Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

Here's another obscure Luther quote primarily used by Rome's defenders:

Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But . .. they preach not the truth . . . When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. (in Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145) [link]

The quote as presented above is a truncated presentation of a larger context in which a few words are cited and some are skipped over in order to serve as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Luther's actual point made in context is completely ignored by such methodology.

One Roman apologist used the quote to show the Reformers "not only failed to purify Christ’s one Church, they failed at producing a superior Christian." It isn't just the defenders of Rome who reference this quote. Heiko Oberman has pointed out that this statement has been found objectionable "through the ages" by Luther's "contemporaries and today's Catholics and Protestants alike."  I found a curious usage of this quote by a nineteenth century pacifist, Edwin D. Mead who says that the quote points out a "reckless inconsistency" in Luther's thought. This Lutheran site  references the quote in a discourse on contemporary Lutheranism ("the more we gassed on about family values and conservative politics, the worse life became among us"). Then there are those from secular academia referencing it as well. Such usage points to the popularity of this quote across differing worldviews.

Documentation

The documentation provided refers to "Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145." This secondary source refers to a work authored by Giorgio de Santillana, a historian and philosopher. He contributed The Age of Adventure: the Renaissance Philosophers / Selected, with Introduction and Interpretive Commentary to the Mentor Philosophers series. On pages 144-145,  The Age of Adventure states,

There is in Luther a colossal simplicity and directness. "I am inspired by anger. Those who condemn the movement of anger against antagonists are theologians who deal in mere speculations." This made him, like Savonarola, into a great tribune, but unlike the Italian, he was addressing a people ready to explode. He does not waste his time preaching abstinence and moral betterment; he is a political mind: "Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But what I affirm roundly and plainly is that they preach not the truth. To this I am called: I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife in its throat. When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil."

Giorgio de Santillana does not document this quote. In his "Recommended Further Reading" section (p. 277), he points to four possibilities as to where he took this quote from. I'll demonstrate below he may have taken it from this source he recommends on page 279:

The Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated and edited by W. Hazlitt. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1878. (Bohn's Standard Library.)

 The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often appears to fall on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written.

This Table Talk statement was recorded by Veit Dietrich in the Fall of 1533. It can be found in WA BR 1:294-297. The text reads, 

WA goes on to present variations on this utterance which accounts for some of the differences in the way this text has been translated into English. For instance,

The first version is a mixture of Latin and German, the second purely German [WA refers to "FB. 2, 414 (22,104)"]. LW states that the older manuscripts of the Table Talk are those with the Latin / German mixture (LW 54, introduction, III). In other words, the more reliable version is the former, with the pure German being a later rendering. Older English editions of the Table Talk have included the utterance in question (example #1, example #2), apparently relying on the pure German text. Luther's Works (English edition) though used the Latin / German text (LW 54:110). I mention this because I have come across the argument that LW's rendering of this Table Talk statement is an example of "toned down references to immorality in Protestantism" and that "Translation bias is seemingly alive and well." It appears this charge arises because in LW the word "bad" is used rather than "evil" in the beginning of the utterance and throughout (LW 54:110).  The second Latin / German sentence states, "Vita est mala apud nos sicut apud papistas; non igitur de vita dimicamus et damnamus eos." The word "mala" can be rendered either way, so using either "evil" or "bad" does not change the main point or comparison throughout the entry. Some of the older English translations (like thse reference above) apparently used the pure German version, and the German does use the word böse (evil). It is simply an unwarranted conjecture to assert LW had a "bias" when translating Table Talk statement 624.  

Context
Here are three different versions of the quotes rendered in English:

Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. Wickliffe and Huss assailed the immoral conduct of papists; but I chiefly oppose and resist their doctrine; I affirm roundly and plainly, that they preach not the truth. To this am I called; I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife to its throat. When I can show that the papist's doctrine is false, which I have shown, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. For when the word remains pure, the manner of life, though something therein be amiss, will be pure also. The pope has taken away the pure word and doctrine, and brought in another word and doctrine, which he has hanged upon the church. I shook all Popedom with this one point, that I teach uprightly, and mix up nothing else. We must press the doctrine onwards, for that breaks the neck of the pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured the pope, that he would be a king that would do according to his own will, that is, would regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but say roundly: Thus and thus will I have it. For the pope derives his institution neither from divine nor from human right; but is a self-chosen human creature and intruder. Therefore the pope must needs confess, that he governs neither by divine nor human command. Daniel calls him a god, Maosim; he had almost spoken it plainly out, and said Mass, which word is written, Deut. xxvi. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and uses nearly his words, where he says: The son of perdition will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, &c., 2 Thes. ii. [source]

Luther's Opposition to the Popish Doctrine. "The manner of life," said Luther, " is as evil among us as among the Papists; wherefore we strive not with them by reason of the manner of life, but for and about the doctrine. Wickliffe and Huss opposed and assaulted the manner of life and conversation in Popedom. But I (chiefly) do oppose and resist their doctrine : I affirm, soundly and plainly, that they teach not aright;—thereunto am I called. I take the goose by the neck," said Luther, " and set the knife to the throat. When I can maintain that the Pope's doctrine is false (which I have proved and maintained), then will I easily prove that their manner of life is evil. The Pope hath taken away the pure word and doctrine, and hath brought another word and doctrine, and hanged the same upon the church. I startled whole Popedom only with this one point, in that I teach uprightly, and meddle with nothing else. We must press upon the doctrine, for that breaketh the neck of the Pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured out the Pope, that he will be such a king as shall do according to his will; that is, he will regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but will, short and roundly, say, ' Thus and thus will I have it.' For the Pope is instituted and ordained neither by divine or human right; but is a self-chosen human creature, who hath intruded himself. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and useth nearly his words, where he saith, ' And he will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.' " 2 Thess. ii. [link]

No. 624: The Central Issue Is Doctrine, Not Life Fall, 1533
“Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don’t fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wycliffe and Huss didn’t know this and attacked [the papacy] for its life. I don’t scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked—this has never before happened. This is my calling. Others have censured only life, but to treat doctrine is to strike at the most sensitive point, for surely the government and the ministry of the papists are bad. Once we’ve asserted this, it’s easy to say and declare that the life is also bad. “When the Word remains pure, then the life (even if there is something lacking in it) can be molded properly. Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about. It’s the teaching that breaks the pope’s neck. Therefore Daniel pictured the pope rightly when he stated that there will be a kingdom in which the king will act according to his will, that he will pay attention to neither civil nor spiritual matters but will simply say, ‘I want that,’ without offering any reason, even a natural one. When you ask, ‘Is the papacy established by natural, divine, or human right?’ you get the answer, ‘No, it is a worship of the will.’ So the pope must say, ‘Nobody has commanded us.’ It is simply a religion of free will. Daniel calls God a god of ‘maozim’—I almost said ‘masses.’ ” [LW 54:110]

Conclusion
The point being in made is that in whichever translation one uses, Luther was concerned with proving Roman doctrine wrong. He believed his method of combating the papacy was superior to the earlier assaults of  Wycliffe and Hus. Does this quote prove Luther was in "agony" over "the state of early Protestantism"? No, it doesn't. In fact, Luther's comment applies well to the particular assaults made by Rome's defenders: they attack a way of life as if this is a valid ultimate argument against doctrine. The argument amounts to saying had Luther's teaching been true, Protestants would be outwardly less "evil"  or less "bad" than those adhering to Rome's teachings. But look what Luther goes on to state (in LW's rendering): "Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about."


Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.