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 God, 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 God’ (1 Pet. 2, 13. 15).  He has also foretold that men would come who would despise government (2 Pet. 2), as has come to pass 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 attitude 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 Nobility; 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 God and among Christians, not to the kingdom of the world, which is the instrument of godly wrath upon the wicked.  The instrument in the hand of the State is not a garland of roses