No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Luther's Conception of Government
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The center from which Luther's utterances on social and political issues must be understood is the idea of the two kingdoms or “regimes.” In this area of his thought, even more than in others, it will not do to draw conclusions from fragmentary quotations occasioned by historical situations in which he felt called upon to take sides. By the exclusive use of carefully selected passages, one can prove that Luther regarded secular rulers as instruments of the devil and the adversaries of his cause; and one can prove that he regarded them as instruments of God who could do no wrong. In his defence against the frequent charges that he encouraged sedition and rebellion, he frequently appears servile in his relation to the authorities of civil and political life. It was not his nature to balance alternative courses of action against one another and say everything that could be said for both sides in the same treatise. He did his thinking in the midst of controversy and his writings are almost always directed toward or in behalf of the participants. When he wrote against the peasants he gave them “both barrels.” When he attacked the rulers of church or state he did the same. This does not mean, however, that there is no coherence in his thought. If one observes carefully the content of his criticisms, he will soon discover that they proceed from a firm and unchanging conviction regarding the origin of government and its function in the world.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1946
References
1 The term “regime” will be used as the translation of Luther's Regiment, rather than the more common “kingdom” or “government.” The former has been so spiritualized as to make it somewhat innocuous; the latter suggests too strongly political government and, therefore, is apt to carry connotations which obscure Luther's meaning.
2 “My book speaks not of what the lords deserve, but of what the peasants deserve. When I have time and occasion to do so, I shall attack the princes and lords, too, for in my office of teacher, a prince is just the same to me as a peasant.” Works of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, Co., 1931), IV, 270 f.Google Scholar
3 Among Swedish scholars, Gustaf Törnvall's Andligt och världsligt regemente hos Luther (1940)Google Scholar, is particularly noteworthy. Among German scholars, Franz Lau, Aeusserliche Ordnung und weltlich Ding in Luthers Theologie; Althaus, Theologie die Ordnungen; Lütgert, Schöpfung und Offenbarung, and numerous works of Holl may be cited.
4 This is obviously the case in such works as “On Secular Authority,” “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants,” “An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book Against the Peasants,” “An Exposition of the Eighty-Second Psalm,” “Whether Soldiers Also Can Be Saved,” etc.
5 Cf. e.g. Luther's exposition of Galatians 2:6 in the larger Galatians Commentary.
6 “For he has two regimes by which he rules among men. One is spiritual, through the Word and without the sword, through which men are to become pious and righteous so that with this righteousness they may obtain eternal life. And such righteousness he manages through the Word which he has committed to his preachers. The other is a worldly regime, by means of the sword, in order that those who will not be pious and righteous unto eternal life, may, nevertheless, through the worldly regime be compelled to be godly and righteous before the world.” Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar: Bohlau, 1883), XIX, 629Google Scholar; Cf. also XXXIV, p. I, 323. (Hereafter designated by abbreviation W. A.)
7 This interpretation is authenticated and documented in the works of Aulén, Nygren, Bring, and Lindroth in Sweden, and Karl Holl in Germany.
8 The works of Emil Brunner and Aulén may be suggested as typical.
9 Works of Martin Luther, Holman ed., III, 236Google Scholar. Cf. also W.A., XLV, 535Google Scholar, and XXXI, p. I, 191, 32.
10 Ibid., 245.
11 W.A., XLI, 483, 2Google Scholar; XLIX, 137, 10f.; XL, p. III, 689, 15.
12 Cf. Törnvall, , Andligt, 54 f.Google Scholar
13 W.A., XL, p. I, 463, 9.Google Scholar
14 Cf. Sohm, R., Kirchenrecht, I, 549Google Scholar, cited by Törnvall, 23.
15 Holl, K., Gesammelte Aufsätse zur Kirchengeschichte (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1932), I, 344.Google Scholar
16 W.A., XLVII, 284.Google Scholar
17 W.A., L, 647, 13.Google Scholar
18 W.A., XIX, 629, 30.Google Scholar
19 W.A., XLIX, 721, 10.Google Scholar
20 W.A., LI, 556, 7.Google Scholar
21 “Nevertheless he calls such worldly government of the godless His order and creation, let them misuse the same as badly as they can.” W.A., LI, 238.Google Scholar
22 Cf. W.A., XIX, 629Google Scholar; XXX, p. II, 554; L, 652, 18.
23 W.A., XXX, p. II, 537, 3.Google Scholar
24 Törnvall, , Andligt, 101Google Scholar f. (References are to Weimar edition.)
25 Cf. Luther's distinction between “politia” and “religio” in the exposition of Galatians 2:6. W.A., XL, 176, 13.Google Scholar
26 W.A., XIX, 653, 2.Google Scholar
27 W.A., XLVII, 452; XIX, 629, 30.Google Scholar
28 Works, Holman ed., IV, 288 f.Google Scholar
29 Ibid., 298.
30 W.A., XIX, 652, 27.Google Scholar
31 Works, Holman ed., IV, 297.Google Scholar
32 Ibid., 296.
33 “So then, this first verse teaches that to rebuke rulers is not seditious, provided it is done in the way here described; namely, by the office to which God has committed that duty, and through God's “Word, spoken publicly, boldly, and honestly. To rebuke rulers in this way is, on the contrary, a praiseworthy, noble, and rare virtue and a particularly great service to God, as the Psalm here proves. It would be far more seditious, if a preacher were not to rebuke the sins of the rulers, for then he makes people angry and sullen, and strengthens the wickedness of the tyrants and becomes a partaker in it, and bears responsibility for it.” ibid., 297.
34 W.A., XXXVI, 385, 6; XX, 530, 27 f.Google Scholar
35 Cf. Törnvall, , Andligt, 44.Google Scholar
36 Cf. W.A., XL, p. II, 240; XL, p. I, 593 f.Google Scholar
37 W.A., LI, 557, 4.Google Scholar
38 Whether or not Luther retained the medieval concept of “natural law,” is an interesting problem. Professor John T. McNeill has pointed out that the term frequently occurs in Luther's writings and indicates his approval of J. W. Allen's conclusion that the natürlich Recht is the “groundwork of all Luther's thought on government.” (McNeill, John T., “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” Journal of Religion, XXVI, 07, 1946, 172.Google Scholar) Aulen argues quite convincingly for the position that Luther substituted the “law of creation” for the concept “natural law.” Nature is not self-contained and cannot be isolated from its relationship to the Creator. There is no natural law that can be deduced from the nature of creation but it must be derived from the character of the Creator. Kan något kristet krav ställas på statslivet (Stockholm: Svenska kyrkans dia-konistyrelses bokförlag, 1940), 38–48Google Scholar. It is at least significant that Luther rejects the “natural right” which is the characteristic corollary of “natural law.” Works, Holman ed., IV, 263.Google Scholar
39 Cf. Aulén, , Kyrkan och National Socialismen (Stockholm: Svenska kyrkans dia-konistyrelses bokförlag, 1943), 143.Google Scholar
40 In the recent volume, Kan något kristet krav ställas på statslivet, Aulén distinguishes between two elements in the conception of government—maktövning (the exercise of power) and rättsperspektiv (the perspective of justice). The influence of Christianity is not directed toward the limitation of power so much as toward the quality of the perspective of justice. The Christian perspective of justice is characterized by the law of love, which he interprets to mean “actual concern for the neighbor” on the part of those who exercise the power. This view he considers wholly consistent with Luther's total position.
41 W.A., XL, p. II, 278; 287.Google Scholar
42 W.A., XLVII, 564, 15.Google Scholar
43 Cf. Luther's distinction between Hörreich and Sehrreich.
44 W.A., XLVII, 564, 15.Google Scholar
45 W.A., XL, p. III, 205, 13.Google Scholar
46 Works, Holman ed., IV, 265.Google Scholar
47 Ibid., 266.
48 Ibid., 267.
49 Ibid., 268.
50 Ibid., 269.
51 Cf. W.A., XXXII, 391, 29; 440, 17; 390, 19 f.Google Scholar
52 The phrase “omnia bona sed sunt in abusu” recurs frequently. Cf. W.A., XL, p. II, 203, 7; I, 174.Google Scholar
53 Cf. W.A., XXXIV, p. II, 77, 21Google Scholar; XLVI, 735, 5.