Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?

Did Martin Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? Roman Catholics use this comment to demonstrate Martin Luther's abandonment and utter disdain of the epistle of James. There are at least two sources I'm aware of in which Luther is said to have wanted to throw James, in some sense, into the fire. Let's take a closer look at each statement. 

The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542).
One example comes from a 1542 writing entitled, The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542). The text is in the form of disputation, set in the form of a scholarly dialog between the participants. The text reads: 

XIX. Against Thesis 21

James [2:22] says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith.

Master Heinrich [Schmedenstede] responds: James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause.

Dr. Martin Luther: That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (LW 34:317). 

Original text: XIX. Contra 21.

Iacobus ait, Abraham ex factis iustificatum esse. Ergo non ex fide?

Magister Heinricus respondit: Iacobus loquitur de factis ut de effectu iustificationis, non ut de causa.

D. M. L. Illa epistola Iacobi nobis multum faceseit negotii. Eam enim solam amplectuntur reliquis omnibus omissis papistae. Ego hactenus solitus sum iam operare et interpretari secundum sententiam reliquae scripturae. Nam nihil ex ea contra manifestam scripturam sanctam statuendum esse iudicabitis. Si igitur non admittent meas interpretationes, tum faciam quoque ex ea vastationem. Ich wil schier den Jeckel in den offen werffen wie der pfaff vom Kalenberg (WA 39.2:199).

In this brief context, Luther says he has been interpreting the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures." While he doesn't expound on what he meant, an obvious fact emerges, that Luther found a way to harmonize it with the rest of the Scriptures. Here we find that in practice, Luther admits to weighing it as Scripture. He then speaks of his papal detractors: "Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it." That is, Luther was prepared to reject the canonicity of the Epistle of James in disputes with Roman Catholic controversialists rather than present reasoning for interpreting it according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures (as Heinrich Schmedenstede was doing in his response). 

Luther finishes his response with an anecdotal comment: "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." The editors of Luther’s Works explain, 

The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm (LW 34:317).

An aspect of this explanation lost on modern readers is that Luther is not recounting an historical event (See for instance Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn who misses this: "Luther was referring to an episode in the German village of Kalenberg, where a priest burned wooden statues of the apostles in order to provide warmth for a visiting duchess"). The priest in Kalenberg is a fictional Character: Der Pfaffe vom Kalenberg by Philipp Frankfurter (1473). A helpful overview of this work can be found here and here. In the farcical tale, the duchess visits Kalenberg and watches the sly priest burn statues of the apostles, commenting on them as they're put into the fire, James being the last. Is Luther saying here he hated the Epistle of James so much that he wanted to burn it in the stove? No. Luther’s comment is an expression of frustration with Roman Catholic polemicists and his use of a fictional character augment this. 

Table Talk 5854
The second statement is a Table Talk comment "believed to have come from the pen of Jerome Besold" (LW 54:465). Besold recorded Luther's remarks in 1544, though LW includes a pinch of doubt that while the comments are said to have been recorded by Besold, "there is no compelling evidence that the particular pieces that follow originate with him" (LW 54:467). Utterance 5854 is not included in the English edition of Luther's Works. The comment can be found in WA Tr 5:382.

5854. (Luth.-Mel. 281) The Epistle of James. The Papists only accept James for the righteousness of works, which is an indication that he is not an apostle, especially since he calls faith a body, but bodies a soul, which is plainly absurd and contrary to Scripture. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen (Some day I will use James to fire my stove). We can flatter and excuse him, but it is certainly more difficult.

Original text: 5854. (Luth.-Mel. 281) Iacobi epistola. Papistae tantum accipiunt Iacobum pro iustitia operum, quod indicio est non esse apostoli scriptum, praesertim cum appellet fidem corpus, corpora vero animam³, quod plane est absurdum et contra scripturam. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen.⁴ Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen. Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter. Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter (WA Tr 5:382).

The Latin text records Luther's disagreement with his Roman Catholic critics over the Epistle of James. It begins by saying Roman Catholics accept the epistle because it teaches righteousness by works, and because of this, Luther is recorded as saying it therefore cannot be the writing of an apostle ("Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle"*). He then comments on James 2:26 as being absurd and contrary to Scripture ("For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also"), though no explanation is provided. Then the utterance states in German, "Ich werde einmal mit dem Jekel den offen hitzen" ("Some day I will use James to fire my stove"*). Finally, the text states in Latin "Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter" that reconciling the Epistle of James with Scripture is difficult.

*English translation from this source. 

Conclusion
Did Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? I can see how Rome's defenders take this sparse evidence and say yes. They will though have a poor basis of proof if they rely only on the first quote from The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede. In context, that quote shows Luther viewed the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures," and then made a sarcastic comment with Luther's papal opponents in mind. While the second comment is more direct, it's not something Luther wrote, but is purported to have said. Roman Catholics have a history of gravitating to the Table Talk, so this second-hand context-less comment may be their best proof that Luther wanted to burn the Epistle of James in the stove. 

Certainly, both comments demonstrate Luther held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. One thing that I've noticed over the years though is those doubts are almost always against the backdrop of his Roman Catholic critics, otherwise, he doesn't raise any fuss over James. He positively quoted from it and occasionally preached from the book. There are even instances in which he accepts the typical Protestant harmonizing solution of James and Paul (see my entry here). The point: Roman Catholics can explain or at least excessively highlight Luther's negative comments about the Epistle of James, because he certainly made multiple comments, and he certainly had "papists" in mind. They are correct in noticing them because papalism spurned him on to make those comments! But what I challenge my Roman Catholic readers to grapple with is... why did Luther positively quote from the Epistle of James and occasionally preach from it? If he was such an enemy of James as noncanonical, why these positive instances throughout his career? The best explanations make sense of all the pertinent facts. I challenge Rome's apologists to explain Luther by evaluating all the evidence, not just picking and choosing what fits their narrative. 

Revised April 2026 

Catholic Answers on Luther's View of the Immaculate Conception

Catholic Answers posted an article defending their belief that Mary was entirely without sin, particularly when detractors question the impregnation of a teenage girl. While Martin Luther's view of the immaculate conception was only a passing comment, it represents a change in typical Roman Catholic cyber-treatments of the Reformer's Mariology. Apologist Trent Horn writes,  

Some Protestants might say that at best, this proves only that Mary was free from sin at the Annunciation, not necessarily since her conception. Martin Luther, for example, moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception, but even in 1540, he said with regard to the Annunciation, “The flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.” In response, I would just say that it seems arbitrary to say God chose this moment to give Mary grace rather than at any other moment and that the angel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace,” signifies that her being full of grace was a part of her identity even before the announcement about the Incarnation.

Let's take a look at the citation used and conclusion reached by Mr. Horn of Catholic Answers.

Documentation
Other than the date 1540, no meaningful documentation is provided. The quote is from an English rendering of Luther's Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ (February 27, 1540). The Latin text can be found in WA 39.2:107.

This writing has been available online for many years via Project Wittenberg. This disputation has been included in LW 73, with the quote found at LW 73:267-268 (utilized below). The English translation in LW 73 was done by the same person who did the web version on Project Wittenberg.  

Context

Argument 10

Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person, as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in [his] conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth" [Isa. 53:9]; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.

Conclusion

Mr. Horn rightly says that Luther "moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception." I would qualify this though by saying: Luther didn't just "move away" from it, he ceased believing it. It appears earlier in his life he accepted it, later in his life he did not.

If the sands of cyber time were reversed, this same quote, and others, were used by some of Rome's defenders to prove Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception of Mary!  It would be interesting to know what sources Mr. Horn used on Luther's view of the immaculate conception. Back in the early 2000's, it was common to find Roman Catholic webpages using Luther's statements about Mary as an apologetic tool against Protestants. I do not find the same amount of these webpages today. It seems to me the newer generation of Rome's defenders have learned from the errors of the older generation... of perhaps... they are better at using Google! 

What Was Augustine "Retracting" on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16?

Did Saint Augustine think that Peter was "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18 the church was founded upon? Towards the end of his life, Augustine looked over the scope of his literary output and put together a critique of his own writings, entitled Retractationes (in English popularly known as "retractions," but better understood as corrections, reconsiderations, revisions). He included an explanation of his view of Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Basically, Augustine says his earlier view was that the church was founded upon Peter, "the rock" and his later view was that Christ was the rock the church was founded upon. 

While this particular section from the Retractationes  is all over the Internet, I haven't found many instances of carefully working through the context. Protestants generally use the comment to demonstrate Augustine's later view doesn't line up with modern Roman Catholic argumentation about the papacy. Rome's defenders have a few different ways to handle the quote. One way suggests harmonizing Augustine's different positions by saying he was dealing with different issues so emphasized different things. Another way says he ultimately was agonistic on the exact meaning of Matthew 16:18. Another way says as a good Roman Catholic, Augustine maintained his earlier view to stay in harmony with the church. Yet another way simply ignores the details of Augustine's view on Matthew 16:18 and argues for Peter's papal primacy based on other writings from Augustine. 

I think, therefore, there are enough interpretative and historical ambiguities in the statement worth taking a close look at.  Augustine's view in the Retractationes is sort of like a football run in different directions depending on who has the ball. I've noticed polemicists on both sides using this quote without actually taking the nuances into account. I've also come across some weird truncated versions. For instance, this defender of Rome only cites "In my first book against Donatus I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock" and completely leaves out the rest of the statement! On the other end, I came across a non-Roman Catholic webpage that left off the last sentence, "Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose." Highlighting one aspect of the quote or leaving out aspects of it is not a proper way to use Augustine's words. Let him say exactly what he said, not what you want him to say.

Let's first take a look at the statement from the Retractationes. Augustine writes,

[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him whom Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter, having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art the rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose. [Document 156- Retractationes, Book 1, Chapter 21. A.D. 427. [source]

Latin text: 

Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. In quo dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro quod in illo tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia; qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosii ubi de gallo galli-naceo ait Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae Canente culpam diluet; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est Tu es Petrus...meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quern confessus est Petrus dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni caelorum. Non enim dictum est illi Tu es petra, sed Tu es Petrus; petra autem erat Christus quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. (PL32,618)

Alternate English text:

ONE BOOK AGAINST A LETTER OF THE HERETIC DONATUS (Contra epistulam Donati heretici liber unus) 

(1) In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus who, after Majorinus, was the second bishop of the party of Donatus at Carthage. In this letter, he argues that the baptism of Christ is believed to be only in his communion. It is against this letter that we speak in this book.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter; “On him as on a rock the Church was built.” This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: “At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.” But I know that very frequently at a later time,3 I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” n and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But "the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter, But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. [The Fathers of the Church, a New Translation, vol. 60 (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1 (90-91)].

Another Alternate English text can be found here.

I see 4 basic sections to this statement from Augustine. 1) A recollection of his previous view, 2) A mention of Ambrose's view 3) An accounting of Augustine's later view, 4) A final ambiguous conclusion.  

1. Recollection of Augustine's Previous View

 Augustine first mentions what earlier work of his appears to be under the "revising" knife. In this case, it is his writing "In my first book against Donatus" ("Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus"). According to all the historical sources I utilized, they uniformly say this book no longer exists. This is not the only place where Augustine critiques Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. The entry continues and Augustine points out more aspects of this writing that need to be corrected. 

Augustine affirms that his earlier view was that the church was established on Peter, the "Rock."  Augustine saw this earlier interpretation and literary location of it so important he needed readers to be aware of it, and that it was not consistent with his later position.  It's unfortunate this early book is missing. It would be interesting to see the extent of Augustine's comments on the issue and why this particular book was singled out. This source points out this may be the only writing from Augustine "directed against the man who is thought to have given his name to the Donatists" and that several treatises from Augustine are missing against the Donatists. 

Note carefully that Augustine speaks here of "a certain passage" rather than passages. One source using this quote says it may be the only instance of Peter being referred to as the "Rock." Some of Rome's defenders though have located other places in Augustine's writings in which he does equate Peter being the Rock. It appears to me this list of instances originated on this webpage (a cut-and-paste of it can be found here). Let's work through these examples. 

An example from roughly the same time period as the lost treatise comes from another similarly anti-Donatist writing: Psalmus contra partem Donati (393-394).  It's not from a treatise per se, but from a hymn Augustine wrote in response to Donatist hymns being sung, therefore not an actual argument or exegesis, merely a passing lyrical phrase (Augustine also mentions it in The Retractations). Another early passing "Rock" reference is found in De agone christiano (The Christian Combat) (396-397), found here. Again, it is simply a passing inference.  In a letter from 400 Augustine, again with the Donatists in view, refers to Peter as "bearing in a figure the whole church" and referred to as the "Rock," yet though again another passing reference.  In another comment from 400 A.D., "Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus est petra, supra quam fabricaretur ecclesia" (Pl 36,869. cf. Allnatt,  11- 12), similar to the previous, just a passing reference. All of these references appear to testify to Augustine's earlier view discussed in Retractationes. 

Rome's defenders also mention later comments from Augustine equating Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded upon... but these refences aren't so clear.  A comment in Augustine's Homilies on John, Tract 11:5, in NPNF1,VII:76 occurs seventeen years later (417 A.D.), but simply mentions Peter being called, "that Rock," with no indication that the building of the church is intended to rest on Peter. Similarly with Augustine's 418 A.D. comment on Psalm 56 in NPNF1,VIII:223: it's not at all clear that Augustine is expressing his earlier view.  Another "that rock" comment occurs in a 418 A.D. writing (NPNF1,VIII:513), again, not clearly expressing the earlier view.  I think we can safely take Augustine at his word that early on (at least those of 393-400 from the quotes I checked), he did indeed say Peter was the "Rock" the church was founded upon. If he used the word "Rock" later (according to the examples from Rome's defenders that I checked), I see no clear-cut contextual evidence the earlier meaning was intended. Granted Augustine was a great theologian, but he was not an infallible theologian. I would not be at all surprised if he erred in consistency, went through a transition period, or if extant manuscripts contain errors.  

 

2. "Ambrose: When the cock crowed, the rock of the church washes away his guilt"

Augustine mentions Ambrose as regarding Peter as the "Rock" with a similar interpretation to his first book against the Donatists. If you're unfamiliar with the hymn, what Augustine is saying may not make much sense, "When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin." Is it that the "rock of the church," Peter the pope, when crowing, absolves from sin? No, it's a poetic rendering of Peter's denial of Christ (Matthew 26 Mark 14, Luke 22,  John 18).

 This source documents Augustine's mention of Ambrose as, "Ambrose, Hymn I (MPL, XVI, Col. 1409): Exameron V, xxiv, 88 (CSEL, XXXII, p. 201)." "Hymn 1" refers to Aeterne rerum conditor. The hymn does have allusions to Peter as the Rock: "The encouraged sailor’s fears are o’er, The foaming billows rage no more: Lo! E’en the very Church’s Rock, Melts at the crowing of the cock," or in another English translation, "Because of him the sailor gathers strength and the expanse of sea grows mild. when he, the herald, crowed, the Rock himself, the foundation of the Church, washed guilt away by his weeping." The "washed away guilt" is a reference to Peter's denial of Christ and the crowing rooster.  Augustine is attributing the hymn of Ambrose popularizing Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded on, "sung in the mouths of many." 

3. Augustine's Later View

Augustine compares these two meager mentions of Peter being the "Rock" to his "frequent" different interpretation that the "Rock" is Christ, not Peter.  He spends much more time explaining the second view. There's nothing in the sense of a repudiation, but rather a description of his later consistent position. Footnote #3 in the alternate translation utilized above mentions only one instance of Augustine's later view, Sermon 76.1.1. There Augustine states, 

1). The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea;1 and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”2 Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called3 from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Augustine immediately goes on to say in point 2: "For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, 'But I am of Christ.'"  A number citations from Augustine could be presented at this point to corroborate Augustine's testimony. Rather than reinvent the wheel, this source and this source present a number of Augustine citations affirming the later view of Augustine (though some of the specific dates are unclear to me in some of the utilized citations).  A profound strength of these later citations is they are not passing references like those used to support the earlier view Rome's defenders bring forth. One thing I could not locate from my cursory search of Augustine's writings is any mentions of Peter and his relation to the word "Rock" after the writing of the Retractationes (427). Augustine died a few years later. 

4. "However, the reader may choose which of these two notions is more plausible"

Augustine concludes, "But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." If the Retractationes  from Augustine did not include the last sentence, the entire pericope would be easier to interpret.  Of the Protestant sources I checked, the interpretation is similar: Augustine was correcting his earlier view, maintaining his later view, and finally concludes allowing his readers the choice which one was preferred. This seems to be the easiest and most consistent reading of the text. This source makes pertinent observations:

The fact that [Augustine] would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes.

Granted, I know that sometimes the easiest solution (in this case, interpretation) is not always the correct one. I learned that from my many years of searching out Luther quotes and their interpretive conclusions. I'm willing to hear what Rome's defenders have to say: convince me the easiest reading is not the correct interpretation.  From a cursory search, here's what I found being offered as an alternate explanation.   

 This old source makes the following Roman Catholic leaning observation: 

This is interesting, because it shows that Augustine couldn’t make a decision as to whether Peter or Christ was the rock upon which the church was founded. He had earlier held the former point of view, and Lagrange thinks that the former interpretation would be best, because, as a good Catholic, he follows the interpretation Of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Council, which upheld that view.  

Contemporary Roman Catholic interpretations I cobbled together for this entry tend to present even more complicated explanations.  This other defender of Rome states:  

Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, ‘Peter having been named after this rock ‘(Retractations1:21).

Trent Horn of Catholic Answers offers, 

Checking Horn's source, Merry del Val offers yet another layer to Rome's response: "Augustine does allude to what he wrote when he was young, as requires correction: but it is also true that he adds in the same sentence that he does not assume even now that what he is writing will be without blemish. He does not say that he prefers a different translation, but only suggests another." 

Rome's defenders are obviously not unified in their explanations of Augustine's final statement. Their explanations amount to, "I know it looks like this, but it could (or does!) mean that." Of the examples above, the first simply assumes Augustine went along with what the late Vatican council held, the second obfuscates by having Augustine adhere to multiple interpretations, the third claims Augustine simply provided an "alternative of what the words could mean," and the last insinuates that even the older Augustine could be mistaken. That Rome's defenders produce multiple interpretations of the text speak against any of their interpretations. If there was a unified body of an alternative interpretation to the obvious, then I think they could be taken more plausibly. 

Conclusion

I see a few interpretive choices here based solely on the text itself. First, Augustine is negating his earlier view, confirming his later view, and then informing his readers they can choose which one they like. Second, Augustine is explaining his earlier view, explaining its difference with his later view, and then telling his readers he doesn't know which one is correct and they can pick which one they like.

As I read the brief context of this statement, Augustine says his earlier view was that "the Church is founded upon [Peter] as upon a rock," and then expresses his current view. He says of his later view, "But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words..." etc. Note the word, "frequently."  Even in this present context, he spends more time explaining the second view. I've not come across any meaningful documentation that his later view changed or that affirms or corroborates his final view of Matthew 16:18 was either ambiguous or agnostic. In his honest appraisal of his life's work, he was aware of the discontinuity between the two views and suspected (or knew) others saw it as well. Add in the fact that interpreting Matthew 16:18 according to his earlier view was popular during his lifetime, that he contrasted the two views and allowed his readers freedom of interpretation makes sense. 

John Calvin, The Mother of God, and The Great Protestant Cover-up

Here's a John Calvin quote that repeatedly appears on polemical Roman Catholic web-pages:

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

Why would Rome's defenders be citing such a seemingly innocuous comment from Calvin? What's so controversial about Calvin saying "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43) or that the child in the womb of Mary was God incarnate? Calvin, to my knowledge, has never been charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. Nor have I ever found any charges that Calvin believed the child in Mary's womb was merely a man that became divine at some later date (Calvin explicitly argues against that). What's going on with the defenders of Rome?

This version of the Calvin quote above comes from an early pop-apologetic Roman Catholic web-page entitled, The Protestant Reformers on Mary I've never been able to determine who originally  put this web-page together (see my review here).  The page goes back at least as early as 2000. Whoever did put it together, I doubt they realized how often the content would be cut-and-pasted for years, now, decades. This old web-page was dedicated to showing "fundamentalists" "that the 'Reformers' accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." Without overtly saying it, what it appears the web-page is attempting to do is demonstrate that Calvin believed Mary was "the Mother of God," that controversial title oft-used by Roman Catholics dripping with the devotion to and the intercession of, Mary; or, as the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1954 states,

From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

Other Roman Catholic websites are more overt that their "Mother of God" meaning is intended to be extrapolated from Calvin's words. Using this quote, John Pasquini states in his books Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions and True Christianity the Catholic Way, "Even John Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God!" EWTN hosts a web-page that states, "The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God."  Raymond De Souza uses the quote as proof  that "Luther, Calvin and Zwingli preserved it intact in their systems of distorted doctrines" and that "Protestantism, unhesitatingly called the Holy Virgin 'Mother of God (theotokos).'" The Seekers Guide to Mary says, "Calvin also held that Mary was the Mother of God" and use the quote "In Calvin's own words." These are but a few examples from a seemingly endless pool of Google hits. 

As their argument typically goes, the original Reformers had a rich, almost Roman Catholic Marian piety, but, as The Protestant Reformers on Mary web-page says, "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." Why did this happen? Because the descendants of the Reformation had "iconoclastic passion"  towards Marian piety. Now, it's up to Rome's defenders to do deep historical research into the Reformation and demonstrate to modern-day Protestants how far they've strayed from likes of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. One Roman Catholic web-page utilizing the Calvin quote argues, "The longer and the further Protestant strayed from the Catholic Church, the more watered down all the Catholic Truths became including their love and devotion to Mary. But originally, the three main fathers of Protestantism loved their heavenly mother."  Now, "Mother of God" is a phrase rarely used by Protestantism, mostly ignored, sometimes derided and abhorred.

Let's take a closer look at this quote, check the documentation, put it back in its context, and then explore John Calvin's use of the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." Let's see what happens when we dare to uncover what Calvin thought about the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." We'll find there actually is a "cover-up" going on, but it's not a hiding of of Calvin saying "Mother of God" in his extant treatises.

Documentation
I suspect that the English version of this quote may have originally been taken from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 94. Note the similarities of its popular Internet use to the English rendering from O'Carroll:

O'Carroll's book documents two Calvin quotes here, "CR, 45, 348 and 35." Notice how this old EWTN page seemingly lifted the Calvin quotes from O'Carroll. The author of the EWTN article, Dr. Robert J. Schihl, mentions the information was an excerpt from his own book, A Biblical Apologetic of the Catholic Faith. I suspect that the popular online presentation of the documentation (John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35) was placed in this form by Dr. Schihl (see page 131 of his book). It appears to me that Dr. Schihl lifted O'Carroll's Calvin quotes and presented the research as his own and filled out the references. Interestingly, Dr. Schihl actually quotes O'Carroll on the same page, but never mentions him as his Calvin source. Or, it may be Dr. Schihl just cut-and-pasted someone else's use of O'Carroll. Someone, at some time, translated these Calvin quotes into English and my guess is it was O'Carroll, not Schihl or any of the online Roman Catholic polemicists.

The "CR" reference provided by O'Carroll refers to the Corpus Reformatorum, which is an old collection of Latin Reformation writings. The series contains a number of volumes of Calvin's writings. Here is a link to where Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia vol. 45 can be found, and here is the text of the quote in question being referred to on page 35:

The text being cited is Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43. This text has been translated into English, most popularly by William Pringle in the 19th century, as part of  Calvin's Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. A modern English translation is also available in print.  The translation below is from Rev. Pringle (link). The quote under scrutiny is in bold type.

Context

43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.

She calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

Conclusion
First, the tedious part of this Calvin quote, the documentation, demonstrates how deep many of Rome's defenders actually go in their studies of church history.  I suspect Michael O'Carroll, actually did pull out Calvin's writings in Latin and translate particular quotes into English. As for the bulk of usages I've seen of this Calvin quote on-line, this English rendering has simply been cut-and-pasted endlessly, along with documentation to the Latin text, as if Rome's cyber-polemicists actually utilized "Calvini Opera" or the Corpus Reformatorum! This sort of endless cut-and-pasting strongly suggests Rome's apologists never checked the actual context, nor did they know or care that a useful English version of the entire context has been widely available since the 19th century.

Second, if there really is some sort of cover-up going on, isn't the context interesting as to how Calvin comments about praising Mary? If Calvin had some sort of deep devotion to the "Mother of God" where's the proof?  Calvin says that many people are guilty of praising in a "superstitious manner" and making idols: "The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool." Then in regard to Elizabeth, Calvin admits that Mary has a higher distinction than other people, but through the testimony of Elizabeth he says it's because Mary "obtained more than she deserved." When Calvin then goes on to comment on the phrase "the mother of her Lord" and  says the child in Mary's womb was "eternal God," there is an obvious lack of  praise and devotion directed toward Mary for anything she had done or deserved. David F. Wright observed,

It is Calvin's complaint against 'the papists' that their praises of Mary have obscured her greatest honour of all, and have robbed the Son of God of his own in order to dress her up in the sinful spoils of robbery. 'The praises of Mary, where the might and sheer goodness of God are not entirely set forth, are perverse and counterfeit.' So Calvin betrays some concern at the parallelism of the salutation of Elizabeth. 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!' (Luke 1:42). The connecting particle must be taken in a casual sense, for the blessedness of Mary is due to that of Christ [David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1989) 178]. 

Earlier in his commentary, Calvin commenting on Luke 1:28 said that "Mary is blessed" "does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy." Commenting on Luke 1:42 Mary is said to "blessed" because "God bestowed the remarkable honour of bringing into the world his own Son." Probably shocking to Calvin's original audience, he says,  "To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life."  Yes, Calvin refers to Mary as "holy virgin" a few times in his commentary, but he never expounds on it in such a way as to lead his readers into any sort of devotion or praise of Mary. He goes as far as saying that while praising the day the Son was brought into the world, it should simply remind us of "the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son." Being reminded of Mary's motherhood is a far cry from devotion to Mary as the "Mother of God." Commenting on Luke 1:48, Calvin says:

Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son.”' None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.

Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honourable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements. Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him.

Third, isn't it peculiar that Calvin never actually uses the phrase, "Mother of God" in the quote we've been examining?  Certainly it can be deduced from the context that "Mary is mother of the Lord" and the "mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God." Why didn't Calvin just use the phrase "Mother of God"? Here's where it gets interesting: as I've gone through Calvin's writings, the phrase "Mother of God" or "Theotokos" is oddly missing. Could it be that the phrase is missing because future generations of Protestants expunged it from Calvin's writings as part of the nefarious Reformation Marian piety cover-up?

According to Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara then refers to a letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

And this is exactly why Calvin avoided it and why many within Protestantism do today. James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise to Mary. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety, abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions." Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26.) This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Yes, there's a cover-up going on, but it's not on the Protestant side. It's with Rome's defenders attempting to reinterpret John Calvin as a supporter of their particular brand of Mariology.  It's only by equivocating and playing fast and loose with terms does John Calvin become a supporter of Rome's Mary, the blessed and holy "Mother of God." Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" and Calvin realized this. There was a blatant attempt by Calvin and the Genevan government to suppress Romanism. That Calvin conscientiously avoided using "Theotokos" is just one instance of what was going on at the time. For example, there was a Genevan law in place which forbade parents to name their children after popular saints. One man spent a few days in jail for naming his child after a saint that had a shrine in the area!

Rome's defenders could counter all this and simply say John Calvin believed in the title "Mother of God" because he believed in the concept that Mary was the mother of Jesus who is God. But what would be the point?  The same argument could be made of me and countless others. No, we reject the deep devotional and intercessory role that their use of the phrase "Mother of God" implies within a Roman Catholic worldview.


Addendum #1, Trent Horn
I first wrote about Calvin's use of the phrase "Mother of God" back in 2013. While revisiting this subject I came across Rome's defender Trent Horn commenting on Calvin's rejection of using the term "Mother of God." Mr. Horn says,

Some Protestants object to Mary’s divine maternity not on biblical, logical, or historical grounds, but on practical ones. According to them, even if Mary is the Mother of God, Christians should not say she is because that can mislead less educated people. For example, Calvin said, “To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.”26 Matt Slick says, “The term, ‘mother of God,’ runs the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.” Gustafson likewise claims it is “creepy” to call Mary the Mother of God because this conjures up images of Mary being God’s wife.

This objection is as weak as saying that we should not refer to Jesus as God’s Son because that runs the risk of suggesting that God has a wife or that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary. This is not a hypothetical concern as early Mormons like Brigham Young understood Jesus’ identity as “Son of God” to mean Jesus was “begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”. Many Muslims reject the Incarnation precisely because they think it entails that God physically begot Jesus through Mary. This shows that a doctrine should not be rejected just because it can be misunderstood. If that were the case, our faith would have few or possibly no doctrines at all!

26. John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters , vol. 5, ed. Jules Bonnett (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 362. Michael O’Carroll, however, documents Calvin saying, “The mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” O’Carroll, Theotokos , 94

I've included Horn's footnote because he included the same Calvin quote this entry is focused on. Did he include it to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency in Calvin's thought? Regardless, Horn makes a logical point, that simply because a phrase can be misunderstood or abused does not mean the term should be avoided. I've similarly tried to remind people that the word "Catholic" does not necessarily mean, "Roman Catholic." Some of the people I've used the word on are obviously confused, until I explain it to them. Think also of how our current society pours an entirely different meaning into the word "gay." What was once intended to mean "lighthearted and carefree" now means "homosexual." When Calvin avoided the term "Theotokos," it was consciously done as part of the ongoing societal Reformation efforts which sought to expel as much Romanism as possible from Geneva. It makes perfect sense he would pass along this advice to other Reformation efforts throughout Europe.

Should Protestant today avoid the term?  I would never argue as Horn's examples of Slick and Gustafson do. Those are wacky examples, for sure. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase if it's understood in a Christological sense rather than a Marian sense. I see this debate more like debating with a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness as to who Jesus is. Rome's apologists presents a different "Mother of God" than than which is found in sacred Scripture. When one reads a Mormon writing mentioning Jesus, a careful reader pours in the meaning of who Jesus is according to the Mormons. The same goes for Roman Catholic writings about the Mother of God. I'm all for reclaiming misused words for proper service in the "Catholic" church!

Addendum #2
Thomas O'Meara includes an alternate English translation of Calvin's comments about Mary in his letter from September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London:

I have no doubt that there has been some ignorance in that they have reproved this fashion of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and because of their ignorance it is likely that they have assumed a temerity and brashness which is too great. . . . However, to continue in fraternal friendship with you I am not able to disguise the fact that I find it wrong to have this title ordinarily attributed in sermons about the Virgin, and for my own part I would not think that such language was good or proper or convenient. . . . You know that scripture accustoms us to a rather different manner of speaking, but there is something worse here—for it could give scandal. To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition. And he who is content with that shows quite clearly that he is not aware of what is edifying in the Church [Calvin, Lettres anglaises (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1959), pp. 180-181].

James White vs. Trent Horn Debate, Part One