Luther: Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore

A frequent line of argumentation against Luther involves using his comments about "human reasoning" against either his character or the Reformation. As I've come across these arguments, they're most often used by atheists and Roman Catholics, but not necessarily limited to these groups. Here's a recent example from the depths of cyberspace. Based on other comments, the person using these quotes appears to be Roman Catholic.

Let's hear some more from the 'Hero of the Reformation'. Maybe we'll get a feel for which side he was actually playing for.

“Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets”

“Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.”

“Reason is contrary to faith”... “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”

All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition

Documentation?
What intrigued me about these quotes was the vague reference, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition." First, I find it highly unlikely the person posting these quotes used the source claimed (68 German volumes published between 1826-1857, 38 Latin writings as well). Second, there are no English volumes of  "Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition," so whoever put these quotes together, if Erlangen really was used, had to translate them.  Third, from a quick glance one might think there are only three quotes, when in fact there may be at least six to ten from three different sources, strung together to make it appear to be three quotes. For instance, notice how in the first quote, "reason" as the "Devil's whore" is over-explained. It's as if Luther is simply ranting the same thing over and over again. I've learned over the years that when quotes contain overkill, they're often not a direct citation, but rather something cobbled together at the expense of a context.

As we'll see below, these quotes have traveled a bit. They started off as a Latin / German transcription of Sermon, then translated into French, then translated into English. They were eventually a cut-and-paste grabbed from a paragraph found in  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, and appear in the form as cited above. As I mentioned previously, it's unfortunate Wiener didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace.


Secondary Documentation

These three quotes are found on page 26 of Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor:

This mythical, mentally unbalanced, diseased character was the hero of the Reformation. His intemperance, his persecution mania, his varying moods, were the origin of his permanent contradictions. There was nothing reasonable in him. Indeed, he admitted himself that he hated reason, and that he was guided merely by his passions, by his violent temper. More than once he condemned in his violent language, reason and a reasonable approach to matters. “Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets” (E16, 142-148). There are many more sayings in the same sense, though not always so dirtily phrased. “Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.” “Reason is contrary to faith”, he writes elsewhere. “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done” (E29, 241) So it goes on and on.

It does not necessarily follow that simply because Wiener provides a few references, he actually read Luther and mined these quotes out from E16 and E29. Wiener notoriously used hostile secondary sources. Wiener's documentation is highly dubious (He says the reason for his sloppy documentation was the rush job demanded by his publisher). Notice that even for this first quote, it is purported to span 6 pages (142-148). That's a good indication that it's a cobbled together quote from different pages or even different sources. In other words, if you were to search out "E16" you would not find this quote verbatim. You'd have to search for each line by starting on page 142 and work through the text with a highlighter.

For the majority of this paragraph from Wiener,  it's within the realm of possibility (or rather, probability) that Wiener relied on Three Reformers (originally published in 1925) by the Roman Catholic scholar Jacques Maritain (whom Wiener refers to a number of times). On page 32 of my 1947 edition it states,

But in spiritual things [reason] is not only "blind and dark," it is truly "the whore of the devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done." [Erl., 29, 241].

 Maritain states on page 33 (In my 1947 edition):

And in the last sermon preached at Wittenberg,towards the end of his life "Reason is the devil's greatest whore, by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute,the devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is, and she ought to be, drowned in baptism...She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."(36)

36. Erl., 16, 142 to 148 (1546). Cf. Denifle-Paquier, III, 277-278. If the practical result aimed at by Luther, above all else, be to exhort his hearers to act according to faith and not according to human reason only, this does not take anything away from diseased falsity and absurdity of the formulae to which he has recourse. [Maritain, p.200]

And finally on page 33-34, Maritain states: "'Reason is contrary to faith,' he wrote in 1536" [Erl. 44 158]. All the quotes given by Wiener above are verbatim from Maritain's book.

There's some ambiguity here: Did Maritain really utilize Erl. 16, 29, and 44? Or, did he use the French translation of Denifle (Luther et le Luthéranisme, Volume 3) that he mentions in a footnote? Page 277 (cited by Maritain) can be found here:

One of the quotes used by Wiener and Maritian is found on page 278 of Denifle (Erl. 44), though the page number is off by one page:

The quotes in view are noted in footnotes #4 and #6 (with a Tabletalk reference in the middle) on page 277, with one other being used in the first paragraph on page 278. At least Denifle documents the various page numbers for the sections of the quote.  Based on the way Maritian documents his work, it's very likely Maritian constructed his quotes using the French version of Denifle's book. So to summarize, Luther's words were recorded in German and Latin by those who heard him preach, Denifle cited this text from an old German / Latin version of Luther's works, then Denifle was translated into French, then Maritian quoted the French version of  Denifle, then Maritian was translated into English, and then Wiener quoted the English version of Maritain, and then the quote was let loose in cyberspace with someone saying, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition."


Primary Documentation
This majority of the quotes in view are from a sermon put together by two people: Georg Rörer and Stephan Tucher (It was a sermon not written down by Luther, but recorded by those who heard him). It's Luther's last sermon at Wittenberg (January 17, 1546). Here is  Erl. 16,p. 142. The text used by Denifle was probably similar to this primary source. The sermon can also be found in WA 51:123-134 and CL 7:411-417.  WA includes the German as well as the German / Latin mix. This sermon has been translated into English: LW 51:371-380.



Context

The sermon is based on Romans 12:3, "For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him." One of Luther's main thrusts is to exhort his hearers to live by the pure Word of God, letting it say what it says without trying to use "reason" to make it palatable. Of Romans 12:3 Luther preached:

Therefore I exhort you, says Paul, by the grace God has given me, not to think of yourselves more highly than you ought to think [cf. Rom. 12:3]. What he is saying is: You still have your own proud ideas, as well as other gross sins; therefore take heed to yourselves. Hitherto you have heard the real, true Word, now beware of your own thoughts and your own wisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and rob you of your faith. This is what happened to the Anabaptists and the antisacramentarians, and now we have nothing left but instigators of heresy. I have had more than thirty fanatics come to me and try to teach me; but I refuted all their arguments with this passage: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. And up to now I have by God’s grace been sustained by this passage; otherwise I should have had to accept thirty different faiths. [LW 51:377]

 Luther didn't reject reason. Rather, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith. For instance, this sentiment was suspiciously left out of the quotes in question :

Everything should be subject to faith, or rather, the fine gift of conceit should not be wiser than faith. See to it that it is in accord with it. [LW 51:379]

Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith.[LW 51:379]

With that basic gist, below are some of the broader contexts for quotes in question. A snippet of the quote is given, and then the broader context follows:

1. "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore"

2. "Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has."

So there must be preaching and everyone must also take care that his own reason may not lead him astray. For, behold what the fanatics do. They have accepted the Word and faith, but then, added to baptism, there comes wisdom, which has not yet been purged, and wants to be wise in spiritual things. They want to master both the Scriptures and faith by their own wisdom, and they perpetrate heresy. If we were wholly clean, we should not need everywhere the ministry of the Word. If we were altogether pure, we should have no need to be admonished, but would be like the angels in heaven with no need for a schoolmaster, and do everything willingly of ourselves. But since we are still confined to this miserable carcass—which in time the worms will devour, though it deserves something worse, to burn in hell eternally—it is necessary constantly to resist and put off the old man and his works and put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him [cf. Col. 3:10]. Usury, gluttony, adultery, manslaughter, murder, etc., these can be seen and the world understands that these are sins. But the devil’s bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Neither jurist, physician, nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen, but nobody can control reason. It walks about, cooks up fanaticism [Schwärmerei] with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and claims that everything that pops into its head and the devil puts into its heart is the Holy Spirit. Therefore Paul says: As I am an apostle and God has given me the Spirit, so I appeal to you [of. Rom. 12:1; I Cor. 4:16]. [LW 51:373–374; cf. WA 51:126]

3. "by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore"

No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].[LW 51: 375-376]

4."Throw dung in her face to make her ugly."

5. "She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . ."

Therefore, see to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly. Don’t you remember the mystery of the holy Trinity and the blood of Jesus Christ with which you have been washed of your sins? Again, concerning the sacrament, the fanatical antisacramentalists say, “What’s the use of bread and wine? How can God the Almighty give his body in bread?” I wish they had to eat their own dirt. They are so smart that nobody can fool them. If you had one in a mortar and crushed him with seven pestles his foolishness still would not depart from him. Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. [LW 51:376–377].

6. " She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets"

When you hear a fanatical antisacramentalist say, “There is only bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar,” or “Do you think that at your word Christ is going to descend from heaven into your mouth and your belly?” You just say to him, “Ah, I like what you say; what a learned bride the devil has! But what do you say to this: ‘This is my beloved Son, listen to him?’ And he says, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 17:5; 26:26]. Go, trot to the privy with your conceit, your reason! Shut up, you cursed whore, do you think you are master over faith, which declares that the true body and the true blood is in the Lord’s Supper, and that Baptism is not merely water, but the water of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?” Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith. [LW 51: 379].

7. "she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore."


8. "whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . "

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity. [ LW: 51:376]. 

Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. So let us deal with the fanatics as the prophets dealt with the spiritual harlots, the idolaters, the wiseacres, who want to do things better than God does. We should say to them, “I have a Bridegroom, I will listen to him. Your wisdom is utter foolishness. I destroy your wisdom and trample it under foot.” This struggle will go on till the last day. This is what Paul wants; we are to quench not only the low desires but also the high desires, reason and its high wisdom. When whoredom invades you, strike it dead, but do this far more when spiritual whoredom tempts you. Nothing pleases a man so much as self-love, when he has a passion for his own wisdom. The cupidity of a greedy man is as nothing compared with a man’s hearty pleasure in his own ideas. He then brings these fine ideas into the Scriptures, and this is devilishness pure and simple. This sin is forgiven, but when it reigns in one’s nature, not yet fully purged, then assuredly the true doctrine is soon lost, however willingly one preaches and willingly one listens. Then Christ is gone. Then they fall down before the devil on the mountain and worship him (Matt. 4 [:8–10]) [LW 51: 376–377].

9."Reason is contrary to faith"
See my earlier blog entry, here: Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith. This quote is located in Erl., 44, 156-157; WA 47:328. It's from Luther's Sermon on Matthew 19:13-15, recently translated into English in LW 68:22-23.


10."Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done"

Wiener says this last quote comes from a different source,  E29, 241 (It's also cited above by Denifle in footnote #3). This quote can be found here: WA 18:164. It has been translated into English in LW 40:174-175. It's found in the treatise, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525). In arguing against Karlstadt, Luther states:

Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda, natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow. [LW 40: 174-175].

Addendum
Over the years, I've put together a number of basic posts on Luther and "reason." Here are a few of them:

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Handmaid

Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith

Luther:Philosophy Should Be Learned To Be Refuted

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

How to Maneuver 2 Maccabees and Prayers for the Dead

Here are a few highlights from a blog I just skimmed. Note the clever use of the word "superstitious" (I've placed the word in bold). By the use of one word, "Poof!"mortal sin becomes venial sin.

Shameless Popery says:
The Second Book of Maccabees is completely straightforward about praying for the departed, and praying to the Saints. In 2 Macc. 12:43-46, some of Judas Maccabeus’ soldiers fall in combat. Although they’re fighting for Israel, the Israelites discover superstitious amulets on the fallen soldiers, and realize this is why they were allowed to fall. Maccabeus responds to this by praying for the dead, and offering a sin offering on their behalf:

He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 

Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. You can’t get much clearer then that. The Bible tells us that he prayed for the dead, praises him for it, and then tells us that he thereby made atonement for them that they might be delivered from their sin. All of this is linked to the resurrection of the dead, which puts the author of 2 Maccabees ahead of the Sadducees when it comes to orthodoxy (cf. Luke 20:27).

Detractor in the comment box:
Concerning 2 Maccabees. It has been a few years since I read this book, but I think even in what you quoted you have a few problems. First, idolatry is a mortal sin and they died in their mortal sin. Prayers cannot avail those who have not done penance for such a sin. So, if you interpret 2 Maccabees as Scriptural proof of prayers for the dead, you just eviscerated your own dogma.

Shameless Popery says:
Underlying your confidence that the fallen are in Hell is the idea that they were idolaters. But it doesn’t actually say that in the Bible. Rather it says that the fallen were wearing the “sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (2 Macc. 12:40). So maybe they were idolaters, or maybe they were just superstitious. But err on the side of praying for them, obviously!

Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor," a Literary Feud Revisited

This morning I re-read my earlier blog entry, Finding Contexts in Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" (2009). Now six years later, I find it interesting that little has changed with the popular online use of Wiener's book. So many of the quotes I come across find their way back to this book. I suspect Mr. Wiener is no longer living, so it's unfortunate for the author that he probably didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace. In my 2009 entry I noted how ecumenical the book is, being published by both Atheists and Roman Catholics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Unfortunately, the most direct response to Wiener is hard to track down. A contemporary of Wiener, Gordon Rupp, published, Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause Or Cure? (Lutterworth Press, 1945). Used copies are around from time to time.  I've utilized this book in some blog entries, but getting it online would be the best antidote to Wiener's work.

2012 saw the release of Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). This is one of the more reader-friendly books on this subject, and what's interesting is not only is Gritsch a respected Luther scholar, he mentions in his recent book that he had been "a member of the Hitler Youth during the final days of World War II" (p. xiii). Before someone thinks that Gritsch would be sympathetic to Luther because of the events of his youth, Gritsch states, Luther is not simply "anti-Judaic" but rather "genuinely anti-Semetic" "in accordance with the broad, contemporary definition of anti-Semitism."

In the book as well he comments on the Wiener / Rupp feud. I found his analysis interesting, if only for his description of Wiener's book :

In 1945, a literary feud put the theme "Luther and the Jews" into the limelight. One year earlier, a British teacher of German and French, Peter F. Wiener, published a book contending that Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor. It is sheer propaganda with the intention to show that Luther's radical anti-Semitism made him "one of the darkest figures history has yet produced." This is "proven" by a chain of historical distortions: Luther tolerated Jews in order to gain their support in his struggle against the papal church, but turned against the Jews when they did not join him; his demonic anti-Semitism was not grounded in theology because his "religion" was a "Teutonic anti-Christian faith." Wiener misquotes, misinterprets, and intentionally misunderstands . His work "is nothing but a historical forgery based on ignorance and malice" [so says Gordon Rupp].

The British Luther scholar Ernest Gordon Rupp offered a devastating, yet elegantly executed critique. One cannot win the peace, Rupp observed, by reviving the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, the late but unlamented Minister of Nazi Propaganda. "The Nazi uniforms which Mr. Wiener has put on Luther fit very oddly on the facts: they were not made for him, nor he for them. Whatever be the truth about Luther, it is not Mr. Wiener's caricature." [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 118-119].

The Church would have been better off without the Reformation. Agree? Disagree?

Here is the video of the recent debate between Dr. James White and Rev. Dr. Thomas Norris (Priest of the Diocese of Ossory) on the Reformation.

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

I have not listened to this debate yet (it's been one of those weeks). I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. James White, so I'm sure he did an outstanding job.

Another "The Darker Side of Martin Luther"

To the left: The cover of an English version of a 1939 short pamphlet by Bishop Martin Sasse, a Nazi propagandist. 

If one were to do a study on the Internet approach to Martin Luther, one genre could perhaps be dubbed, "The Dark side of Martin Luther" web pages. I recently came across yet another: The Darker Side of Martin Luther  hosted by Illinois Wesleyan University. The author states, "Martin Luther is remembered as one of the most famous religious figures in history, considered to be the founder of Protestantism. However, there was a lesser known side of him, one that was dark and full of hatred." This "lesser side" is "unknown to popular knowledge" that Luther wrote against the Jews. Contrarily to this notion, I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep these writings "unknown to popular knowledge" (especially in our age of information, even in 2008 when this paper was written). Popularly, Luther’s career begins in 1517 with the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses. For around twenty years, Luther said little about the Jews, and what he did say was generally positive (when judged by the standards of "popular" culture of his time). Luther’s overt anti-Jewish writings primarily span his last eight years (1538-1546). That his anti-Jewish writings don't "popularly" define him is due to the fact that they are dwarfed by his bold stance against the tyranny of his day earlier in his career. When someone popularly mentions Luther, chances are, they're not going focus on his lesser known writings at the end of his career.


The Dark Side of the Darker Side
While copyrighted and published in a journal from this school, the article appears to have been put together by an undergraduate in 2008 (the journal appears to consist of writings from undergraduates). I mention the undergraduate aspect because a quick search shows the article has been cited in a few books. That it was written by someone without an attained college degree does not necessarily mean the article is error-filled. In my thinking though, if I'm going to write a book and cite an authority, I'm probably going to try to cite someone with a few more credentials.  The author herself actually inadvertently admits at three different points to not being well-versed in Luther studies:

In trying to uncover the “truth” about Luther’s views, the main problem I encountered was the depth of his writings. Luther’s works fill volumes upon volumes of books. To read all of them would be nearly impossible, especially in my case where I had a limited amount of time to research. Therefore I read only the two books that most directly impacted this paper. There may be other important writings of his on this matter that I have not been able to uncover due to time constraints. Also, my readings of Luther’s work are dependent on the translated version. How much should I trust that the translator was accurate?

I can appreciate this blatant honesty, and I wish others (particularly bloggers and Facebook apologists that seemingly become experts on Luther with Google) would similarly see the complexity involved in Reformation studies. I would assume the author came in contact with not only the volume and pedigree of Luther's writings, but also the vast amount of secondary literature. To navigate through the materials on the Reformation takes more than doing a little research to write one paper during a semester.

I was raised as a Lutheran, and yet I never learned of Luther’s anti-Semitism. Now that I think about it, it makes sense that the Lutheran Church would want to keep Luther’s anti-Semitism a secret. There are also very few secondary sources that connect Luther and Hitler, and so I was not able to use a lot of these sources to aid my investigation into the truth of my claim.

I've never been a Lutheran, so I can't use experience to judge her experience. I do know though that some of the Lutheran bodies have made statements on Luther and the Jews. How well these are disseminated, I don't know.  The writer though appears to have an ax to grind with her Lutheran affiliation when she also says things like,

Lutherans are not proud of Luther’s anti-Semitic views. One way they have attempted to salvage his reputation is by alleging that he only became anti-Semitic when he grew older, perhaps due to psychological reasons. Through this and other excuses they have tried to hide the truth, in order to keep this embarrassing aspect of their religion secret.

Some examples of Lutherans using "psychological reasons" would have been useful at this point. In Luther studies, it is simply one approach to understanding Luther's later writings [see for instance, Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983); see also his article here], not an attempt to "hide truth." Lutheran scholarship, particularly post-World War II Lutheran scholarship, has not tried to keep Luther's attitude toward the Jews "a secret." In fact, the English edition of Luther's Works translated and published Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies decades ago. I can appreciate the zeal this woman has against Antisemitism, but throwing the entire world of Lutheranism haphazardly under the bus demonstrates an emotional reaction rather than an informed reaction.

In the end, I believe I have uncovered a substantial amount of evidence that proves that Martin Luther was anti-Semitic. However, I believe that I have not uncovered enough truth to thoroughly support my claim that Luther significantly influenced Hitler and the Nazis. Perhaps, in the future, with more time to investigate and research sources, my claim will be proven.

This is typical of "dark side" reviews, that there is secret "evidence" being suppressed needing to be uncovered. The author appears to think she's ventured into uncharted historical waters. The "substantial amount of evidence" the author provides in her paper is the typical stuff mentioned in most treatments of this issue. On the other hand, the author has not found "enough truth" to link Luther to Hitler, because,

In this realm, “truth” is harder to find. First of all, the actual pamphlets that were written in Germany during the Third Reich are stored in archives that are not easily accessible. These pamphlets are the primary documents that would offer concrete evidence of Luther’s influence.

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "not easily accessible." The author certainly did not have access to this site in 2008, but I find it hard to believe there is a concerted German effort to suppress Nazi propaganda linking Luther to Hitler, even in 2008. I would speculate the author was probably under a deadline to submit this paper (along with other assignments) and didn't have the time to do further research beyond the few authors she utilized ("Secondary sources such as books written by Peter Wiener, Eliot Wheaton, and Daniel Goldhagen, will also be considered in order to compare my findings to those of other scholars").


Antisemitism vs. Anti-Judaism
The author also seems to not understand the significant debate on this issue over terms like "anti-Semetic." She concludes Luther was anti-Semitic while at the same time using the other term "anti-Judaic."

Is it “true” that Luther was anti-Semitic? I have to answer with a resounding yes. However, I think the term “anti-Judaic” better describes Luther, considering the fact that “anti-Semitic” is a modern word, first used in the mid-19th century. Antisemitism also concerns the issue of race, whereas Luther’s objection to the Jews had nothing to do with their race, but their religious beliefs.

In Luther studies, this is saying two different things. There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current Antisemitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. On the other hand, the author was correct to mention the nuances and etymology of the modern term Antisemitism. If one frames the issues with these two categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.

The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" though does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm beginning to think more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view, rather than what I wrote here some years ago.


Luther and the Nazis
The section of this paper that most intrigued me was the linking of Luther to the Nazis. The author states, "The influence of Luther’s writings on the Nazis was quite profound." Yet in conclusion she states, "However, I believe that I have not uncovered enough truth to thoroughly support my claim that Luther significantly influenced Hitler and the Nazis." If I were grading this paper, the red pen would be out, in force. The paper certainly should have never made it to a journal with these two statements existing in the same paper. That blunder aside, the information she included in regard to the Nazis was interesting- some of it is quite compelling that those with Nazi sympathy cited Luther's writings.

First, the not-so-compelling information:  Hitler does mention Luther once in Mein Kampf, however the comment is in passing and does not refer to Luther's writings, particularly his anti-Jewish writings. She also cites Hitler via an introductory quote page from Peter F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, but again Luther's writings against the Jews are not in view. In fact, if this quote from Hitler is supported by it's original context, it demonstrates Hitler appears to not have a clue in regard to Luther: "I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing." Luther would approve of a German church without a Bible? I don't think so.

The author appears to think that a Nazi mentioning Luther means that a Nazi was influenced by Luther's writings. A much simpler explanation is that Luther was a popular German hero, so of course the Nazis, claiming to be pure Germans will utilize his name in propaganda efforts. The author states,

Hans Hinkel, a journalist and ministerial official during the Nazi regime, was also influenced by Luther. He paid tribute to him during his acceptance speech of Goebbels’s Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry, saying that “through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun.” Again, this quote demonstrates that Luther’s works were used to justify Nazi actions. In this case, Hinkel alluded to the fact that Luther began the revolution that the Nazis continued.

Suspiciously missing is anything of substance from "Luther's works." The author has confused simply mentioning a historical figure with actually citing and expounding upon the works of a historical writer.

Not only did Luther influence important Nazi officials, but it has been suggested that he also helped inspire certain major events during the Third Reich. One of these events was Kristallnacht. On this night, November 10th, 1938, Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues. Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Lutheran churchman, immediately saw the connection between this event and Luther’s writing. Shortly after the event, he published a compendium of Luther’s antiSemitic works. In the foreword, he applauded the event, especially since it occurred on Luther’s birthday. He also wrote that the German people should pay attention to the writings of Luther, who was the “greatest anti-Semite of this time, the warner of his people against the Jews.” Another event in which Luther’s presence was felt was the Nuremberg rallies. During the rallies, a copy of On the Jews and Their Lies was publicly exhibited in a glass case, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher.

Missing is any evidence that Luther's writings or his birthday was that which inspired Kristallnacht. In actuality, Kristallnacht began late on November 9th, continuing onto the 10th. If one researches this tragedy, there were events prior to November 10 that led to Kristallnacht, but, to my knowledge, commemorating Luther's birthday was not one of them.

Now the compelling information: Of course it is true that there were those that did cite Luther's writings, particularly On the Jews and Their Lies. For instance, the author cites Nazi and Lutheran minister Martin Sasse. Sasse went as far as writing a book entitled, Martin Luther and the Jews (yes, that's a pdf link to his pamphlet). The German version of the book was titled slightly different, Martin Luther on the Jews: Away With Them! She also cites a pamphlet by E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks in 1934 in which Luther's anti-Jewish writings were used to support Aryan Law (also available online).

Perhaps the strongest section of her paper is pointing out that Luther was used for propaganda purposes:

Articles written during the Third Reich also used Luther to support their beliefs.Kurt Hilmar Eitzen’s article written in the party monthly for propagandists, entitled “Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys,” is one example. This article presented counterarguments to the most common objections the Nazis encountered. These counterarguments were supposed to be used in everyday conversations among common citizens. Luther is quoted to counter argument number 5: “Argument 5: ‘Mr. Levi is not a Jew, since he has been baptized!’ — Counterargument: ‘I have no desire to convert the Jews,’ Martin Luther wrote, ‘since that is impossible.’ A Jew remains a Jew.” This is yet another instance of the Nazis’ misuse of Luther’s works. Luther very often contradicted himself on the possibility of converting Jews. However, he wrote that “whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins.” From this statement, one can conclude that Luther believed Jews could be converted. His last sentence in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, deals with the possibility of conversion: “May Christ, our dear lord, convert them mercifully.” Again, Luther might have seen the possibility of Jews converting to Christianity. However, this article uses Luther’s work to support the Nazis’ belief that Jews could not convert because Judaism is a race. The idea of race and the purity of blood was one fundamental belief of the Nazi party. However, not once does Luther mention the idea that Jews were a separate race. The article takes Luther’s quote completely out of context, distorting it to support their claims.

This is a helpful example of Nazi propaganda. The Nazis were not interested in Luther as a theologian. The Nazis would just as easily have killed a Jew claiming he converted to Christianity. The Jewish Virtual Library website includes a page called Martin Luther: The Jews And Their Lies. Many negative quotes are extracted from On The Jews And Their Lies, yet they include the following statement:

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career. We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.

Conclusion
I've taken the time to review The Darker Side of Martin Luther to demonstrate that simply because something is copyrighted and published in journal doesn't necessarily mean it's solid and quotable information. I know nothing about the author of The Darker Side of Martin Luther. She may have gone on to do more research. She may have gone on to achieve a Master's or a PhD in Reformation studies, or history in general. If she comes across this review, she may actually see the weaknesses of her earlier work. Overall, the task of dissecting Luther's attitude on the Jews and it's relation to Nazi Germany is probably not possible to do in a short paper. There are many full-length treatments on the subject. I would recommend these titles to her:

Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).

Christopher J. Probst, Demonizing the Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012).

Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths [Concordia Publishing; 2nd edition (October 1, 2007)]. Also available in Kindle.

Someone may ask me an obvious question at this point: why should my review be taken as solid and quotable? It's just a blog entry. The simple answer is, it should not. People should do their own research, and check facts as they come across them, whether I write them or someone from Illinois Wesleyan University. While the Internet has opened up a world of information, there's far more distortion now than if the information was sitting in a library on shelves. While one may think the Internet has made research easier, at times it does not. The Darker Side of Martin Luther is for me, an example of something creating noise rather than truth.

God's Not Dead, the Movie

God's Not Dead has made it to Netflix. I suffered through God's Not Dead in two ways. First, I had a philosophy teacher in college who actually loved to beat up Christians. I had more than one class with him, and I still consider his book Wisdom Without Answers an excellent introductory text to philosophy. I still use arguments presented in this book to challenge Christian people with. I've used his arguments while teaching in church as well as few times while speaking to Christian organizations on college campuses for apologetics related topics. While the man repeatedly pulverized me, he taught me to think critically, and that skill of critical thinking eventually led me to presuppositional apologetics. I consider the experience of being with this teacher akin to being torn down to eventually be built back up stronger. I would've never thought of bringing him to court while he was berating me or other Christians. Rather, I see the experience as one of the most important times in my life, however painful it actually was at the time. If I were to see this man again, I'd thank him for provoking me to think beyond accepted paradigms.

Second, If my old philosophy teacher had been the teacher in the movie, God's Not Dead, the movie would not have ended with a Christian rock concert.  I'm not going to give a detailed review of this movie, other than saying this atheist summed it up perfectly for me: "Even during my Christian days I’m certain I would have been nauseated by this terrible movie’s wooden dialogue, forced drama, and two-dimensional characters."

What's provoked me to mention this movie is that this same atheist blogger asserts "This story idea began as a variation of a couple of (now infamous) chain emails about a brave young college student who argued with his atheistic professor about the existence of God (“and that young man was ALBERT EINSTEIN”)." He then gives links to a couple of snopes articles:

Legend: An atheist professor challenges God to keep a piece of chalk from breaking when he drops it from his hand.

While a college student, Albert Einstein humiliated an atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him.

I'm actually curious to know if in fact God's Not Dead was intentionally intended to be a film adaptation of these myths. This website asserts: "Having apparently run out of books, comics, and 80s comedy remakes, a feature film loosely based on the atheist professor chain email called God's Not Dead was released in March 2014." I don't think I have many atheist visitors, but if any of you can actually verify that those behind God's Not Dead had these myths in mind, I would appreciate it.

Getting a militant atheist-homosexual to think

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: "Read the text for yourself"

Peter J. Williams shows that character and variety of the resurrection accounts in Scripture and at the end says, "Read the text for yourself".  Pause the video and look up all the different texts of Scripture.

Google Explains Grace and Mercy on Easter

I typed this into a Google search: "the difference between grace and mercy." Not bad for Google.

Some excellent links and messages for deeper study and meditation for this Good Friday

With all the troubling news in our world today - the Islamic violence, the "gay agenda" seeking to destroy decency, etc.; it is good to focus on the meaning of Jesus Christ and His atonement on the cross today, traditionally known as "Good Friday".  "fixing your eyes on Jesus" (Hebrews 12:1-4)

Questions and Answers with Dr. James White  at the Confessing Baptist website.

This is a very good question and answer session with links to other lectures / videos that Dr. White has done for background to the questions.  Covers issues such as "Gay Christians" (Christians who struggle with same sex attractions), Islam, Covenant Theology, Theonomy, the Prosperity Gospel, Modalism.

What happened on Good Friday?   (A Harmony of the Gospel accounts)

The Cup of the Wrath of God.  (R. C. Sproul)

The Weight of the Cross.  ( R. C. Sproul)


Understanding Jesus' Cry from the Cross:  "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani?", "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?"  (Desiring God Ministries, Donald Macleod)


How do we understand Jesus' words and the balance of the Father pouring out His justice and wrath on Jesus as the sin-bearer, and that the Trinity was not ontologically split or separated?

Dr. White has often made the point that Jesus is quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, and expects the Jewish audience to know the rest of the Psalm, like when someone starts the first verse of "Amazing Grace" and many will naturally join in singing it, because they are familiar with it and have memorized it.

Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1 seems to invite the person to read the rest of the Psalm and notice especially these verses below that are also teaching about the suffering servant, the Messiah, who would be crucified and be the ransom for sin:

"But I am a worm and not a man, A reproach of men and despised by the people.7  All who see me sneer at me; They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,8   “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.” Psalm 22:6-8
. . . 
My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;  And You lay me in the dust of death.16   For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;18  They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots."  Psalm 22:15-18

. . . All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.28   For the kingdom is the Lord’s And He rules over the nations."  Psalm 22:27-28

Excerpt from the Desiring God article by Donald Macleod:

"The words are an Aramaic-tinged quotation from Psalm 22, and although Matthew and Mark both offer a translation for the benefit of Gentile readers, they clearly want us to hear the exact words that Jesus spoke. At his lowest ebb, his mind instinctively breathes the Psalter, and from it he borrows the words that express the anguish, not now of his body, but of his soul.

He bore in his soul, wrote Calvin, “the terrible torments of a condemned and lost man” (Institutes, II:XVI, 10). But dare we, on such hallowed ground, seek more clarity?

Against All Hope

There are certainly some very clear negatives. The forsakenness cannot mean, for example, that the eternal communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was broken. God could not cease to be triune.

Neither could it mean that the Father ceased to love the Son: especially not here, and not now, when the Son was offering the greatest tribute of filial piety that the Father had ever received.

Nor again could it mean that the Holy Spirit had ceased to minister to the Son. He had come down upon him at his baptism not merely for one fleeting moment, but to remain on him (John 1:32), and he would be there to the last as the eternal Spirit through whom the Son offered himself to God (Hebrews 9:14).

And finally, the words are not a cry of despair. Despair would have been sin. Even in the darkness God was, “My God,” and though there was no sign of him, and though the pain obscured the promises, somewhere in the depths of his soul there remained the assurance that God was holding him. What was true of Abraham was truer still of Jesus: against all hope, he in hope believed (Romans 4:18).

Truly Forsaken

Yet, with all these qualifiers, this was a real forsaking. Jesus did not merely feel forsaken. He was forsaken; and not only by his disciples, but by God himself. It was the Father who had delivered him up to Judas, to the Jews, to Pilate, and finally to the cross itself.
And now, when he had cried, God had closed his ears. The crowd had not stopped jeering, the demons had not stopped taunting, the pain had not abated. Instead, every circumstance bespoke the anger of God; and there was no countering voice. This time, no word came from heaven to remind him that he was God’s Son, and greatly loved. No dove came down to assure him of the Spirit’s presence and ministry. No angel came to strengthen him. No redeemed sinner bowed to thank him."  

Donald Macleod  (see the rest here) at Desiring God Ministries. 

At the same time, Jesus, the eternal Son, who voluntarily became flesh for us; also voluntarily went to the cross to pay for our sins.

"No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down on My own initiative, and I take it up again . . . "  John 10:18  (one of the most important verses to know in dealing with Muslims, who think that Christianity teaches that God forced Jesus to pay for our sins in an unjust way.)

Luther said to his dog, "Be thou comforted, little dog, Thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail"

Maybe dogs have an immortal soul as well. As Martin Luther said to his dog, "Be thou comforted, little dog, Thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail” [source]

While this sentiment touches the heart of every person owning a dog, I'm not so sure Luther actually said it. Some time back it's authenticity was questioned here on this blog in the comment box, and this sort of desperation doesn't point toward authenticity.  There are a number of versions of it, some of them coming in the form of fiction or being weaved into fictional stories. Other than the theological similarities to 1544 letter that Preserved Smith popularly documents, the earliest accounts I could find were mostly fictional. Below I've compiled a number of versions of the quote, primarily from the 1800's, It's interesting (well, to me at least) to see how the  quote changed as it went along. If Luther did say it, it's highly probable it was a Table talk comment.


1843:  Siri's jesting words remind us of what Luther said to his dog when it was snarling: 'Do not snarl, Jacky; be a good dog, and at the resurrection you shall have a golden tail." [The rectory of Mora] [Bremer's Novels, Vol. 2]

1845: Siri's playful words remind one of the words which Luther said to his dog when he growled: "Growl not, my little doggy; in the resurrection thou too shalt get a little golden tail!"[The Novels of Frederika Bremer]

1849: Siri is great at riddles, and also delights in taxing people's powers in more modern mysteries and speculations; as, where she inquires into the future life of the animal creation, and promises a glorious future existence to her fawn on the sanction of Luther, who is quoted as having said to his dog one day when he growled, ‘ Growl not, my little doggy; in the resurrection thou, too, shalt have a little golden tail.’ [The Christian Remembrancer]

1854: "Good, I daresay; but great?" "Not your mere dog fancier, who tyrannizes over or tires of his pets, but a gentle superior, like wise Sir Isaac Newton to silly little Diamond; and do you know what Martin Luther told his dog?" "No, something polemical?" "Neil Farquharson would not believe it; he would say it was a most fantastic doctrine, but it was no doctrine, only a loving fancy. 'Doggie,' he said, "you'll have a golden tail to wag in heaven." "He said that; I am glad to hear it, it was a throb of the great tender heart under his armour of dauntless faith and courage, and massive learning." [Phemie Millar, by the author of 'The Kinnears']

1856:When Luther was a little disturbed by his favourite dog, dreaming at the fire, the jolly old Reformer said to the uneasy cur, "Be quiet, hundchen, and at the resurrection you, too, shall have a golden tail." Mr. Punch would almost borrow the words of Luther, saying, "Be tranquil, dearest Muntz, and when the Bank of England stops gold payments, you, too, shall have an unlimited queue of paper." [Punch]

1861: Mors wagged his tail assentingly, and I thought of Luther's words to his dog:— "Don't grumble, little Hans; thou too shalt have a golden tail some day!"[Two years in Switzerland and Italy]

1864: Thekla has experienced her first sorrow. Her poor little foundling, Nix, is dead. For some days the poor creature had been ailing, and at last he lay for some hours quivering, as if with inward convulsions; yet at Thekla's voice the dull, glassy eyes would brighten, and he would wag his tail feebly as he lay on his side. At last he died; and Thekla was not to be comforted, but sat apart and shed bitter tears. The only thing which cheered her was Christopher's making a grave in the garden for Nix, under the pear tree where I used to sit at embroidery in summer as now she does. It was of no use to try to laugh her out of her distress. Her lip quivered and her eyes filled with tears if any one attempted it. Atlantis spoke seriously to her on the duty of a little girl of twelve beginning to put away childish things; and even the gentle mother tenderly remonstrated and said one day, when Dr. Luther had asked her for her favourite, and had been answered by a burst of tears, "My child, if you mourn so for a dog, what will you do when real sorrows come?" But Dr. Luther seemed to understand Thekla better than any of us, and to take her part. He said she was a child, and her childish sorrows were no more trifles to her than our sorrows are to us; that from heaven we might probably look on the fall of an empire as of less moment than we now thought the death of Thekla's dog; yet that the angels who look down on us from heaven do not despise our little joys and sorrows, nor should we those of the little ones; or words to this effect. He has a strange sympathy with the hearts of children. Thekla was so encouraged by his compassion, that she crept close to him and laid her hand in his, and said, with a look of wistful earnestness, "Will Nix rise again at the last day? Will there be dogs in the other world?" Many of us were appalled at such an irreverent idea; but Dr. Luther did not seem to think it irreverent. He said, "We know less of what that other world will be than this little one, or than that babe," he added, pointing to my little Gretchen, "knows of the empires or powers of this world. But of this we are sure, the world to come will be no empty, lifeless waste. See how full and beautiful the Lord God has made all things in this passing, perishing world of heaven and earth! How much more beautiful, then, will he make that eternal incorruptible world! God will make new heavens and a new earth. All poisonous, and malicious, and hurtful creatures will be banished thence,—all that our sin has ruined. All creatures will not only be harmless, but lovely, and pleasant and joyful, so that we might play with them. 'The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." Why, then, should there not be little dogs in the new earth, whose skin might be fair as gold, and their hair as bright as precious stones?" Certainly, in Thekla's eyes, from that moment there has been no doctor of divinity like Dr. Luther. [Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family]

1864: Cheer up, little heart! Jikkir's soulful eyes and faithful heart prophesy to me. Somewhere in that beautiful Home to come, toward which your love looked forward with longing for reunion with its object, there must be a snug little corner where they will let us have our own again. Cowper his hares, you your immaculate little pets, and us our Jikkir. And I even dare hope that Jikker's caudal shortcomings may there find compensation; for what saith the stern old re-former, the good Martin Luther, to his dog? "Hans, Hans! be quiet, and in the resurrection thou shalt have a little golden tail!" [Harper's Magazine, Volume 28]

1875: The Catholic Portuguese and the Protestant of Northern Europe can here meet on common ground; and if the one can cite St. Francis and St. Hubert, the other can quote the authentic legend of Martin Luther to support his attachment to dogs. “ Don’t growl, Hans,” the great reformer is known to have said to his dog, “ and when the resurrection comes, I promise that you shall have a golden tail! ”[Travels in Portugal]

1877: You have escaped immortality, being switched off the celestial railroad on to a side-track leading to an old coal-yard. You shall be paid for it some day; if not here, then hereafter. Luther promised his dog, that, in the resurrection, he should have a golden tail. ["Warrington" Pen-portraits]

1878: Some of the more intelligent brutes are capable of such affinities with men, women, and children as would seem to justify the hope of the great Doctor Adam Clarke, that he should meet his old white horse in heaven; though there is some doubt whether Martin Luther will be able to keep his promise to his dog, that if he were good, in heaven he should have a golden tail. [That Boy: Who Shall Have Him?]

1881: Could she have had the new sense which psychologists promise (with perhaps the assurance of Luther in telling his dog of a golden tail that awaited him in the resurrection), she might that moment have discovered Rushmore smoking outside a bright cafe watching the elegant ladies on their way for a drive in the Bois de Boulogne.[Eunice Lathrop: Spinster]

1883: Martin Luther believed in animal's souls and in their immortality. He consoled a child grieving over the death of her dog by telling her she would have her pet to play with in Heaven and that it would have a golden tail!- From the Exchange [The Christian Life, Volume 9]

1887: Who can study the face of a fine dog, and watch it play of expression, its excitement under sympathy, its ready disappointment, its visible struggle between some sore temptation and the sense of duty, its tender loyalty, its look of comfortable peace on being petted, without being reminded of some of childhood's sweetest qualities? It is one of our most agreeable associations with Martin Luther that when writing his treatise on the Resurrection he looked down upon his impatient little dog, and promised him that he also should rise again at the Great Day, and should have a little golden tail. [Harper's Bazaar, Volume 20]

1887: The heart is unfortunate that has no room for dumb creatures; some of the greatest souls that earth has known have been characterized by a sort of reverential tenderness towards these wonderful, faithful lives of an inferior order to our own. "Be comforted, little dog," said Martin Luther to his canine friend; "thou too in the resurrection shall have a little golden tail." Be not overshocked reader! we do not comfort our dogs like Martin Luther, but we confess to a consciousness that dogs can comfort us. [The Quiver]

1889: "Tiens, tiens, I must tell Hugo that. She says she would like to sit and hold Hugo's hands. Do you hear her, Mousey, my treasure? Oh, what a droll idea! Bless my little angel-love! Yes, he was an angel! And when he died, he should go straight to heaven, like Martin Luther's little dog, and. have a little golden tail, like his! So he should! For he was a thousand times sweeter" (kiss) "and cleverer" (kiss) "and handsomer and more angelic" (kiss) "than "Martin Luther's little dog, yes, so he was!" [The Open Door, Volume 1]

1889: Just back of the churchyard at Berkeley, on the way to the gardens, and separated from consecrated ground by a narrow fence, are a row of little graves with modest tombstones, under the shade of branching trees. Trusted, true-hearted dogs, who have lived their faithful lives, rest here almost within "God's Acre," given careful burial after death by the master and mistress generously good to them in life ; and we often wondered whether the dogs of all breeds and sizes who invariably accompany the Lord of Berkeley and his guests in their walks to the different points of view, or to see the great oak mentioned in Doomsday Book, can know what tender care will be taken of their bodies after their trusty, little loving hearts have ceased to beat. Luther himself went only one step further, in that he promised his favourite dog that in the general resurrection it should have a golden tail.[The English Illustrated Magazine, Volume 6]

1890: Luther himself went only one step further, in that he promised his favourite dog that in the general resurrection it should have a golden tail.[Glimpses of old English homes]

1896: "We held a little service in the parlor of the hotel, and Mrs. C. read the fourteenth chapter of John. Rev. Mr. W. read a sermon from 'The pure in heart shall see God,' written by Parkhurst, of New York. He thought the child should be told that in heaven he should have his hobby-horse. After the service, when we talked it over, I objected to telling the child this. Whittier did not object; he said that Luther told his little boy that he should have a little dog with a golden tail in heaven. [Maria Mitchell: life, letters, and journals]

1897: One day she found some of Martin Luther's sayings. He one day remarked to his dog, that was growling, " Don't growl, little Hans, for in the resurrection thou, too, shalt have a little golden tail." [Daisy, the Autobiography of a Cat]

1898: " 'Is it not so, More P' continued he, as he patted one of the large, pious dogs! ‘Thou wilt hold out for another year, and then thou wilt die! ’ “ I thought of Luther’s words to his dog, ‘Don’t grumble, little Hans; then, too, shalt have a golden tail some day! ’ ” Or, to give another version, “Be comforted, little dog ; thou, too, in the resurrection, shalt have a little golden tail.” From which we may take it, half playful though the words are, that Luther, who so firmly believed in the restoration of all things, would have conceded his canine friend an entrance to that equal sky. [Temple Bar: A London Magazine for Town and Country Readers, Volume 113]

1898: Some of our readers may remember Luther's words to his dog, "Never mind, little Hans, thou too shalt have a golden tail some day"; or, according to a better translation, "Thou too, in the Resurrection, shalt have a little golden tail." [The Westminster Review, Volume 150]

1901: ...and Luther is reported to have said: “ Be comforted, little dog; thou, too, in the resurrection shall have a little golden tail.” [The Puritan, Volume 9]

1902: He lost one little girl, and he bent over her saying, " Magdalene, my little daughter, thou wouldst willingly remain with thy father here, but gladly goest to thy Father yonder." "Yes, dear father, as God wills it," said the child. His love went out to all around. Looking at his little dog's wistful eyes, and feeling as if even its life must last on, he said, "Fear not, Hanslein, thou too shall have a little golden tail." [Cameos from English History]

1904: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the This doubtless will seem to many a shocking conclusion, and it is commonly dodged for two reasons,— one taking the ground that immortality is for man alone, because only man is capable of conceiving of immortality,—the latter a just assumption probably; the other that, malgri Hans, Martin Luther's dog, even with his "little golden tail," the idea of the lower forms of existence in a higher state of existence is incongruous. Streets of gold, the tree of life, the pale horse of Revelation,—these indeed do not jar upon our fancy. Even song birds might be acceptable. But what would one say to a hen or a donkey in the undiscovered country? [The Unitarian Register, Volume 83].

1906: The story is told of Luther that when his dog Hans was angrily growling he soothed him with the words, “Don’t growl, little Hans; you too will go to heaven and have a little golden tail to wag.” [Matthew Arnold]

1907: The more I know men, the better I like dogs." Lord Byron expressed a good deal in an epitaph for his dog, "Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth." Even Luther is reported to have said, "Be comforted, little dog; thou, too, in the resurrection, shall have a little golden tail." Thus endeth the "dog story." [Three Westerners Abroad: European Trip in 1900, Over the Pond in 1905]

1908: like grain, would go up in price if you only kept it long enough. "Don't growl, Hans," said Luther to his dog, "and you shall have at the resurrection a golden tail."[Literary and Historical Essays]

1915: To animals also his love flowed warmly forth, and he was sure that God would receive them into His bright heaven. "Fear not, Hanslein," he said one day to his little dog, which stood regarding him with faithful, intelligent eyes, "thou too shalt have a little golden tail." [Stories from German History from Ancient Times to the Year 1648]

1932: To her better comfort came that gentler saying of Martin Luther's: "Be of good courage, little dog, for thou too in the resurrection shalt have a golden tail." [The Cat who Saw God]

1964: Father," Martin Luther's boy once asked the reformer, "father, are there any little dogs in heaven?" "Gewiss, most certainly," replied Luther. "Little dogs and big dogs and lambs and lions and deer, and they play together in meadows of gold." Sultan is there, I am sure of it. [To Number Our Days]