Proto-Protestantism: The Magdeburg Confession of 1550

25 May 2025

The Magdeburg Confession of 1550

While there is much to laud with regard to Lutheranism, the 1550 Magdeburg Confession is a remarkable exception. Written by Lutheran pastors, the document argues for the basis of lawful resistance - in other words the justification for Christians killing others to secure their own rights and privileges. Indeed, there are times when Christian must resist certain laws. But it must be asked if this perceived need or right allows the Christian to abandon New Testament ethics? Is this not a case of the end justifying the means?

Paul warns against an ethos of doing evil that good may come. But as always such events take place in a historical context and while we might grant the people at that time and place were forced to wrestle with tough decisions and impossible dilemmas, it's troubling that over four centuries later, it seems (at times) as if nothing has been learned and no wisdom has been gained.

In this case, they were opposed to the forced reintroduction of Roman Catholicism. That's certainly something we can sympathize with. But what was their response? Did they flee or argue that the faithful should do so? Did they simply state their refusal and express a willingness to accept the cost?

No, they argued for armed resistance on the basis of a lesser magistrate. Wishing to avoid the grass roots chaos of the Peasant's War which was still a raw wound in living memory, they appealed on the basis of the Magisterial Reformation - that the ecclesiastical reforms had been legitimately legislated on the basis of rights and the will of the people. On that basis (they argued) the princes of the city could legitimately take up arms and resist the state - and under that aegis individual Christians could do the same.

This principle which stands in opposition to the New Testament is promoted by contemporary heretics like Matthew Trewhella and others who tacitly encourage Christians to take up arms against the state - especially if they can find local and state officials to sponsor the rebellion to that end.

Others will weave together a narrative combining these principles with the later Enlightenment's revolutionary theories. They actively promote the American Revolution's principles while attempting to differentiate and eschew those of the French Revolution a few years later. This is a fiction that relies on the fact that the French Revolution went sideways and devolved into the Reign of Terror and ultimately Bonapartism. And yet it originally was of one spirit with the American rebellion - the testimony of Lafayette and Washington bear this out. The context of the French Revolution was of course different. No mere attempt at secession, it was forced to actually overthrow the institutions of state at their foundation and that's where everything went amiss. Such an endeavour included the Roman Catholic Church and needless to say the whole thing descended into chaos. More could be said on that point but readers need to be aware there's a lot of bad information out there and considerable politically-motivated manipulation of historical facts.

One of the most egregious examples of this is found with Francis Schaeffer who attempted to argue that Locke (who greatly influenced the American Founders) had posited nothing more than a secular re-hashing of Samuel Rutherford's theories in Lex, Rex. This analogy has been shown to be false as they argued from completely different bases and epistemological assumptions. Scottish Covenanting and its theocratic motivations are not the same as Social Contract. Likewise it is common today to find thinkers such as Os Guinness erroneously (and ridiculously) suggesting the Old Covenant Theocracy was some sort of republic - revealing a very distorted understanding of redemptive-history and the Kingdom typology at work in the Mosaic order. He then asserts that America was founded as a kind of Judeo-Christian Republic based on the pattern of the Old Testament - his arguments degenerating into theological error and myth-making.

But I digress. The pastors and leaders of Magdeburg rested their Christian-Protestant profession and its security on the basis of the sword. The Second Schmalkaldic War was fought in 1552 and the Protestant victory resulted in the 1555 Peace of Augsburg.

But the seeds of corruption had been sown as was evident by the fact that their refusal brought siege upon them - not by a Roman Catholic prince but a Protestant one of divided loyalty, torn between adherence to his Lutheran faith and his place in the Empire. The irony is thick and yet indicative of the poison of Christian politicking and the divided loyalties, allegiances, and motivations it will always produce.

Like a Second Constantinian Shift, the Magisterial Protestant movement sold itself out to politics, political and military security, and thus to the mammon concerns that go with it.

These divided loyalties and issues of politicking and resting religious security on the laws and decrees of the state would lead to dire conflagration in subsequent generations. The Thirty Years War was the result and in 1631 the city which had professed its faith by putting the cross on a shield (as it were) and by resting on the power of the sword would suffer one of the worst episodes of one of the worst and must destructive wars in history. Sacked by Tilly of the Catholic League, more than 20,000 would perish and Magdeburg was destroyed.

The lessons of history have not been learned and this is evident by the continued promotion of Magdeburg by the lies of Trewhella. Let the Church today take warning - those who live by the sword will die by it. And all the more if you put your confidence in princes or go to Egypt for help.