Spurious Martin Luther Quote: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin..."

 

This image above was pulled off Facebook. In the first quote, Luther supposedly said,  

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." -Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

If you're thinking, "that really doesn't sound like Luther," then kudos to you for your discernment skills! This was one of the first weird Roman Catholic Martin Luther quotes I investigated. It just didn't sound right. Eventually I compiled this entry documenting my journey with this quote. Since the quote still circulates online, here's what you need to know:

1. Where does the quote come from? The English version of this quote comes from an English translation of Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther, IV. Whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally cut-and-pasted it from the book to the Internet neglected to mention Grisar also states in the same context, 

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther's approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear. 

and also: 

As Luther's intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

2. Who deleted this quote? Martin Luther did or an editor he authorized.

3. Why did Martin Luther delete this quote? The sermon collection it appeared in was put together by Stephen Roth. Roth actually added in material not from Luther. Luther was highly displeased with what Roth put together and revised the material, releasing an updated version of this sermon collection. 

4. Did Martin Luther really write this quote? He probably did not. The editors of Luther's Works point out: 

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception... (LW 58:434-435, fn. 10).

I've not found anything in Luther's written corpus at all similar to this 1527 statement. It's like a Luther hapax legomenon!

Conclusion
It amazes me that this quote still circulates as Roman Catholic propaganda on the Internet. We've been given this incredible ability to have immediate information, yet, Roman Catholic propagandists don't do the basic work of a looking up a quote before splattering it all over the Internet. These are the same people that claim reading the church fathers will make one become Roman Catholic! 

Luther: The Bible is clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings

What is the easiest book to understand? According to an advocate of Eastern Orthodoxy I've been interacting with, Luther claimed it was the Bible.  He points to Luther stating,  

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5 

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

This person argued Luther was absolutely wrong that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any other writing.  On the face of it, it does certainly seem like Martin Luther made a logical blunder. Isn't a children's book much "simpler" than the Bible? I suspect there are many books in my own personal library that are "clearer" than the Bible as well.  Did the great Martin Luther have a misguided zeal in his claims about the Bible?  Sure, the Bible is a great book, but is it "clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings"? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

Even though the quote is found precisely in LW 32:11-12, this does not necessarily mean the person using it read LW 32 and mined it out; a simple Google search of the formatted reference ("5") suggests this quote was probably taken from R. Scott Clark's blog article, Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine?  Also, the bolding in the quote does not appear in Clark's blog article, nor in LW 32. 

The quote comes from Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, 1521 (Defense and Explanation of All the Articles). While this treatise is found in its original German from Luther's actual manuscript in WA 7, 308- 457 (with the quote appearing on page 317), the English translation this particular quote is based on primarily comes from O. Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 11.  In Clemen, the quote is found on page 64: 

The English rendering of LW 32 is a revision of this treatise found in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works vol. 3 (with the quote occurring on p. 16, found below).  Ewald Plass also includes an English translation of the quote in What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 74 (see below). 

Context

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the teachers of the Church. I do not reject them; but everyone knows that they have erred at times, as men will, I am willing to put confidence in them only so far as they give me proofs for their opinions out of the Scriptures, which never yet have erred. This St Paul commands me in 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter, where he says, “First prove and confirm all doctrines; hold fast that which is good.” St Augustine writes to St Jerome to the same effect: “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has erred; all others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth, unless they prove it to me by the Holy Scriptures or by clear reason.”

The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker; therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.

Conclusion

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is partly in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities, particularly "all the teachers of the Church." In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer, able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority of sacred scripture.

In this early period of Luther's fight with Rome, when the papists cited decrees, councils, fathers, etc. against him, his response was to counter with Scripture. As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answers in the entirety of the Defense and Explanation of All the Articles demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on issues that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying. 

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

Addendum #1 Other English Renderings

Other English versions of this quote can be found here and here, Ewald Plass translates the quote as follows: 

"Holy Scripture must certainly be clearer, plainer, and more explicit than the writings of all others, because by it, as by a writing clearer and more reliable, all teachers prove their statements; and they want their writing to be confirmed and clarified by it. But surely no one can prove an obscure statement with a more obscure statement, Therefore we must needs turn to Scripture with the writings of all teachers and from that source get our judgments and verdict concerning them. For Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writing and teaching on earth. If this is not to be. of what use is Scripture to us? Then we had better reject it and be satisfied with men's books and human teachers."

Addendum #2 Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar

In his massive biography of Luther, Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar says, 

Thus the Bible, according to a further statement, is "clearer, easier and more certain than any other writing." "It is in itself quite certain, quite easy and quite plain; it is its own explanation; it is the universal argument, judge and enlightener, and makes all clear to all." 

Later, however, the idea that Holy Scripture was obscure preponderated with him. Two days before his death Luther wrote in Latin on a piece of paper, which was subsequently found on his table, his thoughts on the difficulty of understanding Scripture : "No one can understand the Bucolics of Virgil who has not been a herdsman for five years; nor his Georgics unless he has laboured five years in the fields. In order to understand aright the epistles of Cicero a man must have been full twenty years in the public service of a great State. No one need fancy he has tasted Holy Scripture who has not ruled Churches for a hundred years with prophets like Elias and Eliseus, with John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles." In all likelihood his experiences with the sectarians in his own camp led him towards the end of his life to lay more stress on the difficulty of understanding the Bible.

A first response to Grisar is based on a textual consideration. What's being cited from Luther (that the Scriptures are "obscure") is not something Luther actually wrote. Grisar is citing Table Talk utterance 5677. Second, this second-hand comment from Luther does not say that the Bible is obscure. The text says, "Let nobody suppose he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years (LW 54:476). The Table Talk also records Luther saying that since the Bible is the word of the Holy Spirit it's depth cannot be completely plumbed (utterance 1205, cf. What Luther Says, entry 212).  This sentiment makes more sense in regard to "tasting" the Scriptures rather than a despondent Luther declaring the Scriptures obscure two days before he died.

Addendum #3 William Whitiker 

In his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,

William Whitiker uses Luther's argument here. 

Our eighth argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenæus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. “The words of scripture,” says he, are more obscure than the words of the fathers.” Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all necessary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by any commentaries of the fathers.

Luther: The World by This Teaching Becomes Only the Worse, the Longer it Exists... the People are More Avaricious, Less Merciful... and Worse than Before Under the Papacy

Here's a snippet from one of Rome's defenders on the failure of the Reformation:

Luther openly acknowledged the rapid decline in morals that his new religion was bringing about: "Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

"This preaching,"; he says, "ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery."

The basic gist is that Martin Luther admitted his teaching ("his doctrine of justification by faith alone") made people worse. This is a typical Roman Catholic charge, that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't they make people better? Wouldn't they make the world better? Even though I've covered this quote before, let's take a fresh look and see what Martin Luther was saying about his evangelical teachings and their impact on the world.

Documentation

While no documentation is provided, Rome's defender mentioned the old Roman CatholicLuther biographer Hartmann Grisar a few times. A quick Google search reveals the quote came from Grisar's multi-volume biography of Luther. In volume 4:210, Grisar states, 

Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

“This preaching,” he says, “ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery.”[3]

[3] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

Grisar's original text was in German. He provides a helpful reference: ""Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”"  Here is Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14. The text reads, 

"Hauspostille” refers to the House Postil sermons from Martin Luther. The House Postil sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.  These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two of Luther's associates  (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist, as is the case with this text. The text Grisar is citing is Veit Dietrich's. His account can be found in English in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. We'll be primarily utilizing the English translation in which the quote in question can be found here, but also referring to Roerer's version. 

Context

Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life. [Dietrich''s version]

Original text: Denn wir sind elende arme Sünder, aber in der Taufe tröstet uns Christus, und spricht: Gib mir deine Sünd her, und hab dir mein Gerechtigkeit und Heiligkeit; laß dir deinen Tod abziehen, und zeug mein Leben an. Das heißt eigentlich Christus Regiment. Denn all sein Ampt und Werk ist dieses, daß er uns täglich Sünde und Tod ausziehe, und sein Heiligkeit und Leben uns anziehe (Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14). 

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and everyone should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy. [Dietrich''s version]

Original text: Diese Predigt sollt man billig mit großen Freuden hören und annehmen, sich daraus bessern und fromm werden. So kehret sichs leider umb, und wird die Welt aus dieser Lehr nur je länger je ärger, das ist des leidigen Teufels Arbeit und Geschäft. Wie man siehet, daß die Leut jekund geiziger, unbarmherziger, unzüchtiger, frecher und ärger sind, denn zuvor unter dem Papstthum (Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14).

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan. Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people. [Dietrich''s version]

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Dietrich''s version]

Conclusion

Was the world getting worse because of Luther's "new religion"? Yes! In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the Gospel being preached. Those though who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the Gospel would find great opposition and would be attacked from all sides. The Gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The Gospel would indeed make those of the world worse, while changing the lives of those who accept it. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Addendum: Understanding the House Postil

These two links are of vital importance for anyone attempting to understand how Luther's House Postil was put together:

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Of interest is the author's conclusion that "Veit Dietrich was correct; he was the only one who transcribed the sermons Luther preached in his home in the early 1530s, though Rörer may have been in attendance to hear portions of some of them."

Luther: "If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope"

Here's a Luther quote (along with commentary) from one of Rome's defenders:

From the onset Martin Luther's goal was to destroy the Church. ‘Reform’ or ‘correction’ was mere pretext for civil war. We only see 'reform' being used only to convince the illiterate surfs of Medieval Germany. From a gloss we can see schism was the goal early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., Vol. II, pg 320, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522

Notice the quote is prefaced with asserting Luther was "no doubt aligned with the great deceiver." Based on this, I suspect this defender of Rome is also the same author here:  he uses the same Luther quote, and asks, "All of which leads me to ask the question of whether or not Luther was possessed by satan? Who else would war against God’s Kingdom on earth? This might explain some strange stories surrounding some of Luther’s strange behavior." This is old-school anti-ecumenical  Romanism, hearkening back the destructive criticism of Luther that characterized Roman Catholic approaches to Luther pre-Joseph Lortz.

This particular defender of Rome also thinks Luther did away with the mass: "If you do away the Real Presence you’ve done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously ‘changing the meaning’ of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one."  This Roman defender claims to be quoting "Luther's own words" and that responses to his critical attitude of Luther are an offering of "propaganda." Yes, there's propaganda going on, but it's not with those questioning this defender of Rome! Let's take a look at this Luther quote and see if it displays the ramblings of a person possessed by the devil, and if Luther wanted to "do away" with the mass.

Documentation
A fairly complete secondary reference was provided: "Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522." Based on his earlier post here, I suspect Rome's defender didn't actually use this source, but took the quote from Warren Carroll's book, The Cleaving of Christendom, 1517-1661, p. 59.

"Grisar" refers to a late nineteenth-century Roman Catholic Jesuit historian (1845-1932).  I've written about Grisar often over the years (see my brief overview here). Grisar is typically classified (by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars) as belonging to the period of destructive criticism of Luther. Up until the early twentieth century, Roman Catholic biographies of Luther typically attacked the person, Martin Luther. Even with many of their theological evaluations, Luther's thought was taken as suspicious and heretical, with no redeeming value (I go into detail on this here and here). Generally speaking, Rome's contemporary scholars do not utilize Grisar, nor are his works in mass publication, nor have they been for a long, long time. However, the Internet has brought them back to life, so it's not uncommon to find Rome's defenders, particularly those whom are less ecumenically minded, utilizing Grisar.

Grisar did an extensive multi-volume work on Luther (which is at times tedious to the point of being unreadable!), and what's being referred to is volume two, page 320 (English version). There, Grisar states:

It not infrequently happened that the people were deceived by faithless and apostate clerics who became preachers of the new religion, and were drawn away from the olden faith without being clearly aware of the fact. After having become gradually and most insensibly accustomed to the new faith and worship, not even the bravest had, as a rule, the strength to draw back. The want of religious instruction among the people was here greatly to blame, likewise the lack of organised ecclesiastical resistance to the error, and also, the indolence of the episcopate.

Mass still continued to be said in many places where Lutheranism had taken root, though in an altered form, a fact which contributed to the deception. One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice.

He expressed this quite openly to Henry VIII in 1522: " If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devil's help, with false miracles and deceiving signs."1 In respect of the deception of the Mass, "I oppose all the pronouncements of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils, not by an appeal to 'ancient custom and tradition' nor to any man, but to the Word of the Eternal Majesty and to the Gospel which even my adversaries are forced to acknowledge." "This is God's Word," he vehemently exclaims of his denial of the sacrifice, "not ours. Here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists, Thomists, Henryists, sophists, and all the gates of hell, not to speak of all the sayings of men, and the most sacred and deceitful of customs." 2

1. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae," "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220; "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445.
2. Ibid., p. 215=437.

Basically, Grisar provided two sources that provided the same text. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae" refers to Luther's Latin response to Henry VIII, 1522. "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220" refers to WA 10,2: 220, one of the most extensive collections of Luther's writings. "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445" can be found here. This reference is to a  different Latin collection of Luther's writings.The text reads:

A new English version of this text is scheduled for an upcoming volume of Luther's Works
(Theological and Polemical Writings, 1521-1546). There was an English rendering put out in 1928 by the Rev. E. S. Buchanan. Even though long out of print, the text can be found here.

The text in English is entitled, Martin Luther against Henry King of England. This was Luther's 1522 response  to Henry VIII's book Assertio Septum Sacramentorum. The King (or whoever wrote the book attributed to the King) attempted to defend the sacrifice of the mass, attempted to present an exegetical defense of transubstantiation, defend the income of priests via masses, and sought to use tradition to justify withholding the cup from the laity (as well as  commenting on other Protestant-related issues of the time). King Henry presented the book to the Pope and earned the title "Defender of the faith." (see Brecht, Martin Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, Vol. 2:86-87). Luther vehemently responded to Henry's book. It's little wonder Luther wrote so harshly against this book. Brecht states, "[Luther] could only ridicule the pope's offer of an indulgence for reading Henry's book" [c.f. "The Pope also granted an indulgence of ten years and ten quadragenes to those who would read the King's book or listen to its content"(link)].

The quote in question appears towards the end of this short treatise. Presenting the complete context is beyond the scope of this entry, so I recommend those interested in Luther's full argumentation read it for themselves. The treatise isn't all that long.

Context

Let us return to the institution. We have then taken away the Mass, and we say in triumph against the Defender of the sacraments, that it is not a work nor a sacrifice, but a word and a sign of divine grace, which Christ uses for establishing and strengthening in us faith in Himself. And we see how foolish Satan is, since the longer and fiercer he rages and writes against us, the more senseless and infatuated is his delirium. For this book of the King, as it is about the best in Latinity of all the books that have been written against me, so is it above all others the most blockish and stupid, so that I could almost attribute it to our writers in Leipsic, who are wont thus to babble when their babblement is at its best.

Having triumphed over the Mass, I think we have triumphed over the whole papacy. For upon the Mass as upon a rock is built the whole papacy with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, its doctrines, and leans on it with its whole weight. And all these things must fall with the sacrilegious and abominable Mass. So Christ through me has begun to unmask the abomination standing in the holy place, and to destroy him, whose coming was through the operation of Satan in all wonders and lying miracles.

O that miserable Defender of the Papist Church! O miserable Church which in vain has poured forth its Indulgences for so great a book, except that a worthy reward it gave both to the Defender and to his book! For as are the Indulgences, so is the Church, so is the Defender, and so is the book also.

These things that I have said are enough for the defence of the chief sacrament, in handling which the Lord Henry greatly laboured with his assertions, as one who was not ignorant that therein lay the main thing for the preservation of the papal reign. The things remaining unsaid I am obliged to defer, being overwhelmed with many occupations, especially with translating the books of the Bible, most necessary works, lest I myself should promote the ends of Satan by my too great zeal in refuting him; for Satan by these senseless books thinks to hinder me, but he will not succeed.

Conclusion
The English of Grisar's Luther quote uses "doing way" with the mass.  Grisar's German text uses "abzuschaffen." Buchanan though renders it "triumphed over the Mass" (note the Latin word, "Triumphata" in the original). The Grisar versions, using the words they do,  may give off the false impression that Luther sought to completely abolish the mass, in general. Rather though, in context, it's Rome's version of the mass that's been triumphed over. That's the intended meaning, which is why Grisar prefaces the quote with, "One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice." What Luther was arguing against were specific abuses heaped on the mass by Rome. Luther believed he was defending the integrity of the "chief sacrament" (see the context above).

This particular defender of Rome went on to cite Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle stating, "It is also generally known with what guile Luther and Melanchthon bore themselves in doing away with the Mass." Denifle though, does not expound on this. Oddly, this Roman defender went on to claim of Luther, "If you do away the Real Presence you've done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously changing the meaning of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one." For this Roman polemicist, unless it's transubstantiation, it's the symbolic view. He need only visit the Smalcald Articles to gain correction, or any number of other Roman Catholic apologists that use Luther's view to prove he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Luther: "Pure devilry is urging on the peasants…Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them..."

Here's something from the CARM Lutheran discussion forum, submitted by someone against Lutherans and Martin Luther:

If Only The Good Old Days Were Here Today

09-26-18, 09:42 AM

The founder of your religion would not tolerate people disagreeing with him.........don’t you Lutherans long for the good old days ?
Regarding peasants opposed to him and the leaders that favored him, notice what Martin Luther advised:

Pure devilry is urging on the peasants…Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel. You must kill him as you would a mad dog… 

The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay as long as they can raise a finger…It may be that those who are killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God’s cause. A happier death no man could die. The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying (Luther M. Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants, May 4, 1525-Erl, 24, 287, ff. As cited in O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, p. 232).

This concoction of quotes blames Martin Luther for killing the peasants during their revolt. The detractor takes it one step further by sniping, "...don't you Lutherans long for the good old days?" as if, modern-day Lutherans long for the medieval mentality of suppressing civil disobedience and rebellion with severe force. Let's take a look at these quotes and the historical situation that surrounds them. We'll see that these quotes we're culled together from a much larger context, a context that was ignored, as was the historical events that provoked them.

Documentation
Two quotes are provided, both are said to come from "Erl, 24, 287, ff, As cited in O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, p. 232." "O'Hare PF" refers to Father Patrick O'Hare, author of the book, The Facts About Luther. Father O'Hare belongs to the Roman Catholic tradition of destructive criticism of the Protestant Reformation. I doubt the person who posted the quotes actually utilized O'Hare's book. A simple Google search reveals a few web-pages use the same exact quotes and documentation. I suspect the web-page which originally mined these quotes (with this documentation) was either this one or this one.

There's actually a typo in the quote, consistent on all the web-pages I found using it: "devilry" should actually be, "deviltry" (according to O'Hare, that's the word he used, though he himself made a typo here, see below).  The source provided refers to the 1987 reprint of Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Publishers). There,  Father O'Hare states (cf. earlier edition),

At this juncture he wrote a terrible tract entitled, "Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants" (Erl. 24, 287, ff.) to urge the civil authorities to crush the revolution. This tract was issued about May 4, 1525. In a copy preserved at the British Museum, London, we find these heartless words: "Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants; they rob and rage and behave like mad dogs." "Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel. You must kill him as you would a mad dog; if you do not fall upon him, he will fall upon you and the whole land."

In this tract Luther claims that the peasants are not fighting for his new teaching, nor serving the evangel. "They," he says, "serve the devil under the appearance of the evangel ... I believe that the devil feels the approach of the Last Day and therefore has recourse to such unheard of trickery . . . Behold what a powerful prince the devil is, how he holds the world in his hands, and can knead it as he pleases." "I think there is not a single devil now left in Hell, but they have all gone into the peasants, The raging is exceedingly great and beyond all measure."

He therefore calls upon the princes to exert their authority with all their might. "Whatever peasants," he says, "are killed in the fray, are lost body and soul and are the devil's own for all eternity. The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay so long as they can raise a finger: Thou, O God, must judge and act. It may be that whoever is killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God's cause. A happier death no man could die. The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven by spilling blood easier than another person can by praying."

Father O'Hare cites "Erl. 24, 287, ff." This refers to volume 24 of  Dr. Martin Luther's Sämmtliche werke. Page 287 can be found here.  The "ff" refers to the beginning of the treatise (Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants, May 4, 1525), not the exact location of the quotes. The reason why O'Hare used this vague reference is that he may have unintentionally plagiarized a long section from the English translation of Hartmann Grisar's Luther biography, almost word for word, yet leaving out Grisar's extensive documentation. For more on O'Hare's use of Grisar, see Addendum #1 below.

In order to demonstrate the spurious nature of the quotes presented on the CARM boards, we'll work through it line by line, demonstrating the sentences were sifted from seven pages of text, then boiled down into two small paragraphs. The first phrase, "Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants" appears to be from the first paragraph of the treatise on page 288. Luther is actually referring to Thomas Müntzer as the archdevil (Erzteufel) stirring up the peasants. The next two sentences of the quote ("Therefore let all who are able... You must kill him as you would a mad dog") are on page 290:

The next sentence is interesting: "The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay as long as they can raise a finger." O'Hare cites it as a direct statement from Luther. However, he appears to have made an error in using Grisar. Grisar says, "The authorities must resolve to 'chastise and slay' so long as they can raise a finger..." The only actual words Grisar cites from Luther here are "chastise and slay." Grisar appears to have based this on page 291, probably providing a summary statement of his interpretation of Luther's words. In this section Luther is referring to secular rulers who have a duty to maintain civil order and punish rebels. It appears to me Grisar may be citing "Therefore I will punish and smite as long as my heart beats. You will be the judge and make things right” (LW 46:53), because the very next section is in regard to martyrdom.

The sentence, "It may be that those who are killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God’s cause" is found  on page 293:

The sentence, "A happier death no man could die" is found on page 294:

The sentence, "The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying" can be found on page 293 (a page earlier than the previous sentence!):

This German text all of this comes from is entitled, Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (1525). It can also be found in WA 18:344-361. It has been translated into English, entitled, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. It can be found in the Philadelphia Edition Volume 4,  and also in LW 46:43-55. Below is the entire translation from the Philadelphia edition, pp. 245-254.

Context

In the former book I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be set right and to be instructed, and Christ’s commands, in Matthew 7:1, says that we are not to judge. But before I look around they go on, and, forgetting their offer, they betake themselves to violence, and rob and rage and act like mad dogs. By this it is easy to see what they had in their false minds, and that the pretenses which they made in their twelve articles, under the name of the Gospel, were nothing but lies. It is the devil’s work that they are at, and in particular it is the work of the archdevil who rules at Muhlhausen, and does nothing else than stir up robbery, murder, and bloodshed; as Christ says of him in John 8:44, “He was a murderer from the beginning.” Since, then, these peasants and wretched folk have let themselves be led astray, and do otherwise than they have promised, I too must write of them otherwise than I have written, and begin by setting their sin before them, as God commands Isaiah and Ezekiel, on the chance that some of them may learn to know themselves. Then I must instruct the rulers how they are to conduct themselves in these circumstances.

The peasants have taken on themselves the burden of three terrible sins against God and man, by which they have abundantly merited death in body and soul. In the first place they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers, as Christ commands, when He says, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and in Romans 13:2, “Let everyone be subject unto the higher powers.” Because they are breaking this obedience, and are setting themselves against the higher powers, willfully and with violence, they have forfeited body and soul, as faithless, perjured, lying, disobedient knaves and scoundrels are wont to do. St. Paul passed this judgment on them in Romans 13, when he said, that they who resist the power will bring a judgment upon themselves. This saying will smite the peasants sooner or later, for it is God’s will that faith be kept and duty done.

In the second place, they are starting a rebellion, and violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs, by which they have a second time deserved death in body and soul, if only as highwaymen and murderers. Besides, any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well. For if a man is an open rebel every man is his judge and executioner, just as when a fire starts, the first to put it out is the best man. For rebellion is not simple murder, but is like a great fire, which attacks and lays waste a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land full of murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the greatest 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.

In the third place, they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the Gospel, call themselves “Christian brethren,” receive oaths and homage, and compel people to hold with them to these abominations. Thus they become the greatest of all blasphemers of God and slanderers of His holy Name, serving the devil, under the outward appearance of the Gospel, thus earning death in body and soul ten times over. I have never heard of more hideous sin. I suspect that the devil feels the Last Day coming and therefore undertakes such an unheard-of act, as though saying to himself, “This is the last, therefore it shall be the worst; I will stir up the dregs and knock out the bottom.” God will guard us against him! See what a mighty prince the devil is, how he has the world in his hands and can throw everything into confusion, when he can so quickly catch so many thousands of peasants, deceive them, blind them, harden them, and throw them into revolt, and do with them whatever his raging fury undertakes.

It does not help the peasants, when they pretend that, according to Genesis 1 and 2, all things were created free and common, and that all of us alike have been baptized. For under the New Testament Moses does not count; for there stands our Master, Christ, and subjects us, with our bodies and our property, to the emperor and the law of this world, when He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Paul, too, says, in Romans 13:1, to all baptized Christians, “Let every man be subject to the power,” and Peter says, “Be subject to every ordinance of man.” By this doctrine of Christ we are bound to live, as the Father commands from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son; hear him.” For baptism does not make men free in body and property, but in soul; and the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4:32. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others, — of a Pilate and a Herod, — should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men’s goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.

Since the peasants, then, have brought both God and man down upon them and are already so many times guilty of death in body and soul, since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict, but only rage on, I must instruct the worldly governors how they are to act in the matter with a clear conscience.

First. I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgment. For 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 heathen rulers have the right and power to punish; nay, it is their duty to punish them, for it is just for this purpose that they bear the sword, and are “the ministers of God upon him that doeth evil.”

But if the ruler is a Christian and tolerates the Gospel, so that the peasants have no appearance of a case against him, he should proceed with fear. First he must take the matter to God, confessing that we have deserved these things, and remembering that God may, perhaps, have thus aroused the devil as a punishment upon all Germany. Then he should humbly pray for help against the devil, for “we are battling not only against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the air,” and this must be attacked with prayer. Then, when our hearts are so turned to God that we are ready to let His divine will be done, whether He will or will not have us to be princes and lords, we must 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 grasp the sword.

For a prince and lord must remember in this case that he is God’s minister and the servant of His wrath ( Romans 13:4), to whom the sword is committeed for use upon such fellows, and that he sins as greatly against God, if he does not punish and protect and does not fulfill the duties of his office, as does one to whom the sword has not been committed when he commits a murder. If he can punish and does not — even though the punishment consist in the taking of life and the shedding of blood — then he is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these fellows commit, because, by willful neglect of the divine command, he permits them to practice their wickedness, though he can prevent it, and is in duty bound to do so. Here, then, there is no time for sleeping; no place for patience or mercy. It is the time of the sword, not the day of grace.

The rulers, then, should go on unconcerned, and with a good conscience lay about them as long as their hearts still beat. It is to their advantage that the peasants have a bad conscience and an unjust cause, and that any peasant who is killed is lost in body and soul and is eternally the devil’s.

But the rulers have a good conscience and a just cause; and can, therefore, say to God with all assurance of heart, “Behold, my God, you have appointed me prince or lord, of this I can have no doubt; and Thou hast committed to me the sword over the evildoers ( Romans 13:4). It is Thy Word, and cannot lie. I must fulfill my office, or forfeit Thy grace. It is also plain that these peasants have deserved death many times over, in Thine eyes and the eyes of the world, and have been committed to me for punishment. If it be Thy will that I be slain by them, and that my rulership be taken from me and destroyed, so be it: Thy will be done. So shall I die and be destroyed fulfilling Thy commandment and Thy Word, and shall be found obedient to Thy commandment and my office. Therefore will I punish and smite as long as my heart beats. Thou wilt judge and make things right.”

Thus it may be that one who is killed fighting on the ruler’s side may be a true martyr in the eyes of God, if he fights with such a conscience as I have just described, for he is in God’s Word and is obedient to Him. On the other hand, one who perishes on the peasants’ side is an eternal brand of hell, for he bears the sword against God’s Word and is disobedient to Him, and is a member of the devil. And even though it happen that the peasants gain the upper hand (which God forbid!) — for to God all things are possible, and we do not know whether it may be His will, through the devil, to destroy all order and rule and cast the world upon a desolate heap, as a prelude to the Last Day, which cannot be far off — nevertheless, they may die without worry and go to the scaffold with a good conscience, who are found exercising their office of the sword. They may leave to the devil the kingdom of the world, and take in exchange the everlasting kingdom. Strange times, these, when a prince can win heaven with bloodshed, better than other men with prayer!

Finally, there is another thing that ought to move the rulers. The peasants are not content to be themselves the devil’s own, but they force and compel many good people against their wills to join their devilish league, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation.

For anyone who consents to what they do, goes to the devil with them, and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit; though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he does not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths, rather than give a hair’s breadth of consent to the peasants’ cause. O how many martyrs could now be made by the bloodthirsty peasants and the murdering prophets! 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, there would be reason enough, and more than enough, in this — that thus 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 who must be damned. For truly these souls are in purgatory; nay, 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! Stab, smite, slay, whoever can. If you die in doing it, well for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die in obeying the divine Word and commandment in Romans 13, 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 think this too hard, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour.

Conclusion
The above analysis reveals the two quotes were culled from the entire treatise, spanning all seven pages of Erl. 24. Some of the words quoted by O'Hare were not even Luther's, but rather those of Hartmann Grisar ("The authorities must resolve to...  so long as they can raise a finger...").  The last sentence cited by O'Hare ("The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying") actually occurs in the text previous to the one cited before it ( "A happier death no man could die").

This charge of plagiarism is not tangential. O'Hare's book is pure propaganda. I could provide a number of instances in which this source mis-cites and misquotes Luther. O'Hare bludgeons history, presenting a ridiculous caricature of Luther and the Reformation. Along then comes someone using this tainted source, sifting out a few sentences, then placarding them as direct quotes on a web-page. completely unaware of the nefarious construction of the material, and further perpetuating poor history.

In regard to the historical events surrounding this quote: Luther's harsh advise in this treatise came out after the rebellion had begun. "Against The Robbing And Murdering Mobs of Peasants" was delayed in printing. The princes were already in progress of using their force to kill the peasants to suppress their revolt. Luther's intent was to have this book published in one volume along with the earlier treatise, the Admonition To Peace. This earlier treatise considered the plight of the peasants, and exhorted the princes to consider the unstable state of affairs their rule helped create. The Admonition was directed towards good peasants, while the newer treatise was directed toward the bad peasants. In Against the Robbing and Murdering Mobs of Peasants, Luther states: "...any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well" or as LW 46:50 states similarly, "...anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor..." Luther's intent therefore, was not simply to have the authorities suppress all the peasants, but rather, those that were breaking the law.  

Richard Marius stated in his book Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, "The nobles did not require Luther to urge them to massacre; they were entirely capable of inspiring themselves to the bloody business that they pursued for several months" (p.432). Marius goes on to state, "Luther was not responsible for these atrocities. Yet to many people, the timing of his diatribe against the peasants made him seem a cause of the slaughter that followed." (p.432). Marius also points out that in Luther's follow-up defense of his harsh book, he condemned the killing of both the guilty and innocent together after the princes were already victorious. "Luther raged against the tyranny of the nobles in books and pamphlets over the next year or so and blamed their merciless conduct for continued peasant unrest" (p.433).

That Luther's Admonition To Peace is rarely brought up by cyber-criticizers of Luther is a good indication of bias. That is, why don't rulers get blamed for not following Luther's points in this earlier treatise? If Luther's words had the power of life and death over the peasants, why was the Admonition To Peace so ineffective in controlling those rulers who are said to be so motivated by Luther words? Obviously, Luther's words were not as crucial and important to the rulers as some make them out to be.

If one wants to chastise Luther, it would be for the harshness of his words against the peasants. Yes, I'm sure certain rulers found it comforting that Luther agreed with their cause to suppress the peasants (like Philip of Hesse). On the other hand, one must seriously ask what would've happened to the peasants had not Luther wrote against them? My gut feeling is they would've been slaughtered all the same. So, if they were to be killed anyway, what then was the actual force of Luther's harsh book?

Some argue, guilt by association. Luther agreed the peasants should be suppressed, and they were, so Luther was part of the problem, rather than the solution. It's a bit naive though to think somehow a person living in a peaceful country, hundreds of years later, can actually determine the guilt of Luther's writings in the entire 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. I would posit the same people criticizing Luther now, would be the first to buy his book Against the Robbing and Murdering Mobs of Peasants, and ask Luther to autograph it. It is indeed ironic that we can be extremely critical of a situation we have never faced, but then, thrust into such a situation, we learn what it is to actually be in that situation.

Addendum #1 O"Hare's Use of Hartmann Grisar
While checking O'Hare's book it was blatantly obvious he heavily utilized a large section of text from volume 2 of the English edition of Hartmann Grisar's massive biography of Luther. O'Hare mentions and directly cites Grisar on the top of page 236 and  also mentions his use of Grisar on page 238. He begins his extensive use of Grisar at the bottom of the page beginning with the words, "Pure deviltry..." (Grisar though, used the word, "devilry"). Simply compare O'Hare page 236 and following with Grisar, the bottom of page 201 and following. At one point, O'Hare attempted to change a few words of Grisar's. For instance, Grisar says on page 202, "He therefore invites the authorities to intervene with all their strength." O'Hare changes this to, "He therefore calls upon the princes to exert their authority with all their might" (p.237).

Addendum #2
The discussion on CARM that provoked this entry was deleted by the moderators. The person who began the discussion was suspended and banned for bad behavior. 

Luther Broke His Solemn Religious Vows and Got Married?

Here's a snippet from the Catholic Answers forums discussion, "Did Martin Luther allow divorce?":

Well, considering [Luther] broke his solemn Religious vows and induced a consecrated nun to break her solemn Religious vows to ‘marry’ him I would presume that he did not take serious the ‘vows’ of sacramental marriage.

Rome's defenders have discussed Luther rejecting his vows for years. The Catholic Answers folks went through this some years back, as did the Defenders of the Catholic Faith. Under the heading, "Luther Perverts Morality," the Catholic Family News blog states, "Luther, an ordained priest and consecrated Augustinian religious, broke his vow of celibacy and married a nun, also under the vow of celibacy. Luther encouraged many other priests and religious to break their vows and marry." Going beyond contemporary online banter, Father William Most (via EWTN) stated,

Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) 5.4-5: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it." Luther broke all his vows. 

Father Patrick O'Hare stated long ago, "...we cannot forget that Luther, in order to wed, had to commit an act of infidelity towards God and disregard his vow of celibacy. No excuse can be offered to palliate or condone his infidelity." Denifle stated, Luther had "broken his vows and misled others." A letter to the Catholic Magazine from 1831 stated, "An Augustinian monk, broke his vow of chastity made to God, seduced Catherine Boren, a nun, who was under the same vow, and lived with her to the end of his life." Many more examples could be provided, from either laymen or published Roman Catholic works, spanning the centuries.

During the recent Catholic Answers discussion, this bit of Luther-bashing was answered cleverly by a Lutheran participant here. He stated in part,

Luther was released from his religious vows by his father confessor, Johann von Staupitz, who did so in order to protect both himself and Father Martin. Had Luther remained under his charge, Staupitz would’ve been both responsible for Luther’s future actions and required to turn him over to the authorities. No father would want any part in the (what was then assumed to be imminent) death of his son.

From a broad Protestant worldview, Luther abandoned an unbiblical illegitimate vow, so Rome's defenders can cry foul all they want to.  But, If indeed Staupitz released Luther from his religious vows, then according to their own worldview,  Rome's defenders have no grounds against Luther for marrying. Let's explore this and look at the proof for the assertion that Luther was released from his vows.

Documentation

I did ask for documentation. I was directed to Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, page 197. Oberman states, 

Oberman documents this, "Cf. Th. Kolde, Augustiner-Congregation, 321. Cf. Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f." "Kolde" refers to German Protestant theologian,  Theodor von Kolde (1850-1913). "Augustiner-Congregation" refers to his book, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation und Johann von Staupitz; ein Beitrag zur Ordens- und Reformationsgeschichte nach meistens ungedruckten Quellen. Here is page 321. Kolde states,

Kolde here doesn't add anything all that different than Oberman. The second reference, "Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f" refers to page 443 of Kolde's book which provides the Staupitz letter being alluded to. The letter has been translated into English by Preserved Smith and can be found here. There is nothing in this letter that specifically states Staupitz release Luther from his vows.

I was also informed, "Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. " So, let's take a look at two of the most popular Luther biographies in English. Let's look first at Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. On page 96, Bainton states:

Staupitz released Luther from his vow of obedience to the order. He may have wished to relieve the Augustinians of the onus, or he may have sought to unfetter the friar, but Luther felt that he had been disclaimed. "I was excommunicated three times," he said later, "first by Staupitz, secondly by the pope, and thirdly by the emperor."

Bainton provides two references: "Koestlin-Kaweru, 211" and "TR, 225, 409." The first refers to
"Kostlin, Julius and Kawerau, Georg. Martin Luther. I and II (1903)." Here is page 211 from volume I. This source states,

This information is basically the same as that reported by Oberman. The paragraph ends with the Staupitz release, "Ich absolviere Dich von meiner Obedienz und befehle Dich Gott dem Herrn" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God). There are a number of footnotes. BR 1, 541 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz, January 14, 1521, but nothing in that letter says that Staupitz absolved Luther. "Diet. 158" refers to Veit Dietrich's collection of Table Talk utterances (this will be discussed below). "St Kr 1878" refers to Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1878, page 705, in which footnote 1 refers to Veit Dietrich's Table Talk statement of Staupitz's absolution of Luther "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God) (see below).

Bainton's second reference, "TR, 225, 409" refers to two of Luther's Table Talk comments. The first is entry 225 in WATR 1. This entry has been included in LW 54:30,

No. 225: Luther “Excommunicated” Three Times Between April 7 and 15, 1532
 “Three times have I been excommunicated. The first time was by Dr. Staupitz, who absolved me from the observance and rule of the Augustinian Order so that, if the pope pressed him to imprison me or command me to be silent, he could excuse himself on the ground that I was not under his obedience. The second time was by the pope and the third time was by the emperor. Consequently I cannot be accused of laying aside my habit, and I am now silent by divine authority alone.”

The second entry, 409, from WATR 1, 177, is another accounting of the same information, but includes the words from Staupitz, "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God):

Second, let's look at Martin Brecht's massive biography of Luther. He states,

Brecht cites "Kolde 443" (explained above), and "WA, TR 1, nos. 884, 1203." These also refer to Table Talk utterances. Here is 884 and 1203. Both of these repeat the same sentiment documented in the previously mentioned Table Talk quotes.  "Scheuris Briejbuch 2:52" refers to a letter and can be found here. Nothing on this page mentions the release of Luther from his monastic vows. WA Br 2:245 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz January 14, 1521 (explained above).

Conclusion
Granted, I only checked three popular English sources. Of these three, the consensus is that Luther was released from his monastic vows as documented by the Table Talk. Unfortunately, the Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. 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, or some probable historical fact mentioned elsewhere. In this instance, it does seem quite likely that Staupitz probably did release Luther from his monastic vows, but none of the references I checked above verify this other than via the Table Talk. Even LW 31 says,  "When Staupitz heard a rumor to the effect that Cajetan was planning to arrest Luther and him, he absolved Luther of his monastic vow and left Augsburg without bidding the cardinal farewell" (LW 31:257). That rumor is verified by a letter from Staupitz himself: "He says also that there is in the land a letter of the General against Luther. Dr. Peutinger has heard that it is also against me, with the purpose of throwing us in prison and using force against us. God be our guard!" Unfortunately, the letter does not say anything about releasing Luther from his vows.  The fact though of this release from Staupitz seems generally accepted, even by those unfavorable Luther. For instance, Hartmann Grisar stated,

Staupitz, who had stood by him at Augsburg, dispensed him for the journey from any part of the Rule which might have proved to his disadvantage, even from the wearing of the Augustinian habit. This Superior had again shown himself at Augsburg as a man of half-measures who allowed his prejudice for Luther to outweigh the demands of the Church and of his Order.  

And also:

It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther "from the observance" has nothing whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says : "me absolvit ab observantia et regula ordinis." (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. 96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken thus of his having been absolved from the " observance." It may be that Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit.

I'm not exactly sure how Grisar arrived at the interpretation he did based one quote from the Table Talk , that Staupitz meant only to release Luther "from dressing as a monk, etc." This seems to be a reading into the sparse historical facts. Regardless of Grisar's spin, his comments demonstrate that the Table Talk is generally accepted on this issue. 

Echoing Grisar, Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset says we should not be so quick to think Luther no longer considered himself an Augustinian after his release from Staupitz:

If in fact Staupitz did release Luther from his vows, whether or not Luther considered himself an Augustinian is besides the point. There's one other aspect to this that should also be mentioned in closing. I know of no instances in which Luther argued his marriage was legitimate because he was released from his vows.

I've chastised Rome's defenders for a number of years for putting the wrong value on the Table Talk. Unless I find some other historical evidence beyond that source arguing Luther was released from his vows, I would only use such reasoning tentatively in applying it to Luther's later marriage. On the other hand, since many of Rome's defenders put the wrong historical value on the Table Talk, why not use the argument? Using the argument would be reasoning according to their worldview!