Luther: If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it. ... To the fire with them!

[Update 9-2024: Most of the links below will no longer work. Fortunately, some of this old discussion has been preserved by the Internet Archive]. 

Anabaptists and Roman Catholics together? Yes, some do unite on at least one issue, the intolerance of Martin Luther. Over on the CARM boards a participant with seemingly Anabaptist leanings has been actively posting against John Calvin and Martin Luther. The view being expressed is that Luther was "a demon possessed wicked butcher" (link),  and "His actions speak louder than his words, he was responsible for the death of untold thousands."

This person went to point some fingers at me: I was described as someone who "make[s] excuses" for "demonic murderers" (link). When I offered some documentation on misused quotes, the response back was, "You are full of it" (link) and I'm "simply wrong" (link). Then I was provided with this overall assessment: "You ought to to be ashamed of yourself, but guys like you would have been the ones to carry the green wood to the burning stake" (link). One of the frightening aspects of this was the threat, "I would like to tell you face to face what you are" (link).

This person put forth a number of Luther quotes, sort of in a hodgepodge way, which I suspect were a direct cut-and-paste from a page like this or this. I'd like to look at some of these quotes. Maybe Luther won't be exonerated for each quote (for he was a sinner, and he did make some outrageous statements), but I don't think any of them prove he was a "a demon possessed wicked butcher" or "responsible for the death of untold thousands," and hopefully by the conclusions of this, my words won't be construed as an example of "making excuses."

The Luther quotes offered begin with the preface, "Intolerance of Other Christians." The Anabaptist posting the following quote mocked the idea that these words from Luther's words could be interpreted as hyperbole:

"If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it. ... To the fire with them!"

This quote can be found throughout cyberspace. One author comments of this quote, "It is impossible to understand how any educated Christian leader could take such a position even when one understands the environment in which they lived." Another person comments, "Even some of Protestantism’s most celebrated names are quoted as promoting violence in the name of the Christian God." Let's take a  closer look at it to see what's going on. Yes, there was an historical situation that provoked Luther's comment, and while I don't condone the comment, I can understand why Luther made the comment. 

Documentation

Typical of the Internet, the quote is often used without any documentation.  When it is documented (as it was on CARM), one particular string of references reoccurs: "Grisar, VI, 247; Table Talk [edited by Mathesius], 180; summer 1540."

"Grisar, VI, 247" is not a writing from Luther. It refers to the sixth volume in a lengthy biography of Luther by Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. The heading that Grisar used for which he placed the quote is entitled, "Luther's Intolerance." The picture Grisar paints of Luther is that of a man who expressed religious toleration early in his career (when his views were under attack), and intolerance later (when he achieved notoriety and was part of the political establishment).

The documentation provided suggests the quote was originally taken from Grisar's book, not actually from a direct reading of Luther.  Page 247 can be found here.  The construction, "Table Talk [edited by Mathesius], 180; summer 1540" appears to be based on Grisar's comments and his documentation of the quote. Grisar states, 

In the summer of 1540 Luther had it that the Pope and the monks were to blame for the many fires in Northern and Central Germany. "If this turns out true, then there will be nothing left for us but to take up arms in common against all the monks and shavelings  I too shall join in, for it is right to slay the miscreants like mad dogs."(5) The worst of the lot, according to him, were the Franciscans. "If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house," he said a few days later, "I would set fire to it, for, in the monks the good seed is gone, and only the chaff is left. To the fire with them!" (6)

(5) Mathesius, "Tischreden," p. 171.
(6) Ib., p. 180.

Grisar's biography of Luther was originally written in German (3 volumes). This paragraph can be found here in German.

Other than locating Grisar VI, for those not familiar with these old references, the documentation is not as simple to track down. Grisar did not exactly take this material from something Luther actually wrote, but rather the Tischreden or Table Talk, a collection of statements Luther is purported to have made. This particular text comes from the pen of John Mathesius. He complied comments Luther is said to have made in 1540 (Table Talk statements numbered 4858 to 5341 found in WA, TR 4 and 5). The version of the Table Talk Grisar utilized appears to be similar to this: Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung: aus einer Handschrift der Leipziger Stadtbibliothek. Page 171 can be found here. Page 180 can be found here.

For the record, another Roman Catholic historian (from around the same time period as Grisar) utilizes this quote. Heinrich Denifle states,

What he said in general, 1540, "We shall accomplish nothing against the Turks unless we smite them with the priests at the right time, and hurl them even unto death,"(1179) was leveled in particular against the religious. Luther forthwith took up every anecdote, every suspicion against them as facts, e.g., that they were the instigators of the incendiary fires of that time. He did this that he might vent his deadly hatred upon them in the reminder: "If the matter comes to light, there will be nothing left but in common to take arms against all monks and priests; and I will go along, too, for one should strike the rascals dead like mad dogs."(1180) "If I had all the Franciscan monks together in one house, I would set the house on fire. For the kernel is gone from the monks, only the chaff is still at hand. So into the fire with them!" (1181)

(1179) Luther's "Tischreden" in "Mathesischen Sammlung," No. 10.
(1180) Ibid., No. 276.
(1181) Ibid., No. 305.

Denifle's original German text can be found here. He is citing the same text as Grisar, Table Talk statement 305, found on page 180. The same Table Talk text can be found in WA TR 4:687 (entry 5160). This utterance was not included in the English edition of Luther's Works, and to my knowledge, there is not an official translation available from the compilers of the English edition of Luther's Works. I checked a number of early English versions of the Table Talk,  and I did not come across this specific utterance.

Context

In this Table Talk statement, Luther refers to himself as a prophet explaining that he knows who is setting devastating fires: Henry of Brunswick. Henry had used the territoriality expelled Franciscans to sneak back (in disguise) and set the fires.


Conclusion
Grisar is correct about the fire problem in 1540. In a letter to his wife (July 26, 1540), Luther wrote:

The devil is on the loose, himself possessed by new, [more] evil devils, burning and doing damage which is terrible. In the Thuringian Forest more than one thousand acres of my Most Gracious Lord’s trees have been burned to the ground, and are still burning; in addition, today the news is that the forest near Werdau and in many other places also has started to burn. No firefighting does any good. This will make wood expensive. (LW 50:222)

The editors of Luther's works comment,

In an October 10, 1540, letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, Luther reported (on the basis of confessions supposedly made by the criminals involved in these cases of arson) that Henry of Brunswick, a bitter foe of the evangelicals, was to be held responsible for the many fires which were plaguing central Germany at that time; Luther added: “It is impossible that such arson which often proves fatal [Mordbrennen] does not originate in high circles, for there is enough money there; the Pope, supposedly, has given 80,000 ducats (see LW 49, 286, n. 36) for this, etc.” [LW 50:222, fn 12]

Elsewhere, Hartmann Grisar presents the background of what was going in with the fires, Henry of Brunswick (cited by name in the Table talk entry), and the Franciscans:

In 1540, during the hot summer, numerous fires broke out in North and Central Germany, causing widespread alarm; certain alleged incendiaries who were apprehended were reported to have confessed under torture that this was the doing of Duke Henry of Brunswick and the Pope. Before even investigations had commenced Luther had already jumped to the conclusion that the real author was his enemy, the Catholic Duke, backed up by the Pope and the monks;  for had not the Duke (according to Luther) explained to the burghers of Goslar that he recognized no duties with regard to heretics?  The Franciscans had been expelled and were now in disguise everywhere "plotting vengeance"; they it was who had done it all with the assistance of the Duke of Brunswick and the Elector of Mayence, who, of course, remained behind the scenes.  "If this be proved, then there is nothing left for us but to take up arms against the monks and priests; and I too shall go, for miscreants must be slain like mad dogs." Hieronymus Schurf, as the cautious lawyer he was, expressed himself in Luther's presence against the misuse of torture in the case of those accused and against their being condemned too hastily. Luther interrupted him: "This is no time for mercy but for rage!" (Grisar IV, 293].

But what of Luther's vicious comments to burn the Franciscans alive? There's an interesting aspect of Grisar's context that Luther's intolerant harsh words are found in. Immediately after the quote under scrutiny, Grisar says that it would be foolish to think Luther seriously wanted to kill Roman Catholic clergy. Grisar's words stand as a sharp rebuke of the Anabaptist detractor who posted the quote taken from Grisar:

No one, in the least familiar with Luther s writings, will be so foolish as to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty demands were but the violent outbursts of his own deep inward intolerance. They were called forth occasionally by other alleged misdeeds of Popery, of its advocates and friends, for instance, by the burdensome taxes imposed by the Church, by her use of excommunication, and by the action taken against the Lutherans, particularly by the resolutions of the Diets for the suppression of Protestantism. Nor must we forget that the religious dissensions grew into a sort of permanent warfare and that war tends to produce effusions such as would be unthinkable in times of peace; nor was the warlike feeling a monopoly of the Lutheran side. (p. 247).

Luther's writings do demonstrate the Reformer expressed intolerance towards his perceived enemies, particular situations, or those he considered antagonists of the Gospel. But, according to the very source cited on CARM (Hartmann Grisar), the words were not intended to be taken literally. Am I making excuses? No, I don't think so. Luther did say outrageous things. He did express intolerance. This quote though does not prove Luther was "a demon possessed wicked butcher," and that "he was responsible for the death of untold thousands." 

Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther: Anabaptist right to stand up and speak in a church comes from "the pit of hell" and deserves death

This is another follow-up post in regard to "The Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther' web-page. I think the author has presented a caricature. The blogger states,

Luther hated the Anabaptist practice of every-member functioning in the church, which is envisioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Hebrews 10, asserting that it was from “the pit of hell.” Luther and the other Reformers violently denounced the Anabaptists for practicing every-member functioning in the church. The Anabaptists believed it was every Christian’s right to stand up and speak in a church meeting. It was not solely the domain of the clergy. Luther was so opposed to this practice that he said it came from “the pit of hell” and those who were guilty of it should be put to death.The Anabaptists both believed and practiced Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 30-31 that every believer has the right to function at any time in a church meeting. In Luther’s day, this practice was known as the Sitzrecht—“the sitter’s right.” [5] Luther announced that “the Sitzrecht was from the pit of hell” and was a “perversion of public order . . . undermining respect for authority.” Within 20 years, over 116 laws were passed in German lands throughout Europe making this “Anabaptist heresy” a capital offense.[6]
[5] Peter Hoover, Secret of the Strength, 58–59.
[6] Peter Hoover, Secret of the Strength, 59, 198.

This was also published in a book:

What interested me was the documentation for Luther's "pit of hell" comment and that Luther thought the death penalty was needed for those practicing the "sitter's right." There wasn't any meaningful documentation provided. One of the sources cited above, Hoover, Secret of the Strength, says the following, and this appears to be the basis for the assertions:

But what the reformers could not tolerate -- what made them fearful, and eventually furious, with the Anabaptists -- was the Anabaptists' high regard for inner conviction and low regard for the voice of the church. "This heretical persistence in following an inner word," thundered Martin Luther, "brings to nothing the written Word of God!" In a sense he was right. The Anabaptists did not follow the Scriptures (and their "correct interpretation") like Martin Luther wanted them to be followed. They followed a man. And in following him (instead of Luther's church, or Luther's Bible) they got their hands onto the thread that pulls the fabric of civilization apart. This, the reformers correctly discerned, and it made them desperate enough to pass the death penalty upon them. Huldrych Zwingli began and Martin Luther kept on violently denouncing the aufrührerischer Geist (stirring-up spirit) of the Anabaptist movement, which they found, above all, in their "silly teaching" of the Sitzrecht (the "sitter's right"). The Anabaptists took literally the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:30-31: "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." They called this the "sitter's right" and calmly implied that they, when moved by inner conviction, had as great a right to speak and to act as any pastor, any priest, any reformer or bishop or pope. This audacity, this "Sitzrecht from the pit of hell," Martin Luther and his friends believed, could be dealt with only by fire, water, and the sword. "Even though it is terrible to view," Martin Luther admitted, he gave his blessing to the death sentence upon the Anabaptists, issued by the elector, princes, and landgraves of Protestant Germany on March 31, 1527. The sentence was based on the following four points: 1. The Anabaptists bring to nothing the office of preaching the Word. 2. The Anabaptists have no definite doctrine. 3. The Anabaptists bring to nothing and suppress true doctrine. 4. The Anabaptists want to destroy the kingdom of this world. "For the preservation of public order" both Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli promoted the total elimination of the Anabaptists (through capital punishment) as a matter of utmost urgency. They accused the Anabaptists of a crime against the public, "not because they taught a different faith, but for disturbing public order by undermining respect for authority." Philipp Melanchthon, Luther's close friend and adviser wrote: "The Anabaptists' disregard for the outer Word and the Scriptures is blasphemy. Therefore, the temporal arm of government shall watch here too and not tolerate this blasphemy, but earnestly resist and punish it." Urbanus Rhegius, the reformer of Augsburg, wrote: "The Anabaptists cannot and will not endure Scripture." And within twenty years, no less than 116 laws were passed in the German lands of Europe, which made the "Anabaptist heresy" a capital offence. 

This other website makes a similar charge, and includes a quote:

Luther finally took a decisive stand against them in 1531 over the issue of whether believers could rise in church and interrupt the preacher. This was, in his opinion, “the sitter’s right from the pit of hell,” and “even though it is terrible to view,” he gave his blessing to the death sentence for the Anabaptists issued by the princes on March 31, 1527. They called this the “sitter’s right” and calmly implied that they, when moved by inner conviction, had as great a right to speak and to act as any pastor, any priest, any reformer or bishop or pope. 11 Luther’s chief concern was that the Anabaptists “brought to nothing the office of preaching the Word.” He cared not that he indicted Paul in this, for the apostle had instructed the members of his churches to stand up and speak when one of them had a revelation, inspiration or teaching. When this happened, Paul taught, the one already speaking should sit down!

The footnote (11) simply says, "Peter Hoover, The Secret Strength, Benchmark Press." So, it appears, all roads lead to this source. The entirety of this book is online, so I went full-circle.

Luther on "The sitter's right"?
What was not tolerated by Luther and subject to banishment by the authorities was unauthorized preaching. Luther also would not approve of people getting up and interrupting a church service to say something, but these are different things.

It is possible that the text in view by Hoover is from LW 40 (cited below). Luther wrote against "clandestine preachers" who were sneaking into the churches to stir up dissention. Note below Luther's reasoning in regard to 1 Cor. 14:30 in comparison to the Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther:

Undoubtedly some maintain that in I Cor. 14, St. Paul gave anyone liberty to preach in the congregation, even to bark against the established preacher. For he says, “If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [I Cor. 14:30]. The interlopers take this to mean that to whatever church they come they have the right and power to judge the preacher and to proclaim otherwise. But this is far wide of the mark. The interlopers do not rightly regard the text, but read out of it—rather, smuggle into it—what they wish. In this passage Paul is speaking of the prophets, who are to teach, not of the people, who are to listen. For prophets are teachers who have the office of preaching in the churches. Otherwise why should they be called prophets? If the interloper can prove that he is a prophet or a teacher of the church to which he comes, and can show who has authorized him, then let him be heard as St. Paul prescribes. Failing this let him return to the devil who sent him to steal the preacher’s office belonging to another in a church to which he belongs neither as a listener nor a pupil, let alone as a prophet and master.

What a fine model I imagine that would be, for anyone to have the right to interrupt the preacher and begin to argue with him! Soon another would join in and tell the other two to hush up. Perchance a drunk from the tavern would come in and join the trio calling on the third to be silent. At last the women too would claim the right of “sitting by,” telling the men to be silent [I Cor. 14:34]. Then one woman silencing the other—oh, what a beautiful holiday, auction, and carnival that would be! What pig sties could compare in goings-on with such churches? There the devil may have my place as preacher. But the blind interlopers do not realize this. They think they alone “sit by,” and do not see that any one else has just as much right to hush them up. Neither do they know what they say, nor get the meaning of what St. Paul says here about sitting or speaking, about prophets or people.

Whoever reads the entire chapter will see clearly that St. Paul is concerned about speaking with tongues, about teaching and preaching in the churches or congregations. He is not commanding the congregation to preach, but is dealing with those who are preachers in the congregations or assemblies. Otherwise he would not be forbidding women to preach since they also are a part of the Christian congregation [I Cor. 14:34f.]. The text shows how it was customary for the prophets to be seated among the people in the churches as the regular parish pastors and preachers, and how the lesson was sung or read by one or two, just as in our days on high festivals it is the custom in some churches for two to sing the Gospel together.[Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 40: Church and Ministry II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 40, pp. 388–389). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

Luther concludes,

So much for the words of St. Paul. To sum it all up, the infiltrating and clandestine preachers are apostles of the devil. St. Paul everywhere complains of those who run in and out of houses upsetting whole families, always teaching yet not knowing what they say or direct [Tit. 1:11]. Therefore the spiritual office is to be warned and admonished, and the temporal office is to be warned and admonished. Let each one who is a Christian and a subject be warned to be on guard against these interlopers and not to heed them. Whoever tolerates and listens to them should know that he is listening to the devil himself, incarnate and abominable, as he speaks out of the mouth of a possessed person. I have done my duty. I am innocent, as I said in my commentary on Psalm 82. Let the blood of anyone who does not follow good and honest advice be upon himself. Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 40: Church and Ministry II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 40, pp. 393–394). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Conclusion
I haven't found anything yet from Luther's pen saying that those practicing the "sitter's right" deserve death. It could be that practicing this constituted sedition, but it's the author of the "Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther" to verify this claim or clarify the claim. It would also be the responsibility of the author to meaningfully document  the “the pit of hell” quote in regard to "the sitter's right." Both of these are within the realm of possibility for Luther, but as I said previously, the author shouldn't make Luther worse than he actually was.

Certainly Luther had shocking beliefs, but making him worse than he was goes overboard. Note how the author builds his caricature of Luther claiming that "Luther announced that 'the Sitzrecht was from the pit of hell' and was a 'perversion of public order . . . undermining respect for authority.' Within 20 years, over 116 laws were passed in German lands throughout Europe making this 'Anabaptist heresy” a capital offense." 116 laws were passed in regard to "this Anabaptist heresy" the "sitter's right"? 116 laws on this one practice? That's not even what his source, Peter Hoover claims. Hoover states, "Urbanus Rhegius, the reformer of Augsburg, wrote: 'The Anabaptists cannot and will not endure Scripture.' And within twenty years, no less than 116 laws were passed in the German lands of Europe, which made the 'Anabaptist heresy" a capital offence.'"


Addendum: Luther on the Death Penalty
Certainly Luther was not fond of the Anabaptists. He did have vacillating views on capital punishment in regard to them. I went over this many years back. Luther did support a broader concept of religious freedom previous to 1530. He then saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances. Then he signed Melanchthon's proposed legal document in which all Anabaptists were to be suppressed. It is possible though that his last position was that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed, the others should be banished. For the details, see my paper here.


Addendum #2 8/19
The Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther has been revised in regard to the issue I raised about documentation. The article now says,

[5] Peter Hoover, Secret of the Strength, Benchmark Press, 1999, pp. 58–59. Hoover points out that Luther and the other Reformers despised the Anabaptist teaching of listening to their spiritual instincts (“inner word”). That is, the Anabaptists believed the Spirit still speaks to God’s people today. Hoover says that Luther “violently denounced” this as well as their practice of “the sitter’s seat.”

[6] Peter Hoover, Secret of the Strength, Benchmark Press, 1999, pp. 59, 198. Hoover clearly states that Luther and his friends believed that the practice of “the sitter’s seat” — the open sharing for mutual edification they envisioned in 1 Cor. 14 — was to be “dealt with only by fire, water, and the sword . . . Luther gave his blessing to the death sentence upon the Anabaptists . . . for the preservation of the public order” (p. 59). In addition, Hoover points out that “Martin Luther and his colleagues met at Speyer on the Rhein in 1529 . . . At that time they passed a resolution: ‘Every Anabaptist, both male and female, shall be put to death by fire, sword, or in some other way’” (p. 198).

There is nothing in either of these extended footnotes that answers the issues I raised in regard to Luther's view of "the sitter's right." No meaningful documentation or reference from Luther's pen saying that those specifically practicing the "sitter's right" deserve death was provided. Nor was any meaningful reference to "the pit of hell" comment provided. All that was done was to provide more information from Peter Hoover (some of which I actually posted already in this entry). It appears to me the author(s?) of the Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther think that "the sitter's right" and the death penalty for Anabaptists (that the Magisterial Reformers came to hold) means the same thing. In essence, it all boils down to being sloppy with the facts.  

The Reformers on the Book of James

I recently came across the pdf article, “A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James" by Timothy George (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall 2000).  While I'm not a big fan of Dr. George, this is a good article to chew on the meat and spit out the bones (like spit out his seeming approval of the Anabaptist view that Luther practiced or taught "cheap grace"). The article is interesting because it compares and contrasts Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, and Roman Catholic views on the book of James. Much of the Luther information is similar to my paper Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture which I've posted on often. While I wouldn't agree with some of George's conclusions, the article shows that Luther's view of James was not followed by either Zwingli or Calvin.