Luther's High Regard for John Calvin?

What did Martin Luther think of John Calvin? Here's a curious comment from the Table Talk in which Luther appears to consider Calvin highly:

NOT all are able to bear tribulations alike; for, if an human creature were merely flesh without bones, then the body would fall into a lump, or bunch; the bones and sinews do keep up the flesh, etc. Even so it is in the Christian congregation. some must be able to bear a blow of the devil; as we three, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and myself; therefore we pray continually in the church ; for it is prayer that must do the deed.

Now that's quite a compliment! Or is it? Maybe not. The original sources say something different.

Documentation
It bears repeating that the Table Talk is not actually something Luther wrote. It's a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out to detractors that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. The Table Talk, therefore, contains something Luther may have said, but not necessarily. 

This particular comment comes from the oldest English edition of the Table Talk:

Here's where it becomes tedious and tricky, but necessary, to understand Luther's alleged mention of John Calvin in this utterance. This version of the Table Talk was translated from German into English by Captain Henry Bell (1652): Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia: Or, Dr Martin Luther's Divine Discourses at His Table, etc. This English version of Luther's second-hand comments begins with a strange (and at times seemingly fictional) tale of how Captain Bell came across the Table Talk (found here). The saga begins with the destruction of Luther's Table Talk due to persecution from the Papacy and Empire, but one copy managed to be hidden away, fortunately discovered before being destroyed. In a flowery tale, Bell describes why and how he translated it¾ at the prompting of an angelic vision ¾ along with the perils of getting it published. Preserved Smith's critical study of Luther's Table Talk refers to Bell's account as "such a tissue of mistakes and improbabilities that it is hardly worth serious criticism," and also, "The whole thing has the air of being invented to heighten the interest of the translation." On the other hand, Gordon Rupp scrutinized Bell's story in his book, The Righteousness of God (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1953), pp. 56- 77, and deems aspects of Bell's story plausible. Even if the background story has elements of fiction, this does not necessarily deem Bell's work inferior or suspect (that will be discussed below). The book is an actual translation of Luther's Table Talk and has served the English speaking world for hundreds of years, particularly in its revision by William Hazlitt..

When the German text of the Table Talk is consulted for the quote under scrutiny, here is what appears:

One doesn't need to know German is to see that the name "John Calvin" does not appear in the text. Rather, the text says "ich, Philippus Melanchthon und Doctor Pommer." Was "Doctor Pommer" simply another way of referring to John Calvin. No. "Doctor Pommer" refers to Luther's associate, Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558), of Pomerania, whom Luther dubbed, " Doctor Pomeranus."

Conclusion
Luther was not referring to John Calvin in this Table Talk quote. Why did Captain Bell insert Calvin's name?  According to Rupp, Bell may have have made changes to the German text when translating into English to appease the Parliamentary committee that examined the translation. I've documented one of these changes before: Bell's translation has Luther admitting his error of the real presence in the Lord's Supper! Note these words from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in Bell's edition:

I suspect Bell's insertion of Calvin's name was similar to doctoring Luther's theology on the Lord's Supper.     

Addendum #1
Some years back I put together Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies? There isn't much in the record in regard to Luther's view of Calvin. In the entry I present the sparse few mentions of Calvin in Luther's writings.

Addendum #2
The Table Talk utterance under scrutiny can be found in WATR 3:36, and was not included in LW 54. Hazlitt though included an English revision.

Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper?

Here are two quotes attributed to Luther about Christ's not being present in the Sacraments.

The first is more indirect. Luther purportedly said in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received by faith (in other words, not literally):

 Of the Cause of the Sacrament.

THE operative cause of this sacrament, is the Word and institution of Christ, who ordained it. The substance is bread and wine; they prefigure the true body and blood of Christ, which is spiritually received by faith; the final cause of instituting the same, is the benefit and the fruit, the strengthening of our faith, not doubting that Christ's body and blood was given and shed for us, and that our sins by Christ's death certainly are forgiven. Now these graces and benefits we have obtained, in that he is our Saviour, our Redeemer and Deliverer; For though in Adam we are altogether sinners and guilty of everlasting death, and condemned; but now, by the blood of Christ, we are justified, redeemed, and sanctified; therefore let us take hold of this by faith.

Along with this, the second quote (from the same source) Luther is recorded as saying the pope forces people to believe in the real presence:

Of the Pope's Proceeding touching the Sacrament.
THE Pope denieth not the sacrament, but he hath stolen from the laity the one part or kind thereof; neither doth he teach the true use of the sacrament. The Pope rejecteth not the Bible, but he persecuteth and killeth upright, good, and godly teachers. Like as the Jews persecuted and slew the Prophets that truly expounded and taught the Scriptures. The Pope Well permitteth the substance and essence of the sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according to his will and pleasure, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented Transubstantiation and the real presence. The Pope doth nothing else, but perverteth and abuseth all that God hath commanded and ordained.

Besides my Lutheran readers howling "no way!", what's going on here? Did Luther contradict his well-established view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament? We'll see below these quotes may have been the result of one man's efforts in the seventeenth century to get a book of Luther's published in England. He appears to have added a few words to the text in order to appease the powers that be. The following is a representation of the research of Gordon Rupp from his book, The Righteousness of God (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1953), p. 76.

Documentation

Both of these quotes come from the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second-hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. For these two quotes in the form they are in presented above, they come from the earliest English edition of Luther's Table Talk translated by Captain Henry Bell in 1652: Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia: Or, Dr Martin Luther's Divine Discourses at His Table, etc. The account of how Bell came across Luther's German Table Talk and had it translated into English can be found here.  It is a fantastical story, almost sounding made-up. Preserved Smith's critical study of Luther's Table Talk refers to Bell's account as "such a tissue of mistakes and improbabilities that it is hardly worth serious criticism," and also, "The whole thing has the air of being invented to heighten the interest of the translation." On the contrary though, Gordon Rupp sifted through the details of Bell's story and deems it a plausible account (See Rupp. pp. 56-77).

The Luther quotes occur on page 263 of Bell's translation:

Captain Bell translated these quotes from Aurifaber's edition of the Table Talk, but, as Rupp point out, "Bell's edition corresponds to known edition of Aurifaber" (Rupp, 75). Rupp compares what Bell translated against Aurifaber's 1566 edition (published in Eisleben). The quotes above can be found in German on page 232 of the 1566 Eisleben edition:

A later version of this German  text can be found here (p. 305 for the first quote, p. 306 for the second) The first quote can also be found in WA TR 3:281, including a Latin version, 3354b (p. 280-281). The Latin version is attributed to being recorded by Conrad Cordatus. The second quote can be found in WA TR 3:203.

 Of these texts, note Rupp's analysis on page 76. He mentions that the quote had English words inserted in that are not to be found in the German text of  Aurifaber:

But the most interesting section is the drastic abridgment by Bell of the long section in the original on "Vom Sacrament des Waren Leibs und Blutes Christi," now translated as "Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." It will have been noted that the Parliamentary committee which examined Bell's book specially noted that in it Luther had acknowledged "his error which he formerly held touching the real presence corporaliter in coena domini." 

Luther, of course, never did anything of the kind, and as far as I know there is no German edition of the Table Talk in which he makes any such dramatic retraction. It is obvious that this was the price paid by Bell to get his book authorized and published. The two alterations will be found in Bell's edition of Luther's "Divine Discourses" (1652), p.263: 

"Of the cause of the Sacrament of the Altar. 'The operative cause... of this Sacrament is the Word and Institution of Christ who ordained and erected it. The substance is bread and wine, the form is the true body and blood of Christ which is spiritually received by faith."(1)

That could conceivably hold the Lutheran interpretation. The next is more explicit: 

"The Pope well permitteth the substance and essence of The Sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according as his will and pleasure is to describe it, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter." (2) 

1.TR. (1566) Dieses Sacraments, sprach Dr. Martinus Luther, Ursach ist Das Wort und Einsetzung Christi der es gestifftet und aufgerichtet hat. Die Materia ist Brot und Wein, die Form ist der Ware Leib und Blut Christi, die endliche ursach warurmb es eingesetzt ist der Nutz und Frucht das wir unsern Glauben starcken. 232. 

2. TR. (1566). Was die Substanz und das Wesen belanget, so lasst der Bapst die Sacramente und Bibel bleiben, allein will er uns zwingen das wir derselben Brauch sollen wie er will und zuschreibet. 232.

The sentence about transubstantiation and the real presence has no place in the original. 

Conclusion 
Lest anyone get lost in the details, Rupp is pointing out that in the first quote, the phrase "which is spiritually received by faith" has been inserted into the English text. In the second quote, "and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter" has been inserted into the text. These same insertions were picked up in later English editions of the Table Talk:

Martin Luther's Colloquia Mensalia Vol. 1 (1840), p. 382-383.

The Table Talk or Familiar Discourses... (Hazlitt) (1848), p. 168, 203.

That there was an attempt by Bell to appease the powers that be has corroborating evidence in the prefatory material to Bell's translation. Note these words from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in Bell's edition (also mentioned by Preserved Smith):

Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor," a Literary Feud Revisited

This morning I re-read my earlier blog entry, Finding Contexts in Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" (2009). Now six years later, I find it interesting that little has changed with the popular online use of Wiener's book. So many of the quotes I come across find their way back to this book. I suspect Mr. Wiener is no longer living, so it's unfortunate for the author that he probably didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace. In my 2009 entry I noted how ecumenical the book is, being published by both Atheists and Roman Catholics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Unfortunately, the most direct response to Wiener is hard to track down. A contemporary of Wiener, Gordon Rupp, published, Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause Or Cure? (Lutterworth Press, 1945). Used copies are around from time to time.  I've utilized this book in some blog entries, but getting it online would be the best antidote to Wiener's work.

2012 saw the release of Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). This is one of the more reader-friendly books on this subject, and what's interesting is not only is Gritsch a respected Luther scholar, he mentions in his recent book that he had been "a member of the Hitler Youth during the final days of World War II" (p. xiii). Before someone thinks that Gritsch would be sympathetic to Luther because of the events of his youth, Gritsch states, Luther is not simply "anti-Judaic" but rather "genuinely anti-Semetic" "in accordance with the broad, contemporary definition of anti-Semitism."

In the book as well he comments on the Wiener / Rupp feud. I found his analysis interesting, if only for his description of Wiener's book :

In 1945, a literary feud put the theme "Luther and the Jews" into the limelight. One year earlier, a British teacher of German and French, Peter F. Wiener, published a book contending that Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor. It is sheer propaganda with the intention to show that Luther's radical anti-Semitism made him "one of the darkest figures history has yet produced." This is "proven" by a chain of historical distortions: Luther tolerated Jews in order to gain their support in his struggle against the papal church, but turned against the Jews when they did not join him; his demonic anti-Semitism was not grounded in theology because his "religion" was a "Teutonic anti-Christian faith." Wiener misquotes, misinterprets, and intentionally misunderstands . His work "is nothing but a historical forgery based on ignorance and malice" [so says Gordon Rupp].

The British Luther scholar Ernest Gordon Rupp offered a devastating, yet elegantly executed critique. One cannot win the peace, Rupp observed, by reviving the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, the late but unlamented Minister of Nazi Propaganda. "The Nazi uniforms which Mr. Wiener has put on Luther fit very oddly on the facts: they were not made for him, nor he for them. Whatever be the truth about Luther, it is not Mr. Wiener's caricature." [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 118-119].

Luther's Comments About the Jews vs. The Papal Bull "Decet Romanum"

[To the left: the Papal Bull Decet Romanum (January 3, 1521) that declared Luther and his followers to be heretics]

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands or falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale. It's my opinion that Luther's attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, that really, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do.

There are though a number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther and think posting Luther's dreadful comments from The Jews and Their Lies is a meaningful argument against Protestantism. For instance, a participant on Catholic Answers stated,

I am sure that we are going to hear emphasized the portion of the above quote which speaks of the 'medieval prejudices' against the Jews, but it should be noted that nobody made ANY of the seven recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews.

I've responded to this sort of argument before. It's simply illogical to think Luther invented Jewish oppression and that the church didn't play it's part in creating the anti-Judaic culture Luther lived in. If Luther caused  the Third Reich... who caused Luther? Nope, Rome's cyber-defenders won't touch that one. In fact, last time I brought this up on Catholic Answers, my main post on this was deleted.

There is though a double standard that I had never considered until recently. While it's easy to cut-and-paste Luther's harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, "look how awful!" consider the following Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans":

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

I would say this statement has some of the same features Luther's comments against the Jews have. Property is to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians."

In regard to the immediate impact of Luther's comments against the Jews, Gordon Rupp stated that "Nobody took Luther's programme seriously, and the new mandate of John Frederick in 1543, though severe, was on other lines. Three years later, as we shall see, Jews were still living unmolested in the Mansfeld area" [Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 18]. On the other hand, there were a number of Protestant martyrs during the 16th-century (yes, I know there were Roman martyrs as well, but that's besides the point).

So when Rome's cyber-defenders bring up Luther's attitude toward the Jews, respond back with Decet Romanum, and ask them if they think the bull disproves the Roman church.

Luther: Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery

A few years back I did an extensive series of blog entries looking at Luther quotes presented in the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth. Going through my Blogger drafts, I recalled that of the 50+ quotes, there was only one I was not able to track down.

Under the heading "Social Justice," Luther Exposing the Myth states:

“Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery”[Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther believed rulers had their authority by God's will, even if that power was taken by unjust means. The implicit argument is that secular authority is to be obeyed at all costs because they have been placed in power by God. This is a caricature of Luther's views on secular authority missing the nuances, as well as not taking into account Luther's career-long appeals to Romans 13.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1". The first bit of trouble this documentation has is that WA 30 comprises three separate volumes: WA 30 1 (catechism sermons, 1528-1529), WA 30 2 (writings 1529/30), WA 30 3 (writings, 1529/32). Which one is Luther, exposing the Myth referring to?  The second bit of trouble this documentation has is that the quote in question does not appear on page 1 in any of these volumes (WA 30,1:1; WA 30,2:1; WA 30,3:1). The actual source utilized was probably the secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. After doing a number of searches, I've not found any author before Weiner using this quote in this form. Wiener states,

Over and over again he returns to this favoured subject, that there are two moralities; the one in which we are faithful Christians and which regards merely our spiritual life, and the other which we adopt as citizens and where we owe obedience to the secular power.

The secular power has to be blindly obeyed by the citizens. It is God's will that there are rulers and princes in order to see that these secular laws are obeyed. The princes are the gods upon earth. “Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery” (W30, 1). “If anybody has the might, he obtained it from God. Therefore he has also the right.” It is strange to notice that more than once Luther—not Bismarck!—uses the term “Might is Right”.

Nobody has a right ever to oppose this secular power. “Even if the authorities are wicked and unjust, nobody is entitled to oppose them, or to riot against them.” The people, the mass of the people have no rights whatsoever. “The ass must have blows and the people must be ruled by force. God knew this well, for it was not a fox's brush He gave to rulers, but a sword.” “Even though the authorities act unjustly, God wills that they should be obeyed without deceit . . . for to suffer unjustly harms no man's soul; indeed it is profitable to it.”

As stated above, this was the only quote from Luther, Exposing the Myth in which I could not locate the specific context. Weiner's documentation in his book is notoriously spurious [See Gordon Rupp's response, Martin Luther, Hitler's Cause or Cure, in reply to Peter F. Wiener (London: Lutterworth, 1945), p.10]. Weiner claims to "guarantee that before going to press I have carefully checked all quotations." In fairness, perhaps "W30,1" was a publishers typo.  Weiner admits to only reading some of Luther's writings, "his most important works," and also notes reliance on secondary sources. After going through a number of his citations, I would conclude that the majority of Weiner's references were taken from hostile secondary sources.


Context?
With that caveat, I offer the following as a possible source: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520) [LW 44:115-218; WA 6, (381 404-469]. If Weiner actually was citing Luther directly,  it would be consistent with his claim of utilizing Luther's "most important works."  Luther states,

Since the empire has been given us by the providence of God as well as by the plotting of evil men, without any guilt on our part, I would not advise that we give it up, but rather that we rule it wisely and in the fear of God, as long as it pleases him for us to rule it. For, as has been said already, it does not matter to him where an empire comes from; his will is that it be governed. Though the popes were wrong in taking it from others, we were not wrong in receiving it. It has been given us through evil men by the will of God: it is the will of God we have regard for rather than the wicked intentions of the popes. Their intention when they gave it to us was to be emperors, indeed, more than emperors, and only to fool and mock us with the title. The king of Babylon also seized his kingdom by robbery and violence. Yet it was God’s will that that kingdom be ruled by the holy princes Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, and Michael. Much more, then, is it God’s will that this empire should be ruled by the Christian princes of Germany, no matter whether the pope stole it, got it by force, or established it fresh. It is all God’s ordering, which came about before we knew about it. [LW 44:210]

Conclusion
Granted, this paragraph  from LW 44 doesn't have the exact structure of the quote under scrutiny, but all the elements are there. Perhaps at some point in the future the exact source for Weiner's quote  will emerge. Till his source is located, it may be the case he took this quote from a secondary source that may have been summarizing Luther's view from WA 6 (LW 44).

Regardless of the documentation tedium, Weiner does not to take into account that the church and her theologians have had to contend with Romans 13:1-7,

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Christians of all generations have wrestled with this text. This passage (along with Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14) is not simply an apostolic suggestion.  If one searches Luther's writings, he appealed to this text often. Yes, it's true Luther said rulers come to power by the will of God, and if this is so, some of those rulers have come to power by nefarious means. For a Christian, there's nothing mythical to be exposed about this. Luther, Exposing the Myth did nothing more than prove they're unaware of Romans 13.

The caricature also comes in when the nuances of Luther's views are missed. Yes, Luther said to be obedient to bad government. But it wasn't left at that.  In a sermon on John 19:11 he says to tolerate injustice from bad government, but to not be silent about it (LW 69:236-237). One need only read through Luther's writings in regard to the peasant's revolt to see that Luther criticized the secular authorities. Even a less tolerant biographer has commented,

Luther's treatise on secular authority shows that he was anything but passive before princes. He railed against their evils and foibles. He always stood ready to assault not only the Duke Georges of the world but also his own successive princes in Wittenberg when they did things- such as raising taxes— that he regarded as immoral and unjust. Yet these protests remained individual and pastoral, and Luther never saw himself as the leader of a rebellion that might organize itself politically to force a government to accede to its wishes. The Christian minister should speak out and be willing to suffer for his opinions, trusting that God was sovereign. Always Luther remained fixed on the admonition of Jesus in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world" [Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1999), p. 370]

There were also situations in which Luther said rulers legislating against the authority of God can be resisted and a Christian is not obliged to obey their contrary commands (WA 52:533). Eric Gritsch has stated that "Although Luther has been depicted as a staunch defender of the political status quo, if not a 'princely hireling,' there is sufficient evidence to show he did exercise and teach what has been called 'the right to resist secular government' (Widerstandscrecht)" [Martin- God's Court Jester, Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 124]. Gritsch then presents a number of historical examples from Luther's life, like when Luther disobeyed orders to stay in hiding at the Wartburg.

In the Church Postil he preached,

But what if they would take the Gospel from us or forbid us to preach it? Then you are to say: The Gospel and Word of God. I will not give up to you. This is not within your power, for your rule is a temporal rule, over worldly matters; but the Gospel is a spiritual, heavenly treasure, and therefore your authority does not extend over the Gospel and God's Word. We recognize the emperor as a master of temporal affairs, not of God's Word; this we shall not suffer to be torn from us, for it is the power of God, Rom. 1, 16, against which not even the gates of hell shall prevail. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 3 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 305].

For a  helpful compilation of quotes from Luther demonstrating the complexity of his view, see the entry, "Government" in What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. Plass presents almost thirty pages of citations from Luther. From there, one could venture out to find the primary sources cited by Plass and then evaluate the opinions of various biographers (most basic biographies of Luther present his view of secular authority).

Luther's "Fit in the Choir"

"People like James Swan, who “feel the need” to paint virtually every aspect and historical detail of Luther’s life in the most “positive” (sanitized) light imaginable, also have every reason to want people to completely dismiss the “fit” as being some sort of anti-Luther “myth” which was manufactured by the Catholic Church to discredit the man." [source]

That's what one of my critics recently said in regard to my opinion on Luther's alleged "fit in the choir." In actuality, as I searched through my blog, it appears I've rarely mentioned this myth on this blog, and only in passing (for instance: 5/02/06; 6/04/06; 6/06/06; 7/17/07). The irony of this Roman Catholic critic is his shying away from the original Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther's "fit in the choir" as demon possession favoring instead modern secular psychological interpretations.

Here's how the story goes, as stated by Luther's Roman Catholic biographer Hartmann Grisar:

One day that Luther was present at High Mass in the monks' choir, he had a fit during the Gospel, which, as it happened, told the story of the man possessed. He fell to the ground and in his paroxysms behaved like one mad. At the same time he cried out, as his brother monks affirmed: "It is not I, it is not I," meaning that he was not the man possessed.1 It might seem to have been an epileptic fit, but there is no other instance of Luther having such attacks, though he did suffer from ordinary fits of fainting. Strange to say, some of his companions in the monastery had an idea that he had dealings with the devil, while others, mainly on account of the above-mentioned attack, actually declared him an epileptic. We learn both these facts from his opponent and contemporary, Johann Cochlaeus, who was on good terms with Luther's former associates. He asserts positively that a "certain singularity of manner" had been remarked upon by his fellows in the monastery.2 Later on his brother monk, Johann Nathin, went so far as to assert that "an apostate spirit had mastered him," i.e. that he stood under the influence of the devil.3
1. Dungersheim, " Erzeigung der Falschheit des unchristlichen lutherischen Comments usw.," in " AHqua opuscula," p. 15, cited above on p. 4. 2. Joh. Cochlaeus, "Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri," Mogunt., 1549, p. 1. 3. Dungersheim, ut supra. [source]

Documentation
The spurious origins of this tale alone should be enough to caution one from giving it more value than its actual worth. Historians have traced this story not back to anything Luther wrote, or even a Table Talk utterance recorded by one of his acquaintances. Rather, this story originates from one of Luther's earliest Roman Catholic biographers, Cochlaeus. It comes from the very first paragraphs of his lengthy biography of Luther: 

“…[W]hen [Luther] was in the country, either because he was terrified and prostrated by a bolt of lightning, as is commonly said, or because he was overwhelmed with grief at the death of a companion, through contempt of this world he suddenly - to the astonishment of many - entered the Monastery of the brothers of St Augustine, who are commonly called the Hermits. After a year's probation, his profession of that order was made legitimate, and there in his studies and spiritual exercises he fought strenuously for God for four years. However, he appeared to the brothers to have a certain amount of peculiarity, either from some secret commerce with a Demon, or (according to certain other indications) from the disease of epilepsy. They thought this especially, because several times in the Choir, when during the Mass the passage from the Evangelist about the ejection of the deaf and mute Demon was read, he suddenly fell down, crying 'It is not I, it is not I.' And thus it is the opinion of many, that he enjoyed an occult familiarity with some demon, since he himself sometimes wrote such things about himself as were able to engender a suspicion in the reader of this kind of commerce and nefarious association. For he says in a certain sermon addressed to the people, that he knows the Devil well, and is in turn well known by him, and that he has eaten more than one grain of salt with him. And furthermore he published his own book in German, About the 'Corner' Mass (as he calls it), where he remembers a disputation against the Mass that the Devil held with him at night. There are other pieces of evidence about this matter as well, and not trivial ones, since he was even seen by certain people to keep company bodily with the Devil.” [source]

Roland Bainton notes:

“The story is poorly authenticated. It received distribution through Cochlaeus, whose virulent misrepresentations of Luther have poisoned the Catholic attitude toward him until recently refuted by the Catholic scholar Adolf Herte. Cochlaeus wrote later than, and presumably was dependent on, Dungersheim, who took the tale from Nathin, who appears to have derived it from the Bishop of Mansfield. Thus we get it fourth hand.” (Roger Johnson, ed, Psychohistory and Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p.42)

But it's actually worse than simply a fourth-hand apocryphal story. Gordon Rupp explains,

The story that Luther had a fit during Mass, while the story of the epileptic boy was being read, is more than dubious. It comes to us from four catholic writers: Nathin, Dungersheim, Cochlaeus,Oldecop, all of whom were his enemies, all of whom believed that he was possessed by a demon. An examination of these sources shows that they are not four separate accounts but each is repeating the other, as W. S. Gilbert would say, adding a few corroborative details intended to give an air of artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Such is Cochlaeus’s addition of the cry ’ I am not’. [Gordon Rupp, John Osborne and the Historical Luther, The Expository Times 1962; 73; 148).

Interpretations
When this story was first told by Luther's detractors the goal was to prove Luther was possessed by a demon. Cochlaeus believed Luther was a child of the devil, the fruit of a union between Satan and Luther's mother (who later regretted not having murdered him in the cradle). Luther's life was characterized as a man who lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. Luther was a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. Demonic monstrosities boiled out of Luther’s powerful perverted mind. At Luther's death, Satan came to drag him off to hell [source].

Fast forward a few hundred years and Luther's secular interpreters gravitate towards this tale in their probings into Luther's psyche. The most famous of all the psychohistorical approaches to Luther was Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther (1958). This is the favored interpreter of my Roman Catholic critic (see here, here, and here).

Erikson used a modified Freudian approach to Luther. Erikson analyzed Luther’s writings with Ego Development psychology, which evaluates important crisis’s in Luther’s life. For Erikson, Luther's fit in the choir was an identity crisis. He calls it a persistent identity crisis "the epileptoid paroxysm of egoloss." Erikson argued that Luther so identifies with the story of a boy possessed with a demon that he has to scream out to try to establish his non-identity with the boy. What's truly fascinating to me is not Erkison's interpretation but rather his admission that its historical verity doesn't really matter: 

If some of it is legend, so be it; the making of legend is as much part of the scholarly rewriting of history as it is part of the original facts used in the work of scholars. We are thus obliged to accept half-legend as half-history,provided only that a reported episode does not contradict other well-established facts; persists in having a ring of truth; and yields a meaning consistent with psychological theory" (Young Man Luther, p. 37).

What's also fascinating is that my Roman Catholic critic also grants the story is not an "undisputed fact." For this person though, "the fit in the choir is more than likely" because it is consistent with Luther's behavior in the monastery "like six hour confessions, extreme self mortification, obsession with the devil, and being found unconscious from fasting" and "some of Luther’s brother monks thought him to be either insane or demon possessed and that fact is entirely consistent with the 'fit'." This is the level to which some Roman Catholics will go: if it sounds like it could be true, then it probably is. That's certainly a far cry from "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."

Rupp points out "This story is in fact the only kind of evidence that Luther ever had such attacks. There is no trace of epilepsy before or after. Psychosomatic attacks show themselves in his forties, 1527-1528, but they are connected with his heart, dizziness,palpitations, and fainting fits" (Rupp, 148). Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset states that in the monastery "Luther was not a loner or a constantly depressed introvert" (The Real Luther, p. 94).

Indeed, Luther did claim "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work." My Roman Catholic critic thinks Luther's behavior in the monastery was abnormal for a 16th century monk. I would rather argue Luther was being a consistent Romanist.  Let's play in a Roman Catholic reality for a moment: If Luther was abnormal according to my Romanist critic, so was Pope John Paul II with his penitential practices and self-mortification (for example, the use of hair shirts).

Interestingly my critic quotes Erikson's overview of other psychological interpreters of the choir fit, but neglects to point out that each of these interpreters (Denifle, Reiter, Smith) arrived at a different conclusion about this alleged story. Erikson actually catches Reiter changing the story from Luther saying "That's me!" to "That's not me!" (Erikson, pp. 27-28). Men like Denifle, Smith, Reiter, or Erikson did use, in a sense, a similar approach in trying to understand Luther, but none of them arrive at the same conclusions, or even minimize or maximize similar conclusions. To simply lump them all together is the way of propaganda.

Conclusion
My critic can claim that my presentations of Luther are sanitized and present a distorted image of a historical personage. But above you'll notice my method for arriving at the conclusions I do about the choir fit story. The above would be the same sort of scrutiny I would use on any historical person.

Luther: To kill a peasant is not murder

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Social Justice":

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther wrote unjustly towards the peasants.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." Before evaluating this reference, recall that Luther, Exposing the Myth has stated, "...when not having quoted from the original sources I have quoted from those authors who have draw from the original sources." We will see this quote demonstrates this is not a true statement. The quote is taken from secondary sources, and, not only that, it's three different quotes from two different treatises.

Luther, Exposing the Myth also cited this same reference for another quote. This is an indication this quote was probably taken from this secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. The quote was put together from an extended section from Wiener:

But once Luther had made up his mind which side he was going to back, which side it was more profitable to back, his violence knew no limits. On May 6 of this fatal year Luther published his pamphlet, “Against the Peasant Bands of Robbers and Murderers”, which Funck-Brentano has described as a “horrible document which it is impossible to read, not only without disapproval but without disgust. The Reformer, who always had the Gospel on his lips, now talked of nothing but killing, torturing, burning and murdering the very people whom his work had driven to rebel.” Let us listen to the Reformer, the so-called champion of Christian freedom.

To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them! Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!. . . Our princes must in the circumstances regard themselves as the officers of the divine wrath which bids them chastise such scoundrels. A prince who failed to do so would be sinning against God very badly. He would be failing in his mission. A prince who in such circumstances avoided bloodshed would become responsible for the murders and all the further crimes which these low swine might commit. It is no longer a question of tolerance, patience, pity. It is the hour of wrath and for the sword; the hour for mercy is past.”

Luther is full of similar advice. “It is a trifle for God to massacre a lot of peasants, when He drowned the whole world with a flood and wiped out Sodom with fire. He is an almighty and frightful God.” “If there are innocent men amongst the peasants, God will certainly prepare and keep them, as He did with Lot and Jeremiah." “will not forbid such rulers as are able, to chastise and slay the peasants without previously them offering terms, even though the Gospel does not permit it."” Once more, the Devil is brought into it." “he peasants serve the Devil. . . . I believe that there are no devils left in hell, but all of them have entered into peasants." And Luther surpasses himself when he exclaims: “what strange times are these when a prince can enter heaven by the shedding of blood more certainly than others by means of prayer!"” And he ends with the peroration: "Come, dearly-beloved lords and nobles, strike them, transfix them, and cut their throats with might and main. Should you find death in so doing, you could not wish for one more divine, for you would fall in obedience to God and in defending your like against the hordes of Satan."” I know of no example in history (with the exception of Hitler'' famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers—merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason. Treason of any kind is, in my opinion, honourable compared to Luther's change of colours.

The effect of Luther's pamphlet was terrible. It was exactly what the princes had hoped for. “It was due to Luther's pamphlet against the peasants, so said the Strasburg preacher Capito, that the country had passed from the turmoil of insurrection to the horrors of retaliation and revenge.” The princes translated the Reformer's inhuman orders into practice with a terrifying speed.

Even Luther's own followers got frightened. They reproached him, they tried to explain that the irrational, quick-tempered Luther had acted on the spur of the moment, that he did not mean what he said. In cold blood Luther replied: “An insurgent is not worthy of being answered with reason, for he cannot understand it; such mouths must be stopped with fisticuffs till their noses bleed. The peasants would not hear, would not listen to reason, therefore it was necessary to startle their ears with bullets, and send their heads flying in the air. . . .If they say I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (E24, 294). “The intention of the Devil was to lay Germany waste, because he was unable in any other way to prevent the spread of the Evangel.”

One can see how Luther, Exposing the Myth selectively cited Wiener, making one quote from five paragraphs!  Wiener did not rely on a primary source, but  rather sifted some of these quotes from another secondary source, Luther by M. Funck-Brentano (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1939). Funck-Bretano's work was originally in French, Wiener quotes the English edition. So, through Wiener one gets an English version of a French translation of Luther's German. Luther, Exposing the Myth cited a secondary source that relied on a secondary source. This is hardly drawing from the original sources as they claim was their process in putting their web-page together.

Gordon Rupp points out about Funck Bretano's work, "M. Bretano has a pleasant habit of garbling whole paragraphs into one sentence without any warning, and then giving his own very free translations the appearance of being the actual words of Luther." Here is what Rupp means. The following is a breakdown of Funck-Bretano's / Wiener translation of the quote Wiener used compared to a direct German to English translation from an actual edition of Luther's works:

This comparison text shows the context says a bit more than Luther, Exposing the Myth, Peter Wiener, and M. Funck Bretano allow the reader to see.

With this tedium out of the way, let's look at the reference provided, "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." This page can be found here. From a cursory look, the German original indicates this documentation only refers to some of this quote (it's actually three quotes from two different treatises!).   Quote #1: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!" This can be found at Erl. 24: 289-290. Quote #2: "If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned." This can be found at Erl. 24:298 (in a different treatise!). Quote #3: "Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs." This is the only quote located at Erl. 24:294.

Most of the quote (#1, #3) is from Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525). Quote #2 is from Ein Sendbrief von dem barten Büchlein wider die Bauern (An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525). Both of these treatises have been translated into English. Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants can be found in LW 46:53-57.  An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants can be found in LW 46:57-87.

Context
In Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther begins by pointing out the peasants had ignored his earlier Admonition to Peace, even though they had vowed to heed his admonition. He finds them guilty and worthy of death on three counts: 1) treason against established authority 2) they are in rebellion: "they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castes which are not theirs; by this they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers" (LW 46:49) Here we find the second half of the quote used by Luther, Exposing the Myth. In context, the admonition is for rulers to stop societal anarchy by suppressing seditious peasants:

Furthermore, anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job. For rebellion is not just simple murder; it is like a great fire, which attacks and devastates a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land filled with murder and bloodshed; it makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the worst disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you [LW 46:50].

The third violation according to Luther is that seditious peasants consider themselves Christians, which is nothing other than blasphemy, and they attempt to spread their blasphemy by inducing others to join them. Luther then advises the temporal authorities:

Now since the peasants have brought [the wrath of] both God and man down upon themselves and are already many times guilty of death in body and soul, and since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict, but only rage on, I must instruct the temporal authorities on how they may act with a clear conscience in this matter.

First, I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment. He is within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murderers, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. Indeed, it is his duty to punish such scoundrels, for this is why he bears the sword and is “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer,” Romans 13 [:4] [LW 46:51].

Luther then instructs temporal authorities who may be Christians. They should "go beyond our duty, and offer the mad peasants an opportunity to come to terms, even though they are not worthy of it. Finally, if that does not help, then swiftly take to the sword" (LW 46:52). Luther concludes the treatise with the section including the third quote,

Finally, there is another thing that ought to motivate the rulers. The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league against their wills, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation. Anyone who consorts with them goes to the devil with them and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit, even though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he could not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths rather than give a hairsbreadth of consent to the peasants’ cause. O how many martyrs could now be made by the bloodthirsty peasants and the prophets of murder! Now the rulers ought to have mercy on these prisoners of the peasants, and if they had no other reason to use the sword with a good conscience against the peasants, and to risk their own lives and property in fighting them, this would be reason enough, and more than enough: they would be rescuing and helping these souls whom the peasants have forced into their devilish league and who, without willing it, are sinning so horribly and must be damned. For truly these souls are in purgatory; indeed, they are in the bonds of hell and the devil.

Therefore, dear lords, here is a place where you can release, rescue, help. Have mercy on these poor people!Let whoever can stab, smite, slay. If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die while obeying the divine word and commandment in Romans 13 [:1, 2], and in loving service of your neighbor, whom you are rescuing from the bonds of hell and of the devil. And so I beg everyone who can to flee from the peasants as from the devil himself; those who do not flee, I pray that God will enlighten and convert. As for those who are not to be converted, God grant that they may have neither fortune nor success. To this let every pious Christian say, “Amen!” For this prayer is right and good, and pleases God; this I know. If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour [LW 46:54].

Quote #2 can be found in another treatise, An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525. Luther wrote this to further explain the position he took in Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants and the Admonition to Peace. Luther's Works explain,

In this treatise Luther defends at length the views he had advanced in Admonition to Peace and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The peasants should not have rebelled, for the duty of a Christian is to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence. His opponents, Luther says, can criticize him as they will, but they cannot change the fact that in the light of God’s word the rebellious peasants deserved to be put to death and to have their insurrection suppressed by the full force of the governing authorities. Force was the only language the rebels understood. Furthermore, Luther argues, his critics’ sudden surge of sympathy for the defeated peasants marks them as secret rebels against God and state. But if there was no excuse for the peasants to rebel, neither was there any excuse for the rulers to indulge their lust for rebel blood. Here, however, Luther is not moved by any sense of “fair play.” He disclaims responsibility for the wanton cruelty of the rulers, which, he says, is nothing but the flagrant abuse by the princes of their God-given office. Such cruelty is as reprehensible and sinful as insurrection. The princes, he says, will surely reap God’s wrath for such conduct. (LW 46:61)

The quote in question can be found early in the treatise:

First of all, then, I must warn those who criticize my book to hold their tongues and to be careful not to make a mistake and lose their own heads; for they are certainly rebels at heart, and Solomon says, “My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not be a fellow-traveler with the rebels for their disaster will come suddenly and who can know what the ruin of both you and them will be?” Proverbs 24 [:21–22]. Thus we see that both rebels and those who join them are condemned. God does not want us to make a joke out of this but to fear the king and the government. Those who are fellow-travelers with rebels sympathize with them, feel sorry for them, justify them, and show mercy to those on whom God has no mercy, but whom he wishes to have punished and destroyed. For the man who thus sympathizes with the rebels makes it perfectly clear that he has decided in his heart that he will also cause disaster if he has the opportunity. The rulers, therefore, ought to shake these people up until they keep their mouths shut and realize that the rulers are serious.

If they think this answer is too harsh, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply, “That is right.” A rebel is not worth rational arguments, for he does not accept them. You have to answer people like that with a fist, until the sweat drips off their noses. The peasants would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything, so their ears must now be unbuttoned with musket balls till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s word when it is spoken with kindness,12 must listen to the headsman, when he comes with Iris are. If anyone says that I am being uncharitable and unmerciful about this, my reply is: This is not a question of mercy; we are talking of God’s word. It is God’s will that the king be honored and the rebels destroyed; and he is as merciful as we are (LW 46:65-66).

Conclusion
Martin Luther's book, Against The Robbing And Murdering Mobs of Peasants is sometimes cited as evidence that Luther had the peasants killed. That is, his writing directed the princes to slay the peasants, so on his order, they did. This common caricature views Luther as somehow in charge of Germany. The princes simply waited for Luther's command and then followed this advise he gave.

Not quite. Luther's Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred by Luther's words. They were spurred by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

In regards to this period of history, Luther wrote more than simply Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. Luther earlier published The Admonition to Peace. In this treatise, Luther also blames the princes and rulers for the unstable state of affairs. After Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther actually went on to chastise the Princes for being too harsh on the peasants.

For those who want to charge Luther of gross injustice toward the peasants, no amount of history or research will convince them otherwise. Roland Bainton points out, "Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak" of the Peasants War.  Nothing has changed, except we're not dealing with princes anymore, but rather Rome's cyber-denfenders.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: Peasants are no better than straw

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Social Justice":

Christ taught: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill” [Matt 5:6,Cf. Matt 19:18, I John 3:15, Matt 26:52, Romans 12:21].

Luther teaches: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve” [Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294]

It is important to keep in mind that these peasants were actually Protestants who favoured Luther and his views, yet in order to please the German princes Luther and gain influence Luther did not hesitate to have even his own followers put to death! As one writer put it “I know of no example in history ( with the exception of Hitler’s famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers – merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason.” – Peter F. Winer, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Pg. 57

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther acted unjustly towards the peasants.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." "Erlangen" refers to the Erlangen Edition of Luther's works. This out of print German / Latin edition of Luther's works was published in the 1800's. Here is page 294. It contains the closing paragraphs of Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525). There is no such quote on this page as Luther, Exposing the Myth purports.  This particular reference is for this different quote.

An additional quote of commentary is provided from "Peter F. Winer, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Pg. 57." Here's the next blatant error to point out: it's "Wiener," not Winer. It is probable this was the source from which Luther Exposing the Myth snatched this Luther quote. Wiener states,

“Peasants”, Luther declared, “are no better than straw. They will not hear the Word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whizz of bullets, and it is only what they deserve. We must pray for them that they may become obedient; but if they do not, pity is of no avail here; we must let the cannon-balls whistle among them, or they will only make things a thousand times worse."

Wiener doesn't document this quote, but a few paragraphs later in reference to another quote he refers to "E24, 294," the same source Luther, Exposing the Myth refers to. It's quite possible that Wiener also didn't use a primary source for this quote. In this section of Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Wiener heavily utilized M. Funck Bretano's biography of Luther, though this isn't the source he used for this quote (Bretano cites the quote on page 207 as " 'Give them straw and oats to eat,' he went on, referring to the wretched peasants. 'Since they are devoid of reason they must be made to understand their duties by means of the arquebus! There is no need to pity them, believe me! We must let the bullets whistle.' "). The secondary source used by Wiener therefore remains a mystery.

This Luther quote is actually from a letter to John Rühel. He was a councilor of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld in whose territory the peasant uprising was brewing. The German text can be found in WA BR 2:669. The quote can be found on pages 669-670,

This letter has been translated into English. It can be found in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Volume 2, p. 320 - 322. The quote under scrutiny can be found on page 321.


Context
John Rühel was a councilor of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld in whose territory the peasant uprising was brewing. Previous to this letter, Luther had written his Admonition for Peace as a reply to the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants (April 1525). At this point, he wasn't fully aware of all that was going on with the peasant's revolt and the atrocities they had committed. At the beginning of May, Luther wrote Rühel stating in part, "If there were thousands more of the peasants, they would still be altogether robbers and murderers, who take the sword simply because of their own insolence and wickedness, and who want to expel sovereigns [and] lords, and [to destroy] everything, and to establish a new order in this world. But for this they have neither God’s commandment, authority, right, or injunction, as the lords have it now" [LW 49:108]. By May 30, things had grown worse. Writing to Nicholas von Amsdorf, Luther stated:

In my opinion it is better that all of the peasants should be killed rather than that the sovereigns and magistrates should be destroyed, because the peasants take up the sword without God’s authorization. The consequence of this wickedness of Satan can only be the satanic devastation of the kingdom of God and of the world [LW 49:113].

On the same day, Luther penned the letter in question to John Rühel:

687. LUTHER TO JOHN RUHEL. DeWette, ii, 669. German. (wittenberg), May 30, 1525.

Grace and peace in Christ. Many thanks for the latest news, dear doctor and brother-in-law. We must hope and pray that God will graciously put an end to this wretched state of affairs. That the people call me a hypocrite is good; I am glad to hear it; do not let it surprise you. For some years now you have been hearing me berated for many things, but in the course of time all these things have come to nothing and worse than nothing. I should need much leather to muzzle all the mouths. It is enough that my conscience is clear before God; He will judge what I have said and written; things will go as I have said, there is no help for it.

As for showing mercy to the peasants, there are innocent men among them, whom God will save and protect, as He did Lot and Jeremiah. If He does not save them, then they certainly are not innocent, but have at least kept silence and approved of the rebellion. Even though they may have done it from timidity or fear, nevertheless it is wrong and in God's eyes a sin that must be punished, like the sin of a man who denies Christ because he is afraid, and my writings against the peasants are all the harder because without ceasing they compel these fearful souls to do their will and incur God's punishment.

The wise man says, "Cibus, onus et virga asino;" "straw for the peasant." They have gone mad and will not hear the Word, and so they must bear the rod, that is, the guns; it serves them right. We ought to pray for them that they may be obedient; if not, then let the shot whistle, or they will make things a thousandfold worse.

I shall write to the Bishop' and send you a copy. Munzer has not had the right sort of an examination; I should have asked him very different questions. His confession is nothing else than a devilish, hardened persistence in his opinion. He says in his confession that he has done no wrong. That is terrible. I should not have thought a human heart could be so hardened.

Well, anyone who has seen Munzer can say that he has seen the very devil, and at his worst. O God! If this is the spirit that is in the peasants it is high time that they were killed like mad dogs. It may be that the devil feels the nearness of the last day, and so decides to stir up all the dregs and show all his hellish power at once. Haec sunt tempora, but God still lives and reigns and will not forsake us. His goodness is nearer, mightier and wiser than the ragings and the ravings of Satan.

A report has reached here that the collector of Allstedt has been put to death, but we hope it is a lie. The same report is circulated about Dr. Strauss. Greet my sister-in-law, your dear vine, and her grapes. God have you in His keeping. The two sermons preached at the Elector's funeral are in press.- Martin Luther

Conclusion
One can see the differences between Wiener's translation versus a direct translation. One can also view what Luther, Exposing the Myth left out: "We ought to pray for them that they may be obedient" along with other similar statements from the surrounding context. Luther believed seditious peasants should be killed, and held that the governing authorities had the right to do so. It is against those peasants that were using the gospel to cause rebellion that Luther opposed. To put it bluntly, they were the devil’s agents, leading people away from the gospel. I've written more on this here: Luther and the Peasants Revolt and Luther and the Peasant's War.

Are the words of Christ and Luther in direct opposition? It's ironic that a Roman Catholic would think so since the papacy has used force throughout the last 2000 years. Luther, Exposing the Myth should have given stronger consideration to Matthew 26:47-56. Those who live by the sword (as the seditious peasants did) will die by the sword. None of the other verses they refer to have anything to do with a segment of the population revolting against established authority. Luther, Exposing the Myth refers to Romans 12:21 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." What they should have done was continue reading Romans 13:

Submission to the Authorities1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It's a bit naive to think somehow a person living in a peaceful country, hundreds of years later, actually can meaningfully chastise Luther's writings against the peasants revolt. I would love to have the ability to stick these people back in 1524-1525, to see what they would think of the peasants while the peasants ransacked their house, or killed their family members, and threatened the stability of the land.

Luther, Exposing the Myth states "It is important to keep in mind that these peasants were actually Protestants who favoured Luther." Luther did not approve of societal revolt against secular authority, even previous to the peasants revolt of 1525. True, some of the peasants read Luther's writings, but they read what they wanted to in them, and ignored what they needed to from those same writings. When Luther, Exposing the Myth says the peasants were Protestants who favored Luther, in actuality they were societal rebels that favored those parts of Luther's writings that favored their cause. When Luther, Exposing the Myth states "Luther did not hesitate to have even his own followers put to death," this is grossly inaccurate. These people were not his followers. In actuality, the revolts began in a part of Germany that was remote from Luther's direct influence. Even those rebels nearer to Luther were not in direct contact with him. Luther was not their leader, nor did he create their movement. In fact, he continually spoke out against fanatical leaders previous to 1525. The peasants had their own fanatical leaders Luther did speak out against. At one point, Luther attempted to visit some of the peasant areas and barely made it out alive.

In regard to the secondary quote from Wiener given by Luther, Exposing the Myth, Gordon Rupp responded long ago. Wiener held that Luther changed his opinion on a government using force against rebels:

Finally, Mr. Wiener's most memorable utterance to date (p. 47). "I know", he says, "of no example in history (with the exception of Hitler's famous or rather infamous June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers ... merely to establish his own position, without any reason. Treason of any kind is, in my opinion, honourable compared to Luther's change of colours." There is, of course, absolutely no evidence to suggest any connection between Luther and the rebels such as existed between Hitler and the "purged", or any other members of the Nazi party, though if it be true that the Nazis claimed Thomas Munzer as the first Nazi, there was more to it than to some of their claims. The charge that Luther "went over" in 1525 to the other side and for opportunist reasons can be completely refuted, and if it could not, it would still contradict Mr. Wiener's statement that he changed his side "without any reason", since to save his own skin would be quite a good reason, or a lot of people have been diving into air-raid shelters in this part of the world for no reason at all.

I do not know what the reader has made of all this. It is not easy to deal with methods like those of Mr. Wiener without overstating the other side, but I imagine that few readers will feel the comparison with Hitler and the purge of 1934 to be anything but forced and unreal. What, then, will they make of what follows? "Treason of any kind is in my opinion honourable compared with Luther's change of colours." Will anybody seriously consider Vidkun Quisling, Richard III, and Judas Iscariot and believe them honourable in comparison with Luther and the peasants? Well, well, well. We must make allowances. Evidently Mr. Wiener is one of those who feel very deeply the cause of the oppressed. He himself is doubtless living in some garret, having given up all to labour for the coming Revolution. But his pamphlet bears the address of one of our more elegant public schools. Gentlemen, let us clear our minds of cant! [Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther- Hitler's Cause or Cure? (London: Lutterworth Press, 1945) pp. 49-50].

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.