Luther on the Papists: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"

In going through the Beggars All archives, I came across a series of old posts examining Martin Luther's call for the deaths of Roman Catholics. Luther is quoted as saying,

It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?- Martin Luther June 25, 1520

Other English versions of this quote, typically shorter, exist as well. It's not uncommon to find snippets of this quote on amateur apologetcs web-pages... but also in many books, some done by respected authors. Realizing that my older entries are a bit top-heavy, let's take a concise and fresh look at this quote. We'll see that Luther went on to explain he was speaking rhetorically, not literally.

Documentation
Back in 2008 I went through a detailed footnote from a defender of Rome documenting this quote. This time, simply, the quote in the English form above originates from Roland Bainton's Here I Stand.

Bainton cites WA 6:347. The quote comes from Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum. It was originally a book published by one of Luther's Roman Catholic opponents, Sylvester Prierias. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction and conclusion. The quote in question comes from Luther's conclusion. To my knowledge, no official English translation of the entire work is available.  However, It is scheduled to be released in an upcoming volume of Luther' Works.

Context




Conclusion
Back in 2008 I provided a detailed explanation of this quote. It's enough to simply know that Luther's Roman Catholic opponent, Sylvester Prierias was an advocate of papal absolutism. Prierias was a high official in the Roman Church. He charged Luther with offending the Pope's majesty in questioning indulgence preaching, in essence, questioning the authority of the one who granted indulgence preaching. Against this position of papal absolutism Luther declares:

"If these opinions and this teaching prevail at Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals, I pronounce that Antichrist sits in the temple of God, and that the Roman Court is the synagogue of Satan. If the Pope and the Cardinals do not demand a retraction of these opinions,I declare that I dissent from the Roman Church, and cast it off as the abomination standing in the holy place."

"When the Romanists see that they cannot prevent a Council, they feign that the Pope is above a Council, is the infallible rule of truth, and the author of all understanding of Scripture. There is no remedy, save that Emperor, Kings, and Princes should attack these pests and settle the matter, not by words but by the sword. If we punish thieves by the gallows, and heretics by fire, why not attack Pope, Cardinals, and the brood of the Roman Sodom with arms, and wash our hands in their blood?" [source]

Not too long afterward, Luther explained exactly what he meant in response to another Roman controversialist, Jerome Emser. Luther explained it was a rhetorical argument: since heretics are burned, then it should be fair as well to physically attack the papists. He goes on to elaborate he didn't approve of burning heretics, so he wasn't advocating killing the papists.  In LW 39: 172-174, Luther states:

Emser’s second lie is that I wanted the hands of the laymen washed in the blood of the priests. His holy priesthood and Christian love seek nothing but fire. If I were dead he could spread such lies as truth, just as happened to Huss. This is the way I have written against Sylvester, “in contrast,” as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows: if heretics are burned, why should we not much rather attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that Holy Scripture has its power from the pope. But since I dislike burning heretics, or killing even a single Christian, and since I know full well it is against the gospel, I merely indicated what they deserve if heretics deserve the fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword. The nobility and worldly powers, if they just despise your tyrannical shamming and false ban, can certainly advise you womanish and childish people with a single letter and command. They can say to you, “This is the way it must be,” and you have no choice but to obey. The way you react to it, with burning, banning, raging, and raving against the clear truth, it seems you would really like to have a Bohemian example made of yourselves and fulfill the prophecy which says that the priests should be slain. If this should happen to you, you cannot blame me. Just continue as you are, you are on the right track! Where advice is not possible, help is not possible. You will very soon find out if you can end the game in that way, even if it rains and snows nothing but bishops, Emsers, Ecks, and popes. I trust you have foreseen that no one will destroy the pope but you yourselves, his own creatures, as the prophet says.

But tell me, dear Emser, if you may write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics and think you do not thereby soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to strangle you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your sects in the most scandalous way? For not only do you write in the manner of a heretic and of the Antichrist, but you also say what all the devils are not allowed to say, namely, that the gospel is confirmed by the pope, its power is dependent on the pope’s power, and the church has done what the pope does? What heretic has ever so completely condemned and destroyed God’s word in one stroke? That is why I still say, “If heretics have deserved the fire, you and the pope should be killed a thousand times.” Still I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far off. He will find you in good health and nimble. Do not get bored in the meantime. Yet I would prefer you to come before him with remorse and penance. God help you to do this, Amen. Nevertheless, I would like the Roman courtiers to be repelled with force just like other thieves and robbers, if they cannot be stopped in any other way.

So that I may not be ridiculed along with you I shall ignore your babbling that I put the priesthood to shame and your claim that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter had a tonsure; I shall also ignore all the useless talk you spew forth about consecration and priestly estate and the threefold meaning of “spiritual”-spirituale, ecclesiasticum, religiosum-and that not all Christians are spiritual, spirituales. You probably also would like to say that the laying on of hands on the head meant more than consecration. Who can stop you if you intend to do nothing but lie and preach, as some do, that St. Bartholomew prayed the rosary and the psalter of our dear lady? I do not need any logic here: I call spiritual spirituales, devout Christians ecclesiasticum, and do not know religiosum in this context. I thought that for once the naked sword would strike me with the blade, but neither sheath nor sword nor man is at hand. You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency. And what shall I say, since there is almost one lie after another in your book? I am afraid you will lie, blaspheme, hate, and rave yourself to death. In previous times it was easy to write against heretics. For even though they erred, as honest people they did not need to lie and stuck to the heart of the matter. My persecutors let the matter drop and, like knaves, rely solely upon lies. But to keep you from being displeased at hearing nothing but your lies, let us deal again with something good-the Spirit and the letter, which is the main theme of your book.

It depends on where  you fall on the "I hate or Love Luther" spectrum as to whether or not one grants his explanation.  Roland Bainton says, "The disavowal was genuine." I suspect for many of Rome's defenders, it isn't.

Addendum
In the entries of 2008, I highlighted the various ways Rome's defenders use this quote. Since that time, I've come across some of Rome's defenders using it against current ecumenical trends in their own church (see here and here). They are concerned with current Roman authorities having positive interaction with a group whose founder appears to have hated their very existence and called for their deaths.

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Four)

Those of you stopping by here regularly realize I enjoy trying to document obscure Luther quotes as I come across them. The ones I come across are typically being used for polemical purposes. I do this first as an interest and hobby. It certainly is fascinating to see the history around a particular quote. Second, its an historical apologetic endeavor. If I can point people to a context, they can read it for themselves and make up their own minds as to what any particular quote means in the scheme of church history.

Even I have to search my blog for particular quotes. Recently I came across a Luther quote that sounded familiar, but yet did not sound familiar. I searched my own blog and discovered I did three specific entries on one particular quote back in 2008 very similar to what I was looking for:

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Two)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

I came across another version of this quote being used on the CARM boards which was very similar:

After Hieronymus Emser advised Luther to be judicious in his challenge to the Church, that is not to go at it too strong. The advise evoked a strange and vicious response from Luther, “The devil take it! The affair was not begun on God’s account; neither shall it end on God’s account!” (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957), pp. 350-351, c. 403) Then we can just read his intent and mutinous frame of mind one of his flyers, "on the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520: 

"Now farewell, you unhappy, lost, and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you at last, as you have merited, for in spite of all prayer that have been said for you , you have become worse each day. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. . .If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why should we not all the more assail with arms these master of perdition, these cardinals, these Popes, the whole dregs of the Roman Sodom. . ." 

What do we make of this, are the princes of peace are to be put to the attacked, put to the sword, and burned at the stake? As I said before, Christ freely spilt his own blood for His Church; Luther spilt the blood of Europe to ransack Christ's Church.

Documentation
The quote is said to be from a "flyer" of Luther's entitled "On the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520." I've already documented this is a bogus reference. "On the Papacy at Rome" is probably a reference to the title of a book by the Dominican Sylvester Prierias in which Luther responded to. Unfortunately, Roman Catholic apologetics has been so sloppy with this quote, they often mis-document it. The exact title from which the quote comes from is Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum, and is found in WA, vol. 6, beginning on page 325 and ending on page 348. Luther's Works state:

Luther wrote these words in 1520 in the margin of a work written against him by Sylvester Prierias (ca. 1456–1523), a Dominican monk and official theological adviser to Pope Leo X. Luther did not formally reply to Prierias, but only reprinted the treatise, adding his own comments in the margin. Luther’s version was entitled Responsio ad Martinum Luther (per Fratrem Silvestrum de Prierto). Cf. WA 6, 329.[Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The first part of the quote is found on page 329 near the beginning of the treatise. The second part of the quote appears on page 347 as part of Luther's postscript (Ad Lectorem). The writing is scheduled to be translated for a forthcoming edition of Luther's Works [Early Works 1509-ca. 1521 (2 volumes)].

It's hard to determine who stuck these two quotes together, as both have been floating around the Internet separately. Sometimes the quotes are documented as -"Martin Luther, 'On the Papacy at Rome' June 25, 1520 and 'To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.'" This leads me to believe someone compiled the quote from Warren H. Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom, a History of Christendom Vol. 4, page 1, where Carroll cites both quotes.

Context
I refer anyone interested in the second half of the quote to one of my earlier entries. In regard to the first half, a source hostile to Luther provided an interesting overview of the context, Herbert Rix, Martin Luther: The Man and the Image, beginning on page 84, and citing both quotes.It should be obvious that Luther presented a highly polemical and rhetorical treatise. Rix mentions that Luther was predicting "he will go into schism if his conditions are not met and- by anticipation- bids farewell in a grand rhetorical flourish laced with scriptural illusions" (p.86), and then Rix cites the first quote.

Luther's Works likewise cites the first quote and states,

More and more he was convinced that the papacy could not be regarded as a neutral institution, but that it was Antichrist, a demonic institution striking at the Godgiven ordinances of the spiritual and temporal power. Nonetheless, Luther admitted that there had been true Christians in the Roman church in every generation: if the pope would and could go back to being the bishop of the church in Rome, he might still have his place within the Christian church. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The Doctrine of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is a Rule of Faith above Scripture?

In the recent edition of Luther's works (vol. 60) I came across the following statement from Luther's Preface to Johann Kymaeus, An Ancient Christian Council, Held in Gangra in Paphlagonia [ca. 340], Against the Sublime (So-Called) Sanctity of the Monks and Anabaptists (1537):

But I do praise the most holy Papists for their ability to rage so steadfastly and constantly against the Spirit of God. When such testimonies of the genuine councils and fathers are cited, they do not care about them at all, but let out their mighty fart against it: "The pope is above all councils and is unable to err—moreover, he is above the entirety of holy Christendom throughout the world " And so that he need endure no equal, but he may instead exalt himself even above God, he bellows in his Decretum, the chapter Cuncta: (15) `All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." Yes, indeed, Luther says, all Christendom throughout the world knows it: hellfire [be] upon your head, your throne, and your idol, the devil! [LW 60:137]

I wondered if Luther perhaps exaggerated, was being sarcastic, or simply misquoted the source he refers to when he wrote "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." LW 60 gives this accompanying footnote. It first states,

(15) Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 reads: "The whole church throughout the world knows that the Roman church has the right to judge concerning all matters [de omnibus], and that no one is permitted to pass judgment on her verdict" (Friedberg 1:611).

"Decretum" refers to Decretum Magistri Gratiani:

The Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine canonist at the law school of the University of Bologna. It originated in ca. 1140 and represents the first part of Roman Catholic canon law (CIC 1), accepted as such by Pope Gregory IX (1228–1241) in 1234, whose Decretalium became the second part of canon law (CIC 2). Luther studied it during his stay in Erfurt and in preparation for the Leipzig Debate in 1519 [LW 41:20, fn 19].

"C. 9 q. 3 c. 17" can be found here:

C. XVII. De eodem.
Idem omnibus Episcopis.
Cuncta per mundum nouit ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana ecclesia fas de omnibus habet iudicandi, neque cuiquam de eius liceat iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est: ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus. §. 1. Sed nec illa preterimus, quod apostolica sedes sine ulla precedente sinodo et soluendi quos sinodus iniqua
dampnauerat, et dampnandi, nulla existente sinodo, quos oportuit habuerit facultatem, et hoc nimirum pro suo principatu, quem B. Petrus apostolus Domini uoce et tenuit semper et tenebit.

One will note C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 does not say "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see."  If taken as a literal citation, Luther misquoted the Decretum. On the other hand, it does say "all matters", and that would indeed cover Luther's interpretation. Why would Luther present such an interpretation of this text? The LW 60 footnote goes on to say:

The specific application to Scripture, claiming that "the doctrine of the Roman church and of the Roman pontiff [is] a rule of faith.. . from which even holy Scripture draws or has drawn its power;' was made by the papal theologian Sylvester Prierias; see Peter Fabisch and Erwin Iserloh; eds., Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521), 2 vols. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1988-91), 1:55; see Luther, preface, notes, and afterword to Prierias, Response (1520), WA 6:341 (LW 71); cf. Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned (1520), LW 31:392.

As I understand it, what the footnote here says is that the application of this statement was made by one of Luther's papal opponents, Sylvester Prierias. Prierias was not simply the equivalent of today's Roman Catholic bloggers. "Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a Dominican priest and professor, was the pope s counselor in matters of faith. He had been influential in securing the condemnation of Reuchlin and had been commissioned to examine Luther’s writings" (LW 44:118 fn.8).

Prierias was one of Luther's earliest opponents.  Since he was Master of the Sacred Palace, he was asked to assess the Ninety-five Theses.  He composed his response in three days (ironically, this quick response is not unlike the careless speed of some of Rome's blogging apologists). Some speculate his fast response was due to his considering Luther a nuisance, a distraction from his work on his commentary of selections of Thomistic texts. His twenty-seven page response was entitled In presumptuosas Martini Luther conclusiones de potesate pape dialogus (1518), popularly referred to as the Dialogus.  In this work, Prierias made four points and a conclusion:

1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals; however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.


2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith and morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result—and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.


3. He who does not hold the teaching of the Roman Church and the Pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.


4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.


Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic (Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, p.111).

There has been considerable scholarly debate as to the competence of these points against Luther, particularly statement three (For an overview of this scholarly debate see the work cited above,  Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, pp.104-115).  What I can't discern from my cursory investigation is whether or not Prierias based statement three on  Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17. If he did, then Luther may have had this in mind in his comment above (or perhaps one of Rome's other apologists made this connection for him?). Regardless of whether or not Luther's interpretation of  "de omnibus" is warranted, the selection from Prierias certainly shows what sort of argumentation Luther was up against from Rome's apologists (for a detailed account see David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).

Luther's Roman Catholic Opponent Prierias

Here's an example of the type of Roman Catholic apologetic Luther was up against.

Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, called Prierias was a Dominican. He was a leading Thomist and was appointed by Leo X to teach Thomist theology at the Latin School in Rome. Here are his fundamental presuppositions that informed his argumentation against Luther. As you read through them, try to imagine a Roman Catholic apologist defending these statements today.

"Without having an inkling that it was a religious question with Luther, Prierias, in order to draw out Luther's fundamentals, set forth in four theses the most extreme views on the infallibility of the Church, concluding that any one asserting that the Church could not do what she did (specifically regarding indulgences) must be adjudged a heretic." (Schaff)

1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals, however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.

2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith or morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result - and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.

3. He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman Church and the pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.

4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.

Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic. [source]

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

"It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"- Martin Luther June 25, 1520

Previously, I looked briefly at the bibliographic way this Luther quote has been documented. Then I pointed out the numerous interpretations given to this quote. Finally, let's address interpreting this Luther quote in its context.

This quote comes from the document entitled, Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum. It was originally a book published by one of Luther's Roman Catholic opponents, Sylvester Prierias. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction and conclusion. The quote in question comes from Luther's conclusion.

In the conclusion, Luther notes Priarias was unwilling to concede that a council should be called to address his concerns. Prierias had argued for the primacy of the Pope, and only a pope could call a council. The position held by Prierias was papal absolutism: the Pope had absolute power, not only over the Roman church, but all churches worldwide, and his power was absolute over non-Christians as well. All those within the church that held an office derived their power from the Pope (rather than the apostles). He saw the Pope as the "sole arbiter and infallible judge of the truth in matters regarding faith and morals" (Epitoma, WA 6:330.16.-18, as per David Bagchi).

One needs to consider what it would mean to be faced with such an argument of papal absolutism, particularly if the papacy was unwilling to even consider the charges Luther was concerned with. In the indulgence controversy, the Roman papacy simply ordered Luther to recant, despite the fact that the entire scope of exactly what indulgences meant was not dogmatically defined. Luther was being forced to recant of "heretical" positions without dialog, council, or even a Roman dogma by which to judge his opinions against.

Prierias was a high official in the Roman Church. He charged Luther with offending the Pope's majesty in questioning indulgence preaching, because this was akin to questioning the authority of the one who granted indulgence preaching (the Pope). The battle over indulgences quickly moved to Luther questioning the very office of the Papacy and exactly what extent of power such an office held. Controversialists like Prierias responded that the Papacy had naked authority to silence criticisms like those Luther was putting forth. Luther argued in his conclusion to the Epitoma this type of position on papal authority held by Prierias was unbiblical. It goes against Matthew 18:15-17, for the Pope, according to the position held by Prierias, could never fall under its order of discipline. If the Pope refused to listen, he should be treated as a heathen and a publican.

The entire tone of Prierias' work provoked Luther, particularly since Prierias was such a high ranking official. Against this position of papal absolutism Luther declares:

"If these opinions and this teaching prevail at Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals, I pronounce that Antichrist sits in the temple of God, and that the Roman Court is the synagogue of Satan. If the Pope and the Cardinals do not demand a retraction of these opinions,I declare that I dissent from the Roman Church, and cast it off as the abomination standing in the holy place."

"When the Romanists see that they cannot prevent a Council, they feign that the Pope is above a Council, is the infallible rule of truth, and the author of all understanding of Scripture. There is no remedy, save that Emperor, Kings, and Princes should attack these pests and settle the matter, not by words but by the sword. If we punish thieves by the gallows, and heretics by fire, why not attack Pope, Cardinals, and the brood of the Roman Sodom with arms, and wash our hands in their blood?" [source]

Read with this background, one sees Luther's anger and frustration. To cite the quote without explaining why Luther would've been provoked to such a violent outburst is to ignore history: it is to ignore the historical polemic context in which Luther found himself, in heated dialogue with high ranking Roman apologists that could influence his very life or death. He was in a battle against those who simply declared and defended the power of the Pope. How could one engage in a life threatening situation against an absolute power that refused to even admit its wrongdoings and abuses with indulgences? Luther responds harshly that the Emperor, kings, and princes should treat such an abuse of power in the same way thieves and heretics are treated by the state. Keep in mind, Roman contoversialists would have no problem likewise having Luther fall into the hands of the state to be punished with the same severity.

Luther explained not to long afterward exactly what he meant by his violent outburst in response to another Roman controversialist. Luther's violent words were cited by Jerome Emser: "Luther has heretofore, in his other books, exhorted the common people most diligently to wash their hands in the blood of the priests" (Emser, as cited in Works of Martin Luther III, p. 343). Let's let Luther explain what he meant. In response to Jerome Emser, In LW 39: 172-174, Luther states:

Emser’s second lie is that I wanted the hands of the laymen washed in the blood of the priests. His holy priesthood and Christian love seek nothing but fire. If I were dead he could spread such lies as truth, just as happened to Huss. This is the way I have written against Sylvester, “in contrast,” as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows: if heretics are burned, why should we not much rather attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that Holy Scripture has its power from the pope. But since I dislike burning heretics, or killing even a single Christian, and since I know full well it is against the gospel, I merely indicated what they deserve if heretics deserve the fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword. The nobility and worldly powers, if they just despise your tyrannical shamming and false ban, can certainly advise you womanish and childish people with a single letter and command. They can say to you, “This is the way it must be,” and you have no choice but to obey. The way you react to it, with burning, banning, raging, and raving against the clear truth, it seems you would really like to have a Bohemian example made of yourselves and fulfil the prophecy which says that the priests should be slain. If this should happen to you, you cannot blame me. Just continue as you are, you are on the right track! Where advice is not possible, help is not possible. You will very soon find out if you can end the game in that way, even if it rains and snows nothing but bishops, Emsers, Ecks, and popes. I trust you have foreseen that no one will destroy the pope but you yourselves, his own creatures, as the prophet says.

But tell me, dear Emser, if you may write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics and think you do not thereby soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to strangle you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your sects in the most scandalous way? For not only do you write in the manner of a heretic and of the Antichrist, but you also say what all the devils are not allowed to say, namely, that the gospel is confirmed by the pope, its power is dependent on the pope’s power, and the church has done what the pope does? What heretic has ever so completely condemned and destroyed God’s word in one stroke? That is why I still say, “If heretics have deserved the fire, you and the pope should be killed a thousand times.” Still I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far off. He will find you in good health and nimble. Do not get bored in the meantime. Yet I would prefer you to come before him with remorse and penance. God help you to do this, Amen. Nevertheless, I would like the Roman courtiers to be repelled with force just like other thieves and robbers, if they cannot be stopped in any other way.

So that I may not be ridiculed along with you I shall ignore your babbling that I put the priesthood to shame and your claim that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter had a tonsure; I shall also ignore all the useless talk you spew forth about consecration and priestly estate and the threefold meaning of “spiritual”-spirituale, ecclesiasticum, religiosum-and that not all Christians are spiritual, spirituales. You probably also would like to say that the laying on of hands on the head meant more than consecration. Who can stop you if you intend to do nothing but lie and preach, as some do, that St. Bartholomew prayed the rosary and the psalter of our dear lady? I do not need any logic here: I call spiritual spirituales, devout Christians ecclesiasticum, and do not know religiosum in this context. I thought that for once the naked sword would strike me with the blade, but neither sheath nor sword nor man is at hand. You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency. And what shall I say, since there is almost one lie after another in your book? I am afraid you will lie, blaspheme, hate, and rave yourself to death. In previous times it was easy to write against heretics. For even though they erred, as honest people they did not need to lie and stuck to the heart of the matter. My persecutors let the matter drop and, like knaves, rely solely upon lies. But to keep you from being displeased at hearing nothing but your lies, let us deal again with something good-the Spirit and the letter, which is the main theme of your book.

Luther's famous biographer, Roland Bainton states in Here I Stand,

In one unguarded outburst he incited to violence. A new attack by Prierias lashed Luther to rage. In a printed reply he declared:

"It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, and princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"

Luther explained afterwards that he really did not mean what the words imply.

I wrote "If we burn heretics, why do we not rather attack the pope and his followers with the sword and wash our hands in their blood?" Since I do not approve of burning heretics nor of killing any Christian this I well know does not accord with the gospel I have shown what they deserve if heretics deserve fire. There is no need to attack you with the sword.

Despite this disclaimer Luther was never suffered to forget his incendiary blast. It was quoted against him in the Edict of the Diet of Worms.

The disavowal was genuine. His prevailing mood was expressed in a letter of October to a minister who was prompted to leave his post. Luther wrote:

Our warfare is not with flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places, against the world rulers of this darkness. Let us then stand firm and heed the trumpet of the Lord. Satan is fighting, not against us, but against Christ in us. We fight the battles of the Lord. Be strong therefore. If God is for us, who can be against us?

You are dismayed because Eck is publishing a most severe bull against Luther, his books, and his followers. Whatever may happen, I am not moved, because nothing can happen save in accord with the will of him who sits upon the heaven directing all. Let not your hearts be troubled. Your Father knows your need before you ask him. Not a leaf from a tree falls to the ground without his knowledge. How much less can any of us fall unless it be his will.

If you have the spirit, do not leave your post, lest another receive your crown. It is but a little thing that we should die with the Lord, who in our flesh laid down his life for us. We shall rise with him and abide with him in eternity. See then that you do not despise your holy calling. He will come, he will not tarry, who will deliver us from every ill. Fare well in the Lord Jesus, who comforts and sustains mind and spirit. Amen.

Bainton helpfully points out that Luther's words were cited against him in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. This document states:

Item. As for the holy order of the priesthood (through which the precious body and blood of our Lord is consecrated) and the power and authority of the keys of our Holy Mother Church: not only does Luther despise them by saying that they are common to all men, children, and women, but in addition, he provokes the seculars to wash their hands in the blood of the priests.

The Edict was issued on May 25, 1521. Luther's explanation to Emser was in print by the end of March 1521. It may be the case that Luther's explanation was not consulted in the drafting of the Edict- but at least it should be clear Luther's explanation to Emser was not motivated by fear of, or embarrassment of the statement in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. What the Edict does show though is the way in which Catholics read Luther. Luther's arguments were taken to be words written to incite the people to violence against the Church. David Bagchi has pointed out that many of the Catholics responding to Luther early on,

"...displayed an attitude toward the people that revealed not simply disdain of social inferiors but also a deep fear of a potential source of violent revolution. For a religious and a priest to take the complaints of lay people seriously and on this basis to criticize a practice of the church (in the medieval sense of the 'clergy') was to commit class treason. It is well known that in years to come Luther was to use inflammatory language urging the laity to 'reform' the cardinals with cold steel; it is not so well known that his Catholic opponents first put these words into his mouth" (Luther's Earliest Opponents, p. 42).

Later Bagchi explains that it was Luther's early opponents that first kept bringing up the possibility that Luther's arguments first against indulgences, and then (by forced implication) the power and validity of the Papacy, that were eventually going to lead to revolution. It was their continued counter-argument against him. Rather than call a church council to discuss and define indulgences, the early Catholic apologists sought to silence him for fear of revolt! Bagchi concludes it was Luther's opponents that eventually "gave him the idea of a reformation conducted by the laity." "The Catholic fear of insurrection indicated to Luther the vast reservoir of power, and it was through this power that he now saw a way of bringing about that reformation of the church he felt so necessary if God's teachings were to prevail against men's" (pp. 259-260).

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther said: "It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?"- Martin Luther June 25, 1520

The following is typical of what I go through with obscure Luther quotes. In this first installment, I'd like to simply take a look at documentation. Future blog entries will delve into the historical setting and context.

DocumentationTo my knowledge, a complete professionally translated English context of this citation is not available. On page 122 of a self-published book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (2008), a defender of Rome documents the quote as:

Bainton, 115; Carroll, 1; WA, Vol. VI, 347; EA, Vol. II, 107; PE, Vol. IV, 203; in reply to arguments of the Dominican Sylvester Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome; On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome. Church historian Philip Schaff gives its Latin title as De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis

WA and EA refer to non-English editions of Luther's writings, and contain the context. Carroll, Bainton, and Schaff are secondary sources, and do not contain the entire context.

"PE Vol. IV, 203" refers to the Works of Martin Luther, otherwise known as the old Philadelphia six-volume English edition of Luther's works. "PE Vol. IV, 203" though when checked, contains only the title page "An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia 1525. The citation though can be found in PE Volume III on page 203 in only the introductory material to a later treatise, An Earnest Exhortation For All Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion, 1522. The introductory material was written by W.A. Lambert. Lambert cites the quote from a secondary source (Julius Köstlin), rather than a primary text. Thus PE Vol. III, IV, or any of the volumes in the PE set lack the context for the quote in question.

"In reply to arguments of the Dominican Sylvester Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome" is an accurate statement, but this is not the title of the treatise from which the quote was taken. Rome's defender appears to make these two different titles refer to the same book: "On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome." Neither is the title of Luther's book, but rather is (are?) the title(s?) of a book by the Dominican Sylvester Prierias.

The actual name of Prierias's book is probably a combination of both titles above. This can be seen by the Schaff citation "De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis." This translates roughly to "Of the lawful and irreformable truth of the Roman Church [ruled by] the Roman Pontiff." Schaff says this book was written by Sylvester Prierias, and republished by Luther. Here Schaff appears to be in error. Luther did not republish this book, but another work by Prierias which was a shortened version, or an overview of De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis.

Sylvester Prierias was writing a detailed treatise in favor of the power and authority of the Papacy (De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis). Before the book went to print, Prierias published a shorter work which gave an overview of the arguments in his forthcoming book. He called this shorter work the Epitoma (1519).

Luther received the Epitoma by 1520. As a response to it, Luther republished it with his own annotations, introduction, and conclusion. Luther's Works explain this method is called,"Per contentionem"-

Per contentionem, a term used in rhetoric to describe the method of contrasting two arguments by printing them side by side. Luther used this method by reprinting Prierias’ polemic treatise, adding a foreword, a postscript, and marginal glosses. Cf. The Abridged Response to Martin Luther (Epitoma responsionis ad Martinum Luther) [LW 39 p. 172 (footnote 60)].

The exact title from which the quote comes from is Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum, and is found in WA, vol. 6, beginning on page 325 and ending on page 348. The quote appears on page 347 as part of Luther's postscript (Ad Lectorem). Rome's defender later cites secondary source Will Durant stating "Luther published, with furious notes, an Epitome..." but this apologist doesn't appear to realize this refers to the name of the treatise. Luther's Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum contains as one of its section headings "De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis." This is actually the middle section of Luther's publication, and is the republished Epitoma of Prierias. Schaff doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between the two books, nor does Rome's defender.

The Catholic Encyclopedia though lists "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum (Perugia, 1519)" as the work of Prierias, not Luther. English identifications refer to it as the Epitome of His Response. Indeed, it appears both the work of Prierias and the republication by Luther use the same title. The Epitome was directly written against Luther, and was actually the third volume of a trilogy directed toward Luther, particularly Luther's treatise, Explanation of His Thirteenth Proposition Concerning the Power of the Pope [WA 2:183-240]. David Bagchi notes,

The first reaction to Luther's treatise was published in March 1520. This was Prierias's three-volume work, entitled, without undue modesty, Martin Luther's Erroneous Arguments Names, Exposed, Rejected, and Most Utterly Ground to Pieces [Errata et argumenta Martini Luteris recitata, decreta, repulsa et copiosissima trita]. The third volume was in fact an index to the previous two volumes, which Prierias entitled the Epitome of His Response- "for an index it is indeed rather long," he admitted, "but for an epitome, it is very short"- and which Luther reprinted with marginal comments and a foreward and an afterwotd in June of that year. [David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 48].

Conclusion
This analysis of documentation may seem like nitpicking. In actuality, it simply documents the work I had to go through to determine where the quote came from. In fairness, many sources do not helpfully explain where the quote comes from! Perhaps Schaff probably worked from secondary sources as well with this citation? He does though provide the Latin text.

Catholic Encyclopdia: Sylvester PRIERIAS

Sylvester Mazzolini

(MOZOLINI, also PRIERIAS)

Theologian, b. at Priero, Piedmont, 1460; d. at Rome, 1523—sometimes confounded with Sylvester Ferrariensis (d. 1526). At the age of fifteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic. Passing brilliantly through a course of studies he taught theology at Bologna, Pavia (by invitation of the senate of Venice), and in Rome, whither he was called by Julius II in 1511. In 1515 he was appointed Master of the Sacred Palace, filling that office until his death. His writings cover a vast range, including treatises on the planets, the power of the demons, history, homiletics, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the primacy of the popes. He is credited with being the first theologian who by his writings attacked publicly the subversive errors of Martin Luther. John Tetzel's productions against the arch-reformer are called by Echard scattered pages (folia volitantia), and Mazzolini stands forth as the first champion of Roman Pontiffs against Luther. The heresiarch replied to Mazzolini's arguments; the latter published rejoinders, and there was a regular controversy between the innovator and the defender of the ancient Faith. The necessity of promptness in attack and defence will account for defects of style in some of his writings. His principal works are: "De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanæ Ecclesiæ Romanique Pontificis" (Rome, 1520); "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum" (Perugia, 1519); "Errata et argumenta M. Lutheri" (Rome, 1520); "Summa Summarum, quæ Sylvestrina dicitur" (Rome, 1516), reprinted forty times; an alphabetical encyclopedia of theological questions; "Rosa aurea" (Bologna, 1510) an exposition of the Gospels of the year; "In theoricas planetarum" (Venice, 1513).
Sources

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Præd. II, 55; TOURON, Hommes illust. de l'Ordre de S. Dominique, III, 716; MICHALSKI, De Sylv. Prieratis … vita et scripta (Munster, 1892).
About this page

APA citation. Kennedy, D. (1911). Sylvester Mazzolini. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10095b.htm

MLA citation. Kennedy, Daniel. "Sylvester Mazzolini." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 12 Oct. 2008 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.