Friday, July 17, 2020

Luther on the Papists: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"

In going through the Beggars All archives, I came across a series of old posts examining Martin Luther's call for the deaths of Roman Catholics. Luther is quoted as saying,
It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?- Martin Luther June 25, 1520
Other English versions of this quote, typically shorter, exist as well. It's not uncommon to find snippets of this quote on amateur apologetcs web-pages... but also in many books, some done by respected authors. Realizing that my older entries are a bit top-heavy, let's take a concise and fresh look at this quote. We'll see that Luther went on to explain he was speaking rhetorically, not literally.

Documentation
Back in 2008 I went through a detailed footnote from a defender of Rome documenting this quote. This time, simply, the quote in the English form above originates from Roland Bainton's Here I Stand.

Bainton cites WA 6:347The quote comes from Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum. It was originally a book published by one of Luther's Roman Catholic opponents, Sylvester Prierias. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction and conclusion. The quote in question comes from Luther's conclusion. To my knowledge, no official English translation of the entire work is available.  However, It is scheduled to be released in an upcoming volume of Luther' Works.

Context




Conclusion
Back in 2008 I provided a detailed explanation of this quote. It's enough to simply know that Luther's Roman Catholic opponent, Sylvester Prierias was an advocate of papal absolutism. Prierias was a high official in the Roman Church. He charged Luther with offending the Pope's majesty in questioning indulgence preaching, in essence, questioning the authority of the one who granted indulgence preaching. Against this position of papal absolutism Luther declares:
"If these opinions and this teaching prevail at Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals, I pronounce that Antichrist sits in the temple of God, and that the Roman Court is the synagogue of Satan. If the Pope and the Cardinals do not demand a retraction of these opinions,I declare that I dissent from the Roman Church, and cast it off as the abomination standing in the holy place."
"When the Romanists see that they cannot prevent a Council, they feign that the Pope is above a Council, is the infallible rule of truth, and the author of all understanding of Scripture. There is no remedy, save that Emperor, Kings, and Princes should attack these pests and settle the matter, not by words but by the sword. If we punish thieves by the gallows, and heretics by fire, why not attack Pope, Cardinals, and the brood of the Roman Sodom with arms, and wash our hands in their blood?" [source]
Not too long afterward, Luther explained exactly what he meant in response to another Roman controversialist, Jerome Emser. Luther explained it was a rhetorical argument: since heretics are burned, then it should be fair as well to physically attack the papists. He goes on to elaborate he didn't approve of burning heretics, so he wasn't advocating killing the papists.  In LW 39: 172-174, Luther states:
Emser’s second lie is that I wanted the hands of the laymen washed in the blood of the priests. His holy priesthood and Christian love seek nothing but fire. If I were dead he could spread such lies as truth, just as happened to Huss. This is the way I have written against Sylvester, “in contrast,” as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows: if heretics are burned, why should we not much rather attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that Holy Scripture has its power from the pope. But since I dislike burning heretics, or killing even a single Christian, and since I know full well it is against the gospel, I merely indicated what they deserve if heretics deserve the fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword. The nobility and worldly powers, if they just despise your tyrannical shamming and false ban, can certainly advise you womanish and childish people with a single letter and command. They can say to you, “This is the way it must be,” and you have no choice but to obey. The way you react to it, with burning, banning, raging, and raving against the clear truth, it seems you would really like to have a Bohemian example made of yourselves and fulfill the prophecy which says that the priests should be slain. If this should happen to you, you cannot blame me. Just continue as you are, you are on the right track! Where advice is not possible, help is not possible. You will very soon find out if you can end the game in that way, even if it rains and snows nothing but bishops, Emsers, Ecks, and popes. I trust you have foreseen that no one will destroy the pope but you yourselves, his own creatures, as the prophet says.
But tell me, dear Emser, if you may write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics and think you do not thereby soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to strangle you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your sects in the most scandalous way? For not only do you write in the manner of a heretic and of the Antichrist, but you also say what all the devils are not allowed to say, namely, that the gospel is confirmed by the pope, its power is dependent on the pope’s power, and the church has done what the pope does? What heretic has ever so completely condemned and destroyed God’s word in one stroke? That is why I still say, “If heretics have deserved the fire, you and the pope should be killed a thousand times.” Still I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far off. He will find you in good health and nimble. Do not get bored in the meantime. Yet I would prefer you to come before him with remorse and penance. God help you to do this, Amen. Nevertheless, I would like the Roman courtiers to be repelled with force just like other thieves and robbers, if they cannot be stopped in any other way.
So that I may not be ridiculed along with you I shall ignore your babbling that I put the priesthood to shame and your claim that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter had a tonsure; I shall also ignore all the useless talk you spew forth about consecration and priestly estate and the threefold meaning of “spiritual”-spirituale, ecclesiasticum, religiosum-and that not all Christians are spiritual, spirituales. You probably also would like to say that the laying on of hands on the head meant more than consecration. Who can stop you if you intend to do nothing but lie and preach, as some do, that St. Bartholomew prayed the rosary and the psalter of our dear lady? I do not need any logic here: I call spiritual spirituales, devout Christians ecclesiasticum, and do not know religiosum in this context. I thought that for once the naked sword would strike me with the blade, but neither sheath nor sword nor man is at hand. You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency. And what shall I say, since there is almost one lie after another in your book? I am afraid you will lie, blaspheme, hate, and rave yourself to death. In previous times it was easy to write against heretics. For even though they erred, as honest people they did not need to lie and stuck to the heart of the matter. My persecutors let the matter drop and, like knaves, rely solely upon lies. But to keep you from being displeased at hearing nothing but your lies, let us deal again with something good-the Spirit and the letter, which is the main theme of your book.
It depends on where  you fall on the "I hate or Love Luther" spectrum as to whether or not one grants his explanation.  Roland Bainton says, "The disavowal was genuine." I suspect for many of Rome's defenders, it isn't.

Addendum
In the entries of 2008, I highlighted the various ways Rome's defenders use this quote. Since that time, I've come across some of Rome's defenders using it against current ecumenical trends in their own church (see here and here). They are concerned with current Roman authorities having positive interaction with a group whose founder appears to have hated their very existence and called for their deaths.

4 comments:

TommyK said...

Here are the theological knots. Are we to imprecate our theological adversaries? Certainly, the Word of God proclaims imprecations that are Judgements upon the wicked; or to use the forbidden word termed by contemporary theologians - "reprobates". Of course, we are to pray for our enemies (Matt 5:44, Proverbs 25:21); and though this seems like a paradox, it is not. Paul cursed his theological adversaries (Gal 1:8). "Temporal" Judgements upon the wicked with the hope that they will be called to the Gospel. Only Luther knew the depths of his thoughts regarding his writings above. Yet any true Christian has to admit that when under temptation (spiritual and or physical) our own natures as well as demonic principalities will tempt us to curse and condemn our adversaries - coercing us to violate God's Holy Law. An eye for any eye, or a tooth for a tooth (Exodus 21:24); or leave it to the civil magistrates with the Lord's Prayer with the hopes and heavenly petitions that the "civil powers to be" will stop the Papacy and its diabolical madness of burning Bibles and slaying the Saints. Here, is where righteous vindication and retributive justice takes place. So, for the Romanists that claimed Luther instigated insurrection like the Peasants War and other conflicts, I beg to differ. Instead of just taking the Jesuits at face value; one ought to read Luther on the Peasant's War and other conflicts. He was not an insurrectionist. He endeavored by the Holy Spirit to Reform the Catholic Church; and put the Word of God foremost and not the hypocritical Pope. The rest is history and it is repeating itself once again - unfortunately without a Luther or any solid Protestants at this time. Come Lord Jesus.

James Swan said...

Hi Tommy: yes, it's an interesting deeper issue to grapple with, at times like a paradox! For a closer look at Luther's responses to enemies, see my old link:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/01/martin-luthers-volatile-language.html

"Luther also felt he was following the example of Christ. Luther asks rhetorically if the Lord used abusive language against his enemies: 'Was he abusive when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.'”

In the history of my own blog and in contrast to Luther, I think I've grown a bit softer in polemic against those I disagree with while I've seen others grow deeper in polemical attacks against whatever it is they're against. I've been trying to consciously stick with the evidence and facts rather than how ridiculous by name this or that person is. I've not yet succeeded in completely being consistent, but I'm at least trying. I think there is an obvious difference in presentation and tone between my more recent entries and my earlier entries.

More so then ever, I'm seeing the tendency of using social media like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to become kangaroo courts of social shaming and justice. Just today I interacted with someone who thought if a view is "racist"... "then those people should absolutely be publicly shamed and belittled on this public forum. We’re all adults here, and adults should know better by now. It’s 2020."

This is using social media as a kangaroo court!

TommyK said...

James, I'll get back with a follow up soon, Thanks Tommy

TommyK said...

For those who take offense at Luther, one can only image his frustrations with such obstinacy and rage that the world has against the Gospel. Scripture makes it clear in many proclamations that Christ's Gospel is an offense to our carnal natures and theological delusions. (I Peter 2:8; 1st Cor 1:23; Isaiah 8:14). When Luther proclaimed the truth, the world came roaring back (1st Peter 5:8). If some of these cyber folks would just take the time to thoroughly read Luther, they could easily see his heart felt sincerity for the Holy Spirit to call people of all nations to the Truth of the Gospel. His frustrations and ranting were directed at the Roman hierarchy and all the pawns working for the Pontiff.

Luther was a man between God and the Devil (see one biography by Oberman: Luther: Man Between God and the Devil; and or Roland Bainton's: Here I Stand; which I personally prefer). Luther's stood for the truth of Scripture, putting him at odds with the Papacy and a host of demonic forces. His temptations and struggles were real. Yes, any human being will be periodically tempted to impatience and anger - driving him to rant. Luther was also a bold German and his personality was anything, but passive. Despite the criticism and what the "world" views as inappropriate language, God used Luther and many other Reformers to trumpet blast and break down the Walls of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-27) - an analogy to the Roman Papacy.

Again, Luther was a man and he was periodically tempted to sin which he did; and yet, if it wasn't for him and the Spirit working to give us the freedom of the press with Holy Writ, we would still be deluded under the Latin Mass; and would be no better as Luther would express: "they are like cows staring at a fence". One can take offense; or better yet, take heed to Holy Writ and the Rock of our Salvation (Christ is the Rock: 1st Cor 10:4; 1st Samuel 2:2; Psalm 118:22; Matt 21:24; Isaiah 8:14; Roman 9:33, etc.) and Christ's warnings from Scripture about the Truth of what He preached - perfectly fulfilling Levitical Law and freely dying for our sins as the Sacrificial Lamb and Sin-Bearing Servant (Isaiah 53).

Scripture is endless with cursing's and blessings. All the Old Testament Prophets preached impending doom/curses; and yet, all the Prophets proclaimed mercy and forgiveness to Israel. Blessings and curses are binding in the New Testament as well. The Books of Acts has several accounts of the Apostles pronouncing anathemas to sinful people with evil motives; and yet, he never stopped the Message of Salvation. We need to understand the context of these anathemas as well (temporal or eternal). Luther preached damnation and salvation with the hopes of calling people to the truth of Scripture. Again, only Luther new his motives when blasting the Roman Papacy; and though his words may not have been with the proper "etiquette", he surely got folks attention - even the Pompous Pope.