Luther: If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master, namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]

Over on the CARM boards, a participant with seemingly Anabaptist leanings has been actively posting against John Calvin and Martin Luther. The view being expressed is that Luther was "a demon possessed wicked butcher" (link), and "His actions speak louder than his words, he was responsible for the death of untold thousands." This person put forth a number of Luther quotes, which I suspect were a direct cut-and-paste from a page like this or this. I'd like to look at some of these quotes. Maybe Luther won't be exonerated for each quote (for he was a sinner, and he did make some outrageous statements), but I don't think any of them prove he was a "a demon possessed wicked butcher" or "responsible for the death of untold thousands."

The Luther quotes offered begin with the preface, "Intolerance of Other Christians." Here's one from the set:

"There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed. ... Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers. ... If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master, namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]." Source: Martin Luther, Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530(Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)

This quote (in this form!) has a lot of mileage on it. Atheist John Loftus uses it, as do some of the descendants of the radical reformation.  A simple Google search though reveals that Rome's defenders are quite fond of this quote. Whether it be a web page or a discussion forum, Rome's defenders often use this quote as evidence in support of a Tu quoque argument:

Protestant charge: the Roman Catholic Church committed atrocities like the Inquisition. The Roman church was intolerant. 

Roman Catholic response: There were also Protestant atrocities and also a Protestant "Inquisition." Early Protestants were also intolerant. 

Rome's defenders follow up this argument with a string of evidence of Protestant atrocities (including the Luther quote mentioned above). For instance, Catholic Apologetics Information uses this Luther quote under the subheading "Death and Torture for Catholics and Protestant Dissidents." St Margaret Mary Catholicism 101 uses it under the heading "Protestant Inquisitions" to demonstrate "the early reformers were not into 'freedom of religion' and 'free speech'," as does CatholicBridge.com.

While there is a sense in which I'm sympathetic to their overall Tu quoque argument, there's also a sense in which I think much of their proof comes across as propaganda when scrutinized. We'll see with this particular Luther quote that this particular Internet rendering doesn't come from someone actually reading "Martin Luther, Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530." Rather, I believe it's been swiped (then edited / truncated) via a hostile secondary source. Then, the corroborating ("cf.") sources show that those using this quote appear to be asleep at the wheel:  one of the "cf." sources is bogus, and the other actually says the opposite —  that Luther wasn't as intolerant as Rome and he eventually arrived at a position of religious tolerance. Then we'll see that the context does not show the blatant intolerance suggested. Rather, Luther has a specific focus of intolerance for radical teachers and leaders causing societal unrest.

Documentation

Different from most of the other quotes used thus far in this series, this one is treated with a number of references. It appears to me that the quote was truncated / edited using the first of the secondary sources mentioned (Janssen), not a direct reading of Luther. First though, let's look at the corroborating ("cf.") sources, for they reveal that when the quote is used with this documentation, it's a strong indicator that Grisar and Durant were not checked for accuracy, but were simply cut-and-pasted.

Here is Grisar, VI, 26-27 (a Roman Catholic source). There is nothing remotely related to this quote on pages 26-27 in volume VI. Grisar's discussion is on an entirely different subject (school curriculum, school issues). I checked pages 26-27 in the other 5 volumes from Grisar, and no discussion of the quote occurs on those two pages. Yes, Grisar does mention this quote in his massive biography of Luther (at least once), but it certainly was not in volume VI on pages 26-27.

Here is Durant, 423 (a secular source).  Will Durant only mentions the quote briefly. "In 1530, in his commentary on the Eighty-second Psalm, he advised governments to put to death all heretics who preached sedition or against private property, and 'those who teach against a manifest article of the faith... like the articles children learn in the creed, as for example, if anyone should teach that Christ was not God but a mere man.'" Durant's treatment of the quote is merely one sentence, which makes one wonder why the person who originally cited Durant included him as a reference. It's a ridiculous reference, reminiscent of a high school paper. But beyond this silliness, Roman Catholics who use this Durant reference for their Tu quoque argument should read what Durant says previous to this sentence on page 423: "Despite the violence of Luther's speech he never rivaled the severity of the Church in dealing with dissent; but he proceeded, within the area and limits of his power, to silence it as peaceably as he could." And also after the sentence on page 423, Durant states: "We should note, however, that toward the end of his life Luther returned to his early feelings for toleration. In his last sermon he advised abandonment of all attempts to destroy heresy by force; Catholics and Anabaptists must be borne with patiently till the Last Judgment, when Christ will take care of them." I think Durant isn't quite right in his overall assessment, but this is beside the point: Rome's defenders have told us that Durant is a source of proof for their argument. Durant though says something quite different about Luther. Why would Rome's defenders send us to a source against their own Tu quoque argument?

Here is Janssen, X, 222 (a Roman Catholic source). This reference is to nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 10 (originally written in German). Janssen's work belongs to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. As far as I can tell, the quote under scrutiny was truncated / edited using a footnote from Janssen:

Luther, who had at first strongly disapproved of the execution of heretics, began, after 1530, to advocate capital punishment for false doctrine and heresy. (1)

(1)This comes out clearly (as Paulus, Katholik, 1897, i. 539 if., has shown) in Luther's explanation of the 82nd Psalm, as well as in a pamphlet of 1536. In the explanation of the Psalm (Der LXXXII. Psalm, ausgelegt von Mart. Luther, Wittenberg, 1530, Ca -Fb, Luther's Werke, Erlanger Ausgabe, Bd. 39, pp. 250-258), he deals exhaustively with the questions 'whether the secular rulers ought to check and punish objectionable doctrines or heresies.' ' There are two sorts of heretics,' he says: 'first, those who are turbulent and seditious; these must undoubtedly be punished. Then there are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed: as, for instance, the heresy which some of them teach, that Christ is not God, but only an ordinary man, and just the same as any other prophet of the Turks or of the Anabaptists; heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers. Moses in his laws commands that blasphemers of this sort, and indeed all false teachers, are to be stoned to death. And there must not be lengthy disputation on the subject; such blasphemy must be condemned without that or examination. . . . For articles of belief of this sort, held by united Christendom, have been sufficiently inquired into and thoroughly established by the Scriptures and by the unanimous assent of all Christians.' Sermons calculated to disturb the unity of the faith, Luther goes on, must not be tolerated, still less must private preaching and secret ceremonies be allowed. It is the duty of the burghers to give information of any of these clandestine proceedings to the civil authorities and to the clergy. 'If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities commend the scoundrel to his rightful master — namely, Master Hans [hangman].'

One can see how this footnote from Janssen was sifted through to create the quote in question. Janssen though did a similar thing: he sifted and truncated his quote from eight pages of text (also noted in the popular Internet documentation, "EA, Bd. 39, 250-258"). Here is EA 39 page 250.

Luther's comments on Psalm 82 have been translated into English in LW 13. Let's work through these multiple pages of LW 13 and look at what Luther stated.

Context

A question arises in connection with these three verses. Since the gods, or rulers, beside their other virtues, are to advance God’s Word and its preachers, are they also to put down opposing doctrines or heresies, since no one can be forced to believe? The answer to this question is as follows: First, some heretics are seditious and teach openly that no rulers are to be tolerated; that no Christian may occupy a position of rulership; that no one ought to have property of his own but should run away from wife and child and leave house and home; or that all property shall be held in common. These teachers are immediately, and without doubt, to be punished by the rulers, as men who are resisting temporal law and government (Rom. 13:1, 2). They are not heretics only but rebels, who are attacking the rulers and their government, just as a thief attacks another’s goods, a murderer another’s body, an adulterer another’s wife; and this is not to be tolerated.

Second. If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed—for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold—such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers. For they are not mere heretics but open blasphemers; and rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers as they punish those who curse, swear, revile, abuse, defame, and slander. With their blasphemy such teachers defame the name of God and rob their neighbor of his honor in the eyes of the world. In like manner, the rulers should also punish—or certainly not tolerate—those who teach that Christ did not die for our sins, but that everyone shall make his own satisfaction for them. For that, too, is blasphemy against the Gospel and against the article we pray in the Creed: “I believe in the forgiveness of sins” and “in Jesus Christ, dead and risen.” Those should be treated in the same way who teach that the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting are nothing, that there is no hell, and like things, as did the Sadducees and the Epicureans, of whom many are now arising among the great wiseacres.

By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme. For by so doing he would take from God and the Christians their doctrine and word, and he would do them this injury under their own protection and by means of the things all have in common. Let him go to some place where there are no Christians. For, as I have often said: He who makes a living from the citizens ought to keep the law of the city, and not defame and revile it; or else he ought to get out (LW 13:60-62).

This is the first part of the quote (it occurs on page 60). First, In context, Luther is writing specifically about those who teach severe false doctrines. This is not immediately clear in the Internet version of the quote because it's surrounded by other quotes and is found often under the heading "Intolerance of Other Christians" or "Death and Torture for Catholics, Protestant Dissidents, and Jews." Second, in context, Luther allows that those teachers "can still believe what he will," but cannot actively teach. This tolerating aspect is entirely left out of the Internet version of the quote!

Third, Luther goes on beyond this context about what to do if "the papists and the Lutherans (as they are called) are crying out against one another because of certain matters of belief, and preaching against one another..."(LW 13:62-63). He says, "My Lutherans ought to be willing to abdicate and be silent if they observed that they were not gladly heard" (LW 13:63). This is yet another aspect of tolerance left out of the Internet version of this quote, and it certainly doesn't support the sometimes used heading, "Death and Torture for Catholics..." Luther then has a short discussion on those factions who argue over customs not found in the Bible. Notice the lack of intolerance in Luther's comments,

For what the Scriptures do not contain, the preachers ought not wrangle about in the presence of the people. Rather they ought to deal always with the Scriptures, for love and peace are far more important than all ceremonies. Thus St. Paul says (Col. 3:14) that peace is to be preferred to all else, and it is unchristian to let peace and unity yield to ceremonies. If this command does not help, then he who, without Scripture, insists on ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and who would bind men’s consciences, should be ordered to keep silent (LW 13:63)

He then goes on to have a brief discussion about secret ceremonies. He says they should not be tolerated. He's referring to those teachers who hold religious meetings in secret without the knowledge of the church. He then says, "For the rest, anyone may read what he likes and believe what he likes. If he will not hear God, let him hear the devil" (LW 13:64). That's yet another aspect of Luther's tolerance left out of the Internet version of this quote. This leads directly into a discussion in regard to unauthorized religious teachers. Luther shows great concern for scrutinizing radical teachers that sneak into a community. Here we will pick up the tail end of the Internet quote we're scrutinizing:

I have had to say these things about the sneaks and false preachers—of whom there are now all too many—in order to warn both pastors and rulers. They should exhort and command their people to be on their guard against these vagabonds and knaves and to avoid them as sure emissaries of the devil, unless they bring good evidence that they are called and commanded by God to do this work in that special place. Otherwise no one should let them in or listen to them, even if they were to preach the pure Gospel, nay, even if they were angels from heaven and all Gabriels at that! For it is God’s will that nothing be done as a result of one’s own choice or decision, but everything as a consequence of a command or a call. That is especially true of preaching, as St. Peter says (2 Peter 1:20, 21): “You should know this first: No prophecy was brought out by the will of man; but the holy men of God spoke, driven by the Holy Spirit.” Therefore Christ, too (Luke 4:41), would not let the devils speak when they cried out that He was the Son of God and told the truth; for He did not want to permit such an example of preaching without a call. Let everyone, then, remember this: If he wants to preach or teach, let him give proof of the call or command which drives and compels him to it, or else let him be silent. If he does not want to do this, then let the rulers hand the knave over to the right master, the police. That will be what he deserves; for he certainly intends to start a rebellion, or worse, among the people (LW 13:65-66)

Notice Luther's warning against these teachers is not blatant intolerance across the board. He states they can be heard in society if "they bring good evidence that they are called and commanded by God to do this work in that special place." This is yet another aspect of tolerance left out of the Internet version of this quote. Those though that enter a community and simply demand an audience are not to be tolerated. Even this aspect of Luther's alleged "intolerance" amounts to a desire to keep peace and order in a community. In the background of Luther's concern were the extreme radicals like Thomas Müntzer (named by Luther in the same context, LW 13:64). Luther's "intolerance" in this aspect of the quote isn't a sweeping generalization, but has at its center the radicals causing societal unrest.

Conclusion
Certainly there are aspects of the quote in which Luther expresses intolerance, but it isn't to the extreme that is suggested by the truncated version of the quote. In context, Luther's primarily concerned with teaching / preaching radicals that cause societal unrest, but even in his intolerance of them, he would rather they be banished: "But if they went or stayed where there are no Christians, and where, like the Jews, they would be heard by no one, then we would have to let them blaspheme to the stones and trees in some forest, or possibly in the depths of the sea, or in a hot oven" (LW 13:67). If though they insist on teaching, they should be given over to the authorities.

As I stated above, there is a sense in which I'm sympathetic to the defenders of Rome who put forth the Tu quoque argument that Protestants have also committed atrocities, so bringing up Rome's past sins isn't a logically compelling argument against her . This is why I rarely have written against Rome by pointing out her moral evils. On the other hand, some of Rome's defenders have a habit of making Luther worse than he was: by presenting truncated quotes devoid of context, accompanied by spurious documentation. This I am not sympathetic to.  It is the way of propaganda. I am not sympathetic to such methodology, at all. 

Luther: Those who ought to be good Christians because they have heard the gospel, are harder and more merciless than before

Here's another obscure Luther quote typically used by Rome's defenders:

Those who ought to be good Christians because they have heard the gospel, are harder and more merciless than before . . . Tell me, where is there a town . . . pious enough to . . . maintain one schoolmaster or pastor? . . . Thanks also to the dear Evangel, the people have become . . . abominally wicked . . . diabolically cruel . . . growing fat . . . through plunder and robbery of Church goods . . . Ought we not to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves? (Janssen, ibid., XV, 466-467) 

From various web-pages, I've come across Rome's defenders using this quote three different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself."

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 15. On pages 466-467, Janssen states:

'Those who ought to be good Christians because they have heard the gospel, are harder and more merciless than before; as is too plainly patent to all beholders. Of old, when under the guidance of the papacy and of a false worship,people were obliged to do good works, everybody was ready and willing. Now, on the contrary, the world has learnt nothing else than to flay, fleece, and openly rob and plunder by lying and cheating, by usury, forestalling and overcharging. And everyone acts against his neighbour, as though he did not regard him as a friend, still less as a brother in Christ, but as a murderous enemy, and only wanted to get everything for himself alone. This goes on daily and gains head without intermission, and is the most common practice and custom in all classes, among princes, nobles, burghers, peasants, in all courts, towns and villages, yea verily in all houses. Tell me, where is there a town however large that is pious enough to collect together as much as would maintain one schoolmaster or pastor? Yes indeed, if it had not been for the charitable alms and endowments of our forefathers, the burghers in our cities, the nobles and peasants in the country, would long ago have been deprived of the Evangel, and not a single poor preacher would have been fed and clothed. For we will not do it ourselves, but we take and seize by force what others have given and founded." 'Thanks also to the dear Evangel, the people have become so abominably wicked, so inhuman, so diabolically cruel and merciless, that they are not content with profiting by the Evangel themselves, growing fat thereon through plunder and robbery of Church goods, but as far as others are concerned they starve the gospel completely out. You may count upon your fingers, here and elsewhere, all that they give and do for it, they who profit by it themselves, for ourselves, who are living now, there has long been no preacher, no scholar able to teach our children and descendants what we have taught or believed.' ' Ought we not to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves when we think of our parents and forefathers, kings and nobles, princes and others, who gave so liberally and so benevolently, even to superfluity, to churches, parsonages, schools, foundations, hospitals, &c., and by all which they and their descendants were not impoverished?' (Collected Works, xiv 389-391).

I used black lettering to highlight how Rome's defender edited down this paragraph from Janssen. Why would a person take a few words, half a sentence, skip a few words, take a few more, skip a few sentences, and then construct a quote? It's a questionable method to say the least. We'll see below that while this quote comes from one extended paragraph from Johannes Janssen, it ultimately comes from multiple paragraphs from Luther (at least seven paragraphs!), spanning multiple pages. The method of citation often employed by Rome's defenders does point to one blaring conclusion: the quote was never read in its original context in Luther's writings. Had it been, one would realize Janssen didn't cite one paragraph from Luther, but rather sentences from multiple pages.

Janssen says the quote comes from "Collected works xiv, 389-391."This would be the fourteenth volume of the Erlangen edition of Luther's Works, which contains Luther's Church Postil. Here are pages 389, 390, 391. These pages are from a sermon, "Predigt am sechs und zwanzigsten Sonntage nach Trinitatis. Evang. Matth. 25, 31-42" ("Twenty Sixth Sunday After Trinity Sermon, Matthew 25:31-46"). These Postil sermons have a tedious and complicated legacy (see the introduction to LW 75). This sermon has been translated into English. It is found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 379-395. It can also be found in  The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. xiv. 379- 395. There are also various websites offering this sermon (link).

Context

The sermon is about Christ's reward to the sheep and condemnation of the goats. Luther notes that until the day of judgment "The good and the bad must remain together in this world... as Christ himself had to tolerate Judas among his Apostles... Christians are even now grieved that they must remain here in the midst of a crooked, perverse, ungodly people, which is the kingdom of Satan..." (The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. xiv, p.382).

In an extended passage beginning on page 384, Luther describes the goats: those "Christians" that are mingled in with the sheep:

11. It seems as though he meant hereby to show that many Christians, after receiving the preaching of the Gospel, of the forgiveness of sins and grace through Christ, become even worse than the heathen. For he also says in Mat. 19, 30, "Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." Thus it will also be at the end of the world; those who should be honest Christians, because they heard the Gospel, are much worse and more unmerciful than they were before, as we see too many examples of this even now.

Aforetime when we were to do good works under the seduction and false worship of the Papacy, every one was ready and willing; a prince, for example, or a city, could give more alms and a greater endowment than now all the kings and emperors are able to give. But now all the world seems to be learning nothing else than how to estimate values, to rake and scrape, to rob and steal by lying, deceiving, usury, overcharging, overrating, and the like; and every man treats his neighbor, not as though he were his friend, much less as his brother in Christ, but as his mortal enemy, and as though he intended to snatch all things to himself and begrudge everything to others.

12. This goes on daily, is constantly increasing, is a very common practice and custom, among all classes of people, among princes, the nobility, burghers, peasants, in all courts, cities, villages, yes in almost every home. Tell me, what city is now so strong and pious as to be able to raise an amount sufficient to support a schoolmaster or a preacher? Yes, if we did not already have the liberal alms and endowments of our forefathers, the Gospel would long ago have disappeared in the cities on account of the burghers, and in the country because of the nobility and peasants, and poor preachers would have nothing to eat nor to drink. For we do not love to give, but would rather take even by force what others have given and endowed. Therefore it is no credit to us that a single pulpit or school is still maintained. Yea, how many there are among the great, the powerful, and the rich, especially in the Papacy, who would like to see nothing better than all preachers, schools, and arts exterminated.

13. Such are the thanks to the blessed Gospel, by which men have been freed from the bondage and plagues of the Pope, that they must become so shamefully wicked in these last times. They are now no more unmerciful, no more in a human, but in a satanic way; they are not satisfied with being allowed to enjoy the Gospel, and grow fat by robbing and stealing the revenues of the church, but they must also be scheming with all their power how they may completely starve out the Gospel. One can easily count upon his fingers, what they who enjoy the Gospel are doing and giving here and elsewhere; and were it only for us now living, there would long since have been, no preacher or student from whom our children and descendants might know what we had taught and believed.

14. In short, what do you think Christ will say on that day, seated on his judgment throne, to such unmerciful Christianity? "Dear sir, listen, you have also pretended to be a Christian and boasted of the Gospel; did you not also hear this sermon, that I myself preached, in which I told you what my verdict and decision would be: `Depart from me, ye cursed?' I was hungry and thirsty, naked and sick, poor and in prison, and ye gave me no meat, no drink, clothed me not, took me not in, and visited me not. Why have ye neglected this, and have been more shameless and unmerciful toward your own brethren than the Turk or heathen?"

Will you excuse yourself by pleading: "Lord, when saw we thee hungry or thirsty?" etc. Then he will answer you again through your own conscience: Dear sir, were there no people who preached to you; or perhaps poor students who should have at the time been studying and learning God's Word, or were there no poor, persecuted Christians whom you ought to have fed, clothed and visited?

15, We ought really to be ashamed of ourselves, having had the example of parents, ancestors, lords and kings, princes and others, who gave so liberally and charitably, even in profusion, to churches, ministers, schools, endowments, hospitals and the like; and by such liberal giving neither they nor their descendants were made poorer. What would they have done, had they had the light of the Gospel, that is given unto us? How did the Apostles and their followers in the beginning bring all they had -for their poor widows, or for those who had nothing, or who were banished and persecuted, in order that no one among them might suffer for the necessities of life! In this way poor Christians should at all times support one another. Otherwise, as I have said, the Gospel, the pulpit, churches and schools would already be completely exterminated, no matter how much the rest of the world did.

Were it not for the grace of God, by which he gives us here and there a pious prince, or godly government, which preserves the fragments still left, that all may not be destroyed by the graspers and vultures, thieves and robbers; were it not for this grace, I say, the poor pastors and preachers would not only be starved, but also murdered. Nor are there now any other poor people than those who serve, or are being trained to serve the church; and these can obtain no support elsewhere, and must leave their poor wives and children die of hunger because of an indifferent world; on the other hand the world is full of useless, unfaithful, wicked fellows among day-laborers, lazy mechanics, servants, maids, and idle, greedy beggars, who everywhere by lying, deceiving, robbing and stealing, take away the hard-earned bread and butter from those who are really poor, and yet go unpunished in the midst of their wantonness and insolence.

16. This I say, that we may see how Christ will upbraid the false liars and hypocrites among Christians, on the day of judgment, and having convicted them before all creatures will condemn them, because they have done none of the works which even the heathen do to their fellows; who did much more in their false and erroneous religion, and would have done it even more willingly had they known better.

17. Since now this terrible condemnation is justly pronounced over those who neglected these works, what will happen to those who have not only neglected the same, have given nothing to the poor Christians, nor served them; but robbed them of what they had, drove them to hunger, thirst and nakedness, furthermore persecuted, scattered, imprisoned, and murdered them? These are so unutterably wicked, so utterly condemned to the bottomless pit with the devil and his angels, that Christ will not think or speak of them. But he will assuredly not forget these robbers, tyrants, and bloodhounds any more than he will forget or pass over unrewarded those who have suffered hunger thirst, nakedness, persecution and the like, especially for his and his Word's sake. He will not forget those to whom mercy has been shown, even though he speaks only to those who have shown mercy and have lent their aid; for he highly and nobly commends them, when he says. "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me" (p.387).

Conclusion
Rome's defenders, be it Janssen or modern cyber-apologists, put together a quote from seven paragraphs. This isn't scholarship or apologetics, it's the way of propaganda. The context isn't about Luther's agony over the state of early Protestantism, nor is it about Protestants being as wicked or impious as Roman Catholics. The context is about false Christians, the goats, mingled in with true Christians, the sheep. Notice Luther says of the false Christians "This I say, that we may see how Christ will upbraid the false liars and hypocrites among Christians, on the day of judgment."


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

Luther: We Do Not Act Upon the Evangel

Here's another obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Rome:

Now that . . . we are free . . . we show our thankfulness in a way calculated to bring down God's wrath . . . We have got the Evangel . . . but . . . we do not trouble ourselves to act up to it. (Janssen, ibid., XVI, 16-17) 

From various web-pages, I've come across defenders of Rome using this quote three different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself." Third, it was used as proof Luther was disgusted by the state of Protestant morality and decline of Protestant morals.

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 16. On pages 16-17 Janssen states:

How full the world is of people who are ungrateful for the evangel, we see plainly before our eyes, not only in those who intentionally persecute the known truth of the Gospel, but also among us who accept it and make our boast of it; the great masses are also so abominably unthankful that it would be no wonder if God were to come down upon us with thunder and lightning, yea,verily, with all the Turks and devils from hell. So quickly have we forgotten how we were plagued under the papacy and, as it were, overwhelmed with a sin-flood, with so many strange doctrines which put our consciences to torture. But now that through God's grace we are free from all that, we show our thankfulness in a way calculated to bring down God's wrath upon us still more heavily. For let each one consider what unpardonable wickedness it is, when we have received from God such great, sure, immeasurable bounty as forgiveness of all our sins, and being made partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, that we will not even make Him such slight return as to think about it, and on this account to forgive our neighbor a trifling word from our hearts, not to speak of the duty laid upon us to help and serve our neighbor. We have got the Evangel, God be praised! that nobody can deny; but what do we do for it ? We are content to talk about it, nothing more comes of it; we do not trouble ourselves to act up to it. But we do trouble ourselves a great deal if we should chance to lose one or two guldens; we are very anxious and fearful lest our money should be stolen from us, but we can do without the Gospel for a whole year. God will not leave unavenged this shameful contempt of His Word, and He will not be long in avenging Himself (Dollinger, Reformation i, 297-298).

I used black lettering to highlight how Rome's defender edited down this paragraph from Janssen. Why would a person take two words, skip a few, take a few more, skip a few sentences, and then construct a quote? It's a questionable method to say the least. This method does point to one blaring conclusion: the quote was never read in its original context in Luther's writings. Had it been, one would realize Janssen didn't cite one quote from Luther, he cited two that were put together to appear to be one.  Notice Janssen didn't cite a primary source, but cited another Roman Catholic author, Ignaz von Dollinger's Die Reformation vol 1, 297-298. Upon checking this source, it became apparent Dollinger used multiple sources to construct this lengthy quote. Janssen wasn't careful to point this out, leading me to suspect Janssen didn't check the sources either. Janssen's quote should actually be broken up into two quotes like this:

Quote #1

How full the world is of people who are ungrateful for the evangel, we see plainly before our eyes, not only in those who intentionally persecute the known truth of the Gospel, but also among us who accept it and make our boast of it; the great masses are also so abominably unthankful that it would be no wonder if God were to come down upon us with thunder and lightning, yea,verily, with all the Turks and devils from hell. So quickly have we forgotten how we were plagued under the papacy and, as it were, overwhelmed with a sin-flood, with so many strange doctrines which put our consciences to torture. But now that through God's grace we are free from all that, we show our thankfulness in a way calculated to bring down God's wrath upon us still more heavily. For let each one consider what unpardonable wickedness it is, when we have received from God such great, sure, immeasurable bounty as forgiveness of all our sins, and being made partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, that we will not even make Him such slight return as to think about it, and on this account to forgive our neighbor a trifling word from our hearts, not to speak of the duty laid upon us to help and serve our neighbor.

Quote #2

We have got the Evangel, God be praised! that nobody can deny; but what do we do for it ? We are content to talk about it, nothing more comes of it; we do not trouble ourselves to act up to it. But we do trouble ourselves a great deal if we should chance to lose one or two guldens; we are very anxious and fearful lest our money should be stolen from us, but we can do without the Gospel for a whole year. God will not leave unavenged this shameful contempt of His Word, and He will not be long in avenging Himself.

While both quotes are from the Kirchen-Postille (Luther's Church Postil), Janssen's one quote is actually from two different sermons, sometimes from two different volumes. For instance, in the Walch edition, the quotes can be found in Volumes XII (p. 1234) and XI (p.2171). In Weimarer, WA: 22:54-355 and WA 10 I 2:373-374.

Both of these sermons have been translated into English. The first is entitled the Twenty-Second Sunday After Trinity (Philippians 1:3-11). It is found in Dr. Martin Luther's Church Postil: Sermons on The Epistles (quote #1 is found on page 171). It can also be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol.4.2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 330-342 (quote #1 is found on pages 333-334). The second is the Sermon for the Fifteenth Sunday After Trinity (Matthew 6:24-34). It can be found in The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. XIV (pp. 102-117). It can also be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3.1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 102-117).

Context: Quote One
Luther begins by describing the Christian heart of Paul and of those who similarly have a heart "filled with the real fruits of the Spirit and faith" (Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 3,1, p.331). He notes "Such hearts are rare in the world." He then points out that Paul is an excellent example of one who had gratitude toward God for His grace and goodness. In fact, Christians have a duty of gratitude. It is a Christian's duty to manifest thankfulness toward God, and also towards men. Unfortunately, ingratitude is common to sinful human nature, and even heathens recognize the sin of ingratitude among each other. Luther states:

Thus we have the teaching of nature and of reason regarding the sin of men's ingratitude toward one another. How much greater the evil, how much more shameful and accursed, when manifested toward God who, in his infinite and ineffable goodness, conferred upon us while yet enemies to him and deserving of the fires of hell—conferred upon us, I say, not ten dollars, not a hundred thousand dollars even, but redemption from divine wrath and eternal death, and abundantly comforted us, granting us safety, a good conscience, peace and salvation! These are inexpressible blessings, incomprehensible in this life. And they will continue to occupy our minds in yonder eternal life. How much more awful the sin of ingratitude for these blessings, as exemplified in the servant mentioned in the Gospel passage for today, to whom was forgiven the debt of ten thousand talents and who yet would not forgive the debt of his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred pence! (p.333)

Then follows the first obscure Luther quote:

Is it not incredible that there are to be found on earth individuals wicked enough to manifest for the highest and eternal blessings such unspeakable ingratitude? But alas, we have the evidence of our own eyes. We know them in their very dwelling-places. We see how the world abounds with them. Not only are the ingrates to be found among deliberate rejecters of the acknowledged truth of the Gospel, concerning God's grace, an assured conscience and the promise of eternal life, terrible as such malice of the devil is, but they are present also in our midst, accepting the Gospel and boasting of it. Such shameful ingratitude prevails among the masses it would not be strange were God to send upon them the thunders and lightnings of his wrath, yes, all the Turks and the devils of hell. There is a generally prevalent ingratitude like that of the wicked servant who readily forgot the straits he experienced when, being called to account for what he could not pay, the wrathful sentence was pronounced against him that he and all he possessed must be sold, and he be indefinitely imprisoned. Nor have we less readily forgotten how we were tortured under the Papacy; how we were overwhelmed, drowned as in a flood, with numberless strange doctrines, when our anxious consciences longed for salvation. Now that we are, through the grace of God, liberated from these distresses, our gratitude is of a character to increasingly heap to ourselves the wrath of God. So have others before us done, and consequently have endured terrible chastisement. Only calculate the enormity of our wickedness when, God having infinitely blessed us in forgiving all our sins and making us lords over heaven and earth, we so little respect him as to be unmindful of his blessings; to be unwilling for the sake of them sincerely to forgive our neighbor a single slighting word, not to mention rendering him service. We conduct ourselves as if God might be expected to connive at our ingratitude and permit us to continue in it, at the same time conferring upon us as godly and obedient children, success and happiness. More than this, we think we have the privilege and power to live and do as we please. Indeed, the more learning and power we have and the more exalted our rank, the greater knaves we are; perpetrating every wicked deed, stirring up strife, discord, war and murder for the sake of executing our own arbitrary designs, where the question is the surrender of a penny in recognition of the hundreds of thousands of dollars daily received from God notwithstanding our ingratitude. (p 333-334).

In context, the quote in question is a simple exhortation of a pastor for his flock to live with gratitude for God. For Rome's defenders, the quote without a context becomes Luther's agony over "the state of early Protestantism," or that Protestants were as "impious or wicked" as Roman Catholics, or an example of Luther's disgust over "the state of Protestant morality and decline of Protestant morals." Why can't it simply be a sermon of exhortation for people to be grateful to God? Remember, Luther began the sermon by stating that those who live each day with a godly gratitude are rare in the world. In the same sermon Luther goes on to exhorts his hearers:

The world remains the devil's own. We must remember we shall not by any means find with the world that Christian heart pictured by the apostle; on the contrary we shall find what might be represented by a picture of the very opposite type —the most shameless ingratitude. But let the still existing God-fearing Christians be careful to imitate in their gratitude the spirit of the apostle's beautiful picture. Let them give evidence of their willingness to hear the Word of God, of pleasure and delight in it and grief where it is rejected. Let them show by their lives a consciousness of the great blessing conferred by those from whom they received the Gospel. As recipients of such goodness, let their hearts and lips ever be ready with the happy declaration: "God be praised !" For thereunto are we called. As before said, praise should be the constant service and daily sacrifice of Christians; and according to Paul's teaching here, the Christian's works, his fruits of righteousness, should shine before men. Such manifestation of gratitude assuredly must result when we comprehend what God has given us. (p.338)

Context: Quote Two
Luther begins by explaining one needs to do more than hear the Gospel, one needs to do what it teaches: "they who do as the gospel teaches, are true Christians. However, very few of these are found; we see many hearers, but all are not doers of the Gospel" (p.104). To be a doer though isn't the result of compulsion, but is the result of a heart that loves God. Luther then explains that while many say they love God, do they really? Isn't it the case that many who say they love God actually love the things of this world more? Then follows the second obscure Luther quote:

But who are they that love God, and cleave not to gold and worldly possessions? Take a good look at the whole world, also the Christians, and see if they despise gold and riches. It requires an effort to hear the Gospel and to live according to it. God be praised, we have the Gospel; that no one can deny, but what do we do with it? We are concerned only about learning and knowing it, and nothing more; we think it is enough to know it, and do not care whether we ever live according to it. However, on the other hand, one is very anxious when he leaves lying in window or in the room a dollar or two, yea, even a dime, then he worries and fears lest the money be stolen ; but same person can do without the Gospel through a whole year. And such characters still wish to be considered Evangelical. Here we see what and who we are. If we were Christians, we would despise riches and be concerned about Gospel that we some day might live in it and prove it by our deeds. We see few such Christians; therefore we must hear the judgment that we are despisers of God and hate God: the sake of riches and worldly possessions. Alas! That fine praise! We should be ashamed of ourselves in our inmost souls; there is no hope for us! What a fine condition we are in now! That means, I think, our names are blotted out. What spoiled children we are! (p.105-106).

Again, one finds the heartfelt exhortations of a pastor, expounding a text of Scripture. Luther continues:

Now the world cannot conceal its unbelief in its course outward sins, for I see it loves a dollar more than Christ; more than all the Apostles, even if they themselves were present and preached to it. I can hear the Gospel daily, but it does not profit me every day; it may indeed happen if I have heard it a whole year, the Holy Spirit may have been given to me only one hour. Now when I enjoyed this hour I obtained not only five hundred dollars, but also I riches of the whole world; for what have I not, when I have the Gospel? I received God, who made the silver and I gold, and all that is upon the earth; for I acquired the Spirit by which I know that I will be kept by him forever; that much more than if I had the church full of money. Examine now and see, if our heart is not a rogue, full of wickedness and unbelief. If I were a true Christian, I would say: I hour the Gospel is received, there comes to me a hundred thousand dollars, and much more. For if I possess this treasure, I have all that is in heaven and upon earth. But one must serve this treasure only, for no man can serve God and mammon. Either you must love God and hate money; or you must hate God and love money; this and nothing more. (pp. 106-107)

In context, one can see how non-outrageous this sermon was. Luther spoke on a theme that has echoed through church history: the love of God versus the love of the world.

Conclusion
I've stated often that if one wants to read Luther, they should read his sermons. These two sermons are worthy reads. The Roman Catholic polemicists though will use anything to discredit the Reformation, even those points (found in these sermons) that they would most likely agree with: one should have profound gratitude towards God, and one should love God, not the world. In the hands of Rome's defenders, these points become: Luther agonizing over Protestantism, that Protestants were awful sinners, and that Luther was disgusted by his followers. As the context shows, these were simply typical Luther sermons, and I would add, typical sermons of any God-fearing preacher. Luther had a pastor's heart, and continually exhorted his flock to live the Christian life. The ironic thing of course, is that many Roman Catholics accuse Luther of teaching the wanton lawlessness of sola fide. Yet, when he exhorts his hearers to adhere to Christian morals, even this is used against him.

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

Luther: I fear that we are a greater offense to God than the papists

Roman Catholic controversialists put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it did not produce any real fruit and Luther's own words about the state of Protestantism prove it. The argument goes: Protestantism was not a movement of the church, It was the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Luther knew this and admitted it. He died despondent over the mess he created. Since Rome is the true church and the Reformation was a heretical failure, separated brethren must reunite with Rome. Trent cleaned up the issues the Reformers were concerned about and did so in a God-approved reform way.

Statements are brought forth from late in Luther's career indicting him of regret and an admission of failure for starting the Reformation. I've gone through a number of these Luther quotes. These arguments subsided after the positive Roman Catholic reassessment of Luther that occurred in the early twentieth century, but have gained new polemical life floating through cyber-space used by a new generation of Rome's cyber-defenders. Here's one of those quotes (from a recent Roman Catholic cyber-source):

I fear... that we are a greater offense to God than the papists. (Janssen, ibid., vol. 15, 467)

I've observed Roman Catholic web-pages using this quote in different ways; First, as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism," second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself," and third, as proof of the "immediate ill effects of Protestantism on morality" and "Luther's Disgust at the State of Protestant Morality." The overall picture painted is that of a despondent Luther who regretted the Reformation.


Documentation
The documentation given is "Janssen, ibid., vol. 15, 467." This refers to nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 15. Janssen's work belongs to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. Janssen viewed Luther and the Reformation as destroying German culture and piety (see, Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 22-23). Janssen states,

'I fear me,' he said, preaching on the robbery of widows and orphans, 'that we are in such wise trifling with the Evangel, that we are a greater offence to God than the papists. For if there is to be stealing it is better to steal from a rich man than from a poor beggar, for an orphan who has nothing but a morsel of bread. Sirach said: "Do not the widow's tears run down her cheek, and her cry against him that causeth them to fall? For from the cheek they go up even to heaven, and the Lord that heareth will not be delighted with them.''God is not called in vain the Father of widows and orphans, for if they are forsaken by every man God still looks after them! 'He pronounced a woe: 'Woe unto you peasants, burghers, nobles, who grab and scrape up everything for yourselves and pretend all the time to be good evangelicals.' (Collected Works xliv 356-357) [p. 467].

A similar citation can be found used by another Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar (from the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation as well):

No one now will give, and, "unless we had the lands we stole from the Pope, the preachers would have but scant fare"; they even try "to snatch the morsels out of the parson s mouth." The way in which the "nobles and officials" now treat what was formerly Church property amounts to "a devouring of all beggars, strangers and poor widows; we may indeed bewail this, for they eat up the very marrow of the bones. Since they raise a hue and cry against the Papists let them also not forget us. Woe to you peasants, burghers and nobles who grab everything, hoard and scrape, and pretend all the time to be good Evangelicals." (Ib., Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Mat. xviii.-xxiii. For similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 22,S. 317 ; also above, vol. iv., passim. Cp. also Luther s statements i Janssen, " Hist, of the German People," xv., p. 465 ff. ; Dollinger, " Die Ref.," 2, p. 215, 306, 349 [source].

Janssen and Grisar both refer to the Erlangen edition of Luther's works volume 44, around pages 356-357 (note also, Grisar references the very section from Janssen here under scrutiny, an obvious tip-off that Grisar was following the interpretive lead of Jannsen). Janssen says it's "a sermon on the robbery of widows and orphans." Grisar says the source is Luther's sermons on Matthew 18-23. He's correct. The sermon can be found in WA 47:462. The text reads,

The exact sermon was on Matthew 23:14 from 1538 ("The thirty-second sermon, on Matt. 23:14... Luther preached it after March 27 and before September 25, 1538, but the precise date cannot be determined" (LW 68:168). Luther apparently preached his Matthew sermons to the general public at St. Mary's Church in Wittenberg on Wednesdays.  Like many of Luther's sermons, it was not written by Luther, but was rather recorded in manuscript notes, in this case by either Georg Rörer or Johann Stolz. The sermon was planned for publication after Luther's death in the mid 1560's, but never made it to the press. It was eventually published in 1817 (see LW 68: xvi-xviii). This tedium is interesting because it was somewhat fresh primary material when Janssen got a hold of it in the later nineteenth century.

This sermon was translated into English in 2014 in LW:68, Sermons on Matthew Chapters 19-24.  The sermon begins on page 168 and ends on page 173. The specific quote can be found on pages 172-173 at the close of the sermon.


Context
The topic of the sermon was the Lord's woe on the hypocritical pharisees with their long prayers and their societal abuse against widows.  Previous to the quote in question, Luther describes this sort of prayer and behavior has existed "since the world began." He mentions that in his day, "the greatest cathedrals, monasteries, and mendicants" (LW 68:169) were of similar ilk. They likewise have long prayers, but have prayers that only give the appearance of praying. He then finds examples of modern pharisees living in his own day who "devour the world's goods." The people he has in mind are those with ties to the papacy: "Therefore, the worst robbers, the likes of which have never been seen before on earth, are our pope, cardinals, bishops, and clergy, who blaspheme God..." (LW 68"171). He then addresses his congregation with the following warnings:

Therefore, the worst robbers, the likes of which have never been seen before on earth, are our pope, cardinals, bishops, and clergy, who blaspheme God on top of this. But God afflicts the world like this because it despises His word. It is evident how people gave to the false supplicants. All bishoprics have duchies, and people gave because of the false appearance. Now people do not give anything at all when the Gospel is being preached and people can pray correctly. Now they can find a pastor who does more than all the pope's bishops, but they give him only about ten gulden. No one wants to give now, and if we did not have the stolen property of the pope, the preachers would have hardly anything to eat. But that is not all; people also gladly take to themselves all that the poor pastors have for getting an income. People used to open their moneybags generously, but now they would gladly snatch the morsel from the mouth of the pastors. The princes have no lack, but the noblemen and magistrates also take away from the pastors their leftover stale crusts of bread, and yet they want to be regarded as being good evangelical people. Will our Lord God allow this to go on? They are sure to find out. The prayer is not false now, yet people do not give enough for the preachers to have food and drink. Instead, they would gladly take from them that which they still have. No one can convince a peasant or nobleman to think: "He is not from around here! The house and field are not his. Once he lays down his head and dies, his widow will be kicked out. I have a little castle and will be satisfied with that. I do not want to do him any harm." Instead, the young noblemen do it themselves, and the magistrates laugh at it. Therefore, we are worse than the pope, who steals from the rich widows, emperors, kings, princes, and lords. We rob from the poor beggars, their children, and widows, and this is done by us even in this principality. Therefore, we set ourselves in opposition to the Gospel even more disgracefully than in the lands of Duke George or the margrave. That is devouring the beggars, guests, and poor widows. We can also cry out in woe over this, for they devour flesh and bone. While lamenting over the Papists, we should also not forget ourselves.

I fear that we fool around with the Gospel such that we are even worse before God than the Papists. For if someone is going to steal, then it is better to steal from a rich man than from a poor beggar or orphan who has nothing more than a bite of bread. Sirach [35:17-21] says not to grieve the widows and orphans, since their tears fall not down but up. That is, they cry out toward [heaven] above. Those are true waters that go above the mountains, as the proverb has it [cf. Ps. 104:6]. And it is not without cause that God is called the Father of the widows and the orphans, for when they have been abandoned by everyone, God indeed cares for them [cf. Ps. 68:5; 146:9]. But it is better for us to care for and help the widows and orphans, since they are commended to us. If He has to do it, however, this is the kind of business He will take up again with us: "If you afflict the widows, I will cause the young men of your wives to be killed; your wives and children will become widows and orphans" [Exod. 22:23-24]. Thus the Turks make widows and orphans these days, but we have earned it

[You may say,] "The people should not be scolded!" Christ can also preach well. but here He takes vinegar and forgets the honey and says: "Woe, woe to you peasants, townspeople, and nobility, who scrabble, scrape, and grab up everything for yourselves, and yet want to be regarded as good evangelical people. See to it that the Gospel is not only on your lips, while your deeds are doing the opposite."[LW 68:171-173].

Conclusion
Out of all the quotes used to prove Luther's despondency over the effects of the Reformation, this one comes closest to presenting Luther's grave concern over the state of the early Protestant church. Luther was disheartened by the lack of funds to support Protestant ministers. While Luther viewed the general stealing of the Papists as horrible, he likewise chastised his own people for lack of giving, which in essence was a form of stealing.

To take Luther's exhortation though to his congregation as "agony" or regret over the Reformation goes too far. It's one thing to argue Luther suffered from depression and despondency over the state of the Protestant churches, it's quite another to use his words to prove he had a sense of failure and guilt over the reform of the church or the preaching of the Gospel. Luther often complained about the Wittenberg church. He threatened, more than once, that he would either leave this congregation or no longer preach to them. Was this a confession of failure? No. His chiding of his congregation must be understood in the context of his theology. The editors of Luther's Works explain,

The tensions between Luther and the Wittenberg congregation came to a head in Luther's resolution during the summer of 1545 to abandon Wittenberg and to retire with Katy and his family to the countryside, until he was finally persuaded by the petitions of the elector and the university to return. But though dramatic, Luther's brief self-imposed exile from Wittenberg during the last year of his life was in fact not unprecedented. In 1530, before his departure for the Coburg during the Diet of Augsburg, Luther had announced that he would not preach in Wittenberg anymore, and similar threats, sometimes carried through for several weeks at a time, were repeated both before and after.

Luther's complaints about the Wittenberg congregation have been taken as evidence of his personal despair at the end of his life and as an admission of the broader failure of the Reformation at the hands of its foremost exponent. But Luther's sharp criticism must be understood in the context of his own theology and apocalyptic understanding, and set alongside his contemporary statements (often, indeed, within the same sermons) of satisfaction and hope. Although Luther discouraged and even ridiculed efforts (including those of his own friends) to predict the end of the world, he understood the history of the Church, from the time of the apostles to his own era, in view of the coming Last Day. Throughout history, the true Church, gathered around the preaching of the pure Gospel, had been and would always be opposed not only by enemies without but also by false preachers and heretics in its own midst. Indeed, the ferocity of such opposition and resistance, spurred on by the devil, was one of the marks of the true Church and of the pure doctrine. In light of such an understanding, a Reformation that was an unchallenged success would ipso facto have been a failure.

As such, the faults of Evangelical congregations denounced in Luther's preaching were themselves testimonies to the purity of the Gospel being proclaimed in their midst; emphasizing them in preaching constituted a response to the theological claims both of the Antinomians, who denied that the Law should be preached to Christians, and of the Anabaptists, who were understood to demand the radical perfection of Christians in their communities. To be sure, Luther was in full earnest in denouncing sins of greed and usury and demanding their reformation. But the root cause, the fault of coldness toward the Gospel, became in Luther's preaching a confirmation of the truth of his doctrine. In his next-to-last sermon of February 7, 1546, Luther complained of the devotion of the Christians in Eisleben:

If you do go to the Sacrament, you go and come away again like a block of wood, or you let other people go to it and stay away yourself. So, too, you hear God's Word and that God's Son has died for you with no more devotion than if someone had said to you that the Turk had slain the sultan or the emperor had captured the king of France or some other tale, and you think it has no bearing on you, and you are as cold as ice and do not enkindle your heart nor take any thought for your soul or eternal life. That is what careless, wild people do, who take no thought for God.

But Luther is not in fact concerned here to distinguish better Christians from worse ones, denouncing the coldly indifferent and demanding warmer devotion. Instead, he insists that this resistance to the Gospel is the result of original sin even among the best of believers:

Yea, indeed, and we, the best of Christians, do the same. We are able neither to possess this joy nor to bring it into our hearts, though we gladly would. It will not penetrate the heart, bone, and marrow; it does not savor and live; it does not comfort and gladden us as it should. The old Adam and our sinful nature do this; the sin, which still lurks within us, compels me and you so that we do not believe it.

Luther's answer, then, is not to demand perfection, but to direct his hearers back to the catechism:

Therefore St. Peter says in the Second Epistle, chapter 3 [:18):... "Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Prepare yourselves, you Christians, so that you do not think: "We have learned and believe all there is to know about the catechism, Christ, the Sacrament, Baptism, and Absolution." You have just begun and are still very young students. Therefore, think about how you may increase and grow and always continue learning what it means that Christ died for your sakes, so that this does not remain on your tongue like foam or spittle but penetrates and enters the heart, so that it comforts and gladdens you.

After all, Luther says, it is only the heretics, like the ancient Donatists or the modern Anabaptists, who imagine that individual Christians or the Christian Church as a whole can become entirely pure and perfect in this life. The lackluster faith and devotion of Evangelical Christians described by Luther thus becomes, in the context of his theology, a proof of the truth of Lutheran teaching over against Anabaptist claims. Luther's "disappointment" was as much a homiletical posture determined by the expectations of his theology as it was a matter of dispassionate observation.

Luther's complaints about coldness toward the Gospel appear alongside and indeed presuppose his confident declarations that, in fact, the Gospel is being abundantly preached and proclaimed, not only in the churches by faithful pastors, not only in the schools—of which Luther boasts even as he pleads for more generous support—but also in homes, among parents and children, as he says in his last sermon: "You hear at home in your house, father and mother and children sing and speak of it, the preacher speaks of it in the parish church." The Gospel is thus communicated from one generation to the next—and back again. It is to the children, with whom Luther habitually associates knowledge of the Christian Creed, that he refers adults who have questions about Christian faith, and upon the youth, "the seedlings with which the Church of God, like a beautiful garden, is cultivated and propagated," that the reformer continues to place undiminished hopes. The Reformation, as Luther understands it at the end of his life, is neither an accomplished event nor a step along the progressive way to the full purification of the Church, but it is a continual struggle, carried out through the preaching of the Law and the Gospel, to be renewed from generation to generation until the Last Day. [LW 58:xx-xxii].

Addendum 

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

Don't Be a Nitpicker

A Facebook comment states,

I agree that Swan is nit-picking, but best stay away from Will Durant. His footnotes are impressive looking, but I remember trying to follow up some dubious claim Durant made about Bucer and finding it hard to do. Part of the problem is that just because he's an older source himself, his secondary sources are hard to find. That doesn't make him wrong. (I don't remember what the claim was about Bucer, but I remember finding it completely unbelievable as a Bucer specialist.) It seems to me that Durant impresses people just because no one else has really done what he did. But someone ought to, because it should be done better.

This was a reaction from an Anglican to my recent entry, Melanchthon: Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches. According to his general information at Catholic Answers, this Anglican is "seeking admission to the Catholic Church." Despite his swimming of the Tiber, I've read a number of comments from this person over the years in regard to Reformation-related issues, many of which I've found helpful. Even his very Facebook comment verifies that my finding on Durant aren't so outrageous. Frankly though, this criticism that I've engaged in "nit-picking" is bogus, and leads me to believe that either my entry wasn't read carefully (if at all), or that perhaps I didn't explain the background of the post well enough.

First, my scrutiny of the Melanchthon quote was primarily in regard to a comment in a recent CARM post which used the Melanchthon quote. If you follow this CARM discussion,  notice that a Lutheran challenged the quote here saying, "I am not familiar with Durant, is there something online about his citation or works?" The same Lutheran also stated, "After doing a little checking it seems that Will Durant is problematic where appeals are concerned. James Swan Beggarsallreformation blogspot, just go to the main page and search Will Durant for a number of examples. Thanks again for the citation, but can you offer another perhaps more reliable source for the same claim?" To Which the CARM Roman Catholic responded in part, "That is my only source. I'm sure you could study Melanchthon's works and letters and see for yourself. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't. The history of Germany after the Reformation speaks volumes. I don't need further evidence." The Lutheran responded, "I'm not familiar with this caricature of Melancthon. I'm neither denying nor affirming and your source is suspect." And so, I took a look at the quote, demonstrating in my blog post that the polemical point being made originally was inaccurate and the Melanchthon quote used not only didn't support his point, but was itself of a bogus construction. This isn't "nitpicking," it's checking out the facts put forth to substantiate a polemical point.

Second, I did eventually reply on CARM in regard to this issue. The person who initially posted the quote had claimed he got the quote directly from Durant. I demonstrated that he cut-and-pasted it from a webpage, and that webpage constructed the Melanchthon quote from two different pages in Durant's book (which would be enough to demonstrate the quote was spurious). I then demonstrated Durant probably didn't read Melanchthon, but took it from two different volumes in Janssen's set on Germany. In checking Janssen, it became obvious Durant wasn't even correctly quoting Melanchthon. This isn't "nitpicking," it's checking out the documentation put forth to substantiate a polemical point.

Third, I recently read a statement by Robert W. Jenson who inadvertently described how the Reformers are often quoted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics:

Active participants in the continuing theological argument are inevitably and properly cannibals of their predecessors. They dismember predecessors’ systems or structures of intuition, and use bits and pieces for their own purposes.

We're all guilty of this, for better or for worse. Some people are able to use those "bits and pieces" in a more fair and honest way than others. Some people take those "bits and pieces" and put them into their own theological worldview without at least trying to understand how they fit in the theological system in which they live to their fullest. Roman Catholics do this with the Reformers, Protestants do this with aspects of Roman Catholic theology as well. What I've found is that many of Rome's defenders create historical caricatures when they read books on the Reformation, as was the case with the Melanchthon quote. Rome's defenders have a popular notion that the Reformers were saddened by the Reformation at best, or at worst regretted it and their role in reform. This is a caricature. Neither Melanchthon or Luther (or Calvin and Zwingli for that matter) regretted the reform of the church. They were not gleefully ecstatic over every facet of change brought on by the reform movement, but they certainly were not always longing for the days previous to their reform work. So when I demonstrate that one of Rome's defenders "dismembered" and "cannibalized" Melanchthon's words, this is not nitpicking, It's demonstrating the shoddy work of those putting forth propaganda.


Addendum
Here's what one of Rome's defenders thinks of all this:

Swan is an obsessive-compulsive pest situated somewhere on the autistic spectrum whose mania is to the search the Internet for poorly understood religious odds and ends that, he imagines, bolster his idiosyncratic Fundamentalist delusions. He periodically does data dumps on his blog. No one needs Swan. We all have search engines of our own.

There is one thing I agree with here: Rome's cyber-defenders also have search engines. With these modern marvels of technology like Google and Bing they should be able to put forth accurate citations.

Melanchthon: Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches

Here's one from the CARM boards. It seems simple enough- a short quote from Melanchthon was offered to make a polemical point:

Luther turned power over to the princes who leaped at the opportunity to cut ties with the Church and solidify their own. Things went down hill fast from there. Melanchthon, the right hand man of Luther, lamented about the outcome of the Reformation: “They do not care in the least about religion; they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of bishops . . . Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches.”(Durant, 438, 440)

This is typical of Rome's defenders— to blame an entire period of political and social history on the theological concerns of a man who stood defiantly against the papacy. It's debatable if things "went downhill" when "Luther turned power over to the princes who leaped at the opportunity to cut ties with the Church and solidify their own." I'm sure from this defender of Rome's perspective, the loss of social and religious power of the Roman church is negative.  While he was influential, Luther was not the Emperor, nor did he have any legal authority to turn "power" over to any of the German princes. The Reformation was a complex series of events that can't be so easily pigeonholed as this CARM Roman Catholic did. It wasn't as if all was well with the empire until Luther came along and "turned power over to the princes." There were political power struggles with the papacy and empire long before Luther came on the scene. This defender of Rome would do well to study "centralization," or perhaps read the book he (?) claims to have (Durant).

This would be enough of a response, but along with the point about Luther was a quote from Melanchthon. Tracking down Melanchthon quotes isn't as easy as finding the contexts of Luther's words. Below you'll see the tedious detail that one must at times go through because of the sloppy work of Rome's cyber-apologists. Here's the quick version: The person from CARM cut-and-pasted a Melanchthon quote taken from an anti-Reformation web page. That web page took the quote from a secondary source that had the quote on two separate pages. That secondary source took the quote(s) from another secondary source in which the quote is from two different volumes. Part of the quote from one of these volumes isn't even the direct words of Melanchthon. Conclusion: the quote is bogus.  


Will Durant, The Reformation
Two things jumped out to me out about this quote: 1) the source was Will Durant, a secondary source; 2) the quote was from two different pages in Durant's book. The defender of Rome claims he (?) got the quote from Durant: "That is my only source. I'm sure you could study Melanchthon's works and letters and see for yourself. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't. The history of Germany after the Reformation speaks volumes." Most likely, he didn't pull this quote from Durant's book, but rather took it from a polemical anti-Reformation web page that cites it like this:

The quote as presented is a typical method of citation by Rome's defenders: the creation of a single quote from two different pages, taken from a secondary source, and that secondary source took the quotes from a secondary source (Janssen). This again, displays Rome's apologists at their best. As we'll see below, part of this quote isn't even a direct citation of Melanchthon.

 Here's what Durant says:

438: But by 1527 the Lutheran "heresy" had become orthodoxy in half of Germany. The cities found Protestantism profitable; "they do not care in the least about religion," mourned Melanchthon; "they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of the bishops"; (1) for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property. (2) Yet an honest desire for a simpler and sincerer religion seems to have moved many citizens. At Magdeburg the members of St. Ulrich's parish met in the churchyard and chose eight men who were to select the preacher and manage the affairs of the church (1524); soon all churches in

439: the city were administering the Lord's Supper in the Lutheran mode. Augsburg was so fervently Protestant that when Campeggio came there as papal legate the populace dubbed hirn Antichrist (1524). Most of Strasbourg acccpted the new theology from Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1523), and Martin Bucer, who succeeded him there, also converted Ulm. In Nuremberg great business leaders like Lazarus Spengler and Hieronymus Baumgärtner won the city coündil to the Lutheran creed (1526); the Sebalduskirähe and the Lorenzkirche transformed their ritual accordingly, while keeping their Catholic art. In Brunswick the writings of Luther were widely circulated; his hymns were publicly Sung; his version of the New Testament was so earnestly studied that when a priest misquoted it he was corrected by the congregation; finally the city council ordered all clergymen to preach only what could be found in the Scriptures, to baptize in German, and to serve the sacrament in both forms (1528). By 1530 the new faith had won Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock, Lübeck, Stralsund, Danzig, Dorpat, Riga, Reval, and almost all the Imperial cities of Swabia. Iconoclastic riots broke out in Augsburg, Hamburg, Brunswick, Stralsund. Probab!y some of this violence was a reaction against the ecclesiastical use of statues and paintings to inculcate ridiculous and lucrative legends. 

The princes, gladly adopting Roman law— which made the secular ruler omnipotent as delegate of the "sovereign people"—saw in Protestantism a religion that not only exalted the state but obeyed it; now they could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs to administer or enjoy. John the Steadfast, who succeeded Frederick the Wise as Elector of Saxony (1525); definitely accepted the Lutheran faith, which Frederick had never done; and when John died (1532) his son John Frederick kept Electoral Saxony firmly Protestant. Philip the Magnanimous, Landgrave of Hesse, formed with John the League of Gotha and Törgau (1526) to protect and extend Lutheranism. Other princes fell in line: Ernest of Lüneburg, Otto and Francis of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Henry of Mecklenburg, Ulrich of Württemberg. Albert of Prussia, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, following Luther's advice, abandoned his monastic vows, married, secularized the lands of his order, and made himself Duke of Prussia (1525). Luther saw himself, apparently by the mere force of his personality and eloquence, winning half of Germany.  

Since many monks and nuns now left their convents, and the public seemed unwilling to support the remainder, the Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith. The princes agreed to share the confiscated properties and revenues with the nobles, the cities, and some universities, but this pledge was very laxly redeemed. Luther inveighed against the application of ecclesiastical wealth to any but religious or educational purposes, and condemned

440: the precipitate seizure of church buildings and lands by the nobility. A modest part of the spoils was yielded to schools and poor relief; the princes and nobles kept the rest. "Under cover of the Gospel," wrote Melancthon (1530), "The princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches." (3)

Footnotes

1. Janssen IV, 62,
2.  CF. Camb. Mod. Hy, II, 159.
3. Janssen VI, 534.

Before addressing the bogus cyberspace construction of the Melanchthon quote in question, was Melanchthon lamenting the outcome of the Reformation? Durant does say Melanchthon "mourned" in regard to the first sentence in the quote. Of the second sentence in the quote this author says that Melanchthon "complained," as does this author. Even  Dave Hunt checked in saying that Melanchthon "sadly declared..." (No, I don't trust Mr. Hunt either). Why quibble over one word? Rome's defenders have a popular notion that the Reformers were saddened by the Reformation at best, or at worst regretted it and their role in reform. From the actual primary source from which Melanchthon's words were taken, it doesn't appear to me to be either mourning or lamenting, but rather frustration during the proceedings of the complicated Diet of Augsburg (1530). One thing though is certain, neither Melanchthon or Luther (or Calvin and Zwingli for that matter) regretted the reform of the church. They were not gleefully ecstatic over every facet of change brought on by the reform movement, but they certainly were not longing for the days previous to their reform work.


Johannes Janssen: History of the German People
It would not surprise me to discover that Will Durant had actually never read the primary sources for Melanchthon's words. His footnotes are to a polemical Roman Catholic source, Johannes Janssen, not the primary sources for Melanchthon's words. Janssen's work belongs to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. Janssen viewed Luther and the Reformation as destroying German culture and piety (see, Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 22-23). Janssen's bias does not mean he didn't record the facts correctly. One simply needs to keep in mind the framework an author like Janssen puts his facts into.

The quote in question is from two different pages in two different volumes of Janssen's History of the German People. Notice in the second citation below that "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches" are not the words of Melanchthon proper, but are  probably Janssen's description of what Melanchthon is purported to have said.

Janssen IV, 62

In order to establish the 'pure and clear Gospel' it was above all things necessary to effect a change in the existing constitution of the Church, and to transfer ecclesiastical jurisdiction from spiritual to secular authorities. Roman jurists had already advocated a measure of this sort in the fifteenth century. The town magistrates, and the princes also, aimed a strengthening their own territorial might by the establishment of a secular Church government, independent of ecclesiastical power, which should control Church property, appoint and depose 'preachers of the Gospel ' — in short, treat the clergy generally as much as possible as subservient officials of the commonwealth. 'The imperial cities do not care in the least about religion,' said Melanchthon; ' they are only anxious to get dominion into their own hands and to be free from the control of the bishops.' 1

1. 'Maxime oderunt illam dominationem [of the bishops] civitates imperii. De doctrina religionis nihil laborant; tantum de regno ct libertate sunt solliciti' (letter to Luther in the Corp. Reform. ii. 328).

Janssen VI, 534

Melanchthon had been the first and the most vehement in complaining that the princes and municipal authorities who had taken the church management into their own hands had no real interest in religion or in the promotion of Christian discipline.  The imperial cities,' he wrote, 'do not trouble themselves about religion: all they care for is emancipation from the dominion of the bishops.' 'The princes do not concern themselves at all about these matters; one creed is as good in their eyes as another.' Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits. 'What state of things shall we bequeath to posterity if the authority of the bishops is abolished? Even were it allowable to overthrow the organization of the Church, it would be scarcely salutary. What will become of the parishes if the old customs and usages are done away with, and no more regular church overseers appointed? '

Melanchthon was now witnessing the fulfillment of these words of his written in 1530, and all that he saw grieved him so deeply that in his confidential letters he spoke of a strong yearning for death. And yet he was the foremost among those theologians who in May 1554, at a religious convention at Naumburg, planned by the Elector Augustus of Saxony, declared the transference of church management to the civil authorities to be not only an unavoidable necessity, as Luther had long maintained, but a divine command. In his memorandum of advice, which had been approved by the other theologians, he said that the rite of ordination and the juridical powers claimed for the bishops both by themselves and by great potentates, could not be conceded to them because they were persecutors of the Gospel. The gates of the temples are the gates of the princes. Secular lords are the 'feeders of the churches,' and it was their business to provide for right doctrine and Christian discipline; this exalted and divine task belongs to their office. This religious assembly was ruled by the selfsame spirit which two years later inspired a synod at Greifswald to petition the ruling prince 'to remain, next to Christ, the supreme head of the church and the clergy.'

Janssen provides documentation on page 62 of volume IV. In the English edition, he does not provide documentation for Melanchthon's words on page 534 of Volume VI.  One thing is certain: the partial sentence "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches" is not a sentence from Melanchthon proper, but are probably Janssen's description of what Melanchthon is purported to have said. and, as we'll see below, wherever this description of Melanchthon comes from, this description does not come from the same primary source as cited in volume IV, 62 (letter to Luther in the Corp. Reform. ii. 328). The corresponding German version of this text from Janssen VI (p. 725) reads as follows:

The last sentence in the paragraph in question does provide a reference: "vergl die stellen oben s 180. 183. 494-495." These are references to previous pages in Janssen's book. Page 180 refers to the English page here; 183, here. 494, here; 495, here. After looking over these pages, still missing is any actual reference to Janssen's description of Melanchthon's words, "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits."


Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 2
Here is the actual primary source for Melannchthon's letter to Luther, August 29, 1530. Janssen used this as a reference for the first sentence in the quote. The sentence in question appears toward the end ('Maxime oderunt illam dominationem civitates imperii. De doctrina religionis nihil laborant; tantum de regno ct libertate sunt solliciti):

One will notice there's nothing in this short letter that says, "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits." But perhaps Janssen is summarizing Melanchthon. He's not directly citing Melanchthon  as Rome's cyber-defenders say. Where is it from? Janssen doesn't say. It's probably from another 1530 letter related to Melanchthon's involvement at Ausburg.


Conclusion
Yes, tracking all this down took some time. If "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant," I guess Rome's defenders must have a different notion as to what "deep into history" actually means. For them, it must mean creating bogus quotes. I welcome Rome's cyber-defenders to take these bibliographical facts above and figure out exactly what Melanchthon said and where he said it. I've done a lot of the work for you already. Till then, would you folks please document your historical arguments better? Quoting a secondary source who quotes a secondary source only serves to obfuscate whatever points you think you're making.


Addendum  (2/6/15)
Interestingly, the exact form of the questionable Melanchthon quote was published in this book: Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 96. This book includes the quote under the heading of what Melanchthon was purported to have said in 1545. How did the author determine the year was 1545 for these words from Melanchthon?