Luther: "Pure devilry is urging on the peasants…Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them..."

Here's something from the CARM Lutheran discussion forum, submitted by someone against Lutherans and Martin Luther:

If Only The Good Old Days Were Here Today

09-26-18, 09:42 AM

The founder of your religion would not tolerate people disagreeing with him.........don’t you Lutherans long for the good old days ?
Regarding peasants opposed to him and the leaders that favored him, notice what Martin Luther advised:

Pure devilry is urging on the peasants…Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel. You must kill him as you would a mad dog… 

The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay as long as they can raise a finger…It may be that those who are killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God’s cause. A happier death no man could die. The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying (Luther M. Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants, May 4, 1525-Erl, 24, 287, ff. As cited in O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, p. 232).

This concoction of quotes blames Martin Luther for killing the peasants during their revolt. The detractor takes it one step further by sniping, "...don't you Lutherans long for the good old days?" as if, modern-day Lutherans long for the medieval mentality of suppressing civil disobedience and rebellion with severe force. Let's take a look at these quotes and the historical situation that surrounds them. We'll see that these quotes we're culled together from a much larger context, a context that was ignored, as was the historical events that provoked them.

Documentation
Two quotes are provided, both are said to come from "Erl, 24, 287, ff, As cited in O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, p. 232." "O'Hare PF" refers to Father Patrick O'Hare, author of the book, The Facts About Luther. Father O'Hare belongs to the Roman Catholic tradition of destructive criticism of the Protestant Reformation. I doubt the person who posted the quotes actually utilized O'Hare's book. A simple Google search reveals a few web-pages use the same exact quotes and documentation. I suspect the web-page which originally mined these quotes (with this documentation) was either this one or this one.

There's actually a typo in the quote, consistent on all the web-pages I found using it: "devilry" should actually be, "deviltry" (according to O'Hare, that's the word he used, though he himself made a typo here, see below).  The source provided refers to the 1987 reprint of Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Publishers). There,  Father O'Hare states (cf. earlier edition),

At this juncture he wrote a terrible tract entitled, "Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants" (Erl. 24, 287, ff.) to urge the civil authorities to crush the revolution. This tract was issued about May 4, 1525. In a copy preserved at the British Museum, London, we find these heartless words: "Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants; they rob and rage and behave like mad dogs." "Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel. You must kill him as you would a mad dog; if you do not fall upon him, he will fall upon you and the whole land."

In this tract Luther claims that the peasants are not fighting for his new teaching, nor serving the evangel. "They," he says, "serve the devil under the appearance of the evangel ... I believe that the devil feels the approach of the Last Day and therefore has recourse to such unheard of trickery . . . Behold what a powerful prince the devil is, how he holds the world in his hands, and can knead it as he pleases." "I think there is not a single devil now left in Hell, but they have all gone into the peasants, The raging is exceedingly great and beyond all measure."

He therefore calls upon the princes to exert their authority with all their might. "Whatever peasants," he says, "are killed in the fray, are lost body and soul and are the devil's own for all eternity. The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay so long as they can raise a finger: Thou, O God, must judge and act. It may be that whoever is killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God's cause. A happier death no man could die. The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven by spilling blood easier than another person can by praying."

Father O'Hare cites "Erl. 24, 287, ff." This refers to volume 24 of  Dr. Martin Luther's Sämmtliche werke. Page 287 can be found here.  The "ff" refers to the beginning of the treatise (Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants, May 4, 1525), not the exact location of the quotes. The reason why O'Hare used this vague reference is that he may have unintentionally plagiarized a long section from the English translation of Hartmann Grisar's Luther biography, almost word for word, yet leaving out Grisar's extensive documentation. For more on O'Hare's use of Grisar, see Addendum #1 below.

In order to demonstrate the spurious nature of the quotes presented on the CARM boards, we'll work through it line by line, demonstrating the sentences were sifted from seven pages of text, then boiled down into two small paragraphs. The first phrase, "Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants" appears to be from the first paragraph of the treatise on page 288. Luther is actually referring to Thomas Müntzer as the archdevil (Erzteufel) stirring up the peasants. The next two sentences of the quote ("Therefore let all who are able... You must kill him as you would a mad dog") are on page 290:

The next sentence is interesting: "The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay as long as they can raise a finger." O'Hare cites it as a direct statement from Luther. However, he appears to have made an error in using Grisar. Grisar says, "The authorities must resolve to 'chastise and slay' so long as they can raise a finger..." The only actual words Grisar cites from Luther here are "chastise and slay." Grisar appears to have based this on page 291, probably providing a summary statement of his interpretation of Luther's words. In this section Luther is referring to secular rulers who have a duty to maintain civil order and punish rebels. It appears to me Grisar may be citing "Therefore I will punish and smite as long as my heart beats. You will be the judge and make things right” (LW 46:53), because the very next section is in regard to martyrdom.

The sentence, "It may be that those who are killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in God’s cause" is found  on page 293:

The sentence, "A happier death no man could die" is found on page 294:

The sentence, "The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying" can be found on page 293 (a page earlier than the previous sentence!):

This German text all of this comes from is entitled, Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (1525). It can also be found in WA 18:344-361. It has been translated into English, entitled, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. It can be found in the Philadelphia Edition Volume 4,  and also in LW 46:43-55. Below is the entire translation from the Philadelphia edition, pp. 245-254.

Context

In the former book I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be set right and to be instructed, and Christ’s commands, in Matthew 7:1, says that we are not to judge. But before I look around they go on, and, forgetting their offer, they betake themselves to violence, and rob and rage and act like mad dogs. By this it is easy to see what they had in their false minds, and that the pretenses which they made in their twelve articles, under the name of the Gospel, were nothing but lies. It is the devil’s work that they are at, and in particular it is the work of the archdevil who rules at Muhlhausen, and does nothing else than stir up robbery, murder, and bloodshed; as Christ says of him in John 8:44, “He was a murderer from the beginning.” Since, then, these peasants and wretched folk have let themselves be led astray, and do otherwise than they have promised, I too must write of them otherwise than I have written, and begin by setting their sin before them, as God commands Isaiah and Ezekiel, on the chance that some of them may learn to know themselves. Then I must instruct the rulers how they are to conduct themselves in these circumstances.

The peasants have taken on themselves the burden of three terrible sins against God and man, by which they have abundantly merited death in body and soul. In the first place they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers, as Christ commands, when He says, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and in Romans 13:2, “Let everyone be subject unto the higher powers.” Because they are breaking this obedience, and are setting themselves against the higher powers, willfully and with violence, they have forfeited body and soul, as faithless, perjured, lying, disobedient knaves and scoundrels are wont to do. St. Paul passed this judgment on them in Romans 13, when he said, that they who resist the power will bring a judgment upon themselves. This saying will smite the peasants sooner or later, for it is God’s will that faith be kept and duty done.

In the second place, they are starting a rebellion, and violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs, by which they have a second time deserved death in body and soul, if only as highwaymen and murderers. Besides, any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well. For if a man is an open rebel every man is his judge and executioner, just as when a fire starts, the first to put it out is the best man. For rebellion is not simple murder, but is like a great fire, which attacks and lays waste a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land full of murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the greatest 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.

In the third place, they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the Gospel, call themselves “Christian brethren,” receive oaths and homage, and compel people to hold with them to these abominations. Thus they become the greatest of all blasphemers of God and slanderers of His holy Name, serving the devil, under the outward appearance of the Gospel, thus earning death in body and soul ten times over. I have never heard of more hideous sin. I suspect that the devil feels the Last Day coming and therefore undertakes such an unheard-of act, as though saying to himself, “This is the last, therefore it shall be the worst; I will stir up the dregs and knock out the bottom.” God will guard us against him! See what a mighty prince the devil is, how he has the world in his hands and can throw everything into confusion, when he can so quickly catch so many thousands of peasants, deceive them, blind them, harden them, and throw them into revolt, and do with them whatever his raging fury undertakes.

It does not help the peasants, when they pretend that, according to Genesis 1 and 2, all things were created free and common, and that all of us alike have been baptized. For under the New Testament Moses does not count; for there stands our Master, Christ, and subjects us, with our bodies and our property, to the emperor and the law of this world, when He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Paul, too, says, in Romans 13:1, to all baptized Christians, “Let every man be subject to the power,” and Peter says, “Be subject to every ordinance of man.” By this doctrine of Christ we are bound to live, as the Father commands from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son; hear him.” For baptism does not make men free in body and property, but in soul; and the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4:32. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others, — of a Pilate and a Herod, — should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men’s goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.

Since the peasants, then, have brought both God and man down upon them and are already so many times guilty of death in body and soul, since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict, but only rage on, I must instruct the worldly governors how they are to act in the matter with a clear conscience.

First. I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgment. For 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 heathen rulers have the right and power to punish; nay, it is their duty to punish them, for it is just for this purpose that they bear the sword, and are “the ministers of God upon him that doeth evil.”

But if the ruler is a Christian and tolerates the Gospel, so that the peasants have no appearance of a case against him, he should proceed with fear. First he must take the matter to God, confessing that we have deserved these things, and remembering that God may, perhaps, have thus aroused the devil as a punishment upon all Germany. Then he should humbly pray for help against the devil, for “we are battling not only against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the air,” and this must be attacked with prayer. Then, when our hearts are so turned to God that we are ready to let His divine will be done, whether He will or will not have us to be princes and lords, we must 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 grasp the sword.

For a prince and lord must remember in this case that he is God’s minister and the servant of His wrath ( Romans 13:4), to whom the sword is committeed for use upon such fellows, and that he sins as greatly against God, if he does not punish and protect and does not fulfill the duties of his office, as does one to whom the sword has not been committed when he commits a murder. If he can punish and does not — even though the punishment consist in the taking of life and the shedding of blood — then he is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these fellows commit, because, by willful neglect of the divine command, he permits them to practice their wickedness, though he can prevent it, and is in duty bound to do so. Here, then, there is no time for sleeping; no place for patience or mercy. It is the time of the sword, not the day of grace.

The rulers, then, should go on unconcerned, and with a good conscience lay about them as long as their hearts still beat. It is to their advantage that the peasants have a bad conscience and an unjust cause, and that any peasant who is killed is lost in body and soul and is eternally the devil’s.

But the rulers have a good conscience and a just cause; and can, therefore, say to God with all assurance of heart, “Behold, my God, you have appointed me prince or lord, of this I can have no doubt; and Thou hast committed to me the sword over the evildoers ( Romans 13:4). It is Thy Word, and cannot lie. I must fulfill my office, or forfeit Thy grace. It is also plain that these peasants have deserved death many times over, in Thine eyes and the eyes of the world, and have been committed to me for punishment. If it be Thy will that I be slain by them, and that my rulership be taken from me and destroyed, so be it: Thy will be done. So shall I die and be destroyed fulfilling Thy commandment and Thy Word, and shall be found obedient to Thy commandment and my office. Therefore will I punish and smite as long as my heart beats. Thou wilt judge and make things right.”

Thus it may be that one who is killed fighting on the ruler’s side may be a true martyr in the eyes of God, if he fights with such a conscience as I have just described, for he is in God’s Word and is obedient to Him. On the other hand, one who perishes on the peasants’ side is an eternal brand of hell, for he bears the sword against God’s Word and is disobedient to Him, and is a member of the devil. And even though it happen that the peasants gain the upper hand (which God forbid!) — for to God all things are possible, and we do not know whether it may be His will, through the devil, to destroy all order and rule and cast the world upon a desolate heap, as a prelude to the Last Day, which cannot be far off — nevertheless, they may die without worry and go to the scaffold with a good conscience, who are found exercising their office of the sword. They may leave to the devil the kingdom of the world, and take in exchange the everlasting kingdom. Strange times, these, when a prince can win heaven with bloodshed, better than other men with prayer!

Finally, there is another thing that ought to move the rulers. The peasants are not content to be themselves the devil’s own, but they force and compel many good people against their wills to join their devilish league, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation.

For anyone who consents to what they do, goes to the devil with them, and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit; though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he does not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths, rather than give a hair’s breadth of consent to the peasants’ cause. O how many martyrs could now be made by the bloodthirsty peasants and the murdering prophets! 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, there would be reason enough, and more than enough, in this — that thus 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 who must be damned. For truly these souls are in purgatory; nay, 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! Stab, smite, slay, whoever can. If you die in doing it, well for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die in obeying the divine Word and commandment in Romans 13, 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 think this too hard, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour.

Conclusion
The above analysis reveals the two quotes were culled from the entire treatise, spanning all seven pages of Erl. 24. Some of the words quoted by O'Hare were not even Luther's, but rather those of Hartmann Grisar ("The authorities must resolve to...  so long as they can raise a finger...").  The last sentence cited by O'Hare ("The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying") actually occurs in the text previous to the one cited before it ( "A happier death no man could die").

This charge of plagiarism is not tangential. O'Hare's book is pure propaganda. I could provide a number of instances in which this source mis-cites and misquotes Luther. O'Hare bludgeons history, presenting a ridiculous caricature of Luther and the Reformation. Along then comes someone using this tainted source, sifting out a few sentences, then placarding them as direct quotes on a web-page. completely unaware of the nefarious construction of the material, and further perpetuating poor history.

In regard to the historical events surrounding this quote: Luther's harsh advise in this treatise came out after the rebellion had begun. "Against The Robbing And Murdering Mobs of Peasants" was delayed in printing. The princes were already in progress of using their force to kill the peasants to suppress their revolt. Luther's intent was to have this book published in one volume along with the earlier treatise, the Admonition To Peace. This earlier treatise considered the plight of the peasants, and exhorted the princes to consider the unstable state of affairs their rule helped create. The Admonition was directed towards good peasants, while the newer treatise was directed toward the bad peasants. In Against the Robbing and Murdering Mobs of Peasants, Luther states: "...any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well" or as LW 46:50 states similarly, "...anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor..." Luther's intent therefore, was not simply to have the authorities suppress all the peasants, but rather, those that were breaking the law.  

Richard Marius stated in his book Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, "The nobles did not require Luther to urge them to massacre; they were entirely capable of inspiring themselves to the bloody business that they pursued for several months" (p.432). Marius goes on to state, "Luther was not responsible for these atrocities. Yet to many people, the timing of his diatribe against the peasants made him seem a cause of the slaughter that followed." (p.432). Marius also points out that in Luther's follow-up defense of his harsh book, he condemned the killing of both the guilty and innocent together after the princes were already victorious. "Luther raged against the tyranny of the nobles in books and pamphlets over the next year or so and blamed their merciless conduct for continued peasant unrest" (p.433).

That Luther's Admonition To Peace is rarely brought up by cyber-criticizers of Luther is a good indication of bias. That is, why don't rulers get blamed for not following Luther's points in this earlier treatise? If Luther's words had the power of life and death over the peasants, why was the Admonition To Peace so ineffective in controlling those rulers who are said to be so motivated by Luther words? Obviously, Luther's words were not as crucial and important to the rulers as some make them out to be.

If one wants to chastise Luther, it would be for the harshness of his words against the peasants. Yes, I'm sure certain rulers found it comforting that Luther agreed with their cause to suppress the peasants (like Philip of Hesse). On the other hand, one must seriously ask what would've happened to the peasants had not Luther wrote against them? My gut feeling is they would've been slaughtered all the same. So, if they were to be killed anyway, what then was the actual force of Luther's harsh book?

Some argue, guilt by association. Luther agreed the peasants should be suppressed, and they were, so Luther was part of the problem, rather than the solution. It's a bit naive though to think somehow a person living in a peaceful country, hundreds of years later, can actually determine the guilt of Luther's writings in the entire peasants revolt. I would love to have the ability to stick these people back in 1524-1525, to see what they would think of the peasants while the peasants ransacked their house, or killed their family members, and threatened the stability of the land. I would posit the same people criticizing Luther now, would be the first to buy his book Against the Robbing and Murdering Mobs of Peasants, and ask Luther to autograph it. It is indeed ironic that we can be extremely critical of a situation we have never faced, but then, thrust into such a situation, we learn what it is to actually be in that situation.

Addendum #1 O"Hare's Use of Hartmann Grisar
While checking O'Hare's book it was blatantly obvious he heavily utilized a large section of text from volume 2 of the English edition of Hartmann Grisar's massive biography of Luther. O'Hare mentions and directly cites Grisar on the top of page 236 and  also mentions his use of Grisar on page 238. He begins his extensive use of Grisar at the bottom of the page beginning with the words, "Pure deviltry..." (Grisar though, used the word, "devilry"). Simply compare O'Hare page 236 and following with Grisar, the bottom of page 201 and following. At one point, O'Hare attempted to change a few words of Grisar's. For instance, Grisar says on page 202, "He therefore invites the authorities to intervene with all their strength." O'Hare changes this to, "He therefore calls upon the princes to exert their authority with all their might" (p.237).

Addendum #2
The discussion on CARM that provoked this entry was deleted by the moderators. The person who began the discussion was suspended and banned for bad behavior. 

Luther's Private Exhortation to Slaughter the Peasants

Martin Luther's book, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes 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: "Stab, smite, slay, whoever can. If you die in doing it, well for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die obeying the divine Word and commandment in Romans XIII." According to some scholars,  The book though was published too late, and the stage had already been set for the princes of Germany to slaughter the peasants. There is some ambiguity as to the actual publication, Brecht sees it as early as May 10, while others place it more toward the 15th. My own opinion is that regardless of what Luther said in this book, the peasants were on their way to be put down by the rulers. Whether each German ruler had a copy of it or not, the peasants were going to be forcefully subdued.

The defenders of Rome have a history of charging Luther for being responsible for the Peasant's War (1524-26). Roland Bainton notes that  "Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak" (Here I Stand, 281) and "The Catholic princes never ceased to hold Luther responsible for the uprising, and the Catholic historian Janssen has in modern times endeavored to prove that Luther was actually the author of the movement which he so vehemently repudiated" (Here I Stand, 271). At the time Luther's antagonist Jerome Emser wrote How Luther Has Promoted Rebellion in His Books.

 From a recent Catholic Answers discussion thread, a defender of Rome using the book, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death by Richard Marius, argues the following (red emphasis in the original) in order to get around the possible late publication of Luther's treatise. First quoting Marius, then commenting, he states :

“In mid-April, before publication of the [sic], Luther went to Eisleben and preached in several churches in the region. He called for order and tranquility and blasted form enters of unrest. He privately exhorted rulers to strike the peasants hard,to kill them without mercy if they revolted. His sermons were greeted by sullen congregations and visible anger. One congregation rang bells while he preached so he could not be heard. He retuned [sic] to Wittenberg convinced that the peasants now wished him personal harm, and he prepared again to be a martyr should their forces take the city. He was also fiercely angry.” Marius, pg. 428 So, when Swan says that the treatise was delayed and did not have an immediate role during the war, that is not exactly the whole truth. The truth is that Luther wanted “Against” to result in the slaughter of the peasants, that he did recommend prior to the carnage that they be slaughtered, and that he took credit for his role in their slaughter a few months later." [source]

"Your comments seemed designed to relieve Luther of as much of the responsibility for the slaughter of the 100,000 as possible. I would like to know if you were aware of Luther's private exhortation to the princes to slaughter the peasants BEFORE the war began, PRIOR to the comments that you made that I quoted." [source]

The argument: The assertion above posits that Luther's influence was of such great merit that this private exhortation took the German rulers from indecision to suppressing the peasants revolt. Hence Luther's influence on these rulers played a significant role. This assertion is arrived at because Luther's treatise Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants  may have been  delayed in being published in which Luther explicitly exhorts the rulers to suppress the revolt, and this particular defender of Rome has concocted an alternate way to charge Luther with pushing the authorities to slaughter the peasants.

Reply #1
Unless it's been deleted by the CAF moderators, my response can be found here. Marius was cited as proof that Luther was responsible for slaughtering the peasants. He says though contrarily that Luther wasn't responsible. He states, "The nobles did not require Luther to urge them to massacre; they were entirely capable of inspiring themselves to the bloody business that they pursued for several months" (p.432). Marius goes on to state, "Luther was not responsible for these atrocities. Yet to many people, the timing of his diatribe against the peasants made him seem a cause of the slaughter that followed." (p.432). Marius also points out that in Luther's follow-up defense of his harsh book, he condemned the killing of both the guilty and innocent together after the princes were already victorious. "Luther raged against the tyranny of the nobles in books and pamphlets over the next year or so and blamed their merciless conduct for continued peasant unrest" (p.433).

Reply #2
It occurred to me to actually go look at the documentation Marius provided for the assertion, "He privately exhorted rulers to strike the peasants hard, to kill them without mercy if they revolted. " Marius gives no documentation of this private exhortation previous to the peasants uprising, specifically the date. Popularly, the Peasant's War proper dates as early as 1524, but I don't think either Marius or this particular defender of Rome has this private exhortation going back that far.

According to Marius, Luther was in Eisleben in mid-April, 1525. That's true. LW 49 says he traveled there on April 16, 1525, and from there he wrote his Admontion for Peace. He left on April 21. According to LW 49:106, he then traveled through Thuringia in which he preached to the peasants that they should avoid violence and strive for peace, and this preaching was met with scorn. LW 47 states that by the end of April in the south "There the peasants had launched full-scale attacks upon their landlords and rulers, plundering and destroying castles, monasteries, and churches" (LW 46:47). During this time LW 46:47 states "The cities of Erfurt and Salzungen, among others, surrendered to the foe." PE IV:247 states, " Almost at the same time disturbances began in the neighborhood of Rothenburg and before May 1st most of Franconia was at the mercy of the peasant bands, led byFlorian Geyer and Goetz von Berlichingen." Sometime while traveling though Thuringia, Luther became aware of the extent of all this. LW 46 states the aproximate date of writing of Luther's treatise Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants may have been May 4, 1525. It isn't certain of the exact date of composition, but it must have been some time in early May. As I've mentioned before, some scholars say there was a delay in the actual publication of this treatise.

Both Marius and this particular defender of Rome probably place the private exhortation sometime before the Battle of Frankenhausen, May 15, 1525 (of course, previous to May 15, battle forces were already en route). So this private exhortation must have come some time between April 21 and May 15. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any sort of in-person meeting in which Luther met with the German princes to discuss this during this time period. The only evidence I've found thus far to substantiate what Marius claimed is a letter written from Luther to John Rühel, May 4 (5?), 1525, and Martin Brecht says Luther counselled Duke John on May 1 and "encouraged him to resist the peasants" (Brecht 2, p.197) .  Here is the letter in which Luther addresses Count Albrecht through Rühel:

Grace and peace in Christ Honored, dear Doctor and Relative: During this whole trip I have constantly been mulling over the news which you told me in parting; therefore I must write to you now from here concerning this matter. To begin with, I urge you not to influence my gracious Lord, Count Albrecht, to be soft in this affair. Let His Grace continue as he has begun, even though the devil becomes angrier as a result and rages more through the demonic members of his body. For we have God’s Word, which does not lie; it says in Romans 13 [:4]: “He does not bear the sword in vain,” etc. So there can never be any doubt that the count’s office was decreed and ordained by God. Therefore, as long as life is in him, His Grace ought to use his sword for punishing the wicked. Should the sword be forcibly struck from His Grace’s hand, then we must endure this and leave it in God’s hands; he first gave the sword and he may take it back when and by what means he wishes. As a result His Grace may have a good conscience, and until death pursue and be dedicated to the duties of his office for the sake of God’s Word; God’s Word has ordained this office for as long as the Word is valid. This is the same as the fact that no one is to abandon any good work unless it is knocked from his hands by force, and no one is to forego an advantage in battle, or stop fighting unless he is overcome.
If there were thousands more of the peasants, they would still be altogether robbers and murderers, who take the sword simply because of their own insolence and wickedness, and who want to expel sovereigns [and] lords, and [to destroy] everything, and to establish a new order in this world. But for this they have neither God’s commandment, authority, right, or injunction, as the lords have it now. In addition, the peasants are faithless and are committing perjury toward their lords. Above all this, they borrow the authority of the divine Word and gospel [for covering up] their great sins, and thus disgrace and slander [God’s name]. If God in his wrath really lets them reach their goal (for which they by no means have God’s authority or command) then we shall have to endure it, just as when in other circumstances someone endures, or has to endure, injustice, but does not agree that they [who are making him suffer] are doing the right thing. I still firmly hope that the peasants will not be victorious, or at least not remain so, although God occasionally plagues the world with the most desperate characters, as he has done and is still doing with the Turks.
It is a mockery on the devil’s part when the peasants pretend that they do not hurt or harm anyone. Is it not doing harm when they drive out and kill their lords? If they do not wish to hurt anyone, why do they gather in hordes and demand that one yield to their demands? To hurt no one and yet to take everything—that’s the way the devil too would do good and hurt no one, if one would let him do as he pleases. Pure insolence is the [peasants’] only reason for driving out their lords. Why does one not rather improve what is wrong [with the system]? Look at the government of the S. It also began this way, and is now worse than it has ever been. There is no discipline or obedience [among the S.], and they are nothing but mercenaries.
In short: if God wants to pour out his wrath upon us and devastate Germany, then these enemies of God, these blasphemers, robbers, and murderers, these unfaithful and perjuring peasants are suitable for this. In that case we [will] endure this and call them lords, as Scripture calls the devil a sovereign and lord. But may God protect all devout Christians from consenting to something like this, or worshipping it—as he tempted Christ to do, Matthew 4:1 ff.—but [rather make us] resist [the peasants] in word and deed as long as we are able to do so, and die for this in God’s name. If the peasants should offer not to harm anyone as long as we yield to them, then we, in turn, should offer to surrender to them, and if necessary to state publicly that they rule over us as unfaithful, lying blasphemers and robbers, and that they do not have God’s right on their side, but only inspiration from the sovereign of this world. [For] the devil boasts in Matthew 4 [:8 f.], that he holds the entire world’s power and glory, and is able to give it to whom he wishes. Both are true, if God ordains it and does not prevent it.
I (for whom this is also meant, since the devil definitely wants to have me dead) am well aware that the devil is angry, since up to now he has been unable to accomplish anything, either by fraud or force. He is set to get rid of me, even if he has to attempt the worst and confound the whole world altogether. I almost believe and think that it is because of me that the devil is making such a mess in the world, in order that God might vex the world. Well, if I get home I shall prepare for death with God’s help, and await my new lords, the murderers and robbers, who tell me they will not harm anyone. They are like the highway robber who said to the good coachman: “I shall do you no harm, but give me all you have and drive where I tell you; and if you don’t you will die!” Beautiful innocence! How magnificently the devil decorates himself and his murderers! But I would rather lose my neck a hundred times than approve of and justify the peasants’ actions; may God help me with his grace to do this. If I can manage it, before I die I will still marry my Katie to spite the devil, should I hear that the peasants continue. I trust they will not steal my courage and joy. Their own god, and no one else, may believe their statement that they are not like Münzer.
I am writing this so that you may be comforted and can comfort others, especially my gracious lord, Count Albrecht. Encourage His Grace to continue courageously, to entrust this matter to God, and to act according to God’s divine command in using the sword for as long as he can. For the conscience is on firm ground in this case, even if one has to perish for it. On the other hand, even if the peasants served God’s wrath in punishing and destroying the sovereigns, God would nevertheless reward them with the fire of hell. In a short while the true judge will come, who will meet both the peasants and us: us with grace if we endure their violence and wickedness; them with wrath, since on their own they take up the sword, by which they will also perish, as Christ has already pronounced the judgment [in] Matthew 26 [:52]. Indeed, their actions and success cannot remain nor stand for long. Give my greetings to your dear Rib. Written at Seeburg, May 4, 1525 (LW 49:108-112)

Yes, the letter does suggest that Luther exhorted Albrecht (through Rühel) to continue to suppress the peasants ("Let His Grace continue as he has begun") and not "to be soft in this affair." As to Luther's counsel to Duke John, I have to check into that further beyond Brecht.  There's nothing in either of these statements inconsistent with what Luther said earlier in his Admonition to Peace in addressing both the rulers and the peasants.

Overall, I think what is being postulated about the impact of Luther's private exhortation is naive, to put it bluntly. Whatever Luther said or didn't say, the peasants would have been killed. Rulers intending to protect their lands and their power generally will take and use whatever they want to, and ignore whatever they want to. If Luther's words had the power of life and death over the peasants, why was the Admonition To Peace so ineffective in controlling those rulers who are said to be so motivated by Luther words? Obviously, Luther's words were not as crucial and important to the rulers as is being made out to be by this defender of Rome.  I don't believe Luther's words or opinion about suppressing the peasants actually provoked the killing of the peasants. On the other hand, his words, whether late off the press or not,  didn't help them either.

Addendum #1: "The lords needed no encouragement from a preacher. When Luther's nasty little tractate appeared, they were already butchering peasants by the thousand." Richard Marius, Luther, a Biography (New York: J.B. Lippencott company, 1974) pp. 200-201.

Addendum #2: Luther wrote Duke John of Saxony July, 1524 and presented the same position he maintained throughout 1525- that ruler's have a right to keep order in society by suppressing revolts.

So, although I am aware that your Graces will understand how to act in this matter better than I can advise you, nevertheless it is my humble duty to do my part, and humbly to pray and warn your Graces to fulfill your duty as civil governors by preventing mischief and forestalling rebellion. Your Graces may rest assured in your consciences that your power and rule was given and commended to you by God, that you might preserve the peace and punish those who break it, as St. Paul teaches in Romans. Therefore your Graces should neither sleep nor be idle, for God will demand an answer and reckoning from you for a careless or spiritless use of the sword. Moreover your Graces could not excuse yourselves before the people and the world if you allowed rebellion and crimes of violence to make headway.

The 95 Theses: Nailed to the Church Door or Mailed to Ecclesiastical Authorities?

In the 1960's a Roman Catholic scholar took aim at one of the generally accepted facts of the Reformation: the nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church door. Erwin Iserloh's book The Theses Were Not Posted: Luther Between Reform and Reformation challenges this dramatic aspect of Luther's story. He held the 95 Theses weren't nailed to the Wittenberg church door, but rather mailed to particular ecclesiastical superiors."Luther did not post the Theses but only sent them to Archbishop Albert of Mainz and Bishop Jerome Schulz of Brandenburg, the appropriate representatives of the church, for their approval" [LW 31:23].

Some of the Facts: Nailed or Mailed?
The genesis of Luther and the Wittenberg door story appears to have come from Melanchthon's Memoirs / Preface to the second volume of Luther's collected works (Wittenberg edition, 1546) [English, Latin]:

When Luther was in this course of study, venal Indulgences were circulated in these regions by Tecelius the Dominican, a most shameless Deceiver. Luther, angered by Tecelius' impious and execrable debates and, burning with the eagerness of piety, published Propositions concerning Indulgences, which are extant in the first volume of his writings, and he publicly attached these to the Temple, which is next to Witteberg Castle, on the day before the feast of all Saints, 1517.

Notice the Theses were "publicly attached" (or affixed). There's nothing at all about hammering a document to a door.  One other source from a few years before Melanchthon's text actually does though mention "doors", not "a door." Georg Rorer in 1540 mentioned "on the folding-doors of the churches" in a private note (see Franz Posset, The Real Luther, p. 23). Neither Melanchthon or Rorer were in Wittenberg in 1517, so whatever the origin of this story, it certainly wasn't an eyewitness account.

Luther himself never mentions anything about nailing the 95 Theses to the church door but rather explains how they were sent out to particular ecclesiastical authorities. The first bit of evidence is Luther's letter (or cover letter) to Albrecht from October 31, 1517 (LW 48:43) sent with a copy of the 95 Theses. Then in a letter dated March 5, 1518 to Christopher Scheurl, he states, "... As you are surprised that I did not send them [The 95 Theses] to you, I reply that my purpose was not to publish them, but first to consult a few of my neighbors about them, that thus I might either destroy them if condemned or edit them with the approbation of others. But now that they are printed and circulated far beyond my expectation." In a letter dated May 30, 1518 to Pope Leo he states, "So I published some propositions for debate, inviting only the more learned to discuss them with me, as ought to be plain to my opponents from the preface to my Theses." In a letter dated November [21?], 1518 to Elector Frederick,Luther states, "...[S]ome liars among ourselves falsely assert that I undertook the disputation on the Indulgences by your Grace’s advice, when the fact is, that not even my dearest friends were aware of it."He also states that previous to the 95 Theses becoming public, he sent two letters (to the Archbishop of Magdeburg / Mainz and the Bishop of Brandenburg). So from Luther's own accounts, he never mentions nailing the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg door. William Pauck notes,"...Luther, who had a tendency to speak freely about his career and who, in his later years,
loved to reminisce, never mentioned the incident. Moreover, there are no other contemporary sources which support the old story" [Olin, John (ed.) Luther, Erasmus and the Reformation (Massachusetts: Fordham University Press, 1969, p. 52].


The Aftermath of Iserloh
Eugene Klug from Concordia Theological Seminary argued:

Someone has observed that it is in the nature of German university life that a professor’s claim to fame, the ability to excite and to attract students to his lecture hall, often lies in his capacity to spin the web of awe and mystique over his audience, or to strike new lode by coming up with some novel, unique, controversial, often “way-out” position. This appears to have been the case with Erwin Iserloh’s widely read and disputed The Theses Were Not Posted [Word And Scripture In Luther Studies Since World War II (Trinity Journal Volume 5:16)].

Klug then recommends Kurt Aland's response to Iserloh: Kurt Aland, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967). Klug affirms "Aland shows that there is no solid evidence to throw into doubt Luther’s own rehearsal of the event as occurring on October 31, 1517, with the posting on the Castle Church doors" (p.16). On the other hand, Roman Catholic writer Franz Posset says "Kurt Aland... tried to defuse the presented source material and digressed from the essential problem" [The Real Luther, p. 23]. The basic response to Iserloh can be summed up as follows:

1. There's nothing in any of Luther's statements that rules out a posting of the 95 Theses.

2. Melanchthon is to be considered a reliable source of information (as is Rorer) because of their close relationship with Luther. Even though Melanchthon's memoirs have minor errors, it is nonetheless reliable.

3. Wouldn't a contemporary of Melanchthon have questioned such a blaring historical error?

Argument #1 is an argument from silence. Argument #3 is weak, because (as far as I know) no contemporary of Melanchthon's stepped up to correct any of Melanchthon's minor errors. As far as I can navigate this controversy, the entire thing rests on whether or not one trusts the account of Philip Melanchthon. Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset has recently written quite convincingly that Melanchthon's memoirs of Luther are to be trusted more or less, but yet states, "Did Rorer and Melanchthon concoct the Posting in good faith? It looks like it" [The Real Luther, p. 23]. I'm not so sure though that "it looks like it" settles anything.

Richard Marius rightly points out that "Luther always claimed to have gone through channels, and Iserloh takes him seriously, concluding that the Theses were not posted" (Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, p. 138). Marius then asserts that "Protestant scholars have reacted with dismay at the shattering of an icon" which is indeed overstating the case. In an earlier work Marius calls this controversy a "furious scholarly debate" and Iserloh "succeeded in raising a bellow of outrage from those current disciples of Luther who cannot bear to lose a single glitter of their idol's glamour" [Luther, a Biography (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1974) p. 70]. Marius has given this controversy more importance than it actually has.

Conclusion
It should be mentioned that even though a Roman Catholic, Iserloh was sympathetic to Luther. Otto Pesch points out that,

Iserloh's booklet of a few years ago on Luther's 95 Theses drew considerable attention. Even the treatment of this question from church history is characterized by a concern to present a true picture of the man Luther, and Iserloh was happy about the findings in his booklet, which rejects the story of Luther's nailing his theses onto the church door, not least because they succeeded in minimizing the picture of Luther as an angry revolutionary and placed the event which started the Reformation, stripped of all theatrical sensationalism, back into the form of a sober academic dispute [Otto Pesch, “Twenty Years of Catholic Luther Research” Lutheran World, 13, 1966, p. 305].

While I'm not any sort of scholar, I wouldn't be at all dismayed to find out the nails going into the Wittenberg door is the stuff of legend. Someone may say: "Who cares if the 95 Theses were nailed or mailed?" I can understand such a response.  What interests me about this is that to be consistent, I can't simply focus on the many Roman Catholic myths without taking a closer look at some of their charges of Protestant myth making from time to time. It is indeed the case that Luther's 95 Theses went 16th Century viral rather quickly. It is indeed plausible that the 95 Theses were posted as Melanchthon asserts.

The only real question in this controversy: is Melanchthon to be trusted? Unless someone can definitively prove that he cannot be on this point, Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door will remain part of the Luther story. If one reads Melanchthon's account, he doesn't appear to make it an outstanding central fact to Luther's story. That is, I see no reason why Luther's dramatic history needed to be embellished or concocted by Melanchthon with Rorer.

Addendum: Rorer's Note
This is from Cyberbrethren:

In 2006, Martin Treu from the Luther Memorials Foundation of Saxony- Anhalt rediscovered a handwritten comment by Luther’s secretary Georg Rörer (1492-1557) in the Jena University and State Library, which although printed, had so far played no role in research. Right at the end of the desk copy for the revision of the New Testament in 1540, Rörer made the following note: „On the evening before All Saints’ Day in the year of our Lord 1517, theses about letters of indulgence were nailed to the doors of the Wittenberg churches by Doctor Martin Luther.”

Now Rörer was also not an eye-witness, but he was one of Luther’s closest staff. The copy of the New Testament, in which he made his note, contains many entries in Luther’s own hand. The note right at the end of the volume leads us to assume that it was made at the conclusion of the revision work in November 1544. Directly beside it is another note, according to which Philipp Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg on August 20, 1518, at ten o’ clock in the morning. This information is not to be found anywhere else and presumably came directly from Melanchthon himself. Rörer’s reference to the Wittenberg churches in the plural must be emphasized, as it corresponds to the statutes of the university. According to these, all public announcements had to be nailed to the doors of the churches.

"Luther’s virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character"

There's a guy over on the CARM boards that's fond of my blog:

"The following quotes would NEVER be found in a James Swan blog “article”, unless they would be surrounded by a lot of the kind of “spin” necessary to “explain them away”, so that the reader would conclude that Luther’s extremely odd behavior was something completely unconnected with Protestant theology. Of course this is a completely anti-intellectual approach to Luther, but then, Swan’s target audience is apparently not comprised of those who think for themselves (or so Swan hopes)."

Now that sort of sentiment gets my eyes get all teared up when such feelings are shared.  You're special to me to!

Here's another choice tidbit from the same person:

Richard Marius, probably the best Protestant biographer of Luther of the last 100 years must be admired for the following:

-snip-

“Luther’s virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character.” I agree with Marius completely. However, the “Defenders” would prefer that we see his “treatment” of the Jews and those 14 Other Issues as anomalies, things not really representative of his “Christianity”. In fact they DO represent EXACTLY what kind of a Christian he was. They also represent how “good” an Exegete he was. Of course, NO Lutheran will go that far because they have SO MUCH “invested” in Luther’s “discovery” of Salvation by Faith Alone, supposedly in Scripture. The fact of the matter is that it was from the same mind and level of Christian character that both those “recommendations” on the Jews and Salvation by Faith Alone originated. As we continue to discover on that other thread, the inside of Luther’s head was not a pretty place by any set of standards.

This though is what Marius actually said:

"Luther's virulent railing against the Jews seems to reflect an aspect of his character. As a man capable of giving complete devotion to the task at hand, all the power of his amazing personality was directed at whatever object was in front of it. Something about him calls to mind a high-pressure fire hose with a reservoir of enormous volume and force behind it, directed by the small focus of the nozzle and so delivered with shattering intensity. He could rage against the Jews or the pope or rulers who displeased him or his foes on every hand so that one might suppose that these antagonists commanded his life and all his energy. But then his attention could shift, and away from his pulpit or his writing desk he could turn the same intensity toward good humored conversation at table or the delights of his garden or the pleasure he took later on in his much beloved wife. Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it. It was as bad as Luther could make it, and that was bad enough to leave a legacy that had hateful consequences for centuries."

Richard Marius, Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, pp. 379-380.

As to the claim that "Richard Marius, probably the best Protestant biographer of Luther of the last 100 years", Marius was such a great "Protestant" that he says his underlying presuppositions to his study on Luther is “essentially non-religious.” From this perspective, he begins with the notion that “Luther represents a catastrophe in the history of Western civilization.” And, “…[W]hatever good Luther did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him” (p. xii) (Marius also lays part of the blame on the Catholic Church as well). Because the Reformation led to wars between Catholics and Protestants, the loss of life was a grave calamity of the Reformation. Humanists are always concerned with preserving humanity, for humanity’s sake. Try applying Marius’s reasoning to Moses: The Jews would have been better off if they stayed in Egypt because they almost all died in the desert wilderness. The Jews that went into the Promised Land exterminated a large number of people. Moses should have been like Erasmus and sought to negotiate more conservatively with Pharaoh. Hence, whatever good Moses did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him… Or consider the early church: instead of giving their lives for their beliefs, they should have negotiated with the Roman government. They should have said, “we’ll bow to Caesar as god, but we don’t really mean it.” Countless lives could have been saved. Thus, whatever good the early church caused by not cooperating with the Roman government is not matched by the calamities they caused.

Luther Didn't Believe in Hell?

Here's an odd one from the CARM boards:

"Luther’s terror over his own Salvation was not a fear of burning in hell for all of eternity. In fact he didn’t believe in a physical hell, but more of a psychological hell. His fear was of death, not a death of torment but a death of annihilation, a death that meant nothingness after life on earth. It was either everlasting heaven immediately upon death or – nothing. What kind of a “Christian theologian” believes or HAS EVER believed that?"

As far as I can tell, the above thought was snatched from Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death, p. 61 and perhaps other sections of this book. If it was not, I'll adjust this post. I've done a brief overview of this book here. For Marius, Luther was not the heroic God believer in a cosmic spiritual battle. Luther was a man who questioned whether or not God even exists, and was terrified of death.

Marius first records Luther describing hell as a place of conscious suffering in his commentary on Psalm 20. So, whatever the case, at some point Luther did indeed present evidence he believed in a physical hell, even according to Marius. Marius does his best to downplay this text, commenting that the description of hell "seem(s) like an afterthought."

Marius then presents material from Luther's commentary on Jonah and says "(Luther) never flatly denied the existence of hell, but came close to doing just that in his German commentary on the book of Jonah..." He then quotes Luther saying: "What hell may be in the last day, I am not altogether sure. I do not believe it is a special place where damned souls now exist like the place painters depict and servants of the belly [evidently the begging friars] preach it." Marius then remarks, "He cites Peter, Paul, and Jesus to argue Satan is not in hell but that he is in this world and in the air, and this could not be if hell were a particular place."

Here's though what Luther says in his commentary on Jonah about hell. Luther states:

"I am not so sure what hell is like before the Day of Judgment. The notion that hell is a specific place, now tenanted by the souls of the damned, as artists portray it and the belly servers preach it, I consider of no value, for we know that the devils are not yet in hell, but as Peter declares (2 Peter 2:4), they are “in ropes of nether gloom.” And St. Paul speaks of “powers and world rulers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). Christ also terms the devil “the ruler of this world” (John 14:30). To dominate the world, to commit so much villainy, and to create so much misery would be impossible for the devils if they were confined to hell. The agony of hell would surely deter them from this. Scripture also says of many saints that they went down into hell, as Jonah does here. Thus we hear this of Job (Job 17:13), and Jacob laments (Gen. 37:35): “I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Scripture uses the word “Sheol” graphically to describe the anxiety and the agony of the dying. It adapts itself to their mood and feelings. And the dying do feel as though they were descending into hell, that is, into God’s wrath, although they know of no specific place to which they are departing. Everybody carries his hell with him wherever he may be so long as he feels the final anguish of death and God’s anger. In conformity with this, St. Peter in Acts 2:27 interprets Ps. 16:10 as spoken by Christ: “Thou dost not give Me up to Sheol, etc.,” and he says (v. 24) that God “loosed the pangs of death.” St. Peter wants us to think of “Sheol” as the pain of death that Christ felt when He died on the cross and when He departed this life and passed into the power of God. However, on the Last Day this will assume a different aspect. Then hell will be a particular place and the abode of those consigned to it and the eternal wrath of God. But let this suffice. It is not very important whether or not one pictures hell as it is commonly portrayed and described. The fact remains that hell is far worse now—and will be even worse than it is now—than anyone is able to say, depict, or imagine." (LW 19:74).

Marius is simply wrong, as the context shows. Notice the qualifier Luther places above: "I am not so sure what hell is like before the Day of Judgment." Luther concludes, "However, on the Last Day this will assume a different aspect. Then hell will be a particular place and the abode of those consigned to it and the eternal wrath of God. But let this suffice. It is not very important whether or not one pictures hell as it is commonly portrayed and described. The fact remains that hell is far worse now—and will be even worse than it is now—than anyone is able to say, depict, or imagine."

Luther's Last Years, Revisited

Did Luther Regret the Reformation? Here's a follow-up which demonstrates (once again) how interesting it is to actually read sources in context. I recently came across the following citation from Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death on another blog:

His last years in Wittenberg were bitter. He was disappointed in the undisciplined lives of his congregation, and he raged at his audiences from the pulpit. Near the end of his life he threatened to leave the city altogether. . . . The Christian was moved by gratitude to God and sought to do good works not to win salvation but out of spontaneous love. Luther saw no evidence that his people in Wittenberg were so moved. In September 1545, only a few months before he died, Luther preached a long, rambling, and heartfelt sermon lambasting the Wittenbergers for adultery, greed, and the desires of the flesh. (Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, Harvard University Press, 2000, 466).

Marius says his underlying presuppositions to his study on Luther is “essentially non-religious.” From this perspective, he begins with the notion that “Luther represents a catastrophe in the history of Western civilization.” And, “…[W]hatever good Luther did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him” (p. xii) (Marius also lays part of the blame on the Catholic Church as well). Because the Reformation led to wars between Catholics and Protestants, the loss of life was a grave calamity of the Reformation. 

Here is the entirety of the paragraph from Marius:

What most intrigued me about this snippet is "In September 1545, only a few months before he died, Luther preached a long, rambling, and heartfelt sermon lambasting the Wittenbergers for adultery, greed, and the desires of the flesh" and also the citations from the sermon Marius offered.

The sermon actually isn't long. Marius cites WA 51 (in footnote 67-68). The sermon is only seven pages long, starting on page 50 and ending on page 57, with actually two different versions of the sermon running simultaneously on each page. The sermon isn't rambling either. It's about good works and warring against the flesh. The Christian is not condemned by the law, but still has a lifelong war against the flesh (the Biblical text preached is Galatians 5:16-24). the points raised follow consistently as Luther practically applies the Biblical text to this basic point. The only thing really missing is a concise conclusion to the sermon.

Nor was Luther "lambasting" his congregation for "adultery, greed, and the desires of the flesh." Rather, he was expounding on Galatians 5, stating Paul teaches "flesh and (Spirit) are so opposed to each other that you (can)not do (what you want to do) [Gal. 5:17]. The flesh hangs around my neck together with the old Adam , who fell in paradise (and inborn in us), whom we log about in this life and cannot be rid of until we are buried" [WA 51:51; LW 58:284].

True Luther expounds on particular vices, but not in any sort of "lambasting" way. For instance, Marius quotes Luther saying "those who continue in this "liberty of the flesh' will be damned" (WA 51:53). In  context, Luther states:

"Those who belong to Christ have crucified [the flesh with its passions and desires], etc." [Gal. 5:24].23 "This is what I mean;' [Paul says,] "when I say,`Do not give opportunity to the flesh. If you say, 'I want to do what my flesh leads me to do, [I say that] you ought not follow the desire [of the flesh]." Such is the case with avarice and usury, which may well tempt Christians, especially when need (and poverty befall together), etc. These are the thoughts of the Spirit: "Do not make the loaf too small, (give the right measure, merchandise, and meat, so that you can give an account before God. (For you should not overcharge anyone.)" (That is how the Spirit speaks in Christians.) (But) the flesh [thinks]: "Oh, what harm is a penny or a groschen, if I water down the beer;' and afterward he raises the price. Is that restraining and crucifying the desires? Rather, it is giving them opportunity (and quenching the Spirit).

It is on this account that you belong in the pit of hell. This is vice and sin, even though they dress it up, [saying], "I have a wife and children; they must be provided for." Beware! You are not deceiving God, but yourself [cf. Gal. 6:7]. This vice is characteristic of the old. [And the] squires from the nobility, what do they do? If the crops have done rather poorly, [they say], "Yes, but I must have my money." But is it right? "I do not care about that, [they say]. Much less do I! The Spirit says thus: "I will trust God; He possesses more than I have given up." If the flesh grumbles and says, "Take [what you can get], since things are scarce:' [say to the flesh]: "Not so, I must crucify you." This they do not do. For this reason, I fear that the entire nobility, from top to tail,belongs to the devil, because they have given themselves over to the flesh. And yet they still want to be (regarded as) upright (and thanked for it!) I have said and I have preached to you: "Woe to the avaricious and usurers! They do not belong in heaven, but hell, because they give the flesh free rein." (For they use their freedom for wickedness, and if they were able to snatch up every penny for themselves, [it would not be enough], etc.) Avaricious old men become fatter in belly and in purse (and yet cannot be satisfied). [WA 51:53; LW 58:286-287].

In Context, Luther is exhorting his congregation against avarice and usury most certainly, but note those being condemned by Luther: "I fear that the entire nobility, from top to tail,belongs to the devil, because they have given themselves over to the flesh."

Marius then describes the content of WA 51:55, "Many are baptized and yet are manifestly avaricious. Were such to come to receive the Eucharist from him, he said, he would not give it to them if he knew their faults. Even if they were dying he would not administer the sacrament to them but would tell them to call on God. 'If you die, I will give you to the crows. Let your sack of gold help you.' " In context Luther is describing a truly avaricious man whose "soul is dead, he is an enemy of God, he is condemned to hell.." [WA 51:53; LW 58:288]. Luther later continues:

Avarice cares nothing about heaven but takes gold [as its god]—[gold] must hold the honor and name of our Lord God. The [true] honor given to the Lord is that my heart clings to Him. Whoever trusts [Him] honors God and calls upon [Him] aright, so that I say [to Him]: "Merciful God, You are my God in poverty, wealth, death, need; in poverty and misery I place my confidence in You." The honor that belongs to God—to rely entirely upon God to satisfy [us] in times of need—this the avaricious man gives to the impotent gulden, because he trusts that so long [as] he has a sack full of guldens, etc., [all will be well]. [And when] the sack is not entirely full, he supposes: "If [only] I had enough money"—then he would be happy.

Thus, in the presence of God, the Church of Christ, and of the angels, every greedy person is called an idolater, who robs honor from God and gives it to money. In so doing, he is insolent and gay, but that is absolutely nothing at all, because his god is nothing at all. But is this not a disgraceful title? They are baptized and want to be Christians, and yet are openly avaricious. If I knew of someone like this in particular, he should not come to me for the Sacrament, as they [are accustomed to] do. When death came, I would not give him the Sacrament, but say, "Let your own god help you, who is mighty and strong; call on [your] land full of grain! If you die, I will give you to the ravens; let your sack full of guldens come to your aid! I deny you the grace of God." And if we do not do so—if we are aware—but instead keep silent and do not excommunicate him, then I become a participant in a sin that I myself did not commit. I should not be avaricious myself but should contend in the Spirit, and I should not connive at your avarice and thus go to hell [myself] on your account. You should not come to the Sacrament, and the prayer [of the congregation] will be of no avail to you [The avaricious man] makes avarice into idolatry. Images...  is the honor and praise that belongs to God. These are two examples. We feel the desires of the flesh, but must not consent to it, lest we follow [the desire] with the work. [Say,] "Not so, flesh, guldens! I must not be an idolater for your sake. Get out from the ground, grain; gold, get out of my purse. I will be your master." That is how the Spirit should speak [WA 51:54-55; LW 58:290-291].

The context of Luther's remarks present quite a different picture than that portrayed by Richard Marius. What a shame that bloggers who sift through secondary sources to make a point don't take the time to actually look up the primary material being cited from that secondary source. Scholars and historians can (and do) make mistakes. Sometimes they even mis-read a context.

Luther: I sit here idle and drunk all day long

I haven't spent much time on the new CARM discussion boards. Recently a friend invited me back to check in on a few things. Here's one I found from one of my fans:

After Luther’s “capture”, he wrote Spalatin on May 14th: I sit here idle and drunk all day long: I am reading the Greek and Hebrew Bible.” Marius pg 297 Now, THAT could explain quite a few things. One has no choice but to imagine a drunken Luther working on his “translation” of the Bible into German, the 17th or 18th version available in that native language. Here we have the possibility, if not the probability, of the Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, translating the first Protestant Bible while drunk. But then as I mentioned earlier, it sure would explain a number of things in one fell swoop. Now I understand that this admission by Luther himself to being “drunk all day long” goes directly against the “Legend” that Protestantism has built around Him. It also goes against James Swan, who almost certainly knows of this particular quote. “The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk.” James Swan, “Ten Martin Luther Myths”, 6/30/2007 I’m sure that James, as usual, has an “alternative interpretation” of Luther’s own words, such as that he was “drunk on love of God” or some such other extremely compelling explanation. I am not charging Luther with drunkenness; I am only accepting him at his word, and am placing that admission of drunkenness in the same period of time and at the same location where he did such a “marvelous” job of producing the First Protestant New Testament. Seriously, one has to wonder how James would explain (away) this Luther quote. I think I can guess a few of the possibilities but honestly, I think I am capable of writing his “stuff” better than he can. Quite honestly, it is these kinds of facts about Luther which make the Luther’s “defenders” look to be so blatantly dishonest.

One wonders about why someone would say "I am not charging Luther with drunkenness" but also argue Luther was drunk while translating the Bible. The logic escapes me.

To my knowledge, the historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did regularly drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force.

On page 297 of Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, Richard Marius states the following, "Yet amid [Luher's] afflictions, he went to work. By May 14 he was writing to Spalatin, 'I sit here idle and drunk all day long; I am reading the Greek and Hebrew Bible. I am writing a sermon in the vernacular on our liberty from auricular confession."

Is this evidence Luther's admits his drunkenness? If it is, it's somewhat odd evidence. Marius is in the midst of documenting Luther's exile in the caste of the Wartburg (1521). He documents some of Luther's physical afflictions. He then describes Luther's letter to Spalatin (May 14, 1521). Along with "I sit here idle and drunk all day long; I am reading the Greek and Hebrew Bible. I am writing a sermon in the vernacular on our liberty from auricular confession," he notes Luther was working on the Psalms and a collection of German sermons.

This quote is found in LW 48 and in WA, Br 2, 337-338 . It comes from a Latin letter Luther wrote while in hiding at the Wartburg. The quote in question occurs here:

Ego otiosus hic et crapulosus sedeo tota die; Bibliam Graecam et Hebraeam lego. Scribam sermonem vernaculum de confessionis auricularis libertate; Psalterium etiam prosequari, et Postillas, ubi e Wittemberga accepero, quibus opus habeo, inter quae et Magnificat inchoatum expecto.

This is a perfect example of a comment that if taken literally in a context doesn't make much sense. If you actually read the entire letter, it's precise and cogent. Luther comments on the Edict of Worms, on the student riots against some clergy of Erfurt, and other events. He also says he's reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.

Marius himself translates the comment as "I sit here all day idle and drunk" (p.517), but then explains it's an example of Luther's hyperbole when describing his ability to drink alcohol. He then adds, "[Luther] may have drunk excessively in these early days in the Wartburg, but he could not have imbibed continually and created the enormous output he produced during his 'captivity.' "

Luther's Works Volume 48 takes a different approach. Like Marius, they see that the comment doesn't make sense literally. They renders this text as follows:

I am sitting here all day, drunk with leisure. I am reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. I shall write a German tract on the freedom of auricular confession. I shall also continue working on the Psalms and the Postil as soon as I have received the necessary things from Wittenberg—among which I also expect the unfinished Magnificat. [LW 48:223]

One of the most thorough treatments I've ever read on Luther's drinking comes from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. Grisar doesn't even take Luther serious in this context:

The task remains of considering certain further traits in Luther's life with regard to his indulgence in drinking. During the first part of his public career Luther himself speaks of the temptation to excessive eating and drinking and other bad habits to which he was exposed. This he did in 1519 in his remarkably frank confession to his superior Staupitz. Here the expression " crapula " must be taken more seriously than on another occasion when, in a letter to a friend written from the Wartburg in the midst of his arduous labours, he describes himself as "sitting idle, and ' crapulosus.' " [source]

Hartmann Grisar was no fan of Luther. His work is typically classified with the earlier Roman Catholic destructive criticism of Luther, but even he doesn't take Luther literally.

The debate centers around the transaltion of the word "crapulosus." Preserved Smith explains:

Crapulosus properly has this' meaning [drunk], and is so used by Luther himself, Weimar, iii, 559, 596. On the other hand, he also uses it of gluttony: "Sicut ebreitas m1nium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda," Weimar, ii, 591. Perhaps "surfeited" comes nearer Luther's meaning in this letter [source].

This source translates the word differently as well:

Prof. A. F. Hoppe, in the St. Louis edition of Dr. Luther's Works, translates them: "I sit here the whole day idle and with a heavy head (schweren Kopfes)." Prof. Dan translates them: "I am sitting idle all day and oppressed with thoughts" [source].

One thing is indeed certain on this topic. For those who wish to vilify Luther, the word must literally mean "drunk." I don't deny Luther drank and enjoyed doing so, but this quote isn't evidence that he translated the Bible drunk.

For more on this topic see, Luther's Drinking (Part One).