The other day Philip Augustine asked me in a comment how Luther’s Two Kingdoms squared with Aquinas’ thoughts on tyrannicide. Here’s the comment
On a side note, I’m perplexed with Luther’s stance on loyalty to Princes and going against Aquinas’ thoughts on tyrannicide.
I frankly don’t know enough about Aquinas’ views to give a coherent, let alone good answer. But I have run across what seems to me a good exposition of both Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” as well as St. Augustine’s “Two Cities” and how one grew from the other, as well as how American Lutherans have taken these thoughts and updated them for our society.
I found these quite fascinating and hope you do as well, considering they shed considerable light on many of our contemporary issues.
And
via The Two Cities vs. the Two Kingdoms
By no means are these a complete answer to the question, but perhaps they form a starting point for the discussion.
The most pertinent writing that I found in a somewhat cursory search was this: ‘Death to Tyrants’: The Political Philosophy of Tyrannicide – Part I
Though Luther and Calvin shared the belief that to rebel was to dispute against the order instated by God (Luther 1983: Vol. 44, 45) both writers maybe interpreted as permitting tyrannicide in certain circumstances (Luther 1983:Vol. 46; Vol. 45: 113). Luther held that only the whole community couldcondemn the tyrant to death (Waring 1968: 14–16) but Calvinist principles provided for a ‘duty of resistance to tyrants and the right of deposing kings’(Wight 1992: 11). Similarly, Calvin openly permitted the right of resistance bythose organs of government entrusted with restraining Monarchical power, suchas the Estates, and though he denied the right to kill a tyrant, he did suggest thatresistancemight beauthorised byarepresentative council (Neumann 1957: 159
Whereas Aquinas says this
Through a series of objections and counters Aquinas concludes that like the Holy Martyrs who ‘suffered death rather than obey the impious orders of tyrants’, ‘when there is no recourse to a superior by whom judgment can be made… then he who slays a tyrant to liberate hisfatherland is praised and receives a reward’ (1985b: Distinction 44, Question 2,Article 1). Similar to the conception of freedom under Roman law, Aquinas likens the state of tyranny to slavery (1985a: Vol. 41) and claims that there isno difference between being subject to a tyrant and being ravaged by a wildbeast (1988: 20).
The main difference that I see here is that Aquinas allows one person acting alone to perform Tyrannicide whereas Luther maintains that it must be the community acting in concert.
All Along the Watchtower 
Let me guess……Um…..this is a Lutheran service. What made me wonder was the Isis Horus and Seth symbol behind the speaker. My first guess was Anglican or catholic. But it hit me immediately that there was no Tammuz behind the speaker. Virtually every cathol service has Tammuz standing up big and tall behind the priest. If not Tammuz, they have Semiramis. What gave away the religion was that as I watched, the speaker kept talking about Luther and showd a pic of Luther. Hey, no problem with me. I am probably Luthers biggest fan. He wrote my favorite song…Eine feste burg. Plus, the devilish cult at Rome, which he exposed as being satanic and corrupt, never got to kill him like they did everyone else who exposed their seamy underbelly.
Im wondering if those are standard Lutheran church services. I would rather sit thru a lecture on wave functions than to endure that for more than an hour. I started to go crosseyed after 60 seconds of this sermon. Do they pass out No Dose at the door as you walk in?
Ive seen 7th Dayer and Catholic services galor, and 75% of the services the speaker tries to show why their religion is the true religion. Instead of edifying the devotees they convince them they are saved because they belong to this religion. This Lutheral speaker does the same but in a more hidden way. Holding up Luther as a demigod in a round about way convinces the devotee that they are in gods true religion.
My grandmother put my oler sister in a Lutheran Hi School hoping to make a better student and person out of her. She refused to go back after one year of what she called forced prayer befor and after every class and befor you eat and going to bathroom and befor blowing your nose. I kept that in mind in case my parents ever tried to put me in a Lutheran school.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks. If anyman hear his voice and open, he will come in and sup with him.
LikeLike
Of course, this was far from theoretical since it influenced the English Protestant Parliamentarians in their debates about the trial, imprisonment, and execution of Charles I.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, especially Calvin’s views, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once I thought I had seen a move to venerate Charles I as a Saint or at least as part-way along the process, which horrifies me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certain number of English Catholics tend that way. I can understand, but they need to read history better, or redefine saint.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, and that’s what really annoys me – when people don’t read their history or don’t use their reason. For that reason I am leaving behind a lot of “fundamentalist” rhetoric and sentiment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, and that’s why tend towards historic Lutheranism, as well. What was broke, that needed fixing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. We are seeing a very disturbing trend in modern evangelical circles (and others) towards a split between those who refuse to accept rational arguments and room for flexibility and those who are trying to show that we need to think through things carefully. Luther et al. affirmed the role of reason in the Church – he was a product of Renaissance thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Key there is “in the church” I think. Too much of the independent evangelicals have turned into, I don’t know, nearly Bosco. They didn’t reason themselves into it, and no is going to reason them back to rationality, either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You rang?
LikeLike
I’m providing a link for any who wish to sift through the scholasticism of Aquinas for our community edification. http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Sent2d44q2a2.htm
Here’s Aquinas’ except on killing tyrants.
I Sentences, Distinction 44, Question 2, Article 2
Whether Christians are bound to obey secular powers, especially tyrants
“Ad 5. To the fifth argument the answer is that Cicero speaks of domination obtained by violence and ruse, the subjects being unwilling or even forced to accept it and there being no recourse open to a superior who might pronounce judgment upon the usurper. In this case he that kills the tyrant for the liberation of the country, is praised and rewarded.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Philip, I at least will follow it.
LikeLike
I suppose the question is what constitutes as a community and/or individual?
For examples:
Did the American Colonists acts justly to rebel against their Prince, were they considered a community?
also:
Did Claus von Stauffenberg act as an individual or can we say he was acting in the frameworks of a community?
Overall, it would be very difficult, especially in modern circumstances to act solely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also, for the record and perhaps it’s the Catholic in me, but the more I reflect on Thomas Paine’s commentary on 1 Samuel 8, the more I think it’s a poor argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I can’t remember the exact commentary from Paine, but it doesn’t seem overly apt, really. There are better ones in my mind.
LikeLike
Exactly, I suppose my answer for the founders would be: Yes. If only the whig community as described by Burke et al.
For von Stauffenberg, I would again say yes, but it is more nebulous, the honor of the Juenker aristocracy, going back to the Teutoburger knights. Not forgetting that Bonhoeffer had reached the same conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh..If only men like von Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer were lionized and studied in our Universities…
LikeLiked by 1 person
If only! Bonhoeffer receives much respect from Lutherans here. Not so much from Calvinists in my experience, although the Evangelical Church in Germany is a forced merger of them. Sadly von Stauffenberg is little known, and in truth Valkyrie did have a keystone cops feel to it, sadly.
But, Heroes for modern times, both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think von Stauffenberg legacy struggles in Western countries because ultimately he was a reactionary politically. Although, I would make the argument that most deeply religious people have at least a partial foot on that line. However, von Stauffenberg use to write in notebooks about the rising of old Catholic German monarchs to put down the Reich. A monarchist in the 20th century, not so celebrated, especially by those who have co-opted words like democracy and liberalism to be interchangeable with socialism and secularism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed there is some of that in all of us who answer as either traditional or conservative. To conserve is to keep the best, and discard the worst, after all. It’s crossed my mind, because I can’t picture Hitler if we had left the Hohenzollerns on their throne, and arguably the Habsburgs as well. If I recall the Crown Prince sounded like a pretty good candidate, and Germany would surely have been better for having a constitutional monarch. We managed to enshrine some documents, but most revolutions end up with a tyrant, as did Germany.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The more I’m faced with how liberalism in the West has been trying to snuff out Christianity, I am of the mind to think that democracy is not the a Godly form of government. One could make the argument that Paine’s argument for 1 Samuel 8 is more or less rooted in a anti-Catholic worldview due to opinions on abuses of Popes and Christian monarchs which hinges on verse 7 of that text.
However, can we challenge Paine’s idea? First off, In the context of scripture, it appears that Samuel set up a nepotist oligarchy, which his sons through their bureaucratic intrigue led to corruption. The people demanded a change, God declared a divine kingship over the people, but conceded to the free will of his people.
Furthermore, all of what Samuel warns about in the rights of the king 1 Samuel 8:10-18 happens in every government created by men. So, in essence, it isn’t the form of government, but rather, any governing body that isn’t Divine because of our Original Sin and/or concupiscence (depending on one’s theology) will do all of what Samuel warns. Overall, Samuel in the context of the reading just seems upset of the people’s reproach of his sons.
10 Samuel delivered the message of the Lord in full to those who were asking him for a king. 11 He told them: “The governance of the king who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. 12 He will appoint from among them his commanders of thousands and of hundreds. He will make them do his plowing and harvesting and produce his weapons of war and chariotry. 13 He will use your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will tithe your crops and grape harvests to give to his officials[a] and his servants. 16 He will take your male and female slaves, as well as your best oxen and donkeys, and use them to do his work. 17 He will also tithe your flocks. As for you, you will become his slaves. 18 On that day you will cry out because of the king whom you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you on that day.”
In the end, it’s all rooted in the idea, of points you’ve connected in this post. There are two cities, and yes, we must exist in one, but our true leader, our true KING through the only kingship and rule that God gave authority to was through the line of David–and tomorrow we celebrate it.
Christ the King.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hard to argue with any of that, mostly because I basically agree, sadly the other forms are worse. That why our documents are so important, dividing power makes it somebody’s business to keep the other honest and vice versa.
Paine of course was pretty much a freethinker and it often shows, more of a friend of Mobocracy than most of the founders.
Yes, we have to coexist (sad that the term has been co-opted) in each of the two cities, trying to make the left one conform somewhat with the right one. A tough and eternal quest, I’m afraid.
But that is one of the things that Samuel does show us, a divine right king is no better, and likely worse than democracy, and those kings had a real divine right, not the sham one of European history.
LikeLiked by 1 person