Márton Zászkaliczky
The relationship between the Reformation and the Ottoman occupation is a traditional research field in the Hungarian historical writing. One important issue is the question of how Protestants (and Catholics) theologically evaluated the occupation by this non-Christian empire (divine punishment); another one is how the Protestants (and Catholics) lived under the Ottomans and how they were treated by the conquerors. For the latter, two answers have been given in the historiography following the two basic views of the contemporaries about the Ottomans in circulation: the cruel and the tolerant. More recently, a third view has emerged, which claimed that the Turks were neither tolerant nor hostile towards the Protestants out of principle, but rather treated them in practical terms, that is in such a way as to keep the infidels from fleeing away in order to save the taxpaying population. My presentation will not focus on the behaviour of the Turks or its contemporary evaluation, but I will add a further aspect of the question by analysing the theologically conceptualised function attributed to the Turk in the Protestant political theology of 16-17th century Hungary.
Significantly enough, Lutheran theology taught that the spiritual life of Christians takes place in God’s kingdom, to a certain degree independently of the temporal sphere of life. Consequently, the worldly government was considered as a (religiously) neutral agent of God, whose commands have to be obeyed, regardless of the magistrate’s religion, unless he interferes with Christian faith by commanding anything against God’s law. Therefore, the role of this divine agency, only entitled to bridle human sin in society and to prevent social life and human relations from turning into chaos, could be carried out even by a good and wise pagan magistrate. This theological position was favourable by the Protestants living under Turkish occupation, as it could make their present condition more tolerable and still intelligible by helping them accept the Turk as a divinely ordained magistrate (imposed on them for whatever reason). This theological modus vivendi with the Turks was expressed in Protestant (mainly and increasingly Reformed) confessions and synod decrees in which a desired relationship and the proper social manners requested from Christians, were described in detail, as to whether Christians are allowed to pay taxes to the Ottomans, to make political coalition for the defence of the believers, or even engage in mixed marriages.
I will analyse various confessional texts and suggest as a conclusion of my presentation that the theological predisposition to accept the Turk, as a divinely ordained magistrate, made the military coalition with, and political subordination to the Turk possible or at least their necessity more bearable. Nevertheless, this „coalition”, especially between the Transylvanian princes and the Porte, brought about some contradictions as it fundamentally opposed the traditional role of the Hungarians as the bulwark of Christianity. Moreover, this „cooperation” was even more problematic for the European public, especially the German Protestants, therefore it had to be hidden, Turkish assistance was displayed as a necessity for the defence of the Christian faith in a fight for the freedom of faith and the country against the infidel Emperor. This tension, both inner and external, caused by the special role of the Turk, created further problems to be solved only after the acceptance of the confessionally neutral character of politics and finally after the expulsion of the Turks.