Luther openly acknowledged the rapid decline in morals that his new religion was bringing about?

Here's a snippet from one of Rome's defenders on the failure of the Reformation:

Luther openly acknowledged the rapid decline in morals that his new religion was bringing about: "Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone. "This preaching,"; he says, "ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery."

The basic gist is that Luther admitted his teaching ("his doctrine of justification by faith alone") made people worse. This is a typical charge, often argued by Rome's defenders that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't they make people better? Wouldn't they make the world better? Even though I've covered this quote before, let's take a fresh look and see what Luther was saying about his evangelical teachings and their impact on the world.

Documentation

While no documentation is provided, Rome's defender mentioned the old Roman Catholic biographer Hartmann Grisar a few times. A quick Google search reveals the quote came from Grisar's multi-volume biography of Luther. In volume 4:210, Grisar states, 

Luther quite candidly admitted the distressing state of things described above without in the least glossing it over, which indeed he could not well have done; in fact, his own statements give us an even clearer insight into the seamy side of life in his day. He speaks of the growing disorders with pain and vexation; the more so since he could not but see that they were being fomented by his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

“This preaching,” he says, “ought by rights to be accepted and listened to with great joy, and everyone ought to improve himself thereby and become more pious. But, unfortunately, the reverse is now the case and the longer it endures the worse the world becomes; this is [the work of] the devil himself, for now we see the people becoming more infamous, more avaricious, more unmerciful, more unchaste and in every way worse than they were under Popery.”[3]

[3] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

Grisar's original text was in German. He provides a helpful reference: ""Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”"  Here is Werke Erl. ed., 1², p. 14. The text reads, 

“Hauspostille” refers to the House Postil. The House Postil sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.  These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two of Luther's associates  (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist, as is the case with this text. The text Grisar is citing is Veit Dietrich's. His account can be found in English in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. We'll be primarily utilizing the English translation in which the quote in question can be found here, but also referring to Roerer's version also. 

Context

Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life. [Dietrich''s version]

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people. [Dietrich''s version]

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Dietrich''s version]

Conclusion

Was the world getting worse because of Luther's "new religion"? Yes! In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those though who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse, while changing the lives of those who accept it. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Addendum

These two links are of vital importance for anyone attempting to understand how Luther's House Postil was put together:

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Of interest is the author's conclusion that "Veit Dietrich was correct; he was the only one who transcribed the sermons Luther preached in his home in the early 1530s, though Rörer may have been in attendance to hear portions of some of them."

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils

I came across two fascinating links documenting the difficulty in researching Luther's House Postil sermons. These sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Recently Concordia has released four new volumes of Luther's Church Postil sermons (LW 75-78). These new translations are helpful, particularly because of the extensive historical and critical footnotes. According to the links above, no such project is scheduled for the House Postil sermons:

"I found out that the 20 new volumes of Luther’s works being put out by Concordia Publishing House are not going to include Luther’s House Postil(s), in part because these have already been published in a three-volume series by Baker Books in 1996, edited by Eugene F. A. Klug."

Currently as I write this, I've been researching a Luther quote (used in a polemical way by Rome's defenders!) from the House Postil. While I'm partly working from the 1996 publication, it would be so helpful to have a critical English edition. These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two men who heard them being preached (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist. These versions are said to compliment each other, rather than contradict (see the Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 14-15]. The Baker edition relied on Roerer's version. There is an old two-volume English translation that used Dietrich's version: Luther: Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and principal festivals of the church year. The Baker edition does point out that attempts to recreate an "authentic version"of these sermons from the two accounts have not worked in the past. I'm not looking for the "authentic" version, but it would sure be helpful to have a critical version of both sets of sermons, side by side. In the links above, the writer points out that there are errors as well in the current English translations in the Baker set:

"Klug’s translation itself flows well. But it is not based on the more critical Weimar edition of Luther’s works, and so the content is often incorrect (e.g. §15 in 3:215, which Luther did not actually say) or incomplete (e.g. §20 in 3:228, which is incomplete because it does not take the Nuremberg copy of the sermon into account, where Luther refers to his health and leaves the completion of the series in doubt; and §1 in 3:229, which omits the entire first part of Luther’s sermon when he preached on the Gospel before continuing with his series on Isaiah)."

Another comment made by these links in this regard is worth pointing out as well: simply because these sermon notes have been transformed into readable accounts, there's still some ambiguity and interpretation as to what Luther actually preached:

I can also speak from experience that, in spite of Andreas Poach’s best intentions, he did not in fact publish an edition of Luther’s sermons “without any alterations, truncations, or additions.” (Refer, however, to Georg Buchwald’s remarks on Poach’s edition in Part 2.) While he is generally faithful to Rörer’s notes, and generally does an excellent job filling them out so that they read and sound more like sermons and less like shorthand lecture notes, the fact is that he does fill them out, and sometimes he takes liberties that are distasteful (e.g. making Luther a little more uncouth than Rörer has him in his notes) or even completely incorrect. This is why, if a translation is to be made of any of the House Postils – and really, any work of Luther – it must at the very least seriously consult and compare the more critical Weimar edition, which takes the reader back to the original notes, instead of to any editor’s publication and interpretation of those notes. 

I've been looking into obscure Luther quotes for over fifteen years now. The deeper I've researched them, the more I've come to realize that there are broad classes of reliability as to what Luther actually said:

Most reliable: Luther's actual writings from his own hand.
Moderately reliable: Luther's sermons recorded by those who heard him preach.
Not reliable: Table Talk statements.

My particular enjoyment in reading Luther is seeing what Rome's defenders say he said and then comparing it to what is actually said in context. I've come to realize that even though I may have located a context for a particular quote, in many cases I'm actually I'm relying on documents Luther didn't actually write. Do Rome's defenders realize this? On the pop-apologetic level, probably not.

Addendum
Included in the links above is a fresh English translation of the preface of WA 52:VII-XI and the Foreword to Volume 1 of the Second Edition of the Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works. Also, of interest is the article Fragments and Crumbs’ for the Preachers: Luther’s House Postils in Logia.

Luther: Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and principal festivals of the church year

In the latest edition of Luther's Works, a footnote mentions an earlier English translation of Luther's House Postil: Matthias Loy, ed., Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and Principal Festivals of the Church Year by Dr. Martin Luther, 2 vols. (Rock Island, Il: Augustana Book Concern, 1871). Google Books makes these available:

Volume 1


Volume 2

This is an interesting find, because this translation of the House Postil is different than the popular English version readily available as part of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther  (volumes 5-7) republished by Baker Books. The sermons contained in the House Postil were given by Luther to select guests and family members. Two specific individuals recorded these sermons:  Georg Rorer and Veit Dietrich. The House Postil  that is part of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther uses Rorer's version as the basis for their translation. The two volumes by Matthias Loy linked above use Dietrich's version. These two older volumes of Dietrich's version don't have all the material contained in the later volumes based on Rorer's version. Ironically, I found these older volumes in 2010 and had forgotten about them.

Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer both made stenographic notes of these house postils, transcribing them later into finished form. Luther, at this time in his life, regularly spoke from an outline that had been carefully thought through ahead of time, in order to get hold of the Konzept, or chief point(s) he wanted to make, as he himself explained concerning his preaching. Thus, homiletically his style might be described as combining expository with topical, the chief point or conceptual thread coming really from God himself through the text of Scripture. Apparently, he was a deliberate speaker who spoke slowly and distinctly, a characteristic which would have allowed time for an expert note-taker to do his recording. Thus through these two faithful scribes, two versions of Luther's house postils have come down to us. In general, they may be said to complement each other, rather than being duplicates in carbon copy sort of manner; but efforts to collate them or to try to extract the "authentic version" out of them have usually foundered. The result is that they stand side by side, in tandem, as parallel versions..." [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2000) p. 14]. 

Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

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

Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But . .. they preach not the truth . . . When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. (in Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145) [link]

The quote as presented above is a truncated presentation of a larger context in which a few words are cited and some are skipped over in order to serve as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Luther's actual point made in context is completely ignored by such methodology.

One Roman apologist used the quote to show the Reformers "not only failed to purify Christ’s one Church, they failed at producing a superior Christian." It isn't just the defenders of Rome who reference this quote. Heiko Oberman has pointed out that this statement has been found objectionable "through the ages" by Luther's "contemporaries and today's Catholics and Protestants alike."  I found a curious usage of this quote by a nineteenth century pacifist, Edwin D. Mead who says that the quote points out a "reckless inconsistency" in Luther's thought. This Lutheran site  references the quote in a discourse on contemporary Lutheranism ("the more we gassed on about family values and conservative politics, the worse life became among us"). Then there are those from secular academia referencing it as well. Such usage points to the popularity of this quote across differing worldviews.

Documentation

The documentation provided refers to "Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145." This secondary source refers to a work authored by Giorgio de Santillana, a historian and philosopher. He contributed The Age of Adventure: the Renaissance Philosophers / Selected, with Introduction and Interpretive Commentary to the Mentor Philosophers series. On pages 144-145,  The Age of Adventure states,

There is in Luther a colossal simplicity and directness. "I am inspired by anger. Those who condemn the movement of anger against antagonists are theologians who deal in mere speculations." This made him, like Savonarola, into a great tribune, but unlike the Italian, he was addressing a people ready to explode. He does not waste his time preaching abstinence and moral betterment; he is a political mind: "Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But what I affirm roundly and plainly is that they preach not the truth. To this I am called: I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife in its throat. When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil."

Giorgio de Santillana does not document this quote. In his "Recommended Further Reading" section (p. 277), he points to four possibilities as to where he took this quote from. I'll demonstrate below he may have taken it from this source he recommends on page 279:

The Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated and edited by W. Hazlitt. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1878. (Bohn's Standard Library.)

 The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often appears to fall on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written.

This Table Talk statement was recorded by Veit Dietrich in the Fall of 1533. It can be found in WA BR 1:294-297. The text reads, 

WA goes on to present variations on this utterance which accounts for some of the differences in the way this text has been translated into English. For instance,

The first version is a mixture of Latin and German, the second purely German [WA refers to "FB. 2, 414 (22,104)"]. LW states that the older manuscripts of the Table Talk are those with the Latin / German mixture (LW 54, introduction, III). In other words, the more reliable version is the former, with the pure German being a later rendering. Older English editions of the Table Talk have included the utterance in question (example #1, example #2), apparently relying on the pure German text. Luther's Works (English edition) though used the Latin / German text (LW 54:110). I mention this because I have come across the argument that LW's rendering of this Table Talk statement is an example of "toned down references to immorality in Protestantism" and that "Translation bias is seemingly alive and well." It appears this charge arises because in LW the word "bad" is used rather than "evil" in the beginning of the utterance and throughout (LW 54:110).  The second Latin / German sentence states, "Vita est mala apud nos sicut apud papistas; non igitur de vita dimicamus et damnamus eos." The word "mala" can be rendered either way, so using either "evil" or "bad" does not change the main point or comparison throughout the entry. Some of the older English translations (like thse reference above) apparently used the pure German version, and the German does use the word böse (evil). It is simply an unwarranted conjecture to assert LW had a "bias" when translating Table Talk statement 624.  

Context
Here are three different versions of the quotes rendered in English:

Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. Wickliffe and Huss assailed the immoral conduct of papists; but I chiefly oppose and resist their doctrine; I affirm roundly and plainly, that they preach not the truth. To this am I called; I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife to its throat. When I can show that the papist's doctrine is false, which I have shown, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. For when the word remains pure, the manner of life, though something therein be amiss, will be pure also. The pope has taken away the pure word and doctrine, and brought in another word and doctrine, which he has hanged upon the church. I shook all Popedom with this one point, that I teach uprightly, and mix up nothing else. We must press the doctrine onwards, for that breaks the neck of the pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured the pope, that he would be a king that would do according to his own will, that is, would regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but say roundly: Thus and thus will I have it. For the pope derives his institution neither from divine nor from human right; but is a self-chosen human creature and intruder. Therefore the pope must needs confess, that he governs neither by divine nor human command. Daniel calls him a god, Maosim; he had almost spoken it plainly out, and said Mass, which word is written, Deut. xxvi. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and uses nearly his words, where he says: The son of perdition will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, &c., 2 Thes. ii. [source]

Luther's Opposition to the Popish Doctrine. "The manner of life," said Luther, " is as evil among us as among the Papists; wherefore we strive not with them by reason of the manner of life, but for and about the doctrine. Wickliffe and Huss opposed and assaulted the manner of life and conversation in Popedom. But I (chiefly) do oppose and resist their doctrine : I affirm, soundly and plainly, that they teach not aright;—thereunto am I called. I take the goose by the neck," said Luther, " and set the knife to the throat. When I can maintain that the Pope's doctrine is false (which I have proved and maintained), then will I easily prove that their manner of life is evil. The Pope hath taken away the pure word and doctrine, and hath brought another word and doctrine, and hanged the same upon the church. I startled whole Popedom only with this one point, in that I teach uprightly, and meddle with nothing else. We must press upon the doctrine, for that breaketh the neck of the Pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured out the Pope, that he will be such a king as shall do according to his will; that is, he will regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but will, short and roundly, say, ' Thus and thus will I have it.' For the Pope is instituted and ordained neither by divine or human right; but is a self-chosen human creature, who hath intruded himself. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and useth nearly his words, where he saith, ' And he will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.' " 2 Thess. ii. [link]

No. 624: The Central Issue Is Doctrine, Not Life Fall, 1533
“Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don’t fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wycliffe and Huss didn’t know this and attacked [the papacy] for its life. I don’t scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked—this has never before happened. This is my calling. Others have censured only life, but to treat doctrine is to strike at the most sensitive point, for surely the government and the ministry of the papists are bad. Once we’ve asserted this, it’s easy to say and declare that the life is also bad. “When the Word remains pure, then the life (even if there is something lacking in it) can be molded properly. Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about. It’s the teaching that breaks the pope’s neck. Therefore Daniel pictured the pope rightly when he stated that there will be a kingdom in which the king will act according to his will, that he will pay attention to neither civil nor spiritual matters but will simply say, ‘I want that,’ without offering any reason, even a natural one. When you ask, ‘Is the papacy established by natural, divine, or human right?’ you get the answer, ‘No, it is a worship of the will.’ So the pope must say, ‘Nobody has commanded us.’ It is simply a religion of free will. Daniel calls God a god of ‘maozim’—I almost said ‘masses.’ ” [LW 54:110]

Conclusion
The point being in made is that in whichever translation one uses, Luther was concerned with proving Roman doctrine wrong. He believed his method of combating the papacy was superior to the earlier assaults of  Wycliffe and Hus. Does this quote prove Luther was in "agony" over "the state of early Protestantism"? No, it doesn't. In fact, Luther's comment applies well to the particular assaults made by Rome's defenders: they attack a way of life as if this is a valid ultimate argument against doctrine. The argument amounts to saying had Luther's teaching been true, Protestants would be outwardly less "evil"  or less "bad" than those adhering to Rome's teachings. But look what Luther goes on to state (in LW's rendering): "Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about."


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

Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy

Here's a point about the evils of the Reformation substantiated by a quote from Luther. The following is found in Catholic apologist Steve Ray's book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, footnote #97 on page 65-66:

According to Mr. Ray, Luther admitted his teaching made people worse, not provoking anyone to holiness. This is a typical charge. It is argued by many of Rome's defenders that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't truth make people better? Another defender pf Rome cites it on his blog and also in his book Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 92. He uses it as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism."

Mr. Ray and friends cited Luther via Heinrich Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom. Denifle's use of the quote is longer:

Even in 1523, he had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly, This he later repeats. "The world by this teaching becomes only the worse, the longer it exists; that is the work and business of the malign devil. As one sees, the people are more avaricious, less merciful, more immodest, bolder and worse than before under the Papacy." (p.25)

Denifle uses this quote to prove Luther "had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly." Out of all the quotes I've looked at over the years, this one has a rich history of usage, and appears to have been very popular with older Roman Catholic apologetic works. I found at least a dozen or more older Roman Catholic authors using it, with many differing English translations.

Documentation and Sources
What's interesting about this quote is that it is available from two primary English sources. It's from a 1533 sermon that was written down by two people who heard it: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information).

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence. The text of the sermon was Matthew 21:1-9. If you haven't read any of Luther's sermons, this would be a good one to begin with.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
I have to question exactly what Denifle was reading when he concluded that Luther's followers were worse because of the gospel. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse.

Steve Ray butchered the citation by leaving out the fact that Luther blamed the devil for people being worse. He actually took a quote being misused by Denifle, and added his own error to it. Why would there be an outbreak of holiness by those who hate the gospel already?

Was this quote an example of Luther agonizing over the state of early Protestantism as the Romanist claims in a published book? Hardly. Once again, these guys should read something in context before publishing.