¹ Although this theme is common in the literature of the Middle Ages, the whole idea of the Christian Commonwealth and the general pattern set forth in these pages is still pictured best in Rieker, Karl, Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1893), 9–39.Google Scholar

² Although historians like Karl Zeumer and Karl Hugelmann have proven that the expression Sacrum imperium was first used in 1157 by Rainald von Dassel, the idea is much older and dates back at least to the time of Otto the Great. The sacrum was added by William of Holland in 1254–1255, according to Adolf Diehl.

³ That the great struggle between the German emperors and the papacy did not always square with this beautiful theory did not seem to cause any particular concern since it was due to sin in the world.

⁴ “Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes,” tr. by Barraclough, G., Studies in Mediaeval History, Mediaeval Germany 911–1250 (Oxford, 1938), II, 35–70.Google Scholar

⁵ Stutz, U., “Die Eigenkirche,” II, 56–57Google Scholar. Hans Hirsch has an excellent study on this subject, ibid., 131 ff., entitled, “The Constitutional History of the Reformed Monasteries during the Investiture Contest.” Cf. n. 1.

⁶ Ibid., 46.

⁷ Ibid., 61.

⁸ Feudal Germany, 48Google Scholar. In this connection he adds, “In order to magnify the dignity and authority of the episcopal office the emperor surrounded the ceremony of investiture with a pomp and majesty which it had not possessed before. The ‘ring’ ceremony became almost a ritual.”

⁹ “Die Eigenkirche,” II, 69. For additional studies by Stutz on the effects of the investiture controversy on the German Church see his note, nos. 11 & 13.

¹⁰ “The Constitutional History,” 170–173.Google Scholar

¹¹ “Neuere Arbeiten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche in Deutschland während das späteren Mittelalters,” Historische Vierteljahrschrift (1908), XI, 153 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Thompson, , Feudal Germany, 158.Google Scholar

¹³ In addition to Werminghoff's study above, Felix Priebatsch's study, “Staat und Kirche in der Mark Brandenburg am Ende des Mittel alters,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (1899–1900), XIX and XX, is very useful.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Studies, I, 7–8Google Scholar. Volume I of this study is devoted to an introduction of the problems involved in special studies of leading German historians translated in the second volume.

¹⁵ Ibid., I, 32; 49–55.

¹⁶ The most detailed study on the subject is the standard work by this author entitled, “Der deutsehe Territorialstaat um 1500,” Deutsche Geschichte im Ausgange des Mittelalters (Stuttgart und Berlin, 1912), II, 259–434.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Armstrong, Edward, The Emperor Charles V (Macmillan, 1902), I, 46.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Thompson, , Feudal Germany, 68Google Scholar, n. 3, claims that the first prince-bishop was the Bishop of Münster in 1134; while Julius Ficker, Vom Heerschilde (Innsbruck, 1862), 62Google Scholar ff., claims it began in the period of the early Hohenstaufens. Barraclough, , Studies, I, 77–79Google Scholar, also supports that view. Also cf. II, 175–202, in which a special study by Theodor Mayer throws additional light on this problem.

¹⁹ Perhaps the best study on this important problem is Güterbock, Ferdinand, Die Gelnhäuser Urkunde und der Prosesz Heinrichs des Löwen, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersaclisens (Hildesheim u. Leipzig, 1920), XXXIIGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Haller, Johannes, Der Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen, Archiv für Urkundenfarschung (Leipzig, 1911), IIIGoogle Scholar, for a slightly different point of view.

²⁰ Werminghoff, , “Neuere Arbeiten,” 198.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid., 168, cities this illustration from Die Chroniken der Stadt Konstanz (Konstanz, 1891), 69Google Scholar f., “denselben visehern druckt der gaistlich vater mit sinen aigenen fingern ire augen usz und schickt sie also blind gen Constentz.”

²³ Ibid., 153.

²⁴ Ibid., 167.

²⁵ Ibid., 171.

²⁶ The best study on this subject is Burkhardt, C. A. H., Geschichte der sächischen Kirchen und Schulvisitationen von 1524 bis 1545 (1879)Google Scholar. Cf. also the exhaustive study on church visitations by Jur. Sealing, Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1902–1913), 5 volsGoogle Scholar. For a study of the correspondence of Martin Luther with the Saxon court during these years see Enders, E. L., Kawerau, G. et al. , Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel, 19Google Scholar vols, and D. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel in D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar Ausgabe) 8 volsGoogle Scholar. These should be studied together as the introductions and notes in both are invaluable.

²⁷ For a thorough study of this problem the reader should examine Martin Luther's correspondence from 1529 on in Enders and the Weimar editions. See also Albert Hyma's discussion of this problem in Christianity and Politics (New York, 1938), 121–126.Google Scholar

²⁸ D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1888), VI, 381 ff.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid., 391–397. The Weimar editors point out that Luther may have been able to get some sources from the Saxon court through his friend Spalatin, and such other sources as Dialogus Julii et Petri (1517), Gravamina Germanicas Nationis cum remediis et avisamentis ad Caesaream Maiestatem (1519), to mention but two.

³⁰ Ibid., 396.

³¹ Ibid., 408.

³² Ibid., 410.

³³ Ibid., 409.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Ibid., 407–408: “Dan was ausz der tauff krochen ist, das mag sich rumen, das es schon priester, Bischoff und Bapst geweyhet sey, ob wol nit einem ygliehcn zympt, solch ampt zu uben.”

³⁶ Ibid., 408.

³⁷ Ibid., 409. Luther adds on 410, even if the pope, bishop, or priest threaten with the ban, the secular authority must act. “Drumb musz das der heubt teuffei selb gesagt haben, das ym geistlichenn recht stet (Dist. 40c. Si Papa). Wen der Bapst szo schedlich bosz were, das er gleich die selenn mit grossen hauffen zum teuffei furet, kund man yhn dennocht nit absetzen.” Then he continues, on this “vorfluchten teuffelischen grand” they build in Rome and assume that one should rather let all the world go to the devil than to resist their “buberey.”

³⁸ Although Luther's definitions of the Church are scattered freely throughout his writings, the best general introductions to this important question are: Rieker, K., Die rechtliche Stellung, 42 ffGoogle Scholar. and the slightly different view of Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, Die Doppelschichtigkeit in Luthers Kirchenbegriff (Gotha, 1928)Google Scholar. The latter thesis, though very scientific, seems somewhat labored and overdone. See also, Ritesehel, D. Ernest, “Das Problem der unsichtbar-sichtbaren Kirche bei Luther,” Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte (1932) OLIV, II, 1–96.Google Scholar

³⁹ Werke (Weimar A.), XI, 229.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., 267.

⁴¹ Luther had touched upon the theme of civil government in two sermons preached at Weimar, Oct. 24 and 25, 1522 and was requested to put this material into writing. This doubtless explains the detailed reply to the Freiherr. Ibid., Introduction, 230.

⁴² For a good introduction see Reu, M., Luther's German Bible (Columbus, O., 1934), 146–234Google Scholar. Also Copinger, W. A., The Bible and Its Transmission (London, 1897)Google Scholar. Cf. Kraft, G. L., Sacram Memoriam Dr. Martini Lutheri Germaniae Reformatons etc., 3Google Scholar ff. Between 1462 and 1522 there seem to have been 14 High German Bibles and 3 Low German Bibles printed.

⁴³ The original is in the Karl-Alexander-Bibliothek in Eisenach under title, “Strenge Verordnung Herzog Georg des Bärtigen, zu Sachsen, gegen Dr. Martin Luther und das Reformationswerk. Ausgestellt zu Nürnberg im Februar, 1522.” For reprint, see Sehreckenbach, P. u. Neubert, F., Martin Luther (Leipzig, 1921), 86–87.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Werke (Weimar A.), XI, 246.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. supra, 15, n. 31Google Scholar. These fundamental passages have been quoted by writers all through the Middle Ages and the Reformation. In fact, it was from the New Testament that the supporters of the medieval pattern of the state took their basic ideas. Luther's arguments in subsequent pages as to the attitude that man must take toward the state is drawn from such passages as I Peter 2:13–14: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.'

⁴⁶ Werke (Weimar A.), XI, 262Google Scholar. Luther begins Ms reasoning in this connection by the observation that it must be noted that Adam's children are divided into two classes, “der eyns ynn Gottis reyeh unter Christo, das ander ynn der wellt reych unter der uberkeyt” and these have both their own separate laws. Each must have its own laws and regulations, otherwise it could not exist. Here we have views directly opposite to those of the modern totalitarians, and the germs of the separation of church and state.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 268.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 276–277.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Werke (Weimar A.), XVIII, 291Google Scholar. Dr. Martin Luthers Reformations-Historische Schriften (Erlangen, 1830), XXIV, 260Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as Luther's Schriften (Erlangen A.). For a translation see Hyma, Albert, Christianity and Politics, 112.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The first tract, “Ermanunge zum fride auff die zwelff artickel der Bawrschafftynn Schwaben Martini Luther,” in its opening sentences calls them “dear Friends.” Hyma adds, 113, “Luther recalled only too well that his parents originally had been very poor.”

⁵² See Luther, 's Schriften (Erlangen A.) XXIV, 290 ff. passim.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., XXIV, 294, under the title, “Eyn Sendobrieff von dem harten, buchlin widder die bauren;” Werke (Weimar A.), XVIII, 284–401Google Scholar. Both are valuable for a thorough study of the subject as the editor's notes and the original text of the latter editions help to clarify doubtful points.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 262 ff., passim.

⁵⁵ . Hyma, , Christianity and Politics, 116.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Werke (Weimar A.), XVIII, 292.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ I Peter 2, 13–15. In the third tract Luther repeats the same theme of the two “kingdoms” and adds that the “Weltlich Reich” is one of grim earnestness that must punish, protect, try, judge, coerce, and shield.

⁵⁸ In the one “Ob kriegsleutte auch ynn seligem stande seyn künden,” Werke (Weimar A.), XIX, 623–662Google Scholar, Luther discussed the question of tyrannicide and concluded that only a prince who had lost his mind might be deposed, while killing was of course entirely out of the question among Christians. In a second tract, entitled “Vom Kriege wider die Türcken,” Werke (Weimar A.), XXX, II, Luther, doubtless influenced by Aegidius Colonna's views, made far too pretentious a claim for his influence in restoring the self-respect of the state. It merely proves that the Reformer himself was not fully aware of the origin of the basic pattern of his political convictions.

⁵⁹ Smith, Preserved, Luther's Correspondence (Philadelphia, 1918), II, 518Google Scholar, Introduction to March 6, 1530 letter. For a more detailed study see Enders and Weimar editions of Luther's correspondence from 1529–1531.

⁶⁰ Weimar Briefe, V, 208 ff.Google Scholar; Enders, VII, 192.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Smith, , Luther's Correspondence, II, 518.Google Scholar

⁶² For a translation see Ibid. The introduction of the Weimar Briefe, V, 249 ffGoogle Scholar. must be carefully studied for the latest evaluation of what is true with reference to this important Helmstedt source. Too much research has been based on the Dietrich and Cochlaeus copies.

⁶³ Translation from Smith, Luther's Correspondence, II, 519.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Matt. 22:21.

⁶⁵ I Peter 2.

⁶⁶ Smith, , Luther's Correspondence II, 521.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ de Wette, W. I. M., Luthers Briefe, VI, 127Google Scholar. Luther was now under consider able pressure. The jurists claimed that the Emperor in signing the Capitulations had agreed that he might be resisted if he failed to keep his promises. Luther admitted he did not know whether the Emperor had made such an agreement but if he had the Emperor would have to take his own responsibility. As a theologian he felt that he could never agree with the jurists.

⁶⁸ There are those who claim that Luther contradicted himself during these critical years. See Hyma, , Christianity and Politics, 121 ff.Google Scholar; Smith, , Luther's Correspondence, II, 519Google Scholar. But K. Muller's criticism and others came before the Weimar Briefe V and VI were in print. See especially the introduction to the famous March 6, 1530, Helmstedt original source. The Dietrich and Cochlaeus copies were full of errors. Of. Luther's attitude of 1545, Enders XVI, 270, Tischreden (Weimar A.), IV, 4857aGoogle Scholar. Both Bugenhagen and Melanchthon tried hard during the Schmalkaldic War to leave the impression that Luther had changed his mind but the evidence in the sources is against them.

⁶⁹ Art. XXVIII.

⁷⁰ Seeberg, , Der Begriff der christlichen Kirche, I, 93Google Scholar: “Luther redet zwar vonunsichtbarer Kirche aber er stellt ihr nirgends eine zweite sichtbare gegenuber.” Cf. also, Köstlin, Julius, Luthers Lehre von der Kirche, 107Google Scholar for a similar view. See supra, 17, n. 38, for additional studies.

⁷¹ Werke (Weimar A.), XI, 267–268Google Scholar: “Und solt wissen, das von anbegynn der weit gar eyn seltzam vogel ist umb eyn klügen forsten, noch viel seltzamer umb eyn frumen fürsten. Sie sind gemeyniglich die grösten narren odder die ergisten buben auff erden, durumb man sich alltzeytt bey yhn des ergisten versehen und wenig güts von yhn gewartten musz sonderlich ynn gotlichen sachen, die der seelen heyl belangen.”

⁷² For further evidence see the author's article, “Remnants of a Reformation Library,” The Library Quarterly (10, 1940), X, 294–331Google Scholar and his book, Reformation Lectures (Valparaiso, 1937), 270–282.Google Scholar