Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur"

Martin Luther is often criticized for allegedly adding the word "alone" to his German translation of Romans 3:28. Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of "alone" in Romans 3:28. There's another popular historical snippet sometimes used similarly to defend Luther's translation, this time from Reformed theologian Charles Hodge:

That a man is justified by faith. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, allein durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III., says, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.

According to Hodge, Erasmus similarly knew that others previous to Luther used the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Erasmus is claimed to have said, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur" (The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers). The quote seems suspicious. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521 and released a finished version in 1522. Certainly Erasmus had some sympathy to Luther's cause early on, but by 1524 their polite ties were severed over the freedom / bondage of the human will and the relationship of faith and works. It would be surprising to find Erasmus defending Luther at any time on this issue! 

It seemed simple enough to search out the context of this statement from Erasmus (especially since it was a renowned Reformed scholar citing it!).  However, the exact opposite occurred: I could not locate it. I did discover though that Erasmus said something like it without mentioning Luther... at all. 

Documentation

I'm going to work backward in searching for the sources Hodge mentions. He says, "See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse." "Tholuck" refers to Fred Augustus Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: With Extracts from the Evangelical Works of the Fathers and Reformers (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844). Hodge certainly appears to be citing Erasmus via Tholuck verbatim on page 113. Notice the Erasmus citation is almost exact except Hodge cites "De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III" while Tholuck cites "De ratione conciondi 1.3." 

"Koppe" appears to refer to Johann Benjamin Koppe, and I think Hodge had in mind Koppe's Novum Testamentum Koppianum.  I could find no extant copies online to see exactly what Hodge was referring to from this source. Koppe wrote in the eighteenth century, so seeing exactly what Hodge was referring to would be interesting since it predates Tholuck's nineteenth century comment. 

"De Ratione Concionandi"refers to the book by Erasmus, Ecclesiastes: On the Art of Preaching (Ecclesiastes: sive de ratione concionandi) (1535).  I spent some time searching the works of Erasmus for any of the volumes of "De Ratione Concionandi." Of the volumes I was able to locate, I found no instance of the exact quote "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." I'm not alone in this. In the nineteenth century, James Morison did the same thing. He states, 

Tholuck says that Erasmus (Liber Concion. lib. iii.) remarks,—vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc seculo in Luthero, reverenter in patribus auditur,—“The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers." Hodge repeats the quotation and the reference. We do not know where Tholuck picked it up. But while the observation seems to bespeak, by its peculiar felicity and piquancy, an Erasmian origin, it is certainly not to be found in that great repository of felicities, and wisdom, and wit, and semi-garrulities,—the Liber Concionandi.

To answer Morison's question, Tholuck could have picked up the quote from any number of sources. 

If one does a search specific to eighteenth century books, a number of hits appear with attribution to Erasmus. The quote goes back further. In the early seventeenth century, Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard states, "Erasmus wrote to someone: 'The word 'alone' which in our time has been assailed by so many outcries in Luther, is reverently heard and read in the fathers" (Latin source, English translation from On Justification through Faith - Theological Commonplaces, p. 317). The quote makes it all the way back to the sixteenth century: In 1591, Martin Chemnitz also cites it: "Therefore we can correctly say with Erasmus: 'This word sola, which has been attacked with so much noise in the era of Luther, was reverently heard and read among the fathers'" (English source). Still though, there is no meaningful reference. There is a sixteenth century source that predates Chemnitz by ten years (1581) that includes some important aspects of the quote:

Notice some striking similarities to the quote under scrutiny. First, the source is said to be "Eccl 3." Second, some of the quote is exactly presented: "vox Sola, tot clamoribus hoc seculo lapidata." There are blatant dissimilarities as well. First, Luther is not mentioned. Second, the church fathers are not mentioned, but rather, Hilary of Poitiers is. If one searches the writings of Erasmus focusing on Hilary rather than Luther, significant clues are revealed. Note the following observations from The Collected Works of Erasmus: 

The author cites "book 3 CWE 68 967" for footnotes 828 and 829. "CWE 68" stands for "Collected Works of Erasmus." "book 3" refers to "The Evangelical Preacher, book one (Ecclesiates sive de ratione confitendi) (1535)." This appears to correspond to the reference given above by Tholuck (De ratione conciondi 1.3) On page 966-967, Erasmus states: 

Interestingly, footnote 1399 states, "Erasmus is no doubt alluding to Martin Luther and the central theological issue of the Reformation, justification by faith alone (sola fides)."
  

Conclusion

I think it's probable to say that "book 3 CWE 68 967" (expounded above) is the original source of the quote eventually used by Hodge and others. I'm uncertain who added "hoc saeculo in Luthero" to the quote. Erasmus penned his original words in 1535. Martin Chemnitz was the first I could locate adding Luther to the citation (1591). Was it Chemnitz? I don't know. If it was, his basic crime would be adding explicit meaning to what Erasmus was probably implying (i.e., Luther) and changing Hilary to "fathers." Also, the context of the comment from Erasmus was not an exegetical exposition of Romans 3:28, but rather, a passing comment made on Matthew 9:6.  What I find most interesting is that if Erasmus had Luther in mind, he penned these words about a decade after his harsh battle with Luther. I find that amazing: Erasmus was able to get beyond his personal encounter with Luther and still defend his translation of including "alone"... in a roundabout way.  

Addendum

 

This source posits the early Erasmus agreed with Luther in some sense about "faith alone." 

Debunked Luther: No One Can Give Himself Faith, It is a Gift of God"

Here's a Martin Luther quote found on a Facebook page dedicated to Martin Luther and the Reformation (shared from another FB page)-

Is this something Martin Luther wrote?   I don't think so. Is it something he believed? Yes. 

Documentation

From a cursory search, I found no instances of the exact "no one can give himself faith, it is a gift of God" attributed meaningfully to Luther.  The exact form of the quote though can be found in the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. In his Journals and Notebooks he states, 

Conclusion

It's within the realm of possibility that some sort of English Luther quote in this exact form exists, but I did not locate anything in this exact English form meaningfully attributed to Luther. If the quote was taken from Kierkegard "But no one can give himself faith, it is a gift of God I must pray for," notice the addition of the words, "I must pray for." In the context of Kierkegaard's remarks. he makes a concession that salvation has an aspect of human contribution. Kierkegaard follows up the comment by asking: is the desire to pray for faith also a gift of God? His point is that in some sense there must be a place for human contribution in salvation, however small, if not, the conclusion is "fatalistic election."  

Would Luther agree with Kierkegard? Granted, they were from different time periods with different concerns, however, I think Luther would oppose Kierkegard on the point. In his Preface to Romans (cf. LW 35:371), Luther states: 

Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate.

Now justice is just such a faith. It is called God's justice or that justice which is valid in God's sight, because it is God who gives it and reckons it as justice for the sake of Christ our Mediator. It influences a person to give to everyone what he owes him. Through faith a person becomes sinless and eager for God's commands. Thus he gives God the honor due him and pays him what he owes him. He serves people willingly with the means available to him. In this way he pays everyone his due. Neither nature nor free will nor our own powers can bring about such a justice, for even as no one can give himself faith, so too he cannot remove unbelief. How can he then take away even the smallest sin? Therefore everything which takes place outside faith or in unbelief is lie, hypocrisy and sin (Romans 14), no matter how smoothly it may seem to go.

From these paragraphs, it is possible to extrapolate the sentiment that faith is a gift of God. Some years back I did an entry on Luther believing faith is the gift of God.  

Debunked Luther "I sin continually. But Christ has died, and forever lives, as my redeemer, priest, advocate, and King."

Here's a Martin Luther quote I came across on a Facebook page dedicated to Martin Luther and the Reformation cut-and-pasted from a John MacArthur appreciation page.   

 

Is this something Martin Luther wrote?  No!

Documentation

The quote in the picture above is said to come from "Luther on the Christian Life by Carl Trueman." Whoever concocted this picture probably had this book by Carl Trueman in mind: Luther on the Christian Life. I do not own this book. Relying solely on the Google Books text search and Amazon's "Look Inside" text search of the book, I did not find any trace of the quote. Perhaps whoever created this text and picture wanted only to document the picture used? Notice, the background picture of the quote is the exact front cover of Trueman's book.  

A cursory Google search of this quote reveals rather quickly who wrote it  originally: John Newton. I found the quote in a book from Newton entitled, Twenty-five Letters, Hitherto Unpublished. The quote appears in a letter written March 17, 1757. The quote is found here.

Context

What could have been done for me that the Lord has not done? yet still I am a cumberer of the ground; I am, by grace, kept from such sins as would dishonour my calling openly, and stumble my brethren, but the wickedness of my heart is amazing. I may especially mention three sins most unsuitable to men in general, but still more to believers, and, above all believers, most unsuitable to me, I mean pride, ingratitude, and insensibility. The instances in which the two former discover themselves are more in number than the hairs of my head; yet I am so much under the power of the third, that, for the most part, I sit still as if nothing were the matter. Thus much for the dark side. Blessed be God, amidst so many causes of mourning in myself, it is still my duty and my privilege to rejoice in the Lord: in him I have righteousness and strength, pardon and peace. I have sinned—I sin continually— but Christ has died, and forever lives, as my Redeemer, Priest, Advocate, and King. And though my transgressions and corruptions, my temptations and my enemies, are very many and very prevalent, the Lord, in whom I trust, is more and mightier than all that is against me. From this consideration I would adopt your inference, “What manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness?" It is to be lamented that any persons should so mistake the doctrine of free unchangeable grace, as to imagine it has a tendency to introduce licentiousness; but much more to be lamented, if a real believer should give occasion to such a reproach by his remiss, careless, or worldly behaviour. I hope I do in my heart detest and abhor the thought of continuing in sin, that grace may abound, but I fear my practice condemns me of it; for sure there are many who are not favoured with such a view of God's unchangeable love as I am, who walk in heaviness, and darkness, and fear, and yet are more zealous, humble, and sensible, more abounding in good works, more impressed with a sense of sin, and more careful in redeeming time than I am. My path lies between two dangerous extremes legality and presumption; and I am continually inclined to one or the other, according to the difference of my frames. Thus I am made up of contradictions.

Conclusion

Luther did not write this quote, nor did Carl Trueman attribute the quote to Martin Luther in his book, Luther on the Christian Life. An immediate tip off that Luther didn't write it is that he did not use the phrase prophet, priest, and king in regard to Jesus Christ. Most often, the phrase is attributed to Eusebius and then popularized by John Calvin.  In his book, Carl Trueman points out, 

Trueman cites LW 31: 353-354. There Luther does affirm Christ as priest and king. Luther says, "Now just as Christ by his birthright obtained these two prerogatives, so he imparts them to and shares them with everyone who believes in him... Hence all of us who believe in Christ are priests and kings in Christ, as 1 Pet. 2[:9] says; “You are a chosen race, God’s own people, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (LW 31:354). In my cursory search, I did not come across any instances of Luther referring to Jesus as "prophet" in the sense of the way it's used in "prophet, priest, and king." Did he ever do it? I don't know. 

A ridiculous aspect of this quote has to do with people I attempted to interact with that posted it.  On both Facebook pages, I pointed out Luther did not write it.  On the Martin Luther and the Reformation Facebook page, I left a brief comment that Newton wrote it... which garnered no response. On the John MacArthur Appreciation page, the comment I left was not allowed to be posted. The quote is no less true because Luther did not write it! 

Debunked Luther: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. "

This quote has been debunked before. It strongly appears to be something Martin Luther never wrote. See Denny Burk's old treatment here, see also that put forth by The Gospel Coalition. This link (as far as I can tell) is now only publicly available via the Internet Archive, but its essence is captured here. Let's give this quote a fresh look. Exactly where does this quote come from? 

Documentation

Most documentation (if any) refers to other sources citing the quote. This is typical (it is akin to saying, "Don't blame me, I got it from this source.... blame them!"). Perhaps the most well-known person to cite the quote was Dr. Francis Schaeffer, but linking Luther to this quote goes at least as far back as 1945. It is simply amazing how many publications have haphazardly utilized this quote. A primary source is sometimes mentioned: WA (BR) 3:81-82.  This 1523 letter from Luther to Albrecht of Mansfield contains some similar sentiment but does not capture the full quote. 

The earliest use that has been located is in a nineteenth century book entitled, Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family (sometimes known as, Our Neighbor Maritn Luther or, Luther by Those Who Knew Him). The book is a historical novel, or more precisely, "historical fiction" about the life of Martin Luther written by Elizabeth Rundle Charles. This author fictionally "examined the life and personal influence of the young Martin Luther on the family of his printer." According to the reviews I've read of Rundle-Charles, she was a prolific author, her Luther novel though being her most popular book. Some years back I found a copy of it in a pile of disorganized books in an antique store. Her book apparently was popular enough that cheap copies are still laying around in junk stores. My copy states the following just previous to the contents page:

The portions of these Chronicles which refer to Luther, Melancthon, Frederic of Saxony, and other historical persons, can be verified from Luther’s “Tischreden;” Luther’s “Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken;” edited by De Wette; the four volumes called, “Geist aus Luther's Schriften,” edited by F. W. Lomler, C. F. Lucius, Dr. T. Rust, L. Sackreuter, and Dr. Ernst Zimmermann; Tutschmann’s “Friedrich der Weise;” the “History of the Reformation,” by Ranke; and that by D'Aubigné; with the ordinary English historical works relating to the period.

I don't question that Rundle-Charles actually read these sources and utilized them for her fictional Luther account. One biography says Rundle-Charles was instructed in "numerous languages" so perhaps she really did utilize these sources for her Luther citations. It's within the realm of possibility that her fictional Luther quotes accurately represent Luther.  

Context

Rundle-Charles presented fictional stories of fictional people who knew Luther. The story the quote occurs in is that of Fritz, a monk at the monastery in Eisenach. She dates his story, April 2,1526. Fritz is presented as a zealous Luther supporter. Fritz finds himself among those who think with severe and hostile negativity towards Luther. He finds himself at an anti-Luther service "accidentally."  After the service, he returns to his "convent."  He writes, 

Mournfully I returned to my convent. In the cloisters of our Order the opinions concerning Luther are much divided. The writings of St. Augustine have kept the truth alive in many hearts amongst us; and besides this, there is the natural bias to one of our own order, and the party opposition to the Dominicans, Tetzel and Eck, Dr. Luther's enemies. Probably there are few Augustinian convents in which there are not two opposite parties in reference to Dr. Luther.

In speaking of the great truths, of God freely justifying the sinner because Christ died, (the Judge acquitting because the Judge himself had suffered for the guilty), I had endeavoured to trace them, as I have said, beyond all human words to their divine authority. But now to confess Luther seemed to me to have become identical with confessing Christ. It is the truth which is assailed in any age which tests our fidelity. It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess. If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.

It seems to me also that, practically, the contest in every age of conflict ranges usually round the person of one faithful, Godsent man, whom to follow loyally is fidelity to God. In the days of the first Judaizing assault on the early Church, that man was St. Paul. In the great Arian battle, this man was Athanasius—" Athanasius contra mundum.” In our days, in our land, I believe it is Luther; and to deny Luther would be for me who learned the truth from his lips, to deny Christ. Luther, I believe, is the man whom God has given to his Church in Germany in this age. Luther, therefore, I will follow-not as a perfect example, but as a God-appointed leader. Men can never be neutral in great religious contests; and if, because of the little wrong in the right cause, or the little evil in the good man, we refuse to take the side of right, we are, by that very act, silently taking the side of wrong.

Fictional Fritz goes on to tell of his persecutions for being a follower of Luther. "When I came back to the convent I found the storm gathering. I was asked if I possessed any of Dr. Luther's writings. I confessed that I did. It was demanded that they should be given up... one of the older monks came to me and accused me of secretly spreading Lutheran heresy among the brethren... The next day I was taken into the prison where John of Wesel died; the heavy bolts were drawn upon me, and I was left in solitude." After multiple weeks in prison, he escaped. He ended up meeting Luther on his way to Worms, and thus the tale continues showering accolades on Luther from the perspective of Fritz, an enthusiastic supporter. 

Conclusion

It would be interesting to know exactly what Elizabeth Rundle-Charles had in mind from Luther when she penned the quote. In context though, Rundle-Charles does not attribute the quote to Luther, but rather to her fictional character Fritz. Therefore, not only are people attributing a quote to Luther that he never wrote, but the actual "person" who made the comment is a fictional character!

Unlike some of the kinder earlier treatments debunking this quote, I find it appalling how many people have utilized the quote unchecked in published works. Published books typically are intended to generate income... for someone!  For anyone using this quote in a published book intended to generate income in the last ten or fifteen years, there isn't a meaningful excuse: a simple Google search reveals the Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family, easily. 

Debunked Luther: "For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving; My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing..."

Back in 2015 I looked at a poem attributed to Martin Luther. I have since determined its probable origin. Based on my findings presented below, I do not believe this poem was written by Luther:

"For feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving;

My warrant is the Word of God, Nought else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned, For want of some sweet token,

There is One greater than my heart, Whose Word cannot be broken.

I'll trust in God's unchanging Word, ‘till soul and body sever;

For though all things shall pass away, His Word shall stand forever."~(Martin Luther)

A quick Google search reveals how far this quote has traveled, and a text search of the Internet Archive shows extensive use.  A Google Books search demonstrates how often it has been published, particularly in the 21st century. Well-known names have cited it: Norman Geisler used a snippet of it in his book, Christian Apologetics. Alistair Begg published it. D. James Kennedy's 1985 book refers to a portion of it. 

The words of this poem are sometimes cited as a hymn: God's Word Shall Stand Forever, "attributed to Luther." Since I first wrote about this poem in 2015, I've noticed many more links to it being a hymn / song. See for instance the incorporation of the poem into a song, here and here. The musical arrangement appears to be by someone named Faye Lopez. 

Documentation
Most often, "Martin Luther" is cited as the author of this poem. Careful people have cited, "attributed to Martin Luther." Neither of these are helpful in locating the source! After searching multiple uses of the poem through the decades, the oldest use I could locate is from 1929. Interestingly, an author other than Luther is cited, "W.M. Czamanske." I believe he is the author of this poem.

Who was he? Was he the W.M. Czamanske the Lutheran minister mentioned here? It appears he had a knack for poetry. In this periodical, he presents another rhyming Luther poem: 

In the same magazine, he offers a number of poems. There was also a Wm. Czamanske that authored a number of hymns. Was this the same person? The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary Handbook states,

Czamanske, William Martin, 1873-1964

CZAMANSKE, William Martin (1873- ), was born August 26, 1873, at Granville, Wisconsin. He was graduated from Concordia College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1894, and from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in 1898. Ordained and installed as pastor July 31, 1898, he served successively Lutheran churches, near Madelia, Minnesota, 1898-1902; West Henrietta, New York, 1902-1904; Rochester, New York, 1904 to 1910; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin, 1910-1951, when he entered retirement. He has contributed poems to the Lutheran Witness, Sunday School Times, Etude, Expositor, Northwestern Lutheran, and other church publications. He served as member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Hymnology and Liturgics for the Synodical Conference of North America, which edited The Lutheran Hymnal.

tr. 186, 392

The periodical the poem originally appeared in (cited above) was The Sunday School Times. From this early use from the Sunday School Times, the quote begins to multiply.  For instance, in 1939, we find the following:

The poem continues to be cited through the decades. It would be interesting to see the full version of this snippet view from the 1943 Lutheran Witness to see if Czamanske submitted it. Note this shorter version also from 1943 which is in the same format (and citation) as the Lutheran Witness

This book from 1956 attributes the quote to Luther, via Moody Monthly: 

See also this same text from 1951, and its exact use in 1968. 

I came across shorter versions that hint part of it originated in the late 1800's - early 1900's:

Martin Luther was once asked, "Do you feel as if your sins were forgiven?" "No," he returned, stoutly. "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know that they are, because God says so in his Word. [source]

In some early instances, the one asking Luther is Satan. Note the part of this paragraph from 1889:

Martin Luther, in one of his conflicts with the devil, was asked by the arch-enemy if he felt his sins forgiven. "No," said the great reformer, "I don't feel that they are forgiven, but I know they are, because God says so in His Word." Paul did not say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt feel saved;" but, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." No one can feel that his sins are forgiven. Ask that man whose debt was paid by his brother, "Do you feel that your debt is paid?" "No," is the reply, "I don't feel that it is paid; I know from this receipt that it is paid, and I feel happy because I know it is paid." So with you, dear reader. You must first believe in God's love to you as revealed at the Cross of Calvary, and then you will feel happy, because you shall know that you are saved. [source]

It appears that part of the core of this quote has been around at least 100 years.  It does sound suspiciously like a rewording of a Table Talk entry, but in my brief search of the extant English versions I didn't come across anything.

Conclusion

My conclusion: Luther did not write this rhyming poem. Based on the usage I searched out, the original author was probably W.M. Czamanske. He appears to have had a poetical nature. If in fact he was a Lutheran minister, it would make sense why the theology echoed Luther. Rev. Czamanske did live to 1964, so perhaps saw that his poem was being utilized by others. I think he would be amazed to see how extensively his poem has been cited and that his words became Luther's words!   

Addendum #1

Indeed, the sentiment of the quote could be demonstrated to be something Luther believed. Consider how easily it would have been for someone to read this old English Table Talk statement and summarize it in the one of the forms above:

That the Forgiveness of sins must pass through all things.
The law doth justify in no state, calling and art; impossible it is that every thing should go on in a straight line according to the Law, as we see in the grammar which is taught in schools; no rule is so common, which hath not an exception. Therefore, the forgiveness of Sins is needful through life, and is held out in all arts and sciences. The forgiveness of sins is declared only in God's Word, and there we must seek it; for it is grounded on God's promises. God forgiveth thee thy sins, not because thou feelest them and art sorry, for that doth sin itself produce, and can deserve nothing; but he forgiveth thy sins because he is merciful, and because he hath promised to forgive for Christ's sake, his dearly beloved Son, and caused his word to be applied to thee: namely, “Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.”

Addendum #2

"So now turn from your conscience and its feeling to Christ who is not able to deceive; my heart and Satan however, who will drive me to sin are liars... You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you... Therefore you are able to fight with your conscience by saying: You lie; Christ speaks truth and you do not." WA 27, 223 (cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 59).

Addendum #3

I found a book citing my 2015 blog entry in regard to the poem: Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community. I know nothing about this book or author, but that she took the time to track down the source of Luther's poem is sometimes a good indication of the research put into the book.  

Luther Said Christ Committed Adultery? A Primer on How to Respond

This picture was taken from a private Facebook Group named, Sola Scriptura: A Foundation of Sand. The Roman Catholic who posted it said Luther admitted and sought to justify "his lack of sexual restraint and sin" and that "Luther was a prideful mentally-emotionally disturbed apostate."

While this quote has been covered here in-depth before, it appears to be popular on social media with people unable to approach history with integrity or lack the simple desire (or ability!) to do a basic web-search.

 Here is a simple method of response.

1. The documentation is partly erroneous.  The quote is said to be on page 33 of Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 2. It is not. It's on page 107 of WA TR 2. Also, ask anyone using this documentation who the English translator was or where the English translation presented in this picture actually comes from. The English translation being utilized is not from Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154.

2. This is not something Luther is known to have actually written. It is from a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death, known in English as The Table Talk. 

3. There are multiple versions of Table Talk statements varying in reliability. That reliability is determined, in part, on how many people recorded the statement. This particular statement was recorded by only one person (a person little is known about). The extant manuscript version is a handwritten copy made sometime between 1551 and 1557 of the missing original. Keep in mind, the original statement is alleged to have been uttered between 1531-1532.

4. This particular Table Talk utterance was not available for roughly 350 years until it was published in 1888.  It contains textual anomalies in which what was written originally must be conjectured. In the Weimar edition of Luther's writings, a footnote is included noting the text is unclear and is a probable reading. 

5. If the statement is a rendering of what Luther said, there is no context for the remark. There is no meaningful historical or textual context to determine what Luther meant: Was he jesting? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole?  Was he making a point to correspond to some aspect of his theology?

6. There have been efforts to harmonize the statement with Luther's actual written corpus. LW 54 suggests the comment can be harmonized with Luther's sermon from 1536 in which he asserted that "Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154, fn. 100). Lutheran theologian Arthur Carl Piepkorn compares the statement to Luther's theological motif that Christ became sin for us. 

7. There is ample meaningful textual evidence Luther held to the divinity of Christ. If Roman Catholics are using this context-less quote, remind them of Luther's repeatedly referring to Mary as "the mother of God."  See also Lutheran theologian Arthur Carl Piepkorn's article documenting Luther's adherence to the divinity of Christ as well as the perfect humanity of Jesus and his sinlessness. If Luther really believed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, committed sin, the burden of historical proof is on those making the charge.  

Conclusion
Consider what Rome's defenders are asking you to believe with this quote: a verbal statement from Luther scribbled down on a piece of paper sometime between 1531 - 1532 (by a person not much is known about), an outrageous statement lacking a context, which then lay dormant in a handwritten notebook until at least 1551 or 1557, then copied by one person, then not published until approximately 350 years later, and then when it was published it is not certain what the text actually originally said... trumps all of Luther's actual verifiable writings on the nature and person of Jesus Christ... and proves Luther held that Christ committed adultery.  

Unfortunately, it's quite possible none of these historical seven points will have any effect on someone using this quote to denigrate either Luther or the Reformation.  For their talk about going "deep into history," some of Rome's defenders have little interest in actually doing the hard work involved with accurately and fairly studying history. The ironic aspect of this, in my opinion, is there's plenty of Luther quotes available to scrutinize that can be attributed to Luther without question. If someone is going to beat up Luther, why not use something with a better pedigree? Why resort to a second-hand comment with poor historical documentation? 

Addendum 

I did interact with the defender of Rome on Facebook that posted this quote. Along with getting his personal conversion story, here were some of his responses: 

"... it is eye witness Testimonies of friends, students and contemporaries.....as valid as the eye witness testimonies of the Apostles etc!!!"

"yep.....dismiss eye witness testimonies of those at his table who wrote it diwn and later published it....dismiss eye witnesses of Christ as well. So I guess his eye witnesses (Lutheran Family, Friends and Students at his Table Talks are all Liars) who took notes and spoke first hand with him in private are decievers who published garbage about him....OK....BS."

"Modern Conservative Lutherans know they can't change the 16th century printed eye witness testimonies of his co-religious contemporaries so they have in the 20th century tried to rehabilitate their blessed Apostle and Prophet Founder..."

"You choke, balk and dismiss. Too funny. You got nothing."

" You love the Bible and Calvin's Systematic Theology and Studies as your guide to understand that very Bible......You have your own dead 16th Century Geneva Jack Chick as your spirit Guide...not the Bible Alone. I hope you use the Geneva Bible too.."

Luther: "For, where God built a church, there the devil would also build a chapel…In such sort is the devil always God's ape."

 From the depths of cyberspace...

Would the devil ever attempt to beget in Roman Catholic persons a regard to the divine Word of God?

Of course. One of the wise statements made by Luther...

For, where God built a church, there the devil would also build a chapel…In such sort is the devil always God's ape.
Colloquia Mensalia (1566) ch. 2 (tr. H. Bell as Martin Luther's Divine Discourses, 1652)

The question in italics was asked by a non-Roman Catholic. The answer was from a Roman Catholic. Reading between the lines, I suspect the answer may either be a simple nod to an agreement with the statement attributed to Luther... or more insidiously, Luther is that person in which the devil beget "a regard for the divine Word of God."  If the later, that notion has precedent in Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther going all the way back to Luther's contemporary nemesis, Johannes Cochlaeus. 

When a participant pointed out that Luther died in 1546, not 1566, Rome's defender responded, "That's a direct Luther quote from the first English addition of Martin Luther's Divine Discourses (1652). His "Table Talk" discourses." Let's take a closer look at this quote. We'll see it's not a direct quote from Luther, and in context, Luther isn't being properly utilized to answer the question being asked.

Documentation

The reference provided was, "Colloquia Mensalia (1566) ch. 2 (tr. H. Bell as Martin Luther's Divine Discourses, 1652)."  Typical of many of Rome's defenders, I suspect this quote is a cut-and paste, since the same form and reference is found on this webpage, and also here.

The reference is accurate... to a point. "Colloquia Mensalia (1566)" refers to the first edition of Luther's Tischreden, or Table Talk (Tischreden oder Colloquia Doct. Mart. Luthers (Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1566) compiled by John Aurifaber. What's being cited though is not this 1566 German edition, but rather a 1652 English edition translated by Captain Henry Bell. No page number is cited by Rome's defender, only that the quote is found in chapter 2.  On page 35 of the 1652 edition, the text reads: 

The 1566 German translation reads: 

The same German can be found in WA TR 4: 612. WA cites FB 1, 91 (92). Unfortunately, for me the trail ends here. I was unable to determine if this was a recollection from Aurifaber or if he relied on another source.  LW points out that Aurifaber is less trustworthy than other manuscripts of Luther's recollected sayings. Aurifaber also presented his material topically. With his presentation of this quote, it's weaved together with a 1540 recollection from John Mathesius (#5010) about what God was doing before creation.  For the context below, I utilized this English translation of Aurifaber. 

Context

When one asked, where God was before heaven was created? St. Augustin made answer thereunto and said, He was in himself. And as another (said Luther) asked me the same question, I said, He was building of hell for such idle, presumptuous, fluttering spirits and inquisitors. After he had created all things, he was everywhere, and yet he was nowhere; for I cannot fasten nor take hold of him without the Word. But he will be found there where he hath bound himself to be. The Jews found him at Jerusalem by the throne of grace, Exodus, xxv. We find him in the Word and faith, in baptism and sacraments; but in his majesty he is nowhere to be found.

It was a special grace in the Old Testament, when God bound himself to a certain place where he would be found, namely, in that place where the tabernacle was, towards which they prayed; as first, in Silo and Sichem, afterwards at Gibeon, and lastly at Jerusalem in the temple.

The Greeks and heathens in after times (said Luther) did imitate the same, and did build temples for their idols in certain places, as at Ephesus for Diana, at Delphos for Apollo, &c. For, where God built a church there the devil would also build a chapel. They imitated the Jews also in this, namely, that as the most holiest was dark, and had no light, even so and after the same manner did they make their places dark where the devil made answer, as at Delphos, and elsewhere. In such sort is the devil always God’s ape. 

But (said Luther) whereas the most holiest must be dark, the same did signify that the kingdom of Christ no other way was to be taken hold of and fastened, but only by the Word and by faith.

Conclusion

Probably half of my Roman Catholic Luther studies involve tracking down obscure Luther quotes, and more often than not, these quotes find their way back to the Table Talk. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out to the defenders of Rome 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.  

In the context above, Luther's point is that the "Greeks and heathens" were imitating the Jews by building temples to their gods. When Luther is recorded saying, "where God built a church there the devil would also build a chapel." this has nothing to do with the devil attempting to "beget in Roman Catholic persons a regard to the divine Word of God." Typical of Rome's defenders, many do not bother to look up what they cite from Luther. In this instance, even a truncated second-hand Table Talk comment doesn't support their polemical attacks.

Luther: "Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason"

 ...From the depths of cyberspace:

I came across another quote, allegedly from Luther: "Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason." Sometime after they tried to feed him Worms, I guess!  (There was no attribution, so...)

Documentation

The person posting this makes a correct observation that the quote is often posted without meaningful documentation, however it's not impossible to locate the source via a few cyber-searches.  The English version of this quote may originate from Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, a Life of Martin Luther.  Bainton documents the burning of Luther's books at Cologne and then the subsequent event of Papal documents being burned at Wittenberg by Luther and his supporters.  Bainton records Luther saying,   

Since they have burned my books, I burn theirs. The canon law was included because it makes the pope a god on earth. So far I have merely fooled with this business of the pope. All my articles condemned by Antichrist are Christian. Seldom has the pope overcome anyone with Scripture and with reason.

Bainton cites "VII, 161-182" from WA. The careful reader will observe this amounts to twenty-one pages of text for five sentences! Bainton is actually citing the entire document the quote comes from: Warumb des Bapsts und siner Jungernn bucher vonDoct. Martino Luther vorbrant seynn.  The quote comes from the very end of the document (p.181):

This text has been translated into English: Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned by Doctor Martin Luther (LW:31, 382-395). The quote appears on pages 394-395

Context

I am willing to let everyone have his own opinion. I am moved most by the fact that the pope has never once refuted with Scripture or reason anyone who has spoken, written, or acted against him, but has at all times suppressed, exiled, burned, or otherwise strangled him with force and bans, through kings, and other partisans, or with deceit and false words, of which I shall convince him from history. Nor has he ever been willing to submit to a court of justice or judgment, but at all times bawled that he was above Scripture, judgment, and authority.

Latin text: 

Ego unicuique libenter suum permiserim iudicium, nam me hoc movet potissimum, quod papa nunquam, ne semel quidem, quemquam vicerit vel Scriptura vel ratione, qui contra ipsum dixisset, scripsisset, vel fecisset, sed semper vi, excommunicatione, per reges, principes et reliquos fautores, aut per dolos malos et falsa verba oppresserit, eiecerit, combusserit, vel alioqui occiderit. Cuius rei eum possum testibus omnibus historiis convincere. Eoque nomine nunquam voluit neque iudicium neque sententiam pati, semper ausus praetendere et obstrepere, se esse superiorem omnibus Scripturis, iudiciis et potestatibus. 

John Calvin and the "The Mother of God"

Circulating cyber space is a comment from John Calvin in which he wrote Mary is "the mother of the Lord." Rome's defenders use this statement in various ways to prove Calvin's Mariology overlaps in some sense with their blatant Mariolatry that Mary is the "Mother of God." Rather than reinvent my own wheel, I did a detailed entry back in 2019 entitled, John Calvin, The Mother of God, and the Great Protestant Cover-up.

 If you're going to engage Rome's defenders over the phrase, "Mother of God," keep your eye on the ball.  I would agree with Dr. White's assessment many years ago when he wrote that "Mother of God" is "the single most misused theological term around." The term points to the deity of Christ, not the nature of Mary. Track down Dr. White's book, Mary, Another Redeemer? and go through chapter five to parse this out. Rome's version of Mary includes her intercessory role as well as deep devotion to her. Some of Rome's defenders will spin you around in circles over Mary's role in giving birth to Jesus Christ but will avoid how the phrase "Mother of God" typically functions in popular piety.  

Augustine's Multiple References to Peter as the "Rock": a Response to Rome's Defenders

This is an addendum to my earlier blog entry: What Was Augustine "Retracting" on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16? That entry exegetes Augustine's likely final statement on his interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.  His later view was that Peter was not the "Rock" the church was founded upon (he admits in his earlier writings he did put forth the opposite view that Peter was the "Rock" the church was founded upon). Augustine's later view is contrary to the modern view espoused by Rome's defenders, for instance, this apologist says, "Only Simon, among all the other personages of the New Testament, received a name change (cf. Matt. 16:18-19). This signified his status as the "rock" upon which Christ would build his Church." Who's correct, Augustine or modern Roman Catholic apologists? 

In response to Protestants bringing up Augustine's later view, some of Rome's defenders have located a number of times Augustine referred to Peter as the "Rock," This webpage states, "Far from repudiating the Catholic understanding of Matt 16:18, I will provide testimony from Augustine to show he interpreted Matt 16:18 in various ways during his life and not exclusively equating "this rock” with Christ Himself." What I've noticed in the quotes they've mined out is the distinction Augustine himself makes between his earlier and later writings on Peter and the "Rock" is blurred or non-existent.

This blog entry will go through their basic list and demonstrate the quotes that most clearly show Augustine referring to Peter as the "Rock" the church was built upon represent his discarded earlier view. The quotes from later in his life do not clearly demonstrate adherence to the earlier view. Certainly 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 making his comments fuzzy. When I did go through the basic texts being brought forth, it was clear Augustine shifted his view on Peter and the "Rock."

This is the basic list that will be scrutinized below. There are number of variations on this list as the quotes have journeyed through cyber-space over the years. It appears the cumulative case method of citing various statements from Augustine throughout his life is put forth to downplay Augustine's clear later view.  I contend Rome's defenders therefore are spoof-texting Augustine's writings, hiding the very distinction he refers to in the Retractationes. Let's work through each quote. 

1. “Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

Documentation: "salmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51." I suspect this quote may have been taken from Scott Butler's book, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, p. 250 (Butler's entire book is found here). Butler's text reads, 

Butler's documentation would explain what the cryptic "GCC,51" reference means: Dom John Chapman, Bishop Gore and Catholic Claims (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903, 51. Chapman appears to be responsible for this particular English translation.  Other English renditions precede his (simply Google search 19th Century books with the phrase, "Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter"). Regardless of the documentation rabbit trails of Rome's defenders, the Latin text is: "Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit, videte: Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae," (PL 43, 30).

This quote comes from A.D. 393-394. It's from roughly the same time period as the lost treatise Augustine mentions in the Retractationes and strongly appears to be representative of his earlier viewpoint. 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).  "Augustine of Hippo writes in the Retractations that he composed his Psalmus contra Partem Donati (393) as a retort to the rhymed "psalms" which Donatist congregations chanted, and that he had intended his own Psalm for chanting in his congregation (source). This 19th Century writer presents a lengthy argument suggesting that even with Augustine referring to Peter as the "Rock" in this hymn, it does not equal Rome's version of an transmission of an infallible papal office. 

2. “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

Documentation: "Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:5." If one begins with the later part of the reference the entire reference becomes clear.  "JUR,3:5" refers to William A. Jurgens, The faith of the Early Fathers vol,3, 51. This text says, 

Jurgens mentions the quote comes from Augustine's "Christian Combat (A.D. 396 and 397)" and the location is "31,33." Jurgens appears entirely responsible for this particular English translation, therefore this is the likely source of this popular cut-and-paste. The Latin text of the quote can be found in De agone christiano (PL 40:307). The Christian Combat can be found in a complete English translation, with the quote found here.  Augustine says,

(33) Let us not heed those who deny that the Church of God can remit all sins. Failing to recognize in Peter the ‘rock,’ these unhappy souls have accordingly lost possession of the keys; they are unwilling to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the Church. These are the people who condemn as adulteresses widows who marry, and who boast that theirs is a purity superior to the teaching of the Apostles. If they would only acknowledge their own names, they would call themselves ‘wordly’ [mundanos] rather than ‘pure’ [mundos]. For, by their unwillingness to be corrected when they have sinned, they have simply chosen to be condemned with this world [mundo]. 

These heretics do not preserve the spiritual health of those to whom they deny forgiveness of sins. They take away medicine from the infirm, forcing their widows to be consumed by the heat of passion, when they will not permit them to marry. Certainly these heretics are not to be accounted wiser than the Apostle Paul, who preferred that widows should marry, rather than be so consumed by passion. 

"Peter the 'rock'" is merely a passing comment. Based on the year it was penned (A.D. 396 - 397), it's within probability that Augustine is holding his earlier view. Note though that while Peter is the "rock," the keys of the kingdom have been given to the church and he also links his detractors think their teaching is superior to that of the Apostles, not just Peter.  This is clarified though in 30:32, "it is not without reason that, among all the Apostles, it is Peter who represents the Catholic Church. For the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to this Church when they were given to Peter," and speaking of Peter's denial of Christ: "We see that pardon was granted to Peter, who represents the Church... "

3. “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

Documentation:  "To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298." "NPNF1" refers to 

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,  vol. 1. Here is page 298. The text being cited is from a letter from 400 A.D. Augustine, with the Donatists in view. He refers to Peter as "bearing in a figure the whole church" and referred to as the "Rock," yet though again another passing reference, reflective of his stated earlier view. 

4. “When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ (Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76.

Documentation: "Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76." This is another reference to  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,  volume 7. Here is page 76. The crucial aspect of this citation for Rome's defenders is the year "A.D. 417."  This would be a quote from seventeen years past the previous quote. Unfortunately, Augustine simply mentions Peter being called, "that Rock," with no indication that the building of the church is intended to rest on Peter. The text states, 

If thou be without God, thou wilt be less; if thou be with God, God will not be greater. Not from thee will He be greater, but thou without Him wilt be less. Grow, therefore, in Him; do not withdraw thyself, that He may, as it were, diminish. Thou wilt be renewed if thou come to Him, wilt suffer loss if thou depart from Him. He remains entire when thou comest to Him, remains entire even when thou fallest away. When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, “Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth.”

5. “And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?” In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

Documentation: "In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223." This is a more complicated reference because someone cross referenced NPNF1 VIII:223 to the Latin text: PL 36, 656 ( "PL" stands for "Patrologia Latina")  The quote begins in column 656 and concludes in 657. It's not at all clear that in this quote from A.D. 418 Augustine is expressing his earlier view. Here is a broader context:

The Lord to His disciples was speaking of His Passion that was to be. Peter shuddered, and saith, “Far be it, O Lord;” he that a little before had said, “Thou art the Christ, Son of the living God,” having confessed God, feared for Him to die, as if but a man. But the Lord who so came that He might suffer (for we could not otherwise be saved unless with His blood we were redeemed), a little before had praised the confession of Peter.…But immediately when the Lord beginneth to speak of His Passion, he feared lest He should perish by death, whereas we ourselves should perish unless He died; and he saith, “Far be it, O Lord,  this thing shall not be done.” And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, “Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” saith, “Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.” Why therefore “Satan” is he, that a little before was “blessed,” and a “Rock”? “For thou savourest not the things which are of God,” He saith, “but those things which are of man.”  A little before he savoured the things which are of God: because “not flesh and blood hath revealed to thee, but My Father which is in the Heavens.” When in God he was praising his discourse, not Satan but Peter, from petra: but when of himself and out of human infirmity, carnal love of man, which would be for an impediment to his own salvation, and that of the rest, Satan he is called. Why? Because to go before the Lord he willed, and earthly counsel to give to the heavenly Leader. “Far be it, O Lord, this thing shall not be done.” Thou sayest, “Far be it,” and thou sayest, “O Lord:” surely if Lord He is, in power He doeth: if Master He is, He knoweth what He doeth, He knoweth what He teacheth. But thou willest to lead thy Leader, teach thy Master, command thy Lord, choose for God: much thou goest before, go back behind. Did not this too profit these enemies? “Turned be Mine enemies backward;” but let them not remain backward. For this reason let them be turned backward, lest they go before; but so that they follow, not so that they remain.

6. “Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.” In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

Documentation: "In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251." Working backward, "Butler, 251" refers to Scott Butler's book, Jesus, Peter and the Keys, page 251. Butler's book says, 

Also cited is PL 36, 869, which was taken from Allnatt's  citation by Scott Butler. It appears to me that Allnatt is responsible for the English translation being utilized of "Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus est petra, supra quam fabricaretur ecclesia." This spoof-texted version of the quote says it's from "A.D. 418," but Allnat says A.D. 400. Granted, this source point out that the dating Augustine's writing on the expositions of the Psalms "are largely hypothetical." It would be the responsibility of Rome's defenders to explain why they're using a later date when the source the quote was taken from indicates A.D. 400 (therefore another example of Augustine's earlier view).  The Latin text reads, 

Nam quod optatum est modo persecutoribus cogitantibus mala, dixit hoc ipse Dominus Petro. Praecedere quippe quodam loco Petrus voluit Dominum. Loquebatur enim Salvator de passione sua, quam si non suscepisset, nos salvi non essemus; et Petrus qui paulo ante eum confessus erat Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus erat Petra, supra quam fabricaretur Ecclesia, paulo post Domino dicente de futura passione sua, ait: Absit, Domine; propitius esto tibi, non fiet istud. Paulo ante, Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia non tibi revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater meus qui in coelis est: modo repente, Redi post me, satana. Quid est, Redi post me? Sequere me. Praecedere me vis, consilium mihi dare vis; melius est ut consilium meum sequaris: hoc est, Redi retro, redi post me. Antecedentem compescit, ut retro redeat; et appellat satanam, quia vult praecedere Dominum. Paulo ante, Beatus: modo, Satanas. Unde paulo ante, Beatus? Quia non tibi, inquit, revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater meus qui in coelis est. Unde modo, Satanas? Quia non sapis, inquit, quae Dei sunt, sed quae sunt hominum.

It's interesting to note that NPNF, First series, vol. VIII does not include the sentence being cited by Rome's defenders. Why? I have no idea as to why the  text was edited, and no footnote documents the deletion. It does make sense though why Rome's defenders would only cite the Latin text and Butler'a book. NPNF reads:

For that which had been desired but now for persecutors thinking evil things, the same the Lord Himself said to Peter. Now in a certain place Peter willed to go before the Lord.…A little before, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father which is in Heaven:” now in a moment, “Go back behind Me, Satan.” What is, “Go back behind Me”? Follow Me. Thou willest to go before Me, thou willest to give Me counsel, it is better that thou follow My counsel: this is, “go back,” go back behind Me. He is silencing one outstripping, in order that he may go backward; and He is calling him Satan, because he willeth to go before the Lord. A little before, “blessed;” now, “Satan.” Whence a little before, “blessed”? Because, “to thee,” He saith, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it, but My Father which is in Heaven.” Whence now, “Satan”? Because “thou savourest not,” He saith, “the things which are of God, but the things which are of men.”

While this English translation says:

What he needs is to believe in Christ, and follow him; for what the psalm requests for those who harbor evil intentions is what the Lord himself ordered Peter. There was an occasion when Peter wanted to get ahead of the Lord. Our Savior had been speaking about his passion; if he had not accepted it, we should not have been saved. Just before this Peter had confessed him to be the Son of God, and for that confession he was called the Rock, on which the Church was to be built. But immediately afterward, when the Lord was speaking about his forthcoming passion, Peter protested: Far be it from you, Lord, have some pity for yourself. This will not happen. Only a moment ago Peter had been told, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven; but now, suddenly, he is commanded, Get behind me, Satan (Mt 16:22. 1 7.23). What does get behind me mean? Follow me. You want to rush ahead of me, you want to give me advice. It would be much better for you to follow my advice. This is what "Go back, get behind me" implies. He curbs the man who rushes in front,and makes him take his place in the rear; he calls him Satan because he wants to go one better than the Lord. A minute ago Christ called him blessed; now he addresses him as Satan. Why did he deserve to be called blessed? Because it is notf lesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven, said Jesus. Then why does he now deserve the name Satan? Because you have no taste for the things of God, but only for human things.

7. “And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.” In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418), in NPNF1,VIII:513

Documentation: "In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513." NPNF1,VIII:513 can be found here. If this text is actually from A.D. 418, Augustine is not expressing his earlier view. In fact, in the context, Augustine say Christ was the "Rock":  

15. But think not that those “fowls of heaven” follow their own authority; see what the Psalm saith: “From the midst of the rocks they shall give their voice.” Now, if I shall say to you, Believe, for this said Cicero, this said Plato, this said Pythagoras: which of you will not laugh at me? For I shall be a bird that shall send forth my voice not from the rock. What ought each one of you to say to me? what ought he who is thus instructed to say? “If anyone shall have preached unto you a gospel other than that ye have received, let him be anathema.” What dost thou tell me of Plato, and of Cicero, and of Virgil? Thou hast before thee the rocks of the mountains, from the midst of the rocks give me thy voice. Let them be heard, who hear from the rock: let them be heard, because also in those many rocks the One Rock is heard: for “the Rock was Christ.” Let them therefore be willingly heard, giving their voice from the midst of the rocks. Nothing is sweeter than such a voice of birds. They sound, and the rocks resound: they sound; spiritual men discuss: the rocks resound, testimonies of Scripture give answer. Lo! thence the fowls give their voice from the midst of the rocks, for they dwell on the mountains.

16. “Watering the mountains from the higher places” (ver. 13). Now if a Gentile uncircumcised man comes to us, about to believe in Christ, we give him baptism, and do not call him back to those works of the Law. And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.…