During the Middle Ages, people viewed the Church as superior to the State, believing it held authority directly from God. According to the doctrine of the “Two Swords,” the Church wielded spiritual power even over rulers, who governed worldly matters but remained subordinate in matters of faith and morality. The Pope could crown or excommunicate kings, reinforcing the Church’s supremacy in both religious and political spheres.
This immense influence shaped not only individual beliefs but also the broader structures of society and governance. A profound shift in this power dynamic—perhaps the very beginning of modernity—emerged during the Reformation. The transformation was not only intellectual but also deeply historical and institutional.
Sola Fide and the Rejection of Human Merit
Martin Luther began his education in law but soon abandoned it in favor of theology and monastic life. Disillusioned by philosophy’s reliance on human reason, which he felt failed to reveal God’s love, Luther joined the Augustinian order. Even as a monk, he remained spiritually restless. His studies at the University of Wittenberg deepened his crisis: Why would God demand righteousness from humans if they are incapable of achieving it on their own?
This question strikes at the heart of the human condition: Do we possess true freedom, or do forces beyond our control bind us? Are we truly capable of overcoming our impulses, or is freedom an illusion in the face of sin?
In contrast to Renaissance humanists who emphasized human dignity and moral capacity, Luther, as Quentin Skinner notes, fixated on the idea of man’s complete unworthiness (Skinner, p. 3). He rejected Aquinas’ optimistic belief in human virtue, aligning instead with St. Augustine’s view that humans are utterly dependent on divine grace.
Luther vs. Erasmus: A Debate on Free Will
One of the most significant theological controversies of the early Reformation unfolded between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. In On Free Will (1524), Erasmus defended the long-standing Christian view that human beings possess the freedom to choose between good and evil, and thus have a role to play in their own salvation. His emphasis on moral responsibility aligned with the broader humanist tradition, which valued human reason and ethical striving.
Luther responded decisively in The Bondage of the Will (1525), rejecting the very premise of Erasmus’s argument. While Luther acknowledged that humans have free will in everyday matters — eating, drinking, working, or having children — he firmly denied that this freedom applied to spiritual salvation. He argued that original sin corrupts the human will so deeply that it cannot turn toward God on its own. Only divine grace can bring about salvation; human effort is powerless in this regard.
This theological stance also led Luther to a profound rethinking of ecclesiology. If salvation is the result of individual faith — fiducia, or deep trust in God’s promise — then the visible Church, with its hierarchy and sacramental authority, loses its mediating function. Instead, Luther emphasized the idea of the congregatio fidelium — an invisible community of believers gathered in God’s name, bound not by canon law but by shared faith.
Martin Luther: Church Corruption and the Call for Reform
In his Ninety-Five Theses (1517), Martin Luther launched a bold attack against the corruption of the Catholic Church, most notably its sale of indulgences. In Thesis 134, Luther critiques the 1343 papal bull Unigenitus, which claimed that Christ’s sacrifice was so abundant in merit that the Church could dispense it through indulgences. By 1476, Pope Sixtus IV extended this idea further, allowing people to purchase indulgences not only for themselves but also for souls in purgatory.
For Luther, this commodification of salvation was a grotesque distortion of Christian truth. He rejected the idea that the Church could sell God’s grace. Instead, he insisted that salvation was accessible directly through faith, without intermediaries. As he famously wrote, “We are all consecrated priests through baptism.”
The Address to the Christian Nobility: Luther’s Political Break
Luther’s critique extended far beyond theology. In Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), he directly challenged the power structure of the Church. He argued that canon law—Church law—exempted the clergy from civil accountability, allowing abuses to go unpunished. He called for completely abolishing this legal system and advocated regulating Christian institutions as they were in the apostolic era.
True to his own words, Luther publicly defied the Church later that year by burning both the papal bull of excommunication and volumes of canon law in Wittenberg.
This marked the beginning of his concept of the “Two Kingdoms”: one spiritual, governed by the Church, and one temporal, governed by the State. Importantly, Luther argued that the Church had no rightful authority over civil matters. It was the State that should exercise legal and political jurisdiction—not the clergy.
The Three Walls of the Romanists
In the same Address, Luther laid out what he called the “Three Walls of the Romanists,” a rhetorical device used to explain how the papacy had shielded itself from reform:
- Spiritual Supremacy Over Temporal Power
The Church claimed that civil authorities had no power over it—thus avoiding legal scrutiny. - Exclusive Interpretation of Scripture
Only the Pope, they claimed, had the right to interpret Scripture, silencing all theological critique. - Control Over Church Councils
The Pope alone could convene a council, making institutional reform practically impossible.
These “walls” allowed the Church to deflect all attempts at reform. According to Luther, this isolation led to widespread corruption, economic exploitation, and moral decay throughout Christendom.
Context: On church power
But it is important to note that Luther wrote in a broader context filled with satirical and critical views on the Church. Let’s recall just a few examples—of course, there were many more, but these provide a starting point.
Sebastian Brant (1458–1521), whose satirical poem The Ship of Fools gained widespread fame, was one such critic. Erasmus of Rotterdam even composed a poem in his honor and referred to him as the “incomparable Brant”.
The concept of the Church as merely a congregatio fidelium was an expression of serious discontent with the papacy as a landowner and tax collector.
The Political Evolution of Reformation Thought
Luther initially based his view of political authority on the principle that people should obey secular rulers, whom he saw as part of the divinely ordained order.His doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms” distinguished between the spiritual kingdom of God and the earthly kingdom governed by human rulers. Within this framework, people should respect and obey civil authorities, as long as those authorities do not command actions contrary to God’s law.
However, the political realities of the Reformation era—particularly moments of crisis, persecution, and power struggles—began to shape a more complex view. After 1530, a notable shift occurred in the thinking of Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, and other leading Protestant figures. They began to argue that resistance to a tyrannical ruler could, under certain conditions, be justified—even through the use of force. While this more radical stance remained on the margins of Lutheran orthodoxy, it had far-reaching consequences. It profoundly influenced later Calvinist thought and played a role in the emergence of revolutionary political ideologies in the latter half of the 16th century.
The Legal Basis for Resistance: Private Law and Protestant Political Thought
As the Reformation progressed, Protestant thinkers began to formulate a theory of legitimate resistance, particularly in response to increasing persecution. This development was grounded not in abstract rebellion, but in legal reasoning derived from private law. According to this view, a ruler held office as a trust—a divinely ordained responsibility—rather than as an absolute authority. If the ruler failed to carry out his duties or persistently harmed his subjects, people could no longer regard him as a legitimate magistrate. In such cases, they saw him as having forfeited his authority by violating the conditions under which he received it.
The solution was found through arguments rooted in private law. Both civil and canon legal traditions included provisions that allowed for the use of force in response to unlawful violence. At the same time, early Protestant theorists affirmed the foundational belief that God appoints legitimate rulers, and people normally see resisting them as resisting God’s will.However, they argued that when a ruler exceeds the limits of his office and uses power unlawfully, he effectively becomes a private individual with criminal intent. In this way, he loses the divine authority granted to him and can no longer claim obedience.
“Skinner shows instead that Lutherans first developed the theories of resistence, both as constitutional actions by inferior magistrates and self-defence, borrowing from the civil and canonic law.”(Tarcov, p. 59).
The magistrate who exceeds the limits of his office automatically reduces himself to the status of a law-breaking private citizen. In such cases, people do not consider resistance sinful or contrary to God’s will. Instead, they see it as aligned with the fundamental belief that self-defense is a natural right.When a ruler acts unjustly or becomes a source of unlawful violence, he forfeits his claim to divine authority. Thus, resisting such a figure is not rebellion against legitimate power, but a defense against illegitimate coercion. This reasoning draws from both private law traditions and theological principles, asserting that defending oneself—or one’s community—against tyranny is a moral obligation, not merely a political choice.
“The Calvinists did add , hovewer, two new elements. …that tyrants represents not the punishment from God for human sins, but human failures to appoint God’s choice, which can be rectified by deposition…They also emphasized resistence by popularly elected magistartes, or by the people or private individuals”(Tarcov. p.60).
Conclusion: On the Way to Constitutionalism
So, this is very close to Locke’s early-modern constitutionalism. We can observe the early rise of constitutionalist ideas, which laid the groundwork for Locke’s later theories of human rights in the 17th century. However, in practice, these ideas were still far from Locke’s vision. The political structures of the time remained shaped by absolutism and strong religious authority.
As Tarcov notes, “Catholics and Protestants were theoretically united and practically united by their insistence that temporal power somehow serve spiritual purposes” (Tarcov, p. 64). The Reformation is often seen as a theological revolution, but its consequences extended far beyond religion. It challenged the medieval hierarchy in which the Church held exclusive authority over interpreting Scripture, administering salvation, and governing the faithful—ultimately reshaping the political and philosophical foundations of modern Europe.
Literature
- Tarcov, Nathan. Political Thought in Early Modern Europe, II: The Age of Reformation. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 54, No. 1 (1982), pp. 48–64.
- Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume II: The Age of Reformation. Cambridge University Press, 1978.
- Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will (1525). Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Revell, 1957.
- Erasmus, Desiderius. On the Freedom of the Will (1524). In Discourse on Free Will, translated by Ernst F. Winter, Continuum, 1969.
- Tyndale, William. The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528). In Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures, Parker Society, 1848.
- Luther, Martin. To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520). In Three Treatises, Fortress Press, 1970.
Painting: Luther Posting the 95 Theses
Author: Ferdinand Pauwels
Year: 1872
Source: Wikimedia Commons (free to use)
Leave a Reply