CHAPTER 11 Pufendorf's Lutheranism

But when the ruler becomes Christian, the conjunctio officiorum of Christian and ruler grants him a particular suitability and right for certain functions: These functions do not only include the protection of the church from persecution, but also the material sustenance of ministers, church-buildings and schools, that might be undertaken â€?by Christian Princes... with less difficulty’ because they have â€?the management of the Publick Revenues in their hands’.^[731] It also includes a prerogative vote in the constitution of ministers and their super­vision by royal inspectors or by a consistory, the church discipline including the sovereign’s approval of excommunications, the church legislation and the reform of statutes that concern â€?the outward form of the Church-Government [ea, quae religionem circumstant]'.5³ Insofar as these rights cannot be deduced from the nature of sovereignty or from â€?the true Genius of the Christian Religion’ they presuppose a consensual right transfer by the church?⁴ As we know from Pufendorf in other instances such a consent might be a tacit one that is â€?gathered from the nature of the business and other circumstances'.55 As far as these rights are not extended to the inner core of â€?ministerium ecclesiae’ as teaching the gospel or administering the sacraments?⁶ and if - in addition to the approved church of the sovereign - different confessions are tolerated?⁷ such a state might be compatible with Pufendorf’s view of religious belief as an inner act of the spirit that spurns violent means.

But as far as the sovereign’s right in resolving religious controversies is con­cerned Pufendorf grants him a right that exceeds these boundaries: He might not only call together synods, force refusing parties to take part in it and - when a compromise is reached - enforce it by law?⁸ But he might also induce the leading theologians of his country to compose a public form of religion that ought to be professed by all and in particular by the ministry. If anyone publicly contradicts that public form his reasons have to be examined; and when he is convicted of his error, he might be silenced and, if counteracting, be banished from the country?⁹

But - on the other hand - if subjects ^lby the Grace of God, and the Light of his holy Spirit have attained the true Knowledge' of Religion, while their sovereign and the whole clergy maintain â€?their error', the sovereign would sin if troubling or banishing a dissenting subject that has not yet been convicted of their error.^[732] For â€?a Christian, in Matters of Faith' has â€?to rely upon his Sovereign or the Clergy... no farther than their Doctrine is congruous with the holy Scripture', while - on the other hand - â€?the true pure Doctrine of the Gospel' does not contain any â€?Principles dangerous or prejudicial to the Government’.*’¹ Thus the extent of reli­gious freedom and of the rights of sovereigns in church matters varies according as true religion is on the side of the subjects or of the sovereign.

That question of religious truth becomes entirely preponderant in Pufendorf's posthumous publication Jus feciale sive de Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium. The theme of tolerance which was of central importance in De Habitu is here quickly relativized as â€?a Truce in War, which suspends. the actual Hostilities' without doing away with â€?the State and Cause of the War'.6² The latter might only be accomplished by conciliation that promises success especially in cases where dissension is about mere Opinions or Principles (â€?controversiae circa dogmata'). Controversies of this sort might be entirely decided â€?when there is an infallible Rule from which a Judgment may be made, such as the Holy Scripture is in Controversies of Divinity'. 6³ Pufendorf here follows the Lutheran hermeneutic principle according to which Scripture is perspicuous and self-explaining in matters that concern salvation.6⁴ He is confident â€?that the Genuine Sense of Scripture be perfectly found out,. if due Means and Helps of interpreting them [legitima interpretationis admini­cula] be made use of'.6⁵ As he explains elsewhere, these â€?Means and Helps' agree with those applied to â€?finding out the genuine Sense of other Authors; viz.... a true Knowledge of the Tongue, and a diligent search into the nature and whole frame of the Christian Religion,. by duly comparing the Articles of Faith, and observing their Analogy and Connexion'. Besides this, it requires â€?a natural good Judgment', and not to be â€?prepossessed with Prejudice, private Interest, or Passion'.^{[733] [734] [735] [736] [737] [738] [739] But controversies are irreconcilable if they are about worldly advantages such as emoluments and power as those of the protestant churches in relation to the Roman Catholic church.67 As to the reconciliation of differing â€?Opinions or Principles' Pufendorf makes a distinction between a â€?perfect conciliation' in the whole system of faith, that he rejects as impos­sible, and â€?a Reconcilement mixed with a Toleration [conciliatio tolerantiae mixta]': The latter favors â€?an Agreement in a solid, sufficient, and adequate, Foundation of Faith' or in those Articles of Faith which are absolutely nec­essary to salvation, while in relation to other opinions Toleration should be granted.68 In the latter way Pufendorf hoped to bring about a conciliation of the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church.69 As to â€?the grand Question of all, what Questions concern the Foundation of Faith' he suggested to â€?take those Principles about which there is an Agreement on both Sides, and endeav­our to compose of them a full and compleat System of Theology'?0 That system should also conform to the mathematical model of an â€?exact science [in for­mam justae artis]', that demonstrates all dogmas that are necessary, sufficient and adequate for salvation starting from definitions, postulates and axioms?1 But all those controverted articles that fall out of that â€?due chain of the Faith [catena fidei]' are â€?to be reckon'd not reaching the Foundation of the Faith, and therefore they should not be sufficient to break Communion and Concord'?2 Among the â€?Praesupposita; aut Postulata', which â€?are easily admitted by both Parties without a laborious Proof' Pufendorf sets in the first place the insuffi­ciency of natural theology for the â€?due Worship and Acknowledgment of God'. Man, indeed, may by natural reason not only know the existence, excellency and greatness of God, but also â€?that Mankind are the particular Concern and Care of that Supream Power'. He may also gather from the works of creation, that God is â€?in the highest manner Perfect and Eminent, and so to be worthy of his Veneration and Love... But... from these Speculations alone,... Mankind cannot gather what Acknowledgment and Veneration God requires from him, nor in what Signs and Actions it ought to consist’.[740] Hence comes the require­ment of a revelation in order to give man â€?due Instruction concerning the right Performance’ of divine worship74 and - in the third place - the acknowledge­ment of holy scripture as â€?Treasury [promptuarium] of these Revelations’?5 From these presuppositions Pufendorf concludes that â€?in true Religion there is included a Covenant [Verae Religioni inest pactum]’:}

When therefore God discovers how he will be worshipp’d by Man, and Man takes it upon him to perform that Worship, then there is a Consent [consensio] of the Divine Will, and the Will of Man, and Man is said to have Faith in God and Religion, which before that Consent he had not?⁶

Although God might have enjoined religious worship by bare command and might have bound man by creating him it pleased him �to govern Men by Motives and Inducements, that they may willingly consent to his Religion, and take it upon them or[sic!] themselves’?7 That position suits well the anthropol­ogy of Pufendorf’s writings on natural law and his concept of human or moral action, that he defines as a voluntary action in social life �regarded under the imputation of its effects’:

We call voluntary actions those actions placed within the power of man, which depend upon the will, as upon a free cause, in such wise that, with­out its decision setting forth from the same man's actions as elicited by previous cognition of the intellect, they would not come to pass; and, indeed, according as they are regarded not in their natural condition, but in so far as they come to pass from a decision of the will.^[741]

That â€?freedom of choice [ratio proaeretica]’ or â€?liberty' adds to â€?spontaneity... an indifference as to the exercise of its acts, so that the will is under no necessity to exert one of its acts’, but â€?may choose whatever action it please, although chance may incline it more to one than to another’?⁹ That also includes the ability to make a choice against one’s own inclination. That anthropological liberty which is named the â€?fundamental element of a moral action in Pufendorf’s Elements8° is a prerequisite for the imputation of human actions and of man’s ability to bear obligations and rights at all. It continues to underlie the natural liberty in the natural state, but also the civil state and the civil obligation?¹ The latter is based in the consent of agents, who are equal at least insofar as they are morally free and responsible agents?² As pacts secure the continuity of human liberty in the political state the covenant fixes â€?a dimension of human liberty in the. realm of faith’?³ Since it pleased God â€?to deal with Man in a Moral manner (for Christ heal’d the Sick, commanded Storms into a Calm, call’d the Dead to Life with a word, but is never read to have Converted Men in like manner)’, he does not draw him to salvation â€?after the manner of working of Engines’, but leaves to him the liberty to â€?resist and refuse the offer’d Grace of God’?⁴ Otherwise â€?Theology’ would not â€?be a Moral Discipline, but a Physical one’, and its Operations would â€?be accounted for by the Laws of Motion’?⁵

Pufendorf thus takes up federal theology, a topos of reformed theology, in order to beat the reformed Churches with their own weapons: For he considers the idea of a covenant of God and man as incompatible with the doctrine of absolute decree in which he saw the main hindrance of a union of Lutherans and Calvinists.^[742]

In detail Pufendorf distinguishes several covenants: The first covenant with Adam established religion and obliged man to pay to God a supreme rever­ence and to love his neighbour, while God promised man immortality and the �Continuance of his present most happy State'. Though it didn't add anything to the obligation of natural law that covenant has to be distinguished from the creation.8^{[743] [744] The fall resulted in the loss of these divine benefits and in the corruption of human intellect and will. It did not weaken the obligatory force of natural law but impaired man's ability to meet its obligations.88 In order not to withhold altogether his mercy from mankind, God established a new covenant with man by the interposition of a mediator[745] [746] [747] [748] It was prepared by and intimated in several particular covenants with Noah, Abraham and finally with the people of Israel?0 That new covenant consists of a double agreement, one of God the father with the son, the other of the son as mediator and savior with men. By the first agreement the son substitutes himself in place of man­kind, satisfies the divine justice for their sins and procures to them the favor of God and eternal salvation. By the second agreement the savior offers the conciliation with God to all men, while the latter are obliged to embrace this benefit �with a sincere and firm Faith and Trust'?1 According to Pufendorf that second agreement shows resemblance with a feudal contract, wherein one party out of favor confers something upon the other, namely remission of sins and conciliation. But what is performed on the other part has not the nature of a retribution, but only of an acknowledgement (�vim recognitionis'), namely the faith in Christ that grants new powers of sanctification and of observance of the natural law?2 That covenant, though offered to everyone, does not bind mankind as a society, but as particulars, so that one forsakes that covenant}

�only for himself, or at his own peril’.^[749] That new covenant presupposes the arti­cle of trinity to account for the �divers personal Characters, and... actions’ as �to beget and to be begotten, to send and to be sent, to bear Testimony the one of the other’ that cannot possibly meet in one person,9^[750] but also the �Personal Union [unio personalis]’ of divine and human nature in Christ to account for his role as mediator^^[751]

That �system’ of theology which Pufendorf considers to be �but. a rude Draught, and capable of much polishing’ pretends to embrace �all the Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation’, so that none of them can be denied or called in question without breaking �the whole Chain or Connexion of the Faith’^^[752]

Of the controversies among the Protestants, Pufendorf makes a distinction of particular ones that touch only one article of Christian religion from those that affect the whole system and do greatly alter or utterly destroy it. To the former ones he refers the controversies concerning the person of Christ and the Lord’s supper, to the latter ones the controversies about predestination and grace.9^[753] The controversies that concern the person of Christ and the Lord’s supper are the products of improper curiosity and of the intermingling of phi­losophy and theology. They might be easily settled by confining oneself to the â€?plain Assertions of Holy Scripture’ and by not assuming more than needed for the end of eternal salvation^^{[754] [755] In this way Pufendorf re-emphasizes the Lutheran position: On the person of Christ he confirms the Lutheran doctrine of â€?Communication of Idioms or Proprieties [idiomatum communicatio]’, that entails that the human nature in Christ partakes at proprieties of the divine nature like omnipresence^ But he counters the reformed critique that points to absurd consequences of that doctrine by limiting any assumption on that matter to the end of the mediator’s office, and by calling in scriptural evi- dence.[756] On the Lord’s supper he considers the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in bread and wine, that leaves the manner of that presence undecided, to be most conformable to scripture (1 Korinthians ιo.6).[757] [758] [759] [760] [761] [762] [763] He rejects the reformed interpretation of the Lord’s supper as a â€?sign or symbol [signum aut symbolum]’ as a â€?Figurative Interpretation’, that casts away the â€?simple Sense of the Words’.W2 But he considers as much more impor­tant than that inner-Protestant disagreement, the need to ward off the â€?mon­strous. Transsubstantiation of the Papists’, that assumes the production of the body of the savior from a bit of bread by the priest’s pronouncing a certain formula.103}

But the decisive controversy that affects the whole theological system con­cerns questions of predestination and grace. Here Pufendorf sharply rejects the reformed doctrine of absolute decree, according to which the fall and damnation of some people depends on divine pleasure (�arbitrium’), and he denies any scriptural evidence for it.^w4 He alleges �Expressions in Scripture of the Universal Mercy of God, of the Extent of the Merit of Christ to all, of the Vocation and Preaching of the Gospel, from which no Man is excluded by any Divine Order or Command’. But the cause of particularity lies in �the fault of men who despise the offered means’.^w5 Nonetheless that human faculty to resist remains compatible with divine prescience (and thus with predestina­tion), because in God �there is no succession of time..., but a pure Eternity or Everlasting now’.^W6 That position suits well the Lutheran understanding of grace and predestination as expressed in the formula of concord.^w7 As shown above it also suits well Pufendorf’s understanding of anthropological liberty as indifference. Thus it is not astonishing that he sometimes uses arguments in Jusfeciale to defend the Lutheran position that are very similar to those used against Hobbes in his natural law writings: He mentions that the reformed, in order to defend themselves against the objection that predetermination takes away the morality of human actions,

fain that the Liberty of the Will of Man consists only in a Spontaneity, or Absence of Violent Constraint, not in an Indifferency... But if the Physical, or Natural Act of every Humane Action is so predetermin'd, as that it must needs exist,. I cannot conceive that there is more Liberty in Men then there is in Water, flowing down within its Channel.^{[764] [765] [766] [767]}

The water in the channel is an allusion to a passage in Hobbes's Leviathan: In the chapter On the Liberty of Subjects Hobbes characterizes â€?Liberty' as â€?absence. of external impediments of motion', that might â€?be applied no less to irrational. creatures, than to rational'. When â€?water. is kept in by banks, or vessels, that otherwise would spread itself into a larger place, we use to say, they are not at liberty, to move in such manner'. Accordingly, Hobbes understands by the word â€?free-will' the liberty of a man, who â€?finds no stop, in doing what he has. incli­nation to do' - a liberty that he considers as consistent with necessity."^¹ That Hobbesian concept of liberty had already been criticized with similar arguments in DeJure Naturae et Gentium in the passage, where Pufendorf introduces the indifference of the will. Here he refers to De Homine, c. 11, § 2, according to which appetite and aversion necessarily follow the preconception of some pleasure and trouble, which will arise from the objects. According to Pufendorf, that necessity only exists in the â€?volition of simple approbation [volitio simplicis adprobationis]', but not the â€?effective volition or previous choice [volitio. efficax seu proairesis]', which does not necessarily depend upon particular objects.110

That congruence of Pufendorfian anthropology and the Lutheran view on Grace and Predestination suits another congruence, namely of the abovemen­tioned demarcation of natural law and revealed Christianity to Luther's dis­tinction of Law and Gospel^m and to the doctrine of the two kingdoms based on it: It distinguishes a �kingdom of God [reych Gottis]' from the �kingdom of the world [reych der welt]', and, based on it, �two governments [regiment]: the spiritual, by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians and righteous people under Christ; and the temporal, which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that - no thanks to them - they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an out­ward peace'.^{[768] [769] [770] [771] [772] While the members of the kingdom of God have the holy spirit in their heart, �who both teaches and makes them to do injustice to no one, to love everyone, and to suffer injustice and even death willingly and cheerfully at the hands of anyone', the members of the kingdom of the world are �under the law' and �subjected... to the sword' to restrain their wickedness.u3 Thus to both kingdoms correspond two kinds of law, that are nonetheless grounded in the unique will of God.n4}

Similar to Luther, who cannot imagine a natural law independent of divine will,^u5 Pufendorf derives the obligatory force of natural law entirely from divine command. In the discussion of the origin of morality and the indiffer­ence of physical motion in human action in Eris Scandica, where he had to deal with the doctrine of the perseitas of good and bad actions advocated for by the Lutheran theologian Valentin Veltheim, Pufendorf cites Luther's Small Catechism, that gives as reason for the observance of any of the ten command­ments: �We should fear and love God that we may not...'.^u6 He thus tries to convict his adversary of heterodoxy and to confirm the Lutheran orthodoxy of his own voluntarist foundation of natural law. But in contrast to the reform­atory anthropological pessimism^{[773] [774] [775] Pufendorf shows a greater confidence in fallen man's ability to grasp the principles of natural law by the light of natural reason:}

Now since the understanding carries, as it were, a torch before our actions, and when that gives an uncertain light we cannot fail to wander from our course, we must insist upon the truth of the principle, that, in the faculty of apprehension and in the judgement there is inherent a natural recti­tude, which does not allow us to be misled in moral questions, if proper attention be paid to them, and which does not suffer those faculties to become so corrupted that we cannot but be misled... Hence, if we do not wish to destroy all morality in actions, we must at any hazard maintain that the understanding of man is by nature sound, and that upon suffi­cient inquiry it apprehends clearly, and as they actually are, the matters which present themselves to it. And further, that the practical judgement, at least as concerns the general precepts of natural law, cannot be so cor­rupted that it may not be held responsible for any evil actions that come from it, on the ground that they proceeded from an insuperable error or ignorance.^u8

That view was sharply criticized by the theologians Nikolas Beckmann and Joshua Schwartz in the Index novitatum that lists offences of Pufendorf's natu­ral law doctrine against the orthodox Lutheran faith, including �Errors concern­ing the free will [Errores circa liberum arbitrium]'. It denounces Pufendorf's view of the natural rectitude of the intellect in moral matters as an �error scho­lasticus' like those damned by Luther in the Smalcald ArticlesI^w In the article Of Sin Luther criticizes those scholastic doctors that have taught, �that since the fall of Adam the natural powers of man have remained entire and incor­rupt,... that man by nature has a right reason and good will’, and that he has �a free will to do good and omit evil’.^{[776] [777] [778] [779] [780] [781] [782] But according to Pufendorf’s reply in Eris Scandica the true sense of that passage has to be explained by The Defense of the Augsburg Confession^1 In the Article Of Free Will the author Philipp Melanchthon states that notwithstanding the �power of concupiscence’ there is �left in human nature reason and judgment concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the liberty and power to render civil righteousness’, a righteousness that �Scripture calls. the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, without the Holy Ghost.122 Thus Pufendorf interprets Luther with the help of Philipp Melanchthon who had reintroduced Aristotelian philosophy into Lutheran theology, and who more strongly than other reformers emphasizes the per­sistence of the �notitiae naturales’ and of the �free will [liberum arbitrium]’ in man after the fall.123 On that basis, Melanchthon advocates a moral philoso­phy as an autonomous discipline which is based on �firm demonstrations’ but restricted to that �part of the divine law’ which contains prescriptions on man’s �external actions’.^4 That also entails its soteriological insufficiency, because it �teaches nothing on the remission of sins, nor does it show in what man­ner God approves the unwilling’.^5 Thus Melanchthon, somehow anticipating Pufendorf’s secularization program,^6 interprets Luther’s distinction of the two kingdoms in a way that allows for independent research on �the external and civil life [quod ad externam et civilem consuetudinem vitae attinet]’.[783] [784] [785] [786] [787] [788] [789] [790]}

Because that distinction intends to â€?provide a sound basis for the civil law and sword’ according to Luther and to confirm its biblical legitimation in external affairs,12⁸ it leaves to the worldly sovereign the whole extent of sec­ular government: As Pufendorf states it submits the clergy with their lives and fortunes to the sovereign,^⁹ vests the latter with the external direction in church mattersi³⁰ and thus guarantees the rights of summum imperium as defined in his natural law doctrine.1³1 In addition to that, it strengthens the sanctity of summum imperium by obliging the people to respect its bearers as God’s vicegerents on earth.1³2 But the extent of the territorial church govern­ment that Pufendorf justifies in the course of his argumentation in De Habitu, and that includes the above mentioned competences of the sovereign in com­posing religious controversies^ neither conforms to the premises of his own delimitation of natural law politics and revealed Christianity nor to the basic idea of Luther’s two governments: That basic idea was to keep the church away from worldly affairs on the one hand but also to avoid any kind of secular com­pulsion in church matters on the others⁴ The territorial church government

(Iandesherrliche Kirchenregiment) that emerged in the Lutheran territories resulted from the role of the Protestant princes as political protectors of the Lutheran belief and had no dogmatic basis in Luther's theology.^[791]

Pufendorf's apology of that contemporary practice which started from an original advocacy of the mutual independence of natural law and moral the­ology methodologically recalls the role of the state of nature in deriving sover­eign power as it existed in his timesJ3⁶ Thus his endeavors in both fields end in an apology of the status quo to prove its reasonableness or rather its conform­ity to true religion.

Select Bibliography

Primary Literature

[Beckmann, Nicolaus] Index Quarundam Novitatum, Quas Dominus SamuelPufendorfJ

Libro Suo DeJure Naturae Et Gentium Contra OrthodoxaJundamenta Londini edidit. S. L. 1673.

Gerhard, Johann, Loci Theologici cum pro adstruenda Veritate tum pro destruenda quo­rumvis contradicentium Falsitate per Theses nervose solide et copiose explicati, ed. by Eduard Preuss. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1863.

Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. by Michael Oakeshott. London: Routledge, 1977.

Luther, Martin, An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation [1520], in D. Martin Luthers

Werke. kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-1929 [hereafter: wa] vol. 6, pp. 404-4696, pp. 404-469.

Luther, Martin, Von welltlicher Uberkeytt, wie weyt man yhr gehorsam schuldig sey [1523]. WA 11, pp. 245-281. translation by Jeremiah J. Schindel: Temporal authority: to what extent it should be obeyed, in Luther’s Works, edited by Laroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 45. The Christian in Society II., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962, pp. 81-129.

Luther, Martin, Parvus Catechismus pro pueris in schola [1536]. WA 30, pp. 283-291. English in Triglot Concordia, pp. 538-542.

Luther, Martin, The Smalcald Articles [1537], in Triglot Concordia, pp. 453-529.

Melanchthon, Philipp, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession [1531], in Triglot Concordia, pp. 97-451.

Melanchthon, Philipp, Philosophiae moralis epitomes libri duo [1546], in Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. ιιι. Humanistische Schriften, ed. by Richard Nurnberger. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlag G. Mohn, 1961, pp. 149-301.

Pufendorf, Samuel, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics, ed. by Thomas Behme. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2009.

Pufendorf, Samuel, (Severinus de Monzambano), De Statu Imperii Germanici [1667], ed. by Fritz Salomon. Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1910.

Pufendorf, Samuel, DeJure Naturae et Gentium [1672], Gesammelte Werke 4. ed. by Frank Bohling. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1998. English: On the Law of Nature and Nations. Classics of International Law, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Tr. by Charles Henry Oldfather and William Abbott Oldfather. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934.

Pufendorf, Samuel, De Officio Hominis et Civis juxta Legem Naturalem Libri Duo [1673], Gesammelte Werke 2, ed. by Gerald Hartung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. English tr. The Whole Duty of Man, According to the Law of Nature. Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics, ed. by Ian Hunter and David Saunders, tr. by Andrew Tooke, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003.

Pufendorf, Samuel, De Concordia Verae Politicae cum Religione Christiana [1673], in Idem, Dissertationes academicae selectiores. Upsaliae 1677, pp. 428-458.

Pufendorf, Samuel, Eris Scandica [1686], Gesammelte Werke 5, ed. by Fiammetta Palladini. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002.

Pufendorf, Samuel, De Habitu Religionis Christianae ad Vitam Civilem [1687]. Gesammelte Werke 6. ed. by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2016. English Of the Nature and Qualification of Christian Religion, in Reference to Civil Society. Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics. Tr. by Jodocus Crull, ed. by Simone Zurbuchen, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002.

Pufendorf, Samuel,Jusfeciale divinum [1695], Gesammelte Werke 9, ed. by Detlef Doring. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004. English: Divine Feudal Law: Or, Covenents with Mankind, Represented. Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics. Tr. by Theophilus Dorrington, ed. by Simone Zurbuchen, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002.

Pufendorf, Samuel, Briefwechsel, Gesammelte Werke 1. ed. by Detlef Doring, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996.

Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin- English. ed. by Friedrich Bente and William Herman T. Dau. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921.

Weigel, Erhard, Philosophia Mathematica Theologia Naturalis Solida [1693] Werke ιv, 1-2. Ed. by Thomas Behme. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2013.

Weigel, Erhard, Wienerischer Tugend-Spiegel [1687] Werke v, 1-2. Ed. by Thomas Behme. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2016.

Secondary Literature

Behme, Thomas, �Pufendorf’s Doctrine of Sovereignty and its Natural Law Foundations’, in Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty. Moral Right and State Authority in Early Modern Political Thought. ed. by Ian Hunter and David Saunders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, pp. 43-58.

Behme, Thomas, Introduction to Philosophia Mathematica Theologia Naturalis Solida. ed. by Thomas Behme, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2013.

Behme, Thomas, Samuel von Pufendorf, Naturrecht und Staat: Eine Analyse und Interpretation seinerTheorie, ihrerGrundlagen undProbleme.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1995.

Denzer Horst, �Ethik und Recht im deutschen Naturrecht der zweiten Halfte des 17. Jahrhunderts', in Recht undEthik. Zum Problem ihrerBegrundung im 19. Jahrhundert. Ed. by Jurgen Bluhdorn and Joachim Ritter, Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann, 1970, pp. 103-111.

Denzer, Horst, Moralphilosophie undNaturrecht bei SamuelPufendorf Eine geistes- und Wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Geburt des Naturrechts aus der prak- tischen Philosophie. Munchner Studien zur Politik 22. Munchen: Beck, 1972.

Doring, Detlef, Pufendorf-Studien. Beitrage zur Biographie Samuel von Pufendorfs und zu seiner Entwicklung als Historiker und theologischer Schriftsteller. Historische Forschungen 49. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992.

Frank, Gunther, Die theologische Philosophie Philipp Melanchthons (1497-1560). Erfurter theologische Studien 67. Leipzig: Benno, 1995.

Krieger, Leonard, The Politics of Discretion. Pufendorf and the Acceptance of Natural Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Krumwiede, Hans Walter, Kirchenregiment, Landesherrliches, in Theologische Realenzyklopadie, 36 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976-2004, vol. 19, pp. 59-68.

Palladini, Fiammetta, Samuel Pufendorf als Moralphilosoph, in Jahrbuch fur Recht und Ethik, 8 (2000), pp. 199-207.

Rabe, Horst, Naturrecht und Kirche bei Samuel von Pufendorf. Tubingen: Fabian Verlag, 1958.

Saastamoinen, Kari, The Morality of the Fallen Man. Samuel Pufendorf on Natural Law. Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae, 1995.

Scherzer, Hans Karl, �Martin Luther’, in Klassiker des politischen Denkens. ed. by Hans Maier, Heinz Rausch and Horst Denzer. Munchen: Beck, 1979. Vol. I, pp. 245-273.

Thieme, Hans, Das Naturrecht und die europdische Privatrechtsgeschichte. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1947.

Welzel, Hans, Die Naturrechtslehre Samuel Pufendorfs. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1958.

Welzel, Hans, Naturrecht und materiale Gerechtigkeit. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ⁴1984.

Zurbuchen, Simone, Naturrecht und naturliche Religion. Zur Geschichte des Toleranzbegriffes von SamuelPufendorfbisJeanJacques Rousseau. Epistemata. Reihe Philosophie 87. Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1991.