Stephencdickson, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Controversy sharpens the mind. The church didn’t clarify the doctrine of the Trinity until its substance was being challenged and denied. The same could be said with respect to the doctrine of Christ and later with the doctrine of Scripture. The same may be said today with respect to the doctrine of civil authority. There are voices in the church saying things that haven’t been said before, at least in living memory and so suddenly there is great interest in revisiting what the Bible has to say about these matters. I’ve written generally on this topic in an article called The Christian And The State and more specifically on the matter of civil disobedience here and here. However, when dealing with complicated texts and contentious questions it is often helpful to revisit the wisdom of the past.
The intention of this article is to review and summarize the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin on secular authority. I have been immeasurably assisted by the work of Harro Hopfl who has gathered the various writings of these magisterial reformers into a single volume titled Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority. If this article seems to the reader merely a summary of Hopfl’s work it will not have deviated greatly from its intended scope and purpose.
Luther On Secular Authority:
As Hopfl points out in his introduction, Luther is less organized and consistent in his teaching on this subject than Calvin. Luther tended to address this matter situationally and from a polemical posture. His first extended treatment of the topic comes in his 1520 treatise entitled To The Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate. In this work, Luther was attempting to entice German Princes to offer refuge and support to reforming voices. This work was intentionally and necessarily positive toward the role and extent of civil government. Luther at this time was only alive because of the protection offered to him by the Saxon Elector Frederick The Wise.
His second treatment of this matter came under very different circumstances. In November of 1522, George Duke of Saxony issued an edict prohibiting the sale or possession of Luther’s New Testament in his territories. He demanded the surrender of all copies with the promise of full reimbursement. Luther furiously responded by writing On Secular Authority which had as its purpose the limitation of secular authority over the hearts and minds of Christian believers.
Luther’s writings on this topic may thus be considered more reactionary in character than Calvin’s. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that even in a treatise intended to limit the reach and extent of civil authority there is not a hint of encouragement to sedition or rebellion on behalf of the common man. In fact, Luther himself in later correspondence said:
“The temporal sword and government have never been so clearly described or so highly valued as by me.”[1]
The main principles of his teaching on this matter may be summarized as follows:
1. The state has a role to play in the regulation of churches
Luther’s continued existence and freedom of operation owed a great deal to the somewhat mysterious favour shown to him by Frederick the Wise. In the confusing and overlapping political system of the Holy Roman Empire at that time, some form of patronage was necessary for the development of reformed thought and structure. Luther recognized this reality and embraced it wholesale. Andrew Pettegree notes here:
“In the short term the movement would reap the benefit; the next ten years would witness a sequence of princely states and territories adhering to the movement and proclaiming a new evangelical church order on the Saxon model. In the longer term, the reformed evangelical clergy would become in effect servants of the state, drawing their salaries from state funds and cooperating with state-appointed supervisors and visitors in the management of the church and the lives of their congregations.”[2]
Luther appears to have understood the bargain he was making. Hopfl notes:
“Indeed, all the reformers who took this course soon learnt what indeed they might have anticipated, namely that the favour of princes is fitful and unreliable, and never comes without strings.”[3]
Luther had no choice but to appeal to the princes to protect and sponsor reforming voices. That choice, however necessary given the times, exerts an influence over everything Luther subsequently wrote and taught concerning the exercise of civil authority.
2. There are two governments to which the believer must be subject
Luther taught that all Christians must be subject to two distinct, though ideally complementary governments, the spiritual and the secular. Much of his energy and output as a writer was directed at prescribing the proper limit to and balance of both – a task that Hopfl describes as practically impossible[4].
He argued vigorously for greater freedom for congregations to select their own minister and he pushed back vehemently against any attempt by the magistrate to coerce or control the private beliefs of their citizens.
But Luther was no libertarian; he was too pessimistic with respect to human nature. He wrote:
“If there were no law and government, then seeing that all the world is evil and that scarcely one human being in a thousand is a true Christian, people would devour each other and no one would be able to support his wife and children, feed himself and serve God.”[5]
To Luther’s thinking, the magistrate was a logical necessity. His job was to maintain the public order and to restrain the natural wicked tendencies of fallen human beings. The prospect of a world free of secular authority was puerile self-delusion:
“Before you rule the world in the Christian and Gospel manner, be sure to fill it with true Christians. And that you will never do, because the world and the many are unchristian and will remain so, whether they are made up of baptized and nominal Christians or not.”[6]
Therefore, this side of the eternal kingdom:
“Christians readily submit themselves to be governed by the Sword, they pay taxes, honour those in authority, serve and help them, and do what they can to uphold their power, so that they may continue their work, and that honour and fear of authority may be maintained.”[7]
3. Human government requires restraint
While Luther profited greatly from the protection of his prince, he was not unaware of the dangers associated with temporal power. He said:
“When secular government is given too much freedom of action, the harm that results is unbearable and horrifying”[8]
In Luther’s context, it fell to the princes to restrain the absolute tyranny of the Holy Roman Emperor. While generally opposed to war, Luther was recruited by his Protestant Lords to write in favour of a planned military campaign against their Roman Catholic master. Luther, grudgingly and not entirely convincingly, complied:
“Should it come to war – which God forbid – I will not have rebuked as rebellious those who offer armed resistance to the murderous and bloodthirsty papists, but rather I will let it go and allow them to call it self-defense, and will thereby direct them to the law and to the jurists. For in such a case, when the murderers and bloodhounds wish to wage war and to make murder, it is also in truth no rebellion to oppose and to defend oneself.”[9]
While not as developed, or enthusiastic, as Calvin’s theory of the popular magistrate, Luther likewise recognized that someone had to restrain secular authorities lest they descend into utter tyranny. Like Calvin, Luther did not want to see that responsibility assumed by the private citizen.
4. The believer is to obey regardless of the character of the ruler
While Luther authorized his princes to make war on the Emperor, he gave no such permission to the individual believer:
“As to you and yours, you keep to the Gospel and suffer injustice as a true Christian.”[10]
It was the magistrate’s job to protect the rights of the individual. If the magistrate failed in his duties, Luther following Christ in Matthew 5:39, would not countenance resistance or self-defense of any kind:
“The Christian should allow himself to be abused and maltreated, and should not resist evil, just as Christ’s Word says.”[11]
It is somewhat remarkable that even in Luther’s most hostile treatment of civil authority, he leaves no room at all for rebellion or sedition. Hopfl notes:
“On Secular Authority, then, shows Luther at his most hostile to secular authority… this text contains no intimation of the idea that public, political measures might be taken against an ungodly ruler.”[12]
5. Rulers must not attempt to compel the conscience
While Luther was in general a great defender of the secular sword, he did not permit that sword to be turned against the individual Christian in matters of belief and conscience. When George Duke of Saxony issued an edict prohibiting the sale or possession of Luther’s New Testament in his territories Luther responded by saying:
“Where secular authority takes it upon itself to legislate for the soul, it trespasses on what belongs to God’s government, and merely seduces and ruins souls. I intend to make this so unambiguously clear that no one can fail to grasp it, in order that our lords and princes and bishops may see the folly of trying to compel belief in this or that by means of laws and commands.”[13]
The secular authorities must respect the limits of their God-given mandate:
“They ought to content themselves with attending to their own business, and allow people to believe what they can, and what they want, and they must use no coercion in this matter against anyone. Faith is free, and no one can be compelled to believe.”[14]
To the individual believer living under an over-reaching secular power, Luther offered this advice and counsel:
“So, if a prince or a secular lord commands you to adhere to the papacy, to believe this or that, or to surrender books, then your answer should be: it is not fitting for Lucifer to sit next to God. My good Lord, I owe you obedience with my life and goods. Command me what lies within the limits of your authority, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe, or to surrender my books, I will not obey.”[15]
To be clear, this was a call to righteous suffering, not political sedition:
“If he then takes away your books and punishes you for your disobedience, then blessed are you, and you should thank God for counting you worthy to suffer for the sake of his Word.”[16]
On this matter, Luther was entirely consistent with respect to the private individual:
“Evil is not to be resisted, but suffered.”[17]
Calvin On Secular Authority:
It is unclear whether or not Calvin ever read Luther On Secular Authority. He does begin his treatment by accepting Luther’s premise regarding the two governments to which all believers must be subject:
“We have established that there are two governments to which mankind is subject.”[18]
Most of what Calvin wrote on this topic is found in his seminal work The Institutes Of The Christian Religion. The first edition of the work (1536) was dedicated to Francis I the King of France. The dedication remained in place in all of the several reprint editions. In the dedication Calvin seeks to impress upon his prince of the orthodoxy and political dutifulness of his Protestant citizens. Calvin knew that if there was even a hint of sedition to be found among his followers, his movement would be destroyed in the womb.
In 1533-35, just a year before the appearance of the first edition of the Institutes, all of Christendom stood horrified at the insurrection and subsequent annihilation of the Anabaptists in Munster. A combined army of Protestant and Roman Catholic forces marched on the city to evict and chastise all those associated with the rebellion. It left a terrible stain on the Protestant conscience and motivated reformers like Calvin to double down on their calls for civil obedience. Like Tertullian in the late second century AD, Calvin was eager to present his people as no threat to the secular state.
The main principles of his teaching on the matter of civil authority may be summarized as follows:
1. Christians ought to lead the way in civil obedience
As mentioned above, Calvin was eager for his reformed followers to present no threat to the civil authorities. Some of what he said may be understood as, in part, an effort to distinguish his followers from the apocalyptic rebels who so recently disturbed the European peace in Munster. Calvin’s followers were to be known as supporting the civil state:
“Even to think about abolishing it is a monstrous barbarity. Mankind derives as much benefit from it as it does from bread, water, sun and air, and its dignity is far greater than any of them.”[19]
“As for their claim that the perfection of the Church of God must be so great as to make all other governments and laws redundant, this is stupidity, for it is to imagine a perfection which can never be found in any association of human beings.”[20]
Of course this did not mean that Calvin was naïve with respect to the virtue of human leaders. Rather his respect was for the office and institution as such:
“I am not speaking about the person of rulers, as if the dignity of their office could mask their stupidity, villainy or cruelty, their immorality of life and viciousness, and as if in this way vices could acquire the praise due to virtue. But I do say that their rank itself deserves honour and reverence; those in authority ought to be valued and venerated by us for the sake of their high office.”[21]
Calvin understood the magistrate as an ordained minister of God:
“And make no mistake: it is impossible to resist the magistrate without also resisting God.”[22]
Calvin understood an evil king as the judgment of God upon the nation:
“We need not devote much effort to proving that an ungodly king is the wrath of God on the land.”[23]
The character of the king was a matter between him and God and gave no grounds for rebellion or sedition:
“If we keep firmly in mind that even the very worst kings are appointed by this same decree which establishes the authority of kings in general, then we will never permit ourselves the seditious idea that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, or that we need not obey a king who does not conduct himself toward us like a king.”[24]
2. Disobedience must be passive in nature
If a wicked king overstepped his God-given authority and attempted to compel the conscience of the believer, the believer was right to refuse, though not to actively rebel or oppose. This will require courage:
“I know that kings are not prepared to tolerate any defiance and that their anger is a messenger of death as Solomon says (Proverbs 16:14). But heaven’s messenger Peter in Acts 5:29 proclaims this commandment: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’ Let us therefore derive consolation from the thought that we are rendering to God the obedience he demands when we rather suffer all things than to depart from our duty to him.”[25]
Calvin walked a fine line here. He himself had fled from France and the wrath of his king due to his Protestant convictions. He held his own heart with fierce independence before God. And yet, he would not counsel active rebellion or sedition.
Hopfl summarizes Calvin’s carefully considered perspective:
“If disobedience to ungodly commands becomes inevitable, it must take the form of prayer, supplication, suffering or exile, but not rebellion.”[26]
Calvin grounds his conviction in the exegesis of Scripture:
“Christians must be people born to suffer contumely and injustices, and to be exposed to wickedness, deceit and ridicule from the dregs of mankind. And not only this, but they must bear all such evils patiently, that is, with such composure that when they suffer one affliction, they should prepare themselves for more to come, expecting nothing throughout the whole of their lives except a perpetual carrying of the cross. In the mean time, they must do good to those who harm them and pray for those who speak evil against them, and they must seek to overcome evil with good, for this is to be their only victory (Romans 12:15; Matthew 5:39).”[27]
On this point Calvin never deviated:
“All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer.”[28]
3. Popular magistrates have a role to play in restraining tyranny
While Calvin’s theology made no space for private rebellion, he did see a role for the popular magistrate in resisting higher authority. He said:
“All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer. Here as always, I am speaking to private persons. It may be that there are in our days popular magistrates established to restrain the licentiousness of kings, corresponding to those ‘Ephors’ which were set against the authority of the kings of the Spartans, or the Tribunes of the People, set over against the Roman consuls, or the ‘Demarchs’, set up against the Council of the Athenians…. If there are such popular magistrates established, then it is no part of my intention to prohibit them from acting in accordance with their duty, and resisting the licentiousness and frenzy of kings; on the contrary, if they connive at their unbridled violence and insults against the poor common people, I say that such negligence is a nefarious betrayal of their oath; they are betraying the people and defrauding them o that liberty which they know they were ordained by God to defend.”[29]
This teaching somewhat parallels Luther’s begrudging permission to the Protestant princes in their war against the Holy Roman Emperor. It was the duty of each form of God ordained government to restrain and check the other.
4. Christians are not to agitate for political change
The individual believer however, was under no circumstance to involve himself in such affaires.
“What your status or condition in the world is, and under the laws of which nation you live, are a matter of indifference, for the kingdom of Christ in no way inheres in such things.”[30]
An over interest in politics was not healthy for the individual believer, in Calvin’s opinion. There is always injustice, inequity and incompetence to be observed and lamented in the political arena, but:
“it is not for us to remedy such evils; all that is left to us is to implore the help of the Lord, for the hearts of princes and alterations of kingdoms are in his hands (Proverbs 21:1).”[31]
Calvin stated his own political preferences with care. In the French edition of the Institutes he wrote:
“People reckon three forms of civil government: monarchy, which is government by a single individual, whether his title is king, duke or whatever, aristocracy, which is a form of government in which the leading men, men of standing, govern; and democracy, which is popular government, that is, each member of the people has power. Now it is certainly true that a king, or anyone else who holds supreme power, easily degenerates into a tyrant. But equally, when men of standing have supremacy, it is just as easy for them to establish an iniquitous tyranny. And when the populace has authority, it is easier still for it to become turbulent and seditious. It is indeed true that if one compares the three forms of government I listed, it is government by those of standing in the community, provided they preserve the people’s freedom, which ought to be rated the best.”[32]
However, Calvin would not allow his statement of preference to serve as a warrant for sedition:
“But if those whom the Lord has assigned some other form of government were to treat what I have said as having any relevance to themselves, and consequently were to be tempted to bring about some upheaval or change, it would not merely be a foolish and pointless idea, but a pernicious one as well.”[33]
God is Sovereign and his choices and dispositions were to be respected:
“For if it has seemed good to him to set kings above kingdoms and senators or other officials over free commonwealths, then we for our part must be obedient and dutiful to whomever he has appointed ruler over the place we inhabit.”[34]
5. Secular power is necessary to restrain human wickedness
As stated previously, Calvin embraced the reality and the necessity of the two governments previously defined and articulated by Luther. Like Luther, he understood civil authority as a divine institution:
“The magistrate’s punishment must be regarded as something inflicted by God, not by men, for it is God who acts in this way for our good by means of the ministry of men, as St. Paul says (Romans 13:4).”[35]
This perspective ought to be modeled and maintained in the church. Afterall:
“He admonishes Timothy to have public prayers said for kings, and he at once adds the reason: so that we might live peacefully under them, in all godliness and decency (1 Timothy 2:2). With these words, he is committing the well-being of the Church to them, as its custodians and guardians.”[36]
The responsibility of civil authority is to cultivate and maintain an environment of peace, health, safety and good order inside of which the church may pursue their own particular call and mission.
Reflection, Transposition And Summary:
Every person is a product of their times. We all like to think of ourselves as dispassionate exegetes of Scripture, and yet, even our champions of reformed exposition were in fact very much indebted, and in some cases enslaved to their cultural context.
Luther had to win the favour of German princes or his movement and his life would be forfeit.
Calvin sought to convince his earthly master that he should be permitted to come home.
These influences inevitably shaped and contoured the teachings and writings of the magisterial reformers.
And yet, to acknowledge influence is not, in this case, to deny their independence. Luther was no man’s domesticated prophet. His relationship with Frederick the Wise was complicated to say the least and Luther could never be accused of pulling his punches to preserve the favour and privilege he enjoyed. When returning to Wittenberg during a time of heightened political tension Luther announced his intentions with stunning recklessness and impertinence:
“I am going to Wittenberg under a far higher protection than the Elector’s. I have no intention of asking Your Electoral Grace for protection. Indeed I think I shall protect Your Electoral Grace more than you are able to protect me. And if I thought that Your Electoral Grace could and would protect me, I should not go. The sword ought not and cannot help a matter of this kind. God alone must do it, and without the solicitude and co-operation of men. Consequently he who believes the most can protect the most. And since I have the impression that Your Electoral Grace is still quite weak in faith, I can by no means regard Your Electoral Grace as the man to protect and save me.”[37]
Luther’s independence is here definitively attested.
Calvin likewise had the courage of his convictions. As stated above, Calvin consistently taught that:
“If disobedience to ungodly commands becomes inevitable, it must take the form of prayer, supplication, suffering or exile, but not rebellion.”[38]
Calvin himself suffered exile on multiple occasions. That he desired to return to France is undeniable, that he never failed to teach what he believed to be true regardless of the personal cost to him as an expatriate is equally self-evident.
Calvin and Luther were exegetes first and foremost, though they were undeniably influenced by their life and times.
That raises the issue of transposition. Luther wrote from inside an aristocratic system. Calvin was born under a monarchial system, and wished to return to it, but did the bulk of his writing from the free city of Geneva. To what extent do their teachings apply to Christians living today in modern democracies?
Calvin’s context is significantly closer and therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly, his counsel regularly hints at democratic application. He says for example:
“If there is something in need of correction in the public order, private men are not to create disturbances, or take matters into their own hands, for these hands ought to be tied. Instead, they should submit the matter to the cognizance of the magistrate, whose hand alone is free. What I mean is that they should do nothing, unless they have a specific right or command to do so.”[39]
It is possible, even likely, that he had in mind here the citizen’s council that substantially ruled in Geneva. His counsel thus would be that private citizens in general ought not to be obsessed with political change, but to the extent that they had a specific right or command to do so, could do so. One could easily derive from that statement an encouragement to vote, peacefully demonstrate, write to elected officials and even run for public office.
Calvin believed in the right of citizens to make use of the legal apparatus within whatever system of government they found themselves in. He permitted believers to go to court, provided they did so with a humble spirit, resolved to tell the truth and accepted whatever verdict was handed down.[40]
What Calvin and Luther could in no wise imagine or countenance was active rebellion or sedition. Luther grounded his firm conviction on this matter in Dominical authority:
“The Christian should allow himself to be abused and maltreated, and should not resist evil, just as Christ’s Word says.”[41]
Calvin was no less severe:
“All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer.”[42]
In terms of contemporary application, I will leave it to the reader to arrive at private convictions. I see nothing in Luther or Calvin that does not accord with the plain and straight forward meaning of Romans 13:1-7:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1–7 ESV)
The civil magistrate is every much the minister of God as the preacher in the pulpit. He or she had a mandate from God that is as binding on the individual as elder in a church or the parent in the home.
Reasonable exceptions are admitted in the framing of the principle:
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:7 ESV)
If the magistrate oversteps the authority he has been assigned and attempts to bind the conscience, or to confiscate your Bible then you should respond to him as Luther counseled:
“My good Lord, I owe you obedience with my life and goods. Command me what lies within the limits of your authority, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe, or to surrender my books, I will not obey.”[43]
But if you do, and you thereby incur the wrath of the powers above you, then you must be prepared to suffer:
“If he then takes away your books and punishes you for your disobedience, then blessed are you, and you should thank God for counting you worthy to suffer for the sake of his Word.”[44]
Resist, endure and rejoice. For great is your reward in heaven.
Thanks be to God!
Pastor Paul Carter
To listen to the most recent episodes of Pastor Paul’s Into The Word devotional podcast on the TGC Canada website see here. You can also find it on iTunes. To access the entire library of available episodes see here.
[1] Martin Luther as cited by Andrew Pettegree in Brand Luther, (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), 283.
[2] Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther, (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), 244.
[3] Harro Hopfl, Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), ix.
[4] Hopfl; ibid., xi.
[5] Martin Luther as cited in Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, edited by Harro Hopfl, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 10.
[6] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 11.
[7] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 14.
[8] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 22.
[9] Martin Luther as cited by Andrew Pettegree in Brand Luther, (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), 286.
[10] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 15.
[11] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 20.
[12] Harro Hopfl, Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), x.
[13] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 23.
[14] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 25-26.
[15] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 29.
[16] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 29.
[17] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 29.
[18] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 47.
[19] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 50.
[20] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 50.
[21] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 74.
[22] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 75.
[23] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 77.
[24] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 79.
[25] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 84.
[26] Harro Hopfl, Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xvii.
[27] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 72.
[28] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 82.
[29] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 82-83.
[30] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 49.
[31] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 81.
[32] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 85.
[33] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 57.
[34] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 58.
[35] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 72.
[36] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 53.
[37] Martin Luther as cited by Andrew Pettegree in Brand Luther, (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), 284-285.
[38] Harro Hopfl, Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xvii.
[39] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 75.
[40] Harro Hopfl, Luther And Calvin On Secular Authority in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 73.
[41] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 20.
[42] John Calvin as cited in Hopfl, 82.
[43] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 29.
[44] Martin Luther as cited in Hopfl, 29.
