Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:40:38.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Martin Luther on the Legitimacy of Resisting the Emperor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

J. Michael Raley
J. Michael Raley*
Affiliation:
Professor of History, Hanover College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Martin Luther (1483–1546) repeatedly addressed the question of whether political resistance might be directed lawfully against sovereign rulers if they acted tyrannically in light of the Apostle Paul's admonition in Romans 13 to honor divinely ordained secular authority. The situation became acute during the 1530s, when the forces of Emperor Charles V and the German Catholic princes threatened to reimpose Catholicism in the Lutheran territories by force. Amidst the crisis, Luther accepted legal arguments delegitimizing Charles as emperor, and, in 1539, with both sides mobilized for war, he contributed the theological argument that the emperor was the mercenary of a papal Antichrist and Beerwolff. Despite viewing the struggle in such apocalyptic terms, however, Luther's own words from the 1520s until his death reveal that his insistence upon obeying “legitimate” authority never varied. Only if commanded to violate godly law were Christian subjects to disobey their rulers and suffer the consequences. After Luther's death, Lutheran resistance theory continued to evolve and interact with Calvinist theory. Thus it exerted a long-term impact both within and well beyond the church when it was appropriated by the Magdeburg pastors, French Huguenots, Dutch revolutionaries, and English Puritans, though not always as Luther would have intended.

Keywords

Martin LutherLutheran resistance theoryapocalypticismAntichristHoly Roman EmpireCharles VSchmalkaldic LeagueMagdeburg ConfessionHuguenots
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 96 - 132
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Romans 13:1–2 (New International Version): “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the [ruling] authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” See also 1 Peter 2:13–17.

2 On Luther's Circular Disputation of 1539, see below, note 45. On Lutheran resistance theory, see the following: Hermann Dörries, “Luther und das Widerstandsrecht” [Luther and the right to resist], in Wort und Stunde [Word and time], vol. 3, Beiträge zum Verständnis Luthers [Contributions to the understanding of Luther] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 195–270; Cynthia Grant Shoenberger, “The Development of the Lutheran Theory of Resistance: 1523–1530,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, no. 1 (1977): 61–76; Cynthia Grant Shoenberger, “Luther and the Justifiability of Resistance to Legitimate Authority,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 1 (1979): 3–20; Eike Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie und die Politik der evangelischen Stände: Studien zu Luthers Gutachten in politischen Fragen [Wittenberg theology and the politics of the evangelical estates: Studies of Luther's writings on political questions] (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977); Eike Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L'ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 397–413; Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2, The Age of Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 194–206; W. D. J. Cargill Thompson, “Luther and the Right of Resistance to the Emperor,” in Studies in the Reformation: Luther to Hooker, ed. C. W. Dugmore (London: Athlone Press, 1980), 3–41; Mark U. Edwards, Jr., Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531–46 (1983; repr., Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005); David M. Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance: The Magdeburg Confession and the Lutheran Tradition (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2001); Robert von Friedeburg, “Self-Defence and Social Status: The Model Developed—Torgau to Magdeburg, 1529–1550,” in Self-Defence and Religious Strife in Early Modern Europe: England and Germany, 1530–1680 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 56–90; James M. Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–52, 179–212.

3 Martin Luther, A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion, trans. W. A. Lambert, rev. Walther I. Brandt, in Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan et al., 79 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press/St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–), 45:(51–56)57–74, at 62–63; German text in J. F. K. Knaake et al., eds., D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Dr. Martin Luther's works: Complete critical edition], 73 vols. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009), 8:(670–75)676–87. Here and throughout, I also provide for the specialist the location in this German edition, known widely as the Weimarer Ausgabe. With the first footnote reference to each of Luther's works in both Luther's Works and Luthers Werke and for treatises by other authors, I provide the complete pagination of the work, with the pagination of the editor's or translator's introduction in parentheses followed by the page range of the complete text. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from non-English-language sources are mine.

4 Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, trans. J. J. Schindel, rev. Walther I. Brandt, in Luther's Works 45:(75–80)81–133; Luthers Werke 11:(229–44)245–81.

5 Martin Luther, Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia; Martin Luther, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525); Martin Luther, An Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the Peasants, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, in Luther's Works 46:(3–16)17–43, (45–48)49–55, and (57–61)63–85, respectively; Luthers Werke 18:(279–90)291–334, (344–56)357–61, and (375–83)384–401.

6 Martin Luther, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. Robert C. Schultz, in Luther's Works 46:(87–91)93–137; Luthers Werke 19:(616–22)623–62.

7 Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 398–401; Robert Kolb, “Luther's Hermeneutics of Distinctions: Law and Gospel, Two Kinds of Righteousness, Two Realms, Freedom and Bondage,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L'ubomír Batka, 168–84, at 178–79; David M. Whitford, “Cura Religionis or Two Kingdoms: The Late Luther on Religion and the State in the Lectures on Genesis,” Church History 73, no. 1 (2004): 41–62; Volker Mantey, Zwei Schwerter—Zwei Reiche: Martin Luthers Zwei-Reiche-Lehre vor ihrem spätmittelalterlichen Hintergrund [Two swords—two kingdoms: Martin Luther's two-kingdom doctrine before its late medieval background] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 279–91.

8 Estes, James M., “The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church: Melanchthon as Luther's Interpreter and Collaborator,” Church History 67, no. 3 (1998): 463–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Estes, James M., “Luther on the Role of Secular Authority in the Reformation,” Lutheran Quarterly 17 (2003): 199–225Google Scholar; James M. Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, 1–52, 179–212; Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson, in Luther's Works 44:(115–21)123–217; Luthers Werke 6:(381–403)404–69; Charles Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms, ed. J. Frederick Smith (London: Philip Green, 1896), 452–55; Eric W. Gritsch, “1521: The Diet of Worms,” Christian History 9, no. 4 (1990): 36–37; Heinz Schilling, “Confessional Europe,” in Handbook of European History 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994–95), 2:641–81; Paul Timothy McCain et al., eds., Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2016), (19–26)27–63 (Augsburg Confession).

9 Skinner, Age of Reformation, 194–97; Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 406–08; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 125–65. On the Schmalkaldic League, see Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1:304–16. The Confutatio Pontificia and the Augsburg Recess are available in translation: H. E. Jacobs, trans., Confutatio Pontificia, in The Augsburg Confession: A Collection of Sources with an Historical Introduction, ed. Johann Michael Reu (Chicago: Wartburg, 1930), 348–83; J. Bodenspiek, trans., Augsburg Recess, in Reu, The Augsburg Confession, 390–92. On the princes’ appeal, see “The Elector's Reply to the Emperor's Proposal, May 31, 1530,” in Reu, The Augsburg Confession, 130–37, at 133.

10 Martin Luther, To the Saxon Princes: To the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse on the Captive Duke of Braunschweig, trans. Frederick C. Ahrens, in Luther's Works 43:(251–57)259–88, at 266n18.

11 Brady, Thomas A. Jr., The Politics of the Reformation in Germany: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) of Strasbourg (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1997), 110Google Scholar.

12 Letter of Martin Luther to Elector John of Saxony, November 18, 1529, trans. Gottfried G. Krodel, in Luther's Works 49:(244–47)247–50 (No. 198); D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel [Dr. Martin Luther's works: Correspondence], 18 vols. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930–1985), 5:(180–81)181–83 (Nr. 1496).

13 Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 407.

14 Friedeburg, “Self-Defence and Social Status,” 60–61. For the text of the deposition of Emperor Wenceslaus, see Julius Weizsäcker, ed., Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter König Wenzel [German imperial acts under King Wenceslaus], 3. Abteilung: 1397–1400, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 254–66 (Docs. 204–07); and “The Sentence of Degradation and Deprivation of the Emperour Wenceslaus, King of the Romans, pronounced by the Electors of the Empire in the yeare of our Lord 1400,” in The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes [. . .], by William Prynne, in 4 parts with Appendix (London: Michael Sparke, Sr., 1643), appendix, 204–07.

15 Philip of Hesse to Margrave Georg von Brandenburg–Ansbach, December 21, 1529, in Heinz Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht als Problem der deutschen Protestanten 1523–1546 [The right to resist as a problem of German Protestants], 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1982), 43–47 (Doc. 10); Skinner, Age of Reformation, 195–97.

16 Luther to Elector John, December 24, 1529, trans. Gottfried G. Krodel, in Luther's Works 49:(254–55)255–60 (No. 200); Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 5:(208–09)209–11 (Nr. 1511); Letter of Martin Luther [with Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon] to Elector John of Saxony, March 6, 1530, in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, 2 vols., trans. and ed. Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1913–1918), 2:518–22, at 521 (No. 870, not trans. in Luther's Works); Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 60–63 (Doc. 14); Acts 5:29 (New International Version). Also see Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 154–65, esp. 155; Diethelm Böttcher, Ungehorsam oder Widerstand? Zum Fortleben des mittelalterlichen Widerstandsrechtes in der Reformationszeit (1529–1530) [Disobedience or resistance? On the survival of medieval right of resistance in the Reformation era (1529–1530)] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1991), 67–72.

17 Letter of March 6, 1530, to Elector John of Saxony in Smith and Jacobs, Luther's Correspondence, 2:520 (No. 870, not translated in Luther's Works); Richard R. Benert, “Lutheran Resistance Theory and the Imperial Constitution,” Lutheran Quarterly 2, no. 2 (1988): 187–207, at 197.

18 Armin Wolf, Die Goldene Bulle: König Wenzels Handschrift. Vollständige Faksimile–Ausgabe im Originalformat des Codex Vindobonensis 338 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek [The Golden Bull: King Wenceslaus's manuscript. Complete facsimile edition in the original format of the Codex Vindobonensis 338 of the Austrian National Library] vol. 2. Kommentar Band [Commentary volume] (Graz: Akademische Druck– und Verlagsanstalt, 1977), “Bedeutung der Handschrift” [Significance of the manuscript], 45–47; “The Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV 1356 A.D.,” The Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/golden.asp; Evamaria Engel and Eberhard Holtz, eds., Deutsche Könige und Kaiser des Mittelalters [German kings and emperors of the Middle Ages] (Cologne: Böhlau, 1989), 330–31; Helmut G. Walther, “Der gelehrte Jurist als politischer Ratgeber: die Kölner Universität und die Absetzung König Wenzels 1400” [The learned jurist as political advisor: Cologne University and the deposition of King Wenceslaus in 1400], in Die Kölner Universität im Mittelalter: geistige Wurzeln und soziale Wirklichkeit [Cologne University in the Middle Ages: Spiritual roots and social realities], ed. Albert Zimmermann (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 467–87.

19 Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 118, trans. George Beto, in Luther's Works 14:(x–xi)41–106, at 51–78 (vv. 2–14); Luthers Werke 31:1:(34–67)68–182, at 77–137.

20 Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 82, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, in Luther's Works 13:(x)39–72, at 44–47, 51–67, 68–69, 72; Luthers Werke 31:1:(183–88)189–218, at 191–95, 198–213, 213–14, 218; Estes, “The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church,” 463–83 (on Melanchthon's ongoing dialogue with Luther on the “subject of the religious duties of secular magistrates”); Estes, “Luther on the Role of Secular Authority in the Reformation,” 216–17; Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, 180–88; Whitford, “Cura Religionis or Two Kingdoms,” 53–58; Mantey, Zwei Schwerter—Zwei Reiche, 284–85.

21 Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 101, trans. Alfred von Rohr Sauer, in Luther's Works 13:(x–xi)143–224, at 157–59, 193–97, 213; Luthers Werke 51:(197–200)200–64, at 209–11, 238–41, 254; Estes, “Luther on the Role of Secular Authority in the Reformation,” 217–20; Estes, “The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church,” 478–83; Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, 193–205; Whitford, “Cura Religionis or Two Kingdoms,” 58–59; Mantey, Zwei Schwerter—Zwei Reiche, 286–87; Wolfgang Sommer, Gottesfurcht und Fürstenherrschaft: Studien zum Obrigkeitsverständnis Johann Arndts und lutherischer Hofprediger zur Zeit der altprotestantischen Orthodoxie [The fear of God and princely power: Studies on the understanding of authority of Johann Arndt and Lutheran court preachers during the era of old Protestant Orthodoxy] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 23–73, at 42–73.

22 Gutachten der kursächsischen Juristen (Torgau oder Wittenberg, kurz vor 26. Oktober 1530) [Report of the Electoral Saxon jurists (at Torgau or Wittenberg, shortly before October 26, 1530)], in Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 63–66 (Doc. 15), at 65–66; Skinner, Age of Reformation, 197–99; Böttcher, Ungehorsam oder Widerstand?, 136–46.

23 The Elector John of Saxony to Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Melanchthon, March 14, 1530, in Smith and Jacobs, Luther's Correspondence, 2:522–24 (No. 871, not trans. in Luther's Works), at 522–23, quoting the imperial summons; Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 5:(263–64)264–66 (Nr. 1538), at 264.

24 Clarification of the Wittenberg theologians, Torgau Conference, October 26–28, 1530, in Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 67–68 (Doc. 16); Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 5:662–63; Martin Luther [and the Wittenberg Theologians], To the Electoral Saxon Government [Torgau, about October 27, 1530], trans. Gottfried G. Krodel, in Luther's Works 49:(429–31)431–33 (No. 235); Böttcher, Ungehorsam oder Widerstand?, 147–56.

25 Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 408–09; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 173–85; Thompson, “Luther and the Right of Resistance to the Emperor,” 26–28, 208n74; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 24–25; Martin Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–1532, vol. 2 of Martin Luther, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 411–15.

26 Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 411–12; Luther to Lazarus Spengler, February 15, 1531, trans. in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911), 217 (not trans. in Luther's Works); Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 6:36 (Nr. 1781); on Spengler's and Luther's positions on nonresistance see Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German Reformation (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1995), 74; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 185; Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 409. Wolgast noted that even at Torgau in October 1530, Luther still hoped that God would provide a way to avoid war and bloodshed in which both sides would lose. The Torgauer Wende, Wolgast concluded, reflected a reluctant submission to the jurists, rather than a true shift in Luther's thinking, for Luther “never truly accepted the conclusions of the constitutional argument.” Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 409.

27 Dr. Martin Luther's Warning to His Dear German People, trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works 47:(3–10)11–55; Luthers Werke 30:3:(252–75)276–320 and 390–99 (“Notizzettel zu ‘Wahrnung’ und ‘Glosse.’ 1531” [Notes on the “Warning” and “Glosses,” 1531]); Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 185–88; Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 416–19; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 25–30; Böttcher, Ungehorsam oder Widerstand?, 157–59; Robert von Friedeburg, “‘Confusion’ around the Magdeburg Confession and the Making of ‘Revolutionary Early Modern Resistance Theory,’” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 97, no. 1 (2006): 307–18, at 311–13.

28 Wider des Luthers Warnung an die Deutschen: ein ander Warnung durch einen gehorsamen Unparteiischen [Against Luther's warning to the German people: Another warning through an obedient nonpartisan], Luthers Werke 30:3:416–23; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 46–49; Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 419–20.

29 Martin Luther, Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden [Against the (character) assassin at Dresden], Luthers Werke 30:3:(413–16, 438–45)446–71, at 447–48, 470. See also Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 49–51; Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 420.

30 Martin Luther to the Elector John [about February 12, 1532], editorial comments by the translator, Gottfried G. Krodel, in Luther's Works 50:41–42n7, 43n12; Luther to Nicholas von Amsdorf, June 13, 1532, trans. Gottfried G. Krodel, in Luther's Works 50:(53)53–56 (No. 249), at 55; Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, 1:308–09. Also see Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, trans. Thomas J. and Helen D. DeKornfeld (Wayne, NJ: Center for Hungarian Studies, 2009).

31 Brady, Protestant Politics, 81–82; Brady, The Politics of the Reformation in Germany, 116–18, 161–62; Brecht, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 423–26; Martin Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 1532–1546, vol. 3 of Martin Luther, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 203–05. Indeed, the Elector of Brandenburg was still proposing plans for peace and stability as late as 1546. See Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, 1:310–16.

32 To the Regents and Councilors of the Margraviate of Brandenburg–Ansbach and to the Council of the City of Nürnberg, Wittenberg, August 1, 1532, in Luther's Works 50:(61–62)62–67 (No. 251), at 66; Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 6:339–42 (Nr. 1949), at 341–42.

33 Thompson, “Luther and the Right of Resistance to the Emperor,” 30–32.

34 Philippi Melanthonis [sic] Opera quae supersunt omnia [Complete extant works of Philipp Melanchthon], ed. Carl Gottlieb Bretschneider (Halle: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1836), vol. 3, cols. 126–31. The portion of the document dealing with imperial resistance may also be found in Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 89–92 (Doc. 20).

35 Bretschneider, Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia, col. 128; Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 89–90.

36 Bretschneider, Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia, cols. 129–30; Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 90–91; Kohnle, Armin, “Luther und das Reich,” in Luther Handbuch, ed. Beutel, Albrecht, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 230–40Google Scholar, at 235; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 224, 226–27; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 178–80.

37 Bretschneider, Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia, cols. 130–31; Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 91–92; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 228.

38 Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 240; Brady, Protestant Politics, 167–68, 206–19; Brady, The Politics of the Reformation in Germany, 162–69.

39 Luther, Jonas, Bucer, and Melanchthon, Gutachten for Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony and Landgrave Philip of Hesse, November 13–14, 1538, in Scheible, Das Widerstandsrecht, 92–94 (Doc. 21), at 93–94; Shoenberger, “Luther and the Justifiability of Resistance to Legitimate Authority,” 15–17; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 241–43; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 200.

40 Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 398–403; Thomas A. Brady, Jr., “Luther and Society: Two Kingdoms or Three Estates? Tradition and Experience in Luther's Social Teaching,” Lutherjahrbuch 52 (1985): 197–212, at 201–07, 211; Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 120–53, 324–25; Johannes Schranke, “Luther's Theology of Creation,” in Kolb, Dingel, and Batka, The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, 201–11, at 207–09.

41 Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. Eric W. Gritsch, in Luther's Works 41:(3–8)9–178, at 143–44, 165–66, 177–78; Luthers Werke 50:(488–509)509–653, at 624–25, 642–43, 652–53; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 193–98; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 93–96; Wolgast, “Luther's Treatment of Political and Societal Life,” 398–403; Brady, “Luther and Society: Two Kingdoms or Three Estates?,” 203–05.

42 Luther an Joh. Ludicke, Prediger in Kottbus, 8. Februar 1539 [Luther to Johann Ludicke, preacher at Kottbus, February 8, 1539], Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel 8:(364–66)366–68 (Nr. 3297); Eine Vermahnung D. Martini an alle Pfarrherrn [An admonition by Dr. Martin to all pastors], Luthers Werke 50:(478–84)485–87; Predigt am Sonntag Lätare (16. März 1539) [Sermon on Laetare Sunday (March 16, 1539)], Luthers Werke 47:(xii–xiv, xviii)678–85, at 684–85; D. Martin Luthers Werke: Tischreden [Dr. Martin Luther's Works: Table talk], 6 vols. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912–1921), 4:235–41, 271–73 (Nr. 4342 and 4380, not in Luther's Works 54), February 7 and March 3, 1539; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 243–46; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 200–01; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 31–33; Hermann Dörries, “Luther und das Widerstandsrecht,” 246n117.

43 Martin Luther, Table Talk, ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert, in Luther's Works 54, 335–36 (No. 4396), March 15, 1539; Luthers Werke: Tischreden, 4:293 (Nr. 4396).

44 Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 31.

45 Martin Luther, Die Zirkulardisputation über das Recht des Widerstands gegen den Kaiser (Matthäus 19,21) [Circular disputation on the right of resistance against the emperor (Matthew 19:21)], Luthers Werke 39:2:(34–39)39–44 (Latin), 44–51 (German). The original published title was Septuatinta propositiones disputatandae, de tribus hierarchijs, Ecclesiastica, Politica, Oeconomica, & quod Papa sub nulla istarum sit, sed omnium publicus hostis [Seventy propositions for disputation, concerning the three hierarchies, church, state, household, and that the pope is under none of them, but is the public enemy of them all]. Three anonymous reports of the disputation follow on pp. 52–91. Also see Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 243–51; Thompson, “Luther and the Right of Resistance to the Emperor,” 35–37; Johannes Heckel, Lex Charitatis: A Juristic Disquisition on Law in the Theology of Martin Luther, 2nd exp. ed., ed. Gottfried G. Krodel, trans. and ed. Martin Heckel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 133–39, 447–55 (appendix 1).

46 Luthers Werke 39:2:41, 47–48.

47 Luther later added twenty-one theses addressing papal legislation that are not the focus here.

48 Luthers Werke 39:2:42–43, 48–51; Daniel 7:1–28.

49 Luthers Werke 39:2:55–63, 75, 77–79, 83; Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 249–50.

50 Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 202–03.

51 As Luise Schorn-Schütte observes, despite their irreconcilable differences, Luther never questioned the obedience owed to Catholic Duke Georg of Albertine Saxony (d. 1539) because of his divinely ordained secular political authority. In 1539, however, Luther and other Protestant reformers articulated an “apocalyptic line of justification for emergency self-defense” against the forces of the Beerwolff pope and his mercenary, the emperor. See Luise Schorn-Schütte, “Luther and Politics,” in Martin Luther: A Christian between Reforms and Modernity (1517–2017), ed. Alberto Melloni, 3 vols. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 2:565–77, at 569, 576–77.

52 Martin Luther, Lectures on the Song of Solomon: A Brief but Altogether Lucid Commentary on the Song of Songs, trans. Ian Siggins, in Luther's Works 15:(x–xi)189–264, at 191–92, 195; Luthers Werke 31:2:586–769, at 586–88, 591; Jarrett A. Carty, “Martin Luther's Political Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” Review of Politics 73, no. 3 (2011): 449–67.

53 Martin Luther, Appeal for Prayer against the Turks, trans. Paul H. G. Moessner, in Luther's Works 43:(213–17)219–41, at 241; Luthers Werke 51:(577–85)585–625, at 624–25.

54 Martin Luther, Against Hanswurst, trans. Eric W. Gritsch, in Luther's Works 41:(179–84)185–256, at 182, 196–97, 247–49; Luthers Werke 51:(461–68)469–572, at 482–83, 556–60; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 219–22.

55 Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Theologie, 275–84, at 278.

56 Luther, To the Saxon Princes, Luther's Works 43:259–60n1–6, 263–66, 269–70, 279n40, 281–84; Luthers Werke 54:392–93, 397, 408–09.

57 The autograph copy of Melanchthon's brief commentary was reproduced, transcribed, and translated in Benjamin Kurtz and John Gottlieb Morris, eds., The Year-Book of the Reformation (Baltimore: Publication Rooms of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1844): unnumbered pages following p. 297 [298–99]. A draft copy of this same text with some words struck out and rewritten or altered and a few minor differences in orthography, all in Melanchthon's hand, survives today at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. At the request of archivists at the seminary's A. Webb Roberts Library in 2003—years before I knew of the copy published by Kurtz and Morris in 1844—I transcribed and translated this document, here reproduced, along with an autograph Luther commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:54 on the reverse side of the folio.

58 Martin Luther and Johannes Bugenhagen, Vermahnung an die Pfarrherrn in der Superattendenz der Kirchen zu Wittenberg [Admonition to the pastors in the superintendancy of the church at Wittenberg], in Luthers Werke 53:(553–57)558–60; Luther, Appeal for Prayer against the Turks, Luther's Works 43:219–41; Luthers Werke 51:585–625; Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 101–05, 111–12.

59 Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, 76–77, 85–86, 93, 182–200; Brecht, The Preservation of the Church, 178, 188–91, 198, 359–67.

60 Martin Luther, Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, trans. Eric W. Gritsch, in Luther's Works 41:(257–62)263–376, at 357–58, 365–66; Luthers Werke 54:(195–205)206–99, at 283–84, 290–91.

61 Martin Luther, “The Last Sermon, Eisleben 1546,” trans. John W. Doberstein, in Luther's Works 51:381–92, at 385, 387, 390, 391–92; Predigt über Matth. 11, 25ff. zu Eisleben gehalten. 15. Februar 1546. [Sermon on Matthew 11:25ff. given at Eisleben (February 15, 1546)], in Luthers Werke 51:187–94, at 189–90, 192, 194.

62 Matthew Colvin, trans., The Magdeburg Confession, 13th of April 1550 AD (North Charleston: CreateSpace, 2012), xxx; Oliver K. Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, 2011), 59. Colvin gives the date of the treaty as June 1546, Olson as July 28, 1546.

63 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, xxx–xxxi (“Historical Setting”); Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking/Penguin, 2003), 263–64; Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance, 63; T. Kolde, s.v. “Philip of Hesse,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Samuel MacAuley Jackson et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 9:25–29, at 28 (§.7) (also available online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/ii.xxxvi.htm). The imperial ban was declared against Landgrave Philip of Hesse and Elector Johann Friedrich I of Saxony on July 20, 1546.

64 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 52, 63, 79; Thomas Kaufmann, “‘Our Lord God's Chancery’ in Magdeburg and Its Fight against the Interim,” Church History 73, no. 3 (2004): 566–82, at 569–71; Oliver K. Olson, “Theology of Revolution: Magdeburg, 1550–1551,” Sixteenth Century Journal 3, no. 1 (1972): 56–79, at 66; John J. Friesen, trans. and ed., Peter Riedemann's Hutterite Confession of Faith: Translation of the 1565 German Edition of “Confession of Our Religion, Teaching, and Faith by the Brothers Who Are Known as the Hutterites” (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1999), 131, 137, 159–70, 226–27; Acts 5:29; Josef Beck, Die Geschichts-Bücher der Wiedertäufer in Österreich–Ungarn [. . .] in der Zeit von 1526 bis 1785 [The history books of the Anabaptists in Austria-Hungary [. . .] in the period from 1536 to 1785] (1883; repr., Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1967), 169–73 (“An die Märherischen Herren gesanndt: im Jar 1545” [Sent to the Moravian Lords in the year 1545]), at 172 (“So Yemandt auch andere Artikl vnsers glaubens vnd Religion besehen wolt, schicken wir Euch hiemit: ein Rechenschafft vnd die gantz Hauptsuma vnsers glaubens vnd thuns in deutscher sprach verfasst, nach welcher Regel wir dem herren mit rainem gewissen zu dienen begeren”); for a translation, see “Sent to the Moravian Nobility, in the year 1545,” in Baptist Confessions of Faith, trans. William J. McGlothlin (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 18–23, at 22 (“we send you herewith a justification [Rechenschafft] and a complete summary of our faith and doing composed in the German language [Riedemann's Rechenschafft unserer Religion], according to which rule we desire to serve the Lord with a good conscience”); Nathan Rein, The Chancery of God: Protestant Print, Polemic and Propaganda against the Empire, Magdeburg 1546–1551 (London: Routledge, 2018), 48–49, 76–77 (on the Bohemians), 127–30, 142–49; MacCulloch, The Reformation, 265–66.

On Anabaptists as “conforming nonconformists” and “obedient heretics,” see Hans-Jürgen Goertz, Antiklerikalismus und Reformation. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen [Anticlericalism and Reformation: social-historical investigations] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 111–14; James M. Stayer, “The Passing of the Radical Moment in the Radical Reformation,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 71, no. 1 (1997): 147–52; Michael D. Driedger, Obedient Heretics: Mennonite Identities in Lutheran Hamburg and Altona during the Confessional Age (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 3–5; Andrea Chudaska, Peter Riedemann. Konfessionsbildendes Täufertum im 16. Jahrhundert [Peter Riedemann: Denominational Anabaptism in the sixteenth century] (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2003), esp. 22–23, 342, 362–66.

65 Olson, “Theology of Revolution,” 65–71; Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance, 61–65; Rein, The Chancery of God, 18–21.

66 On the number of prints at Magdeburg during these years, see Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548–1551/2) [The end of the Reformation: Magdeburg's “Chancery of our Lord God” (1548–1551/2] (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2003), Anhang 3, 559–65 (who gives the total at Magdeburg as 489 publications); Rein, The Chancery of God, 16–17, 53. Amsdorff signed the Confession first, Gallus second, but Olson notes that Friedrich Hülsse reported that a copy in the Herzog August Bibliothek at Wolfenbüttel credits Gallus as the author: Olson, “Theology of Revolution,” 67n49.

67 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, vii, 2–3; Kaufmann, “‘Our Lord God's Chancery’ in Magdeburg and Its Fight against the Interim,” 569, 582.

68 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 177–79. The Latin text, Confessio et apologia pastorum & reliquorum ministrorum Ecclesiæ Magdeburgensis. Anno 1550. Idibus Aprilis. [Confession and apology of the pastors and remaining ministers of the church at Magdeburg, Ides of April, 1550] (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther [sic], 1550), is owned and has been digitalized by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek/Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Confessio_Et_Apologia_Pastorum_reliquoru/Wr9SAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover; the German edition, Bekentnis [Bekenntnis] Vnterricht und vermanung, der Pfarrhern und Prediger der Christlichen Kirchen zu Magdeburgk. Anno 1550. Den 13. Aprilis [Confession, teaching and admonition of the pastors and preachers of the Christian churches at Magdeburg, April 13, 1550] (Magdeburg: Michel[sic] Lotther, 1550), is owned and has been digitalized by the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, http://data.onb.ac.at/rep/10A85146.

69 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 4–7, 46, 57, 70, 83, 85; Confessio et apologia, A 2v.–A 4r., E 2r., F 3r., H 1r.–1v., K 1r., K 2r. In the discussion that follows, Colvin translated the Latin text, while Kaufmann relied principally upon the German Bekentnis. Also see J. W. Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1941), 103–06; Olson, “Theology of Revolution,” 72; Olson, Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform, 147–48, 357 (1549 reprinting of Luther's final sermon by Michael Lotter); Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance, 63, 117n12 (reprints of Luther's Warnung); Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 511 (listing reprints of Luther's final sermon); Rein, The Chancery of God, 16–21 (on printing at Magdeburg between 1546 and 1551); Luthers Werke 30:3:258, 267–69 (reprintings of Luther's Warnung in 1546–1547), 39:2:35–39 (reprintings of Luther's Zirculardisputation in 1546–1547), 31:1:37–38 (Psalm 118); Josef Benzing and Helmut Claus, Lutherbibliographie: Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod [Luther bibliography: Register of Luther's printed works up to his death], vol. 1 (Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1989), Nos. 2882, 2914–22, 2917a, 3311–15, 3534. Some indication of the number of reprints of Luther's treatises during these years, including Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden, may also be seen by a cursory examination in WorldCat.

70 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 181; Bekentnis, H 3v.

71 Bekentnis, A 1v.

72 Marcus Sandl, “‘Von dem Anfang der Zerrüttung’: Streit und Erzählung in den innerprotestantischen Kontroversen der 1550er und 1560er Jahre” [“From the beginning to the destruction”: Conflict and narrative in the intra-Protestant controversies of the 1550s and 1560s], in Streitkultur und Öffentlichkeit im konfessionellen Zeitalter [Conflict culture and the general public in the confessional age], ed. Henning P. Jürgens and Thomas Weller (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 253–75, at 260–61.

73 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 1–46, esp. 5–7; Confessio et apologia, A 3r.–A 3v.

74 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 45; Confessio et apologia, E 1v.

75 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 5, 7; Confessio et apologia, A 3r., A 3v. Thus, Marcus Sandl observed, “It was less about Luther's legacy than about his current presence as admonisher, comforter, and prophet. Luther stood here and now at the side of the Magdeburg people to defend the Word of God and to fight against the Protestant renegades as well as against the papal Antichrist.” Sandl, “‘Von dem Anfang der Zerrütung,’” 261–62.

76 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 49; Confessio et apologia, E 3v.–E 4r.

77 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 50, 55; Confessio et apologia, E 4r.–E 4v., F 3r.; Rein, The Chancery of God, 188–93; Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 103.

78 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 190–91. Others, including the theologians at Nürnberg, also regarded city councilmen as “lesser magistrates.” See Olson, “Theology of Revolution,” 60–62.

79 Gordon Rupp, in “Luther at the Castle Coburg, 1530,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 61, no. 1 (1978): 182–205, at 204, seriously doubted that Luther would have sanctioned the right and duty to armed resistance by inferior magistrates advocated at Magdeburg.

80 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 55, 63, 72, 80; Confessio et apologia, F 3r., G 2v., H 2r.–H 2v., I 3r.; Bekentnis, K 1v., L 1v.–L 2r., M 4v., O 4r.; John Witte, Jr., “Rights, Resistance, and Revolution in the Western Tradition: Early Protestant Foundations,” Law and History Review 26, no. 3 (2008): 545–70, at 553–54.

81 Bekentnis, B 1v.; cf. Confessio et apologia, A 3v.; Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 6.

82 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 59–60; Confessio et apologia, F 4v.–G 1r.

83 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 184–86; Bekentnis, B 2r.

84 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 7, 42, 68–69; Confessio et apologia, A 4r., D 4v., G 4r.–H 1r.

85 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 38–39; Confessio et apologia, D 2v.–D 3r.; Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 187; Bekentnis, G 1r.–G 1v.

86 Robert von Friedeburg, “In Defense of Patria: Resisting Magistrates and the Duties of Patriots in the Empire from the 1530s to the 1640s,” Sixteenth Century Journal 32, no. 2 (2001): 357–82, at 362.

87 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 187–90; Bekentnis, G 4r. (“Und werden nu aus Gottes ordnung ein ordnung des Teuffels, welcher ordnung ein jeder nach seinem beruff mit gutem gewissen widderstehen kan und soll” [“And now from God's order there comes an order of the devil, which everyone can and should resist with a clear conscience in accordance with his profession”]); Confessio et apologia, D 4v. (“et ex ordinatione Dei iam fiunt ordinatio Diaboli, cui ordine pro uocatione etiam resisti potest ac debet” [“and out of God's orderly government there arises now an order of the devil, in opposition to which resistance can and ought to be put forth in accordance with one's vocation”]).

88 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 70; Confessio et apologia, H 1r.–H 1v. The term Thraso, a braggart soldier, comes from Terence's Eunuchus. Luther made no reference to Thrasons in either Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden or his Commentary on Psalm 118, though in the Commentary on Psalm 118 he referred to “haughty bigwigs” and “smart alecks” who refused to acknowledge that God was ultimately in control. For specific references to Thrasons in Luther's works, however, see Luther, Against Hanswurst, Luther's Works 41:244; Luthers Werke 51:552; Martin Luther, Notes on Ecclesiastes, trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, in Luther's Works 15:(ix–x)1–187, at 87; Luthers Werke 20:(1–6)7–203, at 101; and Luthers Werke: Tischreden, 3: Nr. 3475, 3637, 3657; 4: Nr. 4571, 4621, 5023; 5: Nr. 6216; 6: Nr. 6952.

89 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 70–71; Confessio et apologia, H 1v.

90 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 80; Confessio et apologia, I 3r.–I 3v.; Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 104–05.

91 Bekentnis, A 1v.

92 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 183; Bekentnis, A 3v.–A 4r.; Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 7, 77, 79, 84–86; Confessio et apologia, A 4r., I 1v., I 2v., K 1v.–K 3r. Gabriele Haug-Moritz reminds us that, “in an interpretation based on the history of salvation and religion, a defeat is not a defeat. . . . Defeat was rather considered a test of God's chosen. . . . Defeat is transitory; a better future is promised.” See Gabriele Haug-Moritz, “The Holy Roman Empire, the Schmalkald League, and the Idea of Confessional Nation-Building,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 152, no. 4 (2008): 427–39, at 438. Cf. Rein, The Chancery of God, 76, on Johann Friedrich's “political failure . . . interpreted as a sign of his religious success.”

93 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 85–86; Confessio et apologia, K 2v.; Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 198; Bekentnis, Q 2v.–Q 3r.

94 Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 196; Bekentnis, O 1r.; Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 77; Confessio et apologia, I 1r. Robert von Friedeburg argues that, in addition to its dependence upon Luther, the originality of the Magdeburg Confession must be judged against the Lutheran pamphlet literature, which beginning in the 1540s stressed the need to defend the fatherland (patria) against foreign invasion by Spanish and Turkish forces from outside the German Empire. Robert von Friedeburg, “Magdeburger Argumentationen zum Recht auf Widerstand gegen die Durchsetzung des Interims (1550–1551) und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte des Widerstandsrechts im Reich, 1523–1626” [Magdeburg arguments on the right to resist the forced implementation of the Interim (1550–1551) and their position in the history of the right of resistance in the empire, 1523–1626], in Das Interim 1548/50: Herrschaftskrise und Glaubenskonflikt [The Interim, 1548–1550: Crisis of authority and conflict of faith], ed. Luise Schorn-Schütte (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2005), 389–437, at 414–31, 436–37; Friedeburg, “In Defense of Patria,” 361–69, 382. Here patria could refer to Germania or “denote the emerging territories and their people within the Empire.” Friedeburg, “In Defense of Patria,” 382. Of course, Magdeburg's pamphleteers targeted the Catholic forces of Elector Moritz (now seen as a Judas) during the siege as surrogates for the forces of the Antichrist pope and his servant, Charles V. See Rein, The Chancery of God, 16, 75, 203.

95 Bekentnis, Q 1r.; Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation, 197–98; Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 84; Confessio et apologia, K 1v.; 2 Kings 18:13–19:37. On campaign(s) of Sennacherib and his siege of Jerusalem and its outcome, see John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 285–88. The Sennacherib Prism (ca. 689 BCE) at the Oriental Institute in Chicago records the siege, but it neither mentions the plague nor claims the fall and capture of Jerusalem. Whereas the biblical account asserts that a divine pestilence struck the Assyrian army, killing 185,000 Assyrians and forcing King Sennacherib to return home, where he was assassinated shortly afterward, the Sennacherib Prism records that a large payment of tribute was made by King Hezekiah. See Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 32–34, col. 3, lines 18–49.

96 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 54–55; Confessio et apologia, F 2v.–F 3r.; Bekentnis, K 1r.–K 1v. (“auffs beste sie kan, rechte lehr und Gottes dienst, Leib und leben, gut vnd ehre bewaren” (K 1v.) [“to the best of your ability, preserve right doctrine and divine worship, life and limb, property and honor”]); Oliver K. Olson, “Matthias Flacius Illyricus 1520–1575,” in Shapers of Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1560–1600, ed. Jill Raitt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 1–17, at 4–5; Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 105.

97 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 53–54; Confessio et apologia, F 2r.–F 3r.

98 Colvin, The Magdeburg Confession, 82, 86, cf. 54; Confessio et apologia, I 4v., K 2v., cf. F 2v.

99 Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 104; for Allen's assessment that Luther's “influence upon political thought has been both misrepresented and very grossly exaggerated,” see pp. 15–30.

100 For discussion of the various arguments supporting and opposing resistance to absolute monarchs, tyrannical rulers, and superior magistrates by princes, lesser magistrates, and subjects put forth by seventeenth-century German Reformed and Lutheran theologians and political theorists, see Friedeburg, “Magdeburger Argumentationen,” 431–35; Friedeburg, “In Defense of Patria,” 369–78; Robert von Friedeburg, Luther's Legacy: The Thirty Years War and the Modern Notion of “State” in the Empire, 1530s to 1790s (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 191–200.

101 Skinner, Age of Reformation, 221–30; Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 106–20; Julian H. Franklin, trans. and ed., Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century: Three Treatises by Hotman, Beza, and Mornay (New York: Pegasus, 1969), 20, 31.

102 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1909), 2:656–62 (Book 4:20:24–32), at 661–62 (4:20:30–31).

103 Theodore Beza, De haereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis Libellus [Book on the punishing of heretics by the civil magistrate] ([Geneva]: Oliua Roberti Stephani, 1554), 6, 133; Robert M. Kingdon, “The First Expression of Theodore Beza's Political Ideas,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 46 (1955): 88–100, at 92–95. In these passages, Beza was answering Sebastian's Castellio's De haereticis, an sint persequendi [. . .] [On heretics, whether they must be pursued], published in 1554 under the pseudonym Martinus Bellius, written in response to the burning of Michael Servetus at Geneva on October 27, 1553.

104 [Théodore de Bèze], Du droit des Magistrats sur leurs Subiets. Traitté tres-necessaire en ce temps, pour aduertir de leur deuoir, tant les Magistrats que les Subiets: publié par ceux de Magdebourg l'an MDL; & maintenant reueu & augmenté de plusieurs raisons & exemples [On the right of magistrates over their subjects. A very necessary treatise in this time to direct both magistrates and their subjects toward their duty: published by those of Magdeburg in the year 1550; and now revised and augmented with several reasons and examples] ([Lyon]: n.p., 1574), also published at Geneva and Heidelberg in the same year with subsequent printings in other locations throughout the 1570s; Théodore de Bèze, Du Droit des Magistrats, ed. Robert M. Kingdon (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1970), xxix–xxxiv, xliv, 1; Theodore Beza, Concerning the Rights of Rulers over Their Subjects and the Duty of Subjects towards Their Rulers, trans. Henri-Louis Gonin, ed. A. H. Murray (Cape Town: H.A.U.M., 1956), 1–5 (introduction by A. A. Van Schelven discussing the publishing history), 20 (facsimile of the title page from a 1595 dual edition of Beza's and Mornay's works); Theodore Beza, Right of Magistrates, in Franklin, Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century, (30–39)97–135, at 39; Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 314–20; Skinner, Age of Reformation, 307–09.

105 Robert M. Kingdon, “The First Expression of Theodore Beza's Political Ideas,” 94; Robert M. Kingdon, “The Political Resistance of the Calvinists in France and the Low Countries,” Church History 27, no. 3 (1958): 220–33, at 226–28; Robert M. Kingdon, “Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 193–218, at 200–14. See also Skinner, Age of Reformation, 206–19.

106 Witte, “Rights, Resistance, and Revolution in the Western Tradition,” 566, 548, 555–70. Cornel Zwierlein has argued against any significant influence of the Magdeburg Confessio upon Beza's work: Cornel Zwierlein, “L'importance de la Confessio de Magdebourg (1550) pour le Calvinisme: Un mythe historiographique?” [The importance of the Confession of Magdeburg (1550) on Calvinism: A historiographical myth?], Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 67 (2005): 27–46, at 33, 35, 46. Allen acknowledged that “all of the leading ideas expressed” in the Confessio are “reproduced in one form or another in Calvinist writings from 1558 onwards”: Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 106. Yet he also concedes that “there is sufficient resemblance to allow one to suppose that Beza had the Magdeburg tract before him while writing” (315n1).

107 Beza, Right of Magistrates; Beza, Concerning the Rights of Rulers over Their Subjects and the Duty of Subjects towards Their Rulers; [Philippe du Plessis-Mornay], Vindiciae contra tyrannos [Defense of liberty against tyrants], in Franklin, Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century, (39–44)137–99; Junius Brutus [Mornay], Vindiciæ contra Tyrannos: A Defence of Liberty against Tyrants [. . .] (London: Richard Baldwin, 1689); Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, 320–31; Witte, “Rights, Resistance, and Revolution in the Western Tradition,” 555–70.

108 G. Groen van Prinsterer, ed., Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d'Orange-Nassau [Archives or unpublished correspondence of the house of Orange-Nassau], ser. 1, 9 vols. (Leiden: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1835–1847), 2:34–42 (Lettre CXXIX), at 37–38; 6:24–37 (Lettre DCCXIV), at 35; 7:127–38 (Lettre CMXXXIV), at 130–34; 7:248–54 (Lettre CMLXI), at 254; Kingdon, “The Political Resistance of the Calvinists,” 228–29.

109 Esther Hildebrandt, “The Magdeburg Bekenntnis as a Possible Link between German and English Resistance Theories in the Sixteenth Century,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 (1980): 227–53, at 240–52.

110 Prynne, The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes [. . .], part 3, 146. See also note 14 above.

111 Prynne, The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes [. . .], appendix, 204–07, 208–16, 216; [Plessis-Mornay], Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 197–99; Ethyn Williams Kirby, William Prynne: A Study in Puritanism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), 64.

112 Maxfield, John A., “Divine Providence, History, and Progress in Augustine's City of God,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66, no. 4 (2002): 339–60Google Scholar.

113 See Luther, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, Luther's Works 46:105; Luthers Werke 19:634–35.