This concern has already been reported in this volume, Col. 1756, No. 1908.
XI. D. Mart. Luther's Concerns to Elector John Frederick of Saxony: Whether the Protestants of other imperial states may take subjects into protection and alliance, and to what extent they may enter into alliance with the imperial cities? Anno 1534.
Printed in the Eisleben edition, vol. II, p. 328; in the Altenburger, vol. VI, p. 216; in the Leipziger, vol. XXI, p. 91; in Walch, vol. XXI, 177* and in the Erlanger, vol. 65, p. 225.
1. it is not proper in any way to give the cities, which have been assigned to princes
1) Walch: "accepting poems". - "gedichte Annehmen" == pretended accepting.
to take them in hand and in covenant. For what would that be other than reaching into foreign sovereignty, and by this appearance depriving the other princes of land and people? And if this should be right for our part, the opposite should also practice the same with our cities and nobility, of which there are still many who would well like to attach themselves to other princes.
(2) But that one unites with imperial cities, though I take little comfort in it, for I know well that the mob does not want to suffer for the sake of the gospel: nevertheless it has a different form with the imperial cities than with others. For the imperial cities are potestates themselves, like princes. As far as princes may make alliances, which I am not disputing here, so far may other states do the same, as they are also Potsstates themselves. But the cities under princes are not potestates for themselves; therefore it does not suffer that they want to hang themselves on their own pleasure to whom they want.
(3) But when it is said that Christians are obliged to help their neighbors in need and to protect them against injustice, I say this: I know well that many things can be made to appear to be true with words, and that people like to respect such appearances and reason, because they want to be wise themselves and let go of justice. This is divine and human right, that no one should encroach on another's authority, and take what is his own, and deprive him of goods or body. One should leave it at that, and not put one's own conceit for public law and God's order. For even if one authority acts unjustly with a subject, it is not the neighbor's duty, who has no authority over the subject, to deny or take away the other authority's power; for God has so ordered property and divided regiments.
4 Any good that can come of it is easy to take away. If every subject should have the right to seek protection wherever he wishes, then all principality, empire and regiment are already disrupted and destroyed. And if each sovereignty should not have its own regiment, but should take care of all the others, then all sovereignties will be one sovereignty, and there will be only confusion. Nor can happiness
Erl. 65, 226.
Nachlese, No. XI to XV.
W. XXI, 179*-199*.
with such attacks. For this disruption of the regiments is contrary to God's order, who has established in the world distinct authorities, dominion and property; therefore God is against it.
5 St. Peter says [1 Pet. 4,15.]: "You should not suffer as murderers, or thieves, or malefactors, or as those who take hold of other people's regiments. Now I cannot understand this case in any other way than that it is to take hold of foreign regiments, and to hinder others of the same authority, and to deprive them of their land and people. ,
Martinus Luther.