through that noble example of Ruth, who cites this law61 (even though Boaz was not her brother), and by the testimony of the Gospel of the Seven Brothers who were married to one and the same woman.62 One may not quibble that in Ruth's case "brother" means "kinsman"; otherwise this same sophistry will also be valid in case of Leviticus 18 [:16]. And further, in Deuteronomy 25 [:5] the text itself does not permit this interpretation, since [in this passage] the word "brother" is so often repeated, and laws are given concerning "brothers who live together." This sophistry is insufficient to quiet consciences; therefore it also should not be permitted to disturb consciences.63
But here the opponents say that the law of Deuteronomy 25 [:5] was a law concerning ceremonial matters, which ought to yield to the law of Lcviticus 18 [: 16], which was a law concerning morals, since ceremonial matters have ceased to be valid, but matters concerning morals have not ceased to be valid. To this I reply: Let those corrupt interpreters say whatever they wish without sound judgment; we contradict them [with the following argument]: The law of Deuteronomy 25 [:5] has certainly been a law concerning morals, because as a law of the state it was indeed instituted for the conservation of families, for the preservation of legacies, and for the begetting of heirs, that is, for the augmenting and strengthening of the common good, just as it certainly serves the common good and is moral to till the soil at this or that time,
[and] in this or that way, so that the soil brings forth more fruit, since by using such a method goods are produced. 'At Moses' time there was no contradiction in the laws since both laws were valid, and were observed. Therefore both are abolished now. Consequently the opponents should stop insisting on the validity [only] of the law of Leviticus 18 [:16], or should maintain both laws as being valid.
At the risk of losing his salvation, and under the threat of eternal damnation, therefore, the King is to be held responsible for retaining the Queen to whom he is married. This is proven by the following argument: First of all, neither according to natural law nor according to divine law is it definitely prohibited to marry one's brother's wife, but only according to positive law. For, as I have said, the legislator Moses is dead and invalid for us. Matrimony is a matter of divine and of natural law. In cases where the divine and the positive laws contradict each other, the positive law must yield to the divine law.
For this reason Christ, too, nullified the law of divorce given by Moses in order to establish the validity of the divine law concerning matrimony. If, therefore, the King of England has sinned by marrying his deceased brother's wife, then he has sinned against a man-made law, or a law of the state. If the emperor64 and the pope, provided that the latter rules through his worldly tyranny,65 have suspended their laws for the King, then the King has not sinned at all, because that same God who approves of the law of the state promulgated by the emperor also approves the emperor's suspension of the emperor's law. For God has given the emperor the authority to make and suspend laws, and that I might say so, the keys66 of binding and freeing people in the territory which is subject to the emperor. If the King should divorce the Queen, however, he will most gravely sin against the divine law, which states: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."67 "Man," that is, no man-made laws may separate those whom God has joined, either by ordinance or by permission, because God's joining, whether done through the law or through human action, stands higher than any man-made ordinance. Therefore if these laws now contradict each other, then one should be careful that the King of England does not observe a man-made law and sin against the divine law, but that he observe the divine law; he may be forgiven if he has sinned against a man-made law. Suppose now the divorce goes through, she is [still] the queen, and will be the queen of England,68 and an injustice before God and man will have been done to her.
[Wittenberg, about February 12, 1532]1 To promote religious peace in the Empire2 the Archbishop of Mainz3 and his staff drew up articles and in November of 1531 presented them to the Electoral Saxon government as basis for further discussions. On December 27 Chancellor Brück4 met with the representative of the Archbishop of Mainz in Bitterfeld5 for a discussion of these articles. Since the propapal Estates of the Empire were ready to grant peace and security to the evangelicals until such time as a general council of the church would decide all controversial issues, prospects for peace were good. Consequently on February 8 and 9 a second conference between Brück and a representative of the Archbishop took place in Bitterfeld.
- 18 Emperor Charles,6 too, was willing to accept the articles on condition that Electoral Saxony and Hesse would abandon their opposition to the election of his brother, Ferdinand of Austria, as Roman king.7 But this condition was categorically rejected by Landgrave Philip of Hesse,8 who, in order to promote his own anti-Hapsburg plans, on February 1, 1532, wrote a letter to the Electoral prince, Duke
John Frederick,9 urging him not to abandon the protest against Ferdinand's election. One should procrastinate, suggested Philip, by saying that prior to accepting Ferdinand as king, we would have to see how Ferdinand would fulfill his royal obligations; once the Emperor had left the Empire then we could see what to do next. And Brück had, in fact, protested the Emperor's condition as early as the first meeting in Bitterfeld.10
From the very beginning Luther was kept fully informed of these developments. Either prior to or after the first meeting at Bitterfeld, Brück used Melanchthon for obtaining Luther's opinion on the articles drafted by the Archbishop of Mainz. Luther gave his opinion in a discussion with Melanchthon, of which only Melanchthon's notes are extant.11 After the second meeting at Bitterfeld, Brück asked Luther to give a judgment on the articles, and to do it in the form of an official brief. The following letter to Elector John is this brief requested by Brück.
Even though Luther is aware of the possibility that ambiguous passages might have been intentionally inserted into the articles, he urges his Sovereign to accept the articles as basis for negotiating in good faith, and thus have the opportunity to clarify whatever might be ambiguous in the articles. Regarding
Ferdinand's election, Luther admonishes the Elector to abandon his opposition for the sake of peace.12 He interprets the situation as God's challenge to the evangelicals to give up their rights by abandoning their opposition to Ferdinand's kingship, and to accept the offered peace as a gift of God, who might wish to spread the gospel through this peace. Not to abandon this opposition would in the long run certainly mean war. In this connection Luther warns the Elector to be careful of political alliances, which are a sign of dependence upon human planning, and which will falter and fail, because God alone guides and protects the work of the gospel.
On Elector John, see LW 48, 269, n. 8.
Text in German: WA, Br 6, 260–261.
To the Most Serene, Noble Sovereign and Lord, Sir John, duke in Saxony, archmarshal and elector of the Holy Roman Empire, landgrave in Thuringia and margrave in Meissen, my Most Gracious Lord
Grace and peace in Christ our Lord! Most Serene, Noble Elector, Most Gracious Lord! As he had once done previously, Doctor Brück, Your Electoral Grace's chancellor, has now again presented to me the articles13 which are to be the basis for the negotiations between the two Electors,14 etc., and Your Electoral
Grace for the purpose of establishing a treaty or peace between His Imperial Majesty and Your Electoral Grace. In behalf of Your Electoral Grace, [Doctor Brück] has requested my judgment on these articles, etc.
It is my humble judgment that these articles can be tolerated and ought to be accepted. Even if some of them should still be ambiguous or could be suspected [of being a trap], yet I think that when the negotiations [actually] come about all matters could be made clear and definite. Indeed (as far as I can see) it seems to me that in these articles are expressed the honest intention and opinion of both Electors; for they have succeeded in receiving from the Emperor such a far-reaching and unencumbered order to negotiate, and they have used Count Palatine Frederick for this mission.15 With all this they demonstrate that they have been and still are seriously concerned with this matter.
Since the matter has now progressed to the stage that nothing might stand in the way of such a treaty and peace except perhaps the article concerning the king, etc.,16 it is my humble petition that Your
Electoral Grace donate this article to Christ, and give it up. If the king was illegally elected, then by now he has suffered enough for it. Your Electoral Grace has sufficiently opposed such injustice, and has certainly demonstrated Your Grace's opposition. One also has to permit the functioning of the Christian precept which is called forgiveness of sins. Otherwise, if one blows one's nose too hard (says Solomon)17 blood comes, and if one wrathfully pursues an issue, strife will result from it. Certainly many unjust events will continue to be a part of this world; but once they have occurred they should remain unaltered, as the laws teach us, in order to prevent even greater trouble.
One also has to consider seriously that God is offering us such opportunities for peace because he perhaps intends to spread his gospel by means of this peace. We certainly are obligated even to deny