A LUTHERAN CLERGYMAN IN DEFENCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 11, 16 March 1905, Page 3

A LUTHERAN CLERGYMAN IN DEFENCE

In the course of a public debate held in Dunedjn in December, Mr. Bedford, M.H.R.— probably a well-mea*ibng but certainly a somewhat inexperienced young manmade an uncalled-for and 111-ma'nnered attack upon what he called the ' Romish ' Church. Among other high crimes and misdemeanors laid to its charge was tins : that it ' fought against Ohrist ' when it opposed Luther ' Christianity ' was credited by Mr. Bedford (as reported) with the overthrow of slavery ; but ' tihe Romish Church ' was set apart by the speaker from ' Christianity ' as understock m his remarks, and the inference left to be drawn by the unlearned or incautious reader of the report was tftis : that the ' Romish ' Church had done nothing to achieve the emancipation of the toiler, but that this was in some way due to the ' Christianity ' preached by Luther, and to which rhe ' Rioinisfa ' institution had played the part of anti-Christ. The obvious reply— which we gave in our issue of December 22— was this : thrt the ' Christianity ' whk-h overthrew slavery was that which was profe^ed aaid practised by the airlflierents of the ' Romivh ' Cliurch It was (wo said) they and they alone who brol-e d*>wn the slavery of the old pagan days We traced in briefest terms the history of the emancipation movement j>iid then, by way of contrast and of completion of our contention, pointed out how Luther and other Reformers advocated the re-infliction of slavery, which at the time of their great leligious revolt, was non-existent in Euroinp- We also instanced the re-introductiOn of slavery into Eh^Unid a i»Jd Scotland after the Reformation. A LUTHERAN CLERGYMAN WRITES. A Lutheran clergyman— Rev. Christopher fiaustad, of Hialcom.be— had his attention directed at the time t 0 our remarks. In the course of a letter to us he says : ' I was asked to reply to the article, but was not able to ■do so at the time.' In the course of his introductory remarks, vunoh are '\ery lengthy and for the most part of a strongly personal natuie, he declares his inability to determine ' what may have be<»n the writer's object in writing and publishing such an article. 1 'It seems really,' says he, ' that the writer miust either be entirely ignorant of the historical facts lelatins to the subject which he writes about, or, if not ignorant* he must J-now that what he writes wit* regard to Luther is false ard contrary to well-known facts.' Our rererend correspondent follows up this alternative imputation of wilful and deliberate falsehood by stoutly denying that Luther or any of the Reformers did recommend or defend slavery in a form and in a sense in which the term slavery is generally defined a n 3 understood by all ' The full truth ' of the matter is (he gives us to understand) set forth in the following Defence of Luther on historical grounds, which we print in full, and which is th» only part of his letter that is relevant to the issue between us ■ ' Now,, for the sake of truth, it is importaat that we should carefully ascertain what the real facts of the case are, and what the proceedings and the conduct of Luther wqre, when he was informed of the revolt of the peasants. We know that, at the time of the Reformation, some misguided persons made tiheir appearance who reieotea the evangelical principles of the Reformation and who represented to the poorer classes that the time was ctome to tihiiow of! the intolerable yoke imposed upon

them by tiheir rulers and civil authorities. Among these ringleaders was the notorious Thomas Munzer. This, man and his followers came to a miserable end. Luther, when he heard of tjhis deplorable revolt oi the pea*sants, and how they had been deluded by false leaders, was 'deeply moved, because he knew well the hard lot of these poor pesple. Luther, as a true friend both of the higher and lower classes, addressed the princes, and more especially the bishops, in the following wordsi : " It is you who are the cause of this revolt ; it is your clamors against the Gosjpel, your guilty oppressions of the poor, that have driven the people to despair. It is not tihe peasants, my dear Lorils, tkal lise up against you, it is God Himself who opposes your madness. The peasants are but the instruments He employs to humble you. Do not imagine you can escape the punishment he is preparing for you. Even should you liave succeeded in destroying all these peasants, GoO is able from the very stones to i.aise up uihors to chastise your pri(de. if I desired revenge, I might laugh in my sleeve, and look on while the peasants were carrying on their work, or even Increase their fury, but may God preserve me from such thoughts ! My dear Lords, put away your indignation, treat these poor peasants as a man of sense treats people who are drunk or insane. Quiet these commotions by mildness, lest a conflagration should arise and burn all Germany." The peasants had presentefd some articles for the consideration of the authorities. With regard to these articles Luther said to the princes and bishops : " Among these twelve articles there are certain demands which are just and equitable.'-' This address diid conciliate the peasants' confidence in Luther. But Luther told them, also, that tb revolt was to act like heathens ; that the duty of Christians is to be patient and not to fight ; that if tibey persisted in revolting against the Gospel, he sfiould look upon them as wore dangerous enemies than the Pope. The Pope and the Emperor," said he, "combined against me, bait the more they blustered the more did the Gospel gain ground." Now, what happened ? The peasants^ alas, did not follow this excellent advice of LutHer, but commenced, as is well known from the history of that time, to perpetrate the most horrible crimes and cruelties. Luther saw all this with the deepest sorrow, and ho now felt it his sed duty to tell the priaices and civil authorities that this rebellion of the peasants ought not to be tolerated ; that it was the duty of the rulers of the people to interfere ana" repress the rebellion. When we consider the awfrtl crimes committed by tJhe peasants, can we wonder that Luther's language was strong against them If the Roman ecclesiastics had acted in the same Christian spirit and as faithfully, both to the civil authorities and the poor peasants, as LutHer did, perhaps the awful catastrophe of the revolt would have been prevented.' The remainder of th*> Rev. Mr. Oaustad's letter is ■beside the present issue, dealing, as it floes, with sundry personalities, with Luther's idea oi salvation and his warfare against wha% our correspondent calls ' superstition and unlbelief,' and with ©ur remarks on the skuve trade, which the writer finds ' partiial and unsatisfactory ' and ' in contradiction to well-establiskod historical facts,' but on which, however, ho says he cannot at present enter. OUR COMMENT. The Rev. Mr. Gaustad's case against us falls naturally into three chief points : (1) I n the first place he distinctly implies that our references to the subject of Luther and slavery wore tmcalle'd-for, unprovoked, in bad taste, and against trwe charity. (2) He professes to give the ' full truth ' of the matter In that part of 'his Letter which we have quoted ih extenso (8) He positively affirms that neither Luther nor any other Reformer ever recommended or defended slavery as ' generally defined and understood by all.' 1. We are at least as dosiroirs as our reverend correspondent for the coming of the 'day of perfect peace anld vnlian among people of all Christian creeds. For other men's opinions we have perfect toleration. vtc use no harsh words against any man merely because he diflers with us in religions or political faith We artf evjer ready to deal in a friendly and inoffensive spirit with opinions and beliefs which we do not Rhare, and are always prepared to g,ive the hospitality of our columns to those who differ from us, so long as they treat us and our readers with common courtesy and consideration. But we have no space for long-drawn irrelevancies iv discussion or for Btrotarand seedless personalities in communications intended for publioatian. In the case Mnder consideration the ' Tablet,' a,s tilie Oafeholic organ, was exercising its right and duty by repelling a wholly imorovolcetf and unjustifiable attack by the juvenile senior Member for I>unedin, who so far forgot the common courtesies of debate as to fling at the members of our Ancient Faith

an offensive theological slang nickname that has long ago passed out of respectable society and is> now practically limited to tjie gutter controversy of the Order of the Saffron Sash. It was Mr. Bedford, and not we, that lit this fiiei But the Rev. Mr. Gaustad has no word of blame for our assailant. He apparently fancies that it is the duty of Catholics to lie down quietly under attacks of this kind, or to deal with them in lackadaisical phrases and languid lispings, lest, forsooth, we may be deemed wanting in charity and good taste. There is a true and a false qharity ; ami there is a true and a false taste. But truth and justice are ever the same am i d will, i n the long run, he foutasd to be in perfect harmony with genuine taste. For the rest : let those that desire peace refrain from unprovoked attack, and those that advocate charity and good taste join us in reprobating the conduct of those who violate both. Our statements as to the Church's and Luther's diverse attitudes on the question of slavery were provoked by Mr. Bedford. They were, moreover, in perfect accordance with truth, justice, charity, and good taste. In the first place they were an obvious and sufficient reply to Mr. Bedford's 'backhander ' at the ' Romish ' Church ; in the second place, they were true in point of fact ; in the third place' there was a just cause for advancing them— namely, legitimate and necessary self-defence ; and in the fourth place, the evidence of their truth was distinctly and in temperate terms set forth by us for all that cared to read. 2., The Rev. Mr. Gaustad professed to supply tlhe * full truth ' of Luther's position on the question of slavery, But, however well-meaning the reverend gentleman's effort may have been, he has certainly failed, and signally failed, in this. Here, for instance, are some vital points in connection wifrh The Peasants' Revolt oj svMch no hint or mention is made in his letter :— Sime (a Protestant writer) says in his ' Germany ' (p. 135) that the peasantry were drawn to the Reformism, hoping ' that it might somehow help them to obtain t..eir rights, for by the freedom of which Luther and the other Reformers spoke so much they understood political and social as well as spiritual freedom.' They were, however, *n tim<s rudely disillusioned. But their first and mistaken impression was greatly strengthened by Luther's famous ' bull ' or manifesto, which was published in July, 1522, just before his bosom-friend, the fighting Reformer, Siokingen, levied war against the Archbishop of Trier. The document is a wild appeal by Luther to his followers for ' a strong uprising which slhall sweep them ' (Catholic bishops, clergy, cloisters, and churches) ' from the earth.' He furthermore declared that ' all who contribute body, goods, ana honor ' for this purpose ' are God's dear children and true Christians.' (See, for insltance, Belfort Bax's ' German Society at the Close of the Middle Ages,' pp. 18-9-90 ; Janssen, vol. iv., pp,. 211-2). Etas, mus predicted that such incitements would lead to a universal revolution. Seebohm (a Protestant writer) says in his ' Era of the Protestant Revolution ' (p 135) that nio ' stronger example to the peasantry to take to the sword ' could have teen furnished than by Sickingen's ' great private war.' Hutten and Stickingen and others ' had threatened,' says the same writer (p. 136) 'to reform the Empire by the sword. The peasantry had looked to them as their best friends. They had done much, by their perns and swords, their vodce and example, to stir up warlike feeling among the peasantry' —-who, by the way, had very substantial grievances to be redressed. Sickingen acted up to the spirit of Luther's 4 bull.' Bax tells the sequel. 'No sooner,' isays he (p. 190), ' did things begin to look bad with Sickingen than Luther promptly sought to disengage himself from all complicity or even sympathy with him and his losing cause.' The same 1 Protestant authority shows (p. 191) hlow Luther pursued ' a similar ipol,icy ainent the revolt of the peasants '—after he had warned the princes that ' God would no longer endure their tyranny amd haughtiness,' and ' that the common man was becoming intelligent enough to deal with them by force if they did not mend their manners.' Our reverend correspondent has quoted some extracts from Luther's ' Ermahnung zum Frieden ' on the twelve articles of the revolted peasants. In the first part of that admonition Luther warns the princes : 'You must become changed and Submit to God's Word ' (tnat is, Luther's word), ' and if you 'do not yield in a pleasant an 3 willing manner, you will be compelled to it by force. If the peasants do not force you into submission, others will have to do so ' (Janssen, Iv., 248). In the second, part of the admonition he condemned the peasants as ' scoundrels, 1 denounced some of their most

reasonable demands as robbery and public felony, declared that their suggestion for the Abolition of Feudal Servitude was ' slap against the Gospel,' and said : ' I will have nothing to do with your cause, however good and just it m/ay be >' (J/ans&en, iv., 25(M). In the pame pant of hia pamphlet (ib., p. 250) he said of the princes and lords who refused his ' Gospel ' and oppressed the people that ' God should hurl them from their seats, as men who have sinned deeply against God and their fellows ' All this is passed over by the Rev. Mr. Gaustaft It can scarcely be pleaded that it was tjhe action of a man earnestly seeking; to bring about peace in a time of fierce passion and. raging warfare. We do not go the length of saying (as Zasius, Erasmus, and many others have said) that the peasant revolt was directly caused by Luther's wild deeds an|d still wilder and more inflammatory language. A heavy share of the blame must ever rest with the authorities who refused the ill-used people timely and urgently •needed reforms. But a grave and three-fold responsibility in connection with that evil business must ever cling to the memory of Luther : (1) The fierce Incite, ments by which he inflamed the mob to deeds of violence ; (2) the) regime of fierce and savage repression whicjh he urged againsjt the peasantry; and (3) the new doctrine of unlimited absolutism which he (very inconsistently) and his fellow-Reformers first introduced into Christian Europe. Seeboflrm is an admirer of ' the great Reformer.' But he is merely repeating the minimum verdict of history when he says of Luther (p. 147) : ' It cannot be denieti that to some extent this revolution ' (the peasant insurrection X P'had grown ,up from the dragon's .teeth tiiwt he himself had sown.' The same writer tells (p. 147) how Luther, though himself a peasant, ' hounded on the princes in their work of blooa.' He adds : ' One cannot sympathise with Luther's harsh treatment of the peasantry and their misguided leaders '—who, we may add, were ' Reformers,' though some of them were opposed to Luther. The princes followed only too literally the fierce incitements of Luther. After the insurrections had been extinguished in blood, a new reign of terror— fines, plbn'der, confiscation, torture, and a wholesale bqftdhery of executions— took place i/n all the troubled districts. The) fearful struggle cost Germany over 100,000 lives. It left the erstwhile relatively prosperous Germa,™ ppasant in poverty afld ground down in a state of serfdom for nearly 300 years. 3. The Rev. Mr. Gaustad affirms that neither Luther nor any other Reformer ever recommended or defended slavery as ' generally defined and understood by all.' As a matter of fact, Luther and other Reformers did recommend and defend slavery as ' generally defined. ' In the article criticised by the Rev. Mr. Gaustad we gave sufficient eviklence of this from the fourth volume of Janssen's great work, the ' History of tfie German People at the Close of the Middle Ages ' (Englisih translation). Arid, very significantly, the reverend gentleman in no way endeavored to disprove or set aside or minimise the Conclusive testimony of the Reformers themselves which was there advanced by us. There are Various forms of Slavery, which are included in the following definition and explanation of the term which we take from vol. vi., Part 11., of the great ' Encyclopaedic Dictionary,' p. 442 :— ' The state or condition of a slave ; bondage ; the state ot condition of being entirely subject to t)he will of another. Slavery is the obligation of the slave to work for tibe benefit of his master witjiout the consent or contract of the former ; or it is the establishment of a right which gives one person ssuoh a power over artother as to make him absolute master of the other's life and pjroperty.' A form of true slavery was bobh recommended ami defended by Luther. Take, for instance, one of his sermons- on th<? first book of Moses, which were first published in 1527. He said 'it was almost desirable that servants sihould be subjected to a kind of slavery, such as- had existed among the Jews. Then Abiraelech/ he said, • took sheep and oxen and men-servants and maiS-servants, awd gave them to Abraham, and spake unto Sarah, etc., etc. That was a royal gift. Then Be gave them powet over the sheep and oxen and nv.aservalnts amd maid-servants, so that they were all personal ptfopertty, and the owners mighjt sejl l them as thejj liked ; and it would verily be almost best that this state of tbings shouia exist again, for nobody can control and tame the populace in any other way. And so you see "What Aibraham and Abimelech held by this custom and let their dependents remain in bondage. Some will siay it would have been great kindness and merciflulness if they had set them free ; how could love endure

that they should be Kept as slaves ? Jufst in the same way that love endures that people should be hanged on the gallows or otherwise pfunisihed. For there must be firm control by the secular government, in order to curb and manage the people. The owners would gladly have seit them free, if they could, but it would not have answered ; they wofuld soon haive grown too Jiauglity if too many rights had been granted them.' (Luther's Collected Works, vol. xxxiii., pp. 389-90, quoted by Janssen, v,ol. iv., pp. 361-2). Melancthon declared in 1925 that ' it was monstrous, and efven criminal, of the peasants to Refuse to be Bondsmen. This rebellious spirit,' he added, ' was opposed to the Gospel,, anid could not be justified ' (ib., p. 365). Dr. Martensen, Proitestant Bishop of Zeeland, has, in a noted work, ppinted out how the Reformation broke down the old restraints which, in mediaeval days, had protected and dignified labor, and how this cause, together wi"th the recjkless handing ovex of plundered Church property io private individuals, tended to the development of the powler of capital, under the pressure of which (he says) * Countless numbers of human beings have been reduced to a condition that differs very little from the slavery of the ancient world.' ' The capitalist eara,' says Carl Marx", ' dates first from the sixteenth century.' Them, too, was first preached among Christian peoples the doctrine of the unlimited authority of secular rulers over their subjects. This doctrine, as Mie learned Protestant divine, Dr. Starbuck, points out, was unknowtn to the Catholite Middle Ages. Luther, Melancthon, and Butzor were the teachers of the new Theory of Divine Right which mad© the ruler everything and the subject his helpless chattel, whose duty it was to sit still anid, njever rise in even the mildest way against any and every form of tyranny. Butzer even went so far as to declare that rulers are to be obeyed even when t|hey give commands contrary to the law of God (Janssen, iv., 367). In 1526 Luther (quoted by Jan.ss.en, ib. 361) refers to rulers as ' drovers, tas'le-masters, and scourgers;.' 1 They must,' he says, ' beat, drive, throttle, hang, hurtr, behea"d f and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in chedk.' Such teaching (as Jans^eti points out, iv., 365) naturally ' gained multitudes ol followers among the powerful classes.' And thus political as well as social and domestic slavery formed a pfert of the teaching of the new ' Gospel,' which left the wretched German worker under the yoke of serfdom for nearly three hundred years 1 . It was not till the beginning of the nineteenth century that he got a grudging measure of relief. And even then it was only granted to Mm when alarmed statesmen, who remembered th© French Revolution, saw the necessity of some concessions in order to prevent another and, perhaps, more terrible Peasants' War than that which devastated Germany in the midst of Lutiier's ' Reform.'