Luther: “Reason is the devil’s whore. Throw dung at her and make her ugly”

Here's one from the Catholic Answers forums:

There are plenty of Luther’s works which demonstrate vile language and an unbalanced mind.

Example - “Reason is the devil’s whore. Throw dung at her and make her ugly.”

This unflattering description of Luther and subsequent quote were not directed to "anti-Catholic" Protestants, but rather to a retired ecumenically-minded Roman Catholic priest participating on the Catholic Answers Forums. This ecumenist had previously described those who vilify Luther as "Catholics of a certain sort who cling to lore that has been rejected and discarded in the modern era." Such interactions are a revealing display of the disunity existing within Roman Catholicism in regard to Luther, the Reformation, and Protestants in general. This retired priest is in the minority on the Catholic Answers forums, for anti-Luther sentiment runs high. It's no wonder that Catholic Answer recently added the following: "DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers."

While I've addressed Luther's quotes about "reason" previously, let's take a fresh look at the quote presented by one of Rome's defenders. Do Luther's comments about reason "demonstrate vile language and an unbalanced mind"? We'll see that in context, they absolutely do not. They demonstrate that in Luther's theology, reason was not rejected outright, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith.

Documentation

No documentation was provided. The quote itself is splattered all over the Internet, often undocumented and often accompanied by other similar statements. I suspect one of the main  sources that popularized this particular version of the quote was Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor:

This mythical, mentally unbalanced, diseased character was the hero of the Reformation. His intemperance, his persecution mania, his varying moods, were the origin of his permanent contradictions. There was nothing reasonable in him. Indeed, he admitted himself that he hated reason, and that he was guided merely by his passions, by his violent temper. More than once he condemned in his violent language, reason and a reasonable approach to matters. “Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets” (E16, 142-148). There are many more sayings in the same sense, though not always so dirtily phrased. “Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.” “Reason is contrary to faith”, he writes elsewhere. “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done” (E29, 241) So it goes on and on (Wiener, p. 26).

It does not necessarily follow that simply because Wiener provides a few references, he actually read Luther and mined these quotes out from E16 and E29. Wiener notoriously used hostile secondary sources. Wiener's documentation is highly dubious (He says the reason for his sloppy documentation was the rush job demanded by his publisher). Notice that even for the first quote, it is purported to span 6 pages (142-148). That's a good indication that it's a cobbled together quote from different pages or even different sources. In other words, if you were to search out "E16" you would not find this quote verbatim. You'd have to search for each line by starting on page 142 and work through the text with a highlighter.

Here is E 16, 142 cited by Wiener as the beginning page for the quote in question. The first part of the quote ("Reason is the devil’s whore") can indeed be found on page 142, ("aber des Teufels Braut, ratio, die schöne Metze, fähret herein"):

The second part of the quote, ("Throw dung at her and make her ugly") can be found on page 145 ("wirf ihr ein Dreck ins Angesicht, auf daß sie häßlich werde"). So there's a fair amount of text between these two sentences (approximately five paragraphs!).

These pages are excerpts from the Last Sermon in Wittenberg Luther preached, January 17, 1546.  The sermon can be found in WA 51:123-134 and CL 7:411-417. WA includes the German as well as the German / Latin mix. This sermon has been translated into English: LW 51:371-380. The sermon is based on Romans 12:3, "For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him." One of Luther's main thrusts is to exhort his hearers to live by the pure Word of God, letting it say what it says without trying to use "reason" to make it palatable.

Context

But since we are still confined to this miserable carcass—which in time the worms will devour, though it deserves something worse, to burn in hell eternally—it is necessary constantly to resist and put off the old man and his works and put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him [cf. Col. 3:10]. Usury, gluttony, adultery, manslaughter, murder, etc., these can be seen and the world understands that these are sins. But the devil’s bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Neither jurist, physician, nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen, but nobody can control reason. It walks about, cooks up fanaticism [Schwärmerei] with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and claims that everything that pops into its head and the devil puts into its heart is the Holy Spirit. Therefore Paul says: As I am an apostle and God has given me the Spirit, so I appeal to you [of. Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 4:16] (LW 51: 373-374).

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity.

Therefore, see to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly. Don’t you remember the mystery of the holy Trinity and the blood of Jesus Christ with which you have been washed of your sins? Again, concerning the sacrament, the fanatical antisacramentalists say, “What’s the use of bread and wine? How can God the Almighty give his body in bread?” I wish they had to eat their own dirt. They are so smart that nobody can fool them. If you had one in a mortar and crushed him with seven pestles his foolishness still would not depart from him. Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God (LW 51:376-377)

Conclusion
 Luther didn't reject reason. Rather, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith. For instance, this sentiment is usually left out when the quote in question is cut-and pasted: "Everything should be subject to faith, or rather, the fine gift of conceit should not be wiser than faith. See to it that it is in accord with it" [LW 51:379], "Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith"[LW 51:379]. 

Above I chose only to provide a few of the relevant paragraphs from the sermon. The entire context is worth reading to grasp fully what Luther preached. For the first line of the quote, "the devil’s bride, reason, the lovely whore," reason is that which informs a man that particular theological interpretations are not sin. Luther had in mind the fanatics and their interpretation of the Lord's Supper and baptism. This same thought applies to "Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly." Luther is preaching against the views of the sacramentarians in regard to their "reasonable" interpretations of the Lord's Supper and baptism. LW translates the word "dreck" as "dirt," Wiener (or whomever he took the quote from) translated it as "dung." Both uses are feasible. Luther's intent was probably the later. Luther goes on to say, "I wish they had to eat their own dirt." It appears LW cleaned up the translation!

Because many of Rome's defenders don't bother looking stuff up before they post it, they end up missing the fact that Luther was actually arguing for the literal body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and arguing against those who rejected this. But then again, Luther says in the same sermon that "reason" left unchecked thinks that Mary, "the holy mother of Christ" should be honored and is also an intercessor, "That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her" (LW 51:375).

Luther: I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ

Here's an obscure Table Talk quote that makes the rounds: “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (Table Talk, 2397b). It surfaces on Internet discussion boards. as well as on Roman Catholic web pages like Luther Exposing the Myth, The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote, Martin Luther the Bare Truth Unfolded, and many others.

Documentation
The most common documentation given is "Table Talk, 2397b." This is a good indicator that the quote came from Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

"Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ. 'I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ,' he said on one occasion quite shamelessly (“Table Talk”, 2397b).

The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It is not something he actually wrote, but rather contains utterances he's purported to have said. "2397b" is not a page number. The utterances are numbered, so  "2397b" refers to the actual statement purported to have been made by Luther. LW 54 explains of this numbered statement, "The pieces numbered 1950 to 3416 in WA, TR 2 and 3 belong to the years 1532 and 1533 and were collected, though not necessarily recorded, by Conrad Cordatus" (LW 54:169). The actual reference then would be to WA 2:446.

Context

2397a and 2397b say similar things, but the text is purported to come from 2397b. The text in 2397b does say " Ego uxori meae et vobis singulis plus confido quam christo," but then comes a comma with the conclusion: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." The conclusion of the sentence is left out of the popular form circulating around the Internet, and actually gives the utterance quite a different meaning than that implied by Rome's defenders. 

Neither of these statements are contained in the English Luther's Works vol. 54. However, an old edition of the Table Talk (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther)  includes the following:

That God is more loving unto us than a Father towards his Children
GOD hath a better and more friendly heart towards his faithful ones, than a father or mother can have towards their children; as God himself saith in the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter xlix. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion of the son of her womb? yea, they, may forget, yet will not I forget thee, etc. But God must have patience with us. I believe that St. Paul was at enmity with himself, because he could not believe and love Christ so entirely as willingly he would have done. Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

Some form of the text of 2397a / 2397b appears to be at the conclusion of this paragraph:

Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

As to the former part of the paragraph, it appears to come from a different Table Talk statement all together. Or, it could very well be two other Table Talk statements that precede the quote in question.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that the Table Talk is often devoid of context, the popular version of this statement leaves out the entirety of the sentence: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." This is captured and expanded upon in the English rendering, "notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me." Perhaps the author putting this into English utilized both 2397a and 2397b. Whatever liberties may have been taken with the English rendering, the sentence even in a bald literal form presents a sentiment expressing the fact that it is wrong and sinful to put trust in anyone more than in Christ. This is much different than Wiener saying it means, "Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ."

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

Luther: Christ was an Adulterer

This is a follow-up to my earlier critiques of Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they repeat a version of the charge that Luther believed Christ was an adulterer:

Blasphemous references to both our Lord Jesus Christ, to God the Father, and also to the Holy Prophets and the Blessed Apostles. This comes as a great shock to many Christians who have had high hopes in Martin Luther. However, if we were to actually look at what he said regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father and also the Holy Prophets and Blessed Apostles, it should cause even the most elementary of Christian believers to cringe with disgust. In regards to our Lord Jesus Christ, Luther had the gall to accuse Him of committing fornication with the Samaritan woman at the well (Photini in Holy Tradition) as well as with Mary Magdalene. [Maybe one should wonder where the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, got some of his heresies from, seeing that he too taught the same thing in Doctrines and Covenants!]. He stated:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

This particular charge about Luther and Mary Magdalene goes beyond Shoebat.com. It's been alluded to in such mainline periodicals as Time Magazine: "Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Magdalene were married, as did Mormon patriarch Brigham Young." Or consider this Huffington Post comment, "later Martin Luther embraced the Cathar view of Jesus' liaison with Mary Magdalene." The same author makes a similar point in his book (here as well). Note this particular interpretive commentary from Dr. Sippo in his old article from the  St. Catherine Review: 

Luther lived an immoral and unprincipled life. In "Table Talks" Luther got drunk one night and told some of his fawning sycophants that Jesus must have been an adulterer because even He could not resist temptations of the flesh. He went on to claim that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the Samaritan woman at the well.

I've written about it before, Luther Said: Christ Committed Adultery? back when I started this blog. Now, over ten years later, I'd like to take a fresh look.

Documentation

Shoebat.com cites "Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107." The first blaring problem with this reference is the word, "Trishreden." What's meant is actually, Tischreden. "Weimer Edition" refers to D. Martin Luthers Werke.  "Vol. 2" is misleading, as the correct reference should be something like "WA TR 2" (signifying volume 2 of the Tischreden). My speculation is that Shoebat.com cut-and-pasted this from Luther Exposing the Myth (see footnote #57). This later webpage may have taken it from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (London: Hutchinson Co. 1945, p. 29) and amended Wiener's reference. It's unclear to me whether or not Wiener was the first to introduce this English translation in 1945 or if he relied on some other source (Wiener's documentation is often lacking).  Wiener did utilize Frantz Funck-Brentano's 1936 biography of Luther, and this quote appears word for word on page 243. That this quotation is cited in word-for-word agreement for all these sources leads me to conclude that borrowing was occurring, even if my chain of citation is inaccurate.  

One other reference floating around cyberspace for this quote is "D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33." This reference appears to be the work of one of Rome's cyber-apologists from early in the 2000's (follow the trail from the link). The reference neglects "Nachfolger" (see image of the title page above), the year appears to be wrong (it was 1913, not 1893), and the page number was not 33 (it was page 107). The quote typically attached to this reference is the same as that used by Wiener, so it appears to me that Wiener gave this quote it's cyber-notoriety.  

Here is WA TR 2 page 107. The text reads as follows:

  This text is the recollection of John Schlaginhafen who recorded remarks allegedly made by Luther from 1531-1532.  It has been translated into English in LW 54:154 (just goes to show the compilers of LW didn't necessarily avoid the controversial writings of Luther.

Context

No. 1472: Christ Reproached as Adulterer Between April 7 and May 1, 1532

[Martin Luther said,] “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2–11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.” (LW 54:154)

Alternate Translation

In revisiting this quote I came upon Did Luther TeachThat Christ Committed Adultery? by Arthur Carl Piepkorn (Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. xxv June, 1954 No.6). Piepkorn actually locates a similar culprit that I did, Peter Wiener. He also translates it including a footnote:

1472. (Schlag. 239; Clm. 943, 175) Christus miulter. hristus ist am ersten ebrecher worden Joh.4. bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo 17 significat 18 quid facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Ioan. 8., die er so leicht davon lies. Also mus der from Christus auch am ersten ein ebrecher werden, ehe er starb.

17) So ist wohl zu lesen und nicht mit Preger: Nro. 

18) Text undeutlich: Stat oder Scat, oder ist scit zu lesen?"  

In literal translation:

1472. (Schlag. 239; Clm. 943, 175) Christ an adulterer. Christ first became an adulterer St. John 4 at the well with the woman, because they said: Nobody (17) indicates,(18) what is He doing with her? Again, with Magdalen; again, with the adulteress St. John 8, whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus the righteous Christ must first become also an adulterer before He died. 

17) This is the probable reading rather than Preger's: Nro. 

18) Text unclear: Stat or Scat, or should the reading be scit?"

Piepkorn states, 

In both instances we have reproduced the item completely. There is no context. It is simply a briefly scribbled note of part of a conversation, none too intelligibly recorded or transmitted, with several important words illegible. 

And also:

The sole manuscript containing this item is a quarto volume that found a final resting place in the State Library at Munich, where it was catalogued as Codex latinus 943. The page containing our item was copied from an earlier copy - possibly Schlaginhaufen's original manuscript-between November 4, 1551, and some time in 1567. The copyist may have been Schlaginhaufen's son-in-law, the Rev. John Oberndorfer of Ratisbon. 

Thus the "hair-raising blasphemy" turns out to be an inaccurately translated version of a somewhat uncertain, uncontrolled and unverifiable quotation of an offhand remark of blessed Martin Luther, without a shred of context or any indication of the circumstances that evoked the words it purports to reproduce. Since the item was destined to remain in manuscript form for 356 years after it was set down, it is quite probable that blessed Martin Luther himself never saw what Schlaginhaufen had written down. 

Conclusion

How does one respond to this? The quote appears outrageous. First, the quote has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? It's really hard to say. If taken literally, it certainly is at odds with his other statements about Christ. Thus, even though one can't know exactly why he said this, we can have a strong assurance he didn't mean it literally. The editors of Luther's Works include a footnote for this comment of Luther's, and they offer the following speculation:

This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

Be careful with Luther’s Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. It is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology.

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore

A frequent line of argumentation against Luther involves using his comments about "human reasoning" against either his character or the Reformation. As I've come across these arguments, they're most often used by atheists and Roman Catholics, but not necessarily limited to these groups. Here's a recent example from the depths of cyberspace. Based on other comments, the person using these quotes appears to be Roman Catholic.

Let's hear some more from the 'Hero of the Reformation'. Maybe we'll get a feel for which side he was actually playing for.

“Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets”

“Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.”

“Reason is contrary to faith”... “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”

All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition

Documentation?
What intrigued me about these quotes was the vague reference, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition." First, I find it highly unlikely the person posting these quotes used the source claimed (68 German volumes published between 1826-1857, 38 Latin writings as well). Second, there are no English volumes of  "Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition," so whoever put these quotes together, if Erlangen really was used, had to translate them.  Third, from a quick glance one might think there are only three quotes, when in fact there may be at least six to ten from three different sources, strung together to make it appear to be three quotes. For instance, notice how in the first quote, "reason" as the "Devil's whore" is over-explained. It's as if Luther is simply ranting the same thing over and over again. I've learned over the years that when quotes contain overkill, they're often not a direct citation, but rather something cobbled together at the expense of a context.

As we'll see below, these quotes have traveled a bit. They started off as a Latin / German transcription of Sermon, then translated into French, then translated into English. They were eventually a cut-and-paste grabbed from a paragraph found in  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, and appear in the form as cited above. As I mentioned previously, it's unfortunate Wiener didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace.


Secondary Documentation

These three quotes are found on page 26 of Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor:

This mythical, mentally unbalanced, diseased character was the hero of the Reformation. His intemperance, his persecution mania, his varying moods, were the origin of his permanent contradictions. There was nothing reasonable in him. Indeed, he admitted himself that he hated reason, and that he was guided merely by his passions, by his violent temper. More than once he condemned in his violent language, reason and a reasonable approach to matters. “Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets” (E16, 142-148). There are many more sayings in the same sense, though not always so dirtily phrased. “Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.” “Reason is contrary to faith”, he writes elsewhere. “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done” (E29, 241) So it goes on and on.

It does not necessarily follow that simply because Wiener provides a few references, he actually read Luther and mined these quotes out from E16 and E29. Wiener notoriously used hostile secondary sources. Wiener's documentation is highly dubious (He says the reason for his sloppy documentation was the rush job demanded by his publisher). Notice that even for this first quote, it is purported to span 6 pages (142-148). That's a good indication that it's a cobbled together quote from different pages or even different sources. In other words, if you were to search out "E16" you would not find this quote verbatim. You'd have to search for each line by starting on page 142 and work through the text with a highlighter.

For the majority of this paragraph from Wiener,  it's within the realm of possibility (or rather, probability) that Wiener relied on Three Reformers (originally published in 1925) by the Roman Catholic scholar Jacques Maritain (whom Wiener refers to a number of times). On page 32 of my 1947 edition it states,

But in spiritual things [reason] is not only "blind and dark," it is truly "the whore of the devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done." [Erl., 29, 241].

 Maritain states on page 33 (In my 1947 edition):

And in the last sermon preached at Wittenberg,towards the end of his life "Reason is the devil's greatest whore, by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute,the devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is, and she ought to be, drowned in baptism...She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."(36)

36. Erl., 16, 142 to 148 (1546). Cf. Denifle-Paquier, III, 277-278. If the practical result aimed at by Luther, above all else, be to exhort his hearers to act according to faith and not according to human reason only, this does not take anything away from diseased falsity and absurdity of the formulae to which he has recourse. [Maritain, p.200]

And finally on page 33-34, Maritain states: "'Reason is contrary to faith,' he wrote in 1536" [Erl. 44 158]. All the quotes given by Wiener above are verbatim from Maritain's book.

There's some ambiguity here: Did Maritain really utilize Erl. 16, 29, and 44? Or, did he use the French translation of Denifle (Luther et le Luthéranisme, Volume 3) that he mentions in a footnote? Page 277 (cited by Maritain) can be found here:

One of the quotes used by Wiener and Maritian is found on page 278 of Denifle (Erl. 44), though the page number is off by one page:

The quotes in view are noted in footnotes #4 and #6 (with a Tabletalk reference in the middle) on page 277, with one other being used in the first paragraph on page 278. At least Denifle documents the various page numbers for the sections of the quote.  Based on the way Maritian documents his work, it's very likely Maritian constructed his quotes using the French version of Denifle's book. So to summarize, Luther's words were recorded in German and Latin by those who heard him preach, Denifle cited this text from an old German / Latin version of Luther's works, then Denifle was translated into French, then Maritian quoted the French version of  Denifle, then Maritian was translated into English, and then Wiener quoted the English version of Maritain, and then the quote was let loose in cyberspace with someone saying, "All quotes taken from Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition."


Primary Documentation
This majority of the quotes in view are from a sermon put together by two people: Georg Rörer and Stephan Tucher (It was a sermon not written down by Luther, but recorded by those who heard him). It's Luther's last sermon at Wittenberg (January 17, 1546). Here is  Erl. 16,p. 142. The text used by Denifle was probably similar to this primary source. The sermon can also be found in WA 51:123-134 and CL 7:411-417.  WA includes the German as well as the German / Latin mix. This sermon has been translated into English: LW 51:371-380.



Context

The sermon is based on Romans 12:3, "For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him." One of Luther's main thrusts is to exhort his hearers to live by the pure Word of God, letting it say what it says without trying to use "reason" to make it palatable. Of Romans 12:3 Luther preached:

Therefore I exhort you, says Paul, by the grace God has given me, not to think of yourselves more highly than you ought to think [cf. Rom. 12:3]. What he is saying is: You still have your own proud ideas, as well as other gross sins; therefore take heed to yourselves. Hitherto you have heard the real, true Word, now beware of your own thoughts and your own wisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and rob you of your faith. This is what happened to the Anabaptists and the antisacramentarians, and now we have nothing left but instigators of heresy. I have had more than thirty fanatics come to me and try to teach me; but I refuted all their arguments with this passage: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. And up to now I have by God’s grace been sustained by this passage; otherwise I should have had to accept thirty different faiths. [LW 51:377]

 Luther didn't reject reason. Rather, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith. For instance, this sentiment was suspiciously left out of the quotes in question :

Everything should be subject to faith, or rather, the fine gift of conceit should not be wiser than faith. See to it that it is in accord with it. [LW 51:379]

Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith.[LW 51:379]

With that basic gist, below are some of the broader contexts for quotes in question. A snippet of the quote is given, and then the broader context follows:

1. "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore"

2. "Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has."

So there must be preaching and everyone must also take care that his own reason may not lead him astray. For, behold what the fanatics do. They have accepted the Word and faith, but then, added to baptism, there comes wisdom, which has not yet been purged, and wants to be wise in spiritual things. They want to master both the Scriptures and faith by their own wisdom, and they perpetrate heresy. If we were wholly clean, we should not need everywhere the ministry of the Word. If we were altogether pure, we should have no need to be admonished, but would be like the angels in heaven with no need for a schoolmaster, and do everything willingly of ourselves. But since we are still confined to this miserable carcass—which in time the worms will devour, though it deserves something worse, to burn in hell eternally—it is necessary constantly to resist and put off the old man and his works and put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him [cf. Col. 3:10]. Usury, gluttony, adultery, manslaughter, murder, etc., these can be seen and the world understands that these are sins. But the devil’s bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Neither jurist, physician, nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen, but nobody can control reason. It walks about, cooks up fanaticism [Schwärmerei] with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and claims that everything that pops into its head and the devil puts into its heart is the Holy Spirit. Therefore Paul says: As I am an apostle and God has given me the Spirit, so I appeal to you [of. Rom. 12:1; I Cor. 4:16]. [LW 51:373–374; cf. WA 51:126]

3. "by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore"

No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].[LW 51: 375-376]

4."Throw dung in her face to make her ugly."

5. "She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . ."

Therefore, see to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly. Don’t you remember the mystery of the holy Trinity and the blood of Jesus Christ with which you have been washed of your sins? Again, concerning the sacrament, the fanatical antisacramentalists say, “What’s the use of bread and wine? How can God the Almighty give his body in bread?” I wish they had to eat their own dirt. They are so smart that nobody can fool them. If you had one in a mortar and crushed him with seven pestles his foolishness still would not depart from him. Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. [LW 51:376–377].

6. " She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets"

When you hear a fanatical antisacramentalist say, “There is only bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar,” or “Do you think that at your word Christ is going to descend from heaven into your mouth and your belly?” You just say to him, “Ah, I like what you say; what a learned bride the devil has! But what do you say to this: ‘This is my beloved Son, listen to him?’ And he says, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 17:5; 26:26]. Go, trot to the privy with your conceit, your reason! Shut up, you cursed whore, do you think you are master over faith, which declares that the true body and the true blood is in the Lord’s Supper, and that Baptism is not merely water, but the water of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?” Reason must be subject and obedient to this faith. [LW 51: 379].

7. "she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore."


8. "whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . "

Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity. [ LW: 51:376]. 

Reason is and should be drowned in baptism, and this foolish wisdom will not harm you, if you hear the beloved Son of God saying, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this bread which is administered to you, I say, is my body.” If I hear and accept this, then I trample reason and its wisdom under foot and say, “You cursed whore, shut up! Are you trying to seduce me into committing fornication with the devil?” That’s the way reason is purged and made free through the Word of the Son of God. So let us deal with the fanatics as the prophets dealt with the spiritual harlots, the idolaters, the wiseacres, who want to do things better than God does. We should say to them, “I have a Bridegroom, I will listen to him. Your wisdom is utter foolishness. I destroy your wisdom and trample it under foot.” This struggle will go on till the last day. This is what Paul wants; we are to quench not only the low desires but also the high desires, reason and its high wisdom. When whoredom invades you, strike it dead, but do this far more when spiritual whoredom tempts you. Nothing pleases a man so much as self-love, when he has a passion for his own wisdom. The cupidity of a greedy man is as nothing compared with a man’s hearty pleasure in his own ideas. He then brings these fine ideas into the Scriptures, and this is devilishness pure and simple. This sin is forgiven, but when it reigns in one’s nature, not yet fully purged, then assuredly the true doctrine is soon lost, however willingly one preaches and willingly one listens. Then Christ is gone. Then they fall down before the devil on the mountain and worship him (Matt. 4 [:8–10]) [LW 51: 376–377].

9."Reason is contrary to faith"
See my earlier blog entry, here: Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith. This quote is located in Erl., 44, 156-157; WA 47:328. It's from Luther's Sermon on Matthew 19:13-15, recently translated into English in LW 68:22-23.


10."Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done"

Wiener says this last quote comes from a different source,  E29, 241 (It's also cited above by Denifle in footnote #3). This quote can be found here: WA 18:164. It has been translated into English in LW 40:174-175. It's found in the treatise, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525). In arguing against Karlstadt, Luther states:

Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda, natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow. [LW 40: 174-175].

Addendum
Over the years, I've put together a number of basic posts on Luther and "reason." Here are a few of them:

Luther: Reason is the Devil's Handmaid

Luther: Reason is directly opposed to faith

Luther:Philosophy Should Be Learned To Be Refuted

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor," a Literary Feud Revisited

This morning I re-read my earlier blog entry, Finding Contexts in Peter F. Wiener's "Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" (2009). Now six years later, I find it interesting that little has changed with the popular online use of Wiener's book. So many of the quotes I come across find their way back to this book. I suspect Mr. Wiener is no longer living, so it's unfortunate for the author that he probably didn't live to see how popular his book would be in cyberspace. In my 2009 entry I noted how ecumenical the book is, being published by both Atheists and Roman Catholics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Unfortunately, the most direct response to Wiener is hard to track down. A contemporary of Wiener, Gordon Rupp, published, Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause Or Cure? (Lutterworth Press, 1945). Used copies are around from time to time.  I've utilized this book in some blog entries, but getting it online would be the best antidote to Wiener's work.

2012 saw the release of Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). This is one of the more reader-friendly books on this subject, and what's interesting is not only is Gritsch a respected Luther scholar, he mentions in his recent book that he had been "a member of the Hitler Youth during the final days of World War II" (p. xiii). Before someone thinks that Gritsch would be sympathetic to Luther because of the events of his youth, Gritsch states, Luther is not simply "anti-Judaic" but rather "genuinely anti-Semetic" "in accordance with the broad, contemporary definition of anti-Semitism."

In the book as well he comments on the Wiener / Rupp feud. I found his analysis interesting, if only for his description of Wiener's book :

In 1945, a literary feud put the theme "Luther and the Jews" into the limelight. One year earlier, a British teacher of German and French, Peter F. Wiener, published a book contending that Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor. It is sheer propaganda with the intention to show that Luther's radical anti-Semitism made him "one of the darkest figures history has yet produced." This is "proven" by a chain of historical distortions: Luther tolerated Jews in order to gain their support in his struggle against the papal church, but turned against the Jews when they did not join him; his demonic anti-Semitism was not grounded in theology because his "religion" was a "Teutonic anti-Christian faith." Wiener misquotes, misinterprets, and intentionally misunderstands . His work "is nothing but a historical forgery based on ignorance and malice" [so says Gordon Rupp].

The British Luther scholar Ernest Gordon Rupp offered a devastating, yet elegantly executed critique. One cannot win the peace, Rupp observed, by reviving the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, the late but unlamented Minister of Nazi Propaganda. "The Nazi uniforms which Mr. Wiener has put on Luther fit very oddly on the facts: they were not made for him, nor he for them. Whatever be the truth about Luther, it is not Mr. Wiener's caricature." [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 118-119].

Luther: Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery

A few years back I did an extensive series of blog entries looking at Luther quotes presented in the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth. Going through my Blogger drafts, I recalled that of the 50+ quotes, there was only one I was not able to track down.

Under the heading "Social Justice," Luther Exposing the Myth states:

“Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery”[Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther believed rulers had their authority by God's will, even if that power was taken by unjust means. The implicit argument is that secular authority is to be obeyed at all costs because they have been placed in power by God. This is a caricature of Luther's views on secular authority missing the nuances, as well as not taking into account Luther's career-long appeals to Romans 13.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1". The first bit of trouble this documentation has is that WA 30 comprises three separate volumes: WA 30 1 (catechism sermons, 1528-1529), WA 30 2 (writings 1529/30), WA 30 3 (writings, 1529/32). Which one is Luther, exposing the Myth referring to?  The second bit of trouble this documentation has is that the quote in question does not appear on page 1 in any of these volumes (WA 30,1:1; WA 30,2:1; WA 30,3:1). The actual source utilized was probably the secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. After doing a number of searches, I've not found any author before Weiner using this quote in this form. Wiener states,

Over and over again he returns to this favoured subject, that there are two moralities; the one in which we are faithful Christians and which regards merely our spiritual life, and the other which we adopt as citizens and where we owe obedience to the secular power.

The secular power has to be blindly obeyed by the citizens. It is God's will that there are rulers and princes in order to see that these secular laws are obeyed. The princes are the gods upon earth. “Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery” (W30, 1). “If anybody has the might, he obtained it from God. Therefore he has also the right.” It is strange to notice that more than once Luther—not Bismarck!—uses the term “Might is Right”.

Nobody has a right ever to oppose this secular power. “Even if the authorities are wicked and unjust, nobody is entitled to oppose them, or to riot against them.” The people, the mass of the people have no rights whatsoever. “The ass must have blows and the people must be ruled by force. God knew this well, for it was not a fox's brush He gave to rulers, but a sword.” “Even though the authorities act unjustly, God wills that they should be obeyed without deceit . . . for to suffer unjustly harms no man's soul; indeed it is profitable to it.”

As stated above, this was the only quote from Luther, Exposing the Myth in which I could not locate the specific context. Weiner's documentation in his book is notoriously spurious [See Gordon Rupp's response, Martin Luther, Hitler's Cause or Cure, in reply to Peter F. Wiener (London: Lutterworth, 1945), p.10]. Weiner claims to "guarantee that before going to press I have carefully checked all quotations." In fairness, perhaps "W30,1" was a publishers typo.  Weiner admits to only reading some of Luther's writings, "his most important works," and also notes reliance on secondary sources. After going through a number of his citations, I would conclude that the majority of Weiner's references were taken from hostile secondary sources.


Context?
With that caveat, I offer the following as a possible source: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520) [LW 44:115-218; WA 6, (381 404-469]. If Weiner actually was citing Luther directly,  it would be consistent with his claim of utilizing Luther's "most important works."  Luther states,

Since the empire has been given us by the providence of God as well as by the plotting of evil men, without any guilt on our part, I would not advise that we give it up, but rather that we rule it wisely and in the fear of God, as long as it pleases him for us to rule it. For, as has been said already, it does not matter to him where an empire comes from; his will is that it be governed. Though the popes were wrong in taking it from others, we were not wrong in receiving it. It has been given us through evil men by the will of God: it is the will of God we have regard for rather than the wicked intentions of the popes. Their intention when they gave it to us was to be emperors, indeed, more than emperors, and only to fool and mock us with the title. The king of Babylon also seized his kingdom by robbery and violence. Yet it was God’s will that that kingdom be ruled by the holy princes Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, and Michael. Much more, then, is it God’s will that this empire should be ruled by the Christian princes of Germany, no matter whether the pope stole it, got it by force, or established it fresh. It is all God’s ordering, which came about before we knew about it. [LW 44:210]

Conclusion
Granted, this paragraph  from LW 44 doesn't have the exact structure of the quote under scrutiny, but all the elements are there. Perhaps at some point in the future the exact source for Weiner's quote  will emerge. Till his source is located, it may be the case he took this quote from a secondary source that may have been summarizing Luther's view from WA 6 (LW 44).

Regardless of the documentation tedium, Weiner does not to take into account that the church and her theologians have had to contend with Romans 13:1-7,

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Christians of all generations have wrestled with this text. This passage (along with Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14) is not simply an apostolic suggestion.  If one searches Luther's writings, he appealed to this text often. Yes, it's true Luther said rulers come to power by the will of God, and if this is so, some of those rulers have come to power by nefarious means. For a Christian, there's nothing mythical to be exposed about this. Luther, Exposing the Myth did nothing more than prove they're unaware of Romans 13.

The caricature also comes in when the nuances of Luther's views are missed. Yes, Luther said to be obedient to bad government. But it wasn't left at that.  In a sermon on John 19:11 he says to tolerate injustice from bad government, but to not be silent about it (LW 69:236-237). One need only read through Luther's writings in regard to the peasant's revolt to see that Luther criticized the secular authorities. Even a less tolerant biographer has commented,

Luther's treatise on secular authority shows that he was anything but passive before princes. He railed against their evils and foibles. He always stood ready to assault not only the Duke Georges of the world but also his own successive princes in Wittenberg when they did things- such as raising taxes— that he regarded as immoral and unjust. Yet these protests remained individual and pastoral, and Luther never saw himself as the leader of a rebellion that might organize itself politically to force a government to accede to its wishes. The Christian minister should speak out and be willing to suffer for his opinions, trusting that God was sovereign. Always Luther remained fixed on the admonition of Jesus in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world" [Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1999), p. 370]

There were also situations in which Luther said rulers legislating against the authority of God can be resisted and a Christian is not obliged to obey their contrary commands (WA 52:533). Eric Gritsch has stated that "Although Luther has been depicted as a staunch defender of the political status quo, if not a 'princely hireling,' there is sufficient evidence to show he did exercise and teach what has been called 'the right to resist secular government' (Widerstandscrecht)" [Martin- God's Court Jester, Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 124]. Gritsch then presents a number of historical examples from Luther's life, like when Luther disobeyed orders to stay in hiding at the Wartburg.

In the Church Postil he preached,

But what if they would take the Gospel from us or forbid us to preach it? Then you are to say: The Gospel and Word of God. I will not give up to you. This is not within your power, for your rule is a temporal rule, over worldly matters; but the Gospel is a spiritual, heavenly treasure, and therefore your authority does not extend over the Gospel and God's Word. We recognize the emperor as a master of temporal affairs, not of God's Word; this we shall not suffer to be torn from us, for it is the power of God, Rom. 1, 16, against which not even the gates of hell shall prevail. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 3 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 305].

For a  helpful compilation of quotes from Luther demonstrating the complexity of his view, see the entry, "Government" in What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. Plass presents almost thirty pages of citations from Luther. From there, one could venture out to find the primary sources cited by Plass and then evaluate the opinions of various biographers (most basic biographies of Luther present his view of secular authority).

Luther: God must count drunkenness as a minor sin, a small daily sin. We can really not stop it

I was sent a link to a website "exposing" Calvinism because it contained a bunch of Luther quotes. Many of the quotes I've gone over already, but there were a few that I've never examined. Here's one in particular found in a pdf e-book (pictured left) from this site:

“God must count drunkenness as a minor sin, a small daily sin. We can really not stop it.”[16]

[16] http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html

Documentation
The reference link is to Peter Wiener's, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor. I've gone through a number of Wiener's quotes over the years. Most of what Wiener presents is poorly documented, and this quote is no exception:

More than once Luther says that he drinks in excess. “I am here,” he writes from the Warburg, “idle and drunk” (Enders III, 154). At other times he states, “I am not drunk” (Enders III, 317; E30, 363). In 1532 he writes: “We eat and drink to kill ourselves, we eat and drink up to our last farthing.” In 1540 he states: “God must count drunkenness as a minor sin, a small daily sin. We can really not stop it.”

Without any documentation, the primary source can only be guessed. Wiener's quote appears to be the same statement used by Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar:

"In the morning you really look as though your heads had been pickled in brine." Yet, from the very passage in the Table-Talk where this is recounted, we learn that he said to the guests, again in a far too indulgent strain: "The Lord God must account the drunkenness of us Germans a mere daily [i.e. venial] sin, for we are unable to give it up; nevertheless, it is a shameful curse, harmful alike to body, soul and property."

Grisar identifies this passage as a Table Talk statement: Mathesius, "Tischreden," p. 95. John Mathesius complied comments Luther made in 1540 (Table Talk statements numbered 4858 to 5341 found in WA, TR 4 and 5). The particular comment referred to by Wiener and Grisar is probably #4917. This is found translated into in English, LW 54:371-372. Keep in mind, anything identified as "Table Talk" are not statements written by Luther, but are rather purported to have been said by Luther.

Context

No. 4917: Drunkenness a Common Vice of Germans May 16, 1540

The doctor [Martin Luther] said, “Our Lord God must count the drunkenness of us Germans as an everyday sin, for we probably can’t stop it, and yet it’s such a disgraceful nuisance that it injures body, soul, and goods.” 

Then Severus said, “Doctor, they said at court that you never inveighed against this vice.”

The doctor replied, “I often bore down hard on this subject in the presence of the court. As a matter of fact, I made it rough and tough on the nobles for leading astray and ruining the princes. This pleased the old man very much, for he lived soberly and often kept John Frederick at table until seven o’clock. But it didn’t help after that hour. I used to say to the nobles, ‘After dinner you ought to practice on the wrestling ground or engage in some other knightly exercise. After that I’d allow you to have a good drinking bout because some tippling’s bearable but intoxication’s not.’ ” 

Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 54: Luther's works, vol. 54 : Table Talk (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (54:371). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Conclusion
Once again, the quote in context says something far different than the sentence presented by Peter Wiener.

Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force. As biographer Heinrich Boehmer notes, “Luther attacked the craving for drink with word and pen more vigorously than any German of his time. He told even princes his opinion of it, in private and public, blamed the elector himself publically for this vice, and read the elector’s courtiers an astonishingly drastic lecture” [Source, Heinrich Boehmer, Luther and the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research (London: G. Bell and Sons LTD, 1930), 198]. One example among many is Luther’s Sermon on Soberness and Moderation against Gluttony and Drunkenness (1539). Luther complaining about excessive drinking states:

“What, therefore, shall we do? The secular government does not forbid it, the princes do nothing about it, and the rulers in the cities do nothing at all but wink at it and do the same themselves. We preach and the Holy Scriptures teach us otherwise; but you want to evade what is taught. Eating and drinking are not forbidden, but rather all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one’s pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19–21]. It is no wonder that all of you are beggars. How much money might not be saved [if excessive drinking were stopped].” [LW 51:293].

And also:

“Listen to the Word of God, which says, “Keep sane and sober,” that it may not be said to you in vain. You must not be pigs; neither do such belong among Christians. So also in I Cor. 6 [:9–10]: No drunkard, whoremonger, or adulterer can be saved. Do not think that you are saved if you are a drunken pig day and night. This is a great sin, and everybody should know that this is such a great iniquity, that it makes you guilty and excludes you from eternal life. Everybody should know that such a sin is contrary to his baptism and hinders his faith and his salvation. Therefore, if you wish to be a Christian, take care that you control yourself. If you do not wish to be saved, go ahead and steal, rob, profiteer as long as you can…. But if you do want to be saved, then listen to this: just as adultery and idolatry close up heaven, so does gluttony; for Christ says very clearly: Take heed “lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly” [Luke 21:34], “as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west” [Matt. 24:27]. Therefore be watchful and sober. That is what is preached to us, who want to be Christians.” [LW 51:293-294]

Luther: To kill a peasant is not murder

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Social Justice":

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther wrote unjustly towards the peasants.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." Before evaluating this reference, recall that Luther, Exposing the Myth has stated, "...when not having quoted from the original sources I have quoted from those authors who have draw from the original sources." We will see this quote demonstrates this is not a true statement. The quote is taken from secondary sources, and, not only that, it's three different quotes from two different treatises.

Luther, Exposing the Myth also cited this same reference for another quote. This is an indication this quote was probably taken from this secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. The quote was put together from an extended section from Wiener:

But once Luther had made up his mind which side he was going to back, which side it was more profitable to back, his violence knew no limits. On May 6 of this fatal year Luther published his pamphlet, “Against the Peasant Bands of Robbers and Murderers”, which Funck-Brentano has described as a “horrible document which it is impossible to read, not only without disapproval but without disgust. The Reformer, who always had the Gospel on his lips, now talked of nothing but killing, torturing, burning and murdering the very people whom his work had driven to rebel.” Let us listen to the Reformer, the so-called champion of Christian freedom.

To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them! Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!. . . Our princes must in the circumstances regard themselves as the officers of the divine wrath which bids them chastise such scoundrels. A prince who failed to do so would be sinning against God very badly. He would be failing in his mission. A prince who in such circumstances avoided bloodshed would become responsible for the murders and all the further crimes which these low swine might commit. It is no longer a question of tolerance, patience, pity. It is the hour of wrath and for the sword; the hour for mercy is past.”

Luther is full of similar advice. “It is a trifle for God to massacre a lot of peasants, when He drowned the whole world with a flood and wiped out Sodom with fire. He is an almighty and frightful God.” “If there are innocent men amongst the peasants, God will certainly prepare and keep them, as He did with Lot and Jeremiah." “will not forbid such rulers as are able, to chastise and slay the peasants without previously them offering terms, even though the Gospel does not permit it."” Once more, the Devil is brought into it." “he peasants serve the Devil. . . . I believe that there are no devils left in hell, but all of them have entered into peasants." And Luther surpasses himself when he exclaims: “what strange times are these when a prince can enter heaven by the shedding of blood more certainly than others by means of prayer!"” And he ends with the peroration: "Come, dearly-beloved lords and nobles, strike them, transfix them, and cut their throats with might and main. Should you find death in so doing, you could not wish for one more divine, for you would fall in obedience to God and in defending your like against the hordes of Satan."” I know of no example in history (with the exception of Hitler'' famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers—merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason. Treason of any kind is, in my opinion, honourable compared to Luther's change of colours.

The effect of Luther's pamphlet was terrible. It was exactly what the princes had hoped for. “It was due to Luther's pamphlet against the peasants, so said the Strasburg preacher Capito, that the country had passed from the turmoil of insurrection to the horrors of retaliation and revenge.” The princes translated the Reformer's inhuman orders into practice with a terrifying speed.

Even Luther's own followers got frightened. They reproached him, they tried to explain that the irrational, quick-tempered Luther had acted on the spur of the moment, that he did not mean what he said. In cold blood Luther replied: “An insurgent is not worthy of being answered with reason, for he cannot understand it; such mouths must be stopped with fisticuffs till their noses bleed. The peasants would not hear, would not listen to reason, therefore it was necessary to startle their ears with bullets, and send their heads flying in the air. . . .If they say I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (E24, 294). “The intention of the Devil was to lay Germany waste, because he was unable in any other way to prevent the spread of the Evangel.”

One can see how Luther, Exposing the Myth selectively cited Wiener, making one quote from five paragraphs!  Wiener did not rely on a primary source, but  rather sifted some of these quotes from another secondary source, Luther by M. Funck-Brentano (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1939). Funck-Bretano's work was originally in French, Wiener quotes the English edition. So, through Wiener one gets an English version of a French translation of Luther's German. Luther, Exposing the Myth cited a secondary source that relied on a secondary source. This is hardly drawing from the original sources as they claim was their process in putting their web-page together.

Gordon Rupp points out about Funck Bretano's work, "M. Bretano has a pleasant habit of garbling whole paragraphs into one sentence without any warning, and then giving his own very free translations the appearance of being the actual words of Luther." Here is what Rupp means. The following is a breakdown of Funck-Bretano's / Wiener translation of the quote Wiener used compared to a direct German to English translation from an actual edition of Luther's works:

This comparison text shows the context says a bit more than Luther, Exposing the Myth, Peter Wiener, and M. Funck Bretano allow the reader to see.

With this tedium out of the way, let's look at the reference provided, "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." This page can be found here. From a cursory look, the German original indicates this documentation only refers to some of this quote (it's actually three quotes from two different treatises!).   Quote #1: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!" This can be found at Erl. 24: 289-290. Quote #2: "If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned." This can be found at Erl. 24:298 (in a different treatise!). Quote #3: "Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs." This is the only quote located at Erl. 24:294.

Most of the quote (#1, #3) is from Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525). Quote #2 is from Ein Sendbrief von dem barten Büchlein wider die Bauern (An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525). Both of these treatises have been translated into English. Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants can be found in LW 46:53-57.  An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants can be found in LW 46:57-87.

Context
In Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther begins by pointing out the peasants had ignored his earlier Admonition to Peace, even though they had vowed to heed his admonition. He finds them guilty and worthy of death on three counts: 1) treason against established authority 2) they are in rebellion: "they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castes which are not theirs; by this they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers" (LW 46:49) Here we find the second half of the quote used by Luther, Exposing the Myth. In context, the admonition is for rulers to stop societal anarchy by suppressing seditious peasants:

Furthermore, anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job. For rebellion is not just simple murder; it is like a great fire, which attacks and devastates a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land filled with murder and bloodshed; it makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the worst disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you [LW 46:50].

The third violation according to Luther is that seditious peasants consider themselves Christians, which is nothing other than blasphemy, and they attempt to spread their blasphemy by inducing others to join them. Luther then advises the temporal authorities:

Now since the peasants have brought [the wrath of] both God and man down upon themselves and are already many times guilty of death in body and soul, and since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict, but only rage on, I must instruct the temporal authorities on how they may act with a clear conscience in this matter.

First, I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment. He is within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murderers, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. Indeed, it is his duty to punish such scoundrels, for this is why he bears the sword and is “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer,” Romans 13 [:4] [LW 46:51].

Luther then instructs temporal authorities who may be Christians. They should "go beyond our duty, and offer the mad peasants an opportunity to come to terms, even though they are not worthy of it. Finally, if that does not help, then swiftly take to the sword" (LW 46:52). Luther concludes the treatise with the section including the third quote,

Finally, there is another thing that ought to motivate the rulers. The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league against their wills, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation. Anyone who consorts with them goes to the devil with them and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit, even though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he could not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths rather than give a hairsbreadth of consent to the peasants’ cause. O how many martyrs could now be made by the bloodthirsty peasants and the prophets of murder! Now the rulers ought to have mercy on these prisoners of the peasants, and if they had no other reason to use the sword with a good conscience against the peasants, and to risk their own lives and property in fighting them, this would be reason enough, and more than enough: they would be rescuing and helping these souls whom the peasants have forced into their devilish league and who, without willing it, are sinning so horribly and must be damned. For truly these souls are in purgatory; indeed, they are in the bonds of hell and the devil.

Therefore, dear lords, here is a place where you can release, rescue, help. Have mercy on these poor people!Let whoever can stab, smite, slay. If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die while obeying the divine word and commandment in Romans 13 [:1, 2], and in loving service of your neighbor, whom you are rescuing from the bonds of hell and of the devil. And so I beg everyone who can to flee from the peasants as from the devil himself; those who do not flee, I pray that God will enlighten and convert. As for those who are not to be converted, God grant that they may have neither fortune nor success. To this let every pious Christian say, “Amen!” For this prayer is right and good, and pleases God; this I know. If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour [LW 46:54].

Quote #2 can be found in another treatise, An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525. Luther wrote this to further explain the position he took in Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants and the Admonition to Peace. Luther's Works explain,

In this treatise Luther defends at length the views he had advanced in Admonition to Peace and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The peasants should not have rebelled, for the duty of a Christian is to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence. His opponents, Luther says, can criticize him as they will, but they cannot change the fact that in the light of God’s word the rebellious peasants deserved to be put to death and to have their insurrection suppressed by the full force of the governing authorities. Force was the only language the rebels understood. Furthermore, Luther argues, his critics’ sudden surge of sympathy for the defeated peasants marks them as secret rebels against God and state. But if there was no excuse for the peasants to rebel, neither was there any excuse for the rulers to indulge their lust for rebel blood. Here, however, Luther is not moved by any sense of “fair play.” He disclaims responsibility for the wanton cruelty of the rulers, which, he says, is nothing but the flagrant abuse by the princes of their God-given office. Such cruelty is as reprehensible and sinful as insurrection. The princes, he says, will surely reap God’s wrath for such conduct. (LW 46:61)

The quote in question can be found early in the treatise:

First of all, then, I must warn those who criticize my book to hold their tongues and to be careful not to make a mistake and lose their own heads; for they are certainly rebels at heart, and Solomon says, “My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not be a fellow-traveler with the rebels for their disaster will come suddenly and who can know what the ruin of both you and them will be?” Proverbs 24 [:21–22]. Thus we see that both rebels and those who join them are condemned. God does not want us to make a joke out of this but to fear the king and the government. Those who are fellow-travelers with rebels sympathize with them, feel sorry for them, justify them, and show mercy to those on whom God has no mercy, but whom he wishes to have punished and destroyed. For the man who thus sympathizes with the rebels makes it perfectly clear that he has decided in his heart that he will also cause disaster if he has the opportunity. The rulers, therefore, ought to shake these people up until they keep their mouths shut and realize that the rulers are serious.

If they think this answer is too harsh, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply, “That is right.” A rebel is not worth rational arguments, for he does not accept them. You have to answer people like that with a fist, until the sweat drips off their noses. The peasants would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything, so their ears must now be unbuttoned with musket balls till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s word when it is spoken with kindness,12 must listen to the headsman, when he comes with Iris are. If anyone says that I am being uncharitable and unmerciful about this, my reply is: This is not a question of mercy; we are talking of God’s word. It is God’s will that the king be honored and the rebels destroyed; and he is as merciful as we are (LW 46:65-66).

Conclusion
Martin Luther's book, Against The Robbing And Murdering Mobs of Peasants is sometimes cited as evidence that Luther had the peasants killed. That is, his writing directed the princes to slay the peasants, so on his order, they did. This common caricature views Luther as somehow in charge of Germany. The princes simply waited for Luther's command and then followed this advise he gave.

Not quite. Luther's Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred by Luther's words. They were spurred by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

In regards to this period of history, Luther wrote more than simply Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. Luther earlier published The Admonition to Peace. In this treatise, Luther also blames the princes and rulers for the unstable state of affairs. After Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther actually went on to chastise the Princes for being too harsh on the peasants.

For those who want to charge Luther of gross injustice toward the peasants, no amount of history or research will convince them otherwise. Roland Bainton points out, "Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak" of the Peasants War.  Nothing has changed, except we're not dealing with princes anymore, but rather Rome's cyber-denfenders.

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.