QuestionsMust we always obey the law?Before the emperor: "My conscience is bound to the Word of God"
Must we always obey the law?Conscience first

Before the emperor: "My conscience is bound to the Word of God"

Luther at Worms

Martin Luther 1483 · 1546Before God, the human will is not free: without grace it wills evil; with grace it wills the good; but it never chooses its master. It is "bound".
See profile
What it claims

Luther can neither recant nor will he: an authority cannot demand obedience against conscience as long as it has not convinced it.

Why

His conscience is bound to God's Word, and acting against conscience is neither safe nor right: he will not recant without proof.

In short

"Before the emperor: "My conscience is bound to the Word of God"" is an argument by Martin Luther (Answer to the Diet of Worms, 18 April 1521 (WA 7, 838)) on the question "Must we always obey the law?" (answer: conscience first). Its claim: Luther can neither recant nor will he: an authority cannot demand obedience against conscience as long as it has not convinced it. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the conclusion does follow from its 3 premises. AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 2 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Answer to the Diet of Worms, 18 April 1521 (WA 7, 838)
Valid

In April 1521 Luther is summoned by Emperor Charles V and the Diet of Worms to disown his books. He asks for time, then answers: he will recant only if convinced by Scripture or by evident reason, since he trusts neither pope nor councils alone, who have erred and contradicted themselves. His conscience is "captive" to the words of God, and acting against conscience is neither safe nor right. The famous line "Here I stand, I can do no other" ("Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders") is doubtful: the Weimar edition prints it in German at the end, in brackets ("Ich kan nicht anderst, hie stehe ich, Got helff mir, Amen"), but it is missing from most witnesses, including the manuscript; the familiar order comes from the Wittenberg, Jena and Erlangen editions. "God help me, amen" is better attested. The argument does not say everyone is always right: it says that an authority, even a legitimate one, cannot oblige someone to act against a conviction he cannot refute.

P1An authority can change a mind only by proof: Scripture or evident reason. Pope and councils alone are not enough, since they are known to have erred and contradicted themselves.
P2Luther has not been refuted: the texts he cited convince him and his conscience is bound by the words of God.
P3Acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor right.
P4 · implicit premiseAn order, even from a legitimate authority, cannot oblige one to do what one holds, after sincere examination, to be contrary to the truth.
Luther can neither recant nor will he: an authority cannot demand obedience against conscience as long as it has not convinced it.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Analogy.

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

J
Johann von der Ecken, the emperor's spokesman (official of the archbishop of Trier) 1521 · attacks premise 1

Luther, you are not the only one to know Scripture: holy doctors have laboured day and night to find its true sense. Do not set your judgment above so many eminent men.

a defender replies
Luther defender of the argument · 1521
Luther replies that he trusts "neither pope nor councils alone", since they are known to have erred and contradicted themselves. His rule: be convinced by Scripture or reason, not by numbers or rank.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Our summary: the disagreement is about proof. For the accusation, centuries of shared reading weigh more than a single reader. For Luther only proof counts, and authority has already erred.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) 1651 · attacks premise 3

Hobbes judges this doctrine repugnant to civil society: if whatever one does against one's conscience is sin, each person makes himself judge of good and evil, and no law holds any more.

a defender replies
Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience) defender of the argument · 1849
Without answering Hobbes, whom he does not cite, Thoreau defends the opposite view: must the citizen ever for a moment resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? For him, we should be men first and subjects afterwards.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Our summary: Hobbes fears private conscience will ruin common order; Thoreau, that common order will ruin conscience. Luther is on Thoreau's side, but he puts a condition on his conscience: it must be bound by Scripture or reason, not by mere feeling.
Plato (Crito, the Laws speak to Socrates) 399 BC · attacks the conclusion

Before the city there are two ways: to convince it, or to do what it commands, and suffer in silence if it so commands. If persuasion fails, one must obey.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Luther in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Our summary: Luther does not discuss the Crito. But at Worms he takes the first way, offering to be convinced by Scripture or evident reason; if he is not, he refuses the second. So Plato and Luther part over what remains when the authority will not yield: obey (Socrates) or refuse (Luther).