Luther: For the Sake of the Christian Church... Tell a Good Thumping Lie

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

On conscience he said, “What harm would there be, if a man to accomplish better things and for the sake of the Christian Church, does tell a good thumping lie” (Lenz, “Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356)

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as the "Antinomian Luther." They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church (but not limited to them!). Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. The champion of this view was Heinrich Denifle (1844-1905), an Austrian Roman Catholic historian. For Denifle, one of Luther's major problems was lust and immorality. It was Luther's craving for sex that led him to not only break his monastic vows, but to revolt against the established Roman church. Denifle would use statements like this to prove Luther invented the doctrine of justification to excuse his gross immorality.  This quote proves Luther was so devious, he considered lying acceptable, particularly if it benefited the "Christian church." While this quote may not appear to have sex in view, we'll see below that it's a crucial part of the quote and did make its way into Denifle's analysis of Luther.

 Plagiarism

The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation ("Lenz, “Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356"). 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.

Even if he (she?) did compose any of these web pages, 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. For this quote particularly, this EWTN web-page appears to be that which was directly plagiarized (note the phrase, "On conscience he said..."). EWTN did say they took the quote directly from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia version is exactly as it appears on 2001 EWTN web-article. The person responsible for the English version of the quote was probably the author of the "Luther" article in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss (1855 – 1912). One can find Ganss using the quote as early as 1900 and 1902 with the same documentation ("Lenz, Briefwechsel," Vol. I, p. 382. "Kolde, Analecta Luthenma," P- 356). Ganns was heavily influenced by Denifle (Denifle uses the quote here).  The article by Ganss in the Catholic Encyclopedia was influential to American Catholics in the early twentieth century. With the old Encyclopedia now online, Ganns' view has been popularized again, even though the New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a much different approach to Luther, rejecting Ganns' view.

Documentation
The documentation provided is "Lenz,“Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356."  Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 382 which is a section of a letter from Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse written to Martin Luther on July 18, 1540. While this letter does involve the historical situation surrounding this quote, the quote as presented does not occur on page 382 (and even if it did, it would be from the pen of Philip, not Luther). This incorrect reference is surprising as it appears to have originally come from George Ganns.

"Kolde" refers to Hermann Friedrich Theodor von Kolde, a German Protestant theologian (1850-1913). “Analecta” refers to Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte Luthers, Zugleich ein Supplement zu den bisherigen Sammlungen seines Briefwechsels, published in 1883.  Here is page 356. This page documents material from the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15-17, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting, this page documents some of Luther's statements. What caught the eye of Ganns appears to be the following:

Here Luther is recorded as approving a lie for the sake of Christendom and the world ("...thun umb der Christenheit und aller welt nutz willen). Denifle's English translator renders the passage from Kolde as, "[Phillip] should bear no burden in telling a lie on account of the girl for the sake of the advantage to Christendom and all the world."

Context
In his book The Life and Letters of Martin Luther,  Preserved Smith provides a brief overview of the details of the historical context surrounding this quote  (The Bigamy of Philip of Hesse 1540, pp. 373-386), as does Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol 3 1532-1546 (pp. 205-215). Both of these sources present a good compare and contrast. Smith isn't always sympathetic to Luther, Brecht typically will be. 

The quote itself was the outcome the situation provoked by Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Philip, an important political figure for the early Protestants, went through a series of maneuverings attempting to justify taking a second wife. Smith recounts Philip began this effort as early as 1526, writing Luther for advice. Luther denied him any approval (p. 373).  Fast forward to 1539, Philip "determined Luther or no Luther" to take a second wife. Philip, convincing Bucer, sent him to get approval from Wittenberg.  The Wittenberg theologians noted that God intended monogamy, but conceded to Philip's bigamy, noting it as an exception. They denied it any sort of precedent becoming law, and intended it to be secret pastoral counseling. Brecht calls the advise "extremely risky and in all probability wrong from the very beginning" (p. 207).

Brecht was right, the  bigamy approval became public. This after some denial from Luther and the Wittenberg theologians. Brecht notes that at one point during this fiasco that had the Emperor called Philip to account for his bigamy, Luther would assume responsibility for the Wittenberg counsel (p. 211) as giving Philip private pastoral counseling. This position was maintained by Luther at the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. On the other hand,  Luther maintained the advise was not meant for public policy, but as only the solution to a messy personal problem (See Brecht, p. 212). At these meetings Luther argued the best thing to do was deny the second marriage, for as Brecht points out "Luther foresaw grave consequences for him and the church, and in this he was proved to be correct" (Brecht 3, p. 212).

In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like,  "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).  Smith concludes a bit differently:

Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.

Conclusion
I've gone over this situation before. See my previous entries here and here. It's curious that even though the more scandalous aspect of this quote is bigamy, Luther's detractors assail him rather in regard to "lying," as if the thrust of Luther's life and theology was simply lies and deception.  One thing Luther's detractors do not flesh out are Luther's actual views about lying (see my entry here). Luther did not believe that lying in all its various forms was allowable. As a trained medieval theologian, he made crucial distinctions.

The question as I see it in regard to the historical context of the quote is if the situation was such that a lie of necessity was prudent, acceptable and of "obligation." That's a different question. In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons. Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).

On Justification by Faith, Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin on bravely...

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

On Justification by Faith, Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders” (Enders, “Briefwechsel”, III, 208) Don.


This quote pops up all the time. I've gone over it a number of times, simply because there's so many different versions of it, and so many different people using it. This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as the "Antinomian Luther." They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church (but not limited to them!). Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. The champion of this view was Heinrich Denifle (1844-1905), an Austrian Roman Catholic historian. For Denifle, one of Luther's major problems was lust and immorality. It was Luther's craving for sex that led him to not only break his monastic vows, but to revolt against the established Roman church. Denifle would use statements like this to prove Luther invented the doctrine of justification to excuse his gross immorality.  This quote proves Luther was so devious in his theology of justification, he believed people should just go ahead and sin as much as possible, because Christ simply forgives it anyway.


Plagiarism

The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation (Enders, “Briefwechsel”, III, 208). 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.

Even if he (she?) did compose any of these web pages, 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. For this quote particularly, this EWTN web-page appears to be that which was directly plagiarized. EWTN did say they took the quote from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia version is exactly as it appears on 2001 EWTN web-article. The person responsible for the English version of the quote was probably the author of the "Luther" article in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss (1855 – 1912). Ganns was heavily influenced by Denifle (Denifle uses the quote here).  The article by Ganss in the Catholic Encyclopedia was influential to American Catholics in the early twentieth century. With the old Encyclopedia now online, Ganns' view has been popularized again, even though the New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a much different approach to Luther.

Documentation
The documentation provided is "Enders, 'Briefwechsel', III, 208." "Enders" refers to ‎Ernst Ludwig Enders. He edited 18 volumes of Luther's letters, known as, Dr. Martin Luther's Briefwechsel (1884–1932). Here is volume III, page 208. The text being referred to is the following:

This Latin text from Luther is from a fragment of a letter, August 8, 1521 (sometimes also dated June 29, 1521). A few sources I have say the fragment was found by John Aurifaber "in the Spalatine library," but I could not confirm this. If  Aurifaber found this fragment, the letter has been around since at least the late sixteenth century. LW 48 says the letter has no address, salutation, or signature. In other words, it has no beginning or ending, thus lacking a complete context. Most scholarship thinks the letter was written to Philip Melanchthon from Luther's seclusion in the Wartburg Castle. This fragmentary letter can be found in WA, Br 2, No. 424 , DeWette 2, 34, and in English in LW 48:277-282.

Context

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282].

Conclusion
Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and this statement is a perfect example. The first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther's point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith.

But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure[WA 40,1: 89; LW 26:36-37; this English translation from  Ewald Plass, What Luther Says 3:1315].

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther compares the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Compare and Contrast: The Old vs. the New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Martin Luther

When I first began looking into Luther-related issues, it was not uncommon for Roman Catholics to direct me to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1905-1914). An encyclopedia has the connotation of being a reliable source of information complied by credible scholars. If one simply skims through the Luther entry from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, one finds a scholarly well-documented submission explaining that, historically considered, Luther was wild-tempered, depressed, mentally ill, and lustful. He ended up abandoned by most of his friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit. There you have it: a credible scholarly encyclopedia has spoken (read: sarcasm).

The Meaning of "Encyclopedia"
Most people probably don't even stop to consider what the concept of an encyclopedia means. It was during the nineteenth century (particularly with German thinkers), that the notion of encyclopedia became a pursuit. The idea was to present information on what is known through the various sciences and how the information has an organic interconnected relationship.  During this time period the notion of a theological encyclopedia also became popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia was thus a product of its time period:  

The need of a Catholic Encyclopedia in English was manifest for many years before it was decided to publish one. Editors of various general Encyclopedias had attempted to make them satisfactory from a Catholic point of view, but without success, partly because they could not afford the space, but chiefly because in matters of dispute their contributors were too often permitted to be partial, if not erroneous, in their statements [source].

The text cited above goes on to point out that at the time, the Catholic Encyclopedia attempted to present the best Roman Catholic Scholarship available:

The editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject. Contributors have been chosen for their special knowledge and skill in presenting the subject, and they assume the responsibility for what they have written.

Indeed, there is a lot of helpful information in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. But during the time period it was put together, Roman Catholic research into the life and work of Martin Luther was still engaged in a period of destructive criticism. Historian James Atkinson explains,

It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come around to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther's person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists (Atkinson, James. Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, p. 3].

This general statement in no way implies Luther research wasn't pursued in-depth  by some Roman Catholic scholars during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One need only to do a cursory skim through Jesuit historian Hartmann Grisar's massive multi-volume set on Luther or see the appeal to primary sources put forth by Heinrich Denifle.  But despite the scholarly work by these Roman Catholic historians,  their overall ideal was to attack Luther the person rather than consider his work as the output of an honest theologian.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Luther
The Luther entry in the old Catholic Encyclopedia was written by George Ganns (1855 – 1912). He was a priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  He may have influenced American Catholic attitudes towards Luther more than any other Roman Catholic scholar. I've provided He relied heavily on the tradition of Roman Catholic destructive Luther criticism (Denifle, Grisar, Dollinger, Janssen, etc.). For Ganss, Luther was ultimately a liar and a psychotic.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Luther
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) comes decades after the paradigm shift in the Roman Catholic approach to Martin Luther and shortly after the ecumenical pursuits of Vatican II. During the first five hundred years of Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther, a strong emphasis on vilifying Luther’s character as a means of discrediting the Reformation was the normal Roman Catholic approach. The emphasis shifted in the twentieth century: Roman Catholic historians began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian and admit the failure of their sixteenth century church. 

The New Catholic Encyclopedia presents an almost completely different image of Luther than that of the old Catholic Encyclopedia. This Luther entry was written by Roman Catholic Reformation scholar John P. Dolan. Dolan's approach to Luther is quite different. He argues:

...[N]o evidence existed for prior Catholic assertions that Luther's family's poverty "created an abnormal atmosphere" for his early development. It was absolutely absurd, moreover, to contend that Luther was a "crass ignoramus," and it was no longer tenable to hold, as Denifle did, that Luther was an "ossified Ockhamite." To question Luther's religious motives for entering the monastery, furthermore, did Luther a Fundamental injustice. Dolan instead focused upon Luther’s religious and theological discoveries and admitted the scandalous and immoral simoniacal acts associated with the sale of indulgences. Dolan’s article recognizes precisely what religious and doctrinal issues were at stake in the Reformation, a view that was not evident in the earlier twentieth or nineteenth century views of Luther" [Patrick W. Carey, “Luther in an American Catholic Context,” found in: Timothy Maschke, Franz Posset, and Joan Skocir (eds.), Ad Fontes Lutheri: Toward the Recovery of the Real Luther: Essays in Honor of Kenneth Hagen’s Sixty-Fifth Birthday, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), pp. 52-53.]

Here is the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Luther in its entirety. I have included the entire entry below in the Addendum. Simply compare it to the old entry, and it's as if two different people are being described. Sometimes it's not what's said, but what isn't said. Luther the person is not subjected to personal attack by Dolan. He most often simply states the facts.  Lest anyone think though Dolan does not concisely locate Luther on the wrong side of the Roman church, in discussing justification Dolan states Luther "rejected the traditional teaching of the Church."

Conclusion
I offer this simple compare and contrast for any of you that have been accosted with the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Martin Luther. If you find yourself in such a situation, ask the following questions:

1. Are you aware of the history of Roman Catholic interpretation on Luther?

2. Are you aware that there is no unified Roman Catholic interpretation of Martin Luther (or the Reformation)?

3. Do you believe that historical research ended in 1914?

4. Have you ever read the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Luther?

5. If you have read the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Martin Luther, can you explain why it describes an almost completely different person than the old Catholic Encyclopedia does?

6. On what basis does one decide which Encyclopedia article to use?

Addendum: The New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Martin Luther

New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 8 (1967), pp. 1085-1091.

LUTHER, MARTIN

German Reformer; b. Eisleben, village in Thuringia, Nov. 10, 1483; d. there, Feb. 18, 1546. His parents, Hans Luder and Margaret Ziegler, had recently emigrated from the farming community of Möhra, where the Luder family had lived for many generations. As was the practice of the time, the child was baptized the following day by the pastor, Bartholomew Rennebecher; and since it was the feast of St. Martin of Tours, he was named after the sainted Roman soldier.

Early Years. Within a year after his birth the family moved to Mansfield, where the father was employed as a laborer in the copper mines. Luther's father was a strict disciplinarian and in his early childhood the family was beset by poverty. There is little evidence to argue, as Erik Erikson once did, that the atmosphere of the household was abnormal. By the turn of the 16th century his father's financial situation had improved, and in 1511 he became owner in a number of mines and foundries in the area. He had been elected to the city council in 1491. Young Martin was enrolled in the local Latin day school in 1488 and there began the traditional study of Latin grammar. In 1496 he was sent to Magdeburg, where he remained until Easter of the following year at a school conducted by the brethren of the common life. The next semester he transferred to Eisenach because he had relatives there.

Student at Erfurt. In April 1501 Luther matriculated at the University of Erfurt and enrolled in the bursa of St. George. Two of his professors, Jodocus Trutvetter and Bartholomew Arnold von Usingen, were followers of the via moderna. Whether Luther was deeply influenced by nominalism is still disputed. The picture drawn by Heinrich denifle, OP, that portrays Luther as an ossified Ockhamite is no longer tenable. Although Luther, in his later life, remarked that he belonged to the school of William of Ockham, he did not, on other occasions, hesitate to refer to the nominalists as"hoggish theologians." Nor was Luther, as his Dominican biographer contends, a "crass ignoramus." He received his baccalaureate in 1502 and immediately began the required studies for a master's degree. In January 1505 he passed the examinations after the shortest period of study possible, standing second in his class. Although the young Luther had but a slight knowledge of Greek, he was well acquainted with the classical Latin authors. Ovid, Vergil, Plautus, and Horace were well known to him. He was also fairly well acquainted with humanism. The humanist Hieronymus emser had lectured at Erfurt during the summer of 1504; and Luther was familiar with the Eclogues of the Latin humanist Baptista Mantuanus. Grotius Rubeanus, a close friend of young Luther, was painfully shocked at his decision to enter the monastery.

The Call to Religion. In the summer of 1505 Luther, influenced no doubt by his father, began the study of law. Sometime in July of the same year, while returning to Erfurt from a visit to Mansfield, he encountered a severe thunderstorm near the village of Stotternheim; as a lightning bolt threw him to the ground, he vowed to St. Anne in a sudden panic that he would become a monk. To assume that the decision to enter the monastery was as impromptu as it is often depicted does Luther an injustice. His strict religious upbringing, his natural bent toward piety, and above all the experiences of the last few years at the university were unquestionably factors of his move. In 1503 he had severely wounded himself by accidentally cutting the artery in his thigh and had spent many weeks in meditative recuperation. In the same year one of his closest friends, a fellow student, had died suddenly. The plague that struck the city of Erfurt in 1505 made him keenly aware of the preeminence of death. All of this indicates that a call to religion was something that had been in his thoughts for a long period.

Nor is it without significance that he chose to enter the monastery of the Hermits of St. Augustine. The city of Erfurt boasted a Dominican, a Franciscan, and a Servite monastery in addition to the Black Cloister, a member of the Observant, or stricter Augustinian, congregation of Saxony, which was by far the most severe religious house in the city. On July 16, 1505, much to the chagrin of his parents, who were already selecting a bride for the student of law, Luther entered the novitiate. Soon after his profession, the exact date of which is not known, he was told to prepare himself for the reception of Holy Orders. He was ordained a deacon by the suffragan bishop, Johann von Laasphe of Erfurt, on Feb. 27, 1507; he received the priesthood in the Erfurt cathedral on the following April 4th.

Professor at Wittenberg. Soon after ordination, Luther was sent to wittenberg, where the order held two professorships at the Elector Frederick's newly founded university. Johann von staupitz, vicar-general of the Saxon congregation of the Augustinians, held the chair of scriptural theology; Luther was given the chair of moral philosophy in the arts faculty. In addition to lecturing on the Nicomachean Ethics, Luther was also obliged to continue his theological studies. He received his baccalaureate in theology in the spring of 1509. The following autumn he returned again to Erfurt, where he continued with his study of the Sentences of Peter of Lombard and lectured on philosophy to the Augustinian students there. Luther's studies were interrupted in 1510, when he was chosen to accompany Staupitz to Rome. The vicargeneral had for years been identified with the reform group in the order who sought to unite both the observant, or stricter, group in the order with the more numerous conventuals. Luther probably spent a month in Rome, visiting its shrines and churches. He was not edified with the horde of unlettered clergy whom he encountered there, many of whom were unable to hear confessions. He later observed that the priests said Mass in such an irreverent fashion that it reminded him of a juggling act. Yet there is little evidence that the scandals of Rome had any bearing on the gradual religious transformation that was taking place in his mind.

After his return to Erfurt he was again sent to Wittenberg in the late summer of 1511. In October of 1512 he received the doctorate in theology and was assigned to the theological faculty succeeding Staupitz as professor of Scripture. The next five years were of vital importance in the development of Luther's theological ideas. During this period he lectured on the Psalms (1513–15), on the Epistle to the Romans (1515–16), the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1517–18). One gains some idea of the competence of the man in considering that in addition to following a monastic and academic schedule, he also preached at the castle church and held the office of Augustinian vicar of the district of Meissen and Thuringia.

Inner Conflict. If Luther had sought peace of mind in entering religion, he found it illusory. He gradually grew aware of the vast abyss between what he felt himself to be in his innermost self and the demands of God. He was increasingly conscious of the power of sin, and repeated confession brought him no peace. Further, the complacency that he felt at doing good seemed, as he said, "to poison his soul as the frost nips flowers in the bud." There were times when he felt on the brink of hell and the verge of despair. He tells us that while contemplating the righteousness of God in the monastery tower, probably in 1512, a new concept, a new illumination came to him, and "the gates of paradise were opened."

The study of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans had convinced him that the justice of God before which he trembled is not exacting, does not condemn, but is wholly beneficent. It is a justice that reinstates the sinner qua sinner in the eyes of God, in virtue of Christ's redemption. In explaining how this phenomenon is produced, Luther logically rejected the traditional teaching of the Church. For justification, no longer an objective transformation, is produced by the word of God, the Gospel. It is in, with, and through the Gospel that God works upon the soul through His Spirit. The soul remains passive and receptive. Thus Luther made an extremely personal experience the center of a new theory of salvation that was no longer in harmony with the one traditionally taught by the Church. These ideas were only gradually formed, but a study of the glosses and the notes kept by Luther's students during the years 1513 to 1518 leaves no doubt that they had formed the basis of his religious thought. They would probably have remained within the depths of his own inner spiritual struggle and never spread beyond the confines of the classroom where he lectured were it not for a series of events that brought the focus of all Christendom on the Wittenberg monk and changed the course of history.

The St. Peter's Indulgence. albrecht of brandenburg, brother of the elector Joachim, at the age of 23 was elected archbishop of Magdeburg and was, at the same time, given the administration of the diocese of Halberstadt. Both his age and the accumulation of two bishoprics were in direct violation of Canon Law; nor was his personal life beyond reproach. The Holy See condoned the appointment and a year later the same pluralist was elected archbishop of Mainz, a position that automatically made him prince elector, Reich-chancellor, and primate of all Germany. The move was undeniably inspired by political aspirations since it gave the Hohenzollerns two votes in the electoral college. Yet the price was incredibly high. For the dispensation to hold benefices in three dioceses Albrecht had to pay the Curia a sum of 10,000 golden ducats. Another 14,000 was demanded to pay up the arrears in pallium taxes for the See of Mainz. An agreement was made with the Curia whereby, for allowing the Peter's Indulgence to be preached in his episcopal territories, the bishop would receive one half of the income and the other half would go toward the construction of St. Peter's.

As principal agent for this sordid simoniacal act, the Fuggers chose the well-known indulgence preacher Dominican Johann tetzel. Of the indulgence agreement between the House of fugger, the Curia, and the archbishop of Mainz, Luther knew nothing. It was only when Tetzel began to preach the indulgence in the towns of Jüterbog and Zerbst on the northern boundary of Saxon territory that Luther felt it his duty to admonish his electoral highness, the archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, regarding the difficulties Tetzel was causing. He wrote him on October 31, 1517: "Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are hawked about under your illustrious sanction. I am not denouncing the sermons of the preachers who advertise them, for I have not seen them, but I regret that the faithful have conceived some erroneous notions about them. These unhappy souls believe that if they buy a letter of pardon they are sure of their salvation; also that souls fly out of purgatory as soon as money is cast into the chest, in short, that the grace conferred is so great that there is no sin whatever which cannot be absolved thereby, even if, as they say, taking an impossible example, a man should violate the mother of God. They also believe that indulgences free them from all guilt of sin."

The Ninety-five Theses. At the same time as Luther approached Tetzel with his criticisms he also wrote and circulated his attack upon indulgences, the so-called 95 theses, and announced his intention to hold a debate on their value. What had been for years a question in the mind of Luther, a matter of theology, now became a matter of reform. Most of the theses were not opposed to traditional Catholic doctrine.

Tetzel, who was in Berlin at the time the theses were published, was supported by the members of his order, and to confirm their confidence in his theological competence they later gave him an honorary degree in theology from their Roman college. Luther's own attitude toward his antagonist was anything but hostile. Later, when he heard that Tetzel was stricken with a fatal illness, he wrote him a consoling letter stating that the unfortunate affair was in no way the Dominican's responsibility. The roots of the controversy lay much deeper.

In early February 1518, Luther presented the bishop of Brandenburg with a series of Resolutiones on the theses, requesting that the bishop strike out whatever he found displeasing. He wrote, "I know that Christ does not need me. He will show His Church what is good for her without me. Nothing is so difficult to state as the true teaching of the Church, especially when one is a serious sinner as I am." He ended his letter of explanation by urging reform of the Church and pointing out that, as recent events proved, namely, the Lateran Council, the reform is the concern not of the pope alone or of the Cardinals but of the entire Christian world. The bishop answered Luther, informing him that he found no error in the Resolutiones and that in fact he thoroughly objected to the manner in which indulgences were being sold.

Denunciation from Rome. Rome had already been alerted to the dangers contained in Luther's novel doctrine by the archbishop of Mainz. In view of the recent negotiations between Albrecht and the Curia, it is understandable that his protest was interpreted in terms of declining revenues rather than threatened dogma. However, with the powerful Dominican Order now denouncing the Wittenberg professor, Rome had no alternative but to act. Following an established pattern, the Roman authorities, having failed to silence Luther through his own order, instigated a formal canonical process against him. The provincial of the Saxon province of the Dominicans, Herman Rab, induced the fiscal procurator, Marius de Perusco, to have the pope instigate charges against Luther. At the procurator's request, an auditor of the Curia, Girolamo Ghinucci, was entrusted with the preliminary investigation, and a Dominican, Sylvestro Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace and censor librorum of Rome, was commissioned to draw up a theological opinion on Luther's doctrinal writings.

A thorough Thomist, Prierias handled Luther's writings as if he were conducting a scholastic disputation. His Dialogus was nothing more than a polemic tagging the various theses as erroneous, false, presumptuous, or heretical. A citation, which reached Luther on August 7, 1518, was drawn up demanding that he appear personally in Rome within 60 days to defend himself. The citation and the dialogue were dispatched to the general of the Dominican Order, Tommaso de Vio, commonly known as cajetan, probably the outstanding theologian of the century.

The Meeting with Cajetan. During the same month, the pope, now informed of Emperor Maximilian's willingness to prosecute Luther, instructed Cajetan, whom he had appointed as his legate to the Diet of Augsburg, to cite the accused to appear before him. An order of extradition was also sent to Frederick the Wise, Luther's territorial sovereign, and also to his provincial, Gerhard Hecker, who was commanded to arrest him. Upon receipt of the citation, Luther immediately moved to forestall his appearance before what he considered anything but an impartial tribunal. Supported by Frederick the Wise, he demanded that his case be tried in Germany and by a group of competent scholars. Frederick managed to obtain a promise from Cajetan of a fair hearing and pledged safe-conduct to the young monk. On October 12, Luther appeared before the Dominican cardinal and his entourage of Italian jurists. It was Cajetan's hope to obtain recantation by paternal exhortations, but Luther obstinately refused to make an act of revocation, maintaining that he would not do so as long as he was not convinced of his errors on a basis of scriptural proof. He flatly denied the validity of Pope Clement VI's decretal on indulgences, Unigenitus. When Luther suggested that the decretal be submitted to the opinion of a Council, Catejan accused him of being a Gersonist. (see gerson, jean; conciliarism, history of.)

On October 16, Luther informed the cardinal of his willingness to stop commenting on indulgences and his readiness to listen to the Church. He apologized for his violent outbursts against the pope. Yet there was not a word of recantation. To his brethren at Wittenberg he wrote: "The Cardinal may be an able Thomist, but he is not a clear Christian thinker, and so he is about as fit to deal with this matter as an ass is to play the harp." Cajetan, thwarted in his attempt to reconcile Luther, demanded that the Elector Frederick extradite Luther and send him to Rome for trial. On November 28, Luther appealed to a general council. The appeal was actually a legal device intended to stay the civil effects of the excommunication that was now imminent.

Rome and the Impending Imperial Election. The delay of the excommunication of Luther was not a result so much of this legal maneuver as it was of a developing political situation that involved the papacy once again in the affairs of Germany. The Emperor Maximilian had since 1513 been planning the election of his grandson, Charles, Duke of Burgundy and King of Castile and Aragon, as Holy roman emperor. The election of Charles would have constituted a threat to the territorial independence of the pope because of the latter's sovereignty over Naples. Hence the Curia, favoring an election of either Francis I of France or, preferably, Frederick, Luther's sovereign, made efforts to delay any move that would antagonize the elector. To win the support of Frederick, Karl von miltitz, a swaggering, alcoholic Saxon, holding the office of papal notary in the Rome court, was sent to the elector with a plan to have Luther tried in a German ecclesiastical court, preferably in Trier. In addition he was to present the elector with the Golden Rose, as well as a letter of legitimization for Frederick's two children. None of the supporters of Luther were, however, deceived by the boastful Saxon. In fact, his presence in Germany supported their conviction that politics, not theology, was behind Rome's denunciation of Luther.

Leo X's Bull of Excommunication. A bull of excommunication, Exsurge Domine, was issued in Rome on June 15, 1520, and Johann eck, Luther's opponent in his debates with karlstadt at Leipzig in July 1519, was commissioned to promulgate it throughout the empire. In September he published the bull in the diocese of Brandenburg and in the diocese of Saxony. Before the 60-day time limit, within which he had to submit, Luther again appealed to a general council. The appeal did not delay, however, the final bull of excommunication, Decet Romanum Pontificem, which pronounced sentence on Luther on January 3, 1521. In April of that year he appeared before the Diet in Worms; and although protected by a writ of safe-conduct, he was declared henceforth a criminal in the Empire.

It is one of the strange turns of history that Luther was never officially prosecuted in his own country, although excommunication, by labeling him a heretic, made him liable to the death penalty in the Empire. A number of circumstances combined to render the ecclesiastical and civil penalties ineffective. In the first place there was strong public reaction that rebelled at the prospect of condemning a man who had become the outright spokesman for their own grievances against corruption in the Church. The conviction that until a council had actually pronounced against him, he and his followers were not definitely cut off from the Catholic Church was widespread. Finally, the majority of the German bishops, still influenced by conciliarism, were hardly inclined to stand in the way of a man whose attacks on papal claims to ecclesiastical supremacy expressed their own opposition to Romanism.

Almost everywhere the publication of the bull met with strong opposition. In Luther's home diocese of Brandenburg, the local ordinary, Hieronymus Schulz, did not dare to publish it. The University of Wittenberg brushed it aside as a further example of Eck's skullduggery. There, on Dec. 10, 1520, before an assembly of students, Luther had consigned the bull to the flames together with a copy of Canon Law. In Erfurt the document was cast into the river, and in Leipzig a riot of the students at the University forced the executor to flee the city.

Writings of 1520. During the summer and fall of 1520, Luther wrote what many consider, after the translation of the Bible, to be the most important of his works. In a series of pamphlets, An Appeal to the Nobility of the German Nation, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and the Liberty of a Christian Man, he outlined what he felt would be a program for reforming and revitalizing the Church. The first edition (some 4,000 copies) of the Appeal to the Nobility was sold out between August 18 and 23. In this work he pointed out the three walls the Romanists have built about themselves that constitute the main obstacles to true reform and are responsible for the decline of Christianity: the claim that civil government has no rights over them, the superiority of papal decrees over Scripture, and, finally, the superiority of the pope over a council.

In early October Luther penned his second famous work, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. While the first had been an attack on the century-old abuses of the Church and contained little that was novel, this next work openly struck a blow at the sacramental system and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Written in Latin, it was intended for theologians and scholars and opened the eyes of many, for the first time, to the radical elements in his new doctrines. Erasmus declared that it precluded all possibility of peace with the papacy. The third great work of this period, On Christian Liberty, continued to strike out at the roots of papal Christianity by emphasizing the primacy of Scripture, the priesthood of the laity, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In emphasizing Christian liberty, Luther stresses the freedom expressed in obedience to God and service to one's neighbor. He traces the religious implications of justification by faith and impugns the idea that good works are the mechanical performance of ecclesiastical laws. Rather, they are the fruit of faith from which they flow. Although these three writings in a certain sense epitomize the salient features of the early Lutheran movement, it would be unjust to say that they are the very heart and soul of Luther's doctrine. Neither would it be correct to assert that Luther or his followers felt that they had in any way separated themselves from the Catholic Church by condemning the abuses within it. But the three treatises of 1520, widely circulated in the next decade, did win large numbers of converts for the evangelical movement.

Progress of the Lutheran Reform. While returning from Worms Luther was kidnapped by the agents of Frederick the Wise and placed in hiding at Wartburg, where he continued to pour forth his scriptural and reformatory writings. The years between 1521 and 1525 were the most decisive period in the growth of Lutheranism. Since neither the bull of excommunication nor the Edict of Worms were actually put into effect in the empire, the reform movement continued to flourish. A number of events, however, caused a loss in its original momentum. As a popular uprising it was thwarted by the very forces that Luther had originally hoped to liberate. For several generations the peasants in the south and west of Germany had threatened local governments with grievances arising out of the economic and sociological changes of this transitional period. The doctrines of Luther, particularly his teaching on Christian liberty, were quickly transformed into demands for social reform. Eventually, peasant uprisings broke out in the Black Forest region in June 1524 and spread throughout Swabia, Franconia, Thuringia, and parts of the Rhineland. Luther firmly opposed the revolt, asserting that rebellion would stir up more ills than it would cure. The subsequent failure of the revolt and the urging of Luther that the civil authorities step in to stop the political anarchy that was threatening large areas of the Empire gave a definite impetus to the formation of territorial or state churches. see peasants' war (1524–25).

In the fall of 1526 philip of hesse summoned a synod in Homberg. There, under the direction of former Franciscan Franz Lambert of Avignon, a new church ordinance was imposed on the territory of Hesse. Monasteries and other ecclesiastical properties were confiscated, Catholic pastors were removed, and the Lutheran adaptation of the Mass was introduced. The following year in Saxony a commission of lawyers and theologians, after a series of visitations to the parishes in the area, published regulations governing divine service and the establishment of schools to instruct the faithful in the new gospel teaching.

To implement the new state church regulations Luther wrote his Large Catechism—a manual of instruction for pastors—and his Small Catechism—both a devotional work and an instruction for the faithful in the fundamentals of the Christian religion.

A loss of humanist support inflicted on the cause of Lutheranism a blow even more severe than that incurred with the disaffection of the peasants. Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, an attack upon free will, heightened the difference between his own position and that of his earlier humanist sympathizers. In denying freedom of the will it must not be assumed that Luther intended to deny individual responsibility. Throughout his life, beginning with the theses, his appeal to the Church had been one of repentance. A denial of responsibility would have completely nullified this call.

The Confessio Augustana. The break with humanism and the growing interference of German political leaders turned the attention of the reformer to the more practical implementations of his design. The controversy on the Eucharist that arose at the same time that Luther wrote his De Servo Arbitrio made it obvious that some strong clarification of doctrinal position was necessary if the movement was not to dissolve into warring parties. Doctrinal divisions within the reform movement accentuated by the Eucharistic controversy at Marburg in 1529 had their counterpart in the political sphere. Between 1524 and 1529 the political leadership of the Lutheran movement gradually passed from the Saxon electors to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse. At the Diet of Speyer (1526) it was already apparent that a division between the Catholic and the Lutheran princes within the empire was taking shape. In 1530 at Augsburg, Luther's closest associate at Wittenberg, Melanchthon, who had already attempted to systematize Luther's teachings in his Loci communes in 1521, drew up the Confessio Augustana, the final embodiment of the basic Lutheran, or reformed, doctrine. An examination of the document gives some insight into the perplexities of the religious situation as it stood after almost 12 years of religious controversy. It also demonstrated the ambivalence that invested the expression "reform" long after the Edict of Worms. Melanchthon maintained the conviction that he had not departed from the teaching of the Catholic Church in a single dogma, and Elector John of Saxony strongly rejected the accusation that the signers of the Confession had separated themselves from the Church. The Confession addressed to the emperor laid down the fundamental points of the new doctrine and repudiated all rival doctrines.

After the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which Luther was not permitted to attend (being refused safe-conduct by the emperor), he tended to remain more and more aloof from the political developments that continued to detract from the religious aspect of the reform movement. The Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg had become secularized and was finally deeded to Luther in 1532. With few interruptions Luther continued to teach at the university until his death.

Luther's Marriage and Later Years. In 1525 Luther married Katherina von Bora, some 16 years his junior. She came from the town of Lippendorf, near Leipzig, and at the age of five she had been sent to the Benedictine nuns near Brehana. Four years later she transferred to a Cistercian cloister near Grimma, where her aunt was abbess and an older sister, a nun. She took her vows here in 1515 but during the generally troubled times in 1523 joined in the exodus from her convent. Wittenberg had become a refuge for hundreds of monks and nuns who left their monasteries during these years, and it was there that she met Luther. Their marriage caused a great stir in Europe. erasmus, in correspondence with Luther at that time on the Diatribe, attributed the failure of Luther to answer his letters to his marriage, He wittily remarked that in comedies troubles are wont to end in marriage with peace to all. He added that he felt the marriage was timely as he heard that a child was born ten days afterward. It was his hope that Luther would be milder in his attacks on the Church since even the fiercest beasts can be tamed by their female mates. Later on he apologized for his inference about the child, remarking that he had always been skeptical about the old legend that the antichrist would be born of a monk and a nun. Were this true, there would have been too many antichrists in the world already. The Luther household became a gathering place for needy priests, poor relatives, and indigent students. In addition to his own six children, four of whom survived their parents, Luther brought up eleven orphaned children. Luther's almost reckless hospitality and generosity to friends necessitated income greater than his professor's salary provided. He constantly refused the honorarium demanded of students in the German universities and turned down frequent offers for the sale of his manuscripts.

During these years Luther continued his commentaries on the New Testament and revised many of his earlier writings. During his lifetime he published more than 400 works, which fill more than 100 volumes. With the possible exception of Goethe, no single writer influenced the development of German literature as did Luther.

Luther's support of Philip of Hesse in the celebrated case of bigamy did little to enhance the reformer's cause. He had approved the marriage on March 4, 1540, of the duke to Margaret von der Saal, even though Philip was married to Christina, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. Luther's recommendations to Philip of Hesse were virtually the same as those he had made to Henry VIII of England: he should take a mistress rather than divorce. They were also consonant with the arguments he had made about marriage as early as The Babylonian Captivity of the Church in 1520. There he had argued that divorce and annulment were contrary to divine law, but that the problems of a barren marriage might be resolved in the manner of the Old Testament Patriarchs, that is, through the employment of a concubine. In so arguing he was not entirely at variance with many contemporary Catholic theologians, including Cajetan. The convocation of the Council of Trent gave him little hope that any reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics would result. In one of his final works against the papacy he refers to the Council as a juggling contest. Luther died of a stroke on the morning of Feb. 16, 1546, at Eisleben, where he had been attempting to arbitrate a disagreement between the courts of Mansfield.

Evaluation. It is an exaggeration to identify the Reformation solely with the person of Luther and to equate all of Protestantism with his doctrines. Nevertheless, one must admit the enormous influence that he exercised upon the movement. The survival of Luther's own brand of evangelicalism was greatly aided by the rise of numerous reformers elsewhere in Northern Europe, that is, by the rise of figures like Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, and a host of others. Lutheranism's success as a protest against the Church's dominant teachings concerning salvation, and its later growth as a church independent of Rome, is also in part attributable to Luther's long and productive life. He continued to exert his stamp upon the evangelical cause for a quarter century after the movements birth. And upon his death in 1546, he had trained large numbers of pastors and theologian who were prepared to carry on his legacy.

Bibliography: His writings are found in several large collections. Wittenberg ed., 19 v. (12 v. in German, 7 v. in Latin; 1539–59); j. g. walch ed., 24 v. (Halle 1740–53); Erlangen ed., 105 v. (67 v. in German, 38 v. in Latin; 1826–86); Weimar ed. by j. k. f. knaake et al. (1883–); Luthers Werke in Auswahl, ed. o. clemen et al. (5th ed. Berlin 1959–); an Engish ed. by j. pelikan and h. p. lehmann (St. Louis-Philadelphia 1955–). Career of the Reformer, v.31, ed. h. j. grimm, v.32, ed. g. forell, arranges his writings about his life in chronological order. k. aland et al., Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium (Gütersloh 1957), an analytical listing of all Luther's writings. Literature. k. scottenloher, Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 1517–85, 6 v. (Leipzig 1933–40) 1:458–629. h. jedin, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. j. hofer and k. rahner, 10 v. (2d, new ed. Freiburg 1957–65); suppl., Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Dokumente und kommentare, ed. h. s. brechter et al., pt. 1 (1966) 6:1223–30, bibliog. h. bornkamm and h. volz, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 7 v. (3d ed. Tübingen 1957–65) 480–495, 520–523, bibliog. j. pacquier, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant, 15 v. (Paris 1903–50; Tables générales 1951–) 9.1:1146–1335, bibliog. g. ritter, Luther, Gestalt und Tat (Munich 1959). k. a. meissinger, Der katholische Luther (Munich 1952). e.g. rupp, The Righteousness of God: Luther Studies (New York 1954). h. bÖhmer, Road to Reformation, tr. j. w. doberstein and t. g. tappert (Philadelphia 1946). h. s. denifle, Luther und Luthertum, 2 v. (Mainz 1904–09), Eng. Luther and Lutherdom, tr. r. volz (Somerset, Ohio 1917–), a polemical, unsympathetic view. h. grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, ed. f. j. eble and a. preuss (2d ed. St. Louis 1935; repr. Westminster, MD 1950), a psychological study. p. j. reiter, Martin Luthers Umwelt, Charakter und Psychose, 2 v. (Copenhagen 1937–41). r. h. fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York 1957). e. h. erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York 1959). e. w. zeeden, Martin Luther und die Reformation im Urteil des deutschen Luthertums, 2 v. (Freiburg 1950–52) v.1 tr. r. m. bethell, The Legacy of Luther (Westminster, Md. 1954). a. herte, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus, 3 v. (Münster 1943). j. lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland, 2 v. (Freiburg 1949). r. bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York 1950). j. m. todd, Martin Luther (London 1964). j. p. dolan, History of the Reformation (New York 1965). m. brecht, Martin Luther, j. l. schaaf, trans. (Philadelphia 1985). g. ebeling, Luther, r. a. wilson, trans. (London 1970). h.a. oberman, Luther, e. walliser-schwarzbart, Trans. (New Haven 1989). d. steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz (Durham, NC 1980). d. steinmetz, Luther in Context (Bloomington, IN 1986).

Revised entry, March 2026

Martin Luther: "I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing"

A defender of Rome did just enough reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia to conclude Martin Luther was "extremely demonic" based on... his prayer life! Did this papal warrior survey Luther's vast writings and examine his statements on prayer? No, it was enough to pull one shocking quote out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. He posted the following:

If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic, at least at certain times of his life. He is recorded as saying that he could not pray without cursing. Where did Jesus tell us to curse our enemies in prayer? I must have missed that in the Gospels. The Catholic Encyclopedia records Luther's words as, "For I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing. If I am prompted to say: 'hallowed be Thy name', I must add: 'cursed, damned, outraged be the name of the papists.' If I am prompted to say: 'Thy Kingdom come', I must perforce add: 'cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy.' Indeed I pray thus orally every day and in my heart without intermission" (Sammtl. W., XXV, 108)

This Roman Catholic layman isn't alone using this quote to denigrate Martin Luther. Secular psychologist Erik Erikson used the quote in his popular book, Young Man Luther. Erikson doesn't use it to prove Luther was "extremely demonic" in prayer. Rather, he uses Freudian psychology and determines statements like these "...are an attempt to find a safety-valve when unrelenting inner pressure threatened to make devotion unbearable and sublimity hateful- that is, when he was again about to repudiate God in supreme rebellion, and himself in malignant melancholy."

This defender of Rome though has followed the lead of the Catholic Encyclopedia. This resource infers statements like these were part of his "sinister moods." They refer to one of Luther's "old admirers" stating,"with his shameless, ungovernable tongue, [Luther] must have lapsed into insanity or been inspired by the Evil Spirit." The author of the Luther entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss presented a wild tempered Martin Luther, depressed and mentally ill, abandoned by most of his friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit. 

Documentation

The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 9 cites "Sammtl. W., XXV, 108." This page can be found here. Erikson cites a different source: "L.W. W.A. XXX, 3, 470." This page can be found here. Both are correct references from editions of Luther's works. This quote was taken from the 1531 treatise, Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. In English, the title is Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden or sometimes referred to as Against the Traitor at Dresden. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes this treatise can be found in Walch, op. cit., XVI 2062-2086. The treatise, to my knowledge, has not yet been translated into English.

There is debate as to who the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden was. Some older sources refer to Franz Arnold. The sparse information about Arnold identifies him as "a Roman Catholic priest at Cologne, [who] was one of the most violent, though not one of the most distinguished opponents of Luther." Franz is said to have penned "Der unpartheyische Laye" which was "a violent attack on Luther." Luther is said to have responded with "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden." More often though, the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden is thought to be Duke George. 

Duke George was a sworn enemy of Luther's. He stands out as a ruler vigorous in maintaining a campaign of propaganda against him. He kept a team of writers busy against Luther. The writings were quite hostile. Duke George actually sought to have Luther's works censured and reviewed, while his work and those under him who wrote just as intensely were allowed to print whatever they wanted. Interestingly, Duke George used one of the most virulent critics of Martin Luther whose impact on Roman Catholic scholarship lasted for centuries:  Johann Cochlaeus. Duke George also used his ruling power to obstruct Reformation printing, as well as promoting wholesale burnings and confiscation of Luther's books. If one was caught printing pro-Reformation materials, it was quite possible Duke George would have that person arrested (which actually did happen). Duke George was part of a secret Roman Catholic alliance seeking to restore Roman Catholicism within Electoral Saxony by having Luther and other Protestants handed over to the authorities. After Luther published "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden," "Duke George expelled a number of evangelically minded persons from Leipzig and Oschatz" [LW 38:142]. Interestingly, Duke George was one of the leaders responsible for actually slaughtering the peasants during their revolt.

In 1531, things became heated between Duke George and Luther. The Duke campaigned that Luther was attempting to incite rebellion against the empire. Duke George wrote an anonymous work (published at Dresden) responding to Luther's "Warning to His Dear Germans" entitled, "Against Luther's Warning to the Germans That They Should Not Be Obedient To the Emperor, Another Warning That They Should Not Allow Themselves To Be Misled By It Nor To Be Moved To Disobedience." Franz Arnold wrote a short afterword to the second edition of this treatise. Luther entitled his response "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden" because Duke George published his attack against Luther anonymously. 

In his counter treatise, Luther sauf it was the papists who were really against the empire, not the Lutherans. He listed twelve pieces of evidence proving that Roman Catholic authorities were seeking the physical destruction of Protestants. The quote in question comes from the end of the treatise. It's a response to Duke George's assertion that Luther's writings were filled with evil words and devil references.

Context

It should be my fame and honor, [and] so I also wish to have it, that one should say of me from now on how full I am of evil words, abuse, and cursing for the papists. For more than ten years I have often humbled myself and have used the very fairest words with the result that the longer [I have done so] the worse I have made them. . . . Now, however, since they are impenitent [and] have decided to do simply no good but rather nothing but evil so that there is no hope [for them], I also wish from now on to occupy myself with cursing and rebuking those rogues to my grave [wil jch auch hinfurt mich mil den bosewichten zu fluchen und zu schelten bis jnn meine gruben], and no good word more should be heard from me. I wish to ring them into the grave with my thunder and lightning.

For I cannot pray without thereby having to curse. If I say: "Holy be Thy name," I must in addition say: "Cursed, damned, and disgraced must be the papists' name and all who slander Thy name." If I say: "Thy kingdom come," then I have to add: "Cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy with all kingdoms on earth that are opposed to Thy kingdom." If I say: "Thy will be done," then I must add: "Cursed, damned, disgraced, and to nothing must be all thoughts and plots of the papists and all who strive against Thy will and advice." In truth, I pray thusly daily without fail [both] orally and in my heart, and with me [pray in the same manner] all who believe on Christ, and I also feel indeed that it will be heard. . . . Still I hold a good, friendly, peaceful, and Christian heart towards everyone. Even my greatest enemies know that [English translation from Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 50-51. An alternate English rendering can be found in Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, pp. 151-152].

German text: ...das soll mein Ruhm und Ehre sein, wills auch so haben, daß man von mir hinfurt sagen solle, wie ich voll böser Wort, Scheltens und Fluchens über die Papisten sei. Ich hab länger denn zehen Jahr mich oft gedemüthigt, und die allerbesten Wort gegeben, damit ich sie je länger je ärger gemacht habe... Nu aber, weil sie verstockt, schlecht kein Gutes, sondern eitel Böses zu thun beschlossen haben, daß keine Hoffnung da ist, will ich auch hinfurt mich mit den Bösewichten zusuchen und zuschelten bis in meine Grube, und sollen kein gut Wort mehr von mir hören. Ich will ihn mit meinem Donnern und Blitzen also zum Grabe läuten.

Denn ich kann nicht beten, ich muß dabei fluchen. Soll ich sagen: Geheiligt werde dein Name; muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet müsse werden der Papisten Namen, und aller, die deinen Namen lästern. Soll ich sagen: dein Reich komme; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, verstöret müsse werden das Papstthum, sampt allen Reichen auf Erden, die deinem Reich wider sind. Soll ich sagen: Dein Wille geschehe; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet und zunichte müsse werden alle Gedanken und Anschläge der Papisten, und aller, die wider deinen Willen und Rath streben. Wahrlich, so bete ich alle Tage mündlich, und mit dem Herzen ohn Unterlaß, und mit mir alle, die an Christum glauben, und fühle auch wohl, daß es erhöret wird...Er argumentiert, dass sein Zorn sich gegen das System (das Papsttum) richtet, das er als gottlos ansieht, er aber als Christ dennoch Nächstenliebe gegenüber jedem einzelnen Menschen empfindet (WA 30.3:470).

Conclusion
The historical context demonstrates that this writing from Luther was not set in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. Rather, the quote rests in a period of societal conflict with detrimental physical implications to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. In essence, this was a writing set in a war zone. Both sides were in a war of who had the right to be the true church. Extreme circumstances often lead to extreme behaviors. 

But does the historical context acquit Luther of such harsh language directed against his enemies? Note that last line above, "Nevertheless I have a kind, friendly, peaceable, and Christian heart toward everyone, as even my worst enemies know." This is a tip off that Luther was admitting to using highly rhetorical and inflammatory language. Secular historian Will Durant's volume on the Reformation uses the same quote as an example of Luther's use of unrestrained language, often to a fault. He also adds the following disclaimer immediately after citing the quote:

Such rhetorical passion was in the temper of the times."Some of the preachers and pamphlet writers on the orthodox side," confessed the learned Cardinal Gasquet, "were Luther's match in this respect." Vituperation was expected of intellectual gladiators, and relished by their audiences; politeness was suspected cowardice (Durant, The Reformation, p.418-419).

Both sides, Papist and Lutheran, felt justified in such abusive language because they considered the other to be in league with the devil. Again, this identification of the devil's leadership was not arrived at in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. These sixteenth century people took the devil's authority seriously and needed to be vigorously opposed. Historian Mark U. Edwards makes an insightful point that the use of harsh language may primarily have been used to inspire those on the side of the author rather than it serving as a direct attack against the opposition: 

Given such opposed convictions, it is not surprising that the language and form of argumentation employed by the publicists—Luther, Duke Georg, Cochlaeus—suggest that each was speaking more to his own party than to one another. Expressions of righteous indignation, liberal use of insult and name-calling, lengthy recitals of old grievances, rehashing of past disputes, repetition of familiar arguments—such material may appeal to the converted and may reinforce convictions already held. But it is unlikely to move the unconverted. And it will only enrage the opponent [Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 38-39].

Delving deeply into history like this typically never satisfies Roman Catholics flippantly interpret history with conclusions like, "If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic." This quote is yet another example of Roman Catholic bias, perceiving one's enemies in the worst possible way. It would be interesting to find out if this Roman Catholic critic would conclude David was also demonic in Psalm 109 when he wrote the following about his enemies: 

8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance [e]far from their ruined homes. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder the product of his labor. 12 Let there be none to  extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out.

Also, the facts of Luther's theology on prayer don't bear out the conclusion he was demonic. For Luther, prayer was a weapon we have to call down the power of God against the power of the devil. We call down God’s power against every evil the devil tries to bring upon our lives. Prayer is a weapon in our fight against the devil on the battlefield of the lives of those around us. We call down the power of God against the devil for those we love. For Luther, the devil was the mastermind behind the Papacy. Hence, his prayer above reflected this. 

This entry at this point could succumb to text overload with Luther quotes. Anyone interested in a concise overview on Luther's theology of prayer should seek out the entry on "Prayer" in the anthology compiled by Lutheran theologian Ewald Plass, What Luther Says. An overwhelming amount of evidence could be put forth to demonstrate the conclusion Luther's prayer life proved him demonic is spurious and slanderous.    

In a final point of irony, Roman Catholic historian Anton Fischer argued Martin Luther was an admirable man of prayer, a man to be appreciated by Roman Catholics:

However rich a Church may be in truly great Christian men of prayer, it would still have room for the distinctives of the praying Luther; it should not pass carelessly over this great man of prayer and his precious utterances on prayer and his excellent instruction on prayer (English translation by Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, p. 55).

German text: Mag eine Kirche noch so reich an wahrhaft großen christlichen Beter-Persönlichkeiten sein, sie sollte doch auch noch Raum haben für die Eigenart des betenden Luther; sie sollte nicht achtlos an diesem großen Beter und an seinen köstlichen Aussprüchen über das Gebet und seinen trefflichen Anweisungen zum Gebete vorübergehen! (Luther in okumenischer Sicht, pp. 187-188).

Richard Stauffer explains:

Fischer makes a distinction in Luther between the fighter and the man of prayer. The former, to his mind, is the concern of only a part of Christianity; all Christian denominations can, however, lay a claim to the second. In so far as he was a man of prayer, Luther was truly ecumenical. Even a Church rich in believers who are devoted to prayer (he means the Roman Church, of course) has much to learn from him.

And what can Luther teach all Christians about prayer? Two essential truths. The first is that prayer has only one valid criterion—the Word and the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself through Scripture. Luther drew all his strength from the Bible and took all his instruction about prayer from the Bible. In the same way, all believers are exhorted to nourish themselves on the Old and New Testaments, if they wish to pray effectively; there they too will meet with God. The second truth is that the Pater noster constitutes the very heart of the Christian life, and for this reason should be pronounced with the reverence and fervour due to Christ's own words. If it is said in the spirit of the great masters of prayer like St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther (so Fischer ends his article), the Lord's Prayer can bridge the gap which really separates Roman Catholics and Protestants.” [Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, pp. 38-39].

 

Addendum: Lutheran scholar Julius Köstlin on the Historical Background 

Luther gave open vent to his indignation at the Recess of the Diet and the violent attacks of the Catholics in two publications, early in 1531, one entitled 'Gloss on the supposed Edict of the Emperor,' and the other, 'Warning to his beloved Germans.' In the former here viewed the contents of the Edict and the calumnies it heaped upon the Evangelical doctrines, not intending, as he said, to attack his Imperial Majesty, but only the traitors and villains, be they princes or bishops, who sought to work their own wicked will, and chief of all the arch-rogue, the so-called Vicegerent of God, and his legates. The other treatise contemplates the 'very worst evil' of all that then threatened them, namely, a war resulting from the coercive measures of the Emperor and the resistance of the Protestants. As a spiritual pastor and preacher he wished to counsel not war, but peace, as all the world must testify he had always been the most diligent in doing. But he now openly declared that if, which God forbid, it came to war, he would not have those who defended themselves against the bloodthirsty Papists censured as rebellious, but would have it called an act of necessary defence,and justify it by referring to the law and the lawyers.These publications occasioned fresh dealings with Duke George, who again complained to the Elector about them, and also about certain letters falsely ascribed to Luther, and then published a reply,under an assumed name, to his first pamphlet. Luther answered this 'libel' with a tract entitled 'Against the Assassin at Dresden,' not intended, as many have supposed, to impute murderous designs to the Duke, but referring to the calumnies and anonymous attacks in his book. The tone employed by Luther in this tract reminds us of his saying that 'a rough wedge is wanted for a rough log.' It brought down upon him a fresh admonition from his prince, in reply to which he simply begged that George might for the future leave him in peace (Köstlin, Life of Luther, pp. 431-432).

Extensive Revision March 2026. The original can be found here.