Debunked Luther: "For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving; My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing..."

Back in 2015 I looked at a poem attributed to Martin Luther. I have since determined its probable origin. Based on my findings presented below, I do not believe this poem was written by Luther:

"For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving;

My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned, For want of some sweet token,

There is One greater than my heart, Whose Word cannot be broken.

I'll trust in God's unchanging Word, ‘till soul and body sever;

For though all things shall pass away, His Word shall stand forever."~(Martin Luther)

A quick Google search reveals how far this quote has traveled, and a text search of the Internet Archive shows extensive use.  A Google Books search demonstrates how often it has been published, particularly in the 21st century. Well-known names have cited it: Norman Geisler used a snippet of it in his book, Christian Apologetics. Alistair Begg published it. D. James Kennedy's 1985 book refers to a portion of it. 

The words of this poem are sometimes cited as a hymn: God's Word Shall Stand Forever, "attributed to Luther." Since I first wrote about this poem in 2015, I've noticed many more links to it being a hymn / song. See for instance the incorporation of the poem into a song, here and here. The musical arrangement appears to be by someone named Faye Lopez. 

Documentation
Most often, "Martin Luther" is cited as the author of this poem. Careful people have cited, "attributed to Martin Luther." Neither of these are helpful in locating the source! After searching multiple uses of the poem through the decades, the oldest use I could locate is from 1929. Interestingly, an author other than Luther is cited, "W.M. Czamanske." I believe he is the author of this poem.

Who was he? Was he the W.M. Czamanske the Lutheran minister mentioned here? It appears he had a knack for poetry. In this periodical, he presents another rhyming Luther poem: 

In the same magazine, he offers a number of poems. There was also a Wm. Czamanske that authored a number of hymns. Was this the same person? The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary Handbook states,

Czamanske, William Martin, 1873-1964

CZAMANSKE, William Martin (1873- ), was born August 26, 1873, at Granville, Wisconsin. He was graduated from Concordia College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1894, and from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in 1898. Ordained and installed as pastor July 31, 1898, he served successively Lutheran churches, near Madelia, Minnesota, 1898-1902; West Henrietta, New York, 1902-1904; Rochester, New York, 1904 to 1910; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin, 1910-1951, when he entered retirement. He has contributed poems to the Lutheran Witness, Sunday School Times, Etude, Expositor, Northwestern Lutheran, and other church publications. He served as member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Hymnology and Liturgics for the Synodical Conference of North America, which edited The Lutheran Hymnal.

tr. 186, 392

The periodical the poem originally appeared in (cited above) was The Sunday School Times. From this early use from the Sunday School Times, the quote begins to multiply.  For instance, in 1939, we find the following:

The poem continues to be cited through the decades. It would be interesting to see the full version of this snippet view from the 1943 Lutheran Witness to see if Czamanske submitted it. Note this shorter version also from 1943 which is in the same format (and citation) as the Lutheran Witness

This book from 1956 attributes the quote to Luther, via Moody Monthly: 

See also this same text from 1951, and its exact use in 1968. 

I came across shorter versions that hint part of it originated in the late 1800's - early 1900's:

Martin Luther was once asked, "Do you feel as if your sins were forgiven?" "No," he returned, stoutly. "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know that they are, because God says so in his Word. [source]

In some early instances, the one asking Luther is Satan. Note the part of this paragraph from 1889:

Martin Luther, in one of his conflicts with the devil, was asked by the arch-enemy if he felt his sins forgiven. "No," said the great reformer, "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know they are, because God says so in His Word." Paul did not say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt feel saved;" but, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." No one can feel that his sins are forgiven. Ask that man whose debt was paid by his brother, "Do you feel that your debt is paid?" "No," is the reply, "I don't feel that it is paid; I know from this receipt that it is paid, and I feel happy because I know it is paid." So with you, dear reader. You must first believe in God's love to you as revealed at the Cross of Calvary, and then you will feel happy, because you shall know that you are saved. [source]

It appears that part of the core of this quote has been around at least 100 years.  It does sound suspiciously like a rewording of a Table Talk entry, but in my brief search of the extant English versions I didn't come across anything.

Conclusion

My conclusion: Luther did not write this rhyming poem. Based on the usage I searched out, the original author was probably W.M. Czamanske. He appears to have had a poetical nature. If in fact he was a Lutheran minister, it would make sense why the theology echoed Luther. Rev. Czamanske did live to 1964, so perhaps saw that his poem was being utilized by others. I think he would be amazed to see how extensively his poem has been cited and that his words became Luther's words!   

Addendum #1

Indeed, the sentiment of the quote could be demonstrated to be something Luther believed. Consider how easily it would have been for someone to read this old English Table Talk statement and summarize it in the one of the forms above:

That the Forgiveness of sins must pass through all things.
The law doth justify in no state, calling and art; impossible it is that every thing should go on in a straight line according to the Law, as we see in the grammar which is taught in schools; no rule is so common, which hath not an exception. Therefore, the forgiveness of Sins is needful through life, and is held out in all arts and sciences. The forgiveness of sins is declared only in God's Word, and there we must seek it; for it is grounded on God's promises. God forgiveth thee thy sins, not because thou feelest them and art sorry, for that doth sin itself produce, and can deserve nothing; but he forgiveth thy sins because he is merciful, and because he hath promised to forgive for Christ's sake, his dearly beloved Son, and caused his word to be applied to thee: namely, “Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.”

Addendum #2

"So now turn from your conscience and its feeling to Christ who is not able to deceive; my heart and Satan however, who will drive me to sin are liars... You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you... Therefore you are able to fight with your conscience by saying: You lie; Christ speaks truth and you do not." WA 27, 223 (cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 59).

Addendum #3

I found a book citing my 2015 blog entry in regard to the poem: Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community. I know nothing about this book or author, but that she took the time to track down the source of Luther's poem is sometimes a good indication of the research put into the book.  

Luther: "Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason"

 ...From the depths of cyberspace:

I came across another quote, allegedly from Luther: "Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason." Sometime after they tried to feed him Worms, I guess!  (There was no attribution, so...)

Documentation

The person posting this makes a correct observation that the quote is often posted without meaningful documentation, however it's not impossible to locate the source via a few cyber-searches.  The English version of this quote may originate from Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, a Life of Martin Luther.  Bainton documents the burning of Luther's books at Cologne and then the subsequent event of Papal documents being burned at Wittenberg by Luther and his supporters.  Bainton records Luther saying,   

Since they have burned my books, I burn theirs. The canon law was included because it makes the pope a god on earth. So far I have merely fooled with this business of the pope. All my articles condemned by Antichrist are Christian. Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason.

Bainton cites "VII, 161-182" from WA. The careful reader will observe this amounts to twenty-one pages of text for five sentences! Bainton is actually citing the entire document the quote comes from: Warumb des Bapsts und siner Jungernn bucher vonDoct. Martino Luther vorbrant seynn.  The quote comes from the very end of the document (p.181):

This text has been translated into English: Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned by Doctor Martin Luther (LW:31, 382-395). The quote appears on pages 394-395

Context

I am willing to let everyone have his own opinion. I am moved most by the fact that the pope has never once refuted with Scripture or reason anyone who has spoken, written, or acted against him, but has at all times suppressed, exiled, burned, or otherwise strangled him with force and bans, through kings, and other partisans, or with deceit and false words, of which I shall convince him from history. Nor has he ever been willing to submit to a court of justice or judgment, but at all times bawled that he was above Scripture, judgment, and authority.

Latin text: 

Ego unicuique libenter suum permiserim iudicium, nam me hoc movet potissimum, quod papa nunquam, ne semel quidem, quemquam vicerit vel Scriptura vel ratione, qui contra ipsum dixisset, scripsisset, vel fecisset, sed semper vi, excommunicatione, per reges, principes et reliquos fautores, aut per dolos malos et falsa verba oppresserit, eiecerit, combusserit, vel alioqui occiderit. Cuius rei eum possum testibus omnibus historiis convincere. Eoque nomine nunquam voluit neque iudicium neque sententiam pati, semper ausus praetendere et obstrepere, se esse superiorem omnibus Scripturis, iudiciis et potestatibus. 

Luther: I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer

A recent email asks,

I know you love chasing sources for Luther quotes. I know he's widely quoted as saying "I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer", but I can't find a source for it. I thought I'd flick you an email to see if you've ever tried tracking a source for this one down. Have you?

If you Google search it, you'll get numerous hits. This source from 1896 states,

Martin Luther, upon being asked one time by a friend what his plans were for the following day, replied, "Work, work from early until late. In fact, I have so much to do that I shall spend the first three hours in prayer" (c.f.  1871; 1880).

Other variants of this rendering state, "Work, work, from morning until late at night. In fact, I have so much to do that I shall have to spend the first three hours in prayer." One lengthier variation reads,

Martin Luther famously said, "If I fail to spend two hours in prayer each morning, the devil gets the victory through the day. I have so much business, I cannot go without spending three hours daily in prayer."

Spurgeon Not Luther?
So where did this quote come from? There were a flurry of variants and usages of it in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. I suspect the quote was popularized via the publication of C.H. Spurgeon's writings. Note this secondary source quoting Spurgeon:

PRAYING AND WORKING. I Like that saying of Martin Luther, when he says, "I have so much business to do to-day, that I shall not be able to get through it with less than three hours' prayer." Now, most people would say, "I have so much business to do to-day, that I have only three minutes for prayer; I cannot afford the time." But Luther thought that the more he had to do, the more he must pray, or else he could not get through it. That is a blessed kind of logic: may we understand it! "Praying and provender hinder no man's journey." If we have to stop and pray, it is no more hindrance than when the rider has to stop at the farrier's to have his horse's shoe fastened; for if he went on without attending to that it may be that ere long he would come to a stop of a far more serious kind.—C. H. Spurgeon.

There were a number of sources similarly citing this snippet from Spurgeon. The snippet  appears to come from Spurgeon's sermon 1865 sermon, Degrees of Power Attending the Gospel (pdf).  The date  of the sermon is relevant in trying to determine where Spurgeon took the quote from. Spurgeon's primary language was English. During this time period, there was only a limited pool of Luther's writings available in English. I think it's safe to rule out Spurgeon reading Luther in German; Spurgeon's education was limited, and I don't think he knew German. This is not to imply that Spurgeon was not intelligent or intellectual. I've read that he may have had a photographic memory. This website states, "Spurgeon had no formal education beyond Newmarket Academy, which he attended from August 1849 to June 1850, but he was very well-read in Puritan theology, natural history, and Latin and Victorian literature." Christian History says he was tutored in Greek and "his personal library eventually exceeded 12,000 volumes." Spurgeon's autobiography states his study of Latin began in 1845. So, it's possible Spurgeon could have read Luther in Latin.  

I suspect though,  Spurgeon was simply working from memory in his sermon and not citing Luther directly.  The quote, as has been popularized, may simply be Spurgeon's recollection of what he recalls reading Luther to have said.

Conclusion
I have not found any evidence that Martin Luther penned or uttered the exact words of the variants posted above. Interestingly,  Luther's Table Talk does say,

"I have every day enough to do to pray" (source) 

"I," said Luther, "have every day enough to do to pray; and when I lay me down to rest and sleep, and pray the Lord's Prayer, and afterwards take hold of two or three sentences out of the Bible, and so take my sleep, then I am satisfied." (source)  (source)

This could very well be what Spurgeon was recalling, coupled with the fact that Luther was known to spend much time in prayer.  I found this review helpful: Martin Luther on Prayer. The author presents a detailed look on Luther's view on prayer. It's probably the case that Luther did not utter this saying, but it would in fact be in harmony with his view of prayer.

Did Luther really pray three hours a day? According to Luther's friend Viet Dietrich, he did. Writing to Melanchthon in 1530, Dietrich wrote: "Nullus abit dies, quin ut minimum tres horas, easque studiis aptissimas in orationibus ponat." He goes on to describe Luther's prayers (source):

Addendum
This is a revision of an earlier blog entry. The original can be found here.

Luther: “As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity”

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

In studying Luther, we must remember that his cardinal dogma when he abandoned Catholic teaching was that man has no free will, that he can do no good, and that to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible. He insists that the moral law of the Decalogue is not binding, that the 10 Commandments are abrogated and that they are no longer in force among Christians. “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart”(De Wette, 4, 188). “If we allow them — the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies, and blasphemies.” (Comm. Ad Galatians). “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid 10 Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (Wittenb. Ad 5, 1573). “As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity.” (Alts Abenmachlslehre, 2, 118)

A number of quotes are presented. This entry will concentrate on the last quote: "As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity. (Alts Abenmachlslehre, 2, 118)." As to the other quotes, I've covered most of them already as part of my Luther, Exposing The Myth series, or elsewhere on this blog.

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as the "Antinomian Luther." They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church (but not limited to them!).  Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. Notice in the paragraph above, the Catholic Answers participant says Luther believed "to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible." Then quotes are brought forth to demonstrate Luther was fundamentally immoral and rejected God's law. The champion of this view was Heinrich Denifle (1844-1905), an Austrian Roman Catholic historian. For Denifle, one of Luther's major problems was lust and immorality. It was Luther's craving for sex that led him to not only break his monastic vows, but to revolt against the established Roman church.

Let's take a closer look at this quote and see what's going on. Let's see if the historical record proves Luther was a sex-driven person who abandoned God's law to fulfill his fleshly desires.

Plagiarism 
The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation.  This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of these posts were blatant plagiarism. Even if he (she?) did compose one of these web pages, I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther, especially the quote above under scrutiny. The paragraph appears in almost the exact form in Father O'Hare's book on pages 314-315. O'Hare uses it to question Luther's morality: to prove his "disturbed conscience," and that "he was not a God-inspired man and had no claim to be considered even an ordinary reformer or spiritual guide." O'Hare states, 

In studying Luther, we must remember, that his cardinal dogma when he abandoned Catholic teaching, was that man has no free-will, that he can do no good and that to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible. He insisted that the moral law of the Decalogue is not binding, that the Ten Commandments are abrogated and that they are no longer in force among Christians. "We must," he says, "remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart." (De Wette, 4, 188.) "If we allow them—the Commandments—any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies." (Comm. ad Galat. p. 310.) "If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (Wittenb. ad. 5, 1573.) Having thus unceremoniously brushed aside the binding force of the moral law, we do not wonder that he makes the following startling and shameless pronouncements. "As little as one is able," he says, "to remove mountains, to fly with the birds (Mist und Ham halten), to create new stars, or to bite off one's nose, so little can one escape unchastity." Alts Abendmahlslehre, 2, 118.) Out of the depths of his depraved mind, he further declares: "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations (temptations to lewdness) by fasting, prayer and chastisement.  For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women." (Jen. ed. 2, p. 216.)

Whether the person at Catholic Answers took the quote from O'Hare's book or not, someone at some point did, and that's why it's on the Internet (now being disseminated by cut-and-paste plagiarism). To borrow from this Catholic Answers participant: today many people will read a biased and poorly researched web-page or book about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

Documentation
O'Hare does cite a reference for the quote in question: "Alts Abendmahlslehre, 2, 118." This cryptic reference occurs numerous times in nineteenth-century Luther-related materials, primarily German writings, and then fizzles out in twentieth-century usage.The reference appears to point to the second volume in a book in regard to the Lord's Supper. Whatever is meant by this reference, versions of this quote with a similar reference can be traced back in its polemical usage to at least 1781. For instance,  this eighteenth-century author says Luther lived his early years in constant lust and fornication, and that he freely admitted he was unable to live a chaste life. He the cites the quote under scrutiny:

Notice with this book, also mentioned is a "2" and a "118," which is similar to what O'Hare is citing, but it leaves out "Alts Abendmahlslehre." Unfortunately, what's being referred to by Father O'Hare and this other reference isn't clear to me. "Alts" could be referring to the Altenberg edition of Luther's collected writings. If O'Hare and this author are citing volume 2 page 118 of the Altenberg edition, there's nothing on this page similar to the quote in question, nor is this treatise about the Lord's Supper. Interestingly though, notice the "T. 2. 292" from the 1781 book above. There is something very similar to the quote on p. 292 of Altenberg, volume 2 (which will be discussed below).

Another reference that also occurs with this quote at times is "Gottlieb. 2. Ausg. S. 245." For instance, this book from 1896 uses the quote and adds the Gottlieb reference:

"Gottlieb. 2. Ausg." refers to Briefe aus Hamburg: ein Wort zur Vertheidigung der Kirche gegen die Angriffe von sieben Läugnern der Gottheit Christi, Volume 2 by Gottlieb (Tilmann Pesch SJ). Here is Page 245:

Gottlieb simply cites the quotes with the "Alts Abendmahlslehre"  reference: "In abundance, Luther often says it outright, after man Pure, chaste life is impossible. As little as I can paint away mountains, fly with the birds, hold manure and urine, darken the sun, create new stars, and bite my nose, I can not let go of fornication (Alte Abendmahlslehre 2. 118)."

Context
I'm not sure what source is meant by "Alte Abendmahlslehre 2." However,  as stated above, there is something very similar to the quote on p. 292 of Altenberg, volume 2 (cited in the 1781 text).  Page 292 states:

This page is part of Letter Luther wrote in August 1523 to the Burgemeister at Nuremburg."to resist papal pressures and to appoint an evangelical preacher." Jules Michelet explains:

One of the points which gave the greatest disquietude to the Reformer was the abolition of monastic vows. In 1522, he sent forth an exhortation on this subject to the four mendicant orders. The Augustines, in the month of March, the Carthusians in August, declared energetically in his favour.

To the lieutenants of his imperial majesty at Nuremberg, he writes, in August, 1523: "It is inconsistent with the nature of God to require vows which it is impossible for human nature to keep. . . Dear lords, we implore you to unbend in this matter. You know not what horrible and infamous cruelties the devil exercises in convents; render not yourselves accomplices in his wickedness, charge not your consciences with his guilt. If my bitterest enemies knew that which I learn every day from all the countries about us—ah, I am sure they would at once assist me in overthrowing the convents! You compel me to cry out louder than I otherwise would. Give way, I entreat you, ere these scandals burst forth more scandalously than they need to do."

It is in the context of this letter that something very similar to the quote occurs. This letter can be found in Sämtliche Werke, Volumes 53, 182-190 with the quote on page 188 and also in WABr 3:367-374, with the relevant section on page 372:

To my knowledge, this letter has no official English translation. In this section, Luther says that unless God provides a miracle of chastity, a vow of chastity is impossible to keep. It would be like the miracle of a person flying like a bird (Wer will doch fliegen geloben wie ein Vogel, und halten, es sei denn Gottes Wunderzeichen da?). Mankind was not created for chastity, but rather to be fruitful and multiply. To impose a vow of chastity on someone naturally born to procreate is like a person trying to hold their dung and urine (Mist oder Harn halten).  

Conclusion
I would be surprised if  "Alte Abendmahlslehre 2. 118" said anything different than what Luther 's letter from August 1523 to the Burgemeister at Nuremburg says above. I would also be surprised if some other context (other than this letter) the quote is purported to have been taken from actually exists. True, some of the key phrases are missing from the August 23 letter:  "...to remove mountains, to create new stars, or to bite off one's nose...". After going through years of these quotes, one thing I've noticed is that when a Luther quote provides a number of statements together saying the same thing, they can at times be secondary summary statements put together by someone reading Luther. 

One thing is clear from the context: Luther believed in celibacy for those who were given it by God. Otherwise, Luther believed in the married life as the norm for human beings. Biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. This desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). During Luther's time, the monks and nuns were plagued with fornication because of the unnatural vow they took. Some of Luther's detractors though (like Denifle and O'Hare) painted a much different picture: Luther was simply espousing blatant fornication. Perhaps these men took issue with Luther here because they themselves worked hard at keeping their vow of celibacy.

Luther wrote often on vows and chastity. In his extended treatment of 1 Corinthians 7, he ends with this summary that well explains his view:

Now we may summarize this chapter thus: It is well not to marry unless it is necessary. It becomes necessary when God has not given us the rare gift of chastity, for no one is created for chastity, but we are all born to beget children and carry the burdens of married life, according to Gen. 1; 2, and 3. Now, if someone should not suffer from this necessity, he would be the exception solely by the grace and the miraculous hand of God, not because of command, vow, or intent. Where God does not effect this, it may be attempted, but it will come to no good end. Therefore they are nothing but abominable murderers of souls who put young people into monasteries and nunneries and keep them there by force, as though chastity were something that could be put on and off like a shoe and something that is in our hand. Meanwhile they themselves take quite a different view and drive others to attempt what they have never even raised their little finger to attempt or would not be able to. It is easy to say: “Be chaste,” but why are you not chaste? It is great for you to eat like a pig and drink like a horse while telling me to fast! But enough said for those who are willing to listen. And what more can one say to those who will not listen? May God enlighten them or prevent them from strangling souls in this fashion! Amen. (LW 28:55-56).

Luther: Like the mules who will not move unless you perpetually whip them with rods, so the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be

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. Further into the discussion he stated,

What hog wash you have continually used weasel words and your Opinion to deny everything.

Here this is something else you can deny:

Like the mules who will not move unless you perpetually whip them with rods, so the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be." (El. ed. 15, 276, quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 235.)

I'd like to look at this quote to see if it's "something else" I'm going to "deny," or it it's something else entirely different. Let's see if this quote proves Luther was a "a demon possessed wicked butcher" or "responsible for the death of untold thousands."

Documentation
Even though two references are given, a simple search reveals this was probably a cut-and-paste from other online sources.  The Catholic Apologetics Network uses this quote and documentation verbatim in an article entitled, "The Myth Of Martin Luther And Why So Few Read His Works." The quote can be found with simply a reference to O'Hare in web pages like Shocking Beliefs of Martin Luther. Dr. Michael Brown included it in his book, Authentic Fire. He documents it by saying, "For the quotes on a Christian website critical of Luther see http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm." This happens to be the same article posted by the Catholic Apologetics Network.

Let's begin with the later part of the reference: "quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 235." This refers to Father Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther, the TAN reprint from 1987. The book was originally published many decades earlier, and is consider to be part of the hostile Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther.  Father O'Hare states,

Luther's advice "to strangle" the peasants, "to stab them secretly and openly, as they can, as one would kill a mad dog," was fulfilled to the letter. He thought that "God gave rulers not a fox's tail, but a sword," and "the severity and rigor of the sword," he says, "are as necessary for the people as eating and drinking, yes, as life itself." The time in his estimation had come "to control the populace with a strong hand" and the rulers must resort to "the severity and rigor of the sword." "Like the mules," he says, "who will not move unless you perpetually whip them with rods, so the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be. The coarse, illiterate Mr. Great I am—the people—must be forced, driven as one forces and drives swine and wild animals." (El. ed. 15, 276.) This is a most astounding utterance, but apart from its heartlessness and lack of consideration of the common people it shows the way Luther preached liberty and democracy, a liberty and democracy which meant absolutism and despotism armed with all its iron terrors in government and through which for nearly two centuries after the nations of Europe were oppressed and tyrannized.

O'Hare cites "El. ed. 15, 276." This refers to the Erlangen Edition of Luther's works. This out of print German / Latin edition of Luther's works was published in the 1800's. This primary reference is correct. Erlangen XV page 276 can be found here (and the same text can be found here). It's also found in WA XX 247. It's from Ein ander Sermon am Tage der Opferung Christi im Tempel, Luca 2, 22-32  (Luther's Sermon on Luke 2:22-32, "Sermon on the Day of the Purification of Mary," February 2, 1526). The Text reads:

An English translation of this sermon is available in Joel Baseley, The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 244-258: "A Second Sermon on the Festival of the Presentation of the Infant Christ at the Temple." I've covered this quote previously, though it was a different English translation: Luther: Rulers should drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the well of the vulgar masses. What follows was primarily taken from this older blog article.

Context
Why would a sermon on Mary's purification would include such a comment? The fact of the matter is many of Luther's alleged Marian sermons have far more to say about other subjects rather than Mary. Luther was expounding upon the keeping of the law as stated in Luke 2:22-24. From this he launched in to a discussion on the burden of the law, and it's crushing condemnation of people before a holy God and the misery it brings upon people. Even those who keep some sort of outward appearance of keeping the law still haven't kept the law purely in their hearts. The law brings misery on mankind, because it condemns man of sin. Contrarily, Christ kept the law with a pure heart, even though he didn't need to. Luther states,

According to the outward mask we sure keep the law, put on a good show and grab hold of it with our fist. But of hearts shy away from it. We do it unwillingly. We have no desire to do by nature unless that Holy Ghost enlightens our heart with His grace. Therefore even if we keep the law with works, yet it is not done from pure and clean heart. For it is done for the sake of our own advantage reputation or out of fear of punishment.

Now since God has also given the law and He knows that no one keeps it, He is also the One who has made it a prison guard, driver and leash. For the Scripture designates this supervision [of the law] by comparing it to one who drives a stubborn mule, which one must always push and pull and drive with a stick or it will not move forward. So this supervision of the law must pummel you. It is always to drive, strike, throttle, hang, burn, behead, and torture you so that you fear. By this people are held in check. For God does not desire that the law merely be presented to the people, but rather that it also drive them, seize them with a fist and compel them to work. For only in this way are people preserved. If they are not forced then they will do nothing. That is because the heart cannot keep the law because it is completely against its nature.

So if there were no punishment in the world, there would be nothing in the world but the rule of death, adultery, thievery, robbery, manslaughter and every blasphemy. No one would be safe from one another. But when the supervision of the law is there and punishes gross scoundrels and blasphemers, the rabble must be contained by it. They will know they are not permitted to go forth so boldly and live their lives according to their own desires. So it is necessary that the driving of the law remains over people and those raging rebels. It always compels and drives as swine and wild animals are forced and driven.

So now if we must do the law and not like it, then we are an enemy of the law for it battles our lusts. But God has done all of this so that it makes us weary. By this we might learn to acknowledge our abilities, and what we are able to do. So we look at ourselves and say, "I, poor man, I must keep the law and I don't like to do it. Yes, I have absolutely no desire to do it. So then I must lose any reward and thanks that I would get for doing it, had I truly and gladly kept the law." In summary, all who are under the law do it unwillingly. So we are tortured by it, forced to keep it and yet earn no reward from it [Baseley, 248-249].

Conclusion
God has also instituted authorities to enforce law to keep society stable. In another treatise, Luther expounds similarly:

You must know that since the beginning of the world a wise prince is a mighty rare bird, and an upright prince even rarer. They are generally the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth; therefore, one must constantly expect the worst from them and look for little good, especially in divine matters which concern the salvation of souls. They are God’s executioners and hangmen; his divine wrath uses them to punish the wicked and to maintain outward peace. Our God is a great lord and ruler; this is why he must also have such noble, highborn, and rich hangmen and constables. He desires that everyone shall copiously accord them riches, honor, and fear in abundance. It pleases his divine will that we call his hangmen gracious lords, fall at their feet, and be subject to them in all humility, so long as they do not ply their trade too far and try to become shepherds instead of hangmen [LW 45:113].

The editors of Luther's Works note on the word "executioner" used above:

The term stockmeyster, meaning “jailer,” is also used by Luther synonomously with Zuchtmeister for Paul’s “custodian” of Gal. 3:24–25. See his exegesis of the Nunc Dimittis in a sermon preached on the Day of the Purification of Mary, February 2, 1526, where the term must mean more than merely a guard or warden; it refers actually to one who flogs or otherwise inflicts legal punishment in execution of a sentence. WA 20, 247
[LW 45:113, fn 82].

Because the world is so wicked, Luther says in Trade and Usury (1524),

Streets must be be kept clean, peace established in cities, and justice administered in the land. Therefore one must let the sword strike transgressors vigorously and boldly, as St. Paul teaches (Rom. 13:4). For God wants non-Christians held in check to keep them from doing wrong or from committing wrong without being punished. Let no one imagine that the world can be governed without the shedding of blood. The temporal sword should and must be red and bloodstained, for the world is wicked and is bound to be so. Therefore the sword is God's rod and vengeance for it [ WA 15:302; LW 45:258; Ewald Plass, What Luther Says, III: 1156].

In the sermon in question, Luther goes on to compare fallen humanity's burden of being under the law with Christ who kept the law willingly and with a pure heart. Christ fulfilled the law with pleasure. He volunteered to keep the law. Christ did not fear the stockmeyster. In this 1526 sermon, Luther goes on to weave his exposition of the law into a presentation of the gospel.

Luther's theories on government are far more complicated than this simple quote posted on CARM . The interested reader should track down What Luther Says and read the twenty eight page double columned synopsis presented by Ewald Plass. Plass points out a number of factors in Luther's governmental theories, everything from Luther's attitude toward unjust rulers, as well as the fact that rulers should not rely on mere brute force. Not to be forgotten as well, Luther was a not a modern man. His notions of government reflect the collective thinking of his time period. Luther's concern was for a stable society, following Paul's concerns expressed in Romans 13. The simple point being made is that God has instituted government to proclaim and uphold civic law. While the methods suggested by Luther are appalling by today's standards, they weren't so to the sixteenth century person. They were a fact of life.

I did post the context of this quote on CARM. The response I received back was, "See I knew you would deny it , and poison the well at the same time, and you are getting quicker with your denials." Ah, well... Que Sera, Sera.

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: I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries and the Anabaptists; ... I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all underfoot

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:

"I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries and the Anabaptists; ... I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all underfoot." (Daniel-Rops, 86)

We'll see below that finding the context for this specific quote is no easy task.  The person using it simply cut-and-pasted it, and I'm confident that if challenged, that person could not provide a meaningful context. 

Documentation

The documentation provided is "Daniel-Rops, 86." "Daniel-Rops" is not a writing of Luther's. It refers to page 86 in the second volume of The Protestant Reformation by Henri Daniel-Rops (1901-1965).  He was a French Roman Catholic writer. The chapter which houses this quote is entitled, "The Tragedy of Martin Luther."  As the title infers, the author takes a negative view.  For instance, even though Luther deserves "fraternal pity," Luther's mind "contained also something of the devil" (p.356). He "turned to rebellion of the worst kind." While there were "many in the Catholic camp" that contributed to the woes of the Reformation, "Nevertheless it remains true to say that the greatest guilt was Luther's" (p. 356). Henri Daniel-Rops sees Luther as a necessary evil, a heretic that provoked the Roman church to "genuine reformation" (p.356-357).

The book was originally in French (L'Eglise de la Renaissance et de la Réforme). His volumes on the Reformation were eventually translated into English and placed into one, with the quote in question found on page 339. After noting Calvin and Melanchthon were somewhat remorseful in regard to the divisions in early Protestantism, the author states:

Luther, of course, was impervious to such arguments. He pursued his own course, like a man chasing after a dream: 'I have the Pope in mind,' he said; 'I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries and the Anabaptists; but I shall march alone among them all; I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all underfoot.' 

The French version reads,

Ce langa e de sagesse n'eut guère d'écho. äuant à Luther, imperméable à des arguments de ce genre, il continuait sa course comme un homme qui poursuit un rêve: « J'ai le Pape en tête, disait-il; jai dans le dos les sacmmentaires et les  anabaptistes; mais je marcherai seul entre tous je les défierai au combat; je les foulerai aux pieds. (p.376)

The author does not document the quote (and in my cursory Internet search, I didn't find anyone else documenting it back to to its original source either). It's possible the author took the quote from J.B. Boussuet, L'Historie des variations des 'eglise protestantes (1688). Daniel-Rops mentions this source in his bibliography (p.533). Boussuet uses the same quote:

Here's Boussuet in English:

28. — Luther writes against the Sacramentarians, and why he treated Zuinglius more severely than the rest.

It provoked Luther to see, not only individuals, but whole churches of the new reformation, now rise up against him. But he abated nothing of his accustomed pride. We may judge from these words, — "I have the Pope in front; I have the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists in my rear; but I will march out alone against them all; I will defy, them to battle; I will trample them under my feet." And a little after, — "I will say it without vanity, that for these thousand years the Scripture has never been so thoroughly purged, nor so well explained, nor better understood, than at this time it is by me*." He wrote' these words in 1525, a little after the contest had commenced.

* Ad Maled. Reg . Ang. t. ii. 493.

Boussuet does provide a reference, "Ad Maled. Reg . Ang. t. ii. 493." This refers to a writing Luther made to King Henry. In Latin, it has been cited a number of ways: "Ad maledictum regum angliœ, resp.," "Responsio ad maledictum Regem angliœ," "Regis Angliae responsio ad Martini Lutheri epistolam," "Invictissimi principis Henrici VIII., regis Angliae et Franciae, ad Martini Lutheri epistolam responsio," etc. (In German, the title is  "Auf des Königs von England Lästerschrift Titel. M. Luthers Antwort,"  Answer to the King of England's slanderous book (1527) (which is found in WA 23:26-37 and is scheduled to be translated in a future English volume of Luther's Works). "t. ii. 493" refers to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther's Works. This would have been the edition Boussuet had access to in his historical period. "ii. 493" refers to the second volume, page 493.

The problem is with Boussuet's reference. The quote under scrutiny does not occur in "Ad Maled. Reg. Ang" on page 493 (but perhaps Boussuet was only noting that the treatise begins on page 493). There's also the problem that Luther's treatise (against King Henry) Boussuet is referring to was published in 1527, not 1525. What is interesting is that later in this writing, Luther does say that the devil, the papists, and the swarmers (Teufel, Papisten und Schwärmer) are attacking him from all sides, and that Luther's teaching will destroy and devour (Mein Leid ist bald aufgerieten; ab meine Lehre wird euch aufreiben und auffressen). That's in the ballpark of the quote in question, though not exact. The Latin version though states,

Notice the line, "Papistae in frontem aciem dirigite, a tergo intuadant Sacramentarii, Anabaptistae." That's verbatim for the quote in question. I think it's safe to say that the quote was taken from this treatise. The "thousand years" quote is on page 498 (intra annos mille).


Conclusion
When Luther said, "I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries and the Anabaptists; ... I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all underfoot," it appears that some people think through these words he advocated violence towards them. What the words appear though to be are rhetoric in regard to the theological and political battles Luther was engaged in.

This is one of those mystery quotes that's circulated the Internet for years. I would classify it as pure propaganda: it's devoid of any sort of meaningful context, and the documentation is far from useful if one wanted to read the quote in its context. The Internet version of the quote is typically used as an example to prove something about Luther other than what the original context or historical situation intended. For instance, on this old Catholic Answers discussion thread, the quote is used to demonstrate, "Luther on Protestant 'Heretics'." Similarly, Catholic Apologetics Information uses it for the same purpose under the overarching title, "The Protestant Inquisition 'Reformation'." This web page uses it to describe Luther's "Intolerance of Other Christians." This Mennonite blogger uses it to demonstrate, "Martin Luther, the often-cited Christian hero who condemned the corrupt practices of the state church of his time, was certainly not viewed as a Christian hero by the Anabaptists he persecuted." All of these web pages have one thing in common: none of them ever bothered to actually look the quote up, but rather use it for whatever their particular agenda demands.