# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 03 06_S108
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

108

(Communicated.)

The "Lutherische Botschafter" and the Revolution.

When unbelievers speak in favor of the rebellion of the peoples against their lawful authorities, it is not to be wondered at, for they rebel themselves against the Word of the supreme Majesty in heaven. But when even those do so who yet acknowledge the Bible as God's Word, one is compelled to believe that either they are not in earnest with their acknowledgment of the Holy Scriptures, or that they subscribe the despotic pronouncements of the ruling spirit of the age only out of fear of men.

It has grieved us very much to read, even in the "Lutherische Botschafter," a paper which yet desires to take a thoroughly pure Lutheran standpoint, the following judgment flattering to the spirit of the world:

1) in No. 11 of the 1st volume: "to avoid all misunderstanding, we must mention here that we are decidedly for the freedom of the peoples, and do not approve the standpoint which many religious papers take against it. We regret just as much as they that a delirium of unbelief mixes itself into the present strivings for freedom, and we recognize very well that, should it gain the upper hand, nothing good can result from it. But we recognize also that so long as religion was laid in chains by unbelieving and falsely believing governments, it could not develop. If revolution is always a crime, then the fathers of our glorious Republic were criminals, and so were also all the Protestant princes of Germany at the time of the Reformation; and to assert this would be high treason against God, religion, freedom and humanity. And if religious periodicals and preachers in general stand on the side of absolutism, this can only have the consequence that men who bear love of mankind in their hearts, and who abhor the perjured conduct of the European and especially of the German princes, are thereby prejudiced against religion, whereas in the opposite case all laws against religion could easily be prevented; and for religion we need no laws. Christianity is sufficient to itself and flourished under heathen emperors."

2) In No. 12 of the same volume: "When the peoples shake off the too heavy yoke, or vigorously remind the perjured princes of their promise, some papers call this godless rebellion; but when kings and princes rebel against the law, and tread the people in the dust, it is said that they are taking their rights again. — O, the blindness!"

In the judgment first quoted, from No. 11, there is found a gross historical inaccuracy. For the conduct of the Protestant princes at the time of the Reformation is adduced as proof that revolution is not always a crime. But who has ever been able, with even any semblance of truth, to accuse those princes of rebellion against their authorities? Their authority was, as is well known, the Emperor, whom they indeed resisted in this respect, that they would let nothing bring them to the denial of, or to apostasy from, the acknowledged truth of the Gospel, yea, finally even resorted to self-defense, to protect the life and liberty of conscience of their own subjects. But who would dare to call this a rebellion? For that, in spite of all imperial edicts and threats, they remained steadfast in the Gospel, therein they followed the word of the Apostle Peter: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5, 29); but that they protected the life and limb of their subjects, this they did by virtue of their office commanded by God. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that it was only after Luther's death that open hostilities came between the Emperor and the Protestant princes; for this high-hearted hero of the faith saw the cause of God only endangered by human means of protection, had therefore always advised against measures of force, and by his prayer preserved peace. Luther advised with decision (on the 6th of March, 1530) that they give up land and people to the Emperor, and commit the cause to God; and only if the Emperor demanded that the princes should plague, kill and banish their own subjects for the sake of the faith, they should not obey him. "Thus the subjects of all princes are, indeed, also the Emperor's subjects, yea, more than the princes'," he writes, "and it is not fitting that anyone should wish to protect by force the Emperor's subjects against the Emperor, their lord; just as it is not seemly that the burgomaster of Torgau should wish to protect the citizens by force against the Elector of Saxony, so long as he is Elector of Saxony."

Had the Protestant princes followed this counsel of Luther also after his death, it would perhaps not have come to the unfortunate battle of Mühlberg, in which the Elector John Frederick the Magnanimous was taken prisoner and had to renounce his electoral dignity. This unfortunate outcome taught clearly enough that God had no pleasure in the Protestant princes' wishing to defend the holy cause of the Gospel with the sword. Although it was self-defense, it was yet a violation of the divine order that they took up arms against their lawful lord, the Emperor. Now if even the conduct of those princes at that time, when it is strictly examined by God's Word, does not stand the test, then it is, on the other hand, more than plain and manifest in the present revolutionary strivings in Germany that they have a character wholly hostile to the Word of God. The "Lutherische Botschafter" itself confesses that a delirium of unbelief mixes itself into the present strivings for freedom; but this is still said far too feebly, for they proceed wholly and entirely from unbelief, from decided opposition to all human and divine authority, which has for its aim not merely the destruction of the throne, but also the destruction of Christianity. They are such lovers of freedom as St. Peter described long before, 2 Pet. 2, 10: "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities," to whom he announces their punishment also in the preceding verse.

The other example by which the "Lutherische Botschafter," like the countless daily papers of this country, seeks to prove the lawfulness of revolution, are the glorious fathers of our Republic. These, he concludes, would then also have been criminals, if revolution were in every case a crime. This untheological conclusion one should certainly not expect in a theological periodical. Instead of judging the actions of men by the principles of Scripture, the principles are here inferred from the actions of men. If such conclusions were to hold, what Biblical doctrine would then remain firm? It is indeed lamentable when a Christian, not to say a theologian, lets the name, the renown and the prestige of men so blind him that he can no longer see the bright light of the divine Word! Let a man's name be ever so great and renowned, this must not move us in the least to deviate, for his sake, even a finger's breadth from the Word of truth. Another reason, finally, why the "Lutherische Botschafter" declares itself for the revolution is the apprehension that a decided testimony of Scripture-faithful preachers and religious periodicals against the revolution might bring harm to the Christian religion itself and make it hated in the eyes of the friends of mankind. This is really the meaning of the "Lutherische Botschafter," although it uses other words. For it says: "if religious periodicals and preachers in general stand on the side of absolutism, this can only have the consequence that men who have love of mankind in their hearts are thereby prejudiced against religion." The "Lutherische Botschafter" therefore presupposes that all who condemn the revolution stand on the side of absolutism, that is, hold unlimited despotism to be the only right and best form of government. But this is too hasty a judgment; for one can condemn the revolution on grounds conformable to Scripture without being a friend or defender of absolute power. One can give unconditional preference to the republican constitution, and yet be a decided opponent of all revolution. We at least would regard it here in this country as a most criminal undertaking, and would resist it with all earnestness, if anyone should wish to overthrow by force the free state here and transform it into a monarchical one. We recognize with hearty thanks to God the advantages of a free