If legislation and external authority were called for in the Church,
then this would have to be borrowed from the State, or, as Rudolf
Sohm expresses it: “If legislation and judicial authority were needed
in the Church of Christ, then, according to Luther’s principles,
the government of the Church would have to be set up by the ruler
of the land.” For, according to Luther, the authority of the Church
is intended merely to foster piety,[261] and a spiritual governing
authority would result in compulsion and simply make people “impious.”
“The ecclesiastical authority to rule of the parson, i.e. his teaching
office, is not a legal power.” In his treatise on canon law, Sohm
is one of the principal supporters of this principle.[262] To judge
from the praise bestowed upon him by Hermelink, he had “penetrated
deeply into Luther’s thought,” and “on the whole saw things in a right
light,” although he was possibly too fond of simplifying them in the
interests of a system.[263] It is perfectly true that in Sohm and
other Protestant Canonists, the contradictions in Luther’s opinions
are left in the background; Luther’s views of the formation of
congregations having their own rights and their own authority, which
appear side by side with his other schemes, receive, as a rule, little
attention.
In any case, Luther at that time made use of “every artifice to prove
that it was the right of each individual Christian to judge of the
preaching of the Gospel and of the avoiding of false prophets.”[264]
In those early days Luther was so full of the ideal of the
congregation that, in order to support it, he even appeals to the
natural law. In order to save souls every congregation, government or
individual has by nature the right to make every effort to drive away
the wolves, i.e. the clergy of Antichrist; no apathy can be permitted
where it is a question of eternal salvation; the alleged rights and
the handed-down possessions of the foes, on which they base their
corruptive influence, must not be spared: “We must not fall upon
and seize the temporal possessions of others, above all not of our
superiors--except where it is a question of doctrine and the salvation
of souls; but if the Gospel is not preached, the spiritual authorities
have no right to the revenues.”[265] “According to Luther,” says
Hermelink, “the authorities of Altenburg had a perfect right to drive
away the Provost and his people from Altenburg as ravening wolves”;
they were only to wait “a little” to see whether the monks would hold
their tongues or perhaps even preach the pure Gospel. When thereupon
Luther cries: “Their authority is at an end, abrogated by God Himself,
if it be in conflict with the Gospel,”[266] Hermelink admits the
presence of a certain “antagonism between the right of each individual
Christian and the common law of society.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account