CHAP. 11. dorf very justly remarks, that Luther assumed, that the German princes were "absolutely subjects of the emperor," as the people under a despotic government are of their monarch;"a position which statesmen and the legal authorities could never admit." "In what manner, therefore," he says, "this sentence, that they possessed no right of resistance, was afterwards relaxed or limited, the subsequent history will shew." He here seems to touch precisely the core of the question. I pretend not to such an acquaintance with the constitution of the empire, as to define accurately the prerogatives of the head, and the rights of the several members, but, from what Dr. Robertson has stated in his preliminary volume, it appears, that the several princes or senates were, to a great degree, sovereigns in their respective states; that the emperor was not their absolute lord, but only the head of the confederacy formed among them for their common interest; that, on his inauguration, he entered into a solemn engagement (styled "the capitulation," 2) to preserve the rights and privileges of each, inviolate; and that, as it would seem, neither he alone, nor even the assembled diet, could be entitled to interfere in the religious, and other merely internal regulations of any state, without the consent, and much more in 1 Seck. ii. 141; iii. 10. 2 Previously to the accession of Charles V, a verbal promise to confirm the Germanic privileges was all that had been required of the emperors; but, from jealousy of his great power, the electors digested all their laws, customs, and privileges into a formal deed, which he was required to ratify before his coronation. Coxe's House of Austria, i. 453. 4to. It was one express article of this capitulation, that the emperor "should not prevent the electors from holding assemblies and forming unions among themselves." ib. 454. opposition to the sentiments, of its head.'-But, besides doing this, at the period under consideration, the emperor had so far forgotten his duty, and the dignity of his station, as to enter into alliance with particular catholic princes against their protestant brethren.2 The situation therefore of the princes and states, with respect to the emperor, appears to have differed essentially from that of individual subjects under a persecuting government, whose duty we must, on scriptural principles and from scriptural examples, conclude it to be, to confine themselves to petitions, protestations, and the intercession of more powerful friends; and, where these fail, to commit themselves to God, and patiently suffer for his sake. And on these grounds even the most conscientious of the 1 See Robertson's Charles V, i. 206-223, 455-469; ii. 73, 77.-Not to quote any thing relating to earlier times, the following passages occur. "At the beginning of the sixteenth century" the empire was " a complex body, formed by the association of several states, each of which possessed Sovereign and independent jurisdiction within its own territories. Of all the members which composed this united body, the emperor was the head." i. 215.-"The princes and states of the empire, though they seemed to recognize the imperial authority, were subject only in name, each of them possessing a complete municipal jurisdiction, within the precincts of his own territories.' 218.-"The princes and nobles, to whom supreme jurisdiction belonged, possessed a sort of monarchical power within their own territories." 220. -At this period the emperors appear 66 as the heads of a confederacy, with very limited powers." 457.-" The diet takes no cognizance of the interior administration in the different states, unless that happens to disturb or threaten the general safety." 465.-Gibbon also says, "The union of the Germans has produced, under the name of an empire, a great system of a federative republic." c. 49.-All this certainly goes to overthrow the authority of the decree against the reformation. Maimb. in Seck. ii. 200. and Seck. iii. 9 (20), 10 (1), 11 (4). A. D.. 1531. 11. CHAP. princes became satisfied, and Luther concurred with them, that they should be justified in opposing force to force, for the defence of their own rights, and of the civil and religious liberties of their subjects, in case the emperor should attempt to execute, by arms, the edict of Augsburg.1 Thus we have seen Luther declaring in his Warning to the Germans, that he would "leave the question of the right of defence to the legal authorities," and that he could not " condemn those who defended themselves against rapine and slaughter."-Again he says, "It was now his fixed opinion, that it was lawful to resist unjust force, and even the emperor himself, when he exceeded the limits of his authority. What those limits were, he, indeed, would not venture to determine: the investigation of that question belonged not to him, but to the princes."2-In like manner John Frederic, then become elector, in asserting the rights and liberties of the princes in reply to the duke of Brunswick, argues, "That legitimate obedience, indeed, was due to the emperor, but not absolute and despotic: and that by legitimate was to be understood, such as was not contrary to religion, to the laws, and to the imperial capitulation." 3-Sleidan also expressly says, "Before the league of Smalkald was entered into, not only the lawyers, but the divines also were admitted into the consultation. It had, indeed, been always the doctrine of Luther, that magistrates ought not to be resisted and upon this subject there was a book of his extant. But, when the learned in the law had in this consultation declared, that 1 Seck. iii. 2 (a). Ib. iii. 10 (1), 9 (20). 3 Ib. iii. 11 (4). resistance is sometimes permitted by the laws, and had shewn that the present state of affairs was such as the laws in relation to that case do particularly mention; Luther ingenuously confessed, that indeed he had been ignorant of this legality: but now, since the gospel, according to his constant doctrine, does not militate against, nor abolish political laws; and since things might so fall out in these perilous times, that not only the law itself, but also necessity of conscience might call upon them to arm; he therefore pronounces, that they may justly make a league in their own defence, if either the emperor himself, or any one else in his name, shall make war upon them."1 Maimbourg, as was natural for him, sneers at Luther's profession of having become better informed upon this subject: " he found it," he says, "convenient to change his opinion." But sneers answer no arguments, though they often cover the lack of them, and save the trouble of investigation. The Prussian divines, consulted by the duke Albert, in the year 1537, "after mature deliberation," unanimously came to the same conclusion with those of Saxony: and they state the grounds of it very distinctly. They observe, that Christians are "to render to God the things which belong to God, as well as to Cesar the things which belong to Cesar:" and they distinguish between persons "considered simply as Christians," and as holding certain relative and official situations, " as citizens and 'Sleid. 148. See also Seck. iii. 160; where John Frederic expressly speaks, to the ambassador of the duke of Lignitz, of Luther's former opinion as the result of haste and defective information. Justus Jonas and Bugenhagius also came to the same conclusion. Ibid. 216 (a.) A. D. 1531. CHAP. as princes;" and between " 1 "Inter merè subditos, et certis legibus et conditionibus parentes." 2 Seck. iii. 146. M. Basnage, after examining this question, comes precisely to the same conclusion that I have done, and upon similar grounds:" Il est bon de remarquer que ceux qui entrèrent dans cette ligue étoient des princes souverains.....Ils traitent avec l'empereur en souverains.... M. de Meaux a dont tort de traiter les princes et les electeurs comme il feroit de simples sujets qui refuseroient l'obeisance au magistrat."-Hist. de l' Eglise, xxv. vi. 4. 3 Compare Seck. iii. 160 (i).—“ At Rome the emperor was reprehended," on account of the pacification of Nuremberg, "for putting his sickle (as they said,) into another |