathmáry Béla: Kálvin és a kálvinizmus i.m. 4-5.
[57] Calvin colcludes: "Firstly, one law should not be more appreciated than another, because I believe this is not a simply
- 160/161 -
comparison but the circumstance of the era, place, and nation should be considered." Kálvin János: Tanítás a keresztyén vallásra (Institutio) IV. 20.16 297 fordította: Békési Andor, Bp. 1991.
[58] John W. Sap: Paving the Way for Revolution. Calvinism and the Struggle for a Democratic Constitutional State. University Press. Amsterdam 2001. 64.
[59] Kálvin János: Tanítás a keresztyén vallásra. (Institutio) Bp. 1991 i.m. IV. 20.8. 291.
[60] "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself." Biblia, Máté evangéliuma, 22, 37-39 (Bible, Matthew, 22. 37,39)
[61] Szathmáry Béla székfoglaló előadása a Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Karán az Egyházjogi Tanszék felállítása alkalmával 2009. március 25-én. Theologiai Szemle 2009. 3. sz. 173-183.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is professor assistant, National University of Public Service Facultat Law Enforcement.
Visszaugrás
