We have already observed
a conception analogous to this in several earlier writers.
a conception analogous to this in several earlier writers.
Thomas Carlyle
73: "Das ander,
ob man sich verbinden mOge outer,
hinter, oder wider die Oberkeit, Oder
wie ihm zu thun sey, dass man solchsn
Tyrannen widerstehe. Aufs ersto
weisa er wohl, dass wider die Oberkeit,
kein Verbindung gilt. Denn Gott
will die Oberherren, sie seyn bO<<e
oder gut, geehret habeu, Rom. xiii. 1,
1 Peter v. "
? Id. , Works, vol. ia. , 'Von Welt-
licher Obrigkeit,' p. 276: "Das kein
Furst, wider sein Oberherrn, als den
KOnig und Kaiser oder sonst seynen
Lehenherrn kriegen soil, sondern lassen
nehmen, was da nympt. Denn die
Oberkeyt soil man nicht widerstehen
mit gewalt, sondern nur mit bekenntniss
der wahrheit. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 277
and soul, but this was no excuse, for to punish the wicked was
not the right of any man but only of the Temporal Authority. 1
If every man took the law into his own hands, there would
be no law or order in the world, but only slaughter and blood-
shed,2 and Luther bids them remember that Christ taught
men not to resist evil but to submit to injuries; the only right
of the Christian is suffering and the Cross. 3 Luther does not,
indeed, deny that the Lords had behaved like tyrants, and
would be judged by God, but the peasants had transgressed
against God by their insurrection. *
So far, Luther's theory was extreme, but his language was
moderate; in two later tracts of the same year he seems to
lose all sense of proportion and restraint and decency. In
one of these, written in May 1525, he says that the peasants
had broken their oath of obedience to the authorities; they
had robbed and plundered, they had made the Gospel a cloke
for their sin, and he calls upon the princes and lords to take
the most violent and ruthless measures against them. 5 And
1 Id. , Works, vol. xviii. , 'Ermah-
nung zum Frieden, auf die zwolf
Artikel der Bauornschaft in Schwaben,'
p. 303: "Sondern, wie S. Paulus
sagt, Ein igliche Seele solle der Ober-
keit untertan sein, mit furcht und
ehren.
Wie kindet yhr doch fiir diesen
Gottes spriichen und Rechten uber,
die yhr euch rhiimet, GOttlichen Rocht
nachzufahren, und nehmet doch das
schwerd selbst, und lohnet euch aufl
widder die Oberkeit von Gotta recht
geordnet? Meynet yhr nicht, das
urtheil S. Pauli werde euch troffen.
'Wer Gott's ordnung widdorstrebt,
den wird das vordamnis uber-
kommen. . . . Zum dritteni Ja,
sprechet ibr, die Oberkeit ist zu biise
und unleidlich. Denn sie das Evan-
gelion uns nicht lassen wollen, und
drucken uns ailzu hart van zeitlicher
guter Beschwerung, und verderben uns
also an Leyb und Seele. Autworte ich;
Dasa die Oberkeit bose und unrecht
ist, entschuldigt keyn rotterey noch
aufruhr, denn die bosheit zu straffen,
das geburt nicht eym iglichen, sondern
der weltichen oberkeyt, die das Schwerd
furet. '"
>> Id. id. , p. 306.
>> Id. id. , p. 301: "Leyden, Leyden,
Ereutz, Kreutz is des Christen Recht,
das, und keyn anders. ''
4 Id. id. , p. 329.
? Id. id. , vol. xviii. 'Wider die
Raliberischen und MOrdorischen Rotten
der Bauern,' p. 358: "Drumb sol hie
zuschmeyssen, wurgen und stechen
heymlich oder offentliob, wer da kann,
und gedencken, das nicht gifitigers,
schedlichers, teuffelisohers seyn kan,
denn eyn auflrurischer mensch, gleich
als wenn man eynen tollen hund
todschlahen mus, schlegstu nicht, so
schlegt er dich und ein gantz land
mit dyr. "
Id. id. , p. 361: "Drumb, Uebe
Herren, loset hie, rettet hie, helfft hie,
erbarmt euch der arracn Leute, steche
? ? schlahe hie, wer da kann, bleybstu
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 278
[PABT m.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
in another tract, written probably in July 1525, he attempted
to defend the language and attitude of the first, especially
by means of that distinction between the two kingdoms--
God's kingdom of mercy and the earthly kingdom of wrath
and punishment, which we have already discussed. 1
We come back to a more restrained tone of discussion in
in the little work, 'Ob Kriegsleute anch im Seligen Stande
sein konnen,' written in 1526, to which we have already
referred. Here he discusses the principles of political obedience
with greater fulness, but with equal decision. He admits
that in the ancient world men had not hesitated to depose
and even to kill useless or wicked rulers. The Greeks set up
monuments to the Tyrannicides, the Eomans murdered many
of their emperors; but these, he says,' were heathen who did
not know God, and that the temporal authority was God's
Ordinance. 2 This was incompatible with the Christian Faith;
even if the rulers do what is unjust it is not lawful to be dis-
obedient to them, and to destroy the Ordinance of God;
men must endure injustice. 3 Luther was aware of the
fact that the 8wiss had emancipated themselves, and that,
not long before, the Danes had deposed their king, but, he
says, he is not speaking of what had been done, but of what
ought to be doners Men must submit to the tyrant, they must
fndt~resistilim, they must leave him to God's judgment, and
he cites the example of David's conduct to Saul. 5
This is sufficiently clear, but it is not all. Luther was
aware, even then, of what we may call constitutional tradition,
but he sets this aside. It may be contended, he says, that a
king or lord had sworn to his subjects to reign according to
definite conditions, and that, if he violated these, he forfeited
his authority, as it is said that the King of France must reign
in accordance with the judgment of his Farlement, and that
>> Cf. p. 273, note 3.
* Id. id. , vol. xix. , 'Ob Kriegsleute,'
&o. , p. 633.
>> Id. id. id. , p. 634: "Aber ich hab
? olche verantwortet, dass obgleich die
Hcrrn unrecht daran theten, were
drumb nicht biliig noch recht, auch
unrecht zu thun, das ist ungehorsam
sein und zerstoron Gotte Ordnung, die
nicht unser ist, sondeTM man solle
das unrecht leiden. "
? Id. id. id. , pp. 635 to 637.
5 Id. id. id. , p. 640.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 279
the King of Denmark had sworn to observe certain consti-
tutional articles. Luther answers that it is good and reasonable
that the Supreme Euler should reign according to law, and
not merely according to his capricious will, and should swear
to do this. But, if he did not do so, are his subjects to
attack him and sit in judgment on him? Who, he says, has
commanded this? This could only be done by some superior
power who could hear both parties and condemn the guilty. 1
He adds, in reply to those who might say that he was flattering
the princes, that this was not true, for what he had said
applied to all alike, peasants, burghers, nobles, lords, counts,
and princes, for they all have a superior lord to whom they
are subordinate. 2
Luther's conception is thus far perfectly clear and unam-
biguous. 'Die Obrigkeit' has an absolute authority, and God
requires of men an unconditional obedience to it, for it is
God Who has set it up. It would no doubt be well that the
ruler should govern justly and according to law, but if he
does not do so, his subjects must still submit and leave it to
God to punish him. The principle is clear and unqualified,
but we have made no progress in tracing the sources of
Luther's opinion. It may be suggested that it was in the main
1 Id. id. id. , p. 640: "Ja sprichstu,
wie aber, wenn eio Konig oder Horr
sich mit Eyden seiaen unterthanen
verpflicht, nach furgestellton artikel
zu regirn, und helt sie nicht, und
da mit schuldig sein wil, auch das
Regiment zu lasson; wie man
sagt, da&s der Kdnig zu Frankroich
nach den Parlamenten seines ieichs
regieren miiase. Und der KOnig zu
Denemark auch schweren musse, auff
sonderlich artikel.
Hie, antworte ich: Es ist fein und
billig, das die Oberkeit nach Gesetzen
regire und die selbigen bandhabo und
nicht nach eygenem mutwillon. Aber
thu das noch hinzu, das ein Kdnig
nicht alleine sein Landrecht odder
Artikel gelobt zu halten, sondern Gott
selber gebeut yhm auch, er solle frum
sein, und er gelobots auch zu thun.
Wohlan, wenn nu solcher Konig der
keins helt, widder Gotts Recht, noch
sein Landrecht? Soltestu yhn driimb
angreiffen, solchs richf. en und reohen?
Wer hat dirs befohlen? Es mussto
ja hie zwischen euch ein ander Oberkeit
komen, der ouch beide verhorte und
den schuldigen verurteilt. Sonst wirstu
dem urtheil Gotts nicht entlaunen,
da er sagt, ' Die Rache ist mein,' Item,
'Richtet nicht,' Matt, vii. "
>> Id. id. id. , p. 643: "Nioht also,
sondern was ich von der unter person
sage, das soil treffen beyde, Bauer,
Burger, Eddel, Herrn, Graven und
Fursten. Denn diese alio haben auch
Oberherrn, und sind Unterperson eiues
andern. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 280 THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT in.
a violent reaction against the danger of anarchy, as represented
by the revolt of the Peasants, but this is not really con-
sistent with the facts, for the statements of Luther, which we
have cited from the years 1522, 1523, show clearly that he
held the same opinions before the Peasants' Eevolt.
We must now turn to the development of Luther's later
views, for it is quite clear that these were not the same as his
earlier views. As late as May and November 1529, we find
him solemnly warning the Elector of Saxony against the
formation of a League for the protection of the Eeformers,
and against any attempt to resist the Emperor if he en-
deavoured to seize Luther. 1 But, as Professor Muller thinks,
even in December 1529 there are some indications of a
change,2 and in March 1530 Luther and some others in a
letter to the Elector of Saxony gave a formal opinion which
has a very different character from Luther's earlier views.
This letter was written in reply to one from the Elector,
and Luther said that it might perhaps be true, that, according
to the Imperial and Secular Law, it was in some cases lawful
to defend oneself against the Emperor, especially as the
Emperor had sworn to maintain his subjects in their ancient
liberty. Scripture, however, Luther says, does not permit
Christian men to set themselves against the Supreme Authority,
but requires them to submit to injustice and violence from him.
Secular and Papal Laws do not consider that the Supreme
Authority is an Ordinance of God; but the Emperor remains
Emperor, and the Prince remains Prince, even if he trans-
greases all God's commands--yes, even if he were a heathen.
Then, however, Luther comes to the rather surprising con-
clusion that there is only one remedy, and that is that the
Empire and the Electors should agree to depose him. 3
1 Luther, 'Briefe,' Ed. de Wette,
vol. iii. pp. 454 and 526.
* Cf. K. Muller, 'Luther's Aiisser-
iingen ubor das Recht des Widerstands
gogen dem Kaiser,' pp. 26-29.
? Luther, 'Briefe,' Ed. de Wette,
vol. iii. p. 560: "Und befinden,
dass vielleicht naoh Kaisorlichen und
weltlichen Rechten, etliche mochten
schliesson, dass man in solchem Fall
moohte wider Kaiserliche majestat
sich zur Gegenwehr stollen, sonderlich
weil Kaiserliche majestat sich ver-
pflichtet und vereidet, niemand mii
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ]
281
THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT.
It is clear that in this formal statement of opinion we
have something which is very different from Luther's earlier
judgments. In the first place, we have an indication that
Luther was beginning to take some account of the Consti-
tutional Law of the Empire, and that he recognised that
some jurists at least maintained that if the Emperor violated
the obligations of the oath which he had sworn at his
election, it was lawful to resist him. In the second place,
he still maintained that the Holy Scriptures did not permit any
such resistance, however unjust the Emperor's conduct might
be. But in the third place, we come upon the surprising view
that although, while the Emperor continued to be Emperor,
he could not be resisted, it might be lawful for the Empire and
the Electors to depose him.
We have already observed
a conception analogous to this in several earlier writers. 1
In October of the same year, 1530, the question of resistance
to the Emperor was formally put before Luther and others of
the Eeformers at Torgau, and there was laid before them a
statement on the subject drawn up by some jurists, showing
in what circumstances it would be lawful to resist the Supreme
Authority (Obrigkeit), and declaring that such circumstances
were now present. Luther and his colleagues answered that
they had not known that the Law itself recognised the right
gewalt anzugreifen, sondern bei aller
vorigen Freyheit zu lassen, wie denn
die Juristen handeln von den Repre-
salien und Diffidation. Aber nach der
Schrift will sichs in keinem weg ziemen,
dass sich jemand, wer ein Christ sein
will, wider sein Oberkeit setze, Gott
gebe sie thun recht oder unrecht;
sondern ein Christ soll gewalt und
unrecht leiden, sonderlich von seiner
Oberkeit. Denn obgleich Kaiserliche
majestat unrecht thut und ihr Pflicht
und Eid uebertrifft, ist damit sein
Kaiserlich Obrigkeit und seiner un-
terthanen gehorsam nioht aufgehebt,
weil das Reich und die Kurfu? rsten ihn
fu? r Kaiser halten und nicht absetzen. . . .
Weltliche oder Pa? pstliche Recht
sehen hierinnen nicht an, dass Oberkoit
ein go? ttliche ordnung sey, darum sie
vielleicht die pflicht und eid so hoch
achten dass sie die Obrigkeit in solchem
Fall sollton aufhalten und wehren.
Aber weil Kaiser Kaiser, und Fu? rst,
Fu? rst bleibt, wenn er gleich all gebot
Gottes uebertra? t, ja ob er gleich ein
heide wa? re: so soll er's auch seyn,
ob er gleioh sein Eide und Pflicht nioht
ha? lt, bis dass er abgesetzt, oder nimmer
Kaiser sei . . . und, summa, Su? nde
hebt Oberkeit und gehorsamkeit nicht
auf; aber die straffe hebt sie auf, das
ist, wenn das Reich und die Kurfu? rsten
eintra? chtiglich den Kaiser absetzen,
dass er nimmer Kaiser Wa? re. "
1 Cf. 'Sachsonspiegel,' vol. u? i. p. 61,
and in this volume, pp. 22, 23, 5O.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 282
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY, [part HI.
of resistance in certain cases; they had always thought that
the Law must be obeyed, and that the Gospel does not con-
tradict the Secular Law; they could not therefore maintain
that men might not defend themselves against the Emperor
himself, or his representative; it was, therefore, also right
that men should arm themselves, and thus be prepared to
resist a sudden attack. 1
The judgments expressed in this letter represent a different
position from the letter of March 1530. Luther was even then
aware that some jurists admitted the lawfulness of resistance;
1 K. Mttller,' Luther's Aueserungen,'
Beilage 3: "Una ist ein Zetel target-
rsgen, daraus wir befinden, was die
Doktores der Rechte schliessen auff die
Frage, in welehen fellen man muge
der Oberkeit widderstehen. Wo nu
das als bey den selbigen Rechtsdoktoren
odder Verstendigen gegrundet ist, und
wir gewislich ynn solchen fellen stu hen,
ynn welohen (wie sie anzeigen) man
muge die Oberkeit widderstehen, und
wir allzeit gelert haben dass man
welttlich Recht solle lassen gehen,
gelten und halt on, was sie vermugen,
und das Evangelion nicht widder die
welttliohe Recht leret, so konnen wir's
n ii der Schrift nicht anfechten, wo man
sich des falls wehren musste, es sey
gleich der Keiser ynn eigener Person,
oder wer es Unit unter seinen namen. . . .
So wil sichs gleichwol zimen, dass
man sioh ruste und als auff eine
gewalt, so pMHzlich sich erheben
mochte, bereit sey, wo sichs denn nach
gestallt und leuffte der sachen leicht-
lich begeben kann.
Denn das wir bisher geleret, stracks
nicht widder zu stehen der Oberkeit,
haben wir nicht gewust, das soloh's
der Oberkeit rechte eelbs geben,
welehen wir doch allenthalben zu
gehorchen vleissig geleret haben. "
Cf. the formal statement signed by
Luther, Justus Jonas, Bugonhagen
and Melanchthon in 1536.
Molanchthon, "Opera Omnia" in
'Corpus Reformatorum,' vol. iii. Epistle,
1458, p. 129 (1536 a. d. ): "Nu ist
erstlich klar, dass jede Oberkeit uber
andero gleiche Oberkeit, oder' privatos,'
schuldig ist ihre Christen und die
Lehre zu schutzen. Hie ist weiter
die Frage, was einem Fursten wider
seinen Herrn, als den Kaiser, in sol-
chem Fall zu thun gebuhro. Darauf
ist auch gleiche antwort. Erstlich,
diewohl das Evangelium bestatigt
weltliche leibliohe Regiment, so soil
sich ein idlicher Christlicher Furst
gegen seinen Herrn oder Kaiser halten
vermOge darselbigen natiirlichen und
weltlichen Regiment und Ordnung.
Wenn der Kaiser nicht Richter ist,
und will gleichwohl Straf uben, als
'pendente appellatione,' so heisat
soldi sein thatlich Vornehmen,' notoria
injuria. ' Nu ist dieses naturliche
? ? Ordnung der Regiment, dass man sich
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT.
283
but he still maintained that Holy Scripture did not permit
this. Now, Luther admitted that if, as the jurists said,
the law of the Empire admitted the right of resistance, they
could have nothing to say against it, for they had always
taught that the law must bo obeyed.
There are some letters written in the spring of 1531 which
justified or explained this apparent change of position, but
they do not add very much. In a letter addressed to
Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg, he says that he had heard
that it was reported that he and the other Eeformers had
withdrawn their previous advice that the Emperor must not
be resisted. The real truth was as follows: they were now
informed that the Imperial Law permitted resistance in the
case of obvious injustice. He himself had no opinion of
his own on the law, but must leave that to the jurists to decide.
If this was the Law of the Empire, they were no doubt bound
to obey it. The other letters are in much the same terms. 1
That this change in Luther's position was permanent seems
to be clear: in 1531 he wrote a pamphlet entitled,' Warnung
an seine lieben Deutschen. ' We are not concerned here with
its general subject-matter, but with some passages in it which
deal with the relations of those who accepted the Eeformed
opinions to the Emperor and the Eoman Party. If, he says
in one passage, it should come to war, he would not suffer
those who defended themselves against the "murderous and
blood-thirsty Papists" to be called rebels, but would refer
them to the Law and the jurists; and in another place he
says that his advice was that if the Emperor should summon
them to fight against the Eeforming Party no one should
obey him. 2
1 Luther,' Brief-wechsel,' Ed. Enders.
vol. viii. pp. 343, 344.
1 Luther,' Werke,' vol. xxx. part iii.
"Warnung an seine lieben Doutschon,"
p. 282: "Weiter; wo es zum Kriege
kompt, da Gott fur sei, so wil ieh das
teil so sich widder die mordische und
blutgyrige Papisten zur were sotzt,
nicht auffrurisch gescholten haben,
noch schelten lassen, sondern wills
lassen gehon und geschehen, dass sie
es eine not were heissen, und wil sie
damit ins Recht und zu den Juristen
weisen.
Page 291: Das ist aber mein
trewer Rat, das wo der Kaiser wttrde
auffbieten, und widder unser Teil,
umb der Bapst's Sachen odder unser
lere willen kriegen wolt. . . . Dass
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 284
[PABT m.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
We have dealt with Luther's position, not exhaustively,
as has been done by Miiller in his admirable monograph,
but we hope, sufficiently to bring out his original opinions and
the change after 1530. It seems clear that at first Luther
maintained dogmatically that the king, whether he was good
or bad, just or unjust, held his authority from God and could
not be resisted, but must in all secular matters receive an
unqualified submission. His judgment is clear, but we have
not been able to find in his work any real light upon
the source of his opinions, for his citations from St Paul and
St Peter cannot be described as furnishing this adequately.
No doubt his opinions were ultimately derived from those of
St Gregory the Great, for these opinions had not completely
disappeared in the Middle Ages, though they had been ignored
or dismissed by all serious theological or political thinkers.
We can only suggest conjecturally, that Luther may have
come under the special influence of some abnormal teacher.
It is also clear that from about 1530 his opinions were
completely altered, at least with regard to the Empire. Whether
Luther fully understood the significance of the change in his
conceptions may be doubted, but in fact the change was funda-
mental, for he was no longer mamtaining the absolute authority
of the Euler, but the supreme authority of the Law; it is not
necessary to explain the importance of this change.
It would seem that Melanchthon followed Luther, both in
his earlier and later opinions. In a letter of 1530 to the Elector
of Saxony, he speaks of resistance to the Emperor as being
contrary to God's command,1 but in 1536 he joined Luther
in signing the Declaration which we have just cited. 2
In a letter of 1539 he says plainly that the principle that
subjects must not resist their superiors does not apply when
the superior commits atrocious and notorious injuries. 3
ym solchen Fall kein mensch sich
dazu gobrauchen lasse, noch dem
Kaisor gehorsam sei. "
1 Melanchthon, 'Opera Omnia' (in
'Corpus Reformatorum '), vol. ii. Epist.
606 (p. 20. )
>> Cf. p. 282, note 5.
a Melanchthon, 'Opera Omnia,' vol.
iii. Epist. 1767 (p. 630): "Item quod
dicitur; subditis non lice re ut re-
sistant superioribus; hoc dictum babet
locum sicut in aliis causia civilibus,
quando superior non infert injurios
atroces et notorias. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 285
In 1546 Melanchthon, along with Bugenhagen and others,
signed a declaration that, in their opinion, it was lawful for
the "Stande" to defend themselves against the Emperor,
if he attacked them on account of their religion. 1 In a letter
of the same year Melanchthon briefly, but clearly, criticised
the argument for non-resistance, as drawn from St Paul's
words in the Epistle to Eomans xiii. 1. The Power, he
says, is indeed an Ordinance of God, but only a just Power;
unjust violence is not God's Ordinance; and he adds an im-
portant appeal to the principle that the relations of inferior
authorities to the superior were deterroined by certain con-
ditions and agreements, and refers to the mutual obligations
of lord and vassal in Feudal Law. 2 Thirteen years later
Melanchthon set out the same judgment in terse and significant
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. Epist. , 3454 (p.
123): "Denn wenn es gewiea iat, dass
der Kaiser dieso Stande von wegen der
Religion uberziehen will, alsdann iat
kein Zweifel, dieso Stande thun Reoht,
so sie sich und die ihren ernstlich mit
Gottes hOli sohutzen, wie S. Paulus
spricht: die Obrigkeit fuhrt das
Schwert nicht vergeblioh, sondorn sie
ist Gottes Dienerin, und soil atrafon
diejenigen, ao arges thun, als morder,
und ist eine aolche gegenwebr nicht
anders, denn so man einen haufen
morder wehren musste, es werde
gefuhret vom Kaiser oder anderen.
Denn es ist eine dffentliche Tiranney
und 'notoria violentia. '"
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. Epist. , S477
(p. 152): "Aliud dictum Rom. xiii.
qui potestati resistit, Dei ordi-
nationem resistit, et judicium sibi
acquirit. Haec sententia precipue
videtur prohibere defensionem contra
magistratum sed ipsa seee declarat.
Vetat enim rosistere in casu justae
jurisdictionis, quia manifeste inquit
ordinationi Dei resistit. Violentia
autem in just a, non est ordinatio Dei,
ut Thebani, cum excusserunt Lane-
demonios, qui rapiebant civium con-
juges et liberos, non resistebant
ordinationi Dei, sed manifest is furori-
bus Diaboli et manifesto latrocinio. . . .
(P. 153): Postea etiam, et de
imperiis dioi potest, quae etiamsi
aliis eubjecta sunt certa conditiope,
tamen habent suam jurisdictional et
administrationem gladii, ut principes
certa conditiono subjecti sunt regibus.
Cum autem politicas ordinationes
congruentes rationi approbat Deus,
manifestum est, his quoque dofeuaionem
concedi, juxta ipsorum pacta. Ideo
in iure mult a de mutuis obligationi-
bus, domini et vassali, ut vocant,
tradita sunt quae vera sunt, sed ilia,
quae supra diximus, ex lege naturae
sumpta, illustriora et indubitata sunt.
Addo tamer*, et banc manifostam
regulam, ut judex inferior, juste uti
jurisdictiono sua debet (he contrasts
this with the conduct of the judges in
the Story of Naboth). . . . Et Trajani
vox recte intellecta congruit cum hao
? ? regula, qui tradens gladium magistro
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 286
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PART III.
words. Eesistance and necessary defence against the unjust
and notorious violence of the superior is right, for the Gospel
does not annul the political order, which is in accord
with Law. 1
It is here that we may appropriately notice an important
statement of the year 1550, made by the parish Clergy of
Magdeburg, which sets out dogmatically the principle that the
inferior public authorities might rightly defend their subjects
against the unjust attacks of the Supreme Authority upon
their religion; this means that in such cases the Imperial
cities and the Princes could lawfully resist the Emperor. 2
They refer to the doctrine that it was always unlawful to
resist the Higher Powers, but they contemptuously reject it.
It is admitted, they say, that the superior and the subjects
are bound to each other by oaths, but princes and lords,
some say, may deal as they like with their subjects, may forget
their oaths and may do what they please, while the subjects
may not protect or maintain their rights and liberties. 3
The' Obrigkeit' is an Ordinance of God, whose function it is
to honour the good and to punish the evil, and therefore,
when it persecutes the good and sets forward the evil, it is
no longer an Ordinance of God, but of the Devil, and to resist
it is to resist, not the Ordinance of God, but of the Devil. *
1 Id. id. , vol.
ob man sich verbinden mOge outer,
hinter, oder wider die Oberkeit, Oder
wie ihm zu thun sey, dass man solchsn
Tyrannen widerstehe. Aufs ersto
weisa er wohl, dass wider die Oberkeit,
kein Verbindung gilt. Denn Gott
will die Oberherren, sie seyn bO<<e
oder gut, geehret habeu, Rom. xiii. 1,
1 Peter v. "
? Id. , Works, vol. ia. , 'Von Welt-
licher Obrigkeit,' p. 276: "Das kein
Furst, wider sein Oberherrn, als den
KOnig und Kaiser oder sonst seynen
Lehenherrn kriegen soil, sondern lassen
nehmen, was da nympt. Denn die
Oberkeyt soil man nicht widerstehen
mit gewalt, sondern nur mit bekenntniss
der wahrheit. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 277
and soul, but this was no excuse, for to punish the wicked was
not the right of any man but only of the Temporal Authority. 1
If every man took the law into his own hands, there would
be no law or order in the world, but only slaughter and blood-
shed,2 and Luther bids them remember that Christ taught
men not to resist evil but to submit to injuries; the only right
of the Christian is suffering and the Cross. 3 Luther does not,
indeed, deny that the Lords had behaved like tyrants, and
would be judged by God, but the peasants had transgressed
against God by their insurrection. *
So far, Luther's theory was extreme, but his language was
moderate; in two later tracts of the same year he seems to
lose all sense of proportion and restraint and decency. In
one of these, written in May 1525, he says that the peasants
had broken their oath of obedience to the authorities; they
had robbed and plundered, they had made the Gospel a cloke
for their sin, and he calls upon the princes and lords to take
the most violent and ruthless measures against them. 5 And
1 Id. , Works, vol. xviii. , 'Ermah-
nung zum Frieden, auf die zwolf
Artikel der Bauornschaft in Schwaben,'
p. 303: "Sondern, wie S. Paulus
sagt, Ein igliche Seele solle der Ober-
keit untertan sein, mit furcht und
ehren.
Wie kindet yhr doch fiir diesen
Gottes spriichen und Rechten uber,
die yhr euch rhiimet, GOttlichen Rocht
nachzufahren, und nehmet doch das
schwerd selbst, und lohnet euch aufl
widder die Oberkeit von Gotta recht
geordnet? Meynet yhr nicht, das
urtheil S. Pauli werde euch troffen.
'Wer Gott's ordnung widdorstrebt,
den wird das vordamnis uber-
kommen. . . . Zum dritteni Ja,
sprechet ibr, die Oberkeit ist zu biise
und unleidlich. Denn sie das Evan-
gelion uns nicht lassen wollen, und
drucken uns ailzu hart van zeitlicher
guter Beschwerung, und verderben uns
also an Leyb und Seele. Autworte ich;
Dasa die Oberkeit bose und unrecht
ist, entschuldigt keyn rotterey noch
aufruhr, denn die bosheit zu straffen,
das geburt nicht eym iglichen, sondern
der weltichen oberkeyt, die das Schwerd
furet. '"
>> Id. id. , p. 306.
>> Id. id. , p. 301: "Leyden, Leyden,
Ereutz, Kreutz is des Christen Recht,
das, und keyn anders. ''
4 Id. id. , p. 329.
? Id. id. , vol. xviii. 'Wider die
Raliberischen und MOrdorischen Rotten
der Bauern,' p. 358: "Drumb sol hie
zuschmeyssen, wurgen und stechen
heymlich oder offentliob, wer da kann,
und gedencken, das nicht gifitigers,
schedlichers, teuffelisohers seyn kan,
denn eyn auflrurischer mensch, gleich
als wenn man eynen tollen hund
todschlahen mus, schlegstu nicht, so
schlegt er dich und ein gantz land
mit dyr. "
Id. id. , p. 361: "Drumb, Uebe
Herren, loset hie, rettet hie, helfft hie,
erbarmt euch der arracn Leute, steche
? ? schlahe hie, wer da kann, bleybstu
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 278
[PABT m.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
in another tract, written probably in July 1525, he attempted
to defend the language and attitude of the first, especially
by means of that distinction between the two kingdoms--
God's kingdom of mercy and the earthly kingdom of wrath
and punishment, which we have already discussed. 1
We come back to a more restrained tone of discussion in
in the little work, 'Ob Kriegsleute anch im Seligen Stande
sein konnen,' written in 1526, to which we have already
referred. Here he discusses the principles of political obedience
with greater fulness, but with equal decision. He admits
that in the ancient world men had not hesitated to depose
and even to kill useless or wicked rulers. The Greeks set up
monuments to the Tyrannicides, the Eomans murdered many
of their emperors; but these, he says,' were heathen who did
not know God, and that the temporal authority was God's
Ordinance. 2 This was incompatible with the Christian Faith;
even if the rulers do what is unjust it is not lawful to be dis-
obedient to them, and to destroy the Ordinance of God;
men must endure injustice. 3 Luther was aware of the
fact that the 8wiss had emancipated themselves, and that,
not long before, the Danes had deposed their king, but, he
says, he is not speaking of what had been done, but of what
ought to be doners Men must submit to the tyrant, they must
fndt~resistilim, they must leave him to God's judgment, and
he cites the example of David's conduct to Saul. 5
This is sufficiently clear, but it is not all. Luther was
aware, even then, of what we may call constitutional tradition,
but he sets this aside. It may be contended, he says, that a
king or lord had sworn to his subjects to reign according to
definite conditions, and that, if he violated these, he forfeited
his authority, as it is said that the King of France must reign
in accordance with the judgment of his Farlement, and that
>> Cf. p. 273, note 3.
* Id. id. , vol. xix. , 'Ob Kriegsleute,'
&o. , p. 633.
>> Id. id. id. , p. 634: "Aber ich hab
? olche verantwortet, dass obgleich die
Hcrrn unrecht daran theten, were
drumb nicht biliig noch recht, auch
unrecht zu thun, das ist ungehorsam
sein und zerstoron Gotte Ordnung, die
nicht unser ist, sondeTM man solle
das unrecht leiden. "
? Id. id. id. , pp. 635 to 637.
5 Id. id. id. , p. 640.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 279
the King of Denmark had sworn to observe certain consti-
tutional articles. Luther answers that it is good and reasonable
that the Supreme Euler should reign according to law, and
not merely according to his capricious will, and should swear
to do this. But, if he did not do so, are his subjects to
attack him and sit in judgment on him? Who, he says, has
commanded this? This could only be done by some superior
power who could hear both parties and condemn the guilty. 1
He adds, in reply to those who might say that he was flattering
the princes, that this was not true, for what he had said
applied to all alike, peasants, burghers, nobles, lords, counts,
and princes, for they all have a superior lord to whom they
are subordinate. 2
Luther's conception is thus far perfectly clear and unam-
biguous. 'Die Obrigkeit' has an absolute authority, and God
requires of men an unconditional obedience to it, for it is
God Who has set it up. It would no doubt be well that the
ruler should govern justly and according to law, but if he
does not do so, his subjects must still submit and leave it to
God to punish him. The principle is clear and unqualified,
but we have made no progress in tracing the sources of
Luther's opinion. It may be suggested that it was in the main
1 Id. id. id. , p. 640: "Ja sprichstu,
wie aber, wenn eio Konig oder Horr
sich mit Eyden seiaen unterthanen
verpflicht, nach furgestellton artikel
zu regirn, und helt sie nicht, und
da mit schuldig sein wil, auch das
Regiment zu lasson; wie man
sagt, da&s der Kdnig zu Frankroich
nach den Parlamenten seines ieichs
regieren miiase. Und der KOnig zu
Denemark auch schweren musse, auff
sonderlich artikel.
Hie, antworte ich: Es ist fein und
billig, das die Oberkeit nach Gesetzen
regire und die selbigen bandhabo und
nicht nach eygenem mutwillon. Aber
thu das noch hinzu, das ein Kdnig
nicht alleine sein Landrecht odder
Artikel gelobt zu halten, sondern Gott
selber gebeut yhm auch, er solle frum
sein, und er gelobots auch zu thun.
Wohlan, wenn nu solcher Konig der
keins helt, widder Gotts Recht, noch
sein Landrecht? Soltestu yhn driimb
angreiffen, solchs richf. en und reohen?
Wer hat dirs befohlen? Es mussto
ja hie zwischen euch ein ander Oberkeit
komen, der ouch beide verhorte und
den schuldigen verurteilt. Sonst wirstu
dem urtheil Gotts nicht entlaunen,
da er sagt, ' Die Rache ist mein,' Item,
'Richtet nicht,' Matt, vii. "
>> Id. id. id. , p. 643: "Nioht also,
sondern was ich von der unter person
sage, das soil treffen beyde, Bauer,
Burger, Eddel, Herrn, Graven und
Fursten. Denn diese alio haben auch
Oberherrn, und sind Unterperson eiues
andern. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 280 THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT in.
a violent reaction against the danger of anarchy, as represented
by the revolt of the Peasants, but this is not really con-
sistent with the facts, for the statements of Luther, which we
have cited from the years 1522, 1523, show clearly that he
held the same opinions before the Peasants' Eevolt.
We must now turn to the development of Luther's later
views, for it is quite clear that these were not the same as his
earlier views. As late as May and November 1529, we find
him solemnly warning the Elector of Saxony against the
formation of a League for the protection of the Eeformers,
and against any attempt to resist the Emperor if he en-
deavoured to seize Luther. 1 But, as Professor Muller thinks,
even in December 1529 there are some indications of a
change,2 and in March 1530 Luther and some others in a
letter to the Elector of Saxony gave a formal opinion which
has a very different character from Luther's earlier views.
This letter was written in reply to one from the Elector,
and Luther said that it might perhaps be true, that, according
to the Imperial and Secular Law, it was in some cases lawful
to defend oneself against the Emperor, especially as the
Emperor had sworn to maintain his subjects in their ancient
liberty. Scripture, however, Luther says, does not permit
Christian men to set themselves against the Supreme Authority,
but requires them to submit to injustice and violence from him.
Secular and Papal Laws do not consider that the Supreme
Authority is an Ordinance of God; but the Emperor remains
Emperor, and the Prince remains Prince, even if he trans-
greases all God's commands--yes, even if he were a heathen.
Then, however, Luther comes to the rather surprising con-
clusion that there is only one remedy, and that is that the
Empire and the Electors should agree to depose him. 3
1 Luther, 'Briefe,' Ed. de Wette,
vol. iii. pp. 454 and 526.
* Cf. K. Muller, 'Luther's Aiisser-
iingen ubor das Recht des Widerstands
gogen dem Kaiser,' pp. 26-29.
? Luther, 'Briefe,' Ed. de Wette,
vol. iii. p. 560: "Und befinden,
dass vielleicht naoh Kaisorlichen und
weltlichen Rechten, etliche mochten
schliesson, dass man in solchem Fall
moohte wider Kaiserliche majestat
sich zur Gegenwehr stollen, sonderlich
weil Kaiserliche majestat sich ver-
pflichtet und vereidet, niemand mii
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ]
281
THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT.
It is clear that in this formal statement of opinion we
have something which is very different from Luther's earlier
judgments. In the first place, we have an indication that
Luther was beginning to take some account of the Consti-
tutional Law of the Empire, and that he recognised that
some jurists at least maintained that if the Emperor violated
the obligations of the oath which he had sworn at his
election, it was lawful to resist him. In the second place,
he still maintained that the Holy Scriptures did not permit any
such resistance, however unjust the Emperor's conduct might
be. But in the third place, we come upon the surprising view
that although, while the Emperor continued to be Emperor,
he could not be resisted, it might be lawful for the Empire and
the Electors to depose him.
We have already observed
a conception analogous to this in several earlier writers. 1
In October of the same year, 1530, the question of resistance
to the Emperor was formally put before Luther and others of
the Eeformers at Torgau, and there was laid before them a
statement on the subject drawn up by some jurists, showing
in what circumstances it would be lawful to resist the Supreme
Authority (Obrigkeit), and declaring that such circumstances
were now present. Luther and his colleagues answered that
they had not known that the Law itself recognised the right
gewalt anzugreifen, sondern bei aller
vorigen Freyheit zu lassen, wie denn
die Juristen handeln von den Repre-
salien und Diffidation. Aber nach der
Schrift will sichs in keinem weg ziemen,
dass sich jemand, wer ein Christ sein
will, wider sein Oberkeit setze, Gott
gebe sie thun recht oder unrecht;
sondern ein Christ soll gewalt und
unrecht leiden, sonderlich von seiner
Oberkeit. Denn obgleich Kaiserliche
majestat unrecht thut und ihr Pflicht
und Eid uebertrifft, ist damit sein
Kaiserlich Obrigkeit und seiner un-
terthanen gehorsam nioht aufgehebt,
weil das Reich und die Kurfu? rsten ihn
fu? r Kaiser halten und nicht absetzen. . . .
Weltliche oder Pa? pstliche Recht
sehen hierinnen nicht an, dass Oberkoit
ein go? ttliche ordnung sey, darum sie
vielleicht die pflicht und eid so hoch
achten dass sie die Obrigkeit in solchem
Fall sollton aufhalten und wehren.
Aber weil Kaiser Kaiser, und Fu? rst,
Fu? rst bleibt, wenn er gleich all gebot
Gottes uebertra? t, ja ob er gleich ein
heide wa? re: so soll er's auch seyn,
ob er gleioh sein Eide und Pflicht nioht
ha? lt, bis dass er abgesetzt, oder nimmer
Kaiser sei . . . und, summa, Su? nde
hebt Oberkeit und gehorsamkeit nicht
auf; aber die straffe hebt sie auf, das
ist, wenn das Reich und die Kurfu? rsten
eintra? chtiglich den Kaiser absetzen,
dass er nimmer Kaiser Wa? re. "
1 Cf. 'Sachsonspiegel,' vol. u? i. p. 61,
and in this volume, pp. 22, 23, 5O.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 282
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY, [part HI.
of resistance in certain cases; they had always thought that
the Law must be obeyed, and that the Gospel does not con-
tradict the Secular Law; they could not therefore maintain
that men might not defend themselves against the Emperor
himself, or his representative; it was, therefore, also right
that men should arm themselves, and thus be prepared to
resist a sudden attack. 1
The judgments expressed in this letter represent a different
position from the letter of March 1530. Luther was even then
aware that some jurists admitted the lawfulness of resistance;
1 K. Mttller,' Luther's Aueserungen,'
Beilage 3: "Una ist ein Zetel target-
rsgen, daraus wir befinden, was die
Doktores der Rechte schliessen auff die
Frage, in welehen fellen man muge
der Oberkeit widderstehen. Wo nu
das als bey den selbigen Rechtsdoktoren
odder Verstendigen gegrundet ist, und
wir gewislich ynn solchen fellen stu hen,
ynn welohen (wie sie anzeigen) man
muge die Oberkeit widderstehen, und
wir allzeit gelert haben dass man
welttlich Recht solle lassen gehen,
gelten und halt on, was sie vermugen,
und das Evangelion nicht widder die
welttliohe Recht leret, so konnen wir's
n ii der Schrift nicht anfechten, wo man
sich des falls wehren musste, es sey
gleich der Keiser ynn eigener Person,
oder wer es Unit unter seinen namen. . . .
So wil sichs gleichwol zimen, dass
man sioh ruste und als auff eine
gewalt, so pMHzlich sich erheben
mochte, bereit sey, wo sichs denn nach
gestallt und leuffte der sachen leicht-
lich begeben kann.
Denn das wir bisher geleret, stracks
nicht widder zu stehen der Oberkeit,
haben wir nicht gewust, das soloh's
der Oberkeit rechte eelbs geben,
welehen wir doch allenthalben zu
gehorchen vleissig geleret haben. "
Cf. the formal statement signed by
Luther, Justus Jonas, Bugonhagen
and Melanchthon in 1536.
Molanchthon, "Opera Omnia" in
'Corpus Reformatorum,' vol. iii. Epistle,
1458, p. 129 (1536 a. d. ): "Nu ist
erstlich klar, dass jede Oberkeit uber
andero gleiche Oberkeit, oder' privatos,'
schuldig ist ihre Christen und die
Lehre zu schutzen. Hie ist weiter
die Frage, was einem Fursten wider
seinen Herrn, als den Kaiser, in sol-
chem Fall zu thun gebuhro. Darauf
ist auch gleiche antwort. Erstlich,
diewohl das Evangelium bestatigt
weltliche leibliohe Regiment, so soil
sich ein idlicher Christlicher Furst
gegen seinen Herrn oder Kaiser halten
vermOge darselbigen natiirlichen und
weltlichen Regiment und Ordnung.
Wenn der Kaiser nicht Richter ist,
und will gleichwohl Straf uben, als
'pendente appellatione,' so heisat
soldi sein thatlich Vornehmen,' notoria
injuria. ' Nu ist dieses naturliche
? ? Ordnung der Regiment, dass man sich
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT.
283
but he still maintained that Holy Scripture did not permit
this. Now, Luther admitted that if, as the jurists said,
the law of the Empire admitted the right of resistance, they
could have nothing to say against it, for they had always
taught that the law must bo obeyed.
There are some letters written in the spring of 1531 which
justified or explained this apparent change of position, but
they do not add very much. In a letter addressed to
Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg, he says that he had heard
that it was reported that he and the other Eeformers had
withdrawn their previous advice that the Emperor must not
be resisted. The real truth was as follows: they were now
informed that the Imperial Law permitted resistance in the
case of obvious injustice. He himself had no opinion of
his own on the law, but must leave that to the jurists to decide.
If this was the Law of the Empire, they were no doubt bound
to obey it. The other letters are in much the same terms. 1
That this change in Luther's position was permanent seems
to be clear: in 1531 he wrote a pamphlet entitled,' Warnung
an seine lieben Deutschen. ' We are not concerned here with
its general subject-matter, but with some passages in it which
deal with the relations of those who accepted the Eeformed
opinions to the Emperor and the Eoman Party. If, he says
in one passage, it should come to war, he would not suffer
those who defended themselves against the "murderous and
blood-thirsty Papists" to be called rebels, but would refer
them to the Law and the jurists; and in another place he
says that his advice was that if the Emperor should summon
them to fight against the Eeforming Party no one should
obey him. 2
1 Luther,' Brief-wechsel,' Ed. Enders.
vol. viii. pp. 343, 344.
1 Luther,' Werke,' vol. xxx. part iii.
"Warnung an seine lieben Doutschon,"
p. 282: "Weiter; wo es zum Kriege
kompt, da Gott fur sei, so wil ieh das
teil so sich widder die mordische und
blutgyrige Papisten zur were sotzt,
nicht auffrurisch gescholten haben,
noch schelten lassen, sondern wills
lassen gehon und geschehen, dass sie
es eine not were heissen, und wil sie
damit ins Recht und zu den Juristen
weisen.
Page 291: Das ist aber mein
trewer Rat, das wo der Kaiser wttrde
auffbieten, und widder unser Teil,
umb der Bapst's Sachen odder unser
lere willen kriegen wolt. . . . Dass
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 284
[PABT m.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
We have dealt with Luther's position, not exhaustively,
as has been done by Miiller in his admirable monograph,
but we hope, sufficiently to bring out his original opinions and
the change after 1530. It seems clear that at first Luther
maintained dogmatically that the king, whether he was good
or bad, just or unjust, held his authority from God and could
not be resisted, but must in all secular matters receive an
unqualified submission. His judgment is clear, but we have
not been able to find in his work any real light upon
the source of his opinions, for his citations from St Paul and
St Peter cannot be described as furnishing this adequately.
No doubt his opinions were ultimately derived from those of
St Gregory the Great, for these opinions had not completely
disappeared in the Middle Ages, though they had been ignored
or dismissed by all serious theological or political thinkers.
We can only suggest conjecturally, that Luther may have
come under the special influence of some abnormal teacher.
It is also clear that from about 1530 his opinions were
completely altered, at least with regard to the Empire. Whether
Luther fully understood the significance of the change in his
conceptions may be doubted, but in fact the change was funda-
mental, for he was no longer mamtaining the absolute authority
of the Euler, but the supreme authority of the Law; it is not
necessary to explain the importance of this change.
It would seem that Melanchthon followed Luther, both in
his earlier and later opinions. In a letter of 1530 to the Elector
of Saxony, he speaks of resistance to the Emperor as being
contrary to God's command,1 but in 1536 he joined Luther
in signing the Declaration which we have just cited. 2
In a letter of 1539 he says plainly that the principle that
subjects must not resist their superiors does not apply when
the superior commits atrocious and notorious injuries. 3
ym solchen Fall kein mensch sich
dazu gobrauchen lasse, noch dem
Kaisor gehorsam sei. "
1 Melanchthon, 'Opera Omnia' (in
'Corpus Reformatorum '), vol. ii. Epist.
606 (p. 20. )
>> Cf. p. 282, note 5.
a Melanchthon, 'Opera Omnia,' vol.
iii. Epist. 1767 (p. 630): "Item quod
dicitur; subditis non lice re ut re-
sistant superioribus; hoc dictum babet
locum sicut in aliis causia civilibus,
quando superior non infert injurios
atroces et notorias. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT. 285
In 1546 Melanchthon, along with Bugenhagen and others,
signed a declaration that, in their opinion, it was lawful for
the "Stande" to defend themselves against the Emperor,
if he attacked them on account of their religion. 1 In a letter
of the same year Melanchthon briefly, but clearly, criticised
the argument for non-resistance, as drawn from St Paul's
words in the Epistle to Eomans xiii. 1. The Power, he
says, is indeed an Ordinance of God, but only a just Power;
unjust violence is not God's Ordinance; and he adds an im-
portant appeal to the principle that the relations of inferior
authorities to the superior were deterroined by certain con-
ditions and agreements, and refers to the mutual obligations
of lord and vassal in Feudal Law. 2 Thirteen years later
Melanchthon set out the same judgment in terse and significant
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. Epist. , 3454 (p.
123): "Denn wenn es gewiea iat, dass
der Kaiser dieso Stande von wegen der
Religion uberziehen will, alsdann iat
kein Zweifel, dieso Stande thun Reoht,
so sie sich und die ihren ernstlich mit
Gottes hOli sohutzen, wie S. Paulus
spricht: die Obrigkeit fuhrt das
Schwert nicht vergeblioh, sondorn sie
ist Gottes Dienerin, und soil atrafon
diejenigen, ao arges thun, als morder,
und ist eine aolche gegenwebr nicht
anders, denn so man einen haufen
morder wehren musste, es werde
gefuhret vom Kaiser oder anderen.
Denn es ist eine dffentliche Tiranney
und 'notoria violentia. '"
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. Epist. , S477
(p. 152): "Aliud dictum Rom. xiii.
qui potestati resistit, Dei ordi-
nationem resistit, et judicium sibi
acquirit. Haec sententia precipue
videtur prohibere defensionem contra
magistratum sed ipsa seee declarat.
Vetat enim rosistere in casu justae
jurisdictionis, quia manifeste inquit
ordinationi Dei resistit. Violentia
autem in just a, non est ordinatio Dei,
ut Thebani, cum excusserunt Lane-
demonios, qui rapiebant civium con-
juges et liberos, non resistebant
ordinationi Dei, sed manifest is furori-
bus Diaboli et manifesto latrocinio. . . .
(P. 153): Postea etiam, et de
imperiis dioi potest, quae etiamsi
aliis eubjecta sunt certa conditiope,
tamen habent suam jurisdictional et
administrationem gladii, ut principes
certa conditiono subjecti sunt regibus.
Cum autem politicas ordinationes
congruentes rationi approbat Deus,
manifestum est, his quoque dofeuaionem
concedi, juxta ipsorum pacta. Ideo
in iure mult a de mutuis obligationi-
bus, domini et vassali, ut vocant,
tradita sunt quae vera sunt, sed ilia,
quae supra diximus, ex lege naturae
sumpta, illustriora et indubitata sunt.
Addo tamer*, et banc manifostam
regulam, ut judex inferior, juste uti
jurisdictiono sua debet (he contrasts
this with the conduct of the judges in
the Story of Naboth). . . . Et Trajani
vox recte intellecta congruit cum hao
? ? regula, qui tradens gladium magistro
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 286
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PART III.
words. Eesistance and necessary defence against the unjust
and notorious violence of the superior is right, for the Gospel
does not annul the political order, which is in accord
with Law. 1
It is here that we may appropriately notice an important
statement of the year 1550, made by the parish Clergy of
Magdeburg, which sets out dogmatically the principle that the
inferior public authorities might rightly defend their subjects
against the unjust attacks of the Supreme Authority upon
their religion; this means that in such cases the Imperial
cities and the Princes could lawfully resist the Emperor. 2
They refer to the doctrine that it was always unlawful to
resist the Higher Powers, but they contemptuously reject it.
It is admitted, they say, that the superior and the subjects
are bound to each other by oaths, but princes and lords,
some say, may deal as they like with their subjects, may forget
their oaths and may do what they please, while the subjects
may not protect or maintain their rights and liberties. 3
The' Obrigkeit' is an Ordinance of God, whose function it is
to honour the good and to punish the evil, and therefore,
when it persecutes the good and sets forward the evil, it is
no longer an Ordinance of God, but of the Devil, and to resist
it is to resist, not the Ordinance of God, but of the Devil. *
1 Id. id. , vol.
