Hemmingsen and the Political Thought of the Lutheran Reformation
Where once Luther and the Protestant Reformation could be discussed alongÂside Machiavelli as foundational moments in the history of modern, secular political thought, this is no longer the case.
Instead, recent scholarship has emphasised the theological aspects of the confessional(ising) political thought of the Protestant reformers. Scholars such as Luise Schorn-Schutte, Thomas Kaufmann and Robert von Friedeburg have described how Lutheran theoÂlogians developed a â€?politica christiana' for the new Lutheran principalities. According to this view, the defining characteristics of this â€?politica christiana' are the confessional doctrine of the three orders of creation as structuring the social order within a theological apocalyptic horizon. As one summary account put it, this was a â€?political theology' developed by â€?political theologians', with sacred scripture as the prime epistemological and normative framework.[126]This emphasis on theology and confessional concerns has also characterÂised recent interpretations of Melanchthon's moral thought. Gunter Frank has argued that for Melanchthon â€?strictly speaking, there is no practical philosophy at all, but rather a practical theology’.[127] Building on Frank's work, Gideon Stiening has argued further that Melanchthon subsumed politics and philosophy under theology in the same way as the scholastics Francisco Vitoria and Francisco Suarez.[128] Central to this is an interpretation of Melanchthon's theory of natural law as oriented towards innate ideas inscribed by God on the minds of men and revealed in the precepts of the Decalogue.
Interest in Hemmingsen’s De lege naturae stems both from its place as a central development of Melanchthonian natural law and, particularly in earlier scholarship, as a precursor to Hugo Grotius. Karl von Kaltenborn saw Hemmingsen as an important precursor to Grotius, mainly due to the methodÂological programme set out in De lege naturae.
But ultimately Hemmingsen disÂappointed in not following his own programme: to Kaltenborn, Hemmingsen’s â€?natural law is completely intermixed with ethics and still entirely entangled in the doctrines of positive Christianity. Positive, divine and natural law is still completely collapsed’. As such the â€?content of the work must be said to be insignificant’.[129]Although recent scholarship on Hemmingsen’s natural law has shared the view of the centrality of the Decalogue, it has stepped back from the concern with him as a forerunner of Grotius and instead sought to understand him on his own terms, and in particular as a student of Melanchthon. As such, the view of Hemmingsen’s theory of natural law naturally depends on the particular understanding of Melanchthon offered. In particular, the relationÂship between the Decalogue and the law of nature has been at the centre of discussions.
In his study of â€?natural law before natural law’, Merio Scattola discusses Hemmingsen as one of several followers of Melanchthon’s natural law theÂory. Scattola sets out to treat the sixteenth-century works on natural law on their own terms and argues that different conceptions of natural law are best explained in disciplinary rather than confessional terms.[130] His work nevertheÂless relies heavily on post-Grotian histories of natural law, and the discussion is additionally significantly informed by scholastic distinctions between realist and voluntarist theories of law.
Scattola's discussion situates Melanchthon's theory of natural law as the central sixteenth-century �philosophical' theory of natural law. Nevertheless, Melanchthon's theory of natural law is primarily discussed with reference to his theological works, and in particular the Loci communes. According to Scattola, Melanchthon saw natural law as something essentially given by God, through the Decalogue and through the innate ideas inscribed on the mind of man, and corresponding to the created order of the world.
In this way, the law of nature provided the basis for practical philosophy.[131] This is the perspective taken on Hemmingsen as well. Scattola emphasises that to Hemmingsen natÂural law was the foundation of practical philosophy, and that Hemmingsen adopted a basically Aristotelian view of man in discussing natural law. At the same time, however, Scattola also argues that Hemmingsen cannot offer any arguments for the existence of natural law, but only accept it as something given by god. As no real arguments can be given, natural law must instead only be seen as a number of given â€?self-evident principles', from which the norms of the ethical life can be obtained.[132] [133]In contrast, John Witte Jr. places greater emphasis on the Decalogue in his analysis of Melanchthon's and Hemmingsen's accounts of natural law. Although Melanchthon saw the law of nature as the divine law as understood by reason on the basis of innate ideas, his view of the effects of the Fall, Witte argues, made this account ambiguous. Since the Fall had damaged man's faculÂties and knowledge, Melanchthon instead takes the Decalogue as the summary of the law of nature. Accordingly, the Decalogue is central to Witte's reading of Hemmingsen's work on natural law. As a good student of Melanchthon, he argues, Hemmingsen â€?set out to demonstrate the natural universality and superiority of the Decalogue as a source and summary of natural law'. His citaÂtions of classical works were, according to Witte, to show their compatibility with the commandments. Finally, Witte notes that Hemmingsen's vindication of the three estates were â€?particularly impressive'.11
E.J. Hutchinson has placed greater emphasis on the role method played in Hemmingsen’s treatments of divine and natural law. Hutchinson shows how Hemmingsen adopted different philosophical and theological methods in his work on natural law and on theology respectively, but to discuss the same thing: the law of nature or the moral law.
Comparing the De lege natuÂrae and the Enchiridion theologicum, Hutchinson gives the examples of how Hemmingsen proves the fourth and fifth commandments of the Decalogue (from the bottom up and top down, as it were).[134] [135] [136]Hutchinson has also emphasised that Hemmingsen’s work on natural law is better seen in the context of Melanchthonian Lutheranism’ than as a preÂcursor of Grotius. On Hutchinson’s account this also means that Melanchthon and Hemmingsen should not be seen as voluntarists solely seeking the validÂity of natural law in Scripture. Rather, they should be seen as squarely within established conceptions of natural law, e.g. that of Thomas Aquinas, although Hemmingsen also relied on the Lutheran distinction between theology and philosophy, and conceptions of the three estates. In sum, Hutchinson sees Hemmingsen’s work as entirely in line with Melanchthon, reiterating received natural law wisdom, and (in effect against Kaltenborn’s view) with any novelty being only in the method by which the conclusions are reached?3
3