Luther: Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me

This is a follow-up to my earlier critiques of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:

To add insult onto injury, he goes so far as to elevate himself greater than the Fathers, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine by stating: “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422)To show his utter egotistical attitude, which has carried on down through the rest of Protestantism, he states:“Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me” (Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422). If this really is the attitude of Luther towards God and His Truth, then God help today’s Protestants who have behaved in the same manner, if not worse.

Documentation
The Shoebat article first quotes Luther stating, "St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me (Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422)." I've thoroughly covered this quote before. Shoebat's use verifies they probably relied on Luther, Exposing the Myth as their main cut-and-paste source. The documentation "Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422" is misspelled (it's "Erlangen") and completely bogus. The quote without background gives off the impression that Luther generally considered himself greater than Augustine and Ambrose in all areas. The context though concerns upholding secular authority. Luther was under attack for rebellion against the state and he rhetorically argues that neither Augustine nor Ambrose were his equals in upholding secular government and power.

Even though Shoebat provides an accurate reference for the quote under scrutiny, it was probably originally taken from books like Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener or Luther IV by Hartmann Grisar. Someone at some point (maybe Grisar?) said this quote comes from "Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422." This can be found here, on page 422. This text comes from the Tischreden, or Table Talk.  The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. The comment dates from September, 1542 and was recorded by  Caspar Heydenreich (see LW 54:413). The text reads as follows:

The same text can be found in WA, TR 5:189-190. This text has been translated into English. There are translations found in various biographies of Luther, for instance, like this one.  For the standard English rendering, see LW 54:430.

Context

No. 5494: Illness of Luther’s Daughter Becomes Graver September, 1542
When the illness of his daughter became graver he [Martin Luther] said, “I love her very much. But if it is thy will to take her, dear God, I shall be glad to know that she is with thee.”Afterward he said to his daughter, who was lying in bed, “Dear Magdalene, my little daughter, you would be glad to stay here with me, your father. Are you also glad to go to your Father in heaven?” The sick girl replied, “Yes, dear Father, as God wills.” The father said, “You dear little girl!” [Then he turned away from her and said,] “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak [Matt. 26:41]. I love her very much. If this flesh is so strong, what must the spirit be?” Among other things he then said, “In the last thousand years God has given to no bishop such great gifts as he has given to me (for one should boast of God’s gifts), i'm angry with myself that I’m unable to rejoice from my heart and be thankful to God, though I do at times sing a little song and thank God. Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s [Rom. 14:8]—in the genitive singular and not in the nominative plural.” (LW 54:430)

The Life and Letters of Martin Luther provides a slightly different version:

As his daughter lay very ill, Dr. Luther said: "I love her very much, but dear God, if it be thy will to take her, I submit to thee." Then he said to her as she lay in bed: " Magdalene, my dear little daughter, would you like to stay here with your father, or would you willingly go to your Father yonder ? " She answered: " Darling father, as God wills." Then said he: " Dearest child, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Then he turned away and said: " I love her very much; if my flesh is so strong, what can my spirit do? God has given no bishop so great a gift in a thousand years as he has given me in her. I am angry with myself that I cannot rejoice in heart and be thankful as I ought."

Conclusion
For the defenders of Rome (or anyone for that matter) using this quote, the context is not their friend. The historical context surrounds the death of Luther's daughter Magdalene, and one of the "great gifts" was.... his daughter. To learn more about the death of Luther's daughter, see this link. Shoebat.com says the quote demonstrates Luther's "utter egotistical attitude, which has carried on down through the rest of Protestantism." Had they actually done a little research, they would have easily found an account of father grieving for his his child.

  Some years back a defender of Rome used this same quote (among others) so readers could "marvel at Luther's numerous self-exalting, comically surreal utterances placing himself far above the fathers." Yes, let's indeed marvel at Luther's statement: the reported statement of a father watching his daughter die. If anything is "comically surreal" it's the effort some put in to their propaganda at the expense of a the context.

Luther: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:

His contempt for Holy Scripture does not end at just the book of James, but also extends to attacking even the book of Esther and Jonah in the Hebrew Bible, which he supposedly based his version of the Bible on for the Old Testament. Here are his words on the matter: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202) And also: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (Ibid.) Are we not surprised therefore that Lutheranism was the first to succumb to the blasphemous and ridiculous theories of Higher and Lower Criticism, and also to find her priests wanting to eliminate both James and Revelation? Let us not forget the earlier example of the Lutheran pastor/priest who stated on a radio program that both the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse/Revelation should be eliminated from our Bible. They are only following their wicked founder! Luther has in fact incurred God’s anathema on himself already. Many of these modern day Lutherans have become twice the sons of hell than Luther. Let us be warned.

This blog entry is going to cover Shoebat's Esther quote. For responses to Shoebat.com on Luther's view of James and Revelation, see these links: Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg] and Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.". For an exposition on the Jonah quote, see: Shoebat: Luther Attacked the book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible.

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites this Luther quote from: "The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202." I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). In an earlier paper, I documented Father O’Hare's analysis of Luther: Luther was crazy, depraved, and corrupt. He was in contact with Satan. He lived indecently and sanctioned adultery. He dishonored marriage and authorized prostitution and polygamy. He was a drunkard blasphemer, and a revolutionary. To learn more about Father O'Hare, see this link. For this present quote, O'Hare states:

But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." "Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy." "Tobias is an elegant, pleasing, godly comedy." "Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an ordinary man." "Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be." "Esdras I would not translate, because there is nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop." "Job spoke not as it stands written in his book; but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book." "The book entitled 'Ecclesiastes' ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore, write this book, which was made in the days of the Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King Evergetes." "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness." "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The first book of the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it."

O'Hare provides no exact documentation for these quotes. He does say on page 201-202, "In his prefaces to these books [the apocrypha] he gives at length his opinion as to their character and authority," and then a little later, "But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them." The assumption therefore, is that these comments come from Luther's Prefaces to the books of the Bible. When one looks at the Prefaces though, the quote is not there.  The statement appears to find its genesis in the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. O'Hare probably didn't mine these quotes out of Luther's writings.

If  the quote cited by Father O'Hare is not in the Prefaces, the Table Talk is probably the culprit.  The source used originally may have been the text that now exists in WA TR 1:208 (it was probably an earlier edition of Luther's works used). If so, it would have been from a comment made between 1531 and 1533 recorded by Veit Dietrich, from lines 3 and lines 29-31. It isn't really one quote. It's actually from two different Table Talk entries.:

This text has been translated into in English in older versions of the Table Talk (It is not in LW). For instance, it can be found in William Hazlitt's 19th century Table Talk translation.

Context
Line 3 is supposed to be "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." (Das dritte Buch Esdrae werfe ich in die Elbe), but note the German text says "dritte Buch Esdras" (third book of Esdras). The English translation is bogus. It doesn't say "Esther" at all. Julius Charles Hare speculates "Esdras" became "Esther" because old English translations of the Table Talk read, "the third book of Hester." I was not able to locate one to verify this. Regardless, the German text says "Esdras" not Esther. Here's how the text of lines 3-6 read in English:

The third book of Esdras I throw into the Elbe; there are, in the fourth, pretty knacks enough; as, “The wine is strong, the king is stronger, women strongest of all; but the truth is stronger than all these.” (source)

Line 30-31 is supposed to be "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness" (Und da er, der Doctor, das ander Buch der Maccabaer corrigirte, sprach er: Ich bin dem Buch und Esther so feind, das ich wollte, sie waren gar nicht vorhanden; denn sie judenzen zu sehr, und haben viel heidnische Unart). Here's how lines 29-32 read in English:

When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets, though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains. (source)(source).

Notice that Maccabees was not included in Father O'Hare's rendering. In this case, "Esther" is in the German (line 30).  Julius Charles Hare speculates once again that contextually "Esdras" is meant because it's combined with "Maccabees": "The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees,... as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras. These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk." This is speculation on Hare's part, but his conclusion makes sense, particularly if one reads the entirety of the Table Talk entry being cited. Luther's comment goes in this order: Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, Judith, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, Esther. Proverbs receives no criticism, but the other books mentioned do.

One other interesting clue as to whether "Esdras" was meant instead of "Esther" are Foster's words, "The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets, though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains." First, this fact, if indeed it's about the book Esther, appears quite strange given the importance of Esther to the Feast of Purim in Judaism. Esther is read during Purim! Second, as far as I can tell, Esther does not contain overt "mystic matters" but the Books of Esdras do. On the other hand, there were Jewish allegorical interpretations of Esther as well, and some Jewish interpreters see her as a prophet. The final deciding  factor would be to find out if there's any Jewish tradition as that recorded in Foster's words to either Esther or Esdras. I searched around a bit, and came up with nothing either way.  

Conclusion

In my view, there is only one legitimate Luther quote speaking poorly of Esther in regard to canonicity. It comes from The Bondage of the Will:

“...[T]hough I could rightly reject this book [Ecclesiasticus], for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon (which with a sneering innuendo you call the “Love Song”) with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical)." [LW 33:110].

This quote was a direct response to the following from Erasmus:

I do not think anyone will object against the authority of this work that it was not, as Jerome points out, regarded as canonical by the Hebrews, since the Church of Christ has received it by common consent into its canon; nor do I see any reason why the Hebrews felt they must exclude the book from theirs, seeing they accepted the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love Song. As to the fact that they did not receive into their canon the last two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others, but reckoned them among the hagiographa, anyone who reads those books carefully can easily see what their reasons were. But in this work there is nothing of that kind to disturb the Reader” [Erasmus, The Diatribe, as cited in Luther's Works 33:110].

Luther prefaces his comment by granting the canonicty of Ecclesiasticus so as not waste time on tangents with Erasmus. In both quotes above, It seems to me the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon. I say this because his comment is a direct response to Erasmus, who indeed compared Proverbs and the Song of Solomon to the "two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others." That is, Luther is simply repeating back what Erasmus said in his response. If the it of "despite their inclusion of it in the canon" refers to Esther and not the group of apocryphal book in general being discussed, Luther would be admitting that the Jews considered Esther canonical, but his opinion was that it should not have been.

Luther translated Esther in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his Bible prefaces (there is no Preface to Esther). In one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings: "Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel. Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther)" [LW 35:353]. 

So, whatever Luther's gripe may have been in regard to the Book of Esther, he translated it, not with the apocryphal books, but with the canonical books, thus treating it as canonical. Shoebat.com says Luther's Tabletalk comment on Esther shows "contempt for Holy Scripture." This  is a bit strong, considering the fact that the first part of the quote they use was mis-translated, and the second part may very well not refer to the book of Esther at all. 

Shoebat: Luther Attacked the book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:


His contempt for Holy Scripture does not end at just the book of James, but also extends to attacking even the book of Esther and Jonah in the Hebrew Bible, which he supposedly based his version of the Bible on for the Old Testament. Here are his words on the matter: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202) And also: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (Ibid.) Are we not surprised therefore that Lutheranism was the first to succumb to the blasphemous and ridiculous theories of Higher and Lower Criticism, and also to find her priests wanting to eliminate both James and Revelation? Let us not forget the earlier example of the Lutheran pastor/priest who stated on a radio program that both the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse/Revelation should be eliminated from our Bible. They are only following their wicked founder! Luther has in fact incurred God’s anathema on himself already. Many of these modern day Lutherans have become twice the sons of hell than Luther. Let us be warned.

This blog entry is going to cover Shoebat's Jonah quote. For responses to Shoebat.com on Luther's view of James and Revelation, see these links: Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg] and Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites this Luther quote from: "The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202." I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). In an earlier paper, I documented Father O’Hare's analysis of Luther: Luther was crazy, depraved, and corrupt. He was in contact with Satan. He lived indecently and sanctioned adultery. He dishonored marriage and authorized prostitution and polygamy. He was a drunkard blasphemer, and a revolutionary. To learn more about Father O'Hare, see this link. For this present quote, O'Hare states:

But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." "Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy." "Tobias is an elegant, pleasing, godly comedy." "Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an ordinary man." "Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be." "Esdras I would not translate, because there is nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop." "Job spoke not as it stands written in his book; but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book." "The book entitled 'Ecclesiastes' ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore, write this book, which was made in the days of the Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King Evergetes." "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness." "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The first book of the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it."

O'Hare provides no exact documentation for these quotes. He does say on page 201-202, "In his prefaces to these books [the apocrypha] he gives at length his opinion as to their character and authority," and then a little later, "But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them." The assumption therefore, is that these comments come from Luther's Prefaces to the books of the Bible. When one looks at the Prefaces though, the quote is not there.  The statement appears to find its genesis in the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. O'Hare probably didn't mine these quotes out of Luther's writings.  The Jonah quote, for instance, had been circulating in polemical writings since at least 1834.

There are actually two Prefaces to Jonah, one from 1526, and one from 1532. Neither of these documents contains the quote cited by Father O'Hare, so the Table Talk is probably the culprit.  For this Jonah quote, the source used originally may have been the text that now exists in WA TR 3:550- 551 (it was probably an earlier edition of Luther's works used). If so, it would have been from a comment made in January 1538 recorded by Anthony Lauterbach:

English versions are found in various 19th century editions of  the Table Talk. This translation dates from 1818, so the quote was most certainly around in English previous to O'Hare's use. The most popular English translation was probably that put forth by William Hazlitt. More recently, James Limburg did truncated version of it in his Jonah Commentary. Below, I'm going to provide these translations.


Context

1. Joseph Kerby (1818)
Of the Prophet Jonah. The majesty of the Prophet Jonah is worthy to be advanced. He hath but four chapters, and yet he moved therewith the whole kingdom, therefore under weakness he was justly a figure and a sign of the Lord Christ. Indeed it is surprising, that Christ should remember this but only in four words. Moses likewise, with few words describeth the creation, the histories of Abraham, and such great mysteries; but he spendeth much time about describing the tent, the external sacrifices, the kidneys and excrements, for he saw that the world greatly esteemed outward things which they beheld with their carnal eyes; but that which was spiritual they soon forgot. This history of the prophet Jonah is so great, that it is almost incredible; yea, it soundeth more strange than any of the poets' fables; and if it stood not in the Bible, I should take it for a lie; for consider, how for the space of three days he was in the great belly of the whale, whereas in three hours he might have been digested and changed into the nature, flesh and blood of that monster; may not this be said, to live in the midst of death? In comparison of this miracle, that wonderful passage through the Red Sea was nothing. But what appeareth more strange is, that after he was delivered, he then began to be angry, and to expostulate with a gracious God, touching a small matter, not worth a straw. It is a great mystery; I am ashamed of my exposition upon this Prophet, in that I so weakly touch the main point of this wonderful miracle.(source)

2. William Hazlitt (1848)
The majesty of the prophet Jonah is surpassing. He has but four chapters, and yet he moved therewith the whole kingdom, so that in his weakness, he was justly a figure and a sign of the Lord Christ. Indeed, it is surprising, that Christ should recur to this but in four words. Moses likewise, in few words describes the creation, the history of Abraham, and other great mysteries; but he spends much time in describing the tent, the external sacrifices, the kidneys and so on; the reason is, he saw that the world greatly esteemed outward things, which they beheld with their carnal eyes, but. that which was spiritual, they soon forgot. The history of the prophet Jonah is almost incredible, sounding more strange than any poet's fable; if it were not in the Bible, I should take it for a lie; for consider, how for the space of three days he was in the great belly of the whale, whereas in three hours he might have been digested and changed into the nature, flesh and blood of that monster; may not this be said, to live in the midst of death? In comparison of this miracle, the wonderful passage through the Red Sea was nothing.  But what appears more strange is, that after he was delivered, he began to be angry, and to expostulate with the gracious God, touching a small matter not worth a straw. It is a great mystery. I am ashamed of my exposition upon this prophet, in that I so weakly touch the main point of this wonderful miracle. [source]

3. James Limburg (1993)
But this story of the prophet Jonah is so great that it is almost unbelievable, yes it even sounds like a lie, and more full of nonsense than any poet's fable. If it were not in the Bible, I'd consider it a silly lie. Because if one thinks about it, Jonah was three days in the huge belly of the whale, where he could have been digested in three hours and changed into the flesh and blood of the whale. He could have died three hundred times, under the earth, in the sea, inside the whale. Isn't that living in the midst of death? In comparison with this miracle [source]

Conclusion

Back in the 1800's, a defense of this quote was provided by Julius Charles Hare in response to an  article by The Edinburgh Review. The author says of this quote:

On the book of Jonah the Reviewer makes Luther say, "The history of Jonah is so monstrous, that it is absolutely incredible." Verily the misrepresentation in these words is so monstrous as to be almost incredible. True, Luther is represented in the Tabletalk as saying those words; and he goes on thus (p. 2096): "yea, it sounds like a lie, and more extravagant than any fable of the poets; and if it did not stand in the Bible, I should laugh at it as a lie. For if one thinks about him, how he was three days in the great belly of the fish, where in three hours he might have been digested and turned into the substance of the fish: here he might have died a hundred times, under the earth, in the sea, in the fish, etc. Is not this to live in the midst of death? so that beside this miracle that in the Red Sea is nothing. And how oddly it turns out. After he is delivered and saved, he begins to rage and to grumble and to vex himself for the sake of a little thing, namely, a herb. It is a great mystery: I am ashamed of my interpretation of this prophet, that I have treated the main action and purpose of the miracle so weakly." So that the greatness of the miracle, instead of making Luther doubt its truth, as the Reviewer by his shamefully garbled quotation accuses him of doing, is merely magnified by Luther to shew the fullness of his faith in it." [source]

Shoebat.com says that this quote is an example of Luther "attacking" the book of Jonah. Rather though, if one reads the quote in context, Luther concludes with a deep reverence for the book: "I am ashamed of my exposition upon this prophet, in that I so weakly touch the main point of this wonderful miracle." That isn't an attack. The entire snippet is a demonstration of the power of God's word- that the heart of faith will believe what it says, even if it seems against nature and reason.

Luther: Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostentation.

Here's a closer look at a recent post from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote. In this fourth entry, I'm going to focus on the third part of this quote in which Luther is quoted as saying,

Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostentation.

As I explained previously, the quote below from Catholic Answers is actually at least three quotes from three different contexts pasted together. Why would someone paste three different quotes together? My suspicion is dramatic effect at best, or perhaps a propaganda effort at worst:

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
Some of the nuts and bolts of the documentation for this quote can be found in  a previous entry. The quote was translated into English by the Dublin Review (Sept. 1848). The Dublin Review didn't get it directly from Luther, but rather they claim they took it from Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848), p. 327. The quote appears to based on this snippet from Döllinger:

Döllinger cites Walch, Hauspostil. III, 1572. 1584. This edition of Luther's Works dates from 1740-1753, compiled by Johann Georg Walch.  "Hauspostil" refers to a collection of Luther's sermons (the House Postil). The sermon being cited by Döllinger appears to be on Luke 16:19-31 from June 6, 1535. The edition of Walch's House Postil in which I located the quote can be found here (scroll to pages 1572 and 1584). The text on page 1572 has a similar theme to the quote in question, but is not the quote from Döllinger being cited. The text in question being cited appears to be from page 1584:

In a different form, this sermon can also be found in WA 41:293-300, the quote in question found at WA 41:297:

You'll notice that the texts read differently. This is because the text was not written by Luther, but was rather the transcription of sermon notes from the notes of Georg Roerer. The notes had to be filled out and made into flowing texts. The text  Döllinger used was the first one (also found in the St. Louis edition (13b:2138).

To my knowledge, only one complete version of this sermon has been translated into English. The version I'm using can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 223-240 (CSOML6). This version is based on  Roerer's notes found in the St. Louis edition (13b). A partial preview of this English version can be found on Google books in Faith and Freedom: an Invitation to the Writings of Martin Luther.

Context
This sermon treats Luke 16:19-31 (the account of Lazarus and the rich man). Luther says the story was meant to show the Pharisees their sins of covetousness and greed (CSOML6:223-224). But, says Luther, the same story applies "to rich and arrogant people of the world today" (CSOML6:224). Further says Luther, many people actually don't view themselves in such negative terms but see themselves as the opposite.  People redefine themselves and their sin in such a way that they see their vices as virtues. The Pharisees did not admit their sins, neither do people today: "..nowadays our noblemen, peasants, and townsfolks also ask no questions [about their real sin], regardless what one preaches and says" (CSOML6:225). Luke 16:19-31 therefore, is meant to make people pause and look deeply into their hearts:

The Gospels are at one when they speak about the fruits of faith and about the righteous works of a Christian, about what an upright man and Christian should do. Yet at the same time it is evident that the whole world is replete with greed and rushing toward hell, though no one wants to admit he's greedy. We want to consider the words before us very closely and spell them out for you, so that if possible they might strike home and move someone's heart. Listen, says Christ, you greedy Pharisees, you who exonerate yourselves before men, I want to tell you a story (CSOML6:226). 

Luther says that no one ever wants to be known as greedy, but rather as "true Christians" (CSOML6:232). Luther saw the world around him replete in sin:

How many peasants, burghers, or nobles are there who give something to the poor Lazarus, who lies daily at their door? Yes, should they give to him? They rather skin him down to the bone, and what they extort they dissipate, squander, and show off with fancy food and clothing, guzzling drinks down their throats, or hanging ornaments around the neck. For this reason I have often said, such conditions cannot continue much longer, but must come to an end. Either the Turk or Brother Vitus will come and all of a sudden confiscate everything it took so long a time to extort, steal, rob, and amass. Or Judgment Day will come rushing in and bring the game to a halt. For God is no longer able to tolerate the greed, wantonness, pride, sensuality, and stealing. He must step in and take control himself since nothing else will stop it. People attribute all this to other things, rather than to the fact that they ought to aid poor Lazarus. Under the papacy people were charitable and gave willingly; however, now under the gospel no one gives any more, but everyone simply extorts from the next person, and each wants to have it all to himself. And the longer one preaches the gospel, the deeper people are submerged in greed, arrogance, and sensuality, as if the poor beggar's pouch is to survive here forever. So completely has the devil taken hold of people.
(CSOML6:233)

Luther goes to preach:

This is what the Lord is saying, and he means it in all seriousness, so that we might beware of greed and not become secure. We need such warning very much nowadays, in order that we do not make a virtue out of that shameful vice, accursed greed. Sad to say, it is now taking hold of so many. God knows our hearts, and judgment is imminent should we allow greed, the same greed which took hold of the rich man, to mislead us. If a person takes account of how much good he does in life, he will find that it is little enough. Why is it, then, that people scratch and scrape, and during the course of a year give very little, for God's sake, to church and school, the poor and needy? There is one coming who will reckon with us and say, You had poor Lazarus before your door and gave him nothing; you thought you were doing the right thing and doing well at that by not   giving anyone a farthing; you allowed yourself to think that this was not greed, that God would not punish you; so now accept the reward which you have earned.

We preachers can no longer really prevent shameful greed. It lives and animates almost as if it were itself God and Lord in all lands, and to boot, adorns itself most beautifully. We sense it in the marketplace and in the kitchen for we hold onto neither penny nor farthing, while we don't so much as see the people who practice greed. We must therefore let him address it who says here that the devil led the rich man away. Accordingly, let everyone be forewarned and be vigilant. We are now witnessing a lot of greed among peasants, burghers, and nobility, displayed especially against poor clergymen. This cannot have a good ending And this now is the picture being painted of the rich man and poor Lazarus, both in life and in death (CSOML6:234-235).

Conclusion
The Catholic Answers participant says the quote demonstrates Luther seeing "the effects of his revolt against" Rome. In context, Luther was merely recorded as exhorting against becoming a pharisee or acting with the presumption of the rich man.  Note as well, Luther doesn't blame his preaching or the proclamation of the Gospel for  "greed, arrogance, and sensuality." He says, "So completely has the devil taken hold of people."

Was Luther really wishing for the good ol' days of being under the papacy? Nowhere in the context does Luther suggest the solution for "greed, arrogance, and sensuality" is to return to Rome's rule. Luther does not expound on the comment- the comment almost appears rhetorical, as if he's using it as a manipulative or persuasive tactic. But there's another way to speculate as to what's meant. In his 1535 commentary on Galatians, Luther actually does expound on this point a bit. First, in one section he does explain that there are people that hear the Gospel and turn freedom into "the license and lust of the flesh." They are those who see no reason to give to the poor:

Of course, it is impossible to teach or persuade unspiritual people of this teaching about the love to be mutually observed among us. Christians comply with it voluntarily. But when the others hear this freedom proclaimed, they immediately draw the inference: “If I am free, then I have the right to do whatever I please. This thing belongs to me; why should I not sell it for as much as I can? Again, if we do not obtain salvation on account of good works, why should we give anything to the poor?” In their great smugness such people shrug off this yoke and obligation of the flesh, and they transform the freedom of the Spirit into the license and lust of the flesh. Although they will not believe us but will make fun of us, we make this sure announcement to these smug despisers: If they use their bodies and their powers for their own lusts—as they are certainly doing when they refuse to help the poor and to share, but defraud their brethren in business and acquire things by fair means or foul—then they are not free, as they loudly claim to be, but have lost both Christ and freedom, and are slaves of the devil, so that now, under the title of “Christian freedom,” their state is seven times as bad as it used to be under the tyranny of the pope (Matt. 12:43–45). For when the devil who has been cast out of them returns to them, he brings with him seven spirits more evil than himself. Therefore their last state becomes worse than the first (LW 27:50).

Second, Luther does explain that there was a great "giving" under papal rule:

I often used to wonder why the apostle was so diligent in commanding the churches to provide for their preachers. For in the papacy I saw everyone contributing with great generosity for the construction of magnificent churches, for the increase in the income and the growth in the revenues of those who dealt with sacred things. Thus the social position and the wealth both of the bishops and of the other clergy increased so much that everywhere they had possession of the best and most fertile lands. And so it seemed to me unnecessary for Paul to command this when the clergy were not only receiving donations of every good thing in abundance but were actually becoming very rich. Therefore I thought that people should be dissuaded from giving more rather than persuaded to give, for I saw that the excessive generosity of people was only increasing the greed of the clergy. But now we know the reason why formerly they had an abundance of every good thing, but now pastors and ministers of the Word suffer want. Formerly, when wicked and false doctrine was taught, the pope became an emperor, and the cardinals and bishops became kings and princes of the world; so abundant was their prosperity, derived from the Patrimony of Peter—who claimed not to have any silver or gold (Acts 3:6)—and from so-called “spiritual goods.” But now that the Gospel has begun to be preached, those who confess it are about as rich as Christ and the apostles once were! We are finding out by experience how conscientiously people observe this commandment about providing for the preachers of the Word, which Paul so persistently urges and inculcates upon hearers both here and in other passages. We do not know of a single city today that provides for its preachers. They are not being provided for from any donations given to Christ, to whom no one gives anything. For when He was born, He used a manger instead of a cradle, because there was no room for Him in the inn (Luke 2:7). While He lived on earth, He had nowhere to lay His head (Matt. 8:20). At the end He was stripped of His clothing; and He died a miserable death on the cross, naked, hanging between two thieves (Matt. 27:28–38). No, our preachers are being provided for from donations given to the pope in exchange for the abominations of suppressing the Gospel, teaching human traditions, and establishing wicked forms of worship (LW 27:121-122).

Once people were freed from Rome's greed, giving diminished. This theme about providing for the needs of ministers is actually found in the Luke 16:19-31 sermon under review as well:

The way things go today the whole world scrapes and scratches, and yet no one wants to be known as greedy, but everybody wants to be evangelical and true Christians. And none is affected by this parsimony quite as much as brother Studium (the zealous student) and the poor clergymen in the cities and villages. For there's nothing to be gotten from burghers and peasants, but only from poor people who have a houseful of children and can barely eke out a living by their hard work. Moreover, peasants, townsfolk, and nobles are able to increase their holdings of corn, barley, work, and business, double or triple their money, and thus all the more easily bear the greed and parsimony of others. But parish pastors and preachers, and those without a craft, who have to live on a pittance or, as the saying goes, on a shoestring, unable to augment or increase their money supply, are compelled to bear the brunt and allow themselves to be skinned and strangulated (CSOML6:234-233).

Now what's interesting to me is that Luther's comments about the financial status of minsters from his sermon on Luke 16:19-31 and from his Galatians Commentary are from roughly from the same time period, the early 1530's. According to Luther, if people were giving more to the papacy in times past, they were giving too much and promoting the greed of Rome's hierarchy. Under the Gospel, they are now giving too little.

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils

I came across two fascinating links documenting the difficulty in researching Luther's House Postil sermons. These sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Recently Concordia has released four new volumes of Luther's Church Postil sermons (LW 75-78). These new translations are helpful, particularly because of the extensive historical and critical footnotes. According to the links above, no such project is scheduled for the House Postil sermons:

"I found out that the 20 new volumes of Luther’s works being put out by Concordia Publishing House are not going to include Luther’s House Postil(s), in part because these have already been published in a three-volume series by Baker Books in 1996, edited by Eugene F. A. Klug."

Currently as I write this, I've been researching a Luther quote (used in a polemical way by Rome's defenders!) from the House Postil. While I'm partly working from the 1996 publication, it would be so helpful to have a critical English edition. These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two men who heard them being preached (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist. These versions are said to compliment each other, rather than contradict (see the Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 14-15]. The Baker edition relied on Roerer's version. There is an old two-volume English translation that used Dietrich's version: Luther: Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and principal festivals of the church year. The Baker edition does point out that attempts to recreate an "authentic version"of these sermons from the two accounts have not worked in the past. I'm not looking for the "authentic" version, but it would sure be helpful to have a critical version of both sets of sermons, side by side. In the links above, the writer points out that there are errors as well in the current English translations in the Baker set:

"Klug’s translation itself flows well. But it is not based on the more critical Weimar edition of Luther’s works, and so the content is often incorrect (e.g. §15 in 3:215, which Luther did not actually say) or incomplete (e.g. §20 in 3:228, which is incomplete because it does not take the Nuremberg copy of the sermon into account, where Luther refers to his health and leaves the completion of the series in doubt; and §1 in 3:229, which omits the entire first part of Luther’s sermon when he preached on the Gospel before continuing with his series on Isaiah)."

Another comment made by these links in this regard is worth pointing out as well: simply because these sermon notes have been transformed into readable accounts, there's still some ambiguity and interpretation as to what Luther actually preached:

I can also speak from experience that, in spite of Andreas Poach’s best intentions, he did not in fact publish an edition of Luther’s sermons “without any alterations, truncations, or additions.” (Refer, however, to Georg Buchwald’s remarks on Poach’s edition in Part 2.) While he is generally faithful to Rörer’s notes, and generally does an excellent job filling them out so that they read and sound more like sermons and less like shorthand lecture notes, the fact is that he does fill them out, and sometimes he takes liberties that are distasteful (e.g. making Luther a little more uncouth than Rörer has him in his notes) or even completely incorrect. This is why, if a translation is to be made of any of the House Postils – and really, any work of Luther – it must at the very least seriously consult and compare the more critical Weimar edition, which takes the reader back to the original notes, instead of to any editor’s publication and interpretation of those notes. 

I've been looking into obscure Luther quotes for over fifteen years now. The deeper I've researched them, the more I've come to realize that there are broad classes of reliability as to what Luther actually said:

Most reliable: Luther's actual writings from his own hand.
Moderately reliable: Luther's sermons recorded by those who heard him preach.
Not reliable: Table Talk statements.

My particular enjoyment in reading Luther is seeing what Rome's defenders say he said and then comparing it to what is actually said in context. I've come to realize that even though I may have located a context for a particular quote, in many cases I'm actually I'm relying on documents Luther didn't actually write. Do Rome's defenders realize this? On the pop-apologetic level, probably not.

Addendum
Included in the links above is a fresh English translation of the preface of WA 52:VII-XI and the Foreword to Volume 1 of the Second Edition of the Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works. Also, of interest is the article Fragments and Crumbs’ for the Preachers: Luther’s House Postils in Logia.

Luther: Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before

Here's a closer look at a recent post from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote. In this third entry, I'm going to focus on the second part of this quote in which Luther is quoted as saying,

Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces…

As I explained previously, the quote below from Catholic Answers is actually at least three quotes from three different contexts pasted together. Why would someone paste three different quotes together? My suspicion is dramatic effect at best, or perhaps a propaganda effort at worst:

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
Some of the nuts and bolts of the documentation for this quote can be found in  a previous entry. The quote was translated into English by the Dublin Review (Sept. 1848). So far, their's is the oldest English translation I've found of this quote, and it appears to me that this is its main source in English Reformation polemical writings.  The Dublin Review didn't get it directly from Luther, but rather they claim they took it from Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848), p. 285. The quote appears to based on this snippet from Döllinger:

Döllinger cites Walch, Ausg. III, 2727. The Walch edition of Luther's Works dates from 1740-1753, compiled by Johann Georg Walch. The text being cited is from Luther's comments on Deuteronomy 9:25

To my knowledge, the complete context this comes from has yet to be translated into an official English version of Luther's Works. LW does include an entire volume containing Luther's Lectures on Deuteronomy (Deut. 9 begins at LW 9:99).  LW includes only a translation of pages Walch / St. Louis pp. 1370-1639 (see LW 9, introductory comments). Their translation is based on WA 14:489-744 (Lecture on Deut. 9 can be found here). LW 9 explains Luther began lecturing on Deuteronomy in February 1523 "to a small gathering of close associates in his own house at Wittenberg" (LW 9, preface).There are several transcriptions of these lectures done by Luther's associates, none though going past Deut. 7. Luther's own transcription of his Deuteronomy notes began in 1524. The official work was completed and published in 1525. Walch (St. Louis) III includes this work in III 1370-1639.

The quote in question though is not from these earlier lectures. It's from a series of sermons preached in 1529 in Wittenberg (Brecht says between February and December 1529, and that Luther did not go beyond Deut. 9, Brecht 2, 302-303). The notes to these sermons were taken by Roerer, Lauterbach, and Fabricus, and were first published by Aurifaber (What Luther Says, III, 1613). The text can be found in WA 28, The quote the sermon comes from: WA 28:762.

Context
Back in 2009 I came across an English translation of paragraph 49 from Walch III, 2727.

Moses is thus a fine teacher; he has well expounded the first commandment, and led the people to a knowledge of themselves, and humbled the proud and arrogant spirits, besides which he upbraided them with all kinds of vices, so that they had merited anything but the promised land. If we do not abide by our beloved Gospel, we deserve to see those who profess it, our Gospellers, become seven times worse than they were before. For, after having become acquainted with the Gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, we eat, drink, and are drunken, and practise all sorts of iniquity. As one devil has been driven out of us, seven others, more wicked, have entered in; as may be seen at the present time with princes, noblemen, lords, citizens, and peasants, how they act, without shame and in spite of God and His threatenings.

Conclusion
I've written about this quote before: Luther: Evangelicals are now seven times worse than they were before..having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink to excess (2009). In that entry, I explained I found this obscure quote in an old book, Luther Vindicated by Charles Hastings Collette (Published by Bernard Quaritch, 1884) on page 117. Collette's book is quite fascinating, as he similarly examines obscure out-of-context Luther quotes and offers corrections and contexts. It wasn't Roman Catholics he defended Luther against, rather, the culprit was the Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould, who, according to Collette was "a professed Minister of the (Reformed) Established Church of England." Interestingly, Baring-Gould appears to have gathered some of his Luther material from Roman Catholic sources, and was part of a group sympathetic to Rome. Of this group, Collette states, "These gentlemen sigh for pre-Reformation days when the priest ruled and the sacramental system flourished, to the glorification of the priest, and ignorance, superstition, thraldom, and degradation of the people" (p.6). If this link is about the Sabine Baring-Gould in question (which I think it is), he's the writer of the famous hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers." Of this quote in question, Collette quotes Baring-Gould stating:

"...let us take Luther's own account of the results of his doctrine :—' There is not,' says he,—' one of our Evangelicals who is not seven times worse than he was before he belonged, to us,—stealing, lying, deceiving, eating, and getting drunk, and giving himself up to all kinds of vices. If we have driven out one devil, seven others worse than the first have come in his place."

Collette begins analyzing the quote stating,

"The reference is 'Ed. Walch, iii. 2727.' Here it is self-evident that the rev. gentleman, by 'our Evangelicals,' intends to point to the new converts to Luther's teaching."

"By the reference we are guided to Luther's Commentaries on the 'fifth Book of Moses, ix. 25.' On turning to the column indicated, we find the passage purported to be quoted, but in it there is not the most distant intimation that Luther was pointing to his own people, or to the new converts; but to the state of utter depravity to which priests and people, nobles and commoners,—nominal Christians of all ranks,—had fallen."

After documenting this moral climate, Collette states,

But what I have to expose is the barefaced mistranslation put before us in the above extract by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, thereby making Luther allude to "our Evangelicals" as "belonging to Luther's disciples," who had become seven times worse by the change from Popery. I will let the reader judge for himself by placing before him a literal translation of the original; the text I add as a footnote :—

Collette then cites the context of Luther's statements:

"Moses is thus a fine teacher; he has well expounded the first commandment, and led the people to a knowledge of themselves, and humbled the proud and arrogant spirits, besides which he upbraided them with all kinds of vices, so that they had merited anything but the promised land. If we do not abide by our beloved Gospel, we deserve to see those who profess it, our Gospellers, become seven times worse than they were before. For, after having become acquainted with the Gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, we eat, drink, and are drunken, and practise all sorts of iniquity. As one devil has been driven out of us, seven others, more wicked, have entered in; as may be seen at the present time with princes, noblemen, lords, citizens, and peasants, how they act, without shame and in spite of God and His threatenings."

The key to the quote is the phrase, "Our Gospellers." Collette explains,

" 'Our Gospellers' I have thus translated 'unsereEvangelischen.' Luther did not mean the true believers in and followers of the Evangelists, which some readers might suppose to be a name applicable to all members of the Reformed Churches, from their known attachment to the Gospel, but he applied the expression to outward professors of the Gospel.

Addendum
Another popular Roman Catholic version of this quote can be found in Henry O'Connor, Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works (1884), p. 55. I've included this version for those of you searching the quote wondering where the English translation came from:

"We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices" (Walch. III. 2727)

"After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants" (Walch. III. 2727).

A Reformation Debate on John Calvin from 1896

In doing some research I came across this:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV THEOPHILUS LE MENANT DES-CHESNAIS BY RRV WILLIAM GILLIES, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER, TIMARU.

Now, I realize this doesn't seem like a Reformation debate, but I assure you it is. It appears to be between a Presbyterian minister (Rev. William Gillies) and a Roman Catholic (The Very Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais, L.M., Vicar General and Administrator of the Diocese of Christchurch), circa 1896.

The link is fascinating because it demonstrates how Rome's defenders- even back in the 1800's- quoted the Protestant Reformers.  Rev. Gillies simply nailed his Roman Catholic opponent when it came to documenting and quoting sources.  Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais made a number of outrageous statements about John Calvin, Rev. Gillies simply went back to the primary sources and demonstrated they were false. Here's some of the things claimed about Calvin:

Calvin "admitted that praying for the dead was of Apostolic origin."

Calvin "in his commentary on the second chapter of the second epistle of St. Peter says: —  'Nine out of ten of the evangelical ministers embraced the Reformation simply to lead a life of debauchery.'"

"In his (Calvin's) book on scandals he declares that 'pastors of souls give this example of perversity and all vices.' I am astonished, he adds, that women and children do not cover them with mud and filth.'"

"When he (Calvin) was about to die he cried out, 'The future frightens me, I am afraid to think of it ; unless our Lord should come down from heaven, barbarity is going to swallow us up.'"

Rev. Gillies knocks all these down by simply going to the sources. The response from Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais is included in the link. If you want to see a great example of obfuscation, read it. The response attempts to squirm out of every error by doing such acrobatics like: quoting Luther from other secondary sources (in response to a Calvin mis-citation!), referring to other secondary sources, passing the buck to blame those secondary sources for his own blunders: "We have all to take many quotations on trust, as it is impossible in all cases to procure the original text." Now that's funny: Rome's present day defenders have offered the same sort of response at times to me.

There appears to be a number of other layers to this discussion, perhaps available from the same website. So far, I've been able to locate a few others I'll highlight in future blog entries.

Addendum
I came across this old debate while looking for this Luther quote. Check out the interaction between these men, and how the quote is used:

Rev. Gillies:
You say that Calvin "in his commentary on the second chapter of the second epistle of St. Peter says: — " Nine out of ten of the evangelical ministers embraced the Reformation simply to lead a life of debauchery.' Such a statement as that bears on the very face of it the brand of falsehood. Had such been the case, would Calvin have been idiot enough to blazon it in the face of the world? I challenge you to produce any edition of Calvin's commentary in which that, or any such statement, is to be found. I have gone carefully over that chapter, and I affirm that nothing of the kind is there. The onus of proof lies with you. Produce the book, and I will be proved wrong, I will give you a very different quotation, for which I can produce the book, from his comment on that very chapter in Peter. On verse 19 he says : "The Papists turn and twist this passage against us, but they thereby betray their ridiculous impudence. For in the first place men of the filthiest life, in public houses and brothels belch out this charge, that we are the servants of corruption, in the life of whom they cannot point out anything reproachful."

Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais:
You say "such a statement as that bears on the very face of it the brand of falsehood. Had such been the case, would Calvin have been idiot enough to blazon it in the face of the world?" Was Martin Luther an idiot? Hear how he speaks of the reformers: Alluding to his followers in Germany, he says that "everything is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching (of the Reformation); and the misery of it is that men are now-a-days more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupted, more licentious, and more wicked than of old under the Papacy." (Die Reform., vol. i., p. 279). Again, he says: " Our evangelicals are now seven-fold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the Gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, forge, and commit every crime." (Ibid., p. 197). For conformatory evidence see Austral Cath. Rec. Oct. 1895, p. 555-557, Most Rev. Carr. ("The Church and the Bible"). It the Rev William Gillies will take the trouble to take a five minutes' walk and go to the Catholic Presbytery, Timaru, he will be shown the viii. volume of Rohrbacher, Book lxxxviii., where he will find the confirmatory evidence of my statement, and much more about his favourite Calvin. I also invite him to read the " History of the Reformation " by the Most Rev Dr Spalding, Baltimore, 1870 — "The Reformation in Geneva," chap. xiv. He will find there a great deal more than what I have stated with the references to the authentic archives of Geneva, where all those facts brought against Calvin are mostly taken from. Those documents cannot be disproved, and show that Calvin and his followers were not holy, pious men, as represented by Beza, but, with few exceptions, quite the contrary.

JS: In fairness to Rev. Theoppilus Le Menant Des Chesnais, I attempted to locate "the viii. volume of Rohrbacher, Book lxxxviii." I admit to not completely understanding the reference, but I did search through a number of these volumes and came up with nothing.

Luther: the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy

Here's a closer look at a recent post from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote. In this second entry, I'm going to focus on the first part of this quote in which Luther is quoted as saying, "Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy…" As I explained previously, the quote below is actually at least three quotes from three different contexts pasted together. Why would someone paste three different quotes together? My suspicion is dramatic effect at best, or perhaps a propaganda effort at worst.

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
The nuts and bolts of the documentation for this quote can be found in my previous entry. The quote was translated into English by the Dublin Review (Sept. 1848), and they claim they took it from Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848), p. 297. The quote appears to based on this snippet from Döllinger:

Döllinger cites "Hauspostille Walch XIII. 19." This refers to a collection of Luther's sermons (the House Postil). "Walch XIII. 19": This edition of Luther's Works dates from 1740-1753,compiled by Johann Georg Walch. The sermon being cited by Döllinger appears to be on Matthew 21:1-9. There are a few different editions of Walch's House Postil. The one in which I located the quote can be found here (scroll to page 7, look for the reference to the left that says XIII, 19-21). The text in question reads:

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence.  Documenting Luther's comments from the House Postil can be a little confusing. While Luther did certainly preach the sermon, he didn't really write the text to the House Postil. The sermons were written down by two people who heard them: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer, so it's possible that two versions of the same sermon exist (and they will at times have differences). Luther actually says in the introduction to the House Postil  that he wasn't aware they were taken down and he thought they "were long since forgotten." The Walch text I'm using dates the sermon at 1533.

This sermon has been translated into English. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information). Döllinger appears to be relying on Dietrich's version.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not. Here we find the first part of the quote in question:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
The participant at the Catholic Answers Forums says this quote shows the "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome. In a sense, the quote does show that. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a licence to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse. But what the participant at the Catholic Answers Forums seems to think is that the quote shows Luther regretted his proclamation of the gospel because of the "effects." This isn't the case at all.

Addendum
I've actually gone through this quote before. Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray cited it in his book, Crossing the Tiber. See my link here: Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy.

In taking a fresh look at this quote, I came across an interesting old article from the Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 15.  I found it interesting that this article came across the same sources I did and commented on them.