The Saxon Reformer had, it is true, approved of the protest, made by the princes and cities favorable to the Gospel, against the resolutions of the Imperial Diet at Spire, but to go further, to offer actual resistance, he regarded as unlawful. He saw in Charles the consecrated head of the Empire, to take up arms against whom appeared to him rebellion. It had first to be proved to him by lawyers, better acquainted with the Imperial Constitution than he, that the individual Estates of the Empire had full authority to preserve their independence in spiritual matters, in every possible way, and then only did he yield a reluctant consent to the league afterward formed among the Protestants at Schmalkald. He was strongly opposed to inviting the Swiss to take part in it, until they were reconciled to his view of the Lord's Supper. More genial than Zwingli, trained to implicit obedience in the monastery, in earlier life a hard student of the church-fathers; whilst the Switzer in those years, when the most vivid and lasting impressions are made, had devoted his attention to the history of the ancient republics, the study of Roman and Grecian authors; Luther, although he publicly and resolutely condemned the severity and arbitrary conduct of princes, and warned them with boldness and power, was yet far more inclined to the doctrine of passive resistance against evil, the disarming of the enemy by innocent suffering, submission to every existing form of government, even though unjust and tyrannical--a doctrine which lies in the spirit of the Gospel, and was not only preached but practised by Christ himself, and confirmed by his own example. It is worth our while to hear the two Reformers on this fundamental point. Their peculiar views of it have naturally influenced their judgment in political matters.