Luther: "After we understood that good works were not necessary for justification, we became much more remiss and colder in the practice of good"

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

“After we understood that good works were not necessary for justification, we became much more remiss and colder in the practice of good … And if we could return today to the prior state of things and if the doctrine that affirms the necessity of doing good works could be revived, our eagerness and promptness in doing good works would be quite different” (Werke, 27, p. 443, in ibid., p. 441).

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as "Did Luther Regret the Reformation?" They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church. Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. Those writers put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. The argument goes: Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Then statements are typically brought forth from Luther's career, indicting him of regret for starting the Reformation. Most of these pre-1930 books had fallen into obscurity, but with the arrival of the information explosion brought forth by the Internet, these quotes made a comeback. It's not at all uncommon to visit discussion forums like Catholic Answers and find these "regret" quotes taking center-stage. With this quote, the implication is that previously the state of Christian piety was much better and Luther knew it. His "Gospel" was a failure in producing good works among those who followed his teaching. Luther is presented as admitting that a return to "the prior state of things" would produce the much-needed "good works" missing in German society. It was "the devastating effects of such admittedly insincere preaching" on "his evangelical followers."

Plagiarism

The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation ("Werke, 27, p. 443, in ibid., p. 441"). Such obscurity often indicates that the material was not taken from an actual straight reading of text written by Luther. This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the Catholic Answers discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of the content presented is blatant plagiarism. For this quote particularly, this web-page appears to be that which was directly plagiarized.

Even if he (she?) did compose this web page (or one of the others), I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther. This quote appears to have been plagiarized from this webpage (or one similar to it) that presents a version of an article written by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira entitled, Luther Thought He Was Divine! It appears this article was "originally published in the Folha de S.Paulo, on January 10, 1984," so it's probable that the article was not originally in English (here is the Portuguese version). The quote is almost the same in de Oliveira's version from a website dedicated to his writings:

“After we understood that good works are not necessary for justification, I became much more remiss and cold in doing good...and if we could return now to the old state of things and if the doctrine of the necessity of good works to be holy could be revived, our alacrity and promptness in doing good would be different” (Werke, XXVII, p. 443; Franca, p. 443).

In this version, Luther says "I became much more remiss and cold..." It could be a typo, but more probable, this version suffers from translation issues. Also this version explains part of the documentation ("in ibid., p. 441").  This part of the reference is due to Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira attempting to accurately document the quote. For his article, he states: "I will cite excerpts from the work of Fr. Leonel Franca SJ titled The Church, the Reform and Civilization (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilizacão Brasileira, 3rd ed., 1934, 558 pages)." Notice that de Oliveira didn't actually reference Luther when the article was composed back in 1984, he borrowed from someone else. The quote can be found on page 391 in Franca's book (1958 edition). Franca uses almost the same documentation: "Weimar XXVII, 443":

Documentation
"Werke, 27" refers to volume 27 of the Weimar edition of Luther's collected writings. Here is WA 27:443. The page being cited is from an Advent sermon on Matthew 21 from November 29, 1528.  In WA 27, there are two versions of the text cited on each page of this sermon. The first is a mix of German and Latin, the second in Latin only. It appears Franca utilized the Latin text as he notes the words "dictu mirum" (found only in the straight Latin text on page 443). There does not appear to be an official English translation of the sermon available. 

Context

Conclusion

The same sermon (and reference) has been cited by Roman Catholic historian,  Hartmann Grisar:

"That we are now so lazy and cold in the performance of good works," he says, in a recently published sermon of 1528, "is due to our no longer regarding them as a means of justification. For when we still hoped to be justified by our works our zeal for doing good was a marvel. One sought to excel the other in uprightness and piety. Were the old teaching to be revived today and our works made contributory to righteousness, we should be readier and more willing to do what is good. Of this there is, however, no prospect and thus, when it is a question of serving our neighbour and praising God by means of good works, we are sluggish and not disposed to do anything." 

I've covered similar quotes like this before. One can find similar laments from Luther peppered throughout his writings, typically his sermons. Notice the sentence, "For when we still hoped to be justified by our works our zeal for doing good was a marvel." The Catholic Answers participant using the quote thought it showed Luther himself recognizing "the devastating effects of such admittedly insincere preaching." Luther though is not longing for the good old days under the papacy, nor is he admitting his preaching was insincere. Luther was exhorting his hearers towards righteous living and also pointing out how people will rely on their own works instead of Christ's. When people thought they were working their way into heaven, there was more zeal. On the contrary, Luther's notion of good works were that they demonstrated a Christian heart and were done out of gratitude to the grace given them.  Luther had a pastor's heart, and continually exhorted his hearers to live the Christian life, even if it meant chastising his hearers by reminding them of their previous bondage under the Roman system. The ironic thing is that some Roman Catholics accuse Luther of teaching the wanton lawlessness of sola fide. Yet, when Luther exhorts his hearers to adhere to Christian piety and good works, even this is used against him.

Those using quotes like this also fail to grasp Luther's overall picture of the church.  He believed that within the large throng of people claiming to be Christians, God had a "little flock." For instance, in a preface to Caspar Adler's sermon exhorting people to give alms, Luther says of the sermon:

For even if the great, lost crowd does not regard it, nevertheless a few must form the little flock [Luke 12:32] who relieve it with love and thanksgiving and thank God for it, just as St. Paul, after he had long labored in vain on the lost crowd, turned to the elect and said that he would do all things for the sake of the elect [2 Tim. 2:10]. This is what we also intend to do. For even if we would like to do more among the others, still it will come to nothing and is all in vain. May Christ, our Lord and Savior, preserve us, His little flock, and be with us until the day of His glory and our salvation [LW 60:15-16].

Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. There are a number of quotes peppered throughout Luther's writings in regard to the "little flock."

Christendom, too, is a living, healthy body of the pious little flock, God’s children. Yet filth and stench are mixed in. (LW 24:206)

With reference to this, the prophet tells us in this verse that this King will have a people nevertheless which will really be His own, and this especially in the midst of His enemies. He gives us the comfort that “a holy Christian Church” will always exist and remain in the world, just as the article of our Creed teaches us. This means that there will always be a little flock, whoever and wherever they may be, who in unity will cling to this Lord, uphold His scepter, and publicly confess His Word. (LW 13:285)

Whatever goal these hypocrites may want to attain with their “Spirit,” I do not choose to share it with them. May a merciful God preserve me from a Christian Church in which everyone is a saint! I want to be and remain in the church and little flock of the fainthearted, the feeble, and the ailing, who feel and recognize the wretchedness of their sins, who sigh and cry to God incessantly for comfort and help, who believe in the forgiveness of sin, and who suffer persecution for the sake of the Word, which they confess and teach purely and without adulteration (LW 22:55).

Luther: “The Gospel today finds adherents who are convinced that there is nothing except a doctrine that serves to fill their bellies and give free reign to all their impulses”

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

Luther himself recognized the devastating effects of such admittedly insincere preaching: “The Gospel today finds adherents who are convinced that there is nothing except a doctrine that serves to fill their bellies and give free reign to all their impulses” (Werke, 33, p. 2, in ibid., p. 212).

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as "Did Luther Regret the Reformation?" They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church. Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. Those writers put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. The argument goes: Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Then statements are typically brought forth from Luther's career, indicting him of regret for starting the Reformation. Most of these pre-1930 books had fallen into obscurity, but with the arrival of the information explosion brought forth by the Internet, these quotes made a comeback. It's not at all uncommon to visit discussion forums like Catholic Answers and find these "regret" quotes taking center-stage. Let's take a look at this quote and see if Luther was really admitting to the "devastating effects" of his "insincere preaching."

Plagiarism
The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation (Werke, 33, p. 2, in ibid., p. 212). Such obscurity usually indicates that the material was not taken from an actual straight reading of text written by Luther. This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the Catholic Answers discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of the content presented is blatant plagiarism. For this quote particularly, this web-page appears to be that which was plagiarized.

Even if he (she?) did compose this web page (or one of the others), I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther. This quote appears to have been plagiarized from this webpage that presents an article written by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira entitled, Luther Thought He Was Divine! It appears the article was "originally published in the Folha de S.Paulo, on January 10, 1984," so it's probable that the article was not originally in English. This version  provides information about the author, and we can safely rule out the person at Catholic Answers being Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: he died in 1992.  The original article presents the quote in the exact form with one exception: the documentation. The Catholic Answers participant provided, "Werke, 33, p. 2, in ibid., p. 212."  Some versions of the article say rather, " Werke, XXXIII, p. 2; Franca, p. 440." I did locate a Portuguese version of the article that uses "'Werke', ed. de Weimar, 33, p. 2 – cfr. po. cit., p. 212" on the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira website along with an English version using p. 440. Whatever page is meant, the confusion seems to be with whoever originally translated de Oliveira's article.

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira did attempt to accurately document the quote. For his article, he states: "I will cite excerpts from the work of Fr. Leonel Franca SJ titled The Church, the Reform and Civilization (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilizacão Brasileira, 3rd ed., 1934, 558 pages)." Notice that de Oliveira didn't actually reference Luther when the article was composed back in 1984, he borrowed from someone else. Here is page 212 and pages 440 of  the 1958 edition of Franca's book, A igreja, a reforma e a civilização. I suspect the 1934 version was reworked and expanded, because the quote actually appears on page 197 in the 1958 edition:

The sentence in question reads, "Evangelho hoje em dia encontra aderentes que se persuadem não ser ele senão uma doutrina que serve para encher o ventre e dar larga a todos os caprichos." with the documentation, "Weimar, XXXIII, 2." It appears that the English version floating around the Internet was de Oliveira's translation of Franca's Portuguese (and that Portuguese was perhaps a translation of German sources).  I'm not sure if  Franca mined this quote himself, or took it from Denifle, Döllinger, or some other earlier source. He cites a number of  pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists throughout his book. 

Documentation

All parties typically cite either "Werke, 33, p. 2" or "Weimar, XXXIII, 2." This page can  be found here. The text reads: 

This text is from Luther's sermon / commentary on John 6:26. It has been translated into English. The quote in question can be found in LW 23:5. Luther preached on John 6-8 between November 5, 1530 and March 9, 1532 (LW 23:5).

Context

In this text we hear Jesus tell the Jews why they are following Him, namely, not because of His miracles and His teaching but for the sake of their miserable bellies, which they held so dear. For they reasoned: “He is a proper Teacher for us. He will provide us with a physical freedom in which each will be sated and satisfied and enabled to gratify his every wish.” The Lord wants to indicate what sort of disciples the teaching of the Gospel attracts. Even today the Gospel finds disciples who imagine that its teaching affords nothing but a gratification of the belly, that it brings all manner of earthly delights, and that it serves solely the wants of this temporal life. (LW23:5)

Conclusion
Luther does go on to to further lament that people insincerely hear sermons: "Among princes, counts, noblemen and magistrates, town people and country folk, it is quite common to regard the Gospel as a belly sermon." He says this tendency is across the board, from noblemen to country folk, and that it also includes "Our adversaries, too, are proficient in this skill. They can grab for ecclesiastical property, for cloisters and bishoprics (LW 23:6). Luther says to this situation:

Since our Head, Christ the Lord, experienced this, why should we complain if we have disciples who allege that Christ came into the world solely for the sake of our physical well-being? The day will come when Christ will punish such disciples, saying: “This is not what is meant. I preach about a spiritual eating, about spiritual food; I seek the glory of God.” Since He does not confirm them in their idolatrous devotion but upholds the honor of God, His preaching falls on deaf ears. And we fare the same way today (LW 23:7).

Luther also goes on to point out that within a congregation, there would be people in attendance for the wrong reasons:

Well, a preacher must derive what comfort he can from the fact that sows and dogs will be among the hearers wherever the Gospel is preached; it will not be otherwise. These seek nothing else in the Gospel than their own gratification. And if you have this experience, why do you grieve over it so? You are no better than the Lord Christ. If this is the way He fared, you cannot expect to fare differently. There will come a day of reckoning (LW 23:8).

There is nothing in the context of this sermon in which "Luther himself recognized the devastating effects of such admittedly insincere preaching." The context demonstrates rather that Luther was well aware that just as people followed Christ for the wrong reasons in the first century, so also in the sixteenth century. I highly doubt that Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira,  Fr. Leonel Franca, and even the person over on the Catholic Answers discussion forum would be willing to follow their argument to its logical conclusion:  If Luther's preaching was "insincere" because some people took the Gospel message to "fill their bellies and give free reign to all their impulses," so also did the ministry of Jesus attract some of the same kind of people.

Luther: As for his evangelical followers, Luther added that “they are seven times worse than they were before."

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

As for his evangelical followers, Luther added that “they are seven times worse than they were before. After preaching our doctrine, men have given themselves over to stealing, lying, trickery, debauchery, drunkenness, and every kind of vice. We have expelled one devil (the papacy) and seven worse have entered.” (Werke, 28, p. 763, in ibid., p. 440).

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as "Did Luther Regret the Reformation?" They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church. Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. Those writers put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. The argument goes: Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Then statements are typically brought forth from Luther's career, indicting him of regret for starting the Reformation. Most of these pre-1930 books had fallen into obscurity, but with the arrival of the information explosion brought forth by the Internet, these quotes made a comeback. It's not at all uncommon to visit discussion forums like Catholic Answers and find these "regret" quotes taking center-stage. Let's take a look at this quote and see if Luther was really admitting all of his followers
became severely morally bankrupt ("seven times worse") due to his influence.

Plagiarism
The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation ("Werke, 28, p. 763, in ibid., p. 440"). Such obscurity often indicates that the material was not taken from an actual straight reading of text written by Luther. This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the Catholic Answers discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of the content presented is blatant plagiarism. For this quote particularly, this web-page appears to be that which was directly plagiarized.

Even if he (she?) did compose this web page (or one of the others), I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther. This quote appears to have been plagiarized from this webpage that presents an article written by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira entitled, Luther Thought He Was Divine! It appears this article was "originally published in the Folha de S.Paulo, on January 10, 1984," so it's probable that the article was not originally in English. This version  provides information about the author, and we can safely rule out the person at Catholic Answers being Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: he died in 1992.  This version of the article presents the quote in a very similar form with a few exceptions:

And Luther added, regarding his evangelical henchmen, that “they are seven times worse than they were before. After the preaching of our doctrine men have given themselves up to robbery, lying, imposture, debauchery, drunkenness, and every kind of vice. We have expelled one devil (the papacy), and seven worse ones have come in” (Werke, XXVIII, p. 763; Franca, p. 441).

Notice the opening begins with the inflammatory, "And Luther added, regarding his evangelical henchmen.." rather than "As for his evangelical followers.." There are some other minor word variances as well ( "robbery" "imposture").  There's also some confusion in the documentation. Some of the versions say  "in ibid., p. 440" others say "Franca, p. 441." I did locate a Portuguese version of the article that uses p. 440 (on the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira website) along with an English version using p. 440.

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira did attempt to accurately document his source for his article. He states: "I will cite excerpts from the work of Fr. Leonel Franca SJ titled The Church, the Reform and Civilization (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilizacão Brasileira, 3rd ed., 1934, 558 pages)." Notice that de Oliveira didn't actually reference Luther's writings when the article was composed back in 1984, he borrowed from someone else. Here is page 440  and 441 of  the 1958 edition of Franca's book, A igreja, a reforma e a civilização. I suspect the 1934 version was reworked and expanded, because the quote actually appears on page 390 in the 1958 edition (and the 1948 edition):

Documentation
The secondary reference, "in ibid., p. 440" refers to Fr. Leonel Franca,  A igreja, a reforma e a civilização, 1934 edition, page 440 (see above). The primary reference being used is "Werke, 28, p. 763." This refers to volume 28 of the Weimar edition of Luther's works. Here is WA 28:763. The text reads,

The text being cited is from Luther's comments on Deuteronomy 9:25 from a 1529 sermon. It can also be found in Walch III, 2727.To my knowledge, the complete context this paragraph comes from has yet to be translated into an official English version of Luther's Works. 

Context

Some years back 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
The above translation of this obscure quote is from an old book, Luther Vindicated by Charles Hastings Collette. Collette's book is fascinating. 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
This is an oft-used obscure Luther quote. I've gone over it a number of times. Rome's defenders seem to think that Luther was so deluded that he continued to preach the gospel for decades, without any positive results. In their minds, this must be a telling sign that Luther proclaimed a false gospel. In actuality, Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides, including within. 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. There would also be false converts and people that followed the gospel for the wrong reasons. Luther was well aware that just as people followed Christ for the wrong reasons in the first century, so to in the sixteenth century.

Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. It's one thing to argue Luther suffered from depression or had a despondency over the state of things, it's quite another to use his words to prove he had a sense of "failure and guilt" over the preaching of the Gospel, or that he was in agony over the Gospel going forth into the world and the trouble he admitted and expected it would cause.

Luther on Justification- "I myself, even though I teach it publicly have a great difficulty in believing it privately"

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

“There is no religion in the whole world that teaches this doctrine of justification. I myself, even though I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty in believing it privately” (Werke, 25, p. 330, in Franca., p. 158).

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! The quote is one of a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian. This quote is used to prove  justification by faith alone is a "doctrine ... so bizarre that even Luther himself could scarcely manage to believe in it." Luther didn't even believe what he taught?

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 151 of his book:

escreve o próprio LUTERO: "Nenhuma religião há, em toda a terra que ensine esta doutrina da justificação: Eu mesmo, ainda que a ensine publicamente, com grande dificuldade a creio em particular". Weimar, XXV, 330.

Primary Source
Whoever pulled this quote from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original Latin. However, the reference was helpful: WA 25, 330 (cf. Exegetica opera Latina, Volume 23, 140).

Est autem nulla religio iu orbe terrarum, quae hanc sententiam de iustificatione admittat, et nos ipsi privatim aegre eam credimus, quanquam publice eam doceamus. Ideo quoque diligentius hic locus cognosci debet, quod sit ceu fundamentum, quo Novum testamentum seu Euangelion nititur, qui solus nos et religionem nostram ab omnibus aliis religionibus distinguit. Soli enim Christiani hunc locum credunt et sunt iusti, non quia ipsi operantur, sed quia alterius opera apprehendunt, nempe passionem Christi. Qui igitur hunc articulum credit, ille tutus est ab omnibus erroribus et necessario ei aderit Spiritus sanctus. Neque enim sine Spiritu sancto doceri aut cognosci potest. Qui autem ab hoc articulo exciderunt, illi expositi sunt omni vento falsae doctrinae.

This quote is from Luther's material on Isaiah 53. Some of the material is found in WA 31(2), some of it is found in WA 25 (pp. 79-401). The material in WA 31 comprises of lectures transcribed and recorded by those who heard Luther give these lectures. The material in WA 25 comprises of scholia. Therefore, taken together, Luther's notes and lectures comprise his material on the book of Isaiah. LW chose to translate the material from WA 31 with clarification from Luther's scholia ("... there is neither need nor even justification for relying on the scholia, and we have decided to translate the version closest to Luther himself").

Context
If one compares the scholia and the lectures on Isaiah 53 there is indeed harmony in thought.

The quote above roughly translates: 

But there is no religion in the entire world which admits this teaching of justification, and we ourselves believe it in private with difficulty, though we publicly teach it. Therefore this doctrine must carefully be known, as being the foundation, which the gospel and New Testament is based. It alone  distinguishes us from all other religions. Christians believe they are justified, not because they themselves work, but because they receive another's works, namely, Christ's work. Therefore he who believes this article is safe from all errors and necessarily will be with the Holy Spirit. For without the Holy Spirit it cannot be taught or known. But he that falls from this article are exposed to every wind of false doctrine.

This scholia would fit into this section 5 of Luther's lecture on Isaiah 53:

4. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
This states the purpose of Christ’s suffering. It was not for Himself and His own sins, but for our sins and griefs. He bore what we should have suffered. Here you see the fountain from which St. Paul draws countless streams of the suffering and merits of Christ, and he condemns all religions, merits, and endeavors in the whole world through which men seek salvation. Note the countless sects who to this day are toiling to obtain salvation. But here the prophet says, “He for us.” It is difficult for the flesh to repudiate all its resources, to turn away from self, and to be carried over to Christ. It is for us who have merited nothing not to have regard for our merits but simply to cling to the Word between heaven and earth, even though we do not feel it. Unless we have been instructed by God, we will not understand this. Therefore I delight in this text as if it were a text of the New Testament. This new teaching which demolishes the righteousness of the Law clearly appeared absurd to the Jews. For that reason the apostles needed Scripture, Surely He has borne our griefs. His suffering was nothing else than our sin. These words, OUR, US, FOR US, must be written in letters of gold. He who does not believe this is not a Christian. Yet we esteemed Him. We thought that He was suffering because of His own sin, as it were. In the eyes of the world and of the flesh Christ does not suffer for us, since He seemed to have deserved it Himself. This is what the prophet says here too, that He was judged guilty in the eyes of the world. It is therefore difficult to believe that such a one suffered for us. The Law is that everybody dies for his own sins. Natural reason, and divine as well, argues that everybody must bear his own sin. Yet He is struck down contrary to all law and custom. Hence reason infers that He was smitten by God for His own sake. Therefore the prophet leads us so earnestly beyond all righteousness and our rational capacity and confronts us with the suffering of Christ to impress upon us that all that Christ has is mine. This is the preaching of the whole Gospel, to show us that Christ suffered for our sake contrary to law, right, and custom. He expounds more fully what His suffering for us means.

5. He was wounded.
 The prophet is eloquent in describing the suffering of Christ. Word by word he expounds it in opposition to the hardened Jews. Do you want to know what it is to bear our sins, that is, what it means that He was wounded? Here you have Christ delineated perfectly and absolutely, since this chapter speaks of Him. Christ is a man, a servant of the Word, who by means of suffering bore our sins. What will the unrestrained Jew answer in opposition to this delineation? From this you must infer how far apart are the teachings of Paul and the pope. Paul clings to Christ alone as the sin bearer. By means of this one word, “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), John the Baptist understands this Levitical sacrifice, that He suffered for the sins of all. It follows, then, that the Law and merits do not justify. Away with the Antichrist pope with his traditions, since Christ has borne all these things! I marvel that this text was so greatly obscured in the church. They note the concern of Scripture that faith without works is dead, and we say the same thing. In public argument, however, we say that works are indeed necessary, but not as justifying elements. Thus anyone may privately come to the conclusion, “It is all the same whether I have sinned or whether I have done well.” This is hard for the conscience to believe, that it is the same and in fact something angelic and divine. Therefore this text draws the following conclusion: “Christ alone bears our sins. Our works are not Christ. Therefore there is no righteousness of works.” Surely none of the papists can escape this fact when he sees Scripture as a whole, that Christ has accomplished all things for justification and therefore we have not done it. Appeal to works, rewards, and merits and make much of them in the realm of outward recompense. Only do not make them responsible for justification and the forgiveness of sins. We can preach and uphold this passage in public, but we can only believe it with difficulty in private. If we preserve this article, “Jesus Christ is the Savior,” all other articles concerning the Holy Spirit and of the church and of Scripture are safe. Thus Satan attacks no article so much as this one. He alone is a Christian who believes that Christ labors for us and that He is the Lamb of God slain for our sins. While this article stands, all the monasteries of righteousness, etc., are struck down by lightning. In the light of this text read all the epistles of Paul with regard to redemption, salvation, and liberation, because they are all drawn from this fountain. A blind papacy read and chanted these and similar words as in a dream, and no one really considered them. If they had, they would have cast off all righteousness from themselves. Hence it is not enough to know and accept the fact. One must also accept the function and the power of the fact. If we have this, we stand unconquered on the royal road, and the Holy Spirit is present in the face of all sects and deceptions. When this doctrine is safe, we firmly stand up to all people, but where this article is lost, we proceed from one error to the next, as we observe in the babbling Enthusiasts and in Erasmus. Our nature is opposed to the function and power of Christ’s Passion. As far as the fact itself is concerned, both the pope and the Turk believe it and proclaim it, but they do not accept its function. As for you, lift up this article and extol it above every law and righteousness and let it be to you a measureless sea over against a little spark. The sea is Christ who has suffered. Your works and your righteousness are the little spark. Therefore beware, as you place your sins on your conscience, that you do not panic, but freely place them on Christ, as this text says, “He has borne our iniquities.” We must clearly transfer our sins from ourselves to Christ. If you want to regard your sin as resting on you, such a thought in your heart is not of God but of Satan himself, contrary to Scripture, which by God’s will places your sin on Christ. Hence you must say: “I see my sin in Christ, therefore my sin is not mine but another’s. I see it in Christ.” It is a great thing to say confidently: “My sin is not mine.” However, it is a supreme conflict with a most powerful beast, which here becomes most powerful: “I behold sins heaped on Christ.” Thus a certain hermit who was extremely harassed by Satan could not evade him, but said: “I have not sinned. Everybody must look upon his conscience as free.” He did not answer well because he did have sin. This is what he should have said: “My sins have been transferred to Christ; He has them.” This is the grafting of the wild olive into the olive tree. It is not without purpose that the prophet uses so many words in this article, since it is necessary for a Christian to know that these are his own sins, whatever they are, and that they have been borne by Christ, by whom we have been redeemed and saved. This is the Savior, etc., from eternal damnation, from death, and from sin. So by this thunderbolt the Law and its righteousness are struck down, as you see Paul treat this matter in detail.


Something further must be noted, lest those who do not feel this despair. There Satan can turn the antidote into poison and the hope into despair. For when a Christian hears these supreme consolations and then sees how weak he is with regard to his faith in them, he soon thinks that they do not apply to him. In this way Satan can turn consolation into distress. But as for you, however weak you are, know that you are a Christian, whether you believe perfectly or imperfectly, even while weakness and a feeling of death and sin remain with you. To such a person we must say: “Brother, your situation is not desperate, but pray together with the apostles for the perfection of your faith.” Paul also struggled with this problem and was deeply disturbed. A Christian is not yet perfect, but he is a Christian who has, that is, who begins to have, the righteousness of God. I say this for the sake of the weak, so that they will not despair when they feel the bite of sin within themselves. They should not yet be masters and doctors but disciples of Christ, people who learn Christ, not perfect teachers. Let it suffice for us to remain with that Word as learners. Therefore, however perfect and absolute the teaching of Christ is that affirms that all our sins belong to Christ, it is not perfect in our life. It is enough for us to have begun and to be in the state of reaching after what is before us. Hence a Christian man must be especially vexed in his conscience and heart by Satan, and yet he must remain in the Word and not seek peace anywhere else than in Christ. We must not make a log or a rock out of the Christian as one who does not feel sin in himself. This is the claim of the exceedingly spiritual Enthusiasts.[LW 17:221-225]

Conclusion
"This doctrine is so bizarre that even Luther himself could scarcely manage to believe in it" hardly follows from Luther's lecture. In context that which was beyond belief was "Christ alone bears our sins. Our works are not Christ. Therefore there is no righteousness of works."

Luther: "It makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation"

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

“God only obliges you to believe and to confess (the faith). In all other things He leaves you free, lord and master to do whatever you will without any danger to your conscience; on the contrary, it is certain that, as far as He is concerned, it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation. What is it to Him if you do or do not do such things?”  Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff.;  Franca, p. 446

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! The quote is one of a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian. With this quote, the "shock" is the notion "it makes no difference whether you leave your wife, flee from your lord, or are unfaithful to every obligation." The argument is thus: if all that is needed is faith, then it makes no difference how one lives.

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 396 of his book:

I. RIVIUS escreve em 1547: "Se és adúltero ou libertino, dizem os pregadores, crê simplesmente e serás santo. Nem temas a lei, porquanto Cristo a cumpriu e satisfez pelo homem... Semelhantes discursos levam à vida ímpia". 52 Em 1525 JORGE, duque de Saxônia, escrevia ao corifeu reformador: "Quando se viu maior número de adultérios como depois que escreveste: se uma mulher é estéril, una-se a outro e os filhos sejam alimentados pelo primeiro marido. E outro tanto façam os homens?" 53 E como não haveria de ser assim quando se ouvia LUTERO ensinando de 1523: "Deus só te obriga a crer ea confessar. Em todas as outras coisas te deixa livre e senhor de fazer o que quiseres, sem perigo algum de consciência; antes é certo que, de si, ele não se importa, ainda mesmo se deixasses tua mulher, fugisses do teu senhor e não fosses fiel a vínculo algum. E que se lhe dá, se fazes ou deixas de fazer semelhantes coisas?" 54

54. Weimar, XII, 131 ss; Cabe aqui a observação que em 1565 fazia JOANNES JACOBUS na obra sobre a sua conversão: "entre os católicos os pecados atribuem-se às pessoas, entre o luteranos às doutrinas e às pessoas". RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation, Freiburg . B., 1866, I. 522.

Primary Source
Whoever pulled this quote from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. However, the reference was helpful: "Werke, Weimar ed., XII, pp. 131 ff." Here is WA 12, 131 (I've actually addressed this reference before). However, the "ff" typically may mean the quote spans multiple pages. In this instance though, the quote is found in one section.

WA 12, 131 is a page from Luther's commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. The English translation is found in LW 28 (WA 12, 131 can be found here: LW 28:44-45).

Context
Commenting on 1 Cor. 7:18-19,, Luther holds "everyone should lead the life to which God has called him "(LW 28:40). One can be circumcised or uncircumcised married or single."...[I]f you are a heathen, uncircumcised and outside the Jewish law, you should not think that this is wrong and that you must be circumcised; this is optional. Faith alone justifies you, and it alone fulfills the commandment of God" (LW 28:40-41). "...[N]either Jewish nor heathen birth or customs can of themselves hinder or advance us in God’s sight, but only faith" (LW 28:41).

"In the same way one should also say to our people: Marriage is nothing, and celibacy is also nothing. To have a heathen spouse is nothing, and to have a Christian spouse is also nothing. Those who are married should stay married. Those who are unmarried should not marry—that is, they should not be disturbed in their consciences as to whether they should marry or not. Here is another example. To be a monk is nothing, and to be a layman is also nothing; to be a priest is nothing, and to be a nun is also nothing. The layman should not become a monk, and the monk should not become a layman; all of which is to say that it should not be a matter of necessity or conscience whether one is a monk or a layman. Rather each should remain as he is, provided that faith is pure and unshaken. For where faith cannot be maintained, there the monk should abandon his order just as a married person should leave an unchristian spouse who drives or keeps him away from the Christian faith" [LW 28:41]

Commenting on verse 23 (You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men), Luther then states:

That this is his true meaning is demonstrated in his words: “You were bought with a price.” By this he means Christ, who with His own blood bought us and set us free from all sin and law, as we see in Gal. 5:1. But this purchase does not work itself out according to the way of the world and does not affect the relations men have with one another, such as that of a servant toward his master or that of a wife toward her husband. These relationships are all left intact, and God wants them maintained. The effect of this purchase is spiritual and takes place in our conscience. Therefore before God no law any longer binds or imprisons us. We are all free from all things. Before we were bound in sin, but now we are rid of all sin. Whatever outwardly remains of relationship or freedom is neither sin nor virtue but only outward tranquillity or trouble, joy or suffering, as is all other bodily good and ill, in both of which we can live free and without sin [LW 28:44-45].

The obscure quote the follows in Luther's Comment on 1 Corinthians 7:24 (So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God). Luther states:

Here Paul repeats this conclusion concerning Christian freedom for the third time: that all outward things are optional or free before God and that a Christian may make use of them as he will; he may accept them or let them go. But here the apostle adds the words “with God.” This means, to the extent that it is of importance between you and God. For you are doing no service for God if you marry, remain unmarried, whether you are in bondage or free, become this or that, eat this or that; on the other hand, you do not displease Him or sin if you put off or reject one or the other. Finally, you owe God nothing but to believe and confess; He releases you from all other things so that you can do as you please without endangering your conscience. This is so thoroughly true that He does not inquire on His own behalf whether you have let your wife go, have run away from your master, or have not kept your agreement, for what does He profit whether you do these things or don’t do them? [LW 28:45]

Now before one thinks Luther is teaching blatant antinomianism, he then immediately states:

But because in this relationship you are bound up with your neighbor and have become his servant, it is God’s will that no one be deprived of what is his by means of His freedom but rather that those things of your neighbor be protected. For although God pays no attention to these things on His own account, He pays attention to them on account of your neighbor. This is what he means with the words “with God,” as though He were admonishing us: “I did not make you free among men or with your neighbor, for I do not wish that which is his taken from him until he gives you permission. But you are entirely free with Me and cannot ruin yourself in My sight by keeping to or refraining from outward things.” Therefore notice this and differentiate between the freedom existing in your relation to God and the freedom existing in your relation to your neighbor. In the former this freedom is present, in the latter it is not, and for this reason: God gives you this freedom only in the things that are yours, not in what is your neighbor’s. There differentiate between what is yours and what is your neighbors. That is why no man can leave his wife, for his body is not his own but his wife’s, and vice versa. Likewise the servant and his body do not belong to him himself but to his master. It would be of no importance to God if the husband were to leave his wife, for the body is not bound to God but made free by Him for all outward things and is only God’s by virtue of inward faith. But among men these promises are to be kept. In sum: We owe nobody anything but to love (Rom. 13:8) and to serve our neighbor through love. Where love is present, there it is accomplished that no eating, drinking, clothing, or living in a particular way endangers the conscience or is a sin before God, except when it is detrimental to one’s neighbor. In such things one cannot sin against God but only against one’s neighbor.
And it should be emphasized that this little word “call” does not in this context mean the social status to which one is called, as when one says, “Your status is ‘married,’ ” or, “His status is ‘priest,’ ” and so on, as everyone has his calling from God. Here St. Paul is not speaking of this calling. He speaks instead of the evangelical call, which is as much as to say: “Remain in that calling to which you were called, that is, where you receive the Gospel; and remain as you were when you were called. If the call comes to you in the married state, then remain in that wherein you were found. If you are called in slavery, then remain in the slavery in which you were called.”
But what if the Gospel calls me in a state of sin, should I remain in that? Answer: If you have entered into faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the Gospel, then sin as much as you please. But how can you sin if you have faith and love? Since God is satisfied with your faith and your neighbor with your love, it is impossible that you should be called and still remain in a state of sin. If, however, you remain in that state, then either you were not called as yet, or you did not comprehend the call. For this call brings you from the state of sin to a state of virtue, making you unable to sin as long as you are in that state. All things are free to you with God through faith; but with men you are the servant of everyman through love.
From this you will see that monasticizing and making of spiritual regulations is all wrong in our time. For these people bind themselves before God to outward things from which God has made them free, thus working against the freedom of faith and God’s order. On the other hand, where these people should be bound, namely, in their relations with other men and in serving everyman in love, there they make themselves free, serving no one and being of no use to anyone but themselves, thus working against love. Therefore they are a perverse people, perverting all the laws of God. They want to be free where they are bound and bound where they are free, and yet they hope to be seated much higher in heaven than ordinary Christian people. But they who make such a hellish prison out of heavenly freedom and such a hostile freedom out of loving service shall sit in the deepest hell [LW 28:45-47].

Luther Thought he was Divine?

Recently, I was sent this obscure Luther quote:

"Does this Luther not appear to you to be eccentric? As far as I am concerned, I think he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors (of learning), falsifiers into saints, slime into pearls!” Werke, Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, IV, pp. 378; Franca, p. 190

If you search out this quote you'll come across a few pages of similar content. For instance this web page is entitled: Luther Thought He Was Divine! After providing a handful of out-of-context quotes painting Luther as a gross antinomian, this web page states,

All these insanities explain how Luther reached the frenzy of satanic pride, saying of himself: “Does this Luther seem to you an extravagant man? As for me, I think that he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors, swindlers into saints, and slime into pearls?” (Ed. Wittenberg, 1551, vol. 4, p. 378, in ibid., p. 190).

Polemical Source
The quote was admittedly taken from a Roman Catholic secondary source: Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., A Igreja, a Reforma, e a Civilização [The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization] (Rio de Janeiro, 1934). "Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)." The quote can be found on page 180 of his book:

Este LUTERO não vos parece uma homem extravagante? Quanto a mim, penso que ele é Deus. Senão, como teriam os seus escritos eo seu nome a potência de transformar mendigos em senhores, asnos em doutores, falsários em santos, lodo em perolas!" Orgia do orgulho satânico ou caso de patologia mental? (Ed Wittemb.1551, t. IV, p. 378)

Primary Source
A quote like this presents a few difficulties. First whoever pulled it from Franca's The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization had to translate it into English, so it's twice removed from the original German or Latin. Second, the reference given is to the earliest collected edition of Luther's Works: The Wittenberg Edition. Third, if you search out some of the key phrases from the quote, you'll quickly discover that it is truly an obscure quote. It took me quite a while to figure out where it came from.

The first helpful clue came from Audin's History of the Life, Writings, and Doctrines of Luther, Volume 2. On page 331, Audin mentions (Roman Catholic) John Faber's work against Luther, and Luther's reaction:

Faber's work had caused amusement. But Luther was angry. "I shall not reply," he said, "either to Cochlaeus or Faber: there is not an ass that does not obtain the degree of doctor as soon as he attacks Luther. Luther is a god who makes beggars lords, asses doctors, scoundrels saints, and changes dirt into precious stones: it was I who raised Adrian to the tiara, and you shall see that I will make Faber a cardinal." 

Audin provides the following documentation: "Adversus iteratum Edictum Episcopi Misnensis pro Communione sub una Specie: a pamphlet which Sockendorf calls 'vehemens et aculeatum.' " This roughly translates to Against the bishop of Meissen repeated edict for Communion under one species.

The second clue came from W.H.T. Dau's Luther Examined and Reexamined. On page 239 - 240 Dau states:

Luther was aware that he was probably the worst-hated man of his times. He declares his belief that in the last hundred years there has not lived a man to whom the world was more hostile than to himself. (22,1660.) Persons praising him, he says, are regarded as having committed a more grievous sin than any idolater, blasphemer, perjurer, fornicator, adulterer, murderer, or thief. (9, 553.) Anything that Luther has said, he observes, is denounced as corning from the devil; what Duke George (one of his fiercest enemies), Faber, or Bucer say or do is highly approved. (4, 1606.) Like Elijah, he was charged with having disturbed Israel: before he began preaching there was peace and quiet, now all is confusion. (9, 587.) He is held responsible for the Peasants' Revolt and the rise of the Sacramentarian sects. (22, 1602.) A laborer whom his wife had hired became drunk and committed murder; at once the rumor was spread that Luther kept a murderer as his servant. (21 b, 2225.) What he writes is represented as having been inspired by envy, pride, bitterness, yea, by Satan himself; those, however, who write against him are regarded as being inspired by the Holy Ghost. (18, 2005.) He observes that beggars become rich, obtain favors from princes and kings, remunerative positions, honors, and bishoprics by turning against him. (18, 2005.) Some attribute the election of Adrian VI as Pope to Luther (this Pope was believed to favor reforms: he did not last long); and Luther expects that he is helping Dr. Schmid to become a cardinal because he is opposing him. (19, 1347.) Dunces become doctors, knaves become saints, and the most besotted characters are glorified when they try their vile mouths and pens against Luther. (19, 1347.) The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther. (18, 2005.)

The references are to the old St. Louis edition of Luther's works. The relevant citation is 19,1347, which can be found here. This page is part of the treatise Bericht an einen guten Freund , von beider Gestalt des Sacraments, auf Bischofs zu Meissen Mandat. 1528. This appears to be the German version of the same Latin treatise Audin quoted. It roughly translates to Advice to a Dear Friend on Both Forms of the Sacrament in reply to the Mandate of the Bishop of Meissen, 1528 (found in WA 36:560, Erl. 30:373, but not found in LW).

Context
In this treatise Luther argued against an edict from the bishop of Meissen  that reaffirmed the Roman church's distribution of the sacrament in only the form of bread to the laity. The obscure quote in question comes early in the treatise.




Conclusion
As Dau and Audin infer above, the quote isn't a claim to divinity, but is rather a sarcastic comment. Luther saw that those who opposed him sometimes gained from such an endeavour: "The easiest way for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by hating Luther."

This wasn't an isolated statement from Luther either. A few years later he made a similar comment:

Before my time, it required a great to-do, and an enormous expense, to canonize a dead monk. But now, there is no easier way for canonizing even living Neroes and Caligulas, than the declaration of hatred against Luther. Only let a man hate and bravely curse Luther, and that, immediately, makes him a saint, equal almost to our holy Lord, the servant of the servants of God. But who could ever believe that hatred against Luther would be attended with so much power and advantage? It fills the coffers of very beggars; nay, it introduces obscure moles and bats to the favour of princes and of kings; it procures prebendaries and dignities; it procures bishoprics; it procures the reputation of wisdom and of learning to the most consummate asses; it procures to petty teachers of grammar, the authority of writing books; nay, it procures the crown of victory and of glory, eternal in the heavens! Nay, happy are all who hate Luther, for they obtain, by that one vile and easy service, those great and mighty things, which none of the most excellent of men could ever obtain with all their wisdom and their virtues; no, not even Christ himself, with all his own miracles, and the miracles of his apostles and all his saints!

The source of this other quote can be found here. It's from a letter found at the end of an old English translation of The Bondage of the Will (To Amsdorf March 11, 1534 WA Br 7:27-40, no. 2093). I mention this because it appears this is the only English translation of this lengthy letter that Luther wrote about Erasmus. It's very interesting Reformation reading.