Martin Luther: the duty of obedience to the prince.
There is no point in seeking social, economic or political reasons to Luther's reformation, no: the reasons at its core are religious. What was at stake was primarily linked to the question of « eternal salvation »
. As Lucien Febvre wrote in Martin Luther: a Destiny « What matters to Luther between 1505 and 1515 is not the reformation of the church, it is Luther, Luther's soul, Luther's salvation. That is all »
. Luther's discovery (a discovery that could be termed existential were the epithet less anachronistic for the 16th century) is that « salvation »
is not to be found in human good works (active charity, fasting, vigils...) but in God's will as he saves humanity through faith[1] alone, and in spite of humans' unavoidable failure to obey God's commandments.
This was received with an instant hail of criticism. Luther was censured for basically undermining morality and society for, said his detractors, how is one to enforce obedience to the commandments, not least obedience to the prince, if humans are assured of their salvation independently of their action? To this criticism, Luther answered in his 1520 treatise Of Good Works (sometimes titled Sermon on Good Works) in which he upheld the idea that faith comes first but that it in no way dispenses from observance of the commandments. More specifically, the fourth (or fifth) commandment of the Decalogue[2] (« honour thy father and thy mother »
) also entails respect for all human authority and thus submission to temporal power, to which one must not resist by principle « even when it does wrong »
.
Luther had no illusions as too human nature's goodness. Every society needs a temporal authority for the world counts many « evil doers »
who would give free rein to their wicked inclinations were they not restrained by the fear of punishment. But he had no illusions about the princes' virtues either : the worst is to be expected from most, a good prince, he averred is a « rare bird indeed »
, so he wrote notably in a 1523 tract « On Secular Authority: how far does the Obedience owed to it extend? »
. Thus temporal power must be obeyed. Luther allowed for one single exception in the event when a prince should give an order contrary to God's commandments: « If he should command us to perjure ourselves, to rob, to lie, to deceive, and other such things, in this case, it would be better to sacrifice wealth, honour, body and life, in order to uphold God's law. »
Power, whether good or bad is, according to Luther instituted by God. This leaves a simple alternative: either obey the power (that is the primary rule, to be followed even in doubt, when unsure of the power's rightfulness), or be prepared to sacrifice one's life (in the extreme case when the power gives an order unquestionably contrary to « divine will »
). In no way did Luther justify open resistance to temporal power. The reformer founded his position in the distinction he set between what theologians traditionally call the two kingdoms: the « kingdom of God »
, which is concerned with the souls and the « kingdom of the world »
that rules over bodies and goods exclusively. One must therefore either bear the iniquities the prince may commit or be prepared to suffer exile, prison or death. According to Luther, only when fallen prey to dementia may a tyrant be deposed. Truth to say, Luther would, in 1539, consider taking action against the emperor (in the event Charles V[3]). This was not, however, directed at the emperor as head of state but at the emperor in that he had submitted to the pope: as such he had forsworn the honour of his function to become « the pope's lackey »
. In Luther's eye, the Emperor was losing in the process his status as a prince to whom his subjects owed obedience. (It must be added that in Nazi Germany the doctrine of the two reigns would be invoked by some Lutheran theologians in order to justify submission to the regime).
The Roman Catholic position regarding submission to power is very close to that of Luther. The Tridentine catechism had this to say about the fourth/fifth commandment: « If we sometimes have wicked and unworthy officials it is not their faults that we revere, but the authority from God which they possess. Indeed, while it may seem strange, we are not excused from highly honouring them even when they show themselves hostile and implacable towards us »
.
