No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Luther and the right of resistance to the emperor
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
Like most problems connected with Luther, the question of his attitude to the right of resistance to the emperor is one that has attracted a great deal of attention from german scholars. Sixty years ago, at the height of the first world war, Karl Müller published his pioneering essay, Luthers Äusserungen über das Recht des bewaffneten Widerstands gegen den Kaiser, in which he provided the first detailed analysis of the development of Luther’s views: since then the problem has been extensively debated by a succession of german historians and theologians. Yet it is perhaps typical of the insularity of so much english historical writing on the continental reformation that these debates have largely been ignored on this side of the Channel. Even to-day there is no adequate study of the problem in english.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1975
References
1 [Karl] Müller, [Luthers Äusserungen über das Recht des bewaffneten Widerstands gegen den Kaiser], Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1915, Abhandlung 8 (Munich 1915).
2 Among the most important contributions to the discussion of the problem since Müller are: Kern, [Fritz], [‘Luther und das Widerstandsrecht’,] ZRG, 37, KA 6 (1916) pp 331– Google Scholar; Heckel, [Johannes], Lex Charitatis [: Eine juristiche Untersuchung über das Recht in der Theologie Martin Luthers], Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, N.F. 36 (Munich 1953), 2 rev edGoogle Scholar, ed Heckel, Martin (Darmstadt 1973), App I ‘Luthers Lehre vom Widerstandsrecht gegen den Kaiser’, pp 295–306 Google Scholar; Dörries, [Hermann], [‘Luther und das Widerstandsrecht]’ in Wort und Stunde, 3 (Göttingen 1970) pp 195–270 Google Scholar, which has now replaced Müller as the standard work on the subject. [Das] Widerstandsrecht [als Problem der deutschen Protestanten 1523-1546], ed Scheible, [Heinz], Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologie-geschichte 10 (Gütersloh 1969)Google Scholar, contains a valuable selection of documents relating to the problem, including several of Luther’s most important Gutachten. For detailed bibliographies of the modern literature on the subject, see Heckel, Lex Charitatis, p 295 n 1441; Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, pp 9-13; Luther und die Obrigkeit, ed. Wolf, [G.], Wege der Forschung 85 (Darmstadt 1972) pp 469-82Google Scholar. The latter contains a selection of articles published in the 1950s and 1960s, several of which relate to the question of Luther and the right of resistance to the emperor (see especially those by K-F. Stolzenau, pp 196-302; E. Weymar, pp 303-34; and G. Wolf, pp 335-40).
3 An exception is Mackinnon, [James], Luther and the Reformation, 4 (London 1930) pp 24-8Google Scholar.
4 The most comprehensive modern study of the policies of the protestant princes and cities in the 1520S and early 1530s is Fabian, [Ekkehart], [Die Entstehung des Schmalkaldischen Bundes und seiner Verfassung 1524/29-1531/35: Brück, Philipp von Hessen und Jakob Sturm], Schriften zur Kirchen- und Rechtsgeschichte 1 (2 ed Tübingen 1962)Google Scholar. Older but still useful is Schubert, [Hans von], Bekenntnisbildung[und Religionspolitik 1529/30 (1124-34): Untersuchungen und Texte] (Gotha 1910)Google Scholar. Both books contain important chapters dealing with the political history of the debate over the right of resistance to the emperor.
5 For a classic statement of Luther’s teaching on non-resistance and the limits of obedience, see Von weltlicher Oberkeit, WA 11, esp pp 265-8.
6 WA 18, p 310.
7 Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, ed B. J. Kidd (Oxford 1911) no 45, pp 87-8.
8 For a detailed study of Frederick’s role in the Indulgences controversy and the legal arguments which he employed on Luther’s behalf, see Borth, [Wilhelm], [Die] Luthersache [(Causa Lutheri) 1517-1524; Die Anfänge der Reformation als Frage von Politik und Recht], Historische Studien 414 (Lübeck/Hamburg 1970)Google Scholar.
9 Ibid pp 129-31.
10 See Luther’s letter to elector Frederick, 5 March 1522, WA Br. 2, no 455, p 455.
11 WA Br. 2, no 455, pp 454-7.
12 Ibid p 456.
13 Ibid pp 455-6: ‘Dieser Sachen soll noch kann kein Schwert raten oder helfen, Gott muss hie allein schaffen, ohn alles menschlich Sorgen und Zutun’.
14 Compare Von weltlicher Oberkeit, WA 11, pp 268-9.
15 Compare his letters to elector John of Saxony, 22 May 1529, WA Br. 5, no 1424, pp 76-7; 18 November 1529, Ibid no 1496, pp 181-3; 24 December 1529, Ibid, no 1511, pp 209-11.
16 For the proceedings of the diet of Nuremberg in regard to the edict of Worms, see Borth, Luthersache, pp 135-43.
17 See Luther’s letter to elector Frederick, 29 May 1523, WA Br. 3, no 618, pp 75-7.
18 All four statements are printed, with a useful historical introduction, in WA Br. 12, no 4222, pp 35-45; also (without introduction) in Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, nos 1-4, pp 17-19.
19 See WA Br. 12, no 4222, Introduction, p 36. Some of the specific points raised by Spalatin can be deduced from the answers of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf—for example whether it is wrong for a prince to go to war without the consent of his people (see below pp 169-70).
20 Compare Müller pp 4, 6-9; Dörries, 3, pp 196-8.
21 For Frederick’s position at this period, see Kalkoff, Paul, ‘Friedrich der Weise und Luther’, HZ 132 (1925) pp 41-2Google Scholar. Frederick officially maintained in his dealings with the imperial authorities that he was in no way committed to the truth of Luther’s teaching, but that his only concern in the matter was to ensure that dieser nicht ungehört vergewaltigt werde.
22 The meaning of this obscurely worded passage appears to be that, while it is wrong for a prince to defend his own subjects if they are attacked for the sake of religion, it is permissible for him to go to the assistance of foreigners who may be attacked. To illustrate Luther’s meaning, Müller cites the example of Gustavus Adolphus coming to the aid of the german protestants in the thirty years war (Müller p 7 n 2).
23 WA Br. 12, pp 39-40.
24 Müller p 7. Dörries describes these conditions as being ‘not only … difficult to fulfil, but incapable of fulfilment’; he suggests—somewhat implausibly—that Luther deliberately couched his rejection of resistance to the emperor in oblique language, leaving the elector to draw his own conclusions, since he was confident that Frederick would understand how his remarks were intended to be interpreted, even though they avoided giving a direct negative (Dörries, 3 pp 197-8).
25 The words Luther uses at the beginning of this section, Si autem vellet bellum suscipere pro tuenda ista causa are ambiguous and it is possible to interpret them as referring to war against the emperor: but, in view of the context in which the paper was written, it seems more probable that Luther was using them here in a wider sense to refer to war in general.
26 This passage is often interpreted as meaning that Melanchthon held the view that princes derived their authority from the people (compare Müller p 6; Dörries, 3 p 199). But it is probably wrong to read too much into this passage. The form of words used by Melanchthon suggests that he was not so much expressing his own thoughts as commenting on a point raised by Spalatin: in other words, what he appears to be saying is that, if it is the case that rulers should not go to war without the consent of their subjects, from whom they derive their authority, then clearly the elector should not go to war in this instance, since his people do not support Luther’s teaching. H. Lüthje states that this is the only passage in Melanchthon’s writings in which the idea that the prince holds his authority from the people is to be found; see Lüthje, [Hans], [‘Melanchthons Anschauung über das Recht des Widerstandes gegen die Staatsgewalt’], Z[eitschrift für] K[irchen] G[eschichte], 47, N.F. 10 (Gotha 1928) p 516 Google Scholar.
27 WA Br. 12, p 41.
28 Ibid pp 42-3.
29 Amsdorf had been entrusted with the task of collecting the opinions of his colleagues and forwarding them to Spalatin and his own answer, which is dated 8 February 1523, was evidently written after he had received the replies of the others.
30 WA Br. 12, p 44. For a fuller discussion of the views of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, see Dörries, 3, pp 199-202; for Melanchthon’s paper, see also Lüthje pp 515-16.
31 The treatise was apparently finished in December 1522 (the preface is dated ‘New Year’s day 1523’—that is, Christmas day 1522) and it is likely that Luther borrowed from it, consciously or unconsciously, when he came to write his Gutachten for the elector.
32 WA 11, pp 276-7.
33 WA Br. 3, no 814, pp 416-17. For the problem of the date of this letter, see Ibid, Introduction, p 415.
34 Ob Kriegsleute auch in seligem Stande sein können, WA 19, p 643.
35 Ibid pp 633-6.
36 Ibid pp 640-1. As examples of rulers who are said to be bound by such an oath, Luther cites the cases of the kings of France and Denmark.
37 Ibid pp 647-8.
38 Ibid pp 649-51.
39 For a detailed history of these negotiations, see Fabian, pt A.
40 For the details of the ‘Pack affair’, see Dülfer, Kurt, Die Packschen Händel. Darstellung und Quellen, Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Hessen und Waldeck, 24, 3 (Marburg 1958)Google Scholar, and Fabian, pp 33-6 and Excurse 11-14, pp 338-42. Fabian argues against Dülfer that the real instigator of the whole incident was Philip of Hesse who used Pack’s revelations to further his plans to attack the ecclesiastical principalities of Mainz and Würzburg. Fabian demonstrates conclusively that Philip was already planning his campaign against Mainz and Würzburg before Pack made his revelations about the ‘Breslau treaty’ and he makes out a strong case for suggesting that not only was Philip not Pack’s dupe, but that it was he who inspired Pack’s revelations (see especially Excurse 12 and 14, pp 339-42).
41 WA Br. 4, no 1246, pp 421-4.
42 See the letter from Luther and Melanchthon to elector John, 1 or 2 May (?) 1528, WA Br. 4, no 1258, p 449.
43 Luther to elector John, 22 May 1529, WA Br. 5, no 1424, pp 76-7. Significantly, this letter was written by Luther on his own initiative and not in answer to a request for advice from the elector.
44 The league negotiations of 1529 and the reasons for their collapse are examined in detail in Fabian, pt A, I, 2, ‘Das Scheitern der Speyerer Bündnispolitik am “Bekenntnis”’, pp 44-92; see also Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, esp cap 5.
45 WA Br. 5, p 77. For the part played by Melanchthon in organising opposition to the Speyer agreement, see Fabian, pp 46-50.
46 WA Br. 5, no 1424, Beilage, pp 78-81.
47 See WA Br. 5, no 1496, Introduction, pp 180-1; Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, pp 184 et seq. For Philip of Hesse’s opposition to the clause, see Fabian, p 54.
48 Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 7, pp 25-9.
49 For the arguments of the saxon jurists, see Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, pp 186-7.
50 Ibid pp 189-90; see also WA Br. 5, no 1496, Introduction, p 181.
51 Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 8, pp 29-39. For similar views expressed by Johannes Brenz, see the letter from Brenz to margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, 27 November 1529, Ibid no 9, pp 40-2.
52 See the letter from Philip of Hesse to margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, 21 December 1529, Ibid no 10, pp 43-7. Among the arguments which Philip put forward in this letter are: (i) that the emperor and the princes have mutual obligations towards each other and the emperor has bound himself by oath (namely, in his election capitulation) to observe the laws of the empire, therefore the princes only owe the emperor a conditional obedience and may resist him if he breaks his obligations to them; (ii) the position of the german princes is altogether different from that of the officials of the roman empire in the time of the apostles, in that the latter were not hereditary rulers, sunder schlechte landtpfleger whom the roman emperors could remove at their pleasure, therefore Paul’s prohibition of resistance does not necessarily apply in the same way to the german princes (compare Philip’s letter to Luther, 21 October 1530, WA Br. 5, no 1737, pp 653-5, see below p 184); (iii) the princes have a Christian duty to protect their subjects against all unjust force not only in temporal but also in spiritual matters (wir als die dorzu unsern unterdanen eingesezte obrigkait dieselben unsere unterdanen vor unrechtem und unpillichem gewalt in zeitlichen und vil meher in geistlichen, doran die eher Gottes und die seligkait gelegen ist, zu beschirmen schuldigk).
53 Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, pp 223-4; WA Br. 5, no 1522, p 224 n 3. In arguing for resistance, the saxon chancellor, Christian Beyer, claimed to be speaking only in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the elector, but it is clear that his views were those of the saxon government.
54 See his letter to Luther, 27 January 1530, WA Br. 5, no 1522, pp 223-4, from which it is evident that he had not consulted Luther directly on the question since receiving Bugenhagen’s opinion. For John’s attitude at this period, see Dörries, 3, pp 208-9.
55 WA Br. 5, no 1496, pp 181-3; no 1511, pp 209-11. Karl Müller argued that Luther’s letter of 24 December 1529 marked a significant turning-point in the development of his attitude to the question of resistance to the emperor in that in it Luther appeared no longer to be opposing resistance to the emperor in principle, but only on the grounds that it was inopportune at the present time (Müller pp 20-2, 24-9). But this view has rightly been rejected by modern scholars: compare G. Wolf in Wolf, Luther und die Obrigkeit, pp 337-9; Dörries, 3, p 215 n 42. As Dörries points out, Müller’s interpretation is impossible to reconcile either with Luther’s letter of 6 March 1530 or with his position at the time of the Torgau meeting in October 1530, and it is clear that too much should not be read into the language of the letter of 24 December 1529, which is concerned with opposing a specific proposal by Philip of Hesse rather than with the general question of resistance to the emperor.
56 WA Br. 5, no 1522, pp 223-4.
57 The first argument had been used by the saxon jurists in the joint memorandum drawn up by Saxony and Brandenburg-Ansbach for the Schwabach meeting of the protestant estates in October 1529, Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, pp 186-7. Similarly, Philip of Hesse had used the second in his letter to margrave George of Ansbach of 21 December 1529, see above, p 178 n 52.
58 WA Br. 5, no 1536, pp 258-61; Scheible, Widerslandsrecht, no 14, pp 60-3. The letter was reprinted on several occasions in the sixteenth century, see WA Br. 5, no 1536, Introduction, pp 251-8. The letter is discussed in Müller, pp 22-4; Dörries, 3, pp 209-12.
59 WA Br. 5, no 1536, pp 258-9.
60 Ibid p 259. Both these arguments and the argument from the emperor’s election capitulation were also rejected equally emphatically by Melanchthon in a separate Gutachten, dating from the same period, which covers many of the same issues, Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 13, pp 57-60. Scheible considers that in view of the obvious parallels between the two documents Melanchthon’s Gutachthen represents a preliminary study which he prepared for the joint letter of 6 March 1530, Ibid p 57 n 182.
61 WA Br. 5, pp 259-60.
62 Ibid p 259: ‘Sunde hebt oberkeit und gehorsam nicht auff, Aber die straffe hebet sie auff, das ist, wenn das Reich und die kurfursten eintrechtiglich den keiser absetzten, das er nimer keiser were’. By das Reich Luther presumably meant the estates of the empire assembled in the diet.
63 For a detailed account of the negotiations between the protestant estates following the diet of Augsburg, see Fabian, pt A, II ‘Der Augsburger Reichstag von 1530 und der Abschluss des Schmalkaldischen Bundes’, pp 92-183.
64 For the attitude of the Saxon government after Augsburg, see Ibid pp 114 et seq.
65 The text of this paper is printed in Müller, Beilage 2, pp 89-92; Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 15, pp 63-6. For the authorship of this paper, which is cited in Müller p 89, simply as an ‘anonymous legal opinion’ (Anonymes Rechtsgutachten), see Fabian, pp 117-18. There is some disagreement among scholars as to whether Luther and his colleagues were presented with the full text of the jurists’ memorandum or with a paper summarising its main conclusions; the arguments on both sides are discussed in Dörries, 3, p 217 n 45.
66 See Fabian p 119.
67 Philip of Hesse to Luther, 21 October 1530, WA Br. 5, no 1737, pp 653-5. Luther’s reply, which was dated from Torgau, 28 October 1530, is in ibid no 1740, pp 660-1. In it Luther avoided giving Philip a direct answer on the question of resistance, stating merely that he had declared his opinion on the matter to the elector (that is, in the Torgau declaration), Welche on zweivel E.f.g. unverborgen sein wird.
68 Contrary to what is suggested by [Hans] Baron in [‘Religion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities during the Reformation’], EHR, 52 (1937) p 423. Baron attributes to the saxon jurists the arguments used by Philip of Hesse in his letter to Luther of 21 October.
69 Müller pp 90-2.
70 25 or 26 October to 28 October.
71 Luther to Wenceslas Link, 15 January 1531, WA Br. 6, no 1772, pp 16-17; Luther to Lazarus Spengler, 15 February 1531, ibid no 1781, pp 36-7; Luther to Spengler, 18 March 1531, ibid no 1796, pp 56-7; Melanchthon to Joachim Camerarius, 1 January 1531 C[orpus] R[eformatorum], 1-28, Philippi Melanchthonis Opera, ed C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil (Halle and Brunswick 1834-60) 2, no 955, cols 469-70; Melanchthon to Camerarius, 15 February 1531, ibid no 957, col 471.
72 See esp WA Br. 6, no 1781, p 36, no 1796, p 56.
73 The original manuscript in the Weimar archives is in Luther’s hand. Müller considered that Luther was the sole author of the declaration (Müller p 32 n 2). This view has recently been criticised by Fabian on the grounds that the paper was presented in the joint names of Luther and his colleagues and that they must therefore be regarded as co-authors of the statement (Fabian p 121 and n 616). But while he is undoubtedly right to emphasise the collective character of the declaration, there is no reason to suppose that Luther was not responsible for the actual wording of the document.
74 In the sixteenth century weil could be used both in the causal sense of ‘because’ and in the temporal sense of ‘so long as’: see J., and Grimm, W., Deutsches Wörterbuch (Leipzig 1854-1971) 14, I, cols 762 Google Scholar et seq, which cites numerous examples of both usages from Luther’s writings. In general, historians have tended to assume that Luther was using it here in its modern sense of ‘because’; in other words, that he was saying that the theologians would not oppose resistance if it was permitted by the temporal laws, ‘because the Gospel does not teach anything contrary to the temporal law’: compare Müller, p 33; Kern, p 334; Mackinnon, , Luther and the Reformation, 4, p 28 Google Scholar. But although both usages are to be found in Luther, it is clear that weil must mean ‘so long as’ in this passage: this view is supported, though more tentatively, by Gottfried Krodel in Luther’s Works, American Edition (St. Louis and Philadelphia 1955-) 49, Letters II, ed and trans Gottfried G. Krodel, p 432 and n 29. In practice, Luther never had maintained that temporal laws could not be in conflict with divine law and it would have been contrary to his basic principles to do so.
75 WA Br. 5, Beilagen, p 662; Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 16, p 67.
76 WA Br. 5, p 662; Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, pp 67-8. For the importance of this supplementary advice, see Dörries, 3, pp 218-21. In the subsequent negotiations over the formation of the Schmalkaldic league, the saxon government apparently relied exclusively on the Torgau declaration and deliberately suppressed all mention of the theologians’ second paper (ibid pp 220-1).
77 For discussions of its significance, see Müller pp 32 et seq; Dörries, 3, pp 216 et seq.
78 See above, p 185 n 74.
79 See WA Br. 6, pp 36, 56.
80 See below, pp 195, 198. In a passage in the Table Talk, dated between 18 August and 26 December 1531, Luther specifically rejected the argument that the princes were public persons, insisting that they were private persons in relation to the emperor, though he added that the matter should be discussed by the lawyers. WATR 2, no 2285a, p 404: ‘Principes Germanicos esse publicas personas dicunt, ideo ipsos adversus caesarem defendere posse suos, si post concilium executio fuisset caesari a papa mandata. Ego autem dico: Nequaquam. Principes enim erga caesarem dico esse privatas personas. Sed iuristis afferamus illa discutienda’.
81 WA Br. 6, no 1772, p 17.
82 See above, p 184 n 71.
83 For the politics of Nuremberg during the Reformation, see Baron, esp pp 415-22, pp 614-21.
84 The Nuremberg pastors appear to have been divided on the issue, Andreas Osiander being in favour of resistance (ibid pp 421-2). Baron’s account underestimates the strength of the theological opposition in the city to resistance to the emperor in 1529-31.
85 WA Br. 6, pp 16-17, 36-7.
86 Ibid p 37.
87 Ibid p 17.
88 Compare WATR 2, pp 404-6, nos 2285a, part of which is quoted above, p 187 n 80, and 2285b. Equally ambiguous is Luther’s attitude in his Warnung an seine lieben Deutschen (WA 30, 3, pp 276-320) which was published about March or April 1531 but was begun, if not finished, the previous October. It is sometimes claimed that in this tract Luther came out openly in support of resistance: but although he states that he will not blame those who resist if war should break out, since it is the catholics, not the protestants, who will be responsible for causing the war, he studiously refrains from actually advocating resistance, insisting that it is his duty as a preacher not to counsel war, but rather to advise men to seek peace and avoid war, as he has always done in the past, see esp pp 278-83.
89 CR 3, no 1458, cols 126-31. Scheible prints only the second part of the paper which deals with the question of resistance to the emperor, Widerslandsrecht, no 20, pp 89-92.
90 For the political background to this memorandum, see Lau, [Franz] and Bizer, [Ernst], [A History of the] Reformation in Germany to 1555, trans Hardy, B.A. (London 1969) pp 123 Google Scholar et seq.
91 CR 3, cols 126-8.
92 Ibid col 128. The natural law argument had been used as early as 1532 by Melanchthon (despite his rejection of it in 1530) in a letter to Heinrich von Einsiedel, 8 July 1532, CR 2, no 1066, cols 603-4. After 1536 it was used quite explicitly by the Wittenberg reformers in several of their individual or collective Gutachten justifying resistance; see, for example, CR 3, no 1067, cols 631-2 (1537 or 1539, Melanchthon only); Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 21, pp 92-4 (November 1538); WA Br. 8, no 3369, pp 515-17 (July ? 1539). In the later 1530s this argument seems to have been particularly favoured by Melanchthon, who was responsible for drawing up most of the collective Gutachten on resistance of these years, see Lüthje, pp 530-3.
93 CR 3, cols 128-9.
94 Ibid cols 129-30.
95 Müller p 68.
96 See his treatise, De officio principum, quod mandatum Dei praecipiat eis tollere abusus Ecclesiasticos (1539), printed in CR 3, no 1520, cols 240-58, under the year 1537, and the Gutachten of the Wittenberg theologians of 1536, also composed by Melanchthon, CR 3, no 1511, cols 224-9.
97 CR 3, cols 128, 131.
98 Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 21, pp 92-4, Luther, Jonas, Bucer and Melanchthon to elector John Frederick and Philip of Hesse, 13/14 November 1538 (written by Melanchthon); WA Br. 8, no 3369, pp 515-17, Luther, Jonas and Bugenhagen to elector John Frederick, July ? 1539 (probably written by Bugenhagen or Jonas); Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 23, pp 98-100, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Maior and Melanchthon to the heads of the Schmalkaldic league, May/early June 1546.
99 For the political background, see Lau and Bizer, Reformation in Germany to 1555, pp 141 et seq.
100 Müller pp 69-70; WA Br. 8, no 3297, Introduction, pp 364-5.
101 WA Br. 8, no 3297, pp 366-7.
102 Dörries, 3, p 246 n 117. Dörries points out that the argument that the emperor may be resisted since he is not acting as emperor, sonder als ain geschworner und hauptman des bapsts, appears in an anonymous theological Gutachten, printed in Scheible, Widerstandsrecht, no 18, p 80. Scheible dates this paper as c1530, but the date is uncertain.
103 WA Br. 8, p 367.
104 Ibid pp 367-8. Virtually the same arguments as Luther used in this letter appear in a passage in the Table Talk, dated 7 February 1539 (that is, the day before the letter to Ludicke): but there the order is reversed and Luther places his main emphasis on the constitutional position of the princes and he appears to attach rather less importance to the argument that the emperor is not acting pro sua persona but as the feudataritis of the pope, WA TR 4, no 4342, pp 235-9; see also Müller pp 75-6; Dörries, 3, pp 253-4. For his comment on the relationship of the princes to the emperor see WA Br. 8, p 367: Nam Principes Germaniae plus iuris habent contra Caesarem, quam illic populus contra Saul, vel Ahikam contra Joiakim, ut qui communi consilio gubernent imperium cum Caesare, et Caesar non sit monarcha nec posset deiectis Electoribus mutare formam imperii, nec esset ferendum, si tentaret.
105 WA 39, 2, pp 39-44. Luther’s theses are discussed in detail in Rudolph Hermann, ‘Luthers Zirkulardisputation über Mt 19, 21’ in Gesammelte Studien zur Tlieologie Luthers und der Reformation (Göttingen 1960) pp 206-50. See also Müller pp 73-5; Dörries, 3, pp 241-6.
106 WA 39, 2, Zirkulardisputation, Introduction, pp 34-5.
107 Ibid pp 40-1.
108 For Luther’s concept of the three divine hierarchies, see Diem, Harald, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen, Evangelische Theologie, Beiheft 5 (Munich 1938) pp 56–61 Google Scholar; Törnvall, Gustaf, Geistliches und weltliches Regiment bei Luther (Munich 1947) pp 38–40 Google Scholar.
109 WA 39, 2, pp 42-3.
110 Printed in WA 39, 2, pp 52-89.
111 Ibid pp 56-7.
112 Ibid p 60.
113 Ibid p 59 and passim.
114 Ibid p 60 and passim.
115 Ibid p 74.
116 Ibid p 58-9.
117 Ibid pp 56-62, 64-5, 74-6.
118 Ibid pp 56 et seq, 65, 74 et seq.
119 Ibid p 77.
120 Ibid p 78. The phraseology attributed to Luther here, especially in report A, is very similar to that of the Table Talk of 7 February 1539, WA TR 4, no 4342, pp 236-7, where the argument that the emperor shares his authority with the electors is developed at greater length. See also Table Talk, 8 and 9 May 1539, Ibid no 4582, p 388.
121 WA 39, 2, p 78.
122 See Ibid Introduction, pp 35-8. For the posthumous use made of Luther’s writings during the Schmalkaldic war, see Dömes, 3, pp 261-4.
122 Compare his preface to the german translation of Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum prelatorum de emendando ecclesia (1538), WA 50, pp 288-91.
124 A fourth line of argument which appears in several of the collective opinions presented by the Wittenberg theologians at this period, especially those written by Melanchthon, is the claim that resistance to the emperor is justified on the basis of the natural law principle of self-defence (see above, p 191 n 92)—a claim which again involves a reversal of Luther’s earlier views. But although Luther signed the joint Gutachten of 1536, 1538 and 1539, he did not make use of the natural law argument in any of his own writings and, in my view, it must be considered doubtful whether he ever fully accepted it in his own mind.
125 For Beza’s early views, see Kingdon, [Robert M.], [‘The First Expression of Theodore Beza’s Political Ideas’,] A[rchiv für] R[eformations] G[eschichte], 46 (Gütersloh 1955) pp 88–99 Google Scholar.
126 For an analysis of the arguments of the Magdeburg Bekenntnis, see Allen, J.W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London 1928) pp 103-6Google Scholar. Allen, however, tends to exaggerate the revolutionary significance of the arguments of the Magdeburg Bekenntnis, largely because he virtually ignores the previous development of resistance theory among the german lutherans. He also suggests that there is no causal connection between german resistance theory and the later ideas of the english marian exiles and the french huguenots (pp 104, 106). But, as Kingdon points out (pp 92-4), Beza in his De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis (1554) refers specifically to the example of Magdeburg; and there can be little doubt that Calvin, Beza and the english marian exiles were drawing on a well-established lutheran tradition when they propounded the theory of the right of inferior magistrates to resist their superiors.
127 Heckel, Lex Charitatis, App I, pp 295-306.
128 Dörries, 3, pp 265-6. See also pp 245 et seq.