Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T07:23:30.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Luther's Ecclesiology and his Concept of the Prince as Notbischof

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Lewis W. Spitz
Lewis W. Spitz
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until the appearance of Rudolf Sohm's Kirchenrecht in 1892 and of Karl Rieker's study, Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart in 1893, the opinion prevailed among scholars by and large that the historic development in the relationship of the church in Germany to the state was contrary to the ideal of the Reformer. This ideal was held to be an autonomous congregational church based upon evangelical principles, an interpretation which had received the support of Aemil Richter's authority in Die Geschichte der cvangelischen Kirciwnverfassung in Deutschland, 1851. Since then, Reformation students have divided on this question. Luther wrote of the Notbischöfe: “I wish to leave the jurists … to settle this disputation … I will write as a theologian and a heretic,” and thereby he left a legacy of controversy both to jurists and historians. With equal truth Luther could write, “The other articles … I commend to the lawyers, for it is not my business as an evangelist to decide and judge in these matters. I shall instruct and teach consciences what pertains to divine and Christian matters,” and still maintain, “that since the time of the apostles the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly described and grandly lauded as by me, which even my enemies must acknowledge.” He was involved by circumstances in social and political questions which were not per se his concern as a theologian. Several factors complicate an analysis of Luther's theory of church and state, the immediacy of the medieval inheritance, conceptual differences of terminology from current usage, the complexity of the transitional historical situation, and Luther's characteristic way of addressing himself to a problem without relating his plan of action to his total theory. In fact, Dieckhoff says that as the pertinent quotations lie side by side, it is impossible to harmonize them. Such pessimism, however, is unwarranted, for Luther was never pathologically dialectical and his position can be satisfactorily understood if viewed in relation to his central orientation. Luther's political theory involved, of course, many facets, the question of Imperial power, papal theory, war, toleration, the Turkish question, feudal loyalties, and others. A study of the Notbischöfe problem is central, however, for an understanding of his ecclesiology and the much debated church-state question.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1953 , pp. 113 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1953

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. I wish to thank Dr. Myrom P. Gilmore and Dr. George H. Williams who read this study and made a number of valuable suggestions. On Rieker, cf. Kattenbusch, F., “Die Doppelschichtigkeit in Luthers Kirchenbegriif,” Lutherana V, C. Heft 2/3 (Gotha, 1928), 243ff.Google ScholarEvjen, John O., “Luther's Ideas Concerning Church Polity,” The Lutheran Church Review, XLV, no. 3 (1926), 207 ff.Google Scholar, reviews some of the early literature agreeing, more or less, that the congregation, or local church, is the base or unit in a system of church polity: the microcosmic church. He discusses specifically the work of Ludwig Richter (1851), Feller (1868), Christoph Scheurl (1872–1874), Philip Zorn (1888), Emil Herrinnnn (a lecture, 1862), Karl Hundeshagen (1864), the Refprmvenner in Norway (1850ff.), and Hoffling (1853).Google Scholar

2. Werke, D. Martin Luthers, XVIII, 327; XIX, 625Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as W. A. (Weimar Ausgabe).

3. Dieckhoff, A., Luther's Lehre von der kirchlic1en Gewalt (Berlin, 1865), 138.Google Scholar

4. For a striking similarity of term!nology to that which recurred in the Not bischöfe crisis, see the German, translation of Nicolas Cusanus, “Von der Reformation des Reiches,” 1433, in Paul Joachimsen, ed., Der deutsche Staatsgedanke vn semen Anfädngen bis auf Leibniz wad Fredrich den Grossen (Munich, 1921).Google Scholar

5. Brandi, Karl, The Emperor Charles V (New York, 1939), 245.Google Scholar Cf. Werminghoif, A., Verfassungsgeschichte der deutschen Kirche un Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1913), 87ff.Google Scholar; Kaser, Kurt, “Die landeskirchlichen Bestrebungen der weitlichen Reichsfürsten,” “Der deutsche Territorialstaat urn 1500,” Deutsche Geschichte im Ausgange des Mittelalters, II (Stuttgart, 1912), 259 ffGoogle Scholar; Schwiebert, E. G.. “The Medieval Pattern in Luther's Views of the State,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XII, 2 (1943), 106;Google ScholarLuther and his Times (St. Louis, 1951), 613ff.Google Scholar, “The Founding of the Lutheran Church— The Medieval Heritage;” Otto Hintze, “Die Epochen des evangelisehen Kirehen-regiments in Preussen,” Geist und Epochen der Preussischcn Geschichte; Gesammelte Abhandlu-ngen, III (Leipzig, 1943), 64ff.Google Scholar In Jfihich and Berg the counts even took the initiative in arranging for services of petition, thanksgiving, mourning, and the like, without consulting church officials.

6. Janssen, J., Die allgemeinen Zustände des deutsohen Volkes beim Ausgang des Mittelalters, I (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1883), 501ff.Google Scholar See also Gilmore, M. P., The Argument from Roman Law in Political Thought, 1200–1600 (Cambridge, bridgeMass., 1941)Google Scholar; Boehmer, H., Luther un Lichte der rbeueren For schung (Leipzig, 1918), 253.Google Scholar

7. Moller, Karl, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung im lutherischen Deutschland,” Historische Zeitschrift, CII (1908), 1ff.Google Scholar; A. Werminghoff, op. cit., 87ff.; Ward, Frank G., Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichien Lut hers vom Staate unil semen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben (Halle a. S., 1898), 19.Google Scholar

8. Störmann, Anton, Die städtischcn Gravainina gegen den Klerus am Ausgange des Mittelalters und in der Reformationsceit (Münster, 1916), If.Google Scholar

9. Schultze, Alfred, “Stadtgenieinde und Kirche im Mittelalter,” Festgabe für Rudolph Bohm (Munich, 1914), 141.Google ScholarSchuitze, Alfred, “Stadtgeineinde und Reformation (Tubingen, 1918), 12ff 32, 48.Google Scholar

10. Andreas, Willy, Deutschland vor der Reformation (Stuttgart, 1948), 43f.Google Scholar In 1425 the princes through the mediation of the council (domini civitatis) even demanded that the University of Cologne alter its philosophical program in favor of the “newer authorities,” Ritter, G., Studien cur Spätscholastik II.Google ScholarSitrungsberichte der Heiderger Akademie der Wissenschaften, XIII (Heidelberg, 1922), 39.Google Scholar

11. Joachimsen, Paul, Propyläden-WeZtgeschichte, V, Reformation end Gegeareformation (Berlin, 1930), 214f.Google Scholar

12. W. A., XI, 246.

13. Jellinek, George, Allgemeine Staatslehre (Berlin, 1930), 121ff.Google Scholar

14. W. A., LVII, 108; W. A., VIII, 656.

15. Wolff, Richard, Studien cu Luthers Welt anschauung (Munich, 1920), 54Google Scholar, dedicated significantly to Ernst Troeltsch.

16. Carison, Edgar M., “Luther's Conception of Governmeat,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XV, 4 (1946), 260.Google Scholar

17. W. A., I, 638ff.

18. W. A. XI, 229ff., 261ff. Especially significant are the words: “Das welitlich regiment hatt gesetz, die sich nieht weytter strecken denn uber leyb und gutt und was euszerlich 1st auff erden.”

19. W. A., LVI, 123.

20. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, John 18, 19–24 (1529), W. A., XXVIII, 281, 329.

21. W. A., LI, 239f.

22. Kirchenrecht, I (Leipzig, 1892), 548ff.Google Scholar Sohm was more accurate and a greater specialist in this field and therefore a better representative of this general approach to the problem than Ernst Troeltsch, who, however, because of his use of a sociological methodology, was more popular and perhaps more influential among nonspecialists on the problem. For his interpretation, ef., Die Soziallehren tIer christlichen Kirohen und Gruppen (Tübingen, 1912), 466ff.Google Scholar Karl Roll, to whose work the present writer is particularly indebted, represents a point of view much opposed to Sohm's interpretation of the Corpus christianuin, Gesaenmelte Aufsätse sur Kirchengeschtihte, I, Luther (Tübingen, 1921).Google Scholar

23. Op. cit., 45, 47.

24. Löscher, Friedrich, Schule, Kirohe, und Obrigkeit im Ref ormations-Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1925), 19f.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., 22.

26. W. A., VI, 408.

27. W. A., VI, 295.

28. Otto Hintze, op. cit., 67.

29. Karl Holl, op. cit., 292f.

30. Meinecke, Friedrich, “Luther flber christliches Gemeinwesen und christ1iehe Staat,” Histprische Zeitschrift, CXXI (1914)Google Scholar, considered with great care the question of the corpus christianum in opposition to Holl and expressed the judgment that Luther indeed tried to free himself from that “medieval” idea, but always somehow remained involved in it. P. Kattenbusch, op. cit., 283 f. expresses the belief that Roll and Meinecke were actually not far apart, though Holl defines conceptually more carefully the way in which Luther tried to win the authority in spite of its secular office as an aid to the Reformation.

31. Matthes, Kurt, Das Corpus Christiaaum bei Luther im Lichte seiner Erforschung (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar gives a penetrating analysis of these shifting historiographical currents.

32. See Pritzemeyer, Werner, Christenheit und Europa; sur Oeschichte des Europdischen Gemeinschuftsgefithls von Dante bis Leibniz; Historisohe Zeitschrift, Beiheft 23 (Munich, 1931)Google Scholar and the articles by Baumer, Franklin L., “England, the Turk, and the Common Corps of Christendom,” American Historical Review, L (1944), 26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Conception of Christendom in Renaissance England,” Journal of the History of Ideas, VI (1945), 131–156;Google Scholar and “The Church of England and the Common Corps of Christendom,” The Journal of Modern History, XVI (1944), 1ff.Google Scholar

33. Cf. Bornkamm, Heinrich, Lut hers geistige Welt (Lüneburg, 1947), 293f.Google Scholar

34. See the brilliant work by Pauck, Wilhelm, The Heritage of the Reformation (Boston, 1950)Google Scholar, especially the chapter on the church, 25ff, 48.

35. The faith of the individual did not mean an autonomous subjective individualism. Luther stressed the realization of the “heiligen Gemeine” as the final purpose of God in time and in eternity. Cf. Kattenbuech, op. cit., 237. Althaus, Paul, Communic sanetorum. Die Cemeinde im lutherischen Kirchengedanken, I, Luther (Munich, 1929)Google Scholar relates Luther's picture of the church as “Gemeinde” to the conception of the New Testament and Catholicism.

36. W. A., VI, 301. Cf. Vorrede auf die Offenbarung S. Johannis: “Es let diesz Stllcke (ich glaübe eine heilige christliche Kirehe) eben sowohi ein Artikel des Glaubens ale die andern. Darumb kann sic keine Vernunft, wean sic gleich alle Brillen aufsetzt, erkenflea.…Sie will nicht ersehen, sondern ergläubt sein; Glaube aber let von dem, das man nieht siehet,” Ertanger Ausgabe, LXIII, 168.Google Scholar

37. W. A., IV, 189.

38. W. A., VI, 300f. “Niemant spricht also, ‘Ich gleub in den heyligen geist, em heylige Romische kirehe, em gemeinschafft der Romer,’ auff dna es klar sey, die heylige Kirch nit an Rom gepunden, sondern szo weyt die welt jet jn einen glauben versamlet, geistlich unnd nicht leyplich. Dan was man gleubt, dna ist nit leyplich noch sichtlich: die euszerlich Romisehe kirche sehen wir nile, drum mag sic nit scm die rechte kirche, die gegleubt wirt, wilche jet einn gemeine odder samlung der heyligen ym glaubena, aber niemant siht, wer heylig odder gleubig sey.”

39. Von den Konziliis u. Kirchen, 1539, W. A., L, 624.

40. W. A., III, 507f.

41. W. A., IV, 324.

42. Elert, Werner, Morphologic des Luthertums, I (Munich, 1931), 437.Google Scholar

43. W. A., VII, 683.

44. W. A., IV, 645. “The Church is a living body, in which all parts share with the others,” W. A., IV, 289.

45. Versus Ambrosius Catharinus, 1521, W. A., VII, 720; IV, 169, “…ecelesia semper … in successione fidelium …”

46. Luther to Amsdorf, 1542, Enders, XIV, 175.Google Scholar

47. Versus Alveld, 1520, W. A., VI, 297.

48. W. A., XL (II), 103, 560.

49. Scheel, Otto, Kirche, Evangeliurn und Yolk bei Luther (Leipzig, 1934), 18.Google Scholar Cf. Paul Althaus, op. cit., 92.

50. Sohm, Rudolph, Kirchenrecht, I, 469, 513.Google Scholar

51. W. A., XLII, 423; W. A., L, 629: “Denn Gottes wort kan nicht on Gottes Voick scm, widerumb Gottes Volck kan nicht on Gottes wort sein…”

52. W. A., L, 631: “Denn, wie droben vom wort gesagt, wo Gottes wort ist, da mus die Kirche scm, also auch, wo die Tauffe und Sacrament sind, mus Gottes volck scm, und widerumb.”

53. Rietschel, Ernst, Das Problem der unsichtbar-sichtbaren Kirche bei Luther (Leipzig. 1932), 33f.Google Scholar Kattenbusch, op. cit., 292: “Was Luther positiv für die Kultgemeinde fordert, let im Prinzip nur ‘Predigt dee Worts’.” Jacob, Günter, “Luthers Kireheubegriff,” Zestschnft für TheoZogie und Kirohe, N. F. XV, Heft 1 (1934), 16–32Google Scholar, stresses the close dependence in Luther's understanding of the essence of the church upon the actual dynamic of the Word and relates the working of the Word in the individual to the whole drama of the conflict between God and Satan.

54. W. A., VI, 450; W. A., II, 208: “Itaiure divino quiequid habet rhomana ecciesia, habet quaelibet ecelesia quantumlibet parva…”

55. W. A., XI, 411, 414.

56. W. A., VI, 440. Cf. Grisar, Hartmann, Luther, V (London, 1917), 599:Google Scholar “With the same desire to retain intact some sort of spiritual order distinct from the secular, Luther here and elsewhere seeks to reserve to the Christian congregation the right of choosing their pastors …” Cf. Wilhelm Pauck, op. cit., 43: “…according to his innermost conviction, the task of establishing a true church order in the world belonged to the ‘Christian people’ themselves, not the men and women who happened to be members of historical christendom and its organizations but the Christian believers among them who had been apprehended by the word of God.”

57. W. A., XI, 408.

58. Denifle, Heinrich and Weiss, Albert Maria, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung, II (Mainz, 1909), 233.Google Scholar

59. W. A., VI, 455f.; W. A., L, 634.

60. W. A., XII, 205, 214.

61. Auslegung über die Psalmen, Ps. 19,1, 2, W. A., XXXI (I), 580f.

62. Exempel, einen rechten christlichen Bischof zu weihen, 1542, W. A., LIII, 231ff.

63. Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarhern yin Kurfurstenthuui zu Sachssen, W. A., XXVI, 195ff.

64. W. A., X (III), 215.

65. W. A., X (II), 140; W. A., XII, 194.

66. W. A., XXVI, 175.

67. W. A., X (1), 454: “Es wurde sonst alle land wüste, you morder und reuher, blieb keyn weyb, keyu kind angeschendett; aber durchs schwerd mid seyn gesetz werden sic bewarett and getrieben ynu eyn still, rugig, erber weszen; dennoch werdeun sic dadureh nitt frum, das hertz wirt niehts besser.”

68. Binder, Julius, Luthers Staatsauffassung (Erfurt, 1924), 7ff.Google Scholar

69. W. A., XIX, 440f.; W. A., XXX (II), 556; W. A., XXVIII, 527, 530.

70. Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, W. A., XI, 253.

71. Brandenburg, Erich, Martin Luther's Anschauung oem Staate and der Geseasohaft (Halle, 1901), 11ff.Google Scholar; W.A., VI, 410; W. A., XXVI, 584.

72. W. A., XIV, 655.

73. Gierke, Otto, Politioal Theories of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1927), 91Google Scholar;cf. note 310.

74. W. A., VIII, 151.

75. W. A., XVIII, 398. Otto Hintze, op. cit., 67, is wrong therefore in speak. lag of the princes as a “Christian authority.” They were Christians, so Luther thought in 1520, “in authority.”

76. W. A., X (I), 454: “Denn aus derselhen ursach woilt gott mitt auffheben das welltlieh schwerd ym newen testaiuentt, ia, er bestetigt es, wiewol er seyn nitt brauchen woilt unnd den seynen auch nitt nott ist.…”

77. W. A., XI, 251f.; W. A., XXII, 69

78. W. A., XI, 249.

79. W. A., VI, 408f.

80. W. A., XI, 253.

81. W. A., XIV, 665: “… ut lex doceat, quae facienda et omittenda sunt…”

82. Erich Brandenburg, op. cit., 16.

83. W. A., XXII, 264.

84. Cf. Karl Holl's excellent discussion. op. cit., 296ff. Wippermann, Carl, Der Staatsbegriff bei Luther (Leipzig, 1929), 81f.Google Scholar, misunderstands Holl in holding his interpretation to be close to that of German idealism viewing the state, like Kant, as an ethical organism. Hoil did not say the state according to Luther was necessa!y for the kingdom of God nor a “Form der Liebe.” Luther was no pacifist like Kant and Roll knew it. Luther held war to be a punishment of evil and unrighteousness, but anticipated Grotius in holding that peace breakers should be punished. W. A., XIX, 625. The government was not for Luther “durch und durch bose,” as Wippermann asserts, but rather he had a clear conception of the government as rooted in natural law considered as part of the law of God, , as McNeil, John T. has pointed out, “Natural Law in the Thought of Luther,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, X (09., 1941), 226f.Google Scholar Positive law itself is external and secondary, a creation of the secular power, indeed, for the sake of the weakness of the flesh by reason of sin. Such law has no place in the church of true Christians. Cf. Oeschey, Rudolf, “Luther und das Recht,” Zeitwende, I, part 2 (Munich, 1925), 296ff.Google Scholar

85. Schwiebert, E. G., “The Medieval Pattern in Luther's Views of the State,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XII, 2 (1943), 106.Google Scholar

86. W. A., VI, 257f., 322.

87. W. A., VI, 420.

88. W. A., VI, 427.

89. W. A., VI, 409.

90. W. A., VI, 411ff.

91. W. A., VI, 413.

92. Ibid.

93. Op. cit., 285f.

94. W. A., VI, 410.

95. W. A., VI, 407f.

96. Karl Holl, op. cit., 300ff.

97. W. A., XII, 171f.

98. Alfred Sehultze, “Stadtgemeinde mid Kirche isa Mittelalter,” Festgabe für Rudolph Sohra, 140ff.

99. Schultze, Alfred, Stadtgemeinde und Reformation, 49.Google Scholar

100. Brief, an Luther, , Corpus Reformatorum, II, 328.Google Scholar

101. Troeltsch, Ernst, “Renaissance und Reformation,” Historische Zeitschrift, CX (1920), 519ff.Google Scholar

102. Erich Brandenburg, op. cit., 9.

103. W. A., XIX, 44ff. Cf. J. O. Evjen, op. cit., 217.

104. Rartmann Grisar S. J., op. cit., V, 600. Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand (Nashville and New York, 1951), 311Google Scholar: “Luther's dilemma was that he wanted both a confessional church based on personal faith and a territorial church including nil in a given locality.”

105. W. A., XI, 253.

106. W. A., XII, 215. Cf. Karl Roll, op. cit., 308.

107. W. A., XII, 693 (523): “Wir haben aber nicht die person dartzu, darumb traw ichs nieht anzufahen, so lang, biszunser herr gott christen macht.” Cf. Otto Rintze, op. cit., 66f.; Sohm, Rudolph, Kirchengeschichtc ins Grundriss (Leipzig, 1898), 148.Google Scholar

108. Cf. J. O. Evjen, op. cit., 218ff.

109. Eaders Ausgabe, III, 347f.Google Scholar

110. W. A., XVIII, 23.

111. W. A., XI, 246.

112. Cristiani, Abbé Leon, Luther et la Question Sociale (Paris, 1912), 199ff.Google Scholar, in the tradition of Grisar and Penile writes: “Ii (Luther) veut a tout prix 1'unite religieuse et culturelle, et pour eeln il f nit appel résolument nu ‘bras séculier.’” Seeberg, Reinhold, “Pie Lehre Luthers, ” Lehrbuch der Dogiaengeschichte, IV (Leipzig, 1917), 296ff.Google Scholar, holding that the development of the evangelical state church was not the intention of Luther, nevertheless cites his opposition to disorder as an important consideration in the developments of this period.

113. op. cit., 312ff. J. O. Evjen, op. cit., 227ff., discusses the Saxon Visitation.

114. Erlanger Ausgabe, LIII, 331.Google Scholar

115. Ibid., LIII, 367ff.

116. Hartmann Grisar, op. cit., V, 589f.

117. Richter, Aemilius, Die evangeliuchen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Rcgesten, I (Weimar, 1846), 79Google Scholar; Instruction und Befelch dorauff die Visitatores abgefertiget scm. 1527, 77–82; Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarhern ym KurfUrstenthum zu Sachssen, Vorrhede, 1528, 82–101.

118. Cf. Sohm, Rudolph, Kirchenrecht, I, 587Google Scholar: “Die Stunde hatte geschlagen, zu weleher nunmehr die weltliche Obrigkeit ihrer Pflicht als Glied der Kirche warten muszte: der in starker Gang gesetzten Reformationsbewegung den weltliehen Arm zu leihen.”

119. W. A., XXVI, 196ff.

120. Hartmann Grisar, op. cit., V, 594ff.

121. Christliche Welt (1910), 537, in Karl Holl, op. cit., 320.

122. W. A., XXVI, 175, introductory article to the Vorrede.

123. Karl Roll, op. cit., 321.

124. E. g., W. A., XI, 263ff, 267f.: “Und solt wissen, das von nnbegynn der wellt gar eyn seltzam vogel ist umb eyn klhgen fursten, noch viel seltzamer umb cyst frumen fursten. Sie sind gemeyniglieh die grösten narren odder die ergisten buben aufferden, darumb man sich alltzeytt hey yhn des ergisten versehen und wenig gdts von yhn gewartten musz sonderlich ynn got- lichen sachen, die der seelen heyl belangen.”

125. Hartmnnn Grisar, op. cit., V, 597. Two recent articles of interest are Irmgard Roesz, “Georg Spalatins Bedeutung fur die Organization der lutherischen Landeskirehe, ” and Schrey, Heinz-Horst, “Geistliches mid Weltliches Regiment in der sehwedischen Reformation,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, XLII (1951), Heft 1/2.Google Scholar

126. W. A., XXVIII, 295.

127. W. A., XLVI, 737f.

128. Erlanger Ausgabe, LV, 223:Google Scholar “Aber meins judicium ist hie gar keine Noth. Penn sollt man mit solcher Un- lust unsern gnkdigsten Herrn, der oha dns als unser einiger Nothbischoff, weil sonst kein Bischoff uns helfen will, bemuhen ohn Noth…”

129. W. A., LIII, 255: “Mussen doch uissere weitliche Herrschaff ten itzt Nothischove scm, und uns Pfarherr und Prediger (Nach dem der Bapst und scm Rotte nicht dazu, sondern da wider thut,) schutzen und helfen…”

130. Cf. Alfred Sehultze, Stadtgesneinde und Reformation, 50ff. Praatz, Adolph, Die Evaagelische Kirchenverfassung in den deutschen Stddten des. 16. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1878), 47ff.Google Scholar Karl Roll, op. cit., 376f.

131. Op. cit., 376.

132. Heinrich Bornkamm, op. cit., 239. W. A., LIII, 219ff.

133. In fairness to those deserving scholars before the turn of the century who failed to appreciate the nature of Luther's opposition to the state- church and his own preferences, it must be noted that since that time many new documents relevant to this question have been made available, especially Weimar Briefe, V and VI.

134. Hartmann Grisnr, op. cit., V, 597.

135. Otto Hintze, op. cit., 68. So also, Erich Brandenburg, op. cit., 17; cf. even Grisar, op. cit., V, 599, “circurnstances were, however, too strong for him” Barrnclough, G., The Origins of Modern Germany (Oxford, 1947), 374Google Scholar, “… he was no Erastian, and wanted an independent church. But the circuinstances under, and the methods by which the reformation was carried out, forced his hand.”

136. Sohm, Rudolph, Kirchenrecht, I, 633.Google Scholar

137. Hartmann Grisar, op. cit., V, 604. An extreme statement that Luther vacillated wildly in his basic principles is made by Gustav von Schuithess-Rechberg, Luther, Zwingli end Calvin in ihren Ansschten über das Verhältnis von, Staat und Kirche, Züricher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft, XXIV (Aarau, 1909), 166, 170.Google ScholarHyma, Albert, Christianity and Politics (Philadelphia, 1938), 119Google Scholar, says, “Luther changed his mind somewhat with reference to the duty of the prince toward the church and its members,” but remained “fundamentally true to his first viewpoint as enunciated in1523,” 124.

138. Sohm, Rudolph, Kirchenrecht, I, 586Google Scholar; Karl Holl, op. cit., 325.

139. Harnack, Adolph, Martin Luther in seiner Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Wissenschaft und der Bildung (Giessen, 1911), 6Google Scholar “Nein—von welcher Seite man auch inner seine gewaltige Persönlichkeit in ihren Wirkungen ins Auge fassen will, man wird ilir niemals gerecht werden, wenn man nicht von Luther, dem kirchlichen Reformator ausgeht.”

140. Luther and His Work (Milwaukee, 1937), 127.Google ScholarDeutelmoser, Similarly Arno, Luther, Btaat und Glwbe (Jean, 1937)Google Scholar states that Luther, no longer fundamentally Christian, turned the external and the spiritual coitrol of the church over to the state. Nor is it possible, on the other hand to agree except with due qualification to the conclusions of John Evjen, op. cit., 368, that “Luther was neutral as to the question of church polity. That is, he had no ideal, which should be followed at all times in church organization.” His ideal of church government was not a principle de iure divino in the sense of a decisive article of faith. Indeed, R. Seeberg, op. cit., 299, concludes that Luther did not solve the problem of how the church could assume external order and form without losing its essence. But he certainly did have an ideal in a more teleological sense of an ulthante most desirable, when practicable, form of church polity.

141. Cf. Heinrich Bornkamm, op. cit., 150; Hahn, Fritz, “Evangelical Christianity in America and its Significance for Evangelical Christianity in Germany,” Concordia Theological Monthly, XXI, 3 (1950), 192Google Scholar; see also the discussions in Eisenach, 1948. Verhandlungen der verfasrunggebenden Kirchenversaminlung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland von 9.-iS. Juli 1948 (Berlin, 1951)Google Scholar and Iwand, Hans, “Kirche und Gesellschaft” and Erik Wolf, “Zur Rechtsgestat der Kirche,” in Belcennende Kirche (Munich, 1952).Google Scholar