. . . My position, then, is this: In view of the fact that our faith is supported by Holy Writ, we must not depart from its words as they read, nor from the order in which they are placed. . . . Otherwise, what is to become of the Bible?" (20, 213.)
22. Luther a Preacher of Violence against the Hierarchy.
In his fight against papal supremacy Luther discovered that the Roman priesthood was the Pope"s chief support. The principle of community of interests had knitted both the higher and the lower clergy, the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, parish priests, monks, etc., together into one firmly compacted society. All its members understood that they were working in a common cause, and kept in constant and close rapport with one another: What concerned one concerned all the rest. Each aided and abetted the other, and all strove jointly to exalt their master, the Pope. Like a huge net the rule of priests was spread over mankind, and all men, with their spiritual and secular interests, were caught in this net. The system was called a hierarchy, that is, a holy government. The priesthood and the holy orders were the Pope"s collateral. All its members derived what authority they possessed from the Pope; their fortunes were bound up in the Pope"s. This priest-rule Luther overthrew by causing men to see the liberty with which Christ has made them free. Catholic critics claim that by so doing Luther rebelled against an ordinance of G.o.d. We have shown in chapter 18 that Luther acknowledges in the Church of Christ a ministry that exists by divine appointment. Hence the Catholic charge that Luther revolted from G.o.d when he disputed the divine right of the hierarchy is silly.
However, Luther is said to have "recklessly encouraged the destruction of the episcopate, and openly commanded sacrilege and murder" to mobs.
The appeal of Luther that the _rule_ of bishops be exterminated is interpreted to mean that the bishops be exterminated. This is one of the most wanton charges that could be preferred against Luther. By the Theses against Tetzel the attention of many prominent men in Germany was attracted to Luther. Princes and n.o.blemen of the Empire had for some time been studying from a secular point of view the evils which Luther had begun to attack on spiritual grounds. These men understood the character of the Roman hierarchy much better than Luther. They saw at once that Luther"s action would lead to serious complication that might ultimately have to be settled with the sword. When Luther was still dreaming about convincing the Pope with arguments from Scripture, German n.o.blemen were preparing to defend him against physical violence. They knew that the hierarchy would not without a fierce struggle submit to any curtailment of their power. They offered Luther armed support.
Luther recoiled with horror from this suggestion. In a letter from the Wartburg which he wrote to his friend Spalatin who was still tarrying at Worms, Luther refers to one of these warlike knights as follows: "What Hutten has in mind you can see [from the writings of the knight which he enclosed]. I would not like to see men fight for the Gospel with force and bloodshed. I have answered that parson (_dem Menschen_) accordingly.
By the Word the world has been overcome, the Church has been preserved; by the Word it will also be restored. As to Antichrist, he began his rule without physical force, and will also be destroyed without physical force, by the Word." (15, 2506.) The letter from which these words are quoted is dated January 16, 1522. Nine months before this date, on May 14, when he had been on the Wartburg about ten days, Luther writes to the same party: "It is for good reasons that I have not answered your letter ere this: I hesitated from fear that the report recently gone out of my being held captive might prompt somebody to intercept my letters.
A great many things are related about me at this place; however, the opinion is beginning to prevail that I was captured by friends sent for this purpose from Franconia. To-morrow the safe-conduct granted me by the emperor expires. I am sorry that, as you write me, there is an intention to apply the very severe [imperial] edict also for the purpose of exploring men"s consciences; not on my account, but because they [the papists] are ill-advised in this and will bring misfortune on their own heads, and because they continue to load themselves with very great odium. Oh, what hatred will this shameless violence kindle! However, they may have their way; perhaps the time of their visitation is near.
--So far I have not heard from our people either at Wittenberg or elsewhere. About the time of our arrival at Eisenach the young men [the students] at Erfurt had, during the night, damaged a few priests"
dwellings, from indignation because the dean of St. Severus Inst.i.tute, a great papist, had caught Magister Draco, a gentleman who is favorably inclined to us, by his ca.s.sock and had publicly dragged him from the choir, pretending that he had been excommunicated for having gone to meet me at my arrival at Erfurt. Meanwhile people are fearing greater disturbances; the magistrates are conniving, for the local priests are in ill repute, and it is being reported that the artisans are allying themselves with the student-body. The prophetic saying seems about to come true which runs: Erfurt is another Prague. [There was rioting in Prague in the days of Hus, whom Rome burned at the stake.]--I was told yesterday that a certain priest at Gotha has met with rough treatment because his people had bought certain estates (I do not know which), in order to increase the revenue of the church, and, under pretext of their ecclesiastical immunity, had refused to pay the inc.u.mbrances and taxes on the same. We see that the people, as also Erasmus writes, are unable and unwilling any longer to bear the yoke of the Pope and the papists.
And still we do not cease coercing and burdening them, although--now that everything has been brought to light--we have lost our reputation and their good will, and our former halo of sanct.i.ty can no longer avail or exert the influence which it exerted formerly. Heretofore we have increased hatred by violence and by violence have suppressed it; however, whether we can continue suppressing it experience will show."
(15, 2510.) To Melanchthon he wrote about this time: "I hear that at Erfurt they are resorting to violence against the dwellings of priests.
I am surprised that the city council permits this and connives at it, and that our dear friend Lang keeps silent. For although it is good that those impious men who will not desist are kept in check, still this procedure will bring the Gospel into disrepute, and will cause men justly to spurn it. I would write to Lang, but as yet I dare not. For such a display of friendliness to our cause as these people show is very offensive to me, because it clearly shows that we are not yet worthy servants in G.o.d"s sight, and that Satan is mocking and laughing at our efforts [of reform]. Oh, how I do fear that all this is like the fig tree in the parable, of which the Lord, Matt. 21, predicts that it will merely sprout before the Day of Judgment, but will bear no fruit. What we teach is, indeed, the truth; however, it amounts to nothing if we do not practise what we preach." (15, 1906.)
Disquieting rumors of excesses that were being perpetrated by radical followers of the evangelical teaching had reached Luther also from Wittenberg. To obtain a clear insight into the actual state of affairs, he made a secret visit to his home town in the beginning of December, 1521. Returning to his exile, he wrote his _Faithful Admonition to All Christians to Avoid Tumult and Rebellion._ In this treatise Luther reasons as follows: The papacy, with all its great inst.i.tutions, cloisters, universities, laws and doctrines, is nothing but lies. On lies it was raised, by lies it is supported, with lies and frauds and cheats it deceives, misleads, and oppresses men. Accordingly, all that is necessary to overthrow its dominion is to recognize its lying character, and to publish it and the papacy will collapse as if blown aside by the breath of the Almighty, as Scripture says it shall happen to Antichrist. To start a riot against the papists would never improve them, and would only cause them to vilify the cause of their opponents.
In times of tumult, people lose their reason and do more harm to innocent people than to the guilty. Public wrongs should be redressed by the magistrates, who are vested with authority for that purpose. No matter how just a cause may be, it never justifies rioting. Luther declares that he will rather side with those who suffer in, than with those who start, a riot. Rioting is forbidden in G.o.d"s Law (Dent. 16, 20; 32, 35). This particular rioting against the papists has been instigated by the devil, in order to divert people"s minds from the real spiritual issues of the times, and to bring the cause of the Gospel into disrepute. Luther feels these tumultuous proceedings as a disgrace.
"People who read and understand my teaching correctly," he says, "do not start riots. They were not taught such things by me. If any engage in such proceedings and drag my name into it, what can I do to stop them?
How many things are the papists doing in the name of Christ which Christ never commanded!" Luther begs all who glory in the name of Christians to conduct themselves as Paul demands 2 Cor. 6, 3: "Giving no offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed." (10, 360 ff.) Whoever can, ought to treat himself to the reading of this fine treatise of the exiled monk of Wittenberg.
The iconoclastic uprising which broke out in Wittenberg in the closing days of the month of February, 1522, finally decided Luther, at the risk of his life, to quit his exile and to fight the devil, who was trying to subvert his good doctrine by such wicked practises. The world knows that it was Luther who quelled the riot in his town. Luther"s face was ever sternly set against those who wanted to wage the Lord"s wars with the devil"s weapons. No murder or sacrilege that was committed in those days can be laid at the door of Luther"s teaching.
The Catholics are trying to divert attention from their own unwarranted and violent proceedings by charging Luther with preaching a war of extermination against their hierarchy. How did they treat the just claims and reasonable demands of the German nation for measures that were admitted to be crying needs of the times? No German diet met but a long list of grievances was submitted by the suffering people. It was of no avail. The haughty clergy rode over the people"s rights and prayers rough-shod. The tyrannous devices which their cunning had invented were executed with brazen impudence. How had they treated simple laymen in whose possession a Bible was found? What was their inquisitorial court but the anteroom to holy butchers" shambles, the legal vestibule to murder that had been sanctioned by the Popes? How had they treated Luther? If the papal nuncio at the Diet of Worms had had his way with the emperor and the princes, Luther would not have left that city alive.
They openly declared to the emperor that he was not obliged to keep his plighted word for a safe-conduct to a heretic. These people come now at this late day prating about violence that they have suffered from this sacrilegious and bloodthirsty Luther. They themselves were the perpetrators of the most appalling violence against G.o.d and men: their whole system rests, as Johann Gerhard in his famous _Confessio Catholica_ rightly a.s.serts, on _Fraus et Vis,_ that is, Fraud and Violence.
23. Luther, Anarchist and Despot All in One.
Extremes met, with most disastrous effect-so Catholic writers tell us-in Luther"s views of the political rights of men. At one time he was so outspoken in his condemnation of the oppression which the common people were suffering from the clergy, the n.o.bility, and their aristocratic governors that he incited them to discontent with their humble lot in life, to unrest, and to open rebellion against their magistrates. At another time he became the spokesman for the most p.r.o.nounced absolutism and despotism. He turned suddenly against the very people whose cause he had so signally championed, and who hailed him as their prophet and leader. When the poor, downtrodden people needed him most, Luther cowardly deserted them, and by frenzied utterances excited the n.o.bility to slay the common people without mercy in the most ruthless fashion, and even promised the lords whom he had denounced as tyrants heaven for enacting the barbaric cruelties to which he was urging them. This is the Catholic portrayal of Luther during the Peasants" War.
The relation of the peasant uprising to Luther"s preaching is grossly misrepresented when the impression is created that Luther had before this sad upheaval worked hand in glove with the malcontent rustics for the overthrow of the government. Disturbances of this kind had been periodical occurrences in Europe for many hundreds of years. The heavy taxes and t.i.thes, and the forced labor which the lords exacted from their tenants, who were little better than serfs, the galling restrictions in regard to hunting, fishing, gathering wood in the forests which they had imposed on them, the foreign Roman law under which they tried cases in court, and, in general, their haughty and contemptuous bearing toward the common people had for many generations created strained relations between the upper and the lower cla.s.ses. The estrangement which developed into open defiance existed among the peasants before Luther had begun to preach. Nor can Luther"s teaching be said to have fanned the slumbering embers of discontent into a huge flame. The liberty of a Christian man which he had proclaimed was not such liberty as the peasants demanded and wrested to themselves when the revolt had reached its height. Luther had consistently taught that obedience to the government is a Christian duty. He had, as we have shown in the preceding chapter, warned with telling force against riot, tumult, and sedition. He had deprecated any allying of the cause of the Gospel and of spiritual freedom with the carnal strivings of disaffected men for mere temporal and secular advantages. He had reminded Christians that it was their duty to suffer wrong rather than do wrong.
On the other hand, Luther had pleaded the cause of the poor before the lords, and had earnestly warned the n.o.bility not to continue their tyranny, but conciliate their subjects by yielding to their just demands. He had fearlessly pointed out to the lords what was galling in their conduct to the common, people-their pride and luxurious living, their disregard of the commonest rights of man, their despotic dealings with their humble subjects, their rude behavior and exasperating conduct toward the men, women, and children whom they made toil and slave for them.
Maintaining, thus, an honest equipoise between the two contrary forces, and dealing out even-handed justice to both, Luther was conscious of serving the true interests of either side and laboring for the common welfare of all. With his implicit faith in the power of G.o.d"s Word he was hoping for a gradual improvement of the situation. The conflict would be adjusted in a quiet and orderly manner by the truth obtaining greater and greater sway over the minds of men. Luther had had no inkling of an impending clash between the peasants and the n.o.bility when the revolt broke out with the fury of a cyclone. Luther was shocked. He promptly hurried to the scene of the disturbances by request of the Count of Mansfeld. It speaks volumes for the integrity of Luther that both sides were willing to permit him to arbitrate their differences.
The invitation came originally from the peasants and was addressed to Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and the Elector Frederick jointly, but it was not acted on until Count Albert invited Luther to come to Eisleben. The _Exhortation to Peace on the Twelve Articles of the Peasants_ which Luther issued, after having investigated the situation, rebukes the lords with considerably more sternness than the commoners, but makes fair suggestions for the composition of the differences.
Before Luther takes up the "Twelve Articles of the Peasants" for detailed discussion, he informs them that he considers their whole procedure wrong, even if all their demands were just, because they have resorted to force to secure their right. A beautiful sentiment for an anarchist to utter, is it not? In Article I the peasants demanded freedom to elect their own pastors, who were to preach the Gospel without any human additions. That this request should be embodied in the peasants" plea for their political rights, and that it should be made the foremost demand, is highly suggestive as to the princ.i.p.al cause of their unrest. To this article Luther gave his unreserved endors.e.m.e.nt.
Article II sought to regulate the income of priests-again a very suggestive request: preachers were to receive for their sustenance no more than the t.i.thes, the remainder of the church-income was to be set aside so as to render it unnecessary to tax the poor in war-times. On this point Luther held that the t.i.thes belong to the government, and to turn them over to any one else would be simple robbery. Article III demanded the abolition of serfdom, however, as a test whether the Christianity of the lords was genuine. The peasants implied that their political liberty had been secured by Christ, and that the lords were withholding it from them. This argument Luther rejected as a carnal perversion of the Gospel. Articles IV-X submitted these demands: The poor man is to be accorded the right to fish and hunt; all wooded lands usurped by bishops or n.o.blemen without making payment therefor are to revert to the community, and in case payment had been made, a settlement is to be effected by mutual agreement; burdensome exactions, services, taxes, and fines are to be rescinded; court trials are to be free from partiality and jealousy; meadows and lands which of right belong to the community are to be returned by their present owners. On these points Luther suggests that the opinions of good lawyers be obtained. Article XI deals with the right of heriot, or the death-tax imposed upon the widow or heir of a tenant. This was approved. In the last article the peasants express their readiness to withdraw any or all of these requests that are shown to be contrary to Scripture, and ask permission to subst.i.tute others for them.
Luther was in a fair way of bringing about an amicable settlement of the differences. Philip of Hesse had at the same time come to a full agreement with the peasants in his domains, and peace seemed near, when the real genius of the whole peasant movement, Muenzer, interfered.
Luther had suspected for some time that this unscrupulous agitator was spreading the teaching of unbridled license under pretense of preaching liberty, and that the mystical piety which he was reported as practising, his leaning towards the reform movement, and his references to Luther and the "new Gospel," were nothing but the angel"s garment which a very wicked devil had borrowed for purposes of deception. When Muenzer at the head of hordes of men who through his inflammatory speeches had been turned into unreasoning brutes was spreading ruin and desolation along his path, wiping out in a few days the products of the patient labors of generations, subverting the fundamental principles of honesty, justice, and morality on which the organized public life of the community and the private life of the individual must rest, and rapidly changing even the well-meaning and reasonable among the peasants into frenzied madmen, Luther recognized that conciliatory measures and arbitration would not avail with these mobs. His duty as a teacher of G.o.d"s Word and as a loyal subject of his government demanded prompt and stern action from him. However, back of the terrible mien with which Luther now faced the wild peasants there is a heart of love; in the appalling language which he now uses against men whose cause he had befriended there is discernible a note of pity for the poor deluded wretches who thought they were rearing a paradise when they were building bedlam. Above all, the great heart of Luther is torn with anguish over the shame that is now being heaped on the blessed Gospel of his dear Lord. Luther did not desert the peasants, but they deserted him; they were the traitors, not he.
There is a diabolical streak in the character of Thomas Muenzer. He parades as the People"s Man, and the German people in the sixteenth century never had a worse enemy. His fluent speech and great oratory seemed honey to the peasants, but they were the veriest poison. He spoke the language of a saint, and lived the life of a profligate and a reprobate. It is hard to believe that his error was merely the honest fanaticism of a blind bigot; there is a malign element in it that betrays conscious wickedness. This raving demon should be studied more by Catholics when they investigate the Peasants" Revolt. They have their eyes on Luther; his every word and action are placed under the microscope. But the real culprit is treated as the hero in a tragedy. He was a blind enthusiast; he mistook his aims; he selected wrong means and methods for achieving his aim. He did wickedly, and we may have to curse him some for decency"s sake, but be deserves pity, too, for he was the misguided pupil of that arch-heretic Luther. That is Catholic equity in estimating Luther"s share in the peasant uprising. We only note in conclusion that Thomas Muenzer died in the arms of the alone-saving Church, a penitent prodigal that had returned to the bosom of "Holy Mother." Luther did not die thus, and that makes a great deal of difference.
Catholics father upon Luther not only the Peasants" Revolt, but every revolutionary movement which since then has occurred in Europe. The political unrest which has at various times agitated the ma.s.ses in France, England, and Germany, the changes in the government which were brought about in such times, are all attributed to the revolutionary tendencies in Luther"s writings. So is the disrespect shown by citizens of the modern State to persons in authority, the bold and scathing criticism indulged in by subjects against their government. There is hardly a political disturbance anywhere but what ingenious Catholics will manage to connect with Luther. Read Luther, and you will inevitably become an anarchist.
But Luther is also credited with the very opposite of anarchism. When the Peasants" Revolt had been put down by the lords, they began to strengthen their despotic power over the people, and a worse tyranny resulted than had existed before. It is pointed out that absolutism, the claim of kings that they are ruling by divine right and are not responsible to the people, has taken firm root in all Protestant countries, and that even the Protestant churches in these countries are mere fixtures of the State. This, too, we are asked to believe, is a result of Luther"s teaching. Luther is not only the spiritual ring-leader of mobs, but also the sycophant of despots. It is particularly offensive to Catholics to see Luther hailed as the champion of political liberty. Let us try and make up our minds about Luther"s views of the secular government from Luther"s own words. Dr. Waring, in his _Political Theories of Luther,_ has made a very serviceable collection of statements of Luther on this matter.
"In his tract on Secular Authority (10, 374 ff.) Luther maintains that the State exists by G.o.d"s will and inst.i.tution; for the Apostle Paul writes: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G.o.d: the powers that be are ordained of G.o.d. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resiseth [tr. note: sic] the ordinance of G.o.d; and they that resist shall receive to themselves d.a.m.nation" (Rom.
13, 1. 2). The Apostle Peter exhorts: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord"s sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well" (1 Pet. 2, 13. 14). The right of the sword has existed since the beginning of the world. When Cain killed his brother Abel, he was so fearful of being put to death himself that G.o.d laid a special prohibition thereupon that no one should kill him, which fear he would not have had, had he not seen and heard from Adam that murderers should be put to death.
Further, after the Flood, G.o.d repeated and confirmed it in explicit language, when He declared: "Whoso sheddeth man"s blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9, 6). This law was ratified later by the law of Moses: "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die"
(Ex. 21, 14); and yet again: "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex. 21, 23-25). Christ confirmed it also when He said to Peter in the garden: "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26, 52). The words of Christ: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil" (Matt. 5, 38. 39), "Love your enemies, . . . do good to them that hate you" (Matt. 5, 44), and similar pa.s.sages, having great weight, might seem to indicate that Christians under the Gospel should not have a worldly sword; but the human race is to be divided into two cla.s.ses, one belonging to the kingdom of G.o.d and the other to the kingdom of the world. To the first cla.s.s belong all true believers in Christ and under Christ, for Christ is King and Lord in the kingdom of G.o.d (Ps. 2, 6, and throughout the Scriptures). These people need no worldly sword or law, for they have the Holy Ghost in their hearts who suffer wrong gladly and themselves do wrong to no one.
There is no need of quarrel or contention, of court or punishment. St.
Paul says: "The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the unG.o.dly and for sinners" (1 Tim. 1, 9), for the righteous man of himself does everything that the law demands, and more; but the unrighteous do nothing right, and they therefore need the law to teach, constrain, and compel them to do right. A good tree requires no instruction or law that it may bring forth good fruit, but its nature causes it to bear fruit after its kind. Thus are all Christians so fashioned through the Spirit and faith that they do right naturally, more than man could teach them with all laws. All those who are not Christians in this particular sense belong to the kingdom of the world.
Inasmuch as there are few who are true Christians in faith and life, G.o.d established, in addition to the kingdom of G.o.d, another rule-that of temporal power and civil government, and gave it the sword to compel the wicked to be orderly. It is for this worldly estate that law is given.
Christ rules without law, alone through the Spirit, but worldly government protects the peace with the sword. Likewise, true Christians, although not in need of it for themselves, nevertheless render cheerful obedience to this government, through love for the others who need it. A Christian himself may wield the sword when called upon to maintain peace among men and to punish wrong. This authority, which is G.o.d"s handmaid, as St. Paul says, is as necessary and good as other worldly callings.
G.o.d therefore inst.i.tuted two regimens, or governments-the spiritual, which, through the Holy Ghost under Christ, makes Christians and pious people, and the worldly or temporal, which warns the non-Christians and the wicked that they must maintain external peace. We must clearly distinguish between these two powers and let them remain-the one that makes pious, the other that makes for external peace and protects against wickedness. Neither one is sufficient in the world without the other; for without the spiritual estate of Christ no one can be good before G.o.d through the worldly estate. Where civil government alone rules, there would be hypocrisy, though its laws were like G.o.d"s commandments themselves; for without the Holy Spirit in the heart none can be pious, whatever good works he may perform. Where the spiritual estate rules over land and people, there will be unbridled wickedness and opportunity for all kinds of villainy, for the common world cannot accept or understand it.-But it may be said, If, then, Christians do not need the temporal power or law, why does St. Paul say to all Christians: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers" (Rom. 13, 1)? In reply to this, it is to be said again that Christians among themselves and by and for themselves require no law or sword, for to them they are not necessary or useful. But because a true Christian on earth lives for and serves not himself, but his neighbor, so he also, from the nature of his spirit, does that which he himself does not need, but which is useful and necessary to his neighbor. The sword is a great and necessary utility to the whole world for the maintenance of peace, the punishment of wrong, and the restraint of the wicked. So the Christian pays tribute and tax, honors civil authority, serves, a.s.sists, and does everything he can do to maintain that authority with honor and fear." (p. 73 ff.)
In his _Appeal to the German n.o.bility_ (10, 266 ff.) Luther says: "Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by G.o.d for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons, whether it strike Popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be. If it were sufficient reason for fettering the temporal power that it is inferior among the offices of Christianity to the offices of priest or confessor, to the spiritual estate,-if this were so, then we ought to restrain tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, cellarmen, peasants, and all secular workmen from providing the Pope or bishops, priests and monks, with shoes, clothes, houses, or victuals, or from paying them t.i.thes. But if these laymen are allowed to do their work without restraint, what do the Romanist scribes mean by their laws? They mean that they withdraw themselves from the operation of temporal Christian power, simply in order that they may be free to do evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: "There shall be false teachers among you, . . . and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you" (2 Pet. 2, 1. 3). Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise its office without let or hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether Pope or bishop, or priest. Whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it.-Whatever the ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely the invention of Romanist arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to all Christians: "Let every soul" (I presume, including the Popes) "be subject unto the higher powers. . . . Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, . . . for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of G.o.d, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13, 1-4). Also St. Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord"s sake; . . . for so is the will of G.o.d" (1 Pet. 2, 13. 15). He has also foretold that men would come who would despise government (2 Pet. 2), as has come to pa.s.s through ecclesiastical law.-Although the work of the temporal power relates to the body, it yet belongs to the spiritual estate. Therefore it must do its duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole body, to punish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, without respect of Pope, bishops, or priests, let them threaten or excommunicate as they will. That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood before being given over to the secular arm; whereas this would not be right if the secular powers had not authority over him already by divine ordinance.-It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law should esteem so highly the liberty, life, and property of the clergy, as if laymen were not as good spiritual Christians, or not equally members of the Church. Why should your body, life, goods, and honor be free, and not mine, seeing that we are equal as Christians, and have received alike baptism, faith, spirit, and all things? If a priest is killed, the country is laid under an interdict; why not also if a peasant is killed?
Whence comes this great difference among equal Christians? Simply from human laws and inventions." (p. 96 ff.) This citation deserves to be specially pondered in view of the Catholic charge that Luther was a defender of absolutism, the divine right of kings. If Rome"s att.i.tude to kingcraft be studied, it will be found that Rome has been the supporter of the most tyrannous rulers. It is well, too, to remember Rome"s claim of a "divine right" of priests. Special laws of exemption and immunity, laws creating special privileges for priests, are not unknown in the annals of the world"s history. Whoever can, ought to read the entire _Appeal to the German n.o.bility;_ it will tell him many things that explain the Peasants" Revolt.
In his _Severe Booklet against the Peasants_ (16, 71 ff.) Luther explains the reasons for the harsh language which he uses against the marauders. "He says that the maxims dealing with mercy belong to the kingdom of G.o.d and among Christians, not to the kingdom of the world, which is the instrument of G.o.dly wrath upon the wicked. The instrument in the hand of the State is not a garland of roses or a flower of love, but a naked sword. As I declared at the time, he says, so declare I yet: Let every one who can, as he may be able, cut, stab, choke, and strike the stiff-necked, obdurate, blind, infatuated peasants; that mercy may be shown towards those who are destroyed, driven away, and misled by the peasants; that peace and security may be had. It is better to mercilessly cut off one member rather than lose the entire body through fire or plague. Furthermore, the insurgents are notoriously faithless, perjured, disobedient, riotous thieves, robbers, murderers, and blasphemers, so that there is not one of them but has well deserved death ten times over without mercy. If my advice had been followed in the very beginning, and a few lives had been taken, before the insurrection a.s.sumed such large proportions, thousands of lives would have been saved. The experience should make all parties involved wise."
-"If it be said," he continues, "that I myself teach lawlessness, when I urge all who can to cut down the rioters, my booklet was not written against common evil-doers, but against seditious rioters. There is a marked distinction between such a one and a murderer or robber and other ordinary criminals; for a murderer or similar criminal lets the head and civil authority itself stand, and attacks merely its members or its property. He, indeed, fears the government. Now, while the head remains, no individual should attack the murderer, because the head [civil authority] call punish him, but should wait for the judgment and sentence of that authority to which G.o.d has given the sword and office.
But the rioter attacks the head itself, so that his offense bears no comparison with that of the murderer." (p. 147.)
Under the restriction under which this book was written as regards s.p.a.ce, we cannot enter as we would like to upon an exhaustive discussion of Luther"s political views. Luther was in this respect the most enlightened European citizen of his age. He has voiced sound principles on the rights of the State and its limitations and the objects for which the State exists and does not exist, on the separation of Church and State, on the removal of bad rulers from authority, and especially on liberty. The power of the State he values because it secures to each individual citizen the highest degree of liberty possible in this life. Those who represent Luther as a defender of anarchy or tyranny either do not know what they are talking about, or they do it for a purpose, and deserve the contempt of all intelligent men.
24. Luther the Destroyer of Liberty of Conscience.
Catholics claim that Luther"s work, though ostensibly undertaken in behalf of religious liberty, necessarily had to result in the very opposite of freedom. They point to the fact that in most countries which accepted the Protestant faith the Church became subservient to the State. These state churches of Europe, however, which in the view of Catholics are the product of Luther"s reform movement, are to be regarded as only one symptom of the intolerance which characterizes the entire activity of Luther. He had indeed adopted the principle of "private interpretation" of the Scriptures, however, only for himself.
He was unwilling to accord to others the right which he claimed for himself. All who dissented from his teaching were promptly attacked by him, and that, in violent and scurrilous language. The Protestant party in the course of time became a warring camp of Ishmaelites, Luther fighting everybody and everybody fighting Luther. Religious intolerance and persecution became the prevailing policy of Protestants in their dealings with other Protestants. The burning of Servetus at Geneva by Calvin was the logical outcome of Luther"s teaching. The maxim, _Cuius regio, eius religio,_ that is, The prince, or government, in whose territory I reside determines my religion, became a Protestant tenet.
America got its first taste of religious liberty, not from the original Protestant settlers, but from the Catholic colonists whom Lord Baltimore brought to Maryland, etc., etc.
The view here propounded is in plain contravention of what the world has. .h.i.therto believed, and to a very large extent still believes, regarding Luther"s att.i.tude toward the right of the individual to choose his own religion and to determine for himself matters of faith. The position which Luther occupies in his final answer before the Emperor at Worms is generally believed to state Luther"s position on the question of religious liberty in a nutsh.e.l.l. "Unless convinced by the Word of G.o.d or by cogent reason" that he was wrong, he declared at the Diet of Worms, he could not and would not retract what he had written. The individual conscience, he maintained, cannot be bound. Each man must determine the meaning of the Word for himself. And the inevitable result of this principle is individual liberty. This principle Luther maintained to the end of his life. His appeal to the magistrates to suppress the Peasants"
Revolt was not a call to suppress the false teachings of the peasants, but their disorderly conduct. Against their spiritual aberrations Luther proposed to wage war with his written and oral testimony. "The peace and order of the State must be maintained against disorder, personal violence, destruction of property, public immorality, and treason, though they come in the guise of religion. The State must grant liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, and the privilege of the press. These are inalienable rights belonging alike to every individual, subject only to the limitation that they are not permitted to encroach upon the rights of others. The natural, the almost inevitable, consequence of the declaration and recognition of these principles was eventually the establishment of modern const.i.tutional law. It was not in consequence of his teaching, but merely in spite of it, that for the next two centuries (in certain instances) monarchical government became more autocratic, as feudalism was being transformed into civil government. . . . All through Luther"s writings, and in his own acts as well, is to be read the right of the individual to think and believe in matters political, religious, and otherwise as he sees proper. His is the right to read the Bible, and any other book he may desire. He has the right to confer and counsel, with others, to express and declare his views _pro_ and _con,_ in speech and print, so long as he abides by, and remains within, the laws of the land. Luther firmly believed in the liberty of the individual as to conscience, speech, and press. The search for truth must be untrammeled." (Waring, _Political Theories of Luther,_ p. 235 f.)
This testimony of one who has made a careful investigation of Luther"s writings on the subject of liberty of conscience is, of course, not first-hand evidence; it merely shows what impressions people take away from their study of Luther. Let us hear Luther himself. In the _Appeal to the German n.o.bility_ he says: "No one can deny that it is breaking G.o.d"s commandments to violate faith and a safe-conduct, even though it be promised to the devil himself, much more then in the case of a heretic. . . . Even though John Hus were a heretic, however bad he may have been, yet he was burned unjustly and in violation of G.o.d"s commandments, and we must not force the Bohemians to approve this, if we wish ever to be at one with them. Plain truth must unite us, not obstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the time, that a safe-conduct need not be kept if promised to a heretic; that is as much as to say, one may break G.o.d"s commandments in order to keep G.o.d"s commandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the devil, that they could not see what they said or did. G.o.d has commanded us to observe a safe-conduct; and this we must do though the world should perish; much more, then, where it is only a question of a heretic being set free. We should overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathers did. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics with fire, the executioner would be the most learned doctor in the world; and there would be no need of study, but he that could get another into his power could burn him." (10, 332.)
In his treatise _On the Limits of Secular Authority,_ Luther says: "Unbearable loss follows where the secular authority is given too much room, and it is likewise not without loss where it is too restricted.
Here it punishes too little; there it punishes too much. Although it is more desirable that it offend on the side of punishing too little than that it punish too severely; because it is always better to permit a knave to live than to put a good man to death, inasmuch as the world still has and must have knaves, but has few good men.
"In the first place, it is to be noted that the two cla.s.ses of the human race, one of whom is in the kingdom of G.o.d under Christ, and the other in the kingdom of the world under civil authority, have two kinds of laws; for every kingdom must have its laws and its rights, and no kingdom or _regime_ can stand without law, as daily experience shows.
Temporal government has laws that do not reach farther than over person and property, and what is external on the earth; for G.o.d will not permit any one to rule over the soul of man but Himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to give laws to the soul, it touches G.o.d"s rule, and misleads and destroys the souls. We wish to make that so clear that men may comprehend it, in order that our knights, the princes and bishops, may see what fools they are when seeking to force people by their laws and commandments to believe thus or so. When a man lays a human law or commandment upon the soul, that it must believe this or that, as the man prescribes, it is a.s.suredly not G.o.d"s Word. . . .
Therefore it is a thoroughly foolish thing to command a man to believe the Church, the Fathers, the councils, although there is nothing on it from G.o.d"s Word.
"Now tell me, how much sense does the head have that lays down a command on a matter where it has no authority? Who would not hold as of unsound mind the person who would command the moon to shine when it wishes? How fitting would it be if the Leipzig authorities would lay down laws for us at Wittenberg, or we at Wittenberg for the people of Leipzig?
Moreover, let men thereby understand that every authority should and may concern itself only where it can see, know, judge, sentence, transform, and change; for what kind of judge is he to me who would blindly judge matters he neither hears nor sees? Now tell me, how can a man see, know, judge, sentence, and change the heart? For that is reserved to G.o.d alone. A court should and must be certain when it sentences, and have everything in clear light. But the soul"s thoughts and impulses can be known to no one but G.o.d. Therefore it is futile and impossible to command or compel a man by force to believe thus or so. For that purpose another grip is necessary. Force does not accomplish it. For my ungracious lords, Pope and bishops, should be bishops and preach G.o.d"s Word; but they leave that and have become temporal princes and rule with laws that concern only person and property. They have reversed the order of things. Instead of ruling souls (internally) through G.o.d"s Word, they rule (externally) castles, cities, lands, and people, and kill souls with indescribable murder. The temporal lords should, in like manner, rule (externally) land and people; but they leave that. They can do nothing more than flay and shave the people, set one tax and one rent on another; there let loose a bear and here a wolf; respect no right, or faith, or truth, and conduct affairs so that robbers and knaves increase in number; and their temporal _regime_ lies as far beneath as the _regime_ of the spiritual tyrants. Faith is a matter concerning which each one is responsible for himself; for as little as one man can go to heaven or h.e.l.l for me, so little can he believe or not believe for me; and as little as he can open or close heaven or h.e.l.l for me, so little can he drive me to belief or unbelief. We have the saying from St. Augustine: "No one can or should be compelled to believe." The blind and miserable people do not see what a vain and impossible thing they undertake; for, however imperiously they command, and however hard they drive, they cannot force people any farther than they follow with their mouth and the hand. They cannot compel the heart, though they should break it. For true is the maxim: _Gedanken sind zollfrei_. (No toll is levied on thought.) When weak consciences are driven by force to lie, deceive, and say otherwise than they believe in the heart, they burden themselves also with a heavy sin; for all the lies and false witness given by such weak consciences rest upon him who forces them.
"Christ Himself clearly recognized and concisely stated this truth when He said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar"s, and unto G.o.d the things that are G.o.d"s" (Matt. 22, 21). Now, when imperial authority stretches itself over into G.o.d"s kingdom and authority and does not keep within its own separate jurisdiction, this discrimination between the two realms has not been made. For the soul is not under authority of the emperor. He can neither teach nor guide it, neither kill it nor give it life, neither bind nor loose, neither judge nor sentence, neither hold nor let alone; which necessarily would exist had he authority so to do, for they are under his jurisdiction and power.
"David long ago expressed it briefly: "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord"s; but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (Ps.
115, 16). That is to say, over what is on the earth and belongs to the temporal earthly kingdom, man has power from G.o.d; but what belongs to heaven and to the eternal kingdom is under the Lord of heaven alone. But finally, this is the meaning of Peter: "We ought to obey G.o.d rather than men" (Acts 5, 29). He here clearly marks a limit to temporal authority; for were men obliged to observe everything that civil authority wished, the command, "We ought to obey G.o.d rather than men," would have been given in vain.
"If, now, your princes or temporal lord command you to believe this or that, or to dispense with certain books, say: "I am under obligations to obey you with body and estate; command me within the compa.s.s of your authority on earth, and I will obey you. Put if you command me as to belief, and order me to put away books, I will not obey, for then you become a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command where you have neither right nor power." If your goods are taken and your disobedience is punished, you are blessed, and you may thank G.o.d that you are worthy to suffer for G.o.d"s Word. When a prince is in the wrong, his subjects are not under obligations to follow him, for no one is obliged to do anything against the right; but we must obey G.o.d, who desires to have the right rather than men.
"But thou sayest once more: "Yea, worldly power cannot compel to belief.