Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact
C O N T E N T S (HTML-active)
EXPLANATION OF FOOTNOTING SYSTEM
Example No. 1: (3:156)
Number of book in Bibliography (#3) followed by the page number of the citation.
Example No. 2: (18)
Number of reference not found in Bibliography. Information on source and page number in Footnotes (number 18 in the Footnotes).
Example No. 3: (50:100/4)
Number of book in Bibliography followed by the page number, plus an additional source (usually primary), listed in the Footnotes. The Footnotes (#4) will give the specific section and page numbers from the second source. This format is usually used when directly quoting Protestants such as Luther or Calvin, or the Church Fathers.
Example No. 4: (51:v.4;458)
Number of book in Bibliography followed by the volume number (when the work is more than one volume), and the page number. An additional source may also be cited after a slash, as in Example No. 3.
Example No. 5: (170:vs)
Used only when a passage from a Bible translation other than KJV is cited. The "vs" stands for verse, (which can be found, of course, without a page number), in order to distinguish the reference number from a plain footnote citation (as in Example No. 2).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 16:17: . . . Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better . . . There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body."
(Luther to Pope Leo X, 6 January, 1519, more than a year after the 95 Theses) (50:356/1)
1. The Catholic Approach to Martin Luther
How does one approach the task of a critical examination of Martin Luther? The motivation and reason for this undertaking must be made explicit up front, so as to avoid misunderstanding. It seems self-evident to me that Luther, as the founder of a new movement within Christianity, should be held up to the utmost scrutiny, given the fact that so many basic Protestant assumptions originate from him (e.g., imputed justification by faith alone, assurance of salvation, total depravity, absolute double predestination, sola Scriptura, private judgement, the denial of a visible, infallible Church with binding tradition and hierarchy, abolition of five sacraments and the veneration of saints, etc., etc.).
It is undeniably important to ascertain both the theological expertise and character of a person who presumed to overturn much of the accumulated Christian wisdom of 1480 years, and who ultimately claimed more authority for himself than any pope ever dreamt of. This by no means is a judgement on the character of Protestants today - it is more of an analysis of the roots of present-day Protestant theology as derived from Luther. It is foolish for any Protestant (many of whom reject even the appellation "Protestant") to deny the inescapable link between current-day denominational Protestantism and Martin Luther. To do so is to be uninformed about a crucial element in Protestant thought - its own history and root presuppositions. Any Christian body claiming to be a (or the) legitimate manifestation of historical Christianity must have a plausible and coherent story to tell. This necessarily involves historical study, and additionally, some kind of theological interpretation of the history of one's own group.
2. Luther's Intemperate Language
Luther described Catholics as "the devil's whore-church" (51:v.4;288/2) who "stuff our mouths with horse-dung" (51:v.4;321/3), along with hundreds of other similar denigrations unworthy to repeat save for their tragi-comic and psychological value. He described himself, on the other hand, as "Ecclesiastes by the Grace of God" (51:v.4;329/4) and says, "Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me." (51:v.4;332/5)
Of Luther it might be said, as it was of another: "Never a man spake like this man" (Jn 7:46), yet in quite another sense. That man, contrary to Luther, was "meek and lowly in heart" (Matt 11:29), and told His followers that "whosoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt 5:22).
3. Luther's Character a Valid Issue
Catholic biographer Msgr. Patrick O'Hare explains why it is important to examine Luther's character defects:
"We have had no desire to libel Luther's person, distort his doctrine or misrepresent his life's work . . . We have merely quoted him from reliable sources and made him his own accuser and judge . . . If any surprise or scandal . . . results, the blame rests not with those who picture the man as he really was, but with Luther himself and his advocates . . . Luther himself . . . felt keenly the vulnerability of his character . . .
'. . . whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ's. Leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine.'
"No. We cannot do this. We cannot leave you out of the matter and accept your doctrine till you give proof that you are a 'saint' and not a 'scamp' . . . We cannot separate you from your utterances and actions . . . As you posed in the role of a reformer, we expect in all decency, to find you a 'saint,' not a 'scamp.' Which of these designations fits you the better?" (50:352-3)
4. The Biblical Doctrine of Integrated Wisdom
The Bible, which Luther elevated to supreme authority to the exclusion of the Church, itself refutes his views of himself (as well as his theology). It does not oppose wisdom to righteousness:
James 3:17: The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.
Proverbs 2:7: He stores up sound wisdom for the upright . . .
John 5:36: . . . the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.
John 8:46: Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
Luke 6:45 (Phillips): . . . For a man's words express what overflows from his heart. (cf. Matt 12:37) (173:vs)
Some of Luther's descriptions of various Catholics:
"Crowned donkey, abandoned, senseless man, excrement of hogs and asses, impudent royal windbag, arrant fool." (51:v.4;302/6)
"Liar, mad bloodhound, murderer, traitor, assassin of souls, arch-knave, dirty pig and devil's child, nay, the devil himself." (51:v.4;302/7)
"Mad, bloodthirsty murderer, a blind and hardened donkey, who ought to be put to scratch for dung-beetles in the manure-heaps of the Papists." (51:v.4;302/8)
"Stick your tongue ________. . . You are a sickly, syphilitic sack of maggots." (51:v.4;304/9)
Further examples are superfluous!
Titus 1:7-8: "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry . . . a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate." (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-10)
If Luther fails miserably in attaining to the character of a bishop, how can it be believed that he was a Reformer of the whole Church? By now, the point must be evident: from a biblical perspective, a man's teachings must be backed up by his life, or else the doctrines are suspect. Thus taught Jesus and Paul. To think that a man greatly lacking in moral uprightness could deliver the truth of "primitive," holy, and pure Christianity to the world is biblically, morally and even logically suspect. Therefore, we must determine whether Luther can pass this fundamental test - all the more so since he often excoriated the most minute faults of others.
Catholics today (more so than formerly) freely admit that the Church in Luther's time sorely needed reforming. The eminent German Catholic theologian Karl Adam, in his book The Roots of the Reformation, devotes nearly a third of its space to "weakness in the Church." He states that "the Renaissance Popes seem to have carried out in their own lives that cult of idolatrous humanism, demonic ambition and unrestrained sensuality" (44:14). He quotes the words of Pope Adrian VI (1522-23), who in turn cited St. Bernard: "Vice has grown so much a matter of course that those who are stained with it are no longer aware of the stink of sin" (44:20). He is quite frank and descriptive of other abuses:
"The majority of this clerical proletariat had neither the intellectual nor the moral capacity to so much as guess the profundity of the questions raised by Luther . . . In this waste of clerical corruption it was impossible for the Spirit of our Lord to penetrate into the people . . . There was no sacramental impulse towards an interiorizing and deepening of religion. So the attention of the faithful was directed towards externals . . . This hideous simoniacal abuse of indulgences corrupted true piety . . . indulgences were perverted to a blasphemous haggling with God. Night fell on the German Church . . ." (44:22-6)
Adam also reminds us of positive aspects of the late Middle Ages (typically neglected by Protestant and secular historians):
"The common people of the Church . . . were genuinely devoted to their Catholic faith despite all the abuses . . . Even the simple people knew how to distinguish between the office and the person's own piety and to apply our Lord's words to the gloomy contemporary scene: 'All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not' (Matt 23:3) . . . Amidst the general decline there were still of course plenty of morally upright priests . . ." (44:17,19)
In this context he laments the loss of the Luther that might have been:
"Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marvellous gifts of mind and heart, his warm penetration of the essence of Christianity, his passionate defiance or all unholiness and ungodliness, the elemental fury of his religious experience, his surging, soul-shattering power of speech, and not least that heroism in the face of death . . .- had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time . . . had he remained a faithful member of his Church, humble and simple, sincere and pure, then indeed we should today be his grateful debters. He would be forever our great Reformer . . . comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people . . .
"But - and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation . . .- he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself . . . what St. Augustine calls the greatest sin . . . he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ." (44:27-8)
Adam then gives his opinion of the origin of Luther's revolt:
"The longer the strife continued . . . the confusion in his eyes between the abuses in the Church and the essence of the Church increased; his belief in himself and his mission deepened . . . The abuses . . . certainly unleashed Luther upon the path of revolution, and justified him in the eyes of the masses and in his own judgment. But they were not the actual ground, the decisive reason for Luther's falling away from the doctrine of the Church . . .:
'I would have little against the Papists if they taught true doctrine. Their evil life would do no great harm.'
"It was not ecclesiastical abuses that made him the opponent of the Catholic Church, but the conviction that she was teaching falsely. And this conviction dates from long before the fatal 17th October, 1517." (44:34-5/10)
1. Patrick O'Hare
Shocking though it may be, Luther was theologically under-educated. Msgr. O'Hare describes his training:
"The story of his all too rapid advancement shows his preparatory studies to have been anything but deep, solid and systematic . . . He had no appreciation of the scholastic speculation and logic so much honored at the time; in fact, he hated the whole system of the schoolmen, not excepting even the great scholar and theologian, St. Thomas . . . At bottom he was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, and at no time of his life . . . did he show himself more than superficially equipped to grapple with serious and diffficult philosophical and religious problems." (50:44-5)
2. Hartmann Grisar
This brilliant German Jesuit scholar, who authored a six-volume, 3000-page biography of Luther, elaborates:
"It was not time only which was wanting in Luther's case for a deep course of theological study; he was even denied what was equally essential, namely, a really scholarly presentment of theology such as is to be found in the best period of Scholasticism . . . He never esteemed or made any attempt to penetrate himself with the learning of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas or Bonaventure . . . Luther frequently displayed his utter ignorance of Thomism, as we shall show later. The nominalistic philosophy and theology offered him by the schools he attended has, with reason, been described as a crippled parody of true Scholasticism." (51:v.1;130)
3. Karl Adam
"The form in which all philosophical knowledge was then presented . . . was the 'new way' or Scotism, with the stamp of its later Ockhamist development. Ockhamism (11) had a decisive influence on Luther . . . From Ockamism Luther received his anti-metaphysical tendencies, his dislike of the Aristotelian and Scholastic doctrine founded on the objective validity of universal concepts. From Ockham too he took his concept of God . . . His sovereign freedom and dominion . . . is beyond any scale of values . . . God is a God of arbitrary choice. He can therefore predestine some in advance to eternal salvation, others in advance to eternal damnation. Particularly important for Luther's inner development is the Ockhamist doctrine of justification . . . Grace in Ockhamism remains strictly transcendent . . . This recognition and validation does not in any way affect man's spiritual powers. It remains completely outside him and is simply seen and assented to by faith." (44:37-8)
This type of philosophy and theology suited Luther, as Adam comments:
"Luther was radically subjectivist. That is to say, he was naturally inclined to take into the tension of his own subjective consciousness all objective truths and values presented to him from without, and only then to evaluate their importance and significance . . . From the start the primary object of his thought was to release the tension in his own soul, to deliver himself, to bring tranquillity to his distraught spirit. Always the stress was on I, everything pivoting on his own experience . . . "The hopeless feeling that he was not numbered among the elect but among the reprobate overcame him and grew stronger as he grew more and more conscious that he did not fulfill God's commandments in all things." (44:36,40)
4. Summary
Luther's new theological ideas arose in this atmosphere. The Catholic must say at this point that a theology as radically subjectivist and emotional as Luther's, and as disconnected from philosophical and theological tradition, is, and ought to be, highly suspect. Luther did not in fact restore primitive Christianity, since it can be decisively shown that the early Church resembled Catholicism much more than Protestantism. Luther's deviations from traditional Catholic theology, it can be strongly argued, were neither biblically nor historically-based on early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine. At first, Luther desired and sought confirmation in St. Augustine of his own peculiar ideas, since he was considered the greatest Father of the Church, but he was confuted time and again on this score. Grisar writes, "he had given up all idea of finding in these authorities any confirmation of his doctrine on faith alone and works." (51:v.4;458-9)
1. Henri Daniel-Rops
This well-known French Church historian summed up Luther's character in the following passage:
"The whole of Luther is contained in this twofold attribute, with his ardours, his faith, his contradictions, and his ungovernable violence. His was a deep, demanding soul, to whom no Catholic can in charity deny fraternal pity, but his mind contained also something of the devil, which made his arrogant desire to trace his own path alone turn to rebellion of the worst kind . . . He never obtained true peace of heart. And in thc tragic battle which he fought during the whole of his life, almost everything at length slipped from his grasp . . .
"Luther's role in the history of the Church was in many respects considerable; it can almost be called providential. Blame for the hideous rent suffered by the seamless Robe of Christ does not lie at his door alone. Many in the Catholic camp share some of the responsibility. Nevertheless it remains true to say that the greatest guilt was Luther's. He was the initiator, the leader . . . In making the Church so brutally and tragically aware of her problems, however, he also forced her to emerge at last from that muddy slough of complaisance and collusion which was bogging down the best of Christian spirituality." (46:107)
2. Christopher Dawson
The great Catholic historian of culture, Christopher Dawson, describes Luther in more psychological terms:
"Luther was undoubtedly a genius, a man of titanic power and energy, who combined to an extraordinary degree the vernacular eloquence of the demagogue with the religious conviction of the prophet . . . Yet these great gifts were counterbalanced by equally great defects. His violent and passionate temperament could brook no contradiction, and in every controversy he would overwhelm his opponents with the grossness and obscenity of an infuriated peasant. And secondly, all that is best in his writings springs directly from his subjective personal experience. He recognized no truths except those which he felt and saw directly by an immediate act of psychological intuition. In comparison with this nothing else mattered. The authority of the Church, the witness of tradition . . . counted for nothing . . . when they did not agree with his personal intuitions and convictions. This makes his teaching more subjective and one-sided than that of any other Christian thinker. What he saw, he saw with blinding intensity and certitude. What he did not see did not exist, or was the delusion of Satan . . . The study of Luther is beset with many difficulties. First the amount of his writings; secondly their unsystematic character . . .; thirdly, his love of paradox and simplification to drive home his point (afterwards, however, he may use extreme subtlety and far-fetched argument to justify the paradox)." (49:76-7)
3. Will Durant
The famous historian Will Durant, who was not a Catholic, in his monumental ten-volume Story of Civilization (12), gives this description of Luther's flaws:
"His faults leaped to the eye and the ear. Proud amid his constant expressions of humility, dogmatic against dogma, intemperate in zeal, giving no quarter of courtesy to his opponents, clinging to superstitions while laughing at superstition, denouncing intolerance and practicing it - here was no paragon of consistency or Grandison of virtue, but a man as contrary as life and scorched with the powder of war."
4. Patrick O'Hare
"Ever vacillating, ambiguous, contradictory, he was utterly incapable of formulating a clear, well-defined, unhesitating system of belief to replace that of the old divinely-established Church." (50:141)
1. The Bondage of the Will (1525)
Luther completely denied human free will, and considered his book on this subject, The Bondage Of The Will, his greatest work, along with the Commentary On Galatians. In this remarkable volume, passages such as the following abound:
"Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient . . . Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes, and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider. The will cannot choose its rider and cannot kick against the spur that pricks it. It must go on, and its very docility is a disobedience or a sin. The only struggle possible is between the two riders. Whatever happens, happens according to the irreversible decrees of God. Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil in us as of what is good, and as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate." (50:266-7/13)
In commenting on Psalms 51, Luther informs us that man:
" . . . is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit, a dunghill and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to do good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits sin as often as he draws his breath." (50:l00/14)
2. Human Depravity and Justification
This view of total human depravity was the premise of Luther's view of justification, in which man is merely declared righteous, while still being in essence and behavior a sinner. Luther thought that works were not meritorious in the least, relative to man's standing before God. He attempted to completely separate works and grace as no one ever had before. This false dichotomy brings forth many absurd utterances. Of the Ten Commandments, he says:
"If we allow them any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all heresies, evil, and blasphemies" (50:114/15).
"Wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works" (50:114/16).
Moses, who had the gall to enforce dreaded and despised "works" is not exactly admired by Dr. Luther:
"Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil." (50:115/17)
"I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ." (50:115/18)
"If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (50:311/19)
O'Hare draws out the implications of such foolish rhetoric:
"We do not wish to insinuate that he actually taught and approved sin, for we know that he did as a rule instruct men to avoid violations of the Law and repress the concupiscence leading thereto. But we do hold that his whole theory of justification by faith alone and his denial of moral freedom, making God 'the author of what is evil in us,' necessarily broke down the usual barriers against sin." (50:116-17)
To document O'Hare's assertion, we offer some examples:
"When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind . . ." (50:117-8/20)
"They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women." (50:311/21)
Luther's famous letter to his cohort Philip Melanchthon, although no doubt at least in part typically humorous and sarcastic, cannot but shock nonetheless:
"Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still . . . We must sin as long as we are what we are . . . Sin shall not drag us away from Him even should we commit fornication or murder, thousands and thousands of times a day." (50:120/22)
Belief was therefore completely separated from action in a very real sense. The inherent dangers in such a radical view are self-evident.
1. Chastity is Impossible (?)
For Luther, chastity was impossible since men and women were merely pawns of the devil and/or God:
"Chastity or continence was physically impossible . . . Though the womenfolk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience that there is not one among thousands to whom God gives grace to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself . . . Hence to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel." (50:318-9/23)
"Chastity is as little within our power as the working of miracles . . . As little as we can do without eating and drinking, so it is impossible to do without women . . . The reason is that . . . from woman we were born and begotten; hence our flesh is for the most part woman's flesh and it is impossible to abstain from it." (50:321/24)
2. Polygamy and the Scandal of Philip of Hesse
Luther, hard as it is to believe, actually condoned polygamy:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture." (50:329/25)
Then there is the matter of the scandalous and universally-acknowledged affair concerning the bigamy of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Having heard of Luther's sexual liberalism, Philip petitioned him, asking permission to take another wife, so as to ameliorate his continuous adultery. At first Luther counseled the Prince to:
"Take an ordinary, honest girl and keep her secretly in a house and live with her in secret marital relations." (50:330/26).
"The secret marital relations of princes and great gentry is a valid marriage before God and is not unlike the concubinage and matrimony of the Patriarchs." (50:330/27)
Even the Prince thought this too morally lax and persisted in his request for a sanctioned bigamous marriage (which was illegal). This was granted in a document written by Luther's right-hand man Melanchthon, and signed by Luther and six other "reformers," including Martin Bucer. It reads in part:
"It is nothing unusual for princes to have concubines; and although the reason could not be understood by ordinary people, nevertheless more prudent persons would understand it, and this modest way of living would please more than adultery . . . Your Highness, has, therefore, not only the decision of us all in case of necessity, but also our foregoing consideration." (50:331/28)
Note the elitism and snobbishness, equated with "prudence," and the relative scale of values, in which sin becomes a "modest way of living". Such an outrageous statement illustrates quite well the standards of Luther and his friends, and explodes (along with much additional compelling evidence) once and for all the notion of Protestants' inherent superiority (to Catholics) in holiness. The "Rev." Denis Melander, a signer of the letter, who himself had three wives, officiated at the shameful "marriage" of Philip. The secret soon became public and caused much consternation among Lutherans, whereupon Melanchthon "sickened almost to death with remorse." Luther, unabashed, pretended that he knew nothing about the debacle, and counseled the adulterer thusly:
"What would it matter if, for the sake of greater good and of the Christian Church, one were to tell a good, downright lie?" (50:333/29)
As a representative sampling, here are four Protestant sources to verify the above:
"This double marriage was not only the greatest scandal, but the greatest blot in the history of the Reformation and in the life of Luther." (30)
"Luther . . . cited the polygamy of the Old Testament patriarchs as a precedent. He advised that the second marriage be kept secret . . . When the news leaked out, Luther advised 'a good, strong lie.'" (160:v.2;728)
"There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil . . . The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse . . . Luther counseled a lie . . . Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge." (124:292-3)
" . . . Philip's bigamous marriage (1540), which had been approved by Luther . . . Melanchthon . . . advised both Henry VIII and Philip of Hesse to take two wives." (78:1081, 899)
1. Patrick O'Hare
"It is a matter of common knowledge that Luther's relations with truth, honesty and uprightness were not always what might be expected from one who claimed that his mouth was 'the mouth of Christ' . . .:
'In order to cheat and to destroy the Papacy, everything is allowed . . .' (31).
"If a Catholic, especially a Jesuit, had ever played fast and loose with truth as Luther did, what an outcry, and justly so, would be raised." (50:334)
2. Philip Hughes
Hughes, one of the most eminent Catholic Church historians, castigates another of Luther's ever-present tactics:
"Was Luther a truthful man? . . . I would say that he never hesitated to lie if he thought it useful . . . To caricature the other side, and to spend oneself destroying the caricature with hot indignation and scorn, is a controversial tactic much older than Luther . . . Historians must recognize that Luther also used, habitually and consciously, the controversial weapon just described . . . It is true of what he has to say about the Catholic teaching on those matters, e.g., grace, good works, and the like - where the difference between that teaching and his innovations was most important. The later in his life that Luther makes his criticism, the greater the divergence from the facts tends to be - i.e., when there is such divergence . . . Luther is certainly not reliable. His accuracy is not what one can take for granted." (45:117-19)
3. Hartmann Grisar
Grisar devotes a whole chapter (28 pages) to Luther's lying, with many examples of duplicity, slander and deliberate falsehood. He says:
"In particular was medieval Scholasticism selected by Luther and his friends as a butt for attack and misrepresentation. Bucer (32) admits in a letter to Bullinger (33) how far they had gone in this respect:
'We have treated all the Schoolmen in such a way as to shock many good and worthy men, who see that we have not read their works but are merely anxious to slander them out of prudence.' " (51:v.4;61/34)
4. Erasmus
Desiderius Erasmus, universally considered the greatest scholar of Europe at this time, was originally somewhat sympathetic to Luther and his cause, but later sparred with Luther in writing on the question of free will. After Luther assassinated his character (inevitable with anyone who dared to disagree with "Ecclesiastes"), he responded with an accurate assessment of Luther's underhanded tactics:
"I never look for moderation in Luther, but for so malicious a calumny I was certainly not prepared." (35)
"I shall show everybody what a master you are in the art of misrepresentation, defamation, calumny and exaggeration . . . In your sly way you contrive to twist even what is absolutely true, whenever it is to your interest to do so. You know how to turn black into white and to make light out of darkness." (51:v.4;l00-01/36)
Luther never refuted this charge (with good reason), and ceased to refer to the venerable scholar in public (Erasmus was one of the few people he feared), but privately continued his savage attacks, in characteristic fashion.
5. Philip Hughes
We have seen some examples earlier of Luther's vulgar and coarse language. Grisar treats the subject extensively for those who have any doubt, or who possess patience and curiosity enough to wallow in the mire. How singular and regular was this type of raving? Hughes writes:
"In this matter of coarse language, is Luther an exceptional writer? Among religious leaders certainly; among the few who have claimed to be sent by God to restore the divine religion to its primitive state, he is uniquely coarse, nor have I ever heard of any one of these who even begins to approach him in this respect. And Germans of his own time . . . were shocked by this contradiction . . . In general, whatever the topic, once Luther is annoyed - say, by contradiction - vulgar, filthy expressions simply pour out from him . . . the sheer witlessness of the filth is tedious in the extreme." (45:117-18)
6. Patrick O`Hare
Msgr. O'Hare, not one to mince words himself (but cleanly!), makes no secret of his revulsion to Luther's shocking rhetoric:
"Indescribable vulgarity . . . characterized his utterances, which . . . would startle even a pagan. Almost all of his biographers admit that his language was invariably coarse . . . but their description falls short of the reality, because they are either loath to offend their readers or are afraid to expose the man in his real character . . . In 1541 Luther published a dirty little tirade entitled Wider Hans Wurst. It was directed against Henry, Duke of Brunswick . . . Though this book is of small compass, the devil's name is mentioned no less than 146 times . . . Amongst the names he applies to his adversary: . . . 'damned liar and villain,' 'donkey of donkeys,' . . . 'an arch-assassin and bloodhound whom God has sentenced to the fire of Hell and at the mention of whose name every Christian ought to spit out.' . . . 'Damned,' 'devil' and 'whore' are choice words found in nearly every line of this mad production . . . In vileness of language and bitterness of hate this book has no equal . . . .
"Bullinger, the Swiss Reformer . . . stood aghast at what he calls Luther's
'muddy and swinish, vulgar and coarse teachings . . . it is as clear as daylight and undeniable that no one else has ever written more vulgarly . . . in matters of faith and Christian chastity and modesty in all serious matters than Luther' (37) . . .
"His habitual filthy talk is far surpassed in vileness and obscenity when he treats of womanhood . . . To give any idea, even the faintest . . . would be impossible unless one is willing to descend into the gutter and wade in obscenity. The original sources are extant, and anyone who wishes to consult them may do so if he is prepared for the shock of his life." (50:343-45,348-49)
7. The Papacy, an Institution of the Devil (1545)
In 1545 Luther issued this disgraceful tract, complete with illustrations by the famous painter Lucas Cranach, who profaned his real artistic talents as much as Luther does his true literary gifts. For instance, a "devil-mother" is shown as a hideous woman with a tail, from under which Pope and Cardinals are emerging head foremost. Protestant admirer of Luther Roland Bainton describes the "art" as "outrageously vulgar . . . in all of this he was utterly unrestrained." (124:298)
8. Luther's Retort
To the myriad of complaints about his maniacal tirades, Luther replied:
"I neither can nor will refrain from it . . . Whoever accepts my teaching with a right heart will not be scandalized by my abuse." (51:v.4;316/38)
Even other early Protestants such as Bucer and Bullinger, were indeed scandalized, thus putting the lie, once again, to one of Luther's exaggerated claims. The reader may come to his own conclusions. For the Catholics of Luther's time, in Grisar's words,
"the bitter and unkindly ways of their adversary were a clear proof that he had no divine call. Like Erasmus, they too contend that no man who excited such great commotion and was so insatiable in abuse and vituperation could honestly be furthering God's cause." (51:v.4;351)
Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Msgr. O'Hare gives examples:
"Of the Pentateuch he says:
'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.
'Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . . Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . . The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness . . . The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . .'
"The books of the New Testament fared no better. He rejected from the canon Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse. These he placed at the end of his translation, after the others, which he called
'the true and certain capital books of the New Testament.' . . . 'St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.'
The Epistle to the Hebrews did not suit him:
'It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw.'
The Epistle of St. James, Luther denounced as
'an epistle of straw.' 'I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.'
He did this because it proclaimed the necessity of good works, contrary to his heresy.
'There are many things objectionable in this book,' he says of the Apocalypse, . . . 'I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting it' . . .
"His pride was intense . . . In this spirit of arrogance and blasphemy, he did as he willed with the sacred Volume . . . He feels abundantly competent, by his own interior and spiritual instinct, to pronounce dogmatically which books in the canon of Scripture are inspired and which are not . . . He . . . believes he has the faculty of judging the Bible without danger of error. He believes he is infallible." (50:202-04/39)
1. Patrick O'Hare
Another sad tale in Luther's saga was his connection with the Peasants' Revolt of 1525. O'Hare remarks on this:
"As early as 1522, in his Advice to All Christians, he writes:
'It seems as if a rebellion is going to break out . . . and the whole clerical body are about to be murdered and driven out, if they do not prevent it by an earnest, visible change for the better. For the poor man . . . has been tried too much . . . Henceforth he can and will no longer put up with such a state of things, and moreover, he has ample reason to break forth with the flail and the club' . . .
"The proposals of the peasants published in the Twelve Articles of the Manifesto give unmistakable proofs of the religious character of their demands of justice . . . They said they would not abandon their claims unless they were refuted with clear, manifest, undeniable texts of Scripture . . ." (50:224-25)
2. The Extent of Luther's Responsibility
Luther, after the outbreak, wrote a pamphlet, Exhortation to Peace, in hopes of keeping the affair within limits and under control, but his typical lack of prudence and wisdom in language tended to encourage rather than discourage the mindless violence then rampant. In addressing the princes, he says,
"You must become different and give way to the Word of God; if you refuse to do it willingly, then you will be forced to do it by violence and riot. If the peasants do not accomplish it, others must." (50:228)
Note the imperative in the last sentence, implying consent.
After this tract had little effect, Luther penned the notorious Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants (40), urging the authorities (mostly Protestant, by the way), to crush the revolution with cruel force:
"Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants . . . Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them openly or in secret . . . You must kill him as you would a mad dog." (50:232)
3. Roland Bainton
Protestant historian Bainton confesses:
"That one sentence of Luther's, 'smite, slay, and stab,' brought him obloquy never to be forgotten. He was reproached by the peasants as a traitor to their cause." (124:220)
4. Patrick O'Hare
"Luther's advice . . . was fulfilled to the letter . . .
'Like the mules,' he says, 'the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be . . .The people must be forced, driven as one forces and drives swine and wild animals.' . . .
The peasants were slaughtered like sheep. It is computed that more than l00,000 men fell in the field of battle . . . The voice of all history proclaims that Luther was the cause of the insurrection of the peasants and of their subsequent massacre. Protestant writers for the last four centuries have declared that he was the firebrand who alternately stirred up peasant against prince and prince against peasant . . ." (50:235-37/41)
5. Erasmus
Erasmus, who was watching Luther closely at this time, reproached him with having fomented the rebellion:
"We are now reaping the fruit of your spirit. You do not acknowledge the rebels, but they acknowledge you, and it is well known that many who boast of the name of the evangel have been instigators of the horrible revolt . . . You cannot dispel the general conviction that the mischief was caused by the books you sent forth against the monks and bishops, in favor of evangelical freedom."' (50:238/42)
6. Luther's Denial of Wrongdoing
"I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I put it upon the Lord God by whose command I spoke . . . My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it." (50:240-41/43)
Is not Luther's personality evidently flawed, the more one sees of it? The most appalling aspect of his attitude here is the attribution of his words and opinions to God Himself. Rather than shifting blame to other human beings, he has the shocking audacity to rationalize his wrongdoing by, in effect, "putting the blame on God." Such has been the attitude of many sectarians throughout Church history, when their teachings or practices have been questioned by Christians of somewhat different persuasion. In this case, Luther has been almost universally condemned by Protestant historians for his deplorable involvement in stirring up mass anarchy. The reaction is not exclusively Catholic any more than is the virtually unanimous Protestant opposition to Luther's views on bigamy and his crude language.
1. Patrick O'Hare
Largely because of the Peasants' Revolt and the rapid and widespread splintering of sects due to his own principles, Luther then sought the state as the guarantor of order in the true, evangelical, Lutheran "church". O'Hare, in his (rightly?) critical fashion, states:
"Having abandoned the people whom he had at one time believed had the right of armed resistance to authority, he sees now the need he has in his shaky position of the strong arm of the secular power. Putting aside all his innermost convictions regarding an independent Church . . . he now . . . determines to place his whole reliance for the propagation of his evangel on the princes he once denounced and condemned. This vacillating character, who once repudiated all authority in religion and rejected that of Pope and emperor, now falls back on it as embodied in the princes of the period . . . and forthwith inaugurated the typical State Church, a Church which soon after became the tool and instrument of civil power and which eventually was absorbed by it." (50:243)
2. Kurt Reinhardt
Kurt Reinhardt, author of a two-volume history of Germany, agrees with O'Hare's assertions:
"The 'invisible' church that Luther had hoped to establish in the hearts of all the faithful had grown into a very visible human institution. Luther found himself compelled to maintain it by force and to turn against his own principles of individual freedom and toleration . . . Luther's ideals of spiritual freedom, individual judgment, and pure inwardness were never actually embodied in the completed structure of his church; most of the ideas that had brought about his break with Rome had to seek refuge in the shelter of those separatistic sects that were persecuted with fire and sword by the three reformed churches." (44)
3. Luther's Opinion of Fellow Protestant Dissidents
How then, did Luther regard those kindred Protestants who dared to observe his principles of 1521 with more consistency than himself? O'Hare declares:
"Luther treated with an insufferable arrogance and downright intolerance all who refused to submit to his . . . pronouncements. He was as intolerant towards the leaders and followers of the new sects that sprang up and differed from him as he was against the Mother Church and her adherents . . . Of Zwingli and his colleague, Oecolampad, he wrote that
'they had a devilish, super-devilish, blasphemous heart and lying lips.' " (50:288/45)
"All who shun us and attack us secretly have departed from the faith . . . Just like Zwingli . . . It pains me that Zwingli and his followers take offence at my saying that 'what I write must be true.'" (51:v.4;309)
1. Patrick O'Hare
"Luther not only persecuted individuals, but also large bodies of dissenters . . . Prominent amongst the rebels from the Lutheran ranks were the Anabaptists . . . Luther could not endure this new sect, which his teaching on private judgment brought into being. He manifested his opposition toward it in a synod convened at Hamburg on the 7th of August, 1536, composed of deputies sent by all the cities which had separated from the Mother Church . . . One of its decrees runs as follows:
'Whoever rejects infant baptism, whoever transgresses the orders of the magistrates, whoever preaches against taxes, whoever teaches the community of goods, whoever usurps the priesthood, whoever holds unlawful assemblies, whoever sins against faith, shall be punished with death . . . '
"Not a single protest was raised against this cruel decree. It received unanimous approbation." (50:286-87)
Luther sent this letter to soothe the conscience of bigamist Philip of Hesse:
"Whoever denies the doctrines of our faith. aye, even one article which rests on the Scripture, or the authority of the universal teaching of the Church, must be punished severely. He must be treated not only as a heretic, but also as a blasphemer." (50:288)
2. The Hypocrisy and Irony of Luther
Luther had come full circle, from courageous dissenter to vicious Inquisitor; from "Here I stand - I can do no other" to "This I declare - you can believe no other." He had, amazingly enough, become far more intolerant or dogmatic (in the worst sense of that word) than any corrupt pope or Crusader Catholicism had produced. The ironies manifest in Luther's life are most incredible and fantastic. These unsavory elements certainly counter the image that Catholicism was evil and folly incarnate while Luther was spotless, bold, unswerving for purity and truth, etc. The mythology of Luther must recede from view as the Luther of historical fact comes into focus. Whatever the merits and strengths of Protestantism (and there are very many), they cannot be built upon historical falsehoods and fanciful imagery.
Two well-known and reputable non-Catholic sources back up the above evidence:
3. Roland Bainton
"In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy . . . Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy. In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated." (124:295)
Under the various criteria above, the following groups would be worthy of death: Baptists, Pentecostals, many independent evangelicals, Operation Rescue pro-life activists, civil rights activists, Abolitionists, the Founding Fathers of America, many Libertarians and Conservatives, Communists and socialists, many members of communes, Plymouth Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, humanists and atheists, all religious non-Christians, most theological liberals, all cultists, draft dodgers and conscientious objectors, and some home schoolers. I myself would have failed Luther's litmus test for orthodoxy on at least five of these grounds.
4. Will Durant
"It is instructive to observe how Luther moved from tolerance to dogma as his power and certainty grew . . . In . . . 1520 Luther ordained
'every man a priest' . . . and added, 'we should vanquish heretics with books, not with burning' (46) . . .
But . . . a man who was sure that he had God's Word could not tolerate its contradiction . . . By 1529 he was drawing some delicate distinctions: . . .
'Even unbelievers should be forced to obey the Ten Commandments, attend church, and outwardly conform' (47) . . .
In 1530, in his commentary on the 82nd Psalm, he advised governments to put to death all heretics who preached sedition or against private property, and
'those who teach against a manifest article of the faith' (48) . . .
We should note, however, that toward the end of his life Luther returned to his early feeling for toleration. In his last sermon he advised abandonment of all attempts to destroy heresy by force." (49)
Again, as with the Peasants' Revolt, it was too late - the die was cast, and Protestants were to far exceed Catholics in intolerance in their religious warring, heresy decrees, and most notably, witch hunts. Durant gives examples of persecution by "reformers" after Luther (50): Bucer urged extermination of all professing a "false" religion, along with their wives, children and cattle (51). Melanchthon insisted on capital punishment for the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the denial of infant baptism (115:177), and the belief that some heathen might be saved (111:v.4;140-41). He demanded the suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Lutheran teaching (111:v.14;503). The Protestant states suppressed or forbade Catholic worship, and seized Catholic properties (111:v.6:46-63,181,190,208-14,348-49). Censorship of the press was adopted (111:v.4;232 ff.), along with Excommunication (e.g., in the Augsburg Confession of 1530).
5. Luther and the Jews
One can guess how the Jews would fare in this atmosphere of hate and destruction among Christians, real or so-called. Jews, maintained Luther:
". . . will be tormented . . . in Hell's deepest depths . . . What are we to do with this rejected, damned people? . . . I will give my honest advice. First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire . . . Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and destroyed . . . Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Talmuds are to be taken away from them . . . Fourthly, their Rabbis are to be forbidden under pain of capital punishment to teach any more . . . Fifthly, the Jews are to be entirely denied legal protection when using the roads in the country, for they have no business to be in the country . . . Sixthly, usury is to be forbidden them, and all their cash and their treasures . . . are to be taken away from them . . . all that they have . . . they have stolen and robbed from us through their usury." (50:289-90/52)
This passage is corroborated by Bainton (124:296-8) and Durant (53).
The sad thing is that previously Luther had spoken most tolerantly of the Jews. Now, as an old man who was besieged with illness, frustration, dissension, disappointment, not to mention megalomania (but at times racked with self-doubt), he let loose his tongue with untold consequences again. Later in this same work, About the Jews and Their Lies (1543 ed.), he says:
"Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand . . . If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them." (50:290)
6. Luther's Influence on German History
May God have mercy on a man with an abominable mouth and pen like Luther's. For, without much reflection, one can imagine the implications of such venomous talk for the later history of Germany. Protestant William Shirer, in his 1600-page epic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (54), comes to a sobering conclusion:
"It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and . . . advised that . . .
'they be put under a roof or stable, like the Gypsies. in misery and captivity' . . .
- advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler . . . In . . . the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the 'mad dogs' . . . Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarseness and brutality of language unequalled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and priestly absolutism . . . until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918 . . . In no country, with the exception of Czarist Russia, did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the state . . . Like Niemoeller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933 . . . Hitler . . . had always had a certain contempt for the Protestants: . . . .
'You can do anything you want with them. They will submit . . . they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs' . . .
He was well aware that the resistance to the Nazification of the Protestant churches came from a minority of pastors and an even smaller minority of worshipers."
Catholicism, on the other hand, had on March 14, 1937, by means of its head, Pope Pius XI, issued a blistering encyclical which was eminently prophetic, two years before Protestant England was still utterly deceived by "peace in our time" and pacifism. The Pope saw on "the horizon of Germany the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars . . . which have no other aim than . . . of extermination." (55)
Much has been written concerning the allegedly terrible record of the Catholic Church during World War II. The truth, as usual, is quite different from the popular, distorted perception, fed by anti-Catholic propaganda. For instance, John Toland, in his massive, 1100-page, two-volume work, Adolf Hitler (56), a standard on the subject, states:
"The Church, under the Pope's guidance, had already saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined, and was presently [June, 1943] hiding thousands of Jews in monasteries, convents and Vatican City itself. The record of the Allies was far more shameful . . ." (emphasis added)
Finally, we shall consider five remarkable utterances of Luther requiring no further comment:
"Nobody knew Christ . . . nobody knew anything that a Christian ought to be familiar with. The Pope-asses obscured and suppressed all knowledge of heavenly things, but now, thanks to God, men and women know the catechism, they know how to live, to believe, to pray, to suffer, and to die." (50:327-8/57)
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved." (58)
"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers." (50:208-09/59)
"I confess . . . that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests." (50:125/60)
"If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel." (50:125/61)
The foregoing is, I'm sure, most shocking to all, regardless of persuasion. I have attempted to "set the record straight" and to subject Luther to the same standards with which he railed against Catholicism - indeed, that of Scripture, which he championed. One should expect this from a Catholic.
My concern, at bottom, is simply to determine the objective truth of history, and to vindicate the Ancient Faith from calumny and misunderstanding. It is neither my desire nor intention to personally offend anyone, to suggest that Protestantism is worthless, or that its followers are insincere, etc. I myself was intensely committed to evangelical Protestant beliefs for ten years, as an apologist and missionary, and held some of Luther's early views quite strongly, sometimes at considerable cost. He was my hero (at least as an idealistic image).
I am by no means "anti-Protestant" and in fact, have great respect for my former communion, while, at the same time, I disagree with it in many ways. The views set forth here are certainly one-sided, and purposely so, in order to form a conscious counter-argument to the accepted Protestant "mythology," so to speak, of Martin Luther. His real and many strengths are well-covered in any Protestant biography. The objective Christian seeker and student of Church history needs to consult works written from a critical Catholic perspective as well, in order to foster a closer examination and perhaps a reappraisal of Luther, and a greater awareness of the premises and foundational tenets of the Protestant movement, which essentially began with this Augustinian monk from Saxony in 1517.
Much more dialogue between Catholics and Protestants is necessary in order to achieve greater mutual respect and understanding. In such ecumenical discussions, it is clear that the subject of Luther will have to be worked through, as a troublesome issue for Catholics, just as there are any number of aspects of Catholicism which are distressing to Protestants. It must be stated forcefully that no Protestant can deny an organic relationship to Luther, any more than a Catholic can disavow all ties to the historic papacy, the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. If the Catholic must be constantly subjected to taunts about the "baggage" and "skeletons in the closet" of Catholicism, then the Protestant must likewise face up to the unsavory and less-than-saintly elements in Protestant history. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Both sides must have the courage to fairly acknowledge their own shortcomings and the other side's positive, godly attributes.
{* = non- Catholic work}
Original version: 14 January 1991 / Revised 18 October 1993 and (very slightly) 18 January 2000. Copyright 2000 by Dave Armstrong. All rights reserved.