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 God’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.