Luther: "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow."

Did Martin Luther think his preaching (and that of his collogues) made things worse for the people of Germany? Luther is quoted as saying, 

"The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow" (Walch XII, 2120).

This sparse quote has been used as proof of the failure of the Reformation or something like Luther's regret or concession to the failure of the Reformation, etc. I've documented a number of these Martin Luther quotes here and here. 

From a cursory search, the quote is most often taken from the old book, Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works (1884), p. 55.  The author, Henry O'Connor, used the quote to describe the "Results of Luther's Teaching," specifically the "Moral Results" that there was a "Lower State of General Morality." This Roman Catholic source (from roughly the same time period as O'Connor) uses it as part of a cumulative case proof that "Christianity without the confessional bore the following fruits, according to Luther's own statement: neglect of the poor and of the sick; sad state of the youth; increase of drunkenness; increase of the number of suicides; lower state of general morality." Fast forward to 2009, this seeming defender of Rome uses it to demonstrate Luther's "irrational state." This Roman Catholic blogger in 2017 regurgitated this quote (along with other statements from O'Connor's book) declaring the information from O'Connor is "favorable to the truth seeker." 

Was Luther admitting the failure of his preaching? Was he admitting that his preaching made people worse? Did he regret the Reformation? Let's take a look and find out! 

Documentation

Stating the obvious: Luther's original writings were in German and Latin.  As far as I can determine, Henry O'Connor appears to be responsible for this particular English rendering (he says, "In every single case the translation from the German or the Latin is my own"). There is another English version (from yet another hostile Roman Catholic source), J. Verras, Luther an Historical Portrait: "The more and the longer the Evangelium is preached, the worse things are getting." Verras also seems to be responsible for his particular English rendering: "The prospect of having to devote many months to going through [Luther's] voluminous and frequently disgusting books was anything but cheerful..."(p.I). One older meaningful polemical source using this quote is a German text:  Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger's Die reformation vol. 1, p. 301-302, "Je mehr und länger es [das Evangelium] geprebigt wird, je ärger wirb ed") (cf. French text).

Both O'Connor and Verras cite "Walch XII. 2120." This is a sermon on Romans 13:11-14 (Nov. 27, 1530). The sentence reads, "Aber je mehr und das Evangelium , daruin ſollen wir nicht länger es gepredigt wird , je ärger wird es." Notice the word, "Evangelium." Verras's English translation is more authentic to the meaning of the text: "The more and the longer the Evangelium is preached, the worse things are getting."  O'Connor has left out "Evangelium" (Gospel).  O'Connor does say, "Not a single second-hand quotation is to be found from beginning to end of my little work." Either O'Connor left a significant word out of his translation, or he took the quote from a secondary source.   It would not surprise me to discover O'Connor and Verras both mined the quote out of  Döllinger's Die reformation vol. 1 (or someone using that source).  Döllinger was unapologetically hostile to Luther and influential in Roman Catholic historical studies in the nineteenth century. Verras does reference Döllinger a number of times.  Many older German sources use parentheses on the word "Evangelium."  Did O'Connor use a secondary source and left the bracketed word "Evangelium" out, thinking it not important to the text? 

Besides Walch XII, the quote can be found in a slightly different form in WA 32:219 ("Aber je mehr und länger es gepredigt wird, je ärger wirds").  There is no "official" English translation of this sermon that I'm aware of. An inferior computer-generated English translation can be found here.  O'Connor says, “I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context” (p.5). We'll see that the context does demonstrate a different meaning with the word "Evangelium" left out.

Context

It's helpful to see exactly what Biblical text Luther was preaching on. Romans 13:11-14 states, 

 And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

Paul is blatantly exhorting his readers to Godly living. It should not be surprising therefore that Luther's sermon on this passage does the same thing! Luther's entire sermon gives strong attention to exhorting Christians to reflect Christ in their lives: to live a life outwardly that reflects what has been done inwardly to the heart. There should be no slumbering in regard to the Christian life. One should think of Jesus Christ as the master of the Christian household. Christ says to his servants: rise up and do your appointed work! 

 "Salvation is nearer now" because Christ has come and the Gospel is being preached. The Jews of the Old Testament had only the promise of the coming Gospel, Christians have the fulfillment of the Gospel. Therefore, now is the time to put away sinful living. It is the time to live as people transformed by the Gospel. If someone claims to be a Christian, yet their life dishonors the gospel, that person dishonors God. Similarly, if a society in general claims to be Christian but lives immorally, it should not come as any surprise if God punishes that society, especially if the gospel is being clearly preached. The more the gospel is preached to people claiming to be Christians that continue in immorally, the worse God's punishment against that person or society will be. Hence the quote, "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow."  As an example, Luther mentions those in 1 Corinthians 11 that were partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner and were being stricken will illness. The "worse matters" are God's punishment! Luther chastises those specifically who use their freedom to practice Christianity without persecution ("Dieweil jeßt der Bann abgetban ift") but maintain blatantly sinful lifestyles. He ends his chastisement particularly at them: "Wem zu sagen ist, dem ist gnug gefagt."

Conclusion

Henry O'Connor did translate Luther in a sense other than what the primary source originally stated: he left out the key word, "Evangelium." In O'Connor's contextless version, Luther appears to be lamenting he and his colleagues collected preaching efforts: "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow." One sees a societal picture of sinking ship, Germany going to moral ruins with Luther in utter despondency of his failed efforts. This is not what the text said. Rather, what Luther preached is that the proclamation of the Gospel makes things worse for people if they live blatantly sinful lifestyles. God will bring judgment on people that either besmirch the Gospel, abuse their Christian freedom, or claim to be Evangelicals while living in open grievous sin.  

The context does not warrant the conclusions of some of Rome's defenders, that this sermon was a lament of the moral failures of Luther's ministry or that there was a "Lower State of General Morality." Luther was in no way regretting... anything. He was not bemoaning that his failed preaching was having a devastating effect on society. Rather, he was exhorting his hearers to godly living (just like Paul), and even says that his point is directed at those who do not demonstrate godly living. 

In Luther's eschatology, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. 

Luther: "Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry"

Here's a Luther tidbit from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry.” - Martin Luther (Tischr, II, c. 20 S, 3)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion: divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir.  This same person who posted this quote commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either an historical or actual context!

It appears the point of posting this quote was to show Luther's evil of telling people lacking the desire for sex to get married, this to spite the pope. We'll see this quote comes from a less than reliable source, and in fact, is not something Luther actually wrote. The comment, if Luther made it at all, was a polemical off-the-cuff remark written down and edited by someone else, then published after Luther died. In Luther's actual writings, he says something quite different about the same subject.   

Documentation
While the person who posted this quote did provide a reference, it's far more probable the quote was taken from a secondary source: Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther. Notice the obvious similarities to what was posted on the Catholic Answers forum:

The motives which Luther urged to induce all to enter wedlock were evidently far from being in accord with those which the Almighty intended in the consecration of the union of both sexes. But as he held matrimony to be a worldly thing, denied its sacramental character and refused to acknowledge it to be a type of that great sacrament, which is between Christ and His Church, we need not be astonished that he urges an additional motive to those already advanced for maintaining the obligation of marriage. Here it is, genuinely stamped with the usual Lutheran brand and bearing the marks of the Reformer's abiding hatred against the Pope. To the single, he now cries out: "Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry." (Tischr. II, c. 20 S. 3.) Marry and spite the Pope. Do not mind whether you are called or not called to the married state. Rush into it. Do not weigh the consequences. The Pope insists on safe-guarding one of the evangelical counsels and he must not be suffered to do so longer. The way to weaken his influence and destroy his holy work is for all to marry. The motive was truly ingenious and in every way worthy of the inventive powers of the reformer. Needless to say, the strange advice was not generally heeded, for then and now most men have other and higher reasons than spiting the Pope for their entrance into married life.

I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done the equivalent of a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources, and in some instances, blatantly plagiarized those sources.  I suspect he lifted this quote from Luther: An Historical Portrait (1884) by a Roman Catholic author, J. Verres. Notice the similarities:

Nobody will be astonished, that spite against the Pope should be to Luther an additional motive for declaring and maintaining the necessity of marriage. "Though one may have the gift, to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the Clergy to marry." (54) A worthy motive in a Reformer"!

(54) Tischr. II. c. 20 § 3.  In the same place he says that he had fully made up his mind, in case of serious illness, to marry even on his deathbed, on principle, to honour the state of matrimony. 

The quote and reference used by O'Hare is an exact match to Verres (the English translation used by O'Hare was probably that done by Verres). As to the reference "Tischr. II. c. 20 S 3": Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836." Volume one of this set is available here. I have not been able to locate volume two, however, I was still able to locate what Verres was referring to. The text appears to be the following:

This Table Talk statement was taken from this source. It can also be found in WATR 2:332 (see entry  2129b).  LW did not include this statement in their English edition of the Table Talk. There is though a translation available in earlier English editions of the Table Talk.  In the context below, a statement from an unknown person is made about a preacher embracing celibacy, even though it be severely difficult. Luther then responds to the statement.

Context

FORASMUCH, as a Christian Preacher, for the word's sake, must suffer imprisonment and persecution, much more ought he to endure and bear the coelibatum, and unmarried life, and remain single, although it be irksome and grievous unto him. Luther hereupon said, A man may rather suffer bonds and imprisonment than burning, he that hath not the gift of chastity, the same prevaileth nothing with fasting, with watching, or other things that plague and torment the body, thereby thinking to live chastely. I have found it by experience (though I was not very sorely tempted therewith), that the more I chastised and tormented myself, and bridled my body, the more I was tempted; and besides, although one had the gift to live chastely and unmarried, yet he ought to take a wife in contradiction to the Pope, who forbiddeth the spiritual persons to marry; they are tricks and snares of the devil, whereby he goeth about to take from us the freedom of the Word. We must not only speak, and teach against the same, but we must also act against it, that is, we must marry, therewith to contradict and oppose the false and superstitious ordinances and decrees of the Pope; for I fully resolved thus with myself before I took a wife, that if, unexpectedly, I were taken ill, and likely to die, yet, nevertheless, in honour to the state of Matrimony, I would have caused myself to be betrothed to some honest maid, and for a marriage gift I would give unto her a couple of silver cups (source, and also here).

Conclusion
The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out to Rome's defenders that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. Contrarily though, Verres states:

It will be noticed that also on doctrinal points I have quoted from the Tabletalk, though not on any point exclusively from this source, and perhaps it will be thought that in so doing I have laid myself open to objection. It has been urged that, the Tabletalk not having been written by Luther himself, but having been compiled from the notes of persons who were in the habit of listening to him, nobody would go to a book of this sort for evidence on a man’s teaching. But, salvo meliori judicio, I think that the Tabletalk is a most important book. If we cannot trust to it, to get a proper idea of Luther's views, let no Englishman depend on Boswell for a faithful expression of the views of Johnson. Luther's disciples hung on their master's lips with greater devotion than the scottish laird on Johnson's. Like Boswell they have even recorded sayings, in which it is impossible to discover anything striking, mere platitudes. The reliability of the book appears also from the fact, that Lauterbach, whose notes are the chief source of it, put down his reminiscences day after day, as they were fresh in his memory. If the Tabletalk were in opposition to Luther's own books, we could not trust to it, but this is far from being the case. On the contrary, the official teaching of Luther finds further familiar illustrations in the Tabletalk, and the Tabletalk shows how seriously Luther meant even the most startling things which he said as, Evangelist".

Verres is right that the Table Talk has value and does contain truthful comments made by Luther as recorded by those devoted to him. On the other hand, because of its nature, its second hand nature, it is not entirely reliable as presenting Luther's "official teaching." Verres says it's reliability rests on  "the fact, that Lauterbach, whose notes are the chief source of it..." In actuality, Anthony Lauterbach is only responsible for a portion of the text, those utterances recorded between 1538-1539 (WA TR 3 and 4; entries 3683-4719). With the particular utterance in question, it "was collected though not necessarily recorded" by Conrad Cordatus between the years 1532-1533 (LW 54:169). LW also states that Cordatus "revised all the notes in his possession for the purpose of making stylistic improvements. Unfortunately this removed them a step further from what was actually said at the table..." (LW 54:169). Because of this, LW only used a small selection of statements from the Cordatus collection, leaving out entry 2129b.

Verres states, "If the Tabletalk were in opposition to Luther's own books, we could not trust to it..."  With this statement, that people having no issues with celibacy should still be married to spite the pope, Luther does say something different in his actual writings, as I've documented here and here.  For Luther chastity was a rare gift given only to few people. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:7, Luther states:

Why, furthermore, does he say: “I wish that all were as I myself am”? Is this not spoken against matrimony, as though he wanted no one to marry? True, Paul wishes that everyone might have the great gift of chastity so that he would be relieved of the labor and cares of marriage and might be concerned only with God and His Word, as he himself was. And who wouldn’t wish this for everyone, especially since Christian love desires all good things, both temporal and eternal, for everyone? Love knows no limits of the good it can do and desire, even though it be something impossible, as when Paul in Rom. 9:3 wishes himself cut off from Christ for the salvation of the Jews (LW 28:16)

This thought is in direct contradiction to O'Hare. He indicted Luther: "Marry and spite the Pope. Do not mind whether you are called or not called to the married state. Rush into it. Do not weigh the consequences." Rather, Luther's position was that chastity was a rare gift, and those with it are given it so they "might be concerned only with God and His Word" as the apostle Paul was.

Addendum
There are a number of reviews of  Luther: An Historical Portrait (1884) by J. Verres.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review, in that it is critical of the use of source material. 

Luther: Parents should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state, as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil.

Here's  a Luther tidbit from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“Parents should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state, as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil.” - Martin Luther (Wittemb. V, 124)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion: divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir.  This same person who posted this quote commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either an historical or actual context!

It appears the point of posting this quote was to show Luther's evil of telling parents not to allow their children to become monks or nuns. Perhaps in a Roman Catholic worldview, such is the case, but not in Luther's. We'll see this quote has the typical spurious pedigree that so plagues Roman Catholic produced Luther propaganda.


Documentation
While the person who posted this quote did provide a reference, it's far more probable the quote was taken from a secondary source: Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther. Notice the obvious similarities to what was posted on the Catholic Answers forum:

Christ, speaking of virginity, not by way of command, but by way of counsel, said, "he that can take it let him take it" and that His grace will be all-sufficient to overcome the infirmity of nature. Luther in unbounded blasphemy contradicts this Divine utterance. He will no longer acknowledge such preaching. He, the doctor of doctors, considers it all folly and declares most emphatically that "it is impossible for any one to live single and be continent." To his distorted mind the vow of chastity was an "impossible vow," "an abomination" and "worse than adultery." In his desire to abolish and get rid of it, he is not ashamed to appeal "to priests, monks and nuns, who find themselves capable of generation," to violate their sworn promises and abandon their freely chosen state of celibacy. Unless they follow his advice, he considers nothing remains for them but "to pass their days in inevitable self-gratification." "Parents," he said, "should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil." (Wittenb. V, 124.)

I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown more and more convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done the equivalent of a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources, and in some instances, blatantly plagiarized those sources.  I suspect he lifted this quote from Luther: An Historical Portrait By J. Verres. Notice the similarities with the words in bold text:

The conclusions, which Luther draws from his axiom, are (1) the assertion that the vow of chastity is an abomination, and (2) an appeal to the religious, to enter matrimony. "If priests, monks and nuns find themselves fit for generation, they must abandon their vows; if they do not, nothing remains for them, but inevitable impurity and fornication." Hence those parents, who advise their children to enter the religious state, offer them to the devil" (Satanae hoc modo tilios suos dicantes. Wittenb. V. 124). The vow of chastity is an impossible vow:...

If the words in bold text are not enough convincing proof, look at the way Father O'Hare simply rewrote two Luther quotes used by Verras in this paragraph:

Verres stated,

If priests, monks and nuns find themselves fit for generation, they must abandon their vows; if they do not, nothing remains for them, but inevitable impurity and fornication.

O'Hare rewrote this as:

In his desire to abolish and get rid of it, he is not ashamed to appeal "to priests, monks and nuns, who find themselves capable of generation," to violate their sworn promises and abandon their freely chosen state of celibacy. Unless they follow his advice, he considers nothing remains for them but "to pass their days in inevitable self-gratification." 

Verres stated,

Hence those parents, who advise their children to enter the religious state, offer them to the devil" (Satanae hoc modo tilios suos dicantes. Wittenb. V. 124).

O'Hare rewrote this as:

"Parents," he said, "should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil." (Wittenb. V, 124.)

In the later quote, notice the reference is the same. I've yet to come across any other English sources using "Wittenb. V. 124." Verres preceded O'Hare, and O'Hare quotes him elsewhere in his book. As to this reference, "Wittenb.," it refers to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's Works. This edition was the first attempt at collecting Luther's writings into a multi-volume set. When O'Hare and Verres refer to "Wittenb." they are referring to the Latin volumes, not the German volumes. Here is the Latin text from "Wittenb. V, 124:

This snippet is from Matrimonio, Sermo habitus Wittembergae (1522), otherwise known as Uom Eelichen Leben, in English rendered as The Estate of Marriage. This treatise has been translated into English. The quote can be found in LW 45:36.


Context

What we would speak most of is the fact that the estate of marriage has universally fallen into such awful disrepute. There are many pagan books which treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage, such that some have thought that even if Wisdom itself were a woman one should not marry. A Roman official was once supposed to encourage young men to take wives (because the country was in need of a large population on account of its incessant wars). Among other things he said to them, “My dear young men, if we could only live without women we would be spared a great deal of annoyance; but since we cannot do without them, take to yourselves wives,” etc. He was criticized by some on the ground that his words were ill-considered and would only serve to discourage the young men. Others, on the contrary, said that because Metellus was a brave man he had spoken rightly, for an honorable man should speak the truth without fear or hypocrisy.

So they concluded that woman is a necessary evil, and that no household can be without such an evil. These are the words of blind heathen, who are ignorant of the fact that man and woman are God’s creation. They blaspheme his work, as if man and woman just came into being spontaneously! I imagine that if women were to write books they would say exactly the same thing about men. What they have failed to set down in writing, however, they express with their grumbling and complaining whenever they get together.

Every day one encounters parents who forget their former misery because, like the mouse, they have now had their fill. They deter their children from marriage but entice them into priesthood and nunnery, citing the trials and troubles of married life. Thus do they bring their own children home to the devil, as we daily observe; they provide them with ease for the body and hell for the soul (LW 45:36).

Conclusion
In this section of Luther's treatise he discusses those who see marriage as negative. The quote in question is in regard to certain parents who deter their children from getting married because of "the trials and troubles of married life." Notice this nuance was left out of Father O'Hare's version of the quote.

In the same treatise Luther does mention some people that may chose not to marry: those "eunuchs who have been so from birth,"those who "have been made eunuchs by men," and finally, the rare person given the gift of chastity. Luther describes the attitude of this later group:

“I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it. But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children.” Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. No one should venture on such a life unless he be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless he finds God’s grace to be so powerful within him that the divine injunction, “Be fruitful and multiply,” has no place in him (LW 45:21).

This is one of the reasons Luther exhorted parents not to force their children into monastic vows. The majority of people are born with the desire to fulfill God's creation mandate: be fruitful and multiply.  Of course, Luther further says sending children into a religious institution may provide for their bodies, but it was also preparing the soul for hell. Luther says,

No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories which God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God’s ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained (LW 45:19).

Perhaps the reason such sentiment was offensive to Patrick O'Hare is because he was a popular Roman Catholic priest. 

Luther: "Chastity or continence was physically impossible…"

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“Chastity or continence was physically impossible… The womenfolk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience that there is not one among thousands to whom God gives grave to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself… The gratification of sexual desire was nature’s work, God’s work… And, as necessary aye, much more so, than eating, drinking, digesting, sweating, sleeping”. - Martin Luther (De Wette II, 535)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion, divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir. This same person commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either an historical or actual context!

Let's take a look at this quote and see exactly what's going on. We'll see that it's either two quotes from two different sources or some of it is just a summary statement of Luther's beliefs. When the bulk of the quote is placed back in its context, Luther isn't saying anything  filthy, vile, or lewd. Rather, he's making comments in regard to the heated sixteenth century debate over the validity of monastic vows.

Documentation
"De Wette II, 535" is provided as the reference governing the entire quote. "De Wette" refers to a collection of Luther's letters compiled by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette: Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken. Here is volume II, 535.  Page 535 contains Luther's letter from August 6, 1524 "to three nuns," in which he gave advice on leaving the convent. Though not contained in LW, an English translation is available in Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel and also Luther's Letters to Women.  The Catholic Answers participant probably did not take the quote from De Wette, but rather, Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther, (or some web-page utilizing O'Hare). Father O'Hare states,

Luther, horrible to relate, with the gospel in his hand, taught his disciples, male and female, in the world and in the cloisters, that no man or woman could be chaste in primitive, much less in fallen nature. "Chastity or continence," said this vile man, "was physically impossible." In the most brutal frankness, he writes without a blush the following lines to a number of religious women: "Though," he says, "the women folk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience, that there is not one among many thousands, to whom God gives grace to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself. God created her body for man and to bear offspring. This clearly appears from the testimony of Moses i, 28, and from the design of God in the construction of her creation." "The gratification of sexual desire was nature's work, God's work," as he cynically calls it, "and, as necessary, aye, much more so than eating, drinking, digesting, sweating, sleeping," etc. (De Wette II, 535.) We dare not repeat all he enumerates in his filthy catalogue. "Hence," said he, "to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity, is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel and morally worth about as much as if one was to promise God that he would commit adultery."

Notice O'Hare's text was sifted to present the version found on the Catholic Answers forums. When O'Hare states, "'Chastity or continence,' said this vile man, 'was physically impossible,'" these words are not from the context of this letter (see below). O'Hare does not document them, but gives the appearance that they're part of De Wette II, 535. I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown more and more convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done the equivalent of a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources. He appears to have blatantly plagiarized The American Catholic Quarterly of 1884 article, "Martin Luther and His American Worshipers" by Rt. Rev. Monsignor Corocan. Notice the obvious similarities in bold type:

With the gospel in his hand, he taught his German disciples, male and female, in the world, and in monasteries, and female convents, that no man or woman could be chaste in primitive, much less in fallen nature. Chastity or continence, said he, was physically impossible. The gratification of sexual desire was nature's work (God's work as he cynically calls it), as necessary, aye, much more so than eating, drinking, digesting, sweating, sleeping, etc. (we dare not go through with his filthy catalogue). Hence, said he, to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity, is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel, and morally worth about as much as if one was to promise God (we are giving the vile man's own words), that he would commit adultery. The way in which he explains all this in his coarse Latin, and still coarser German, is such that it cannot be reproduced before American readers. As a Catholic, we dare not sin against St. Paul's warning by mentioning, even for a good purpose, what no Christian ear should listen to. As a man and a citizen of a southern commonwealth, what else could be our first irresistible impulse than to lift cudgel or other weapon upon the theological Rabelais who teaches, in virtue of his new gospel, that all our women, Catholic or Protestant, outside the few that are married, are necessarily unclean and impure. If Protestants hearing Luther's language can keep cool and restrain their indignation, it only shows how far religious bigotry can control all natural impulses of decency and honor.

O'Hare attributes a direct citation to Luther for the first line, "Chastity or continence... was physically impossible." This was a summary statement from Coracan, not a direct citation of Luther. There is another Roman Catholic source (also from 1884), Luther: An Historical Portrait By J. Verres, that makes a similar attribution, but provides documentation. Verras states, "According to Luther, chastity (apart from the matrimonial state) is a physical impossibility; where it exists, it is a great and extraordinary miracle." The reference though is to a completely different writing from Luther, Walch XIX, 1818. This page from the Walch edition of Luther's works is from Martini Luthers von den Gelüb den der Mönche und Nonnen  (The Judgement of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows, 1521).  Verras is also summarizing what Luther said:

There is no doubt that the monastic vow is in itself a most dangerous thing because it is without the authority and example of Scripture. Neither the early church nor the New Testament knows anything at all of the taking of this kind of vow, much less do they approve of a lifelong vow of very rare and remarkable chastity. It is purely a most pernicious invention of men no different from all the other inventions of men. St. Paul, having made a vow, pitied himself along with four other men [Acts 21:23–26]. Who cannot see that it was a vow left over from the old law? For the moment I shall pass over the fact that it was only a temporal vow, for this very apostle was in the habit of observing all the other parts of the old law along with his fellow Jews, but he had no intention of setting a pattern for the New Testament. As we all know, he did not observe the law in the company of Gentiles [LW 44:252-253].

This tedium about the first sentence is necessary to demonstrate that some of Rome's defenders are not going deep into history, but are rather regurgitating spurious propaganda from long ago. With this first sentence out of the way, let's examine the bulk of the quote, which is from Luther's August 6, 1524 letter "to three nuns." I have provided the entire brief letter to display the complete context.

Context 

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus, our Saviour. Dear Sisters: I have now and again received your letters and have gathered from them what is on your hearts. I should long since have replied if a courier had been available and I had had an opportunity, for I am very much occupied with other matters. Have you thoroughly understood that there are two grounds for abandoning convent life and monastic vows?

The first exists when human laws and monastic works are imposed by force, are not assumed voluntarily, and become burdensome to conscience. Under such circumstances one should flee and let the convent and everything connected with it go. If, therefore, it is the case with you that monastic works were not undertaken of your own free will but were forced upon your conscience, call upon your relatives to help you get out and, if the secular authorities allow it, to provide for you in their homes or elsewhere. If your relatives or parents are unwilling, let some other good people help you to depart, no matter whether this causes your parents to be angry, die, or rejoice. For God's will and the soul's salvation should come first, since Christ says, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." But if the sisters grant you liberty in the convent and at least allow you to read or hear the Word of God, you may remain with them and perform and observe such convent duties as spinning, cooking, and the like, so long as you do not put your trust in these works.

The other ground is the flesh. Although women are ashamed to acknowledge this, Scriptures and experience teach us that there is only one in several thousands to whom God gives the gift to live chastely in a state of virginity. A woman does not have complete mastery over herself. God so created her body that she should be with a man and bear and raise children. The words of Gen., ch. i, clearly state this, and the members of her body sufficiently show that God himself formed her for this purpose. Just as eating, drinking, waking, and sleeping are appointed by God to be natural, so God also wills that it be natural for a man and a woman to live together in matrimony. This is enough, therefore, and no woman need be ashamed of that for which God has created and fashioned her, and if she feels that she does not possess that high and rare gift, she may leave the convent and do that for which she is adapted by nature.

All these things you will abundantly read and sufficiently learn if you come out and hear good sermons. I have proved and substantiated these things again and again in the book on monastic vows, in the tract on rejecting the doctrines of men, in the treatise on the estate of matrimony, and in the postil. If you read these, you will find adequate instruction on all points, be it on confession or something else. It would take too long to repeat everything here, nor is it necessary to do so, for I suspect that you will be leaving the convent, as you threatened to do in your first letter, whether you are affected by both or by only one of these grounds. If it should come to pass that the convent introduces real freedom, those who have the gift and a liking for that life may enter or return. In just this way the town council of Berne, in Switzerland, has opened the renowned convent of Konigsfeld, and is allowing girls, who so choose, to leave, remain, or enter at will, giving back to those who leave what they brought with them when they entered.

Herewith I commit you to God's keeping and ask you to pray for me.
The day of Sixtus, the Martyr, 1524. Martin Luther.
A friendly letter to be delivered to the three nuns, my dear sisters in Christ.

 Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, pp. 270-272.

Conclusion 
It's fascinating to compare the sifting of this context to denigrate Luther (presented on the Catholic Answers discussion forums) to the actual letter Luther wrote. The sifted version presents a "Luther" that views women as sex-crazed and out of control. The letter itself though shows the balance in Luther's thinking about this subject. He presents two grounds for a nun to leave the monastic life: the first ground is if a woman was placed there by force. The second ground is in regard to those who have not been given the supernatural gift of chastity, but long to fulfill their biologic desires. When I read Luther's letter,  I don't see anything filthy, vile, or lewd. Of this context, O'Hare states, "We dare not repeat all he enumerates in his filthy catalogue." His plagiarized source, Corocan, says similarly, "we dare not go through with his filthy catalogue." What were these men reading?

 For Luther, biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. "Scriptures and experience" prove this. This desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). Luther's continual exhortation throughout his career was to partake in the former.

Luther: View Moses With Suspicion, and He's worse than the Devil

Here's an obscure Luther comment found on various web pages:

"Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil" (Luther, Commentary on Galatians).

This quote can be found on various Internet discussion boards, as well as web pages like Martin Luther the Bare Truth Unfolded. Typically, the quote is used to demonstrate Luther was an antinomian. For instance, notice how Shoebat.com prefaces this quote:

To add insult onto injury, Luther also goes so far as to attack both the Holy Prophets and the Holy Apostles. This was slightly touched on earlier when we mentioned his attitude towards James. As an extension to his rebellion, he also attacks the Holy Blessed Prophet Moses as well. In fact, due to his antinomianism, it was logical for him to attack the Blessed Prophet Moses, which clearly puts Luther under the rebuke of our Lord Jesus Christ, who stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47) Let us see what evil Luther stated of Moses and the Law of Moses.

Documentation
In the example above the documentation given is "Luther, Commentary on Galatians." This is rather sparse documentation.  It's plausible that this quote made its way online from someone using Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther. Father O'Hare states, "'Moses must ever be looked upon,' he says, 'with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the Devil.' (Comment, in Gal.) ." The quote in its popular online use is verbatim from O'Hare (with the reference being slightly revised). It's possible O'Hare got the quote from Luther: An Historical Portrait By J. Verres (he references this book a few times). The vague documentation used by O'Hare is the same as that provided by Verres. Verres states:

Against Moses, who so very frequently and so very strictly insists on the keeping of the law, Luther nourished feelings, which verge on personal hatred. To him Moses is the incarnation of everything, that can torment the soul, he calls him by the most opprobious names and denounces him to Christians as a most dangerous man. Not only that Moses ,, who has been given to the Jewish nation only, has nothing to do with us gentiles and Christians," but, ,,if you are prudent, send that stammering and stuttering (balbum et blesum) Moses with his law far away from you, and be not influenced by his terrific threats. Look upon him with suspicion, as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the pope and the devil." 

Verres includes a footnote for the quote in question: 

Hic simpliciter sit tibi suspectus ut haereticus, excommunicatus, damnatus, deterior papā et diabolo, ideoque prorsus non audiendus. Comment. in Gal. Almost the same words occur. Tischr. I.c. 12 § 15.

 Using the Latin text provided by Verres, it is possible to locate the quote in Luther's work on Galatians. It can be found in WA 40 (1):558. The text reads:

This text has been translated into English. A version from the 1800's can be found here. The translation in Luther's works can be found in LW 26:365. 

Context

I am not saying this with the intention that the Law should be held in contempt. Paul does not intend this either, but that it should be held in esteem. But because Paul is dealing here with the issue of justification—a discussion of justification is something vastly different from a discussion of the Law—necessity demanded that he speak of the Law as something very contemptible. When we are dealing with this argument, we cannot speak of it in sufficiently vile and odious terms either. For here the conscience should consider and know nothing except Christ alone. Therefore we should make every effort that in the question of justification we reject the Law from view as far as possible and embrace nothing except the promise of Christ. This is easy enough to say; but in the midst of trial, when the conscience is contending with God, it is extremely difficult to be able to accomplish this. It is especially difficult when the Law is terrifying and accusing you, showing you your sin, and threatening you with the wrath of God and with death, to act as though there had never been any Law or sin but only Christ and sheer grace and redemption. It is difficult also, when you feel the terror of the Law, to say nevertheless: “Law, I shall not listen to you, because you have an evil voice. Besides, the time has now fully come. Therefore I am free. I shall no longer endure your domination.” Then one can see that the most difficult thing of all is to distinguish the Law from grace; that it is simply a divine and heavenly gift to be able in this situation to believe in hope against hope (Rom. 4:18); and that this proposition of Paul’s is eminently true, that we are justified by faith alone.

From this you should learn, therefore, to speak most contemptuously about the Law in the matter of justification, following the example of the apostle, who calls the Law “the elements of the world,” “traditions that kill,” “the power of sin,” and the like. If you permit the Law to dominate in your conscience instead of grace, then when the time comes for you to conquer sin and death in the sight of God, the Law is nothing but the dregs of all evils, heresies, and blasphemies; for all it does is to increase sin, accuse, frighten, threaten with death, and disclose God as a wrathful Judge who damns sinners. If you are wise, therefore, you will put Moses, that lisper and stammerer, far away with his Law; and you will not let his terrors and threats affect you in any way at all. Here he should be as suspect to you as an excommunicated and condemned heretic, worse than the pope and the devil, and therefore not to be listened to at all.

Apart from the matter of justification, on the other hand, we, like Paul, should think reverently of the Law. We should endow it with the highest praises and call it holy, righteous, good, spiritual, divine, etc. Apart from our conscience we should make a god of it; but in our conscience it is truly a devil, for in the slightest trial it cannot encourage or comfort the conscience but does the very opposite, frightening and saddening it and depriving it of confidence in righteousness, of life, and of everything good. This is why Paul calls the Law “weak and beggarly elements” later on (Gal. 4:9). Therefore let us not permit it to dominate our conscience in any way, especially since it cost Christ so much to remove the tyranny of the Law from the conscience. For this was why “He became a curse for us, to redeem us from the curse of the Law” (Gal. 3:13). Therefore let the godly person learn that the Law and Christ are mutually contradictory and altogether incompatible. When Christ is present, the Law must not rule in any way but must retreat from the conscience and yield the bed to Christ alone, since this is too narrow to hold them both (Is. 28:20). Let Him rule alone in righteousness, safety, happiness, and life, so that the conscience may happily fall asleep in Christ, without any awareness of Law, sin, or death.

Conclusion
Anyone with a basic understanding of Luther's theology should be able to grasp the distinction between law and gospel set forth in this section. Luther's comments are in regard to justification, not sanctification. Note how the section starts: "I am not saying this with the intention that the Law should be held in contempt. Paul does not intend this either, but that it should be held in esteem." He concludes: "Apart from the matter of justification, on the other hand, we, like Paul, should think reverently of the Law. We should endow it with the highest praises and call it holy, righteous, good, spiritual, divine, etc." Luther’s theology has a place for the Law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The Law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and a need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do.

Was Luther an antinomian as Shoebat.com asserts above? Hardly. Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Elsewhere I've compiled an extensive list of quotes from Luther all testifying to the same idea: justification is by faith alone unto good works done for the good of one’s neighbor.

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.