In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518-1559
  • W. David Myers
James M. Estes . Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518-1559. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions: History, Culture, Religion, Ideas 111. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005. xviii + 230 pp. index. bibl. $134. ISBN: 90-04– 14716-0.

At a time of increased scrutiny and anxiety over religion and secular society, it is simultaneously odd and satisfying that a work about two sixteenth-century theologians should remind us of how fundamental, and intractable, the question of secular authority remains in European society. According to Estes, his is the first monograph to "write the whole history, from beginning to end," of Luther or Melanchthon's views about secular authority and true religion. Equally novel is his decision to treat both figures comparatively in one study. Both Estes's claims are surprising, because pairing Luther and Melanchthon seems on the surface so obvious. Generations of scholarly debate, often spurred by deeply held personal beliefs, have forced these figures into opposite corners. If for no other reason, Estes is to be congratulated for approaching the Lutheran intellectual world in so comprehensive a fashion. Though Estes's monograph contains few surprises, the strengths of this book — and they are considerable — lie in its comprehensiveness, in the author's patient reading of texts and painstaking effort at systematic comparison. His final argument might not work entirely, but his contribution is significant.

Divided into five chapters, the book proceeds in roughly chronological fashion. The first and final chapters on Luther bracket three chapters examining Melanchthon's thought from the 1520s to the presentation of his "mature" position in the Loci Communes of 1535 and to its elaboration in On the Office of the Prince in 1540–41. These three periods correspond roughly to distinct practical problems confronting the Evangelical movement: in the 1520s, the role of secular princes in rescuing the true Church from bishops and the popes and setting it on firm foundations; in the early 1530s protecting the Church from dilution by Anabaptists and other usurpers; and finally until 1559 dealing with irenic Catholics, neutral princes, and godless bishops. Each practical challenge prompted intellectual development.

Estes's approach is to engage in a close reading, in chronological order, of all the relevant texts by both men. In general, the differences between them lay in Luther's skepticism, which precluded assigning "routine authority in spiritual [End Page 607] matters to secular authorities as such" (54). Melanchthon, influenced by humanism and Erasmus's Mirror for Princes, viewed the Christian duties of the prince much more favorably. For most of the book, Estes treats his subjects separately, though his scholarly eye always keeps both in view. In the final chapter, Estes explores their continuous interaction in Wittenberg, a frustrating task because these conversations were never written down. Instead, Estes notes the way each man's words and deeds seem to reflect a close knowledge of (and sympathy with) the other's.

From this comparative and comprehensive approach, Estes concludes with confidence that, whatever their intellectual paths, the two reformers always agreed on what the prince ought to do in a given situation. Also, Luther's views over time did indeed develop, seemingly influenced and guided by the evolution of Melanchthon's own thinking. Indeed, for Estes, Luther's thought gradually corresponded to Melanchthon's, and it was the latter whose ideas on secular authority prevailed, especially after 1535. The final chapter, focusing on Luther's commentaries on Psalms 85 and 101 — demonstrates their fundamental agreements in practice, if not in tone. Luther could never follow Melanchthon's humanist and Erasmian tendency to incorporate secular rulers fully into the sacred body of Church government. Luther could never shake his deep suspicion of princes, no matter how much he relied upon them. To Luther, the pious prince was a "miracle of God," useful in emergencies.

To resolve the seeming tension, Estes turns to practical realities. Luther would agree that pious princes, though few, were obliged to establish and uphold true...

pdf

Share