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.

John Calvin: “It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell”

Here's a John Calvin quote that appears on a number of web-pages:

Calvin wrote King Henry VIII, "It is better to burn a few [Anabaptists] at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell."

This particular version of this quote comes from the web-page, Fathers of the Reformation put together by a fringe group referring to themselves as "The Twelve Tribes." They assert Calvin had a "reign of terror" in Geneva, which is perhaps the least of their charges hurled at Calvin. The quote is typically found in similar polemical web-pages critical of Calvin's view of capital punishment for heresy. The quote can actually be found here on this blog, left by an anonymous comment back in 2007! We'll take a closer look at this quote to see what (if anything) Calvin wrote to King Henry VIII. We'll see that the quote may be spurious. If it's something John Calvin actually wrote, there's very little evidence to support it.

Documentation
As far as I can tell, all the on-line uses of this quote stem from one source: the 1986 book, Renaissance and Reformation by William Estep. Estep was an authority in Anabaptist history and in no way a supporter of either Calvin or Calvinism (see his article here in which he claims Calvinist  doctrines lead to a "dunghill").  On page 241, the author states:

The author includes a footnote for the quote:

The careful reader will notice the footnote does not necessarily say the quote in question was taken from Balke's book, only that Calvin's "harsh attitude" is "delineated." While I currently have this book on order,  it does not appear the quote comes from this source. Google provides two different searchable versions of this book (here and here). Neither appears to provide any such quote. [Update: There is no such quote found on pages '329-32" of Balke's book. These pages comprise of an "Epilogue"]. 

The next avenue to pursue is Calvin's correspondence with King Henry VIII. Henry was king from 1509 until 1547 which would overlap with some periods of Calvin's reforming work (particularly the years 1536-1547). I didn't recall that Calvin had ever written to Henry VIII (or, vice versa). Typically it's Luther's interactions with Henry that garner the most attention. I checked the extant editions of Calvin's letters available to me, and I could find no evidence that Calvin corresponded with King Henry VIII. Even a simple Google search of the terms "John Calvin" and "Henry VIII" did not produce any information about their correspondence.  I'm not the first to come up empty looking for this quote. This author refers to Estep's Calvin quote and states, "Ein solches Schreiben konnten wir bisher nicht finden."


Conclusion
First, I find it very suspicious that the correspondence of two infamous people, King Henry VIII and John Calvin, would be so obscure, particularly in this age of Internet information. This leads to me to question if any such correspondence actually exists.

Second, given the hostile polemic against Calvin that's gone on for centuries, I also find it very suspicious that such a Calvin quote as "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell" would be so obscure. Calvin's detractors have sifted his work over and over, searching for any nugget that would paint him a the tyrant of Geneva. Only one person found this tidbit? That's really difficult to believe.  It's true that Estep was knowledgeable in Anabaptist history, so this sort of blunder is also peculiar given his pedigree.

Third, according to Beveridge and Bonnet, "Calvin condemned with great severity the spiritual tyranny of Henry the Eighth, and the endeavours of that prince to substitute a sanguinary imperial popedom for that of Rome." Consider Calvin's statement about Henry VIII in his commentary on Hosea:

In short, the reformation under Jehu was like that under Henry King of England; who, when he saw that he could not otherwise shake off the yoke of the Roman Antichrist than by some disguise, pretended great zeal for a time: he afterwards raged cruelly against all the godly, and doubled the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff: and such was Jehu.

He goes on to say:

When we duly consider what was done by Henry, it was indeed an heroic valour to deliver his kingdom from the hardest of tyrannies: but yet, with regard to him, he was certainly worse than all the other vassals of the Roman Antichrist; for they who continue under that bondage, retain at least some kind of religion; but he was restrained by no shame from men, and proved himself wholly void of every fear towards God. He was a monster, (homo belluinus — a beastly man) and such was Jehu.

These negative comments about Henry VIII do not necessarily prove that Calvin would not offer him counsel on suppressing anabaptists, but it does suggest that Calvin did not have an amicable relationship of counsel with the king, as Estep's quote suggests, that Calvin made recommendations to the king for the benefit of "other Englishmen."

Finally, lest I be chastised for missing the forest for the trees, yes, it is true that Calvin believed in the death penalty for heresy. In his letter to the Protector Somerset (October 22, 1548) Calvin states, 

From what I am given to understand, Monseigneur, there are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne, and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty.

Calvin's support of capital punishment goes beyond the scope of this entry. My concern here is with a particular quote that I believe paints Calvin in a worse light than I think is fair. Calvin is purported to have flippantly said, "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell." If Calvin really did say such a thing, I'd like to see the proof.  I'm going to keep an active search for this quote, until more proof emerges, I remain skeptical.