The Magdeburg Confession is important because it explains the doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. This political doctrine basically states that men in subordinate positions of authority (lesser magistrates) may, under certain circumstances, rebel against those in a higher position of authority, when the greater/higher magistrate abuses their power. This is a way for intermediate authorities to protect the citizens against tyranny. (Magdeburg 2012) This paper will explain the historical context in which the Magdeburg Confession was written, the confession’s explanation of the doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate, and similarities between the Magdeburg Confession and the American Declaration of Independence.
When the higher
authority makes an unjust or immoral decree it is the right and duty of the
lower authority to disobey, even to the point of active resistance. (Magdeburg 2012) It is significant to
note that this idea, as laid out in the Magdeburg Confession, does not
authorize popular uprisings or insurrections. The people were to be protected
from tyranny by their local leaders, who had lawful authority. An example of
the Lesser Magistrate doctrine from the time of the Lutheran Reformation is the
abduction of Luther by Fredrick the Wise. Fredrick the Wise, Luther’s prince,
and subordinate to Emperor Charles V, protected Luther after the Diet of Worms
in direct violation of the pope’s order, sanctioned by the emperor, calling for
Luther’s arrest and punishment as a heretical teacher. This dramatic episode
directly influenced the men who wrote the Magdeburg Confession. (Magdeburg 2012) The Lesser Magistrate doctrine is a universal
truth, like those truths enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence.
It was recognized and practiced by men in positions of authority throughout
history. The Magdeburg confession is the first instance, however, of the doctrine
being recorded in writing. (Magdeburg 2012)
The Magdeburg
Confession is written in three parts: 1) the Magdeburg pastors confess their
orthodox Lutheran theology to the German princes (the lesser magistrates); 2)
they explain the Lesser Magistrate doctrine; 3) they present a warning to those
who would oppose them, or aid their opposition. (Magdeburg 2012) This paper will be concerned primarily
with the historical background which set the stage for the writing of the
Magdeburg Confession, the Lesser Magistrate doctrine itself as explained by the
Magdeburg pastors, and how that political doctrine relates to the American
Revolution. The American Revolution, in contrast with other popular revolts such
as the French Revolution, the Peasant’s War in Germany, and the Peasant’s
Revolt in England, is supported by the doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate
exposed in the Magdeburg Confession. The Confession legitimizes the American
Revolution because, unlike a popular revolt, the Revolution was undertaken by
the colonial governments, the lawful subordinate authorities to the British
crown, rather that by a group of individuals.
When the civil
authority makes laws that contravene the Christian faith, Christian men have a
duty to obey God rather than men. This is the basic argument of the Magdeburg
Confession. Those men who have a duty to act are the lesser magistrates, the
subordinate civil authorities. (Magdeburg 2012) Trewhella points out
that the Magdeburg Confession declares blind and unquestioning obedience to the
state to be the invention of the devil. (Magdeburg 2012) The Magdeburg Confession asserts that
no one in authority holds their authority autonomously; they had to get it from
God, who is the source of all civil authority. Therefore, if one in authority
violates God’s law, he is not to be obeyed. (Magdeburg 2012) Like the greater
magistrate, the lesser magistrate has also received his authority from God.
When the greater magistrate contravenes God’s law, the lesser has lawful
authority to oppose him. (Magdeburg 2012) Disobedience by lesser magistrates,
Trewhella explains, was intended to be well-ordered. The authors of the
confession defined four levels of tyranny, and spelled out what the
appropriate, lawful response of the lesser magistrate was to be at each level. (Magdeburg 2012) The Calvinists,
including John Knox, picked up the Magdeburg Confession and advanced the
doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. Knox said, “To resist a tyrant is not to
resist God, nor yet his ordinance,” citing the confession as his support. (Magdeburg 2012)
The Magdeburg
Confession was written by the pastors of the city of Magdeburg in defense of
the Lutheran Reformation, and in direct response to Charles V’s attempts to impose
the Augsburg Interim on the defeated Lutherans by force of arms. (Magdeburg 2012) In 1531, the
Lutheran princes of the Holy Roman Empire who had affirmed and presented the
Augsburg Confession to the emperor in 1530 formed the Smalcaldic League as a
defensive measure; they all pledged to defend each other’s territory if the
emperor attacked any one of them. (Magdeburg 2012) The emperor left the
Smalcaldic League unmolested for 15 years. In 1546, however, Pope Paul III
called on Charles V to stop the spread of the Lutheran Reformation, and to
destroy the league by military force. (Magdeburg 2012)
The Lutherans who
presented the Augsburg Confession to the emperor understood his reply clearly,
when they received it on August 4, 1530. Charles V was not interested in
theological debate. Phillip Melanchthon was willing to compromise with the
demands of the reply, called the Roman Confutation, but the vast majority were
not. Eventually, Melanchthon came around, and was enlisted to draft a reply to
the Confutation. This reply would become the Apology to the Augsburg
Confession. (McCain 2005)
When the Lutheran princes who had been at Augsburg formed the Smalcaldic League
in 1531, its members were required to subscribe to both the Augsburg Confession
and to the Apology. (McCain 2005)
The Smalcaldic League found out about the impending attack by the emperor and
decided to launch a preemptive strike against the imperial forces on July 4,
1546. This was the beginning of the Smalcald wars. Maurice, Duke of Saxony,
betrayed the league, however, in exchange for a promise from the emperor that
Maurice would be made ruler of his cousin Prince John Frederick’s territory.
The war was a disaster for the Lutherans; John Frederick was captured at the
battle of Muhlberg on April 24, 1547. This was a decisive victory for Charles
V. (Magdeburg 2012)
To bring the Lutherans
back into the Roman fold, Charles’ theologians “negotiated” and imposed the
Augsburg Interim on the defeated lands. This was an agreement reached by the
theologians of the emperor and some Lutherans, notably Melanchthon. (Magdeburg 2012) The Augsburg Interim
did away with most Lutheran reforms. Most importantly, it called for the
Lutherans to renounce the scriptural teaching that man is saved by God’s grace,
through faith in Christ (commonly referred to as the doctrine of
Justification). (Magdeburg 2012) Many Lutherans accepted the Interim for
the sake of peace. The pastors of Magdeburg, led by Luther’s friend Nicholas
von Amsdorf, refused out of conscience. Magdeburg was besieged by the emperor’s
army in October of 1550, led by the traitor Maurice. In good Lutheran fashion,
the pastors wrote a confession explaining what they believed, what they were
doing, and why. (Magdeburg 2012) The Augsburg Interim was intended by
Charles V to remain in place until the doctrinal issues of the Lutheran
Reformation could be dealt with decisively at a church council. That is why the
dictate was called an interim. (McCain 2005)
After their
military defeat, the Lutheran princes were expected to implement the Interim
without question or opposition. They were forbidden from teaching against it in
any way. (McCain 2005)
Charles V compromised with the Lutheran theologians in some areas, but the
compromises were superficial. The Interim allowed clergy to marry, and for the
laity to receive both kinds in the Sacrament of the Altar (that is, both bread
and wine at communion). But these concessions were minor, considering that the
Interim called for the Lutherans, as they saw it, to renounce the Gospel, and
return to subjugation under the antichrist pope in Rome. (McCain 2005)
The emperor brutally enforced the Interim. Many Lutheran cities were besieged
and subjected to the Interim by the sword. Orthodox Lutheran pastors were
imprisoned or banished. Only the city of Magdeburg remained unconquered. (McCain 2005) The imperial forces
had defeated the Smalcaldic League decisively. Charles V was in control of
everything, politically speaking. There was no need for him, according to the
authors, to continue to wage war against the Lutherans. Their claim was that
Charles V was calling their refusal to submit to religious demands political
rebellion, so that he could wipe them out once and for all. (Magdeburg
2012)
Because of the
unpopularity of the Interim among his subjects, and his unpopularity for
betraying the faithful Lutheran princes, Maurice again reconsidered his
alliances. He realized it was more expedient for him politically to be a
champion of Lutheranism. Maurice again switched sides. He drove the imperial
forces from Augsburg on April 5, 1552. What followed was the Peace of Augsburg.
This treaty gave equal standing in the empire to both Lutheranism and Roman
Catholicism (as it would be officially codified after the Council of Trent). It
also gave princes the authority to choose the religion of the realms. (McCain 2005)
The spirit of the
Magdeburg confession is reminiscent of the spirit of the American Declaration
of Independence. The authors of the confession make the case that they are
loyal subjects of the emperor, are not in rebellion, but rather disagreement
about a matter of conscience. (Magdeburg 2012) This is similar to
the Founding Fathers who, when explaining why they were severing their ties
with the Crown, made the case that they had been loyal subjects, but that
George III had not done his duty to protect them, and had in fact, waged war
against them; they only moved into rebellion reluctantly.
Against the
argument that lesser magistrates must submit to their superior magistrates and
leaders in everything, as they are the governing authorities instituted by God,
as explained in Scripture in Romans 13, and other places, the authors cite the
history of the Maccabees. Mattathias was not sinning, they say, when he
gathered men to fight against his superior authority; nor were the men under
him sinning. They argue that, should the oppression of the emperor continue,
the lesser magistrates of the Holy Roman Empire should act as Mattathias, and
be certain that they are not committing sin. They may also then hope for the
same positive outcome that Mattathias received from God for his actions. (Magdeburg
2012)
They call on
Charles V to recognize that they are disciples of Jesus, members of the same
body of Christ he is, and because of that to stop making war against them. The
authors point out to the emperor that Christ, when he was betrayed and handed
over to be crucified, was not recognized either; He was counted, not as the
divine Son of God, but rather as a blasphemer. (Magdeburg 2012) The authors appeal
to Charles V based on Christ’s judgement on the Last Day. They say that he, as
a Christian emperor persecuting Christians, will be judged by Christ for this
sin. Moreover, they warn Charles V that, if he should persist in his
persecution of fellow Christians, they would testify against him at the
judgment seat of Christ. (Magdeburg 2012)
Magdeburg is
careful to point out that pious magistrates are not only free to resist a tyrannical
superior authority which seeks to stamp out the Gospel, but they are duty-bound
to do so. (Magdeburg 2012) The objective
standard for good and evil works is God’s word. Without God’s external word as
the final standard, all men are left to make their own; the standard for good
and evil becomes as subjective as any given man’s emotions. Resistance to an
evil magistrate becomes a good work. Resistance must, however, only be
undertaken by someone in accordance with his vocation. (Magdeburg
2012)
The overarching
thesis of part two of the confession is this: it is the duty of a Christian
magistrate to oppose his superior in defense of the “Christian teachers and
hearers” whom he governs, if that superior magistrate uses force to compel his
subjects to worship against their conscience. This is, obviously, a Christian
confession, but the Lesser Magistrate doctrine would (and I argue should)
equally apply to all religions. Here is the beginning of religious liberty. (Magdeburg
2012)
The true church does not evangelize by the sword; violence has no place
compelling men to believe the Gospel. The authors point out that even
unbelieving Jews and pagans live under Charles’ rule; they enjoy his
protection, and hold their religion unmolested by the state. In this way, the
emperor is treating he fellow Christians worse than pagans, as he is forcing
them by the sword, to accept a corrupt Christianity and to renounce the Gospel. (Magdeburg
2012)
The only division between the Lutherans and the Emperor, is that the Emperor
has been persuaded by the Pope that Christ ought to be worshiped “according to
human traditions.” Otherwise, the authors say, the Lutherans and the Emperor
preach Christ as redeemer and savior and believe all the articles of the
Christian faith. (Magdeburg 2012)
Similar to Luther,
Melanchthon, and others, who said that they would submit to the papacy as the
temporal head of the Church, if the pope did not claim it by divine authority,
but instead as a human institution and by mutual agreement, the authors here
say the same about Charles’ rule. They would gladly submit to his rule, and be
obedient subjects, if they were not compelled to confess against the dictates
of their conscience. In fact, they explain, their confession of the Christian
faith would help them be good subjects; their confession teaches that men are
to fear the governing authorities, because they have been set over them by God,
and they bear the sword for a purpose (Rom. 13). The only thing that the
authors and subscribers of the Magdeburg Confession were seeking, was the
ability to keep their religion. By compelling them to renounce the Gospel in
favor of the false doctrine of the antichrist pope, Charles V was, in their
estimation, “…exceeding the limits of your dominion, and you are extending it
into the dominion of Christ.” (Magdeburg 2012)
Magdeburg says
that the devil uses tyrannical rulers to try and achieve his goal of destroying
the Church of God, and God’s people themselves. (Magdeburg 2012) Magdeburg gives the example of a tyrant
abolishing God’s natural law (they explicitly mention the abolition of marriage
laws) and setting up in its place laws of “roving unclean lusts” which are
contrary to God’s natural law. Under this type of tyranny, where men are forced
at the point of the sword to sin, even the lowest magistrate is obligated to
resist, within the confines of his vocation. (Magdeburg 2012)
Magdeburg
describes four levels of offense to which lesser magistrates can be subjected
by their superiors: natural weakness, atrocious and notorious injuries, forced
sin, and tyrannical oppression. Natural weakness describes injury inflicted
through the superior authority’s wanton exercise of sin. Atrocious and
notorious injuries were the unjust use of violence to oppress the lesser
magistrate and/or his subjects directly and specifically by the usurpation of
their lives, liberties, or property, contrary to his sworn duty to protect
them. Forced sin goes along with tyrannical oppression. In the third stage, the
lesser magistrate as an individual is the target. Under tyrannical oppression,
the superior authority targets the concept and right of the lesser magistrate,
and decrees as law those things which are contrary to God’s established natural
order, morality, and law. (Magdeburg 2012) Lesser Magistrates
are encouraged to exercise caution and patience as they deal with injury and
injustices from their superior. In the case of natural weakness, lesser
magistrates are expected to bare up under the injustice done to him; if any
resistance is to be offered at this level, it is to be through civil means, and
should not expose the superior to public shame. The lesser magistrate should
consider bearing such injustice as commendable before God, as Peter writes in
his first epistle. (Magdeburg 2012)
When it comes to
more serious injuries, God does not command lesser magistrates to submit to the
usurpations of his rights connected to his vocation as a ruler. In his
response, however, he should be careful not to fall into sin; as long as they
are limited in scope, Magdeburg encourages lesser magistrates to bare
injustices at this level and to “leave vengeance to God.” (Magdeburg
2012)
When the tyranny of the superior authority reaches the level that it is not
directed at a single lower ruler or land, but at the very concept or rights of
the lower magistracy, Magdeburg considers this tyrannical oppression. The
monarch has a duty to protect his subjects, and to preserve God’s order. If he
does the opposite, he becomes a “persecutor of God”, since God is the one who
ordered all things, is the source of rights, and is the one who institutes
governing authorities. This is the highest level of egregious behavior for a
ruler, since he is deliberately persecuting his subjects, and is not acting out
of ignorance, incompetence, or in an outburst of rash emotional fury. (Magdeburg
2012)
Magdeburg says it
is the vocation of the lesser magistrate to resist the superior, not that of
the people. (Magdeburg 2012) This would seem to
invalidate the American Revolution on the grounds that the colonists did not
have the authority to revolt against the British crown. The American
Revolution, however, was not a popular uprising, in the same way the French
Revolution was. The lesser magistrates, the lawful lesser authorities of the
colonial legislatures, were the ones who petitioned the crown for a redress of
grievances, and eventually resisted the king when he reached the level of an
oppressive tyranny. The American Revolution received popular support because of
propaganda work by Thomas Paine, and others. The revolution was not, however, a
popular uprising, like the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 in England, or the
Peasant’s War of 1524 in Germany; it was led by the lawful local governments,
to wit: the colonial assemblies, and the Continental Congress, the lesser
magistrates of George III. (Schweikart and Allen 2014)
In 1760, George III
ascended to the British throne and presided over the conclusion of the French
and Indian War. This conflict was the last in a string of costly colonial wars
for the British. Great Britain won, but found itself saddled with immense debt;
they also had new territories to police. The Crown believed the American
colonies should bear the bulk of the cost of these wars, since they benefited
the most from them. The colonies, however, would balk when confronted with
taxation levied on them without parliamentary representation. (Schweikart
and Allen 2014)
This is a continuation of the conflict between sovereign and subject over
rights and taxation that has its root in Magna Carta. (Schweikart
and Allen 2014)
After sometimes violent struggles with Great Britain over taxes and other
oppressive laws implemented in the American colonies, the First Continental
Congress drafted and passed a Declaration of Rights and Grievances in 1774.
This document was a precursor to the Declaration of Independence. It contained
12 resolutions stating the rights of the colonists, chief among them being a
right to life, liberty, and property. As they saw it, their rights were derived
from three sources: the British constitution, the laws of nature, and the
colonial charters. (Schweikart and Allen 2014)
The American
Declaration of Independence echoes the Magdeburg Confession in that it
enumerates the duty of the monarch to protect the people, rather than to harm
them; the Declaration, like the Confession, reluctantly concludes that
resistance to the supreme authority is necessary, but only after bearing with
injury and injustice for as long as possible, and trying to remedy them through
lawful civil means. (Schweikart and Allen 2014) The American
Revolution differs with the siege of Magdeburg regarding the issue of the
social contract. The American Revolution is a product of the Enlightenment,
particularly the thinkers Hobbs, Locke, and Montesquieu. They saw government as
something foreign to man and nature, that man created to make his life better.
This is contrary to the Biblical teaching that governmental authority grows out
of the authority of the father as head of the family and is established by God. (Schweikart
and Allen 2014)
Leftists and
secularist historians claim that the Founding Fathers were deists and atheists;
conservatives claim most of them were Christians. It appears that the Founding
Fathers ran the gamut of the Christian religious spectrum. John Adams was a
devout congregationalist; George Washington wrote prayers of repentance in the
name of Christ in his diary; Jefferson and Franklin were influenced by
Christian morality but denied the supernatural aspects of the faith. (Schweikart and Allen 2014) What is certain is
that, while they were influenced by Christian moral teaching to some degree,
they did not intend to found a Christian nation. They were, however, concerned
with protecting religious liberty. The pastors and rulers of Magdeburg, by
comparison, assumed that they lived in a Christian city, within a Christian
state, ruled by Christian princes, and a Christian emperor, whom they were
resisting over issues of Christian doctrine. (Schweikart and Allen 2014) The Declaration succinctly incorporates the
ideas of Locke, and the concept of the rights of the governed in the phrase
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. These ideas have their root in
the English constitutional system, and in English common law, going back to
Magna Carta. The Founding Fathers drew the concept of rights from the British
Constitution but rejected the nature of that constitution, in that it is
“unwritten”. The British Constitution relies on legal precedent and charters
spread over hundreds of years, and its interpretation could be (and still often
is) confusing and ambiguous. The Founding Fathers wanted the constitution of
their new country to be written down. (Schweikart and Allen 2014)
The Magdeburg
confession is an important document, both in the history of the Lutheran
Reformation, and for the development of government and the concept of civil
rights in the western world. It is dense, and at times confusing to read, which
might help explain why the confession is not more widely known. It has, however,
served some important functions. The Magdeburg Confession documented and
explained the doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. By preserving this idea, it
has indirectly influenced the development of the United States and the
Declaration of Independence. The confession, and the political doctrine it
enumerated, certainly influenced the development of political thought through
the Enlightenment period. Though they were not trying to create a Christian
state, the American Founding Fathers followed the model of the Lesser
Magistrate doctrine in their resistance to the tyranny of the British crown.
The challenge for
modern America is different than the one faced by the Founding Fathers, or that
faced by the pastors of Magdeburg. Modern American society looks strikingly
like the example given in the confession. With the courts sanctioning
homosexual marriage, and the rise of transgenderism in popular culture, God’s law
concerning natural marriage has effectively been abolished. Deviant sexual
behavior is taught in schools to children as normal; it is celebrated in the
media and on the streets. Language is being changed to accommodate this new
normal. Anyone who will not submit is bullied into silence by being called a
bigot, by harassment on social media, and at their place of employment so they
lose their jobs. The tyrant, however, is not a single megalomaniacal dictator,
but the mob, inflamed and directed by Marxists in public education, civil
government, and the media. As Christians, we do well to follow the example of
Magdeburg of bearing with injustice and injury, so long as we are able. When,
however, they tyranny of the mob deems the Christian faith bigoted and homophobic,
and demands that we worship their idols of sex, we must be prepared in our
vocations as lesser magistrates to resist; it is our duty in that vocation of
lesser magistrate, whatever and however low our station may be, to protect
those under our charge.
Bibliography
Magdeburg, The Pastors of.
2012. The Magdeburg Confession. Translated by Matthew Colvin. North
Charleston: Matthew Trewhella via CreateSpace.
McCain, Paul T, ed. 2005. Concordia:
The Lutheran Confessions. A reader's edition of the Book of Concord. St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Schweikart, Larry, and
Michael Allen. 2014. A Patriot's History of the United States. New
York: Sentinel.
