Luther: "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell."

This came via e-mail:

I've searched on your Beggars All blog and the many webpages found by Google, but have discovered no original source reference to the repeatedly claimed quote from Martin Luther about Johann von Staupitz. So I'm passing it onto you to see if you are aware of its source: "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell."

It's true, this quote has been used often, even by Luther's famous biographer, Roland Bainton:

By reason of the move he came to know well a man who was to exercise a determinative influence upon his development, the vicar of the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz. No one better could have been found as a spiritual guide. The vicar knew all the cures prescribed by the schoolmen for spiritual ailments, and besides had a warm religious life of his own with a sympathetic appreciation of the distresses of another. "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz," said Luther, "I should have sunk in hell."

I did locate the context for this remark. The context is fascinating. Luther touches on a variety issues including determinism and the secret counsel of God. I have reproduced the text below. Also find an extensive discussion from Luther on predestination in the conclusion.


Documentation
While it doesn't appear obvious as one reads Bainton, he actually documents much of what he put forth, almost line by line. He documents this quote, "Dok (s), No. 461." Bainton says this refers to, "Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung (Otto Scheel, ed., 1929)." This refers to a book containing source documents about Luther's development compiled by German Protestant theologian, Otto Scheel  (who unfortunately, got tangled up with the Nazi party). The year "1929" refers to a later volume of this set (Volume one can be found here). While I don't believe this book is available online (at the time of the writing of this entry), I can verify that the quote is on page 167, entry 461.

The quote appears to be from a letter Luther wrote to Albrecht of Mansfield. Walch places the date of the letter, December 28, 1541 (letter 2865). deWette though has the date December 8, 1542 (deWette 5, 512), while Seidemann 6:551 lists the date as December 28, 1542 (thanks to Rick Strickert for tracking down the deWette / Seidemann references). Footnote 50 on this page of this book refers to the date as February 23, 1542 (and also refers to Scheel's book). They also cite WA BR 9, 627, lines 23-25, (which I can verify), letter 3716. The footnote includes the following,  "I was once bogged down in such thoughts and doubts. And if Dr. Staupitz ¾ or rather God through Dr. Staupitz ¾ had not helped me, I would have drowned in them and long been in hell." ("Jnn disen gedancken oder anfechtungen [...] ich etwa [=einst] auch drinnen gestecket. Vndt wo mihr D. Staupitz, oder viel mehr Gott durch Doctor Staupitz, nicht heraus geholffen hette, so were ich darin ersoffen vndt langst in der helle").

This letter does not appear to have been translated into English in any official way. An English translation of this lengthy letter can be hound here.

Context

Count Albrecht, of Mansfeld, is a personality not entirely unknown in Reformation history. He was the first in Thuringia to cope successfully with the insurgent peasants, surprising them at Osterhausen, and had already in 1518 attached himself with such decision to the new doctrine, that he sent Luther warning, through the well-known Augustinian prior, Johann Lange, of the plots of certain influential men against him. In the course of time, however, the Count fell into wrong ways. He began to cherish doctrinal errors, and to repudiate utterly the obligations of brotherly love. Luther observed this with deep regret, and admonished his "gracious and heartily beloved liege-lord, the noble, high-born Lord Albrecht, Count of Mansfeld," in the following letter:

"Grace and Peace in the Lord, and my poor Pater-noster. Gracious Lord, I beg most earnestly that your Reverend Grace may accept this writing of mine in a Christian and gracious spirit. Your Reverend Grace knows that I am a child of the sovereignty of Mansfeld, and have to the present day cherished natural affection for my Fatherland, as even the books of all heathen nations declare that every child has a natural affection for his fatherland. Besides this, God accomplished in the beginning of the Gospel so many praiseworthy achievements through your Reverend Grace, so excellently ordering the affairs of churches, pulpits and schools for the praise and glory of God, and made your Reverend Grace so eminently and gloriously useful in quelling the insurrection of the peasants, that I, for such and other reasons, cannot so easily forget nor omit from my cares and prayers your Reverend Grace. 

 "But it comes to my ears, chiefly through many rumors and complaints, that your Reverend Grace is said to have fallen away from the course first entered upon and to have become quite different, which, as I think your Reverend Grace will readily believe, if it were true, would cause me heartfelt sorrow for your Reverend Grace. For now people will talk against the Christian faith, and say, as I have myself often heard: 'What need of the Gospel? That which is fore-ordained must come to pass. Let us do what we will. If we are to be saved, we will be saved, etc' This is now thought to be great shrewdness and wisdom, although we theologians knew it long ago and also God himself. Should your Reverend Grace be entangled in these thoughts and temptations, it would cause me heartfelt sorrow, for I was once myself entangled in them, and had not Dr. Staupitz, or, rather, God through Dr. Staupitz, helped me out, I would have been drowned in them and would have been in hell long ago. For such diabolical thoughts finally drive the timid-hearted to despondency, despairing of the grace of God; whilst those who are bold and courageous become despisers and enemies of God, and say: 'Let things go as they will! I will do as I please. I'm lost anyhow.' 

"How I wish that I could speak with your Reverend Grace face to face, for I am grieved beyond measure for the soul of your Reverend Grace, since I cannot esteem your Reverend Grace so lightly as the reprobate Henry's and Mentz's. One cannot talk so well to another with the pen. Nevertheless—to write briefly of this matter, my Gracious Lord—it is true, that what God has decreed must certainly come to pass; otherwise he would be a liar in his promises, upon which we must place our faith or shamefully fail, and that is impossible. But here is, at the same time, this great difference to be observed, namely: What God has revealed to us, promised or commanded, that we are to believe, and to act accordingly, assured that he will not lie: but what he has not revealed to us, nor promised, that we are not to and cannot know, much less can we act accordingly. Whoever troubles himself much about this, is tempting God, since he neglects that which he is commanded to know and to do, and concerns himself about that which he is not commanded to know and to do. This can only produce people who ask not for God's Word and sacrament; but give themselves up to wild living, mammon, tyranny, and every kind of dissolute life. For, with such thoughts, they can have no faith, nor hope, nor love to man or to God, whom they despise, because they are not permitted to know what he secretly thinks; although he has so abundantly revealed himself in everything that can minister to their benefit or salvation, from which they wantonly turn away. No man would tolerate a servant, who should refuse to perform his appointed duty, unless he knew in advance all the secret thoughts of his master in regard to all his possessions. And shall God not have power likewise to have some secrets to himself, beyond that which he has commanded us? 

"Let your Reverend Grace only think how it would be, if we were to be guided by such thoughts of the secret judgments of God, for example: 'Why does he permit his Son to become man? Why does he establish family relations — fatherhood and motherhood? Why does he ordain civil law and government? What more is needed? That which is to happen, will happen without all this! What need is there of the devil, the Holy Scriptures, and all created things? What he wishes to do, he can do without any of these.' But we are told that he desires to accomplish his purpose, as far as now revealed, through us as fellow-laborers, 1 Cor. iii. 9: therefore we should let him manage and not trouble ourselves about it, but do that which he has commanded us. Thus also says Solomon, Prov. xxv.: 'He that would search out royalty shall be crushed;' and Sirach iii. (vs. 22 and 23): 'Understand not what is too high, but think what is commanded thee;' and when the disciples asked the Lord whether he would at that time establish the kingdom of Israel, he replied: 'It is not for you to know the time or the hour, which my Father hath kept in his own power, hut go ye and be my witnesses.' (Acts i. 7 and 8.) As though he should say: Let my Father and me see to the events of the future; go ye and do what I Command you.

Accordingly, I beseech your Reverend Grace most earnestly not to forsake the Word and sacrament, for the devil is an evil spirit, far too cunning for your Reverend Grace, as likewise for all saints, to say nothing of all men; as I myself also discover, although I am scarcely ever off my guard for a single day. Men so easily become cold, and their indifference grows ever greater: and if there were no other result of the devil's cunning, this would be reason enough to bid him flee without a moment's delay, and let the heart be warmed again. Thus, doubtless, your Reverend Grace himself feels that he is already cold and gone astray after mammon, aiming to become very rich, and also, according to common complaints, pressing his subjects altogether too severely and sharply, thinking to take them from their ancestral homes and possessions, and almost to make them his own property—which God will not endure, or, enduring, will bring the earldom to abject poverty. It is his gift, and he can easily take it away again, and that without recompense, as Haggai says (i. 6): 'Ye gather much, but ye put it into a bag with holes, and the Lord bloweth upon your grain till there is nothing left.'

"I have heard it said that some propose to introduce in Germany a form of government like that of France. Well, if they would stop first to ask whether that would be right and well-pleasing to God, I would not object. Let it be considered, too, that the kingdom of France, which was once a golden, glorious kingdom, is now so impoverished in both property and people, that it has become, instead of a golden, a leaden kingdom, and that, although formerly far-famed as the Christian kingdom, it has formed an alliance with the Turks. That is the way it goes when God and his Word are despised.

"I write thus candidly to encourage your Reverend Grace, for I am now much nearer to my, grave than people think; and I beg, as before, that your Reverend Grace may deal more mildly and graciously with the subjects of your Reverend Grace, and allow them to remain; then shall your Reverend Grace also remain, by the blessing of, God, both here and in the life to come. Otherwise, you shall lose both worlds, and be like the man in Aesop's fable, who opened the goose that laid every day a golden egg, and thereby lost the golden eggs and the goose that laid them, or like the dog in Aesop, that lost the piece of meat by snapping at its reflection in the water: for it is most certainly true, as Solomon in so many of his proverbs says, that he who wants too much gets least of all.

"To conclude, I am concerned for the soul of your Reverend Grace, which I cannot bear to have cast out of my cares and prayers, for that would to me mean, just as truly, cast out of the Church. I have been compelled to write, not only by the commandment of Christian love, but also by the severe threatening which God has announced to us in the third chapter of Ezekiel, namely, that we shall be condemned for others' sins. He says (verse 18): 'If thou tell not the sinner of his sin, and he die therein, I will require his soul at thy hands,' for to this end have I made thee a guardian of souls.

"I trust your Reverend Grace will therefore receive kindly this exhortation, for I cannot allow myself to be condemned for the sin of your Reverend Grace, but must on the contrary make every possible effort, that your Reverend Grace may with me be saved. Thus I shall at least be guiltless before God. I commend you to the abounding grace and mercy of God.

"Your Reverend Grace's willing and true-hearted, "Martinus Luther, D.

"Day of the Innocents, in the year 1542''

Conclusion
I'm still unsure of the exact date for this letter. However, there is one more context worth mentioning in regard to the statement, "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell." Note the following Table Talk statement found in WA TR V, 5658a. The following English translation comes from Luther's Letters of Spiritual Counsel,  pp.131-136.  The date these statements were said to be made was February 18, 1542. That's just a few days before February 23, 1542 (one of the dates mentioned above in regard to the letter). Here, Luther is recorded as having an extensive discussion about predestination; in fact, a footnote in the text states, "One version bears the title 'Dr. Martin Luther's Opinion Concerning Predestination, Written as It Fell From His Lips on Feb. 18, 1542."

TABLE TALK RECORDED BY CASPAR HEYDENREICH. February 18, 1542 

Speculations concerning predestination are now being spread abroad indiscriminately by epicureans who say: "I do not know whether I am predestined to salvation. If I am elected to eternal life, I shall be saved no matter what I do. On the other hand, if I am not elected, I shall be damned no matter what I do." Although these opinions are true, nevertheless the Passion of Christ and his Sacraments are thereby made of no effect, for it would follow either that it was very foolish of God to send his Son into the world, and so many prophets before him, or that we are surely quite mad. These are poisonous speculations and weapons of the devil. They deceived our first parents when the devil said to them, "Ye shall be as gods." Yet it may be objected that it is necessary that I be saved because God has this intention (if it be God's will).

I reply: Well, are you to climb up to heaven and inquire into this opinion as if it were possible for you to investigate it? It would be most foolish of God to give us his Son and the Scriptures and the prophets if he wished us to be uncertain and to doubt concerning our salvation. It is the work of the devil to make us unbelieving and doubtful. People are assailed either by disdain or by despair when they think, "If I am to be saved, I shall be saved no matter what I do." It is not for you to inquire into the secret will of God without a word of revelation, nor should you imagine that God will fail to keep his promises to you. God is truthful, and he has given us assurances in the Scriptures in order that we may be certain. Otherwise it will come to pass that books, Bibles, and Sacraments will be cast aside and, like the Turks, we shall say, "Let me live, for tomorrow we die." Such an opinion leads to scorn or despair. I was once freed from this notion by Staupitz,otherwise I should long since have been burning in hell. 

For us this is an exceedingly necessary doctrine. A distinction must be made between knowledge of God and despair of God, and consideration must be given to the revealed God on the one hand and to knowledge of the unrevealed will of God on the other. Of the latter nothing at all is known to us. We must confess that what is beyond our comprehension is nothing for us to bother about. Nevertheless, Satan reproaches me with this impenetrable mystery. Apart from the Word of God I am not supposed to know whether I am predestined to salvation or not, and because reason seeks thus to inquire into God, it does not find him. We are not to know even if we break our heads over it. Moses was reproved when he asked, "Lord, show me thy face," and God replied, "Thou shalt see my back parts!"God has disapproved of and forbidden knowledge of his hidden will. Christ says, "No man knoweth God or the Father save the Son." Without the Word there is neither faith nor understanding. This is the invisible God. The path is blocked here. Such was the answer which the apostles received when they asked Christ when he would restore the kingdom to Israel, for Christ said, "It is not for you to know." Here God desires to be inscrutable and to remain incomprehensible.

He says in effect: "Let me remain hidden. Otherwise you will fall into the abyss of hell, as it is written, 'He who inquires into the majesty of God shall be crushed by it.' In this place leave me untouched. Carnal wisdom shall here have its limit. Here I wish to remain unrevealed. I shall reveal your election in another way. From the unrevealed God I shall become the revealed God. I shall incarnate my Son and shall give you one who will enable you to see whether you are elected. Do this: Give up your speculations which are apart from the Word of God, thoroughly root them out, and drive them to the devil in hell. 'This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him.' Behold his death, cross, and Passion. See him hanging on his mother's breast and on the cross. What he says and does you may be sure of.  No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,' says the Lord, and to Philip he said, 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Here you have me and will see me." 

Whosoever accepts the Son and is baptized and believes on his Word will be saved. I should indeed like to have it otherwise. But the Lord will not have it so. Begin at the bottom with the incarnate Son and with your terrible original sin. If you wish to escape from despair and hate, let your speculation go. There is no other way. Otherwise you must remain a doubter the rest of your life. God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination or to cause you to despise the Sacraments. He instituted them to make you more certain and to drive such speculations out of your mind. Whoever doubts the revealed will of God will perish, for where there is doubt there is no salvation. 

What more do you want him to do? He reveals himself to you so that you may touch and see him not only in your thoughts but also with your eyes. It is as Christ says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Christ will lead you to the hidden God. You ought not to risk having the child Jesus snatched away from you. If you embrace him with true love of your heart and with true faith, you will know for sure that you are predestined to salvation. But the devil has a special fondness for making us most uncertain about predestination at the point at which we are most certain, namely, in the revelation of his Son. 

A wretched woman who was troubled by such temptations of the devil once came to me and said, "I do not know if I am predestined or not."

I said to her: "Dear woman, you have been baptized. Do you believe what you hear in the preaching of the Word and do you accept it as the truth?" "Yes," she replied, "I have no doubt that it is true, but I am unable to believe it." 

I said: "To have faith in him is to accept these things as true without any doubting. God has revealed himself to you. If you believe this, then you are to be numbered among his elect. Hold to this firmly and with assurance, and if you accept the God who is revealed, the hidden God will be given to you at the same time. 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Cling to the revealed God, allow no one to take the child Jesus from you, hold fast to him, and you will not be lost. The Father desires you. The Son wishes to be your Saviour and Liberator. In so kind and friendly a fashion has God freed us from these terrible temptations. Otherwise our hearts are deprived of that certain trust and predestination. Those with terrified hearts will disagree, and those whose hearts are hardened will be filled with contempt. Christ said, 'Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to the Father except the Father which hath sent me draw him.' And [Jesus] Sirach said, 'Search not out things that are above thy strength.' Do this, as I said to you at the beginning, and accept the incarnate Son."

This is the way in which [John] Staupitz comforted me when the devil was similarly vexing me: "Why do you trouble yourself with these speculations of yours? Accept the wounds of Christ and contemplate the blood which poured forth from his most holy body for our sins—for mine, for yours, for those of all men. 'My sheep hear my voice.'

There is a beautiful example in the lives of the Fathers, where it is written that a young man named Neophile ascended to heaven and, having placed one foot inside of heaven, drew it back in order to thrust his other foot in, and he fell and plunged headlong into hell. So those who try to climb into heaven without the revealed Christ, and think that they have both feet in heaven, tumble down to hell. We should accept the child Jesus and cling to him because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. This is the only way. You will find no other, and you will break your neck if you try. This means that God cannot deny himself. If we cling to him, he will hold us fast, and he will tear us away from sin and death and will not let us fall. Besides, these speculations about predestination are of the devil. If they assail you, say: "I am a son of God. I have been baptized. I believe in Jesus Christ, who was crucified for me. Let me alone, devil." Then such thoughts will leave you.

There is an account of a nun who was troubled by the devil with such wretched thoughts. When he addressed her and attacked her with his fiery darts, she said no more than this: "I am a Christian." The devil understood her very well, for it was as if she said: "I believe in the Son of God, who died on the cross, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who cares for me, and who is accustomed to intercede in my behalf. Let me alone, you cursed devil! With his inscrutable seal God has given me assurance." At once the temptation ceased, and at once she had peace of conscience and love for God. He wishes his predestination to be more surely grounded on many certain arguments. He sent his Son to become man, and he gave us the Sacraments and his Word, which cannot be doubted. The words of that nun come to mind in time of temptation, for unless we flee to this Christ, we shall either despair of our salvation or become blasphemous epicureans who hide behind divine predestination as an excuse. These opinions are impious and wicked.

The fact that Isaac doubted cannot be adduced here as an example, for it is allowable to doubt with respect to man, as Isaac doubted whether he would have a good omen and a friendly reception. But God is not man. It is permissible to doubt man because we are commanded not to put our trust in princes. If we rely on them and they fail us, or if one of them renders us a service, we call it fortuitous or a chance occurence. It is not so with the help of God, however, concerning whom we have many signs that he is not a God who deceives us and is to be doubted. This is demonstrated for us by spiritual and corporeal arguments in the incarnation of his Son and in the Sacraments, which are plainly from God and meet our carnal eyes and are administered with external ceremonies, under which external marks God manifests himself to us and distributes his benefits to us. Consequently one should say of a man, "I do not know if he is friend or foe." But not so of God. In this case I have no doubt that God is absolute and that your sins are forgiven. But we are such scoundrels that we prefer to put our constant reliance on man rather than on God.

Adam did this when God placed him in paradise and said, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." What do you think drove Adam to eat of it? He wished to know what God's secret intention was with regard to this tree that he should not eat of it, and he thought, God certainly has something extraordinary on this tree. He was searching out God apart from the Word. Then the devil came and urged on Adam [and Eve] by saying: "Ye shall be as gods if ye eat of it. Your eyes shall be opened so that ye shall see everything as God sees it." So they wished to be God and to eat of the tree which God had forbidden them to eat of when he said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye know what I have on the tree." Thereupon Adam said, "Truly, I must know!" He ate of it, and at once he knew what he had done and he saw that he was naked. That is, his eyes were opened.

We do the same thing in our relation to God. We wish to know what he has not commanded us to know. We should eat of every tree that he allows us to eat of, and we should rejoice to do so, but none of the fruit tastes so good to us as that of the tree we are forbidden to touch and on account of which he closed paradise and heaven to us so that we may know nothing of him except what he has revealed to us in his Word. If you wish to know what God's secret intention is, his dear Son will show it to you. We must have a God who is hidden from us, but we should not investigate into him, else we shall break our necks. It is God's will that we should be agreeable sons of his because we believe in his Son. There is no wrath here. Be satisfied with this.

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!

Reformers Before the Reformers #2, The Marriage Analogy of Johann von Staupitz

Johann von Staupitz (1460-1524) was the vicar of the Augustinian order at the University of Wittenberg. He was the one to whom Luther confessed his sins, or as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, he "consoled the emaciated brother, who was torturing himself with his sinfulness, by speaking to him of the sin-remitting grace of God and man's redemption in the Blood of Christ."

Oberman's Forerunners of the Reformation includes a sermon from Staupitz. Oberman notes the similarities between it and Luther's sermon on The Two Kinds of Righteousness: "it is impossible to determine with certainty who is the teacher and who is the student. On internal evidence... we are convinced that a valid claim can be made that Staupitz's treatise reflects a theological position that shaped Luther's early thought and ultimately put him on the road to Reformation" (p. 140). While there are many similarities, here's one that jumped out to me.  Staupitz uses the analogy of marriage to describe a Christian's relationship with Christ:

Perhaps you would like me now to state briefly how the merits of Christ really become ours. As you know, between Christ and the Christian there is a true, nay the truest, marriage of which our earthly marriage is the sacrament, and but a shadow in comparison with the sacred marriage of Christ [with the Church]. Hence the uprightness of human marriage consists in conformity to the true marriage of Christ and the Church. For, as the Apostle said: "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church."

In human marriage there are two in one flesh. In the marriage with Christ there are no longer two, but there is one flesh—Christ and the Christian are one flesh, one spirit. And just as Christ left his father and mother to join his spouse, the Christian, so the Christian leaves father and mother to join Christ.

For the following reason, however, the contract between Christ and the Christian differs greatly from that between man and wife. The contract between man and wife requires that each one gives himself to the other, so that the man belongs to the woman and the woman to the man by free consent, and man has power over the body of woman as woman has over the body of man. But they wield no power over each other's spirit, nor does the one have the other as a servant.Rather, they are partners and help each other in procreation. The marriage claim which the spouses have on each other is therefore limited and not all-embracing.

The contract between Christ and the Church is consummated thus: "I accept you as Mine, I accept you as My concern, I accept you into Myself." And conversely the Church, or the soul, says to Christ, "I accept You as mine, You are my concern, I accept You into myself." In other words Christ says, "The Christian is My possession, the Christian is My concern, the Christian is I"; so the spouse responds, "Christ is my possession, Christ is my concern, Christ is I." (pp. 186-187)

-snip-

If you think that the mercy of the Lord has not been given its due by showing how He justifies us through His own righteousness and how He did not shun marriage with sinners, you must realize that He goes even further. He makes our sins His own. Just as the Christian is just through the righteousness of Christ, so Christ is unrighteous and sinful through the guilt of the Christian.

Whereas the Jew would say "blasphemy" and the Greek "madness the believer says, "You are right." The Jew is affronted, the Greek ridicules, the believer rejoices. Thus "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power and wisdon God." For it pleased God to overcome strength by weakness, to subjugate wisdom by foolishness, to condemn righteousness by sin that no one might take pride in himself before God."

For the time being let us be silent about other issues and let us see whether He who is sinless by nature can be convicted as a sinner. He stands clearly convicted by his own confession: "God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me who is involved in transgressions?"

How can these be Your words, dearest Jesus? I see the answer clearly: God has placed upon You the iniquity of all and You alone are the Lamb of God Who bears the sins of the world. You are like the two goats at one and the same time. In Your human nature you are sacrificed by lot to the Lord for sin; as immortal God You live in eternity and hence are like the goat that was sent out. They put on Your head all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their trespasses and sins. You were sent forth into a barren land where no one dwells except God.

You are that matchless Spouse that is my possession, that is my concern, that is I. Therefore, You are mine and everything You have is my own and I am Yours and whatever there is in me is Your own. And because we are one, things which are Yours become mine while yet remaining Yours, and, likewise, things which are mine become Yours while at the same time they remain mine.
Therefore I am righteous because of Your righteousness and a sinner because of my guilt." You are a sinner because of my guilt and righteous because of Your own righteousness. By the same token, I am strong through Your power but weakened by my own feebleness. You are weakened by my feebleness and strong in Your own power. I am wise in Your wisdom and foolish in my stupidity. You are wise in Your wisdom and foolish in my stupidity. (pp. 189-191)

Now, compare to Luther from his treatise, Two Kinds of Righteousness (LW 31):

We read in Rom. 6[:19] that this righteousness is set opposite our own actual sin: “For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.” Therefore through the first righteousness arises the voice of the bridegroom who says to the soul, “I am yours,” but through the second comes the voice of the bride who answers, “I am yours.” Then the marriage is consummated; it becomes strong and complete in accordance with the Song of Solomon [2:16]: “My beloved is mine and I am his.” Then the soul no longer seeks to be righteous in and for itself, but it has Christ as its righteousness and therefore seeks only the welfare of others. Therefore the Lord of the Synagogue threatens through the Prophet, “And I will make to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride” [Jer. 7:34]. (LW 31:300)

And also Luther's The Freedom of the Christian 1520)

The third incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh [Eph. 5:31–32]. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage—indeed the most perfect of all marriages, since human marriages are but poor examples of this one true marriage—it follows that everything they have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil. Accordingly the believing soul can boast of and glory in whatever Christ has as though it were its own, and whatever the soul has Christ claims as his own. Let us compare these and we shall see inestimable benefits. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation. The soul is full of sins, death, and damnation. Now let faith come between them and sins, death, and damnation will be Christ’s, while grace, life, and salvation will be the soul’s; for if Christ is a bridegroom, he must take upon himself the things which are his bride’s and bestow upon her the things that are his. If he gives her his body and very self, how shall he not give her all that is his? And if he takes the body of the bride, how shall he not take all that is hers? (LW 31:351)

Who then can fully appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who can understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich and divine bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems her from all her evil, and adorns her with all his goodness. Her sins cannot now destroy her, since they are laid upon Christ and swallowed up by him. And she has that righteousness in Christ, her husband, of which she may boast as of her own and which she can confidently display alongside her sins in the face of death and hell and say, “If I have sinned, yet my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned, and all his is mine and all mine is his,” as the bride in the Song of Solomon [2:16] says, “My beloved is mine and I am his.” This is what Paul means when he says in I Cor. 15[:57], “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ,” that is, the victory over sin and death, as he also says there, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” [I Cor. 15:56]. (LW 31:352)