A method of dealing with the world which is more consistent with the essential dualism of quietistic religion is its effort to give some realization to the ideal by means of subjective religious emotion which transcends the imperfections of society without attempting to change them. Thus the ideal of brotherhood is to be realized by a religious appreciation of all men as brothers, however much economic and social facts may give the lie to the ideal. This was the apostle Paul’s method of dealing with slavery and Luther emulated it in his attitude toward the peasant’s revolt. Nothing gives a more illuminating clue to the conservative implications of this type of religion than this incident in the Reformation. The peasants, suffering in a state of semi-slavery, saw in Luther’s statement of the gospel principles of freedom, and in the religious ideal of the equal worth of all souls, implicit in Christian teaching, a justification for their revolt against the intolerable conditions of serfdom. They declared: “It has been custom hitherto for men to hold us as their own property, which is pitiable enough considering that Christ has delivered and redeemed us all, the lowly as well as the great, by the shedding of his precious blood. Accordingly it is consistent with scripture that we should be free and should wish to be so. We therefore take it for granted that you will release us from serfdom as true Christians, unless it should be shown from the gospels that we are serfs.”[14] Luther violently disavowed this practical application of his gospel. “This article would make all men equal and so change the spiritual kingdom of Christ into an external worldly one. Impossible. An earthly kingdom cannot exist without inequality of persons. Some must be free, others serfs, some rulers, others subjects. As St. Paul says, ‘In Christ there is neither bond nor free.’” The violence of Luther’s reaction in this instance was partly due to considerations of expediency; for he feared to lose caste with the princes by having the Reformation identified with radical political movements; yet it is fairly faithful to his general conceptions of the nature and function of religion. Obviously the dualism of Protestantism which separates the religious experience of the individual from the social realities in which alone personality can achieve significance has defects which are more perilous to social values than the ethical dualism of medieval monasticism. If the ideal is to be withdrawn from life to save it from corruption, it is better that it be realized in some social medium, however artificial, than that it be suspended in the thin air of religious sentiment and be realized only in subjective experience.