Page:Luther's correspondence and other contemporary letters 1521-1530.djvu/522

 whose MS. has been pnUished by Berbig^ loc. cit. supm. Melanchthon then took it to Augsburg, where Cochlaeus, who was in the train of Duke George, got hold of it early in May, and published it with other documents at Leipsic in January, 153 1. It was reprinted at the time of the Schmalkaldic War (1546) when the Protestants first came vio- lently into collision with the Emperor. Its genuineness was denied by Bugenhagen, who was not at Wittenberg when it was drawn up, and Melanchthon asserted that in the edition of Cochlaeus he believed certain falsifications had been made. Neither statement was correct. Numerous allusions prove its genuineness; to those given by Enders may now be added one by Anthony Musa, recently published in ARC, ix, 61. And as the copy by Dietrich shows, the publication by Coch-* laeus was not tampered with. The document is of great importance, being the last in whidi Luther stood consistently for passive obedience, as he had done in his letter to Frederic, March 5, 1522, supra, no. 529. He soon modified his opinion, Smith, 2i6f. On this document see Enders, loc, cit,, and Qemen in TJh'St Kr7, 1909, 471ft,

Grace and peace in Christ. Most serene, highborn Prince, most gracious Lord I At your Grace's request* I have in- quired and taken counsel of my dear friends. Dr. Jonas, John Bugenhagen and Professor Philip [Melanchthon] on the ques- tion whether it is allowable to defend oneself against his Im- perial Majesty in the event that his Majesty were to proceed by force against anyone, for the Gospel's sake, etc.

I find that according to the imperial or civil laws certain people ' might conclude it allowable in such a case to defend oneself against his Impelrial Majesty, especially since his Maj- esty has bound himself by oath' not to attack anyone by force, but to allow all former liberties to remain intact. The jurists deal with this subject ynder the head of "reprisals" and "defiance." * But, according to Scripture, it is in no wise proper for anyone who would be a Christian to set himself against his government, whether it act justly or unjustly, but a Christian ought to endure oppression and injustice, especially at the hands of his government. For although his Imperial Majesty may transgress his duty and oath, that does not de- stroy his imperial sovereignty or the obedience that is due

^Begthr omitted In TMetricIi'i MS.


 * !.€,, the Saxon jurists who had given this opinion.


 * The coronation oath, or "capitulation."

^ Diffidatio, renunciation of allegiance; the English word "defiance" kad thia meaning originally and until after the sixteenth century. See Murray's dietion- ary. "DiAdation** is also uaed in Cngltsh, but not until 17^.

�� �