Thursday, May 27, 2004

The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine (with Dr. Edwin Tait)

The words in blue are from Dr. Edwin Tait: an Anglican Church historian.

I asked Dave about this, and he gave me a reference to a letter of Melanchthon's in which Melanchthon said that he knew Augustine didn't fully support the Protestant view but cited him as a supporter because of Augustine's accepted authority. I have not looked at the context of this,

Here is the entirety of what I have in one of my papers:
Philip Melanchthon, in his letter to Johann Brenz (May 1531), illustrates how the Protestants had departed from patristic precedent:
Avert your eyes from such a regeneration of man and from the Law and look only to the promises and to Christ . . . Augustine is not in agreement with the doctrine of Paul, though he comes nearer to it than do the Schoolmen. I quote Augustine as in entire agreement, although he does not sufficiently explain the righteousness of faith; this I do because of public opinion concerning him.
(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, six volumes, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 2nd edition, 1914, vol. 4, 459-460)
Grisar, on p. 459, states that "The letter was written by Melanchthon to Johann Brenz, but it had the entire approval of Luther, who even appended a few words to it. While clearly throwing overboard Augustine, it is nevertheless anxious to retain him."

The documentation Grisar gives is "end of May, 1531", Luthers Briefwechsel, 9, p. 18. This eleven-volume work was edited by L. Enders: Frankfurt & Stuttgart, 1884-1907; also 12 volumes, edited by G. Kawerau, Leipzig, 1910. Or is that also a biased source, since it is probably Lutheran and thus tilted toward Luther? :-)

and I'm not sure if it is quite as underhanded as Dave makes it sound.

I didn't make it "sound" anything at all. I merely quoted the portion of the letter that I have, from Grisar.

The Reformers clearly did believe that Augustine's view of grace was in important points coincident with their own, and that Augustine contradicted what most of their Catholic opponents were saying was the Catholic view.

And they also increasingly recognized that Augustine disagreed with key points of their theology as well. Grisar also cites Julius Kostlin (a well-known Protestant Luther scholar). He cites him as saying:
Luther could, indeed, appeal to St. Augustine in support of the thesis that man becomes righteous and is saved purely by God's gracious decree and the working of His Grace and not by any natural powers and achievements, but not for the further theory that man is regarded by God as just purely by the virtue of faith . . . nor that the Christian thus justified can never perform anything meritorious in God's sight but is saved merely by the pardoning grace of God which must ever anew be laid hold of by faith . . . Only gradually did the fundamental difference between the Augustinian view, his own and that of Paul become entirely clear to Luther.
(Grisar, ibid., IV, 458; citing Kostlin, Martin Luther. Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 5th ed., continued after Kostlin's death by G. Kawerau, 2 volumes, Berlin, 1903; quotation from vol. 1, 138. I located a biography of Luther by Kostlin online at the Project Gutenberg website. I believe this is an earlier edition of the same work.
Of course, this doesn't verify any deliberate botching of texts (I have not ever claimed that, and I believe I made this clear in our private correspondence), but it shows that Luther was indeed aware that his theology was diverging from St. Augustine's. I found the following statement in this online book (by Julius Kostlin):
Herein also Luther found the theology of St. Augustine in accord
with the testimony of the great Apostle. While studying that
theology, his conviction of the power of sin and the powerlessness
of man's own strength to overcome it, grew more and more decided.
But St. Paul taught him to understand that belief somewhat
differently to St. Augustine. To Luther it was not merely a
recognition of objective truths or historical facts. What he
understood by it, with a clearness and decision which are wanting in
St. Augustine's teaching, was the trusting of the heart in the mercy
offered by the message of salvation, the personal confidence in the
Saviour Christ and in that which He has gained for us. With this
faith, then, and by the merits and mediation of the Saviour in whom
this faith is placed, we stand before God, we have already the
assurance of being known by God and of being saved, and we are
partakers of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies more and more the inner
man. According to St. Augustine, on the contrary, and to all
Catholic theologians who followed his teaching, what will help us
before God is rather that inward righteousness which God Himself
gives to man by His Holy Spirit and the workings of His grace, or,
as the expression was, the righteousness infused by God. The good,
therefore, already existing in a Christian is so highly esteemed
that he can thereby gain merit before the just God and even do more
than is required of him. But to a conscience like Luther's, which
applied so severe a standard to human virtue and works, and took
such stern count of past and present sins, such a doctrine could
bring no assurance of forgiveness, mercy, and salvation. It was in
faith alone that Luther had found this assurance, and for it he
needed no merits of his own. The happy spirit of the child of God,
by its own free impulse, would produce in a Christian the genuine
good fruit pleasing in God's sight. It was a long time before Luther
himself became aware how he differed on this point from his chief
teacher amongst theologians. But we see the difference appear at the
very root and beginning of his new doctrine of salvation; and it
comes out finally, based on apostolic authority, clear and sharp, in
the theology of the Reformer.

Grisar gives a bit more evidence of the relationship of early Lutheranism to St. Augustine:
Against any citation of St. Augustine the Lutheran theologians and preachers in Pomerania protested during the negotiations for the formula of Concord. By thus falsely alleging this Father, they said in their declaration at the Synod of Stettin in 1577, a formidable weapon was placed in the hands of their Catholic opponents of which they had not failed to avail themselves against the Protestants; they were also assuming the responsibility for a public lie: "Augustine's book De spiritu et littera teaches concerning Justification what the Papists teach today." In the following year they declared against the form of the first Confessio Augustana, as published in Wittenberg in 1531 by Luther and our other fathers," again on the ground that "there Augustine's consensus is alleged." In Mecklenburg the strictures of the Synods of Pomerania were accepted as perfectly warranted. (Grisar, ibid., IV, 461)
(In this section Grisar was quoting well-known Catholic historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger: Die Reformation, 3 volumes, Ratisbon: 1846-1848, III, 370)

That being the case, they were not above claiming Augustine and neglecting to make it clear that the agreement was not total.

. . . which is all I and Grisar have stated. So where is the beef? By all means go look at the letter yourself and then report back to us.

. . . Dave did not apparently read Melanchthon's letter as a whole.

That is correct, as I did not have access to Luther's correspondence in German, nor could I read German if I did. Maybe this letter is in the English edition?

I will look at the letter in question when next I have access to Melanchthon's letters in the Corpus Reformatorum.

Please do so, and I want as full a citation as possible. You want to press this point, so face the music if it comes out the way that it appears, from what we know thus far. It probably won't prove deliberate mis-quoting, but I think it will show that there was misrepresentation going on.

At any rate, Dave did not provide me with any evidence for outright fabrication.

That is correct.

The most the Melanchthon letter means is that at least one Reformer was willing to exaggerate the degree of Augustine's agreement with him for polemical purposes.

Correct again, except that, since Luther agreed with the letter and added to it, and since it appears in the collection of his own correspondence, that means at least two "Reformers" did so (including the most important one of all).

Lastly, we find in Luther's Table-Talk the following slams against St. Augustine and the Fathers:
Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith . . . Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith. (DXXVI)
The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended. (DXXX)
Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic. (DXXXV)
(edition translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, n.d., 286-289)
I don't see anything in any of the above that would disabuse me or any Catholic from the notion that the Protestants departed from the Fathers to a great extent, particularly from St. Augustine. The Catholic Church is far more the legatee of Augustine than Reformed Protestantism.

I found a website where one Michael J. Vlach is reviewing Alister E. McGrath's book, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2d. ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Here are some interesting comments showing that Protestantism departed from Augustine at several key points:
McGrath refers repeatedly to the enormous significance of Augustine on soteriology. He points out that Augustine is the first major theologian of church history to seriously address the issue of justification (24). Although Augustine’s views would undergo development and change in his own lifetime, many of his positions would eventually become predominant in the medieval era.
Some of Augustine’s key views according to McGrath include:
· Man’s election is based on God’s eternal decree of predestination.
· Free will is not lost; it is merely incapacitated and may be healed by grace.

· The act of faith is a divine gift.

· Faith is adherence to the Word of God.

· It is love, not faith, that is the power that brings about conversion.

· There is a distinction between operative and cooperative grace.

· The righteousness of God is that by which God justifies sinners.

· God’s prevenient grace prepares man’s will for justification.
In specific relation to justification, Augustine held the following:
· The motif of amor Dei dominates Augustine’s theology of justification.

· The verb ‘to justify’ means ‘to make righteous.’ Thus, justification is about being ‘made just.’

· Justification is all-embracing, including both the event of justification and the process of justification.

· Man’s righteousness in justification is inherent rather than imputed.
The predominant view of justification in the medieval era was this: “Justification refers not merely to the beginning of the Christian life, but also to its continuation and ultimate perfection, in which the Christian is made righteous in the sight of God and the sight of men through a fundamental change in his nature, and not merely his status” (41). With this understanding, there was no distinction between justification and sanctification that would later characterize Reformation orthodoxy. Other views associated with the medieval era according to McGrath include:
· The infusion of grace initiates a chain of events that eventually leads to justification.

· Justification consists in the remission of sins.

· Justification involves a real change in its object.

· Man has a positive role to play in his own justification.

· A human disposition toward justification is necessary.

· Justification takes place within the sphere of the church and is particularly associated with the sacraments of baptism and penance.

· Grace is understood in Augustinian terms, including the elements of restoration of the divine image, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and indwelling of the Godhead.
. . . McGrath does positively assert that the origins of the concept of imputed righteousness “lie with Luther” (201).
If this concept originated with Luther, it could hardly have also been the view of St. Augustine. I found another fascinating article in the excellent evangelical online journal, Quodlibet (which I have linked to on my website for several years now): "Justification as Healing: The Little-Known Luther," by Ted M. Dorman.

Here are some relevant comments:
Reformed Protestantism's historic distinction between the passive or imputed righteousness of Christ given in justification, and the active or infused righteousness given in sanctification, has its genesis in Luther's thought. Prior to Luther justification had been tied to regeneration, so that the forgiveness of sins was viewed not merely as a forensic declaration of the believer's status as righteous before God, but as a process whereby the believer is actually made righteous. In this way, as Alister McGrath has pointed out, Luther introduced a theological novum into the Western church tradition 'which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point.' [1]
[Footnote 1: Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Two volumes. Cambridge University Press, 1986. See Volume I pages 182ff. and Volume II pages 2f. The quotation is from II:]
The Reformers did not deny the reality of infused righteousness. Indeed, they insisted that justifying (passive) righteousness never exists apart from sanctifying (active) righteousness. [2] At the same time, however, they made a 'notional distinction' between justification and sanctification where none had previously existed. [3]
[Footnote 2: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.2.8. Footnote 3: McGrath, Iustitia Dei II.2]
. . . the earlier views of Luther, as opposed to his later views, are more in line with the pre-Reformation classical Christian consensus on justification . . .
[Footnote 8: This notion of a shift between Luther's earlier and later positions on justification is generally rejected by Lutherans]
. . . A survey of Martin Luther's writings between 1515 and 1521 reveals a doctrine of justification which in some ways bears more resemblance to Augustine's teachings than those of the later Luther himself. This is not to say that Luther consciously followed Augustine; indeed, in 1545 he wrote that he formulated his early perspectives on justification before he had read Augustine on the subject.
. . . Some time after 1521 Luther's ideas concerning the relationship between faith, justification, and obedience to God's commands underwent significant revision. By the time he wrote his 1535 commentary on Galatians, Luther no longer emphasized obedience to God's commandments as an expression of justifying faith. Instead, he divided justifying faith and obedience to God's commandments into separate categories. The former he ascribed to the 'passive righteousness of Christ'; the latter to the 'active righteousness of the Law.'
[Footnote 24: Luther's Works Volume 26, 9: 'For between these two kinds of righteousness, the active righteousness of the Law and the passive righteousness of Christ, there is no middle {i.e., common} ground.']
In the opening paragraphs of his 1535 Galatians commentary Luther explicitly divorces the commandments of God from the righteousness of faith. After identifying various kinds of 'righteousness' (political, ceremonial, parental, and moral) Luther goes on to say:
There is, in addition to these [various kinds of righteousness], yet another righteousness, the righteousness of the Law or of the Decalog, which Moses teaches. We, too, teach this, but after the doctrine of faith. . . . . Over and above all these there is the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, which is to be distinguished most carefully from all the others. For they are all contrary to this righteousness, both because they proceed from the laws of emperors, the traditions of the pope, and the commandments of God, and because they consist in our works and can be achieved by us . . . . But this most excellent righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which God imputes to us through Christ without works . . . . is quite the opposite; it is a merely passive righteousness, while all the others, listed above, are active. For here we work nothing, render nothing to God; we only receive and permit someone else to work in us, namely, God.
[Footnote 25: Luther's Works Volume 26, 4f.]
. . . Whatever may have occasioned Luther's shift in thinking between 1521 and 1535, it is a matter of historical record that after about 1530 the Protestant Reformers defined justification almost solely in forensic terms as the forgiveness of sins.
[Footnote 38: McGrath, Iustitia Dei II 2. See also McGrath's comment on page 23 that Philip Melanchthon's increasing emphasis on iustitia aliena from about 1530 onward provided the chief impetus to this shift. To what degree Melanchthon influenced Luther, or vice-versa, is beyond the scope of this study.]
. . . In addition to Luther, three classical Christian sources demonstrate that prior to the Reformation the Church viewed justification as both an event and a process. These three are Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Thomas Aquinas.
Augustine's influence on Luther and Calvin is difficult to overstate, especially with relation to the doctrine of total depravity . . . Yet Trent's emphasis on justification as a process does find precedent in Augustine, perhaps Luther's favorite classical theologian, who spoke of justification not merely as a singular event but also as a process 'by which [God] justifies those who from unrighteousness He makes righteous.'
[Footnote 42: Sermon 131; cited in Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 125. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press 1994), 481ff. (Part Three, Chapter 3, Article 2). Also worthy of note here is that Augustine, like Luther a millennium later, spoke of Christ as a physician who heals our diseases (On the Spirit and the Letter chapters 9 and 10). A useful summary of Augustine's doctrine of justification may be found in Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 83-87.]
[ . . . ]
[Footnote 47: It must be noted that both Anselm and Aquinas followed Augustine in that neither entertained the Reformers' notional distinction between justification and sanctification, and both tended to emphasize infused righteousness.]
Lastly, I looked up every single reference to St. Augustine in my copy of the Book of Concord (the doctrinal standard for Lutheranism). Without exception it claims that Augustine is in full agreement with Lutheran doctrine. Furthermore, it makes outright false factual claims, such as that Augustine denied ex opere operato (the notion that the sacraments have inherent power apart from the dispenser or recipient), purgatory, and (though not completely clear), baptismal regeneration. These are all erroneous judgments. Augustine wrote:
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism . . . The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in one Adam.
(Letter to Bishop Boniface, 98, 2; A.D. 408; in Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers {FEF}, 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, III, 4)
The Sacraments of the New Testament give salvation . . .
(Explanations of the Psalms, 73, 2; A.D. 418; in Jurgens, III, 19)
It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.
The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.
. . . there is a full remission of sins in Baptism.
(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 1, 24, 34 / 2,
27, 43 /2, 28, 46; 412; in Jurgens, FEF, III, 91-93)
Luther and Augustine agree with regard to baptism, but (strangely), confessional Lutheranism seems to have become a bit confused about baptism and moves away from Luther's traditionalism in that respect. As for purgatory, Augustine wrote:
The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.
(Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, 2, 20, 30. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 38)
Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment.
(City of God, 21, 13. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 105)
The prayer . . . is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy.
(City of God, 21, 24, 2. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 106)
That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, - through a certain purgatorial fire.
(Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love, 18,69, Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 149. See also -- in the same work -- 29,109-110; The Care That Should be Taken of the Dead, 1,3)
So we see the usual Protestant project of trying to co-opt the Fathers (above all, St. Augustine) for their purposes and views (in an effort to show that Protestantism is entirely "catholic" and in accord with the best of all previous Christian tradition), in the Book of Concord. But the attempt fails miserably, because, as we have seen, modern Protestant scholarship shows many profound differences between Protestantism and St. Augustine, particularly with regard to soteriology and justification in particular.

Does this mean that the Book of Concord and Philip Melanchthon (its primary author) were deliberately dishonest, and rascally scoundrels? I would not make that claim, and I don't think so. Much more likely is that their Protestant and anti-Roman biases simply blinded them to certain facts and thus led to inaccuracies. Or they did inadequate research (there was no Internet in those days which gives someone like myself an ability to come up with relevant materials lightning-fast).
But whatever is true regarding their motives and intentions, the fact of erroneous presentation of St. Augustine as in entire agreement with Protestant distinctives is indisputable. We need go no further than McGrath (no slouch and no mean scholar) to see that very clearly.

I was originally responding to Mathitria's claim that the Reformers were deliberately dishonest. When I asked you where Mathitria got this, you supplied me with this quote from Grisar. Which is why I referred to it as if you had intended it to prove deliberate deceit. It certainly does indicate Melanchthon's use of some degree of "dissimulation" (to use a term Erasmus employed from time to time).

Indeed, and that is why I am quite curious to see if you can locate the entire letter and share it with us.

I wish this surprised me, but it doesn't. Of course, this indicates how false the idea is that the Reformers were all about throwing theology open to ordinary people--they wanted to keep some of the tough issues away from the people just as much as any of their Catholic opponents.

Of course.

However, my point is that Melanchthon clearly did believe that Augustine was in more agreement with the Reformers than with their opponents--just not close enough. Luther held the same view. The Reformed sometimes did also, though generally they tended to be more positive about the Fathers (not what you would expect, but it seems to be the case).

They can believe this, but demonstrating it is another matter.

McGrath is certainly right that imputed righteousness is not in the Fathers, and Luther admitted this. However, the Reformers still believed that Augustine was on their side in some fundamental ways. And many of the self-proclaimed champions of Catholicism do seem to have been rather deaf to the Augustinian side of the tradition. Sadoleto's commentary on Romans was in fact condemned at Rome for semi-Pelagianism, and I believe Pighius also had some trouble in this regard (these are two of Calvin's more famous Catholic opponents). Unfortunately, Girolamo Seripando (general of the Augustinian Order) never went head to head with the Reformers, as far as I know. It would have been interesting to see what he would have said. Seripando is clearly more faithful to Augustine than Luther or Calvin. I'm not sure the same could be said of all the Catholic theologians of that era. And not all of Seripando's Augustinian views were accepted at Trent.

It's because there were lots of theories on justification flying around. People were confused. But someone like Aquinas wasn't confused about the issue. Because the late Middle Ages was trying to move away from Aquinas and Scholasticism, we got all the semi-Pelagianism and other goofy mystical theories being bandied about. Too bad it took so long to get Trent to clarify things. But once it did it was brilliant.

Patristic scholarship was still only just getting off the ground at this point, and many of the best patristic scholars became Protestants. It wasn't till the turn of the 17th century that Catholics recovered the edge. The Protestants did use a lot of bogus arguments to try to show that the Fathers were on their side. I agree with you that these arguments were probably mostly in good faith.
I think people (of any viewpoint) often see what they want to see, and don't see what they don't want to see.

I don't know all the details of the controversies leading up to the Formula of Concord. I don't know off the top of my head which Lutheran camp the Pomeranians fall into, though they sound like hardline "Gnesio-Lutherans." However, it would be a mistake to assume that they represent Lutheranism as a whole. On the contrary, they were clearly upset with the more general practice of claiming Augustine's authority.

No one was saying they represent Lutheranism "as a whole." My point in citing that was to show that even among Protestants there were parties who knew that Augustine was being inaccurately claimed as a precursor in some things. I saw it with my own eyes, looking through the Book of Concord. Now, I hope you discover the letter of Melanchthon and produce it here, so we can wrap this up.

I did look up the Melanchthon letter. It turned out to be quite interesting from the point of view of my dissertation (one recently completed--but still much-to-be-revised--chapter of which compares my guy Martin Bucer with Luther and Melanchthon on the subject of law vs. Gospel; some of the things Melanchthon is criticizing Brenz for are pretty much what Bucer said).

Yes; there is much more of soteriology in it than of Augustine and how he was viewed or utilized by the first Protestants.

I've translated Melanchthon's entire letter and part of Brenz's reply. My translation was pretty quick . . . I tried to err on the side of literalism, especially where theological concepts were being discussed.
Thanks for doing this; I appreciate it. Here it is (I broke it up in paragraphs myself -- so that will not necessarily reflect original paragraphs -- if there were any):
[Background and context: Melanchthon had written to Brenz on April 8, saying that he understood why Brenz, a newly married man, hadn’t written, but asking him to start corresponding again. He also sent some propositions about justification. Brenz must have commented on them in a letter not found in the collection of Melanchthon’s correspondence. In mid-May Melanchthon responded]:
I received your rather long letter, which I enjoyed very much. I beg you to write often and at length. Regarding faith, I have figured out what your problem is (1). You still hold on to that notion of Augustine’s, who gets to the point of denying that the righteousness of reason is reckoned for righteousness before God—and he thinks rightly. Next he imagines that we are counted righteous on account of that fulfillment of the Law which the Holy Spirit works in us. So you imagine that people are justified by faith, because we receive the Holy Spirit by faith, so that afterwards we can be righteous by the fulfillment of the law which the Holy Spirit works in us.
This notion places righteousness in our fulfillment, in our cleanness or perfection, even though this renewal must follow faith. But you should turn your eyes completely away from this renewal and from the law, and toward the promise and Christ, and you should think that we are righteous, that is, accepted before God, and find peace of conscience, on account of Christ, and not on account of that renewal. For this new quality itself does not suffice. Therefore we are righteous by faith alone, not because it is the root, as you write, but because it lays hold of Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, whatever this new life (2) may be like—indeed it follows necessarily, but it does not give the conscience peace.
Therefore love, which is the fulfillment of the law, does not justify, but faith alone, not because it is a certain perfection in us, but only because it lays hold of Christ. We are righteous, not on account of love, not on account of the fulfillment of the law, not on account of our new life, even though these things are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but on account of Christ; and we lay hold of this only through faith.
Augustine does not fully accord with (3) Paul’s pronouncement, even though he gets closer to it than the Scholastics. And I cite Augustine as fully agreeing with us (4) on account of the public conviction about him, even though he does not explain the righteousness of faith well enough. Believe me, dear Brenz, the controversy about the righteousness of faith is great and obscure. Nonetheless, you will understand it rightly if you totally take your eyes away from the law and Augustine’s notion about the fulfillment of the law, and fix your mind rather on the free promise, so that you think that we are righteous (that is, accepted) and find peace on account of the promise and on account of Christ. This pronouncement is true and makes Christ’s glory shine forth and wonderfully raises up [people’s] consciences. I have tried to explain it in the Apology, but it was not possible to speak in the same way there as I do now because of the calumnies of our opponents, even though I am saying the same thing essentially. (5)
When would the conscience have peace and a sure hope if it had to think that we are only counted righteous when that new life has been made perfect within us? What is this other than to be justified on the basis of the law, not the free promise? In the disputation I said this: that to attribute justification to love is to attribute justification to our work. There I have in mind the work done by the Holy Spirit in us. For faith justifies, not because it is a new work of the Holy Spirit in us, but because it lays hold of Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, not on account of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.
If you will consider that the mind must be brought back from Augustine’s notion, you will easily understand the issue. Also, I hope to help you in some way by means of our apology, even if I speak cautiously of such things, which however cannot be understood except in the conflict of the conscience. The people indeed ought to hear the preaching of law and repentance; but meanwhile this true pronouncement of the Gospel must not be passed over. I ask you to write again, and let me know your judgment about this letter and the apology—whether this letter has satisfactorily answered your question. Farewell.
Phil. Mel.
Luther’s P.S.
And I, dear Brenz, in order to get a better grip on this issue frequently imagine it this way: as if in my heart there is no quality that is called faith or charity, but instead of them I put Christ himself and say: this is my righteousness; He is the quality and my formal righteousness, as they call it. In this way I free myself from the perception (6) of the law and works, and even from the perception of this object, Christ (7), who is understood as a teacher or a giver; but I want Him to be my gift and teaching in Himself, so that I may have all things in Him. (8) So he says: I am the way, the truth and the life. He does not say: I give you the way, the truth and the life, as if He worked in me while being placed outside of me. He must be such things in me, remain in me, live in me, speak not through me but into me (9), 2 Cor. 5; so that we may be righteousness in Him, not in love or in gifts that follow.
(1) Lit. “I hold/grasp what exercises you/should excercise you/might exercise you”.
(2) Lit. newness.
(3) Lit., does not satisfy.
(4) Melanchthon uses a Greek word which means “one who says the same”; “with us” is my addition since it’s understood in the original.
(5) Lit. in the thing/matter itself.
(6) Latin: ab intuitu.
(7) Or in another reading, this objective Christ.
(8) “Object” means “object of thought”—Luther’s point is that he doesn’t even think of Christ as a source of teaching or of gifts, such as the gift of charity.
(9) Luther uses the Greek here.
I think this correspondence makes it clear that there were disagreements among the Reformers about just how authoritative Augustine was and how close their teaching was to his. While Brenz's letter to which Melanchthon took exception appears to have been lost (or perhaps just hasn't been edited), his reply makes a very Augustinian point, namely that faith is itself a work. I would also say that Bucer, on whom I'm writing my dissertation, is more Augustinian (and in places even Thomist) than many of the other Reformers. Which I don't think contradicts anything you were saying.

No; I would expect differences on the continuum.

But the impression you gave, at least as quoted by Mathitria, was that the Reformers as a whole could not justify their views by the Fathers and realized not only that they couldn't but that this was a serious problem, so they resulted to dishonesty to cover it up.

The claim of my earlier paper was simply: "the Protestants had departed from patristic precedent." That is certainly an unarguable statement as it stands (people like McGrath and Oberman and Pelikan and Kelly establish it beyond all doubt -- even Norman Geisler, when he admits that imputed justification was unknown from the time of Paul to that of Luther). I said nothing about dishonesty -- let alone deliberate dishonesty. I simply cited the portion of the letter that Grisar had and let the reader decide for himself how to interpret it. My view, as it turns out, is identical to your own: it wasn't deliberate lying or deception, but a certain "playing fast and loose with the facts":
They were not above claiming Augustine and neglecting to make it clear that the agreement was not total.
The most the Melanchthon letter means is that at least one Reformer was willing to exaggerate the degree of Augustine's agreement with him for polemical purposes.
It certainly does indicate Melanchthon's use of some degree of "dissimulation" . . .
So we agree on that, and nothing in the letter as a whole suggests otherwise. Therefore, Grisar was not citing it in a hyper-polemical, unscholarly way himself. As far as I am concerned, he is vindicated, at least insofar as pertains to his use of this letter. You claimed he was so biased that I shouldn't have trusted him to even accurately present a portion of a letter. We continue to disagree on that. If you wish to show that Grisar was so polemical and "anti-Luther" that he can't be trusted, you will have to show it elsewhere. I get tired of hearing this claim from Protestants, but never seeing any hard evidence of it. So the weariness concerning the use and/or abuse of Grisar works both ways, methinks.

Please bear in mind that my initial issue was not with what you actually said but with what Mathitria was saying.

I understand that, but you raised larger issues about Grisar and apologetic / historiographical methodology, which I felt were important to deal with.

He cited you as an authority, and it is clear that he cited you incorrectly.

It may have been a problem of terminology. We probably don't need to blame Mathitria anymore than we need to blame Melanchthon. The important thing is to get to the facts. If I hadn't cited this particular letter from Grisar, you probably would have never heard of it or read it -- let alone learned something about Melanchthon and Luther's relationship to Augustine. So see, we do work together after all, and you and I agree about Melanchthon's (and Luther's) view of Augustine. And we appear to agree with the interpretation of a guy like McGrath, who represents current-day scholarship.

Note, however, that McGrath also backs up Grisar's main point in all this: that Augustine's view was different from the early Protestants, and that this was underplayed and ignored in documents such as the Book of Concord. That was always his beef (and mine), because it (yet again) cuts through the nonsense of early Protestantism supposedly returning to the patristic teachings. One can't return to something that never was. That makes Protestantism a revolution, not a reform, and this is what I have always held, since my conversion in 1990.

You went and found the actual letter in question, and what it showed was exactly what I (and Grisar) claimed for it in the beginning. So there was nothing even methodologically questionable here. I simply quoted a letter from a secondary source (but that source was a reputable historian and author of a six-volume work on one man).

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 28 January 2004.

* * * * *

The Wickedness of Christian Division, Anti-Catholicism, and Anti-Protestantism

I wrote the following (8-11-03), disgusted, upon deciding to leave an anti-Catholic discussion board. It expresses my very strong feelings concerning the tragedy of Christian division and how it harms the Body of Christ and the larger culture and society we live in: 


A two-year-old child of a friend of my wife's was struck by a car and killed today. This is real life, which consists of unutterably tragic things like a child being killed, and comforting a very distraught wife and dealing with a world in which such things can happen, and working through the problem of evil (which I have long considered the most serious objection to Christianity, though certainly not a disproof).

I lost my only brother to leukemia five years ago. I watched him waste away and die (I have his picture on my home page, at the bottom). His own wife died suddenly ten years before that. Then he lost his job and was diagnosed with leukemia within a year. That's real life. The piddly, petty, juvenile crap that goes on in many (not all, by any means) posts on this bulletin board and every other one I have found where Catholics and Protestants try to interact like adults, is not real life. It is scandalous, disgusting, an ego trip, an exercise in futility. Much of such "dialogue" (again, not all, but quite a bit) is a waste of time and an insult to any conscientious Christian's intelligence (on any side, including my Orthodox brothers and sisters).

Real life is this country and world going to hell in a handbasket, with legal abortion for 30 years, and partial-birth infanticide, and now legal sodomy, and soon-to-be legal homosexual "marriage" and a homosexual practicing bishop in the Episcopal Church; broken families, pornography everywhere, sewer bilge piped into network TV, rotten schools, massive social and crime problems in the large cities (I'm right outside Detroit and grew up in a working-class neighborhood there), etc., etc.

Meanwhile, fellow Christians (who actually agree on the great bulk of these social and moral problems) slug it out daily, so that Satan can win the victory. Divide and conquer. Let the nation go to hell. Let souls go to hell who are out there waiting to hear the Good News. Instead the lost in a lost world get to see Christians treating each other like morons.

Let them all go to hell. Never try to work together with a Catholic brother (like myself) who has web pages on many things about which most of us here would agree: abortion, sexual and gender issues, atheism, the Trinity, the cults, racial issues, Judaism, defenses of the Resurrection of Jesus, etc. That would never do. No, instead we must have the accusations and insinuations and rank insults. You don't know me. You can't read my heart. You don't know what motivates me.

And you wonder why I don't want to stay here? Get a life! Go to a soup kitchen or to a crisis pregnancy center. Get out in real life and try to alleviate some of the suffering and emptiness and hopelessness out there, rather than sit here and lie about your fellow Christian brethren. Go be with your family; work out problems and grudges and disagreements with family and friends in "real life." Tell them you love and appreciate them; anything but the nonsense that regularly goes down on this discussion board.

For my part, I am interested in other things, like making sure I show love every day to my wife and four children, lest I lose any of them suddenly in some horrible fashion. I'm motivated to share the gospel with the lost and to show forth love and charity to friends and strangers, to be a light in this dark world, by God's grace. I want to share with atheists the hope that is in me, and with cultists that there is a better way. I want to continue to fight for traditional morality (and I have written about all these issues).

That doesn't happen on this board. Here we fight and lie about each other. I refuse to do it. And it will never end as long as Protestants here deny that Catholics are Christians, because it is a condescension and a bigotry which refuses to be corrected. And whenever bigotry against Protestants or Orthodox occurs amongst Catholics, I condemn that with equal vigor. Don't do it! Don't fall into Satan's trap and ploy.

Love your Christian brothers and sisters. Treat them with respect. Share with them and show them that you are a Christian too. Believe the best of them. Talk about things you agree on once in a while. Make this a positive experience and witness. Don't fall into the silly rhetoric and baiting and divisive sniping and backbiting and polemics and quarreling (as I have too often done, to my shame).

This is what I would like to share with anyone who regards me as some type of figurehead or leader in the Catholic Internet community. This is what I'll leave you with. Keep the faith, but love those who disagree with you, and be as charitable and unassuming as you can. If you don't feel that way, don't post; take a day and pray or read the Bible and come back and try to do better next time.

To the Catholics in particular: please forgive me all my shortcomings, manifested on this board. I'm not your model. Don't look to me, but to our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the "author and finisher" of our faith.

God bless you all.

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525)


I. Introduction and Statement of Purpose
II. Luther's Own Words, in Chronological Order


Opinions of Church Historians:

III. Roland Bainton
IV. Philip Schaff
V. Will Durant
VI. Owen Chadwick
VII. Warren H. Carroll
VIII. Gunther Franz
IX. Joseph Lortz
X. Johannes Janssen
XI. Hartmann Grisar, S.J.
XII. James Mackinnon
XIII. Kyle C. Sessions
XIV. R.H. Murray
XV. Alister E. McGrath
XVI. Henri Daniel-Rops
XVII. Philip Hughes
XVIII. Preserved Smith
XIX. H.G. Koenigsberger
XX. Harold J. Grimm
XXI. Bibliography

I. Introduction and Statement of Purpose

Historians on both sides are in agreement that Luther never supported the Peasants' Revolt (or insurrection in general). Many, however (including Roland Bainton, the famous Protestant author of the biography Here I Stand), believe that he used highly intemperate language that couldn't help but be misinterpreted in the worst possible sense by the peasants. I agree with these Protestant scholars, and this has been my stated position in writing for twelve years now (I initially formed the opinion in 1991 as a result of reading Hartmann Grisar, the Catholic historian who is supposedly so "anti-Luther").

No Catholic (or Protestant) historian I have found -- not even Janssen -- asserts that Luther deliberately wanted to cause the Peasants' Revolt, or that he was the primary cause of it. Quite the contrary . . . My long-held position on this agrees, therefore, with the consensus opinion of historians of all stripes. I think Luther had the typical naivete of many sincerely, deeply-committed and (what might be called) "super-pious" religious people. It is also undeniably true that Luther's thought is highly complex, nuanced, sometimes vacillating or seemingly or actually self-contradictory, and often difficult to understand.

Thus, for him to say the sort of extreme (seemingly straightforward) things that he said, have such opinions distributed by the tens of thousands in pamphlets, and to expect everyone (even uneducated peasants) to understand the proper sense and take into consideration context and so forth, is highly unreasonable and irresponsible. I should like to quote some reputable Protestant or secularist historians in this regard, with whom I wholeheartedly agree:
Roland Bainton: "A movement so religiously minded could not but be affected by the Reformation . . . Luther certainly had blasted usury . . . His attitude on monasticism likewise admirably suited peasant covetousness for the spoliation of cloisters. The peasants with good reason felt themselves strongly drawn to Luther . . . a complete dissociation of the reform from the Peasants' War is not defensible."
Gordon Rupp: "Luther had indeed laid himself open to misrepresentation."
Owen Chadwick: "his simple and enclosed upbringing prevented him from realizing the effect of violent language upon simple minds. Luther, not an extremist, often sounded like an extremist."
Will Durant: "Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; . . . But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers "poured oil on the flames," and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge . . . The peasants had a case against him. He had not only predicted social revolution, he had said he would not be displeased by it . . . He had made no protest against the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property."
H.G. Koenigsberger: "Only someone of Luther's own naive singleness of mind could imagine that his inflammatory attacks on one of the great pillars of the established order would not be interpreted as an attack on the whole social order, or on that part of it which it suited different interests, from princes to peasants, to attack."
James Mackinnon: "To threaten the princes with the wrath of God was all very well, but such a threat would have no effect in remedying the peasants' grievances, and they might well argue that God had chosen them, as he practically admitted, to be the effective agents of His wrath."
Preserved Smith: "Luther, indeed, could honestly say that he had consistently preached the duty of obedience and the wickedness of sedition, nevertheless his democratic message of the brotherhood of man . . . worked in many ways undreamt of by himself. Moreover, he had mightily championed the cause of the oppressed commoner against his masters. 'The people neither can nor will endure your tyranny any longer,' said he to the nobles; . . ."
Luther believed that the papacy and the entire edifice of institutional Catholicism would come to an end, not by an insurrection or rebellion, but by a direct intervention of God Himself (in fact, by nothing less than the Second Coming, as he states more than once). In 1521 and 1522 he was caught up into and (arguably) obsessed by an apocalyptic vision of what was about to happen, in God's providence. This being the case, at first he didn't feel it was necessary to oppose even those who threatened a rebellion (later he changed his mind, when the resulting societal chaos required swift action). Thus he wrote in December, 1521 (source information below):
The spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails. I know quite well that they will get no chance to do so. They may, indeed, use violence against some, but there will be no general use made of violence . . . it will not come to violence, and there is therefore no need that I restrain men's hands . . .
The relationship between this divine wrath and judgment and those whom God uses to execute it, however, remains somewhat obscure, unclear, and ambiguous in Luther's writings. Perhaps the key to this conundrum is found in a remarkable statement he made in a private letter, dated 4 May 1525: "If God permits the peasants to extirpate the princes to fulfil his wrath, he will give them hell fire for it as a reward."

So, while Luther opposed insurrection on principle, there is a tension in his seemingly contradictory utterances between opposition to the populace taking up arms against spiritual and political tyranny, and a deluded confidence and at times almost gleeful wish that apocalyptic judgment was soon to occur, regardless of the means God used to bring it about (one recalls the ancient Babylonians, whom God used to judge the Hebrews). This produces an odd combination of sincere disclaimers against advocating violence, accompanied by (often in the same piece of writing) thinly-veiled quasi-threats and quasi-prophetic judgments upon the powers of the time, sternly warning of the impending Apocalypse and destruction of the "Romish Sodom" and all its pomps, pretenses, corruptions, and vices.

On a more earthly, mundane, practical plane, however, it is astonishing to note how cavalierlry Luther sanctions wholesale theft of ecclesiastical properties (see proofs of this in the passages listed under 12 December 1522 and Spring 1523), on the grounds that the inhabitants had forsaken the "gospel" (as he -- quite conveniently in this case -- defined it, of course). This was to be a hallmark of the "Reformation" in Germany and also in England and Scandinavia, and was justified as a matter of "conscience" by the Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, who flatly refused to return stolen properties, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation with the Catholics. Luther was still rationalizing this outrageous and unjust criminal theft in 1541:
If they are not the church but the devil's whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.
(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)
But back to our more immediate subject: Generally speaking, Luther had a problem with his tongue. And the social repercussions were massive and tragic. The Bible speaks a lot about an unbridled tongue. It is no small sin at all. How German peasants (Luther was of rural peasant stock) may have habitually expressed themselves in the 16th century might be an interesting historical tidbit, but it has no bearing on Christian ethics, where the tongue and slander and causing uproar and divisions are concerned. One doesn't "get off" in God's eyes for real sins because of cultural context. It is all the more serious when such remarks are arguably a major cause in both provoking and violently quelling a rebellion in which some 130,000 human beings lost their lives: almost all violently and cruelly.
Luther might indeed mean one thing when he utters his impassioned hyper-polemical, quasi-prophetic jeremiads (I have no problem with that), but he was (by the looks of it) so naive and lacking in practical wisdom about human nature and human affairs ("worldly" or "real-life" considerations) that he apparently had no idea what harm and ill consequences his words might cause. I agree that this gets him "off the hook" to some extent (I certainly freely grant him his good intentions and sincerity), but not all that much, in my opinion. I still think he bears much responsibility for the resulting extent of the sad division by virtue of his constant polemics (often involving much lying about the Catholic Church).

Furthermore, he seemed to be absolutely naive as to how his own principles would be interpreted, extended, and applied by others. He asserted a more or less absolute primacy of private judgment and conscience at the Diet of Worms in 1521 ("unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason . . ., " etc.). But four years later (precisely because of the fruit and implications of the Peasants' Revolt) he renounced this -- for all practical intents and purposes -- and adopted the largely caesaropapist State Church model where secular princes decided what whole regions had to believe (rather than individuals).

The Anabaptists had gone on to apply his initial principle more consistently than he himself. They advocated non-violence and toleration, whereas the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zwinglians tortured, drowned, and otherwise murdered these fellow Protestants by the thousands (persecution and capital punishment of the Anabaptists was adopted in 1529 at the Diet of Speyer -- where the term "Protestant" originated -- with Luther's consent). Luther's support of a notion that earlier he had believed was wicked, unbiblical, and held only by non-Christians, was further reiterated in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm and in a 1536 pamphlet.

I have contended for a dozen years that Luther's philosophical, epistemological, and socio-political naivete and shortsightedness made him blind to the predictable, probable results of his rhetoric (both angry and calmly theological). So when other groups like the Anabaptists and the Zwinglians differed from him on baptism and the Eucharist (using his own principles of private judgment in so doing), 
Luther thought this was ineffably scandalous and inexcusable -- never noting the irony that it was no less (in fact, much more) absurd or unwarranted for fellow Protestants to disagree with him (as simply one self-anointed man who claimed to be speaking only for God) than it was for he himself to dissent from longstanding Catholic tradition. 

To then advocate the death penalty for such "dissidents" was highly ironic and odd (to put it mildly), given his earlier ethical positions on the use of force.

Things like these are what continue to fascinate me about Luther. He was an undeniably courageous man and a passionately-committed Christian, but he was also a greatly-flawed man, and such persons often cause much harm in society, to the extent that they are culturally influential (as Luther obviously was). Since the myths and lionization of Luther as the Great Super-Hero and Slayer of Corrupt Catholicism/Babylon and Restorer of the Bible and the Gospel from Romish Darkness persist, I take it as part of my duty to explore and make more known other lesser-known aspects of the man (and of the Catholic Church that he so slandered and falsely portrayed), so people will get the whole picture, and not a tremendously one-sided, slanted one.

My purpose is not (at ALL) to demonize Luther or make him out to be bad, evil, or the devil incarnate, but only to present a fuller historical picture (whatever the truth is: "positive" or "negative") and to make some criticisms where I think they are warranted (with the background support of historians on all sides). This doesn't amount to equating Luther with Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, or Joseph Stalin; it is simply viewing him as a fallen, flawed man, as all of us are. He shouldn't "get a pass" simply because he opposed the Catholic Church: the thing that so many people detest and loathe.

Nor does every Catholic criticism of Luther or early or later Protestantism amount to deliberate slander, with a propagandistic, "I must always make my own side come off looking righteous and saintly, at all costs" intent. There is such a thing as legitimate historiography and reasonable opinions drawn therefrom. And (thankfully) such scholarship can (and very often does, at least on a scholarly level) unite Protestants and Catholics where it concerns certain verified facts. I write as a mere lay apologist and non-scholar, but I enlist reputable historians and copious quotations from Luther himself in order to arrive at my conclusions, both "positive" and "negative" -- as the case may be (just as the professional historians do).

In what follows (all quotations henceforth, excepting introductory remarks here and there), I shall use the following highlighting and identifying codes:

Red = "inflammatory, violent" statements of Luther (not intended on my part to imply in any way, shape, or form that he was necessarily calling for literal violence, but rather, to highlight remarks which were of a nature that arguably, understandably could easily be interpreted -- even if wrongly -- as advocating violence and insurrection of the sort characteristic of the Peasants' Revolt)
Blue = statements of Luther indicating his fundamental opposition to insurrection of the non-governmental masses and resort to physical violence for spiritual or ecclesiastical ends and goals
Green = statements by historians having a particular relevance to the question at hand: the relationship between Luther's rhetoric (and also theology, to a lesser extent) and the Peasants' Revolt of 1524-1525

Affiliations of historians will be noted where known (with question marks in cases where affiliation is suspected but not known for sure):

P = Protestant
C = Catholic
S = Secular

Citations will simply refer to the author of books in the bibliography, and page number. Whatever doesn't appear there will be fully-documented after the quote itself.

II. Luther's Own Words, in Chronological Order


If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . .
(O'Connor, 41; LL, I, 417; Letter to Georg Spalatin)

I have an idea that a revolution is about to take place unless God withhold Satan . . . The Word of God can never be advanced without whirlwind, tumult, and danger . . . One must either despair of peace and tranquillity or else deny the Word. War is of the Lord who did not come to send peace. Take care not to hope that the cause of Christ can be advanced in the world peacefully and sweetly, since you see the battle has been waged with his own blood and that of the martyrs.
(Smith, 72; same letter to Georg Spalatin)

25 JUNE 1520

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

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

Rupp (p. 93): Von Sickingen and Hutten tried to get Luther to join them, for they meditated open war. In those notes on Prierias, which mark his decisive break with Rome, Luther had indeed laid himself open to misrepresentation by quoting Psalm 58,10:":

If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword and heretics with fire, why do we not turn with force of arms against these teachers of iniquity . . . why do we not "wash our hands in their blood"?

Durant (p. 351): "In the spring of 1520 Luther published, with furious notes, an Epitome in which he quoted the most recent and still uncompromising claims made by orthodox theologians for the primacy and powers of the popes. Luther met extremes with extremes:":

If Rome thus believes and teaches with the knowledge of popes and cardinals (which I hope is not the case), then in these writings I freely declare that the true Antichrist is sitting in the temple of God and is reigning in Rome -- that empurpled Babylon -- and that the Roman Curia is the synagogue of Satan . . . If the fury of the Romanists thus goes on, there will be no remedy left except that the emperors, kings, and princes, girt about with force and arms, should attack these pests of the world. and settle the matter no longer by words but by the sword . . . If we strike thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, heretics by fire, why do we not much more attack in arms these masters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all this sink of the Roman Sodom which has without end corrupted the Church of God, and wash our hands in their blood?
(Durant, 351; from WA, VIII, 203)

Schaff (VII, § 44, "Address to the German Nobility"): ". . . the book nowhere counsels war; . . . this extreme and isolated passage is set aside by his repeated declarations against carnal warfare, and was provoked by the astounding assertions of Prierias, the master of the papal palace, that the Pope was the infallible judge of all controversies, the head of all spiritual, the father of all secular princes, the head of the Church and of the whole universe . . . Against such blasphemy Luther breaks out in these words [then follows a citation of this passage in Latin] . . . He means a national resistance under the guidance of the Emperor and rightful rulers."

Rupp (pp. 93-94, citing WA: Br. 2.272.35): "Yet a few weeks later Luther made his meaning plain when he described Hutten's anti-clerical plans as 'to make war on women and children'.

30 JULY 1520

I expound my philosophy without slaughter and blood.

(Smith, 77; letter to Gerard Listrius at Zwolle, from Wittenberg)

18 AUGUST 1520

We are here persuaded that the papacy is the seat of the true and genuine Antichrist, against whose deceit and iniquity we think all things are lawful unto us for the salvation of souls . . . From my heart I hate that man of sin and son of perdition, with all his kingdom, which is nothing but sin and hypocrisy.

(Smith, 86; letter to John Lang at Erfurt, from Wittenberg)

13 OCTOBER 1520

. . . The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness. Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions . . . It is all over with the court of Rome: the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost . . . I have always grieved that you, most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made pontiff in this. For the Roman court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are . . . Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful, than the court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, can not be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men, — to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf . . . I commend myself to your Holiness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.
(Schaff, VII, § 46, "Christian Freedom — Luther's Last Letter to the Pope"; Letter to Pope Leo X)


Janssen (III, 136) noted how Luther's friend, the minor "reformer" Wolfgang Capito, wisely and prophetically warned Luther on on this date about his bone-chilling invective:
"You are frightening away from you your supporters by your constant reference to troops
and arms. We can easily enough throw everything into confusion, but it will not be in our
power, believe me, to restore things to peace and order."


All the strife and the wars of the Old Testament prefigured the preaching of the Gospel which must produce strife, dissension, disputes, disturbance. Such was the condition of Christendom when it was at its best, in the times of the apostles and martyrs.

That is a blessed dissension, disturbance, and commotion which is produced by the Word of God; it is the beginning of true faith and of war against false faith; it is the coming again of the days of suffering and persecution and the right condition of Christendom.

(Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat [Jerome Emser], PE, III, 287-305, translated by A. Steimle; citation from p. 303)

16 JANUARY 1521

What Hutten is looking for, you see. I refuse to fight for the Gospel with force and slaughter. With the Word, the world was won, and by it the Church is preserved, and by it the Church will be restored. For as Antichrist arose without arms, so without arms will it be confounded.
(Rupp, 94; Schaff, VII, § 42; WA: Br. 2.249.13; Letter to Georg Spalatin)

You see what Hutten wants. I would not have the Gospel defended by violence and murder. In that sense I wrote to him. By the Word the world was conquered; by the Word the Church was preserved; by the Word she will be restored. Antichrist, as he began without violence, will be crushed without vilence, by the Word.
(PE, III, 204, translated by W.A. Lambert; LL, I, 543; Letter to Georg Spalatin)

MARCH 1521

What wonder if princes, nobles and laity should smite the heads of the pope, bishops, priests, and monks, and drive them from the land?

(Grisar [1], 172; Wider die Bulle des Endchrists; / Assertion of All the Articles Condemned by the Last Bull of Antichrist; WA, VI, 614 ff.; EA, XXIV-2, 38 ff.)

Bainton (p. 115): "Luther explained afterwards that he really did not mean what the words [see 25 June 1520, above] imply":

I wrote "If we burn heretics, why do we not rather attack the pope and his followers with the word and wash our hands in their blood?" Since I do not approve of burning heretics nor of killing any Christian -- this I well know does not accord with the gospel -- I have shown what they deserve if heretics deserve fire. There is no need to attack you with the sword.
(Bainton, 115; from WA, VII, 645-646)

Bainton (p. 116): "Despite this disclaimer Luther was never suffered to forget his incendiary blast. It was quoted against him in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. The disavowal was genuine."

Emser lies again when he says that I wish the laity might wash their hands in the blood of the priests [see 25 June 1520, above] . . . I wrote against Sylvester per contentionem [footnote: "A term in rhetoric meaning a contrasting of one thought with another"], as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows; I said, if heretics are to be burned, why not rather attack the pope and his adherents with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that the Holy Scriptures derive their authority from the pope. And since I do not approve of burning the heretics, I likewise do not approve of killing any Christian. I know very well that it is not in accord with the Gospel. I simply showed what they deserved if heretics deserve to be burned. It is not at all necesssary to attack you with the sword . . . your tactics with your burnings and bans, your raging and raving against the plain truth, look as if you were eager to stir up another Bohemian episode and bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy which is going the rounds that the priests are to be slain. If such destruction should come upon you, you must not blame me -- just keep on, the road you are on leads right to it . . . I hope you realize that no one shall destroy the pope but yourselves, even his own creatures, as the prophet has said.

But tell me, dear Emser, since you dare to put it down on paper that it is right and necessary to burn heretics and think that this does not soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to take you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your adherents and put you to a most shameful death? Since you dare to publish a doctrine that is not only heretical but antichristian, which all the devils would not venture to utter -- that the Gospel must be confirmed by the pope, that its authority is bound up with the pope's authority, and that what is done by the pope is done by the church. What heretic has ever thus at one stroke condemned and destroyed God's Word? Therefore I still declare and maintain that, if heretics deserve the stake, you and the pope ought to be put to death a thousand times. But I would not have it done. Your judge is not far off, He will find you without fail and without delay.

. . . what would become of the papacy . . . ? Christ Himself must abolish it by coming with the final judgment; nothing else will avail.

(Dr. Martin Luther's Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Superlearned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, With a Glance at His Comrade Murner, PE, III, 307-401, translated by A. Steimle; citations from 343-344, 366)

MAY 1521

Grisar [I] (193): "Spalatin he informed [12 May 1521] that he was aggrieved at this procedure [the edict of outlawry], not for his own sake, but because his opponents thereby heaped disaster upon their heads and the time of their punishment was evidently at hand . . . In these first letters he also rejoices in the unchained power of the masses (moles vulgi imminentis), who were, he said, preparing terror for the authors of the edict and all his persecutors; it is evident, he adds, that the people are unwilling and unable to tolerate any longer the yoke of the pope and the papists ...
'Swine and asses are able to see how stubbornly they act . . . What if my death should prove a disaster to you all? God is not to be trifled with.' "
(Grisar [1], 193; EA, Br. III, 153)

14 MAY 1521

Tomorrow the Emperor's safe-conduct expires. I regret what you write about their savage edict for trying consciences, not so much for my own sake as because they are inviting evil on their own heads and will only succeed in making themselves odious. Such indecent violence will only arouse deep hatred. But let it pass, perhaps the time of their visitation is at hand . . . We see that the people are neither able nor willing . . . to bear the yoke of the Pope and the papists; therefore let us not cease to press upon it and to pull it down . . . We have grown by violence and driven them back by violence; we must see if they can be driven back any more. I sit here lazy and drunken the whole day . . .
(Smith, 122; letter to Georg Spalatin at Worms from the Wartburg)


Now it seems probable that there is danger of an insurrection, and that priests, monks, bishops, and the entire spiritual estate may be murdered or driven into exile, unless they seriously and thoroughly reform themselves. For the common man . . . is neither able nor willing to endure it longer, and would indeed have good reason to lay about him with flails and cudgels, as the peasants are threatening to do . . .

Now, I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny. Would to God their terror and fear were even greater. But I feel quite confident, and have no fear whatever that there will be an insurrection, at least one that would be general and affect all the clergy . . .

. . . any man who can and will may threaten and frighten them, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled, which say of such evil doers, in Psalm xxxvi, "Their iniquity is made manifest that men may hate them" . . .

According to the Scriptures such fear and anxiety come upon the enemies of God as the beginning of their destruction. Therefore it is right, and pleases me well, that this punishment is beginning to be felt by the papists who persecute and condemn the divine truth. They shall soon suffer more keenly . . . Already an unspeakable severity and anger without limit has begun to break upon them. The heaven is iron, the earth is brass. No prayers can save them now. Wrath, as Paul says of the Jews,is come upon them to the uttermost. God's purposes demand far more than an insurrection. As a whole they are beyond the reach of help . . . The Scriptures have foretold for the pope and his followers an end far worse than bodily death and insurrection . . .

These texts [having cited Dan 8:25, 2 Thess 2:8, Is 11:4, Ps 10:15] teach us how both the pope and his antichristian government shall be destroyed . . .

If once the truth is recognized and made known, pope, priests, monks, and the whole papacy will end in shame and disgrace . . .

. . . these texts [2 Thess 2:8, 1 Thess 5:3] have made me certain that the papacy and the spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails. I know quite well that they will get no chance to do so. They may, indeed, use violence against some, but there will be no general use made of violence . . .
. . . it will not come to violence, and there is therefore no need that I restrain men's hands . . . what is done by constituted authority cannot be regarded as rebellion . . . But the mind of the common man we must calm, and tell him to give way not even to the passions and words which lead to insurrection, and to do nothing at all unless commanded to do so by his superiors or assured of the co-operation of the authorities . . . there will be no real violence. All that men are saying and thinking on the subject amounts to nothing more than wasted words and idle thoughts . . .

. . . princes and nobles . . . ought to do their part, oppose the evil with all the power of their sword, in the hope that they might turn aside and moderate at least some of the wrath of God, as Moses did according to Exodus xxxii . . . I do not mean that the priests ought to be killed, for that is not necessary, but that whatever they do beyond and contrary to the Gospel should be forbidden by commands properly enforced. Words and edicts will more than suffice in dealing with thm; there is no need of more material weapons.

. . . insurrection is an unprofitable method of procedure, and never results in the desired reformation. For insurrection is devoid of reason and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made. The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished.

. . . My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made, however wrong the cause they stand for . . . God has forbidden insurrection . . . insurrection is nothing else than being one's own judge and avenger, and that God cannot endure . . . God will have nothing to do with it . . .

. . . the devil . . . wants to stir up an insurrection through those who glory in the Gospel, and hopes in this way to bring our teaching into contempt, as if the devil and not God were its author. Some men are already making much of this interpretation in their preaching, as a result of the attack on the priests which the devil inspired at Erfurt . . . Those who read and understand my teaching correctly will not make an insurrection. They have not so learned from me . . .

. . . we must slay him ["the pope and his papists"] with words; the mouth of Christ must do it . . . This will do more good than a hundred insurrections. Our violence will do him no harm at all, but rather make him stronger, as many have experienced before now . . .

Therefore you need not desire an armed insurrection. Christ has Himself already begun an insurrection with His mouth which will be more than the pope can bear . . .

(An Earnest Exhortation for all Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion, PE, III, 201-222, translated by W.A. Lambert, citations from pp. 206-213, 215-216; also in LW, vol. 45, 57-74 [revised translation by Walther I. Brandt]; WA, VIII, 676-687, EA, XXII, 44-59; )

Smith (p. 137): "It may be doubted whether this pamphlet was expressed in really prudent terms, and whether it would not be more likely to excite discontent than to allay it."


Some . . . will not treat our gospel rightly; but have we not gibbets, wheels, swords, and knives? Those who are obdurate can be brought to reason.
(Janssen, III, 266)

The spiritual powers . . . also the temporal ones, will have to succumb to the Gospel, either through love or through force, as is clearly proved by all Biblical history.
(Janssen, III, 267; Letter to Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony)


. . . the Rhine is scarcely large enough to drown all the scoundrels . . . retailers of bulls, cardinals, legates . . .

Grisar [1] (211): "Did such language serve his previously mentioned purpose to quell violence and sedition?"

(Grisar [1], 211; Vom Abendfressen des allerheiligsten Herrn des Papstes; WA, VIII, 601 ff.; EA, XXIV-2, 166 ff.)

5 MARCH 1522

If I thought your Grace could and would defend me by force, I would not come. The sword ought not and cannot decide a matter of this kind. God alone must rule it without human care and cooperation.
(Smith, 145; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, at Lochau)

7 MARCH 1522

I fear -- alas, I feel sure! -- that there will be a great uprising in Germany, with which God will punish the German nation, for we see that the gospel pleases the common people greatly, and they receive it in a fleshly sense; they see that it is true, but will not use it rightly.
(LW, vol. 45, 58; also WA, Br. 2, 461, 469; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony)

8 or 10 MARCH 1522

I will preach, speak, write, but I will force no one; for faith must be voluntary. Take me as an example. I stood up against the Pope, indulgences, and all papists, but without violence or uproar. I only urged, preached, and declared God's Word, nothing else. And yet while I was asleep, or drinking Wittenberg beer with my Philip Melanchthon and Amsdorf, the Word inflicted greater injury on popery than prince or emperor ever did. I did nothing, the Word did every thing. Had I appealed to force, all Germany might have been deluged with blood; yea, I might have kindled a conflict at Worms, so that the Emperor would not have been safe. But what would have been the result? Ruin and desolation of body and soul. I therefore kept quiet, and gave the Word free course through the world. Do you know what the Devil thinks when he sees men use violence to propagate the gospel? He sits with folded arms behind the fire of hell, and says with malignant looks and frightful grin: 'Ah, how wise these madmen are to play my game! Let them go on; I shall reap the benefit. I delight in it.' But when he sees the Word running and contending alone on the battle-field, then he shudders and shakes for fear. The Word is almighty, and takes captive the hearts."
(Schaff, VII, § 68, "Luther Restores Order in Wittenberg," second of eight sermons preached upon his return from the Wartburg; also in a different translation in Smith, 148; the sermons appear in PE, II, 395 ff.)

17 MARCH 1522

What our friends attempt by force and violence must be resisted by word only, overcome by word and destroyed by word. It is Satan who urges us to extreme measures. I condemn masses held as sacrifices and good works, but I would not lay hands on those who are unwilling to give them up or on those who are doubtful about them, nor would I prevent them by force. I condemn by word only; whoso believes, let him believe and follow, whoso does not believe, let him not believe and depart. No one is to be compelled to the faith or to the things that are of faith, but to be drawn by word that he may believe and come of his own accord.
(Smith, 149; letter to Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, from Wittenberg)

19 MARCH 1522

I greatly fear that if the princes continue to listen to that dull-witted Duke George there will be an uprising which will destroy the princes and rulers of all Germany and will involve all of the clergy; that is the way I see it.
(LW, vol. 45, 58; also WA, Br. 2, 479; letter to Wenceslaus Link)

We are triumphing over the papal tyranny, which formerly crushed kings and princes; how much more easily, then, shall we not overcome and trample down the princes themselves!
(Durant, 378 / Janssen, III, 268; Letter to Wenzel Link -- presumably the same as the one above)

Durant (p. 378): "These were casual ebullitions, and should not have been taken too literally."

4 JULY 1522

. . . Thus we should punish bishops and spiritual dominion harder and more severely than worldly dominion for two reasons: first, because this spiritual dominion does not derive from God, for God does not know these masked people and St. Nicholas bishops, because they neither teach nor perform any episcopal duties. Nor did they derive from men. They have imposed themselves on others and placed themselves into this rule against God and men, as is the custom of tyrants who rule only out of God’s wrath. Worldly dominion derives from God’s gracious order to suppress the evil and protect the godly, Romans 13[:4] . Second, worldly rule, even though it commits violence and injustice, hurts only the body and property. But spiritual dominion, whenever it is unholy and does not support God’s word, is like a wolf and murderer of the soul, and it is just as though the devil himself were ruling there. That is why one should beware as much of the bishop who does not teach God’s word as of the devil himself. For wherever God’s word is missing, there we certainly find only the devil’s teaching and the murder of souls. For without God’s word the soul can neither live nor be delivered from the devil.

But if they say that one should beware of rebelling against spiritual authority, I answer: Should God’s word be dispensed with and the whole world perish? Is it right that all souls should be killed eternally so that the temporal show of these masks is left in peace? It would be better to kill all bishops and to annihilate all religious foundations and monasteries than to let a single soul perish, not to mention losing all souls for the sake of these useless dummies and idols. What good are they, except to live in lust from the sweat and labor of others and to impede the word of God? They are afraid of physical rebellion and do not care about spiritual destruction. Are they not intelligent, honest people! If they accepted God’s word and sought the life of the soul, God would be with them, since he is a God of peace. Then there would be no fear of rebellion. But if they refuse to hear God’s word and rather rage and rave with banning, burning, killing, and all evil, what could be better for them than to encounter a strong rebellion which exterminates them from the world? One could only laugh if it did happen, as the divine wisdom says, Proverbs 1[:25–27], “You have hated my punishment and misused my teaching; therefore I will laugh at your calamity and I will mock you when disaster strikes you.”
Not God’s word but stubborn disobedience [to God's word] creates rebellion. Whoever rebels against it shall get his due reward. Whoever accepts God’s word does not start unrest, although he is no longer afraid of the masks and does not worship the dummies.

(Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called; LW, vol. 39, 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Quotation from pp. 252-253; WA, vol. 28, 142-201)

Durant (p. 377): "he branded the prelates as the 'biggest wolves' of all, and called upon all good Germans to drive them out by force."

12 DECEMBER 1522

Grisar [1] (228): "Count Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg became the founder of Lutheranism in his territories in virtue of a decree authorized by Luther . . . Luther replied on December 12, 1522 that Count Gunther had naturally expected the monks to preach the Gospel, but if witnesses could testify that they did not preach the true Gospel (of Luther), but papistical heresies, the count would have the right, nay, the duty, to oust them from their parishes."

For it is not unlawful, indeed, it is absolutely right to drive the wolf from the sheepfold . . . A preacher is not given property and tithes in order that he should do injury, but that he should labor profitably. If he does not work to the advantage of the people, the endowments are his no longer.
Grisar [1] (229): "This principle was promptly applied at Schwartzburg. The Count seized the properties and revoked the privileges which his father had given to the Church . . . Luther's reply concerning temporal possessions, taken in connection with certain other statements made by him, reveals an idea truly revolutionary in its consequences. It indicated that, if the clergy refused to preach the new religion, in Germany and in the Church in general, ecclesiastical possessions were no longer secure . . . It is hardly probable that Luther realized in advance all the consequences of his decision in the Schwarzburg affair, though practically it had been acted upon ever since the beginning of the new movement."

(Grisar [1], 228-229; partial translation in Grisar [2], VI, 244: "If the preacher does not make men pious, the goods are no longer his.")


All those who work toward this end and who risk body, property, and honor that the bishoprics may be destroyed and the episcopal government rooted out are God’s dear children and true Christians. They keep God’s commandment and fight against the devil’s order. Or, if they cannot do this, at least they condemn and avoid such a government. On the other hand, all those who obey the government of the bishops and subject themselves to it in willing obedience are the devil’s own servants and fight against God’s order and law . . .

Here you stand against St. Paul, against the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit stands against you. What will you say now? Or have you become dumb? Here you have your verdict: all the world must destroy you and your government. Whoever stands on your side falls under God’s disfavor; whoever destroys you stands in God’s favor.

By no means do I want such destruction and extinction to be understood in the sense of using the fist and the sword, for they are not worthy of such punishment—and nothing is achieved in this way. Rather, as Daniel 8[:25] teaches, “by no human hand” shall the Antichrist be destroyed. Everyone should speak, teach, and stand against him with God’s word until he is put to shame and collapses, completely alone and even despising himself. This is true Christian destruction and every effort should be made to this end . . .

If someone said to me at this point, "Previously you have rejected the pope; will you now also reject bishops and the spiritual estate? Is everything to be turned around?" my answer would be: Judge for yourself and decide whether I turn things around by preferring divine word and order, or whether they turn things around by preferring their order and destroying God's . . . Nobody should look at that which opposes God's word, nor should one care what the consequences may or may not be. Instead, one should look at God's word alone and not worry -- even if angels were involved -- about who will get hurt, what will happen, or what the result will be . . .

. . . Christ, Peter, Paul, and the prophets proclaimed that there would be no greater disaster on earth than the advent of the Antichrist and of the final evil . . .

Since it is clear, then . . . that the bishops are not only masks and idols but also an accursed people before God -- rising up against God's order to destroy the gospel and ruin souls -- every Christian should help with his body and property to put an end to their tyranny. One should cheerfully do everything possible against them, just as though they were the devil himself. One should trample obedience to them just as though it were obedience to the devil; . . .

(Doctor Luther’s Bull and Reformation, LW, vol. 39, 278-283; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Published in LW as part of Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called; but originally published separately in two special editions in 1523, in Erfurt and Augsburg, entitled, The Bull of the Ecclesiastic in Wittenberg Against the Papal Bishops, Granting God's Grace and Merit to All who Keep and Obey It; WA, X-11, 98-158; citations from 278-280, 283)


. . . bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian congregation, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession . . . Whatever such folk do and say must be regarded, therefore, as heathen and secular . . .
Who does not see that all bishops, foundations, monastic houses, universities, with all that are therein, rage against this clear word of Christ . . .? Hence they are certainly to be regarded as murderers, thieves, wolves and apostate Christians . . .

. . . the hearers not only have the power and the right to judge all preaching, but are obliged to judge it under penalty of forfeiting the favor of Divine Majesty. Thus we see in how unchristian a manner the despots dealt with us when they deprived us of this right and appropriated it to themselves. For this thing alone they have richly deserved to be cast out of the Christian Church and driven forth as wolves, thieves and murderers . . .

. . . where there is a Christian congregation which has the Gospel, it not only has the right and power, but is in duty bound . . . under pain of forfeiting its salvation, to shun, to flee, to put down, to withdraw from, the authority which our bishops, abbots, monastic houses, foundations, and the like exercise today . . .

(The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved From Scripture, PE, IV, 75-85, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XI, 406 ff.; EA, XXII, 141 ff.; citations from 75-79)

. . . there is need of great care, lest the possessions of such vacated foundations become common plunder and everyone make off with what he can get . . . the blame is laid at my door whenever monasteries and foundations are vacated . . . This makes me unwilling to take the additional blame if some greedy bellies should grab these spiritual possessions and claim, in excuse of their conduct, that I was the cause of it . . .

In the first place: it would indeed be well if no rural monasteries, such as those of the Benedictines, Cistercians, Celestines, and the like, had ever appeared upon earth. But now that they are here, the best thing is to suffer them to pass away or to assist them, wherever one properly can, to disappear altogether. This may be done in the following ways. first, by suffering the inmates to leave, if they choose, of their own free will . . .

[then follows an exhortation to charitably provide for those who won't or can't leave]

I advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries . . . it is not a case of greed opposing the spiritual possessions, but of Christian faith opposing the monasteries 

. . . I am writing this for those only who understand the Gospel and who have the right to take such action in their own lands, cities and jurisdiction . . .

. . . the third way is best, namely, to devote all remaning possessions to the common fund of a common chest, out of which gifts and loans might be made, in Christian love, to all the needy in the land, whether nobles or commons . . .

I am setting down this advice in accordance with Christian love for Christians alone. We must expect greed to creep in here and there . . . it is better that greed take too much in an orderly way than that the whole thing become common plunder, as it happened in Bohemia. Let everyone examine himself to see what he should take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common chest.
In the third place: the same procedure should be followed with respect to abbacies, foundations, and chapters in control of lands, cities and other possessions. For such bishops and foundations are neither bishops nor foundations; they are really at bottom temporal lords sailing under a spiritual name . . .

In the fourth place: part of the possessions of the monasteries and foundations . . . are based upon usury, which now calls itself everywhere "interest," and which has in but a few years swallowed up the whole world . . . God says, "I hate robbery for burnt offering." [Is 61:8] . . .

But whosoever will not follow this advice nor curb his greed, of him I wash my hands.

(Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest, PE, IV, 92-98, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XII, 11-30; EA, XXII, 106-130; citations from 93-98)


If they kill me, there will be such a slaughter as neither they nor their children will be able to overcome.

(Grisar [1], 193; Zwei kaiserliche uneinige Gebote / Two Discordant Imperial Commandments; WA, XV, 254 ff.)

JUNE 1524

Big thieves hang the little ones . . . what will God say to this at last? He will do as he says by Ezekiel: princes and merchants, one thief with another, He will melt them together like lead and brass, as when a city burns, so that there shall be neither princes nor merchants any more. That time, I fear, is already at the door. We do not think of amending our lives, no matter how great our sin and wrong may be, and He cannot leave wrong unpunished . . . I have done my part to show how richly we have deserved it if God shall come with a rod.

(PE, IV, 35; also cited in Durant, 379; On Trade and Usury, translated by C.M. Jacobs; see also LW, vol. 45, 272, in slightly revised translation by Walther I. Brandt)

JULY 1524

The sole reason for my inditing this letter to your Graces is that I have gathered from the writings of these people, that this same spirit will not be satisfied to make converts by word only, but intends to betake himself to arms and set himself with power against the government, and forthwith raise a riot. Here Satan lets the cat out of the bag, that is, makes public too much. What will this spirit do, when he has won the support of the mob? Truly here at Wittenberg I have heard from the same spirit that his business must be carried through with the sword. I then marked that their plans would come out, namely, to overturn the civil government and themselves become lords of the world. But Christ says his kingdom is not of this world, and teaches the apostles not to be as the rulers of the earth . . . it is my humble duty to do my part, and humbly to pray and warn your Graces to fulfil your duty as civil governors by preventing mischief and by forestalling rebellion.

. . . your Graces could not excuse yourselves before the people and the world if you allowed rebellion and crimes of violence to make headway. If they give out, as they are wont to do with their swelling words, that the spirit drives them on to attempt force, then I answer thus: It is a bad spirit which shows no other fruit than burning churches, cloisters, and images, for the worst rascals on earth can do as much . . .

If they do more than propagate their doctrines by word, if they attempt force, your Graces should say: We gladly allow any one to teach by word, that the right doctrine may be preserved; but draw not the sword, which is ours; if you do, you must leave the country . . .

Now I will close for this time, having humbly prayed your Graces to act vigorously against their storming and ranting, that God's kingdom may be advanced by word only, as becomes Christians, and that all cause of sedition be taken from the multitude (Herr Omnes) which is more than enough inclined to it already. For they are not Christians who would go beyond the word and appeal to force, even if they boast that they are full of holy spirits.

(Smith, 152-153; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony and Duke John of Saxony, from Wittenberg)
It is not a fruit of the Spirit to criticize a doctrine by the imperfect life of the teacher . . . I would have paid little attention to the papists, if only they would teach correctly. Their evil life would not cause much harm . . .

. . . we who are engaged in the ministry of the Word are not allowed to use force . . . Our calling is to preach and to suffer, not to strike and defend ourselves with the fist. Christ and his apostles destroyed no churches and broke no images. They won hearts with the Word of God, then churches and images fell of themselves . . . Look at what I have done. I have never disturbed a stone, broken a thing, or set fire to a cloister. yet because of my word, the monasteries are now empty in many places . . .
. . . they are not Christians who want to go beyond the Word and to use violence . . .

(LW, vol. 40, 49-59; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony and Duke John of Saxony, from Wittenberg, citations from 57-59)


And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden . . .

. . . we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint's image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar, who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil? . . .

I previously have also written against the Allstedtian spirit [the town where the violent radical Thomas Munzer preached], that they will assiduously see to it that preachers who do not teach peacefully, but attract to themselves the mobs and on their own responsibility wantonly break images and destroy churches behind the backs of the authorities, forthwith be exiled.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, Part I, translated by Bernhard Erling; LW, vol. 40, 79-143; WA, XVIII, 62-125, 134-214; citations from 85-86, 96, 103)

4 MAY 1525

If God permits the peasants to extirpate the princes to fulfil his wrath, he will give them hell fire for it as a reward.

(Smith, 162; letter to John Ruhel at Mansfeld, from Seeburg)


To the Princes and Lords

We have no one on earth to thank for this mischievous rebellion, except you princes and lords; and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks . . .

. . . since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, if you do not mend your ways in time. . . the peasants are mustering, and this must result in the ruin, destruction, and desolation of Germany by cruel murder and bloodshed, unless God shall be moved by our repentance to prevent it.

For you ought to know, dear lords, that God is doing this because this raging of yours cannot and will not and ought not be endured for long. You must become different men and yield to God's Word. If you do not do this amicably and willingly, then you will be compelled to it by force and destruction. If these peasants do not do it for you, others will . . . It is not the peasants, dear lords, who are resisting you; it is God Himself . . . There are some of you who have said that they will stake land and people on the extirpation of Lutheran teaching . . .

To make your sin still greater, and ensure your merciless destruction, some of you are beginning to blame this affair on the Gospel and say it is the fruit of my teaching . . . You did not want to know what I taught, and what the Gospel is; now there is one at the door who will soon teach you, unless you amend your ways. You, and everyone else, must bear me witness that I have taught with all quietness, have striven earnestly against rebellion, and have diligently held and exhorted subjects to obedience and reverence toward even your tyrannous and ravenous rule. This rebellion cannot be coming from me. But the murder-prophets, who hate me as much as they hate you, have come among these people and have gone about them for more than three years, and no one has resisted them save me alone . . .

. . . fear God and have respect for His wrath! If it be His will to punish you as you have deserved (and I am afraid that it is), then He would punish you, even though the peasants were a hundred times fewer than they are . . .

Try kindness first, for you do not know what God wills to do, and do not strike a spark that will kindle all Germany and that no one can quench . . .

To the Peasants

. . . the princes and lords . . . are worthy, and have well deserved, that God put them down from their seats . . . Nevertheless, you, too, must have a care that you take up your cause with a good conscience and with justice. If you have a good conscience, you have the comforting advantage that God will be with you, and will help you through . . .

"He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword." That means nothing else than that no one, by his own violence, shall arrogate authority to himself; but as Paul says, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers with fear and reverence" . . .

The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse tumult and rebellion, for to punish wickedness does not belong to everybody, but to the worldly rulers who bear the sword . . .

. . . you do much more wrong when you not only suppress God's word, but tread it under foot, and invade His authority and His law, and put yourselves above God . . .

. . . Christ says that we are not to resist any evil or wrong, but always yield, suffer it, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then put off the name of Christian . . . a child easily grasps that it is Christian law not to strive against wrongs, not to grasp after the sword, not to protect oneself, not to avenge oneself, but to give up life and property, and let who takes it take it . . . Suffering, suffering; cross, cross! This and nothing else, is the Christian law!

. . . I have never drawn sword nor desired revenge. I have begun no division and no rebellion . . . no matter how right you are, it is not for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but rather to suffer wrong and endure evil . . .

On the Third Article

"There shall be no serfs, for Christ has made all men free." This is making Christian liberty an utterly carnal thing. Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets have slaves? Read what St. Paul teaches about servants, who, at that time, were all slaves. Therefore this article is dead against the Gospel. It is a piece of robbery by which every man takes from his lord the body, which has become his lord's property . . . This article would make all men equal, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly, external kingdom; and that is impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot stand unless there is in it an inequality of persons . . .

Admonition to Both Rulers and Peasants

Therefore, dear sirs, there is nothing Christian on either side and nothing Christian is at issue between you, but both lords and peasants are dealing with heathenish, or worldly, right and wrong, and with temporal goods; since, moreover, both parties are acting against God and are under His wrath, as you have heard; . . . attack these matters . . . with justice and not with force or with strife, and do not start an endless bloodshed in Germany. For because both of you are wrong, and both of you would avenge and defend yourselves, both of you will destroy yourselves and God will use one knave to flog another . . .

. . . Germany will be laid waste., and if this bloodshed once starts, it will scarcely cease until everything is destroyed. It is easy to start a fight, but to stop it when we will is not in our power . . .
I have told you that you are both wrong and that your fighting is wrong. You lords are not fighting against Christians . . . but against open robbers and defamers of the Christian name. Those of them who die are already condemned eternally. On the other hand you peasants are not fighting against Christians, but against tyrants, and persecutors of God and man, and murderers of the holy Christ. Those of them who die are also condemned eternally. There you have God's sure verdict upon both parties; that I know. Do what you please to keep your bodies and souls, if you will not follow this verdict.

(An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, PE, IV, 219-244, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 220-227, 230-233, 240-244; WA, XVIII, 292 ff.; EA, XXIV, 259 ff.)

C.M. Jacobs (translator and editor, PE, IV, 206): "The Peasants' War . . . was intimately connected with the Reformation. The teaching of Luther had been taken up eagerly by the lower classes, but they gave it an interpretation that Luther had never intended it to have."

MID-MAY 1525

. . . the pretences which they made in their twelve articles, under the name of the Gospel, were nothing but lies. It is the devil's work that they are at . . .

. . . they have abundantly merited death in body and soul. In the first place they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers, as Christ commands . . . Because they are breaking this obedience, and are setting themselves against the higher powers, wilfully and with violence, they have forfeited body and soul, as faithless, perjured, lying, disobedient knaves and scoundrels are wont to do . . .

. . . they are starting a rebellion, and violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs, by which they have a second time deserved death in body and soul, if only as highwaymen and murderers . . . if a man is an open rebel every man is his judge and executioner, just as when a fire starts, the first to put it out is the best man. For rebellion is not simple murder, but is like a great fire, which attacks and lays waste a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land full of murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the greatest disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you.
In the third place, they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the Gospel, call themselves "Christian brethren," . . . Thus they become the greatest of all blasphemers of God and slanderers of His holy Name, serving the devil, under the outward appearance of the Gospel, thus earning death in body and soul ten times over. I have never heard of more hideous sin . . .

Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure . . .

I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgment . . .

If anyone thinks this too hard, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour.

(Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, PE, IV, 248-254, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 248-251, 254; WA, XVIII, 357-361; EA, XXIV, 288-294)

30 MAY 1525

My opinion is that it is better that all the peasants be killed than that the princes and magistrates perish, because the rustics took the sword without divine authority. The only possible consequence of their satanic wickedness would be the diabolic devastation of the kingdom of God. Even if the princes abuse their power, yet they have it of God, and under their rule the kingdom of God at least has a chance to exist. Wherefore no pity, no tolerance should be shown to the peasants, but the fury and wrath of God should be visited upon those men who did not heed warning nor yield when just terms were offered them, but continued with satanic fury to confound everything . . . To justify, pity, or favor them is to deny, blaspheme, and try to pull God from heaven.

(Smith, 164-165; letter to Nicholas Amsdorf at Magdeburg, from Wittenberg)


Where have I ever taught that no mercy should be shown? In that self-same book do I not beg the rulers to show grace to those who surrender? Why do you not open your eyes and read it? . . . you seize upon one bit of it in which I say that those who will not surrender or listen ought to be killed without mercy; and pass by the rest of it, in which I say that those who surrender are to be shown grace . . .

You cannot be a good man if you slander my little book and say that I speak in it of such conquered peasants, or of those who have surrendered, whereas I made it plain that I was speaking of those who were first approached in a friendly way, and would not. All my words were against the obdurate, hardened, blinded peasants, who would neither see nor hear, as anyone may see who reads them; and yet you say that I advocate the slaughter of the poor captured peasants without mercy . . . On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy . . .

They say . . . that the lords are misusing their sword and slaying too cruelly. I answer: What has that to do with my book? Why lay others' guilt on me? If they are misusing their power, they have not learned it from me; and they will have their reward . . .

If my first advice, given when the rebellion was just beginning, had been followed . . . and if they had not been allowed to get the upper hand many thousands of them, who now have to die, would have been saved, for they would have stayed at home . . .

See, then, whether I was not right when I said, in my little book, that we ought to slay the rebels without any mercy. I did not teach, however, that mercy ought not to be shown to the captives and those who have surrendered. They accuse me of having said it, but my book proves the opposite. It was not my intention, either, to strengthen the raging tyrants, or to praise their raving. For I hear that some of my knightlets are treating the poor people with unmeasured cruelty, and are very bold and defiant, as though they had won the victory and were firmly in the saddle. They are not seeking the punishment and improvement of the rebellion, but they are satisfying their furious self-will and cooling a rage, which they, perhaps, have long nursed, thinking that they have now got a chance and a cause for it . . . confounding our cause with that of the rebels. But soon they will reap what now they are sowing. He that sitteth on high sees them, and He will come before they expect Him. Their plans will fail, as they have failed before; this I know.

(An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book Against the Peasants, PE, IV, 259-281, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 265, 269-271, 278-279; WA, XVIII, 384-401; EA, XXIV, 295-319)

21 JULY 1525

Smith (p. 165): "He never meant to urge slaughter after battle . . . That Luther really pitied the poor people after their defeat is shown by an intercessory letter":

. . . treat the poor people graciously and mercifully as becomes a spiritual lord even more than a temporal one . . . Alas! there are too many who treat the people horribly and so act unthankfully to God as if they would recklessly awaken the wrath of Heaven and of the people again and provoke a new and worse rebellion. God has decreed that those who show no mercy should also perish without mercy . . . It is right to show sternness when the commonality are seditious and stubborn, but now that they are beaten down they are a different people, worthy that mercy be shown them in judgment.
(Smith, 166; letter to Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mayence, from Wittenberg)


--- not to be interpreted as at all denying the necessity of considering context (which should be consulted above, for a fuller grasp of Luther's meaning) ---
Feb. 1520: I have an idea that a revolution is about to take place.
June 1520: If the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests.
Oct. 1520:It is all over with the court of Rome: the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost.
March 1521:What wonder if princes, nobles and laity should smite the heads of the pope, bishops, priests, and monks, and drive them from the land?
March 1521: What would become of the papacy . . . ? Christ Himself must abolish it by coming with the final judgment; nothing else will avail.
May 1521: The people are neither able nor willing . . . to bear the yoke of the Pope and the papists; therefore let us not cease to press upon it and to pull it down.
Dec. 1521: Already an unspeakable severity and anger without limit has begun to break upon them . . . No prayers can save them now. Wrath, as Paul says of the Jews, is come upon them to the uttermost. God's purposes demand far more than an insurrection . . . Christ has Himself already begun an insurrection with His mouth which will be more than the pope can bear.
March 1522: I greatly fear that. . . there will be an uprising which will destroy the princes and rulers of all Germany and will involve all of the clergy.
July 1522: It would be better to kill all bishops and to annihilate all religious foundations and monasteries than to let a single soul perish . . . what could be better for them than to encounter a strong rebellion which exterminates them from the world? One could only laugh if it did happen.
Dec. 1522: For it is not unlawful, indeed, it is absolutely right to drive the wolf from the sheepfold . . . A preacher is not given property and tithes in order that he should do injury . . . If he does not work to the advantage of the people, the endowments are his no longer.
1523: All those who work toward this end and who risk body, property, and honor that the bishoprics may be destroyed and the episcopal government rooted out are God’s dear children and true Christians . . . all the world must destroy you and your government . . . whoever destroys you stands in God’s favor . . . every Christian should help with his body and property to put an end to their tyranny.
1523: Christ, Peter, Paul, and the prophets proclaimed that there would be no greater disaster on earth than the advent of the Antichrist and of the final evil.
June 1524: God . . . will do as he says by Ezekiel: princes and merchants, one thief with another, He will melt them together like lead and brass, as when a city burns, so that there shall be neither princes nor merchants any more. That time, I fear, is already at the door . . . I have done my part to show how richly we have deserved it if God shall come with a rod.
May 1525:If God permits the peasants to extirpate the princes to fulfil his wrath, he will give them hell fire for it as a reward.
May 1525: Since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, if you do not mend your ways in time . . . the peasants are mustering, and this must result in the ruin, destruction, and desolation of Germany by cruel murder and bloodshed, unless God shall be moved by our repentance to prevent it.
May 1525: The rustics took the sword without divine authority. The only possible consequence of their satanic wickedness would be the diabolic devastation of the kingdom of God.
Martin Luther's apocalypticism and belief in an impending divinely-ordained doom soon to annihilate the papacy and the Catholic Church, remind me of the mindset of the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell. Note the similarity of the following false prophecies to the beliefs and grandiose judgmental pronouncements of Luther. The only difference is that Russell would include both Catholics and Protestants in the impending judgment (Luther's calculations were also far more erroneous -- now nearly 500 years off the mark at a minimum):
With the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy.
(Thy Kingdom Come, 1891; 1907 ed., 153)
October 1914 will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the
sea," utterly destroyed as a system.

(The Watchtower, 15 June 1911)
Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale, and the church
members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of
Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of "Christianity."

(The Finished Mystery, 1917, 485)
In both instances, a cataclysmic social upheaval occurred which was thought to be a tribulation period for the final end of the world as we know it: in the 16th century it was the Peasants' Revolt. In 1914, it was World War I. Both terrible events came and went without Armageddon and the Second Coming being ushered in, and neither person learned their lesson; nor (to my knowledge) did they admit that they had been fundamentally mistaken. Luther seemed to have ceased talking about imminent judgment and Armageddon, but he continued to rant and rave about the Catholic Church in the most extreme terms until the end of his life:
They are impenitent and blinded, delivered to the wrath of God. We must give room to the wrath and let God's judgment run its course. Nor shall we any longer pray for their sin (as St. John teaches us), but pray about them and against them.
(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, 1541, LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from 255-256)
Somehow, in both cases, the Catholic Church: that evil Babylonian cesspool and "Sodom," run by the Antichrist (so Luther and Russell inform us): hopelessly corrupt, deceptive, and non-Christian, managed to chug along and continue its nefarious course of the ruination of souls. On the other hand, institutional Lutheranism today is predominantly theologically liberal and espouses things such as legal abortion (which Luther would have utterly condemned, of course, along with contraception -- practiced even by the most traditional Lutherans --, which he considered to be murder). Truth is stranger than fiction . . . But God's ways are not men's ways. Job learned that long ago, and Luther and Russell eventually learned it; if not in this life, then in the next, when they stood before God. May He have mercy on their souls . . .

III. Roland Bainton (P)
. . . renewed offers came from Sickingen and from a hundred knights besides. Luther was not unmoved, yet he scarcely knew whether to rely on the arm of man or solely on the Lord. During that summer of 1520, when the papal bull was seeking him throughout Germany, his mood fluctuated between the incendiary and the apocalyptic. In one unguarded outburst he incited to violence. A new attack by Prierias lashed Luther to rage.

(Bainton, 115; see remarks of 25 June 1520 above)

A movement so religiously minded could not but be affected by the Reformation. Luther's freedom of the Christian man was purely religious but could very readily be given a social turn. The priesthood of believers did not mean for him equalitarianism, but Carlstadt took it so. Luther certainly had blasted usury . . . His attitude on monasticism likewise admirably suited peasant covetousness for the spoliation of cloisters. The peasants with good reason felt themselves strongly drawn to Luther.
. . . a complete dissociation of the reform from the Peasants' War is not defensible . . . Luther was regarded as a friend. When some of the peasants were asked to name persons whom they would accept as arbiters, the first name on the list was that of Martin Luther.

(Bainton, 209-210, 211)

Luther had long since declared that he would never support the private citizen in arms, however just the cause, since such means inevitably entailed wrong to the innocent.
(Bainton, 213)

. . . the Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak, and color was lent to the charge by the participation on the peasants' side of hundreds of Lutheran ministers, whether voluntarily or under constraint. The rulers in Catholic lands thereafter used the utmost diligence to exclude evangelical preachers . . .
(Bainton, 221)

IV. Philip Schaff (P)

He deprecated, moreover, the resort to physical force in a spiritual warfare, and relied on the power of the Word of God, which had founded the Church, and which must reform the Church . . .
Hutten was impatient. He urged matters to a crisis. Sickingen attacked the Archbishop and Elector of Trier (Treves) to force the Reformation into his territory; but he was defeated, and died of his wounds in the hands of his enemies, May 7, 1522 . . . Luther saw in this disaster a judgment of God, and was confirmed in his aversion to the use of force . . . With Hutten and Sickingen the hope of a political reconstruction of Germany through means of the Reformation and physical force was destroyed. What the knights failed to accomplish, the peasants could still less secure by the general revolt two years later.

(Schaff, VII, § 42. "Ulrich von Hutten and Luther,")

The Reformation, with its attacks upon the papal tyranny, its proclamation of the supremacy of the Bible, of Christian freedom, and the general priesthood of the laity, gave fresh impulse and new direction to the rebellious disposition. Traveling preachers and fugitive tracts stirred up discontent. The peasants mistook spiritual liberty for carnal license. They appealed to the Bible and to Dr. Luther in support of their grievances. They looked exclusively at the democratic element in the New Testament, and turned it against the oppressive rule of the Romish hierarchy and the feudal aristocracy. They identified their cause with the restoration of pure Christianity . . . .

The insurrection broke out in summer, 1524, in Swabia, on the Upper Danube, and the Upper Rhine along the Swiss frontier, but not on the Swiss side, where the peasantry were free. In 1525 it extended gradually all over South-Western and Central Germany. The rebels destroyed the palaces of the bishops, the castles of the nobility, burned convents and libraries, and committed other outrages. Erasmus wrote to Polydore Virgil, from Basel, in the autumn of 1525: "Every day there are bloody conflicts between the nobles and the peasants, so near us that we can hear the
firing, and almost the groans of the wounded." In another letter he says: "Every day priests are imprisoned, tortured, hanged, decapitated, or burnt" . . .

The fate of the peasantry depended upon Luther. Himself the son of a peasant, he had, at first, considerable sympathy with their cause, and advocated the removal of their grievances; but he was always opposed to the use of force, except by the civil magistrate, to whom the sword was given by God for the punishment of evil-doers. He thought that revolution was wrong in itself, and contrary to Divine order; that it was the worst enemy of reformation, and increased the evil complained of. He trusted in the almighty power of preaching, teaching, and moral suasion . . .

Over a thousand castles and convents lay in ashes, hundreds of villages were burnt to the ground, the cattle killed, agricultural implements destroyed, and whole districts turned into a wilderness . . . The cause of the Reformation suffered irreparable injury, and was made responsible by the Romanists, and even by Erasmus, for all the horrors of the rebellion . . . the Lutheran Church has ever since been strictly conservative in politics, and indifferent to the progress of civil liberty . . . The defeat of the Peasants' War marks the end of the destructive tendencies of the Reformation.

(Schaff, VII, §75, "The Peasants' War: 1523-1525")

V. Will Durant (S)

When some bishops sought to silence Luther and his followers, he emitted an angry roar that was almost a tocsin of revolution.

Foreseeing this debacle, Luther had dissociated himself, none too soon (December 19, 1522), from the revolt.

(Durant, 377, 380)

A Catholic humanist, Johannes Cochlaeus, warned Luther (1523) that "the populace in the towns, and the peasants in the provinces, will inevitably rise in rebellion . . . They are poisoned by the innumerable abusive pamphlets and speeches that are printed and declaimed among them against both papal and secular authority." Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers "poured oil on the flames," and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge.

(Durant, 383; citing Janssen, III, 342 and Cambridge Modern History, 12 volumes, New York, 1907 f., II, 177)

The Reformation itself almost perished in the Peasants' War. Despite Luther's disclaimers and denunciations, the rebellion had flaunted Protestant colors and ideas: economic aspirations were dressed in phrases that Luther had sanctified; communism was to be merely a return to the Gospel.

(Durant, 393)

. . . the peasants had a case against him. He had not only predicted social revolution, he had
said he would not be displeased by it, he would greet it with a smile, even if men washed their hands in episcopal blood. He too had made a revolution, had endangered social order, had flouted an authority not less divine than the state's. He had made no protest against the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property. How otherwise than by force could peasants better their lot when ballots were forbidden them, and their oppressors daily wielded force?

The peasants felt that the new religion had sanctified their cause, had aroused them to

hope and action, and had deserted them in the hour of decision. Some of them, in angry despair, became cynical atheists. Many of them, or their children, shepherded by Jesuits, returned to the Catholic fold. Some of them followed the radicals whom Luther had condemned . . .

(Durant, 394-395)

VI. Owen Chadwick (P)

Though he was well aware that his pen ran away with him, and sometimes regretted it, his simple and enclosed upbringing prevented him from realizing the effect of violent language upon simple minds. Luther, not an extremist, often sounded like an extremist. He imagined a brave citizen meeting a ravening peasant with sword in hand, and had no idea that his language could encourage men to perpetuate outrages on defenceless peasants.

Everyone who hated Roman or clerical power had gathered round him, and not every German who hated Rome was moved by the principles and the motives of Luther . . . But for a few years he was the voice of a German self-consciousness. Round Luther's cry for religious reformation gathered men who wanted other things besides religious reformation.

(Chadwick, 61)
VII. Warren H. Carroll (C)

Luther seems actually to have believed that he could tear out the whole structure of the Church from German society while affecting no other part of it. But of course there was no way this could be done. The revolutionary spirit Luther had unleashed would not be confined by any fences he later tried to build . . .

Luther had not intended these results of his preaching. As early as July 1524 he published a "Circular to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Spirit of Revolt," in which he explicitly condemned the leading revolutionary, Thomas Munzer, for his incitement to armed rebellion, saying that he had never resorted to arms or favored doing so . . .

The close association between Lutheran teaching and the revolution was apparent nearly everywhere that rebellion broke out.

(Carroll, 73-74)
VIII. Gunther Franz (P?)

Every rebellion seemed un-Christian to him. He forbade the serfs to demand their freedom. Even the Christian who was sold to a Turk as a slave should not seek escape from his new lord. But Luther threatened the bishops and prelates that their power would have to be destroyed and hands would have to be washed in their blood. As for the secular lords, he painted them an image of the rebellion of the common man. God wanted "to put an end to them as well as to the ecclesiastical gentlemen."

("Origins in the Ancient Law and the Divine Law, Defended," in Sessions, 1-8; citation from p. 7; from Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, 4th ed., Darmstadt: Hermann Gentner Verlag, 1952)

IX. Joseph Lortz (C)

A complex, much-entangled dependence connects the resort to arms on the part of the peasants with the Reformation . . . the reforming teachings endowed each revolutionary insurrection with welcome beginnings in certain fundamentals . . .

The most significant single demonstration of the connection between peasant upheaval and Reformation is the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia . . . It was essentially religious; indeed it found its origin in the Bible . . . It was essential for outward propaganda as well as for inner procedure that all demands appear to be consecrated by higher Christian ideals . . .

Should it be, it says in the twelfth article, that one or more articles is not verified in the Word of God and if such be demonstrable on the basis of Scripture, then they will relinquish it . . . A moving, naive, Utopian confidence! . . .

Justification of their claims in the reforming doctrine is the first significant misunderstanding in world history of Luther's views. But the term misconception applies only with a certain constraint. Luther loosed a revolutionary storm against the special status of the clergy . . . Had he not injected this irresponsible tone into the atmosphere? . . . One cannot so defiantly and dauntlessly use provocative force to demolish the old church without having some of the socially oppressed drawing conclusions in the manner of the peasants. Such teachings were destined to become far more an impulse to insurrection in an atmosphere of total hatred, unbridled criticism and demagogic excitement. From destroying images it was not far to destroying monasteries . . .

In addition there is the matter of the frightful attacks against the princes Luther presumed to make in writings of 1523 and 1524. These adversaries were painted as raging, mad fools in that God's wrath is being laid over them, in that the people would not have been a people were it not to have elevated its just complaints even to energetic and tumultuous resort to arms. Luther's outburst of hatred -- inescapable even in sermons -- against one and every worldly authority not of his mind could only result in weakening authority in general. The new Gospel created a sort of mass consciousness among all the discontented . . . without that mass awareness the peasants scarcely would have evolved even the unity they did.

("Reformation and Peasant Rebellion as Phenomena of Change," in Sessions, 9-16; from Die Reformation in Deutschland, Freiburg: Herder, 1962; citation from 11-12,14-15)

X. Johannes Janssen (C)

Had Luther and his followers never appeared on the scene, the spirit of discontent and insubordination, which had gained ground everywhere among the common people, would still have produced fresh tumult and sedition in the towns and provinces. But it was the special condition of things brought about -- or rather developed -- by the religious disturbances, which gave this revolution its characteristics of universality and inhuman atrocity . . .

Maurenbrecher (Katholische Reformation, i. 257) says frankly: "It is not true historical criticism, but a mere apologetic argument, based on false observation, which aims at disproving the fact that Luther's evangelical preaching enormously augmented and ripened to its crisis the social agitation which had been going on in the lower strata of the nation from the beginning of the fifteenth century."

(Janssen, IV, 143-145; from Sessions, 47)

XI. Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (C)

. . . these insurrections derived their impetus from the Lutheran ideas and slogans which had permeated the masses. It would be unhistorical to throw the entire responsibility for the gigantic movement upon Luther. Nevertheless, it cannot be gainsaid that the ideas and preachers of the new movement were intimately connected with it. The doctrine of evangelical liberty played the principal role.

In most districts the rebellious peasants . . . demanded absolute liberty to change their religion, or at least confiscation of church property and the cessation of clerical privileges . . . How often had not Luther himself summoned his followers to destroy the churches, monasteries, and dioceses of Antichrist. True he desired this to be done by the authorities, but the peasants felt that they were the authorities. Then, too, without mentioning the authorities, he repeatedly pointed out, in his violent and inconsiderate language, that an insurrection of the masses was inevitable. It appeared to the peasants that their hour for acting had now arrived.

(Grisar [1], 279-280)

One of the most esteemed historians of this phase of the Reformation, Fr. von Bezold . . . [wrote] "How else but in a material sense was the plain man to interpret Luther's proclamation of Christian freedom and his extravagant strictures on the parsons and nobles?" . . . He wonders "how he could expect the German nation at that time to hearken to such inflammatory language from the mouth of its 'evangelist' and "Elias' and, nevertheless, to refuse to permit themselves to be swept beyond the bounds of legality and order." However, like other historians who are favorable to Luther, Von Bezold sees an excuse in the latter's "ignorance of the ways of the world and the grandiose one-sidedness," which supposedly "attaches to an individual who is filled and actuated exclusively by religious interests."

(Grisar [1], 285; from Bezold, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation, Berlin, 1890, 447)
No one . . . will be so foolish to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty demands were but the violent outbursts of his own deep inward intolerance.

(Grisar [2], VI, 247)

But who was it who was responsible for having provoked the war? Occasional counsels to . . . self-restraint . . . were indeed given by Luther from time to time . . . but . . . they are drowned in the din of his controversial invective.

(Grisar [2], VI, 248)

XII. James Mackinnon (P?)

To threaten the princes with the wrath of God was all very well, but such a threat would have no effect in remedying the peasants' grievances, and they might well argue that God had chosen them, as he practically admitted, to be the effective agents of His wrath . . .

("Luther Shows His True Colors," in Sessions, 50-54; from Luther and the Reformation, New York: Russell and Russell, 1962, III, 201-210; citation from p. 51)

XIII. Kyle C. Sessions (P?)

Luther's revolt injected enormous impetus into a multitude of other forces of change already at work. In varying degrees the persons demanding alterations sought to identify their aspirations with those of Luther . . .

The Lutheran Reformation was deeply involved with the Peasants' Revolt. Luther's teachings resonated in the grievances of the rebels and Luther's position contributed importantly to immediate events and final results . . .

The eagerness of the German peasants to embrace the Lutheran movement makes it clear that in some manner they identified their protests with the protest of Luther and their efforts for reform with those undertaken by him.

(Sessions, "Introduction," viii, xi, xiii)

XIV. R.H. Murray (P)

His Gospel of Christian liberty proved a mighty solvent. For the spiritual freedom which he taught, multitudes substituted freedom from political oppression, from social injustice and from economic burdens . . .

The fates of theories are strange, and if the father of one of them could see the developments of some of his children he would stand aghast . . . the Anabaptist application of Luther's was simply more thorough. The revolutionary drew back in horror.

("Political Consequences of Luther's Doctrines of Religious Freedom," in Sessions, 55-59; from The Political Consequences of the Reformation; Studies in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought, New York: Russell & Russell, 1960; citation from p. 58)

XV. Alister E. McGrath (P)

The good can be ruled by the Spirit, but the evil must be ruled by the sword. Luther insisted that the great masses of baptized Germans were not true Christians . . . Luther's social ethic seems to suggest that two totally different moralities exist side by side: a private Christian ethic . . . and a public morality, based upon force . . . public morality is based upon coercion, in which the citizen obeys the law for fear of the consequences for failing to do so . . . It will therefore be obvious that Luther puts the Christian who is also a public figure (such as a prince or a magistrate) in the virtually impossible position of having to employ two different ethics, one for his private life, the other for his public life . . .

The spiritual authority of the church is thus persuasive, not coercive, and concerns the individual's soul, rather than his body or goods. The temporal authority of the state is coercive, rather than persuasive, and concerns the individual's body and goods, rather than his soul . . .

As the Peasants' Revolt loomed on the horizon, however, it seems that te deficiencies of his political thought became obvious . . . This understanding of the relation of church and state has been the object of intense criticism. Luther's social ethic has been described as 'defeatist' and 'quietist', encouraging the Christian to tolerate (or at least fail to oppose) unjust social structures. Luther preferred oppression to revolution . . . The Peasants' War seemed to show up the tensions within Luther's social ethic: the peasants were supposed to live in accordance with the private ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, turning the other cheek to their oppressors -- while the princes were justified in using violent coercive means to re-establish social order. And although Luther maintained that the magistrate had no authority in the church, except as a Christian believer, the technical distinction involved was so tenuous as to be unworkable. The way was opened to the eventual domination of the church by the state, which was to become a virtually universal feature of Lutheranism. The failure of the German church to oppose Hitler in the 1930s is widely seen as reflecting the inadequacies of Luther's political thought. Even Hitler, it appeared to some German Christians, was an instrument of God.
(McGrath, 208-210)

XVI. Henri Daniel-Rops (C)

The poor folk who took up arms to obtains more social justice were of course imperfectly acquainted with Luther's theses; but they had heard tell that he proclaimed liberty, that he denounced the exactions of the wealthy and that he wished to see the gospel principles put into practice. That was reason enough for them to acknowledge his authority . . .

He roundly condemned the rebels' claim to be fighting in the name of the Gospel, and their use of force to obtain justice . . . Luther was to suffer from this terrible tragedy all his life. 'The devil has assailed me countless times, almost suffocating me to death,' he said, 'telling me that the peasants' revolt was the result of my preaching!' He never forgot the bitter words of Erasmus: 'You would not recognize the rioters, but they recognized you.'

(Daniel-Rops, 55-56)

XVII. Philip Hughes (C)

Neither Lutherans nor Anabaptists had caused the rising. The incendiary language in which preachers of all sorts spoke of "freedom now attained" helped, no doubt. Luther, to whom a statement of the peasants' demands was sent, replied in his usual thoughtless, declamatory way, heaping blame on the lords. It was their opposition to him -- "to the preaching of the Gospel" -- which had brought about this war. "It is not the peasants who have risen against you, it is God Himself." At the same time he lectured the peasants on the need to be patient and to remember that"he who takes up the sword will perish by the sword."

(Hughes, 141-142)

XVIII. Preserved Smith (S)

Luther, indeed, could honestly say that he had consistently preached the duty of obedience and the wickedness of sedition, nevertheless his democratic message of the brotherhood of man and the excellence of the humblest Christian worked in many ways undreamt of by himself. Moreover, he had mightily championed the cause of the oppressed commoner against his masters. "The people neither can nor will endure your tyranny any longer," said he to the nobles; "God will not endure it; the world is not what it once was when you drove and hunted men like wild beasts."

(Smith, 157)

. . . generally the peasants assume that they are acting in accordance with the new "gospel" of Luther . . .
Above all they appealed to the Bible as the divine law, and demanded a religious reform as a condition and preliminary to a thorough renovation of society. Although 
Luther himself from the beginning opposed all forms of violence, his clarion voice rang out in protest against the injustice of the nobles.

(Smith [2], 80, 79)

From his own day to the present he has been reproached with cruelty to the poor people who were partly misguided by what they believed to be his voice. And yet, much as the admirers of Luther must and do regret his terrible violence of expression, the impartial historian can hardly doubt that in substance he was right. No government in the world could have allowed rebellion to go unpunished; no sane man could believe that any argument but arms would have availed. Luther first tried the way of peace, he then risked his life preaching against the rising; finally he urged the use of the sword as the ultima ratio. He was right to do so, though he put himself in the wrong by his immoderate zeal. It would have been more becoming for Luther, the peasant and the hero of the peasants, had he shown greater sympathy with their cause and more mercy. Had he done so his name would have escaped the charge of cruelty with which it is now stained.

(Smith, 166-167)
XIX. H.G. Koenigsberger (P?)

Only someone of Luther's own naive singleness of mind could imagine that his inflammatory attacks on one of the great pillars of the established order would not be interpreted as an attack on the whole social order, or on that part of it which it suited different interests, from princes to peasants, to attack. Indeed, if this had not been so, Luther's Reformation could not possibly have been as successful as it actually was. The first to interpret Luther's writings as a signal for revolution were, however, not the peasants but the imperial knights . . . To them, Luther's pamphlet addressed to the German nobility seemed a clarion call against the hated power of the princes and the Church . . .

Luther's little tract on The Freedom of a Christian Man was interpreted -- misinterpreted, so Luther thought -- as an attack on all serfdom . . .

They wanted their traditional rights, and Luther and Zwingli seemed to have made their demands even more respectable by apparently giving them the sanction of Scripture . . . The peasants plundered and burnt monasteries and castles; but only on one occasion did they massacre the defenders of a castle, Weinsberg, after they had surrendered. The massacres of the Peasants' War were nearly all perpetrated by the other side.

("The Reformation and Social Revolution," 83-94 in Hurstfield; citations from 87-89)

XX. Harold J. Grimm (P)

Lutheranism also aroused considerable hope among the peasants. Their leaders soon translated religious demands for freedom, the Word of God, and divine justice into social terms, despite Luther's warning against such action . . .

There is no doubt that Luther's doctrines did much to raise the economic hopes of those classes not represented in the city councils, above all of the guildsmen, despite the fact that such a support was the furthest from Luther's mind . . .

We know for certain . . . that the Reformation provided many people in all classes with a dynamic hope that their difficulties could be solved. It is reasonable to assume that Reformation doctrines, ideas, and slogans were applied to individual class interests.

("Social Forces in the German Reformation," 85-97 in Spitz; citations from 91, 95-97)

XXI. Bibliography

WA = Weimar Ausgabe edition of Luther's Works (Werke) in German, 1883. "Br." = correspondence.
EA = Erlangen Ausgabe edition of Luther's Works (Werke) in German, 1868, 67 volumes.
LW = Luther's Works, American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955.
PE = Luther's Works, Philadelphia edition (6 volumes), edited and translated by C.M. Jacobs and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser et al, A.J. Holman Co., The Castle Press, and Muhlenberg Press, 1932.
LL = Luther's Letters (German), edited by M. De Wette, Berlin: 1828
Bainton, Roland (P), Here I Stand [online], New York: Mentor Books, 1950.
Carroll, Warren H. (C), The Cleaving of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000 (Vol. 4 of A History of Christendom).
Chadwick, Owen (P), The Reformation, New York: Penguin Books, revised edition, 1972.
Daniel-Rops, Henri (C), The Protestant Reformation, volume 2, translated Audrey Butler, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1961.
Durant, Will (S), The Reformation, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957 (volume 6 of the 10 volume work, The Story of Civilization, 1967).
Grisar, Hartmann (C) [1], Martin Luther: His Life and Work, translated from the 2nd German edition by Frank J. Eble, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1950; originally 1930.
Grisar, Hartmann (C) [2], Luther [online: volumes I / II / III / IV / V / VI], translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915.
Hughes, Philip (C), A Popular History of the Reformation, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image,

Hurstfield, Joel (P), editor, The Reformation Crisis, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966.
Janssen, Johannes (C), History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16
volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; originally 1891.

McGrath, Alister E. (P), Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd edition, 1993.
O'Connor, Henry (C), Luther's Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884.
Rupp, Gordon (P), Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worms, New York: Harper & Row, Torchbook edition, 1964.
Schaff, Philip (P), History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1910, 7 volumes; available online.
Sessions, Kyle C. (P?), editor, Reformation and Authority: The Meaning of the Peasant's Revolt, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1968.
Smith, Preserved (S), The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911.
Smith, Preserved (S) [2], The Reformation in Europe, New York: Collier Books, 1966 -- Book I of the author's work, The Age of the Reformation, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1920.
Spitz, Lewis W. (P), editor, The Reformation: Basic Interpretations, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1962.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on "Reformation Day": 31 October 2003.

* * * * *