Xb+H. Ch·

THIRD AMERICAN E

Luther’s Own Statements
- CONCERNING

His Teaching and its Results.
. '

K·

TAKEN EXCLUSIVELY

FROM THE EARLIEST AND BEST EDITIONS
,

Ηίi
i

OF

Luther’S German and Latin Works.
BY

I

HENRY O’CONNOR, S.J.
“ Most strange, but yet most truly will I speak.”—
.Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act V.

New York, Cincinnati,

and

Chicago:

benziger brothers,

j

Printers to the Holy Apostolic See,

i
Copyright, 1884, by Benzigek Brothers.

All rights reserved.

Price 15 Cents.

.

n

j

LUTHERS OWN STATEMENTS.
“A marvel of industrious and patient re­
search.”
The Right Rev. Tobias Mullen,
.

•

.

■-"»

'.·

-

'

■

■ '. Bishop of Erie, U. S.

“Though modest and unpretending in appearance this little work may be, it is in reality,
in matter and value, worth many volumes on
the same subject. ... a book to be preserved
for reference, and studied by lovers of truth,
that is, by men who will welcome and embrace
the truth when shown it”
• kThe Right Rev. Thomas Hend^icmen,
f -A .<·
Bishop of Providence *.·

'

OeacWHted

-

T.

'X'

··

AET^ZBI

Luther’s Own Statements
CONCERNING

His Teaching and its Results.
TAKEN EXCLUSIVELY

FROM THE EARLIEST AND BEST EDITIONS
OF

Luther's German and Latin Works.
BY

HENRY O’CONNOR, SJ.
“ Most strange, but yet most truly will I speak.”—
Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act V.

THIRD EDITION.

New York, Cincinnati, and St. Louis :

BENZIGER BROTHERS,
Printers to the Holy Apostolic See,

Copyright, 1884, by Benziger Brothers.

All rights reserved.

' '7

APPROBATIONS
I. ENGLAND.

1. His Eminence Cardinal MANNING, Arch­
bishop of Westminster, August 25th, 1884 :
‘I thank you for your courtesy in sending me your work
on Luther: and still more for the work itself, which has the
special value of making Luther bear witness against himself.
No hand could destroy him so surely as his own. It is
the best comment I have seen on the Lutheran
Centenary and it will open many eyes.

2. His Eminence Cardinal NEWMAN: “I was
much pleased to receive the gift of your valuable book/"
3. The Most Rev. GEORGE ERRINGTON,
Archbishop of Trebizond: “I have had much satis­

faction in examining the work.. . .which. .. .will be. . . .
very useful... .through the selections made of the Arch­
heretic's doctrines and practises, and the critical style in
which all possibility of throwing doubt upon the authen­
ticity of the passages adduced in confirmation is removed.·”

4. The Right Rev. WILLIAM BERNARD
ULLATHORNE, O.S.B., Bishop of Birming’ ham : “ My own opinion has always been that the only
way of rightly exposing that infamous man is by giving his
own words from his authentic writings. This you have
done very well.”

5.
The Right Rev. BERNARD O'REILLY,
Bishop of Liverpool: “It is plain that no one can
question the accuracy of the quotations.”

6.
The Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT
HEDLEY, O S. B., Bishop of Newport and
Minevia, and Editor of the Dublin Review, June 30th,

1884: “Your book will always have its value as an excellent
handbook of Evidence : I think I may sav, as the most
valuable piMication in English which the recent
commemoration has brought forth.”
n
The Right Rev. ROBERT CORNTHWAITE, Bishop of Leeds : “ It is a most inter­

esting subject.”

8. The Right Rev. ARTHUR RIDDELL,
Bishop of Northampton: “The evidence adduced
ought to be accepted by all, even the most prejudiced in
his favour. ”

9. The Right Rev. EDWARD G. BAGSHAWE, Bishop of Nottingham : “I have received
your learned work on Luther, and have already read a great
part of it with deepi nterest. In the conflict of assertions
it is just what is wanted, and if it can only get sufficiently
known, will do the greatest service. ”

10. The Right Rev. HERBERT VAUGHAN,
Bishop of Salford : “ It will do much good if people

will read it candidly.’’
11. The Right Rev. EDMUND KNIGHT,
Bishop of Shrewsbury : “ I have been reading your
‘Martin Luther’ with the greatest interest. You have
certainly made that ‘unclean spirit’confess his own iniq­
uity, and I think to all who read it only one conclusion
can remain
He is, in fact, ‘twice slain.’’’

i2.
The Right Rev. ROBERT COFFIN,
C.SS.R·, Bishop of Southwark: “It seems to me
most conclusive, and calculated to open the eyes of all those
who are not blinded by prejudice. ”

II. IRELAND.
13.
His Eminence Cardinal MAC CABE,
Archbishop of Dublin : “Accept my thanks for your
brochure on Luther : It is well to have the wicked man
condemned from his own testimony. Mischief has been
sometimes done by our zealous accusers. So it is well
that we should have the Apostle of Revolt giving his own
character.”

14. The Right Rev. BARTHOLOMEW
WOODLOCK, Bishop of Ardagh : “ It contains
‘reliable evidence ’ of the truly revolutionary and diabolical
work which the unhappy man .... unfortunately ....
achieved .... to the ruin of so many souls, and the
devastation of many fair fields in Christendom.”

15·
The Right Rev. THOMAS CARR,
Bishop of Galway, and formerly Editor of the Irish

Ecclesiastical Record : “ I shall read it more than once,
as I regard it with great interest, on account of the
authentic exposition of Luther’s doctrines which it con­
tains.”

16.
The Right Rev. MICHAEL LOGUE,
Bishop of Raphoe : “ It must have cost you much
labour to have got so much and such rare information,
bearing on the life of Luther, condensed into such moderate
space.”

III.

SCOTLAND.

17. The Most Rev. CHARLES EYRE, Arch­
bishop of Glasgow: “With the greatest interest 1
perused it carefully.”
18. The Right Rev. JOHN MACDONALD,
Bishop of Aberdeen: “By your care and trouble in
publishing this pamphlet, containing as it does so much
in so concise a form, you have saved much trouble to, and
laid under no small obligation, those who would wish to
know Luther as the great ‘ doctor ’
authority he wished
to be considered, but who might find it inconvenient, or
rather impossible, to have access to the original sources
from which you have drawn.'”'

19. The Right Rev. ANGUS MACDONALD,
Bishop of Argyll and the Isles : “ It must have in­

volved a great deal of labour.”

20. The Right Rev. GEORGE RIGG, Bishop
of Dunkeld : “I beg to thank you for your kindness in
sending me your valuable work on the Archheretic, of whom
so much has been made lately. I am sure it will do great
good and open the minds of many who wish to see the
truth.”

IV. AMERICA.
21. The Most Rev. JAMES GIBBONS, Arch­
bishop of Baltimore.—“The Most. Rev. Archbishop
directs me to say...........that what he was able to see of your
work...........met his entire approval.
{Signed}, D. J.
O’Connell. ”
22. The Most Rev. WILLIAM H. ELDER,
Archbishop of Cincinnati: “I have looked at it

enough to see how valuable it will prove. I do bless your
work most cordially. I will.......... encourage its circulation
as much as I can, ”

23. The Most Rev. CHARLES J. SEGHERS,
Archbishop of Oregon: “I acknowledge the receipt
of your work on Luther, and beg to thank you for the in­
formation I derived from the perusal of it. Well done !
The inference one has to draw from a study of the character
of that Reformer, is that it is a great pity he did not begin
with reforming his own self.”

24. The Most Rev. PETER RICHARD
KENRICK, Archbishop of St. Louis: “I have
carefully read it, and cannot but admire the zeal that
prompted so laborious an undertaking as the examination
of the Reformer’s voluminous works, and the clear light in
which you have placed the absence of anything like a
Divine Commission in his character.’’

25. The Right Rev. TOBIAS MULLEN,
Bishop of Erie : “You have rendered a great service to
the cause of religious and historical truth by the publication
of Luther’s Own Statements, extracted from his authentic
writings. Whoever desires to know what the wretched
heresiarch really taught will consult this work—Λ marvel
of industj'ious aiul patient research.'

26. The Right Rev. JOSEPH DWENGER,
Bishop of Fort Wayne.—“His Lordship thinks the

book will accomplish a great deal of good.
F. Lang, S.”

{Signed}, Jno.

27. The Right Rev. KILIAN FLASCH,
Bishop of La Crosse.—“Your efficient work displays
a patient painstaking that is truly admirable. {Signed},
E. J. Fitzpatrick, Respectfully, for the Bishop of La
Crosse.”
28. The Right Rev. D. MANUCY, Bishop of
Mobile: “I congratulate you on the production of so

useful a work and wish it the extensive circulation it de­
serves,”

29. The Right Rev. THOMAS HENDRICKEN, Bishop of Providence: “Though
modest and unpretending in appearance this little work
may be, it is in reality in matter and value ivorih
many volumes on the same subject .... a book to be
preserved for reference, and studied by lovers of truth, that
is, by men who will welcome and embrace the truth when
shown it.”

V.

SOUTH AFRICA.

30. The Right Rev. JAMES RICARDS,
Bishop of Retimo, and Vicar Apostolic of the Eastern
Vicariate : “I thank you very much for your able brochure
on Luther. I consider it unanswerable and will treasure it
as a safe book of reference, in case I have to sustain any
more attacks from the followers of the unfortunate rebel.”

CONTENTS

PAGE

Preface

····.....

3— 6

··»·«··,

7— 8

Introduction

PART I.—LUTHER AND HIS TEACHING.
PAGE

CHAPTER.

I. Luther Rejects

the

Authority of the Pope

II. Luther Admits

the

Authority

III. Luther

V.

acts with

.......

19—2c

Authority and Infallibility

21—34

Luther’s Intolerance against those who
fuse

TO

13—19

Devil .

His Own Authority and

proclaims

Infallibility

IV. Luther

of the

9—13

.

SUBMIT

TO

HIS

.

.

.

Infallibility

AUTHORITY

.

%

re­

AND

*

·

34—40

PART IL—RESULTS OF LUTHERS TEACHING.
PAGE

CHAPTER.

I. Political Results

,

.

.

.

·.

.

41—5°

II. Moral Results

.

.

.......................................... So-57

Conclusion

.

P

.....

,

S8--62

PREFACE TO THE THIRD ENGLISH EDITION.
1. The extraordinary interest taken in everything connected
with the Lutheran Centenary had entirely subsided before the
first Edition of this little pamphlet had been published. It was,
nevertheless, the opinion of friends, competent to judge, that,
owing to the almost unique character of the original sources
from which the information had been derived, and to the most
scrupulous accuracy in translating and quoting, the book might
be of some service to the public. Two English Editions ap­
peared, and later on two American Editions were published by
Benziger Brothers. The favourable reception accorded to the
work far surpassed the most sanguine expectations. The issue
of this third English Edition is due to the encouragement re­
ceived from so many quarters.
2. I am glad of the opportunity thus afforded of publicly
admitting the truth of a remark made to me in a friendly spirit
by a Protestant author, viz., that in general the style of writing
was incomparm ,’y coarser at Luther’s time than it is at present.
But while impartially conceding this much, I must distinctly
assert that the degree of coarseness which we repeatedly come
across in Luther’s works is entirely incompatible with the
character of a true Reformer. Luther surpasses himself in vul­
garity in his famous work “ against the Popery of Rome, in­
stituted by the Devil.” This extravagant and unseemly volume
was published only one year previous to Luther’s death. Some
passages will be found quoted in the first Chapter of this little
work. I defy any one to lay his hand on one single unbecoming
word in the letters and writings of Ignatius of Loyola, the great
Catholic Reformer of the sixteenth century.
3. The pamphlet being stereotyped, it is impossible for me to
arrange the different parts of each Chapter or Section in chrono­

ii

logical order, as The Dublin Review suggested. I may, how­
ever, remark that, in the first part of the work, out of about one
hundred and fifteen quotations from Luther’s works, there are
only three, the date of which cannot be ascertained by a careful
reader. In some instances a slight knowledge of Latin or
German would be necessary for the purpose. As to the second
part, the Political Results of Luther’s teaching are given m strict
chronological order. The last Chapter which deals with the
Moral Results, is the only one in which, generally speaking, it will
be found impossible to verify the date of Luther’s sayings. It will
be sufficient to remark that the Reformer’s complaints as to the
sad state, of morality among his followers steadily increased, and
were never as loud as towards the end of his life.
4. In deference to a second wish expressed by The Dublin
Review, I herewith give the translation of Luther’s celebrated
Latin “letter to Melarichton, only a fragment of which seems to
be preserved. It covers three pages in De Wette (IL, 34~37)·
The preface which is reprinted from the first and second edition
of this pamphlet contains some information as to the high
esteem in which De Wette’s collection of Luther’s letters is
deservedly held.
In the letter just mentioned, Luther, after dealing with the
question of celibacy, and of Communion under one kind,
touches on the calamities which are in store for Germany on
account of its “unbelief, impiety and hatred of the Gospel.” He
then continues : “ But this affliction will then be laid down at our
door, as if we [the believers in the new Gospel] had provoked
God by being heretics, and we shall be the reproach of men and
the outcast of the people, but they [those who do not believe in
the new Gospel] will make excuse for their sins and will
justify themselves [they will consider themselves to be just on
account of their good works], so that he [God] will show that
reprobates are not changed for the better either by goodness or
by wrath : and many will be scandalized. May, may the will of
the Lord be done. Amen.”
“ If you [Melanchton] are a preacher of grace, do not preach
fictitious, but real grace. If it is really grace, bear the weight

όί real, not of imaginary sin. God does not save imaginary
sinners.”
“ Be a sinner, and sin mightily, but trust and rejoice more
mightily in Christ, who is the conqueror of sin, of death, and
of the world. Sins must be committed, as long as we are in this
state. This life is not the abode of justice, but, as Peter says,
we await a new heaven and a new earth, in which justice
dwells. It is sufficient that, through the riches of glory, we have
acknowledged the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world ; sin will not separate us from it [the Lamb], not even if in
one single day we w;ere to commit .... murder, a thousand, a
thousand times over. Do you believe that the price and ran­
som paid for our sins, in such and so great a Lamb is so
trifling? ’’
“ Pray powerfully, for you are a most powerful sinner. The
feast of Peter, the Apostle, in the year 1521.” (De Wette
IL, 36-37.)
I am of the opinion that, if we merely consider the words
just quoted, it would be an exaggeration to say that Luther
ordered his disciple to sin, or that he even positively advised him
to do so. To my mind the words mean : “As far as the certain­
ty of our own salvation is concerned, it does not matter one bit
whether we sin or not, as long as we put our trust in Christ.”
Thus, whereas Christ preaches hatred of every sin, Luther pro­
claims indifference towards every kind of sin, with the only ex­
ception of unbelief.
5. Nine years later Luther’s language is considerably bolder.
In a letter to Jerome Weller, dated November 6th, 1530, he
points out the way of overcoming temptations to despondency :
“We must,” he says, “occasionally indulge more freely in drink,
play, jest, and we must even commit some sin out of hatred and
contempt of the Devil, in order not to allow him to trouble our
conscience about very trifling matters, otherwise we shall be
overcome, if we are too anxiously careful not to sin. ... I wish
I could lay my hands on some signal kind of sin, just to mock
the Devil, that he may understand that I neither acknowledge
nor am conscious of any sin. We must put the whole deca­

iv

logue out of sight and mind, we, I say, whom the Devil thus
attacks and annoys.” (De Wette IV., 188.) The Reformer re­
marks in conclusion that he will not be condemned for his sins,
since Christ has suffered for them.
In this letter Luther not only allows, but even wishes hisfriend
to sin, when he is subject to the temptation of despondency.
Now, every sin is contrary to the will of God. Therefore,
Luther, the self-constituted Lawgiver of the sixteenth century,
allows and recommends what God, the supreme Lawgiver of all
ages, past, present, and future, forbids.

Ditton Hall, near Widnes,
August, 1885.

PREFACE.
I.—Works Consulted.
1. Nearly two-thirds of the matter contained in this
pamphlet is taken from the original editions of Luther’s own
Works, as published in Wittenberg, under the very eyes of the
Reformer of Germany himself
Two hundred of such
original Works of Luther have been kindly lent to me. The]
were printed between 1513 and 1546, and are bound to­
gether in chronological order, in 15 volumes.
L may
safely say, that very few such extensive collections of the
oldest editions of Luther’s Works exist in the whole oj
England or America.
2. The remaining part is, in great measure, taken from
De Wette’s collection of Luther’s Letters, in 5 volumes :
“ Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken
....... von Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, Berlin,
bei G. Reimer.” 1825-1828.
De Wette was a Professor of Protestant Divinity at Basle,
in Switzerland, and a staunch supporter of Luther. In his
introductory remarks he assures us, that whenever it was
in any way possible, he invariably consulted Luther’s manu­
scripts and the first editions that Luther himself had revised.
Kostlin, a learned Protestant Professor ai the University
of Halle-Wittenberg, and perhaps the most prominent
among Luther’s scientific supporters in Germany, says :
“ The collection of Luther’s ‘Letters, Epistles and Consider­
ations ’......... by De Wette.......... deserves special mention.”
(Herzog, Real Encyklopâdie für protestantische Théologie
und Kirche. Zweite Auflage, Artikel, Luther). In fact, the
accuracy and trustworthiness of this most critical work is
fully acknowledged by all writers of history.

4
3- A certain amount of information is also taken from
the complete edition of Luther’s German Works. This was
published at Erlangen in 1826, etc., and comprises no less
than 67 volumes. A German Protestant periodical says of
this Erlangen edition : “ The most incontrovertible superi­
ority of this edition is....... certainly the restoration of the
primitive, correct text, in accordance with the original editions
pi'inted in Wittenberg itself, under Luther's own eye."
(Kurze Geschichte und Charakteristik aller Gesammtausgaben
von Dr. M. Luthers Werken...... abgedruckt aus der Zeit­
schrift fur Protestantismus und Kirche N. F. Band XIX).
In the article already quoted Kostlin says: “7/ certainly
deserves the first place ” (Herzog, Artikel, Luther).

4. The Walch edition is referred to in the “ Moral
Results” of Luther’s Teaching. This edition was published
by Gebauer, Halle, in 24 volumes, between 1740 and 1753.
The work was carried on under the supervision of Professor
D. Johann Georg Walch, of Jena. The Protestant periodical
I quoted above says, that with the exception of the Erlangen
edition, it is “undeniably....... the most complete and the
most convenient ” edition.
5. One or two passages are also taken from Aurifaber’s
Latin edition of Luther’s Letters. Aurifaber was one of
Luther’s most devoted personal friends.

6. One of the most important quotations is from “ D.
Martini Lutheri Opera Latina, curavit Dr, Henricus Schmidt,
Frankofurti ad M. et Erlangi,” 1865-1873,
7. The Latin edition of Jena has also been consulted.
8. I give only six references which are not taken from
Luther’s own writings; one of them comes from Karl
Hagen, a celebrated German Protestant Historian; the
athers are chiefly from Kostlin, Luther’s famous German
champion. These passages do not contain any new evidence
concerning Luther; they merely confirm the accuracy of the
statements made by the Reformer. 1 am, therefore, fully
entitled to state, that the evidence concerning Luther is
“ exclusively ” derived from his own writings.
9. I have not taken any of my quotations from the Table

5

Talk) which, though published in the two best Protestant
editions of Luther’s Works, was nevertheless not written by
Luther.
II.—Accuracy and Trustworthiness.
1. Not a single second-hand quotation is to be found
from beginning to end of my little work.
2. 1 have not quoted any one passage, either in this
preface or in the body of the work, which I have -not seen
with my own eyes in the book referred to.
3. Not one of my quotations has been taken from a
Catholic author. Even the editions of Luther’s Works or
Letters which I have consulted are all published by Luther’s
friends and admirers.
4. I have taken special care not to quote anything, that
would have a different meaning, if read with the full context.
In several instances I have studied the work quoted from
beginning to end ; in many other cases I have carefully
looked over the whole work ; in every case I have at least
satisfied myself that I was quoting in harmony with the
context.
5. In every single case the translation from the German
or the Latin is my own. The fact that I have spent seventeen
years, either in Germany, or in the almost exclusive society
of Germans, will guarantee a sufficient knowledge of German
for the task which I have undertaken.
The translation
itself is both literal and accurate.
6. Exact foot-note references are given for every passage
quoted.
The old AVittcnberg editions^ are, however, as a
rule, not paged. I have, therefore, counted the pages
myself, the title-page itself being looked upon as the first
page. I can, of course, only answer for copies of the same
edition as my own. The same work of Luther was often
published three or four times during the same year.
7. The references are interesting from a scientific point of
view, inasmuch as they are reliable and trustworthy copies
of the original titles. It is not necessary to remark that in
the old German Works the titles are printed in German
characters ; moreover the commas arc a line (I). This does
not apply to Luther’s Latin Works.

6
I have also enabled the reader to detect when a new line
begins in the original title-pages.
The signs of a new line
are :
a. A considerable distance intervening between two
words.
b. A hyphen (-), which in the old prints is ( = ).
c. The mere separation of one word into two parts
(Lu ther), when the hyphen is left out in the title-pages.
In the first case the new line begins with a word, in the two
latter instances it begins with the last syllable or syllables of
a word.

8. The proof sheets have been corrected up to the point
of inability of finding any further inaccuracy, either in the
quotations, or in the translation, or in the references.
9. It is evident that the statements made in this work
can be disproved only by showing, that the references are
falsely given, or that the context does not support the mean­
ing attributed to the passages quoted. No other manner of
dealing with the question can be accepted as either scientific
or conclusive.

INTRODUCTION.
1. This pamphlet does not pretend to be a Life oj
Luther.
2. My only and sole purpose is to inquire into the
question, whether, in any sense of the word, Luther can be
looked upon as a Reformer commissioned by Almighty God.
3. Now, God is a Being of Infinite Dignity, Truth, and
Holiness.
4. Whenever, therefore, we read in the Bible that either
Prophets or Apostles act as the chosen instruments of
Heaven, we also find—
a. That the manner in which they teach is in accordance
with the supreme Dignity of Him who sends them ;
b. That the doctrines which they inculcate are worthy of
the God of all Truth; and,
c. That the results of their teaching are such as to entitle
them to be revered as the messengers of a God of Infinite
Holiness.
5. If, therefore, Luther’s character as a Reformer can
stand this three-fold test, we must look upon him as a vessel
of election chosen by God to do a great work in His Church.
If, however, Luther’s teaching is not in accordance with this
three-fold standard, we cannot reasonably admit his claims.
6. Now, as to the manner in which Luther taught:
a. We find him rejecting the authority of the Pope with
an amount of diplomacy and coarseness, utterly inconsistent
with the sublime Dignity of Him, whose messenger he
purposes to be.
b. Luther assures us that Satan argued in favour of some
of the principal doctrines of his new Creed.
Now, it is
beneath the dignity of God to allow His chosen legate to
appeal to the testimony of Satan in support of his teaching.
7. As to the doctrines of the Reformer :
a. Luther claims an amount of authority, and a degree
of infallibility, which Protestants are, as a rule, unwilling
to admit in anybody since the days of the Apostles.
b. He rejects the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle to

8
the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelations, although, ac­
cording to the Thirty-nine Articles, these are “ Canonical
Books....... of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church.” (Art. 6.)
c. Whatever may be said about matters of minor
importance, every fair-minded person will agree with me
that the teaching of a Reformer, who has the sanction of
Heaven, cannot possibly be in direct opposition to any of the
most fundamental doctrines of Christian morality, such as
the unity of Christian marriage, and the unlawfulness of
adultery.
d. Luther condemns, not only all the Jews and Roman
Catholics, but even all Protestants differing from himself,
to Hell. Now, scarcely any Christian of the present day
believes this important article in the full extent as insisted
on by Luther.
8/ As to the political results: Neither Christ, nor the
Prophets, nor the Apostles excited the passions of the people
till the outbreak of a rebellion was almost unavoidable.
9. As to the moral results: Luther informs us, in
numberless passages, that his followers became worse than
they had been under the Pope. It is idle to say that such
must necessarily have been the case since the people were
in the throes of a religious revolution. For the greatest
religious revolution which the world has ever witnessed was
that brought forth by the teaching of Christ and His
Apostles. Now, the followers of Christ and of His Apostles
did not lead worse lives than before ; on the contrary, the
innocence, purity and holiness of their lives made them the
admiration of the world.
10. The careful reader will find that I do not condemn
Luther for anything that is not unjustifiable in the eyes of
the great bulk of English or American Protestants.
11. Every fair-minded man will admit that, if I succeed
in proving the facts mentioned in these introductory re­
marks, Luther cannot be considered a Reformer sent by
Almighty God, whatever bright spots his friends may admire,
either in his character or in his teaching.
St. Joseph’s, Bedford Leigh.
March, 1884.

PART I.
LUTHER

AND

HIS

TEACHING.

Chapter I.—LUTHER REJECTS THE AUTHORITY
OF THE POPE.

Pope Leo X. was startled at the account he heard of
Luther’s new doctrines. Negotiations began, during which
Luther wrote to the Pope letters, that are masterpieces of
diplomacy.
1. Luther ends one of these letters to the Pope with the
following words : “ Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet
of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have.
Vivify, kill, call, rc-call, approve, condemn, as you please ; I
will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ, who
presides p nd speaks in thee. If I have deserved death, I
will not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord’s, and the
fulness thereof; Who is blessed for ever. Amen. May He
also preserve thee for ever. Amen. Anno. M.D.XVIII.”1
2. According to De Wette, the letter we have just quoted
was written May 30, 1518. On the nth of December of
the same year, therefore only six and a half months later,
Luther wre ,e to his friend, Wenceslaus Link : “ I will send you
my playful remarks (nugas), so that you may see, whether
I am right in guessing, that the true Antichrist, according
to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court : I think I am able to
prove that he (the Pope) is now worse than the Turks.”2
3. Let us, however, see in what terms Luther addresses
I. This is printed in the “ IRcsolutioncs t>ispu=tation«in JF. flbarlini
Uutbcv
ïtngustiniant, he inbulgenttar. vii=tutc, ab ipso ear.
antorc, a plu=ribns incnbis repurgatæ,
üutttcmbergæ.” End
of page: ‘‘Liber
Candidum & liberum lectorem uolo." On last
page we read : “ Lipsiae, apud Melchiorem Lotlhcrum. A.mo
domini
Millesimo Quingentesimo
decimonono.” p 6.
j. De Wette 1. 193.

ΙΟ

the “Roman Antichrist,” less than three months afterwards.
He writes, March 3, 1519 : “ Now, most Holy Father, before
God and every creature of His, I declare that Z have not
intended, and that to-day also I do not intend in any way to
touch, or by any artifice (versutia) to destroy the power oj
the Roman Church and of your Holiness ; on the contrary,
I most fully confess, that the power of this Church is above
all, and that nothing, either in heaven or on earth, is to be
preferred to it, except only Jesus Christ the Lord of all.”3
4. Before this last letter of Luther could well have reached
the Pope, in those days, when there were no railways, only
ten days later, March 13, 1519, Luther wrote to Spalatin :
“ I am also looking over the decrees of the Popes for my
disputation, and (I say it into your ear) I do not know,
whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or his Apostle: so
miserably is Christ (that is, truth) corrupted and crucified
by him in the decrees....... Wittembergæ, Dominica Invocavit,
anno MDXIX. F. Martinus Lutherus, August.” (August­
inian). 4
Luther had thus already, on March 13, 1519, studied the
decrees of the Popes sufficiently to find out, that the Pope
is either Antichrist, or the Apostle of Antichrist. He had,
we may be pretty certain, been at this work more than ten
days before acquainting Spalatin with this wonderful result
of his studies. If so, Luther wrrote to the Pope on March
3, 1519, telling him, chat he did not intend attacking the
power of the Roman Church and of his Holiness, at the very
time, when he was studying the decrees of the Popes with the
express purpose of assailing the Pope in the disputation with
Dr. Eck, which was soon to take place. If this is not
downright hypocrisy, I do not know what is. In one single
chapter of the Bible Our Lord repeats no less than seven
times the dreadful words: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites.” (Matth. XXIII).
5. On Dec. 10th, 1520, Luther openly, publicly and
solemnly trampled the authority of the Pope under foot by
burning the Papal Bull of excommunication just outside the
gates of Wittenberg. In the same year he published a little
j+.
*. De Wette 1. 239—2^0.

3 De Wette I

book, in which he gives some very amusing reasons for this
extraordinary act. 5
6. Only one year before his death, Luther published a
famous work against the Pope. This work is so satanical
in its title,7 so satanical in its beginning,
o
O’ so satanical in its
almost every page, so super-satamcal in its conclusion, that
it could have only been written by a man with a thoroughly
satanical spirit. It is marvellous how anyone should have
been able to till one hundred and'fifty-seven printed pages with
such a number of satanical express.ons mat must have been
borrowed from the very depths of He”.
In proof of my assertions I subjoin the following
quotations :
a. The title of the book is: “Against the Popery of
Rome, instituted by the Devil."67
a. The work itself begins as follows : “The most devilish
Fatner, St. Paul the ThirdT1
Paul the Third was Pope at that time.
c. As to the general character of the book, space
allows my giving only a few specimens, selected from about
two hundred similar passages, which I have myself counted
in this most monstrous worx.
Speaking of the Pope, Luther says that he will “ try to
comb the long, uncombed ears of the great coarse donkey.”8
Again, he writes : “ Well, if I was Emperor, I know
well what I would do. 1 would tie and bind all the blas­
phemous rascals, the Pope, the Cardinals, and every member
of the Pope’s household together I would lead them not
more than three (German) miles from Rome towards
Ostia...... A water there, called in Latin Mare Tyrrhenum,
is a precious curative for all diseases, injuries, and in­
firmities of his Papal Holiness, of all the Cardinals, and
of all his followers (literally, “of all his Chair,” that is to say,
of all who believe in the Chair of St. Peter). I would put
them in there nicely, and would give them a bath. And
5. Warumb des Bapsts vnd sey-ner Jungern bûcher von
Doct.
-uart.no Lu iner vorbrât
s.ynn.
Lass auch antzeygea
wer do
_ wil. warumb sie D. Ln-t.iers bûcher vor-prennet ha-ben.
Wittemberg.:.
iz.Xift.
J'J·.
6· λλ Ider das Bab stum zu Rom vont
Teufel ge-stifft.
Aiart. Luth. D.
ZE.S.JXv,
7. Ibidem, 3.
8. Ibidem, 37.

12

should they be afraid of the water, as people who are
possessed (viz., by the Devil) and are mad, generally speak­
ing, are afraid of water, I would give them, as their security,
the rock on which they and their Church are built, the keys
too, in order that they might be able to bind and to loose
all that is in heaven and on earth, so that they might be
able to command the water as they liked. Moreover, they
should also have the shepherd’s crook and staff, in order that
they might be able to deal blows into the face of the water,
so that its (the water’s) mouth and nose might bleed........
What will you bet ? if they had bathed in that healing bath
for half an hour, all their diseases, injuries and infirmities
would cease and come to an end.........I could give Christ
my Lord as a pledge for that.”0
Luther says : “ The Popds Christ is the mother of the
Devil." That is to say, the Christ, in whom the Pope and
the Catholics believe, is the mother of the Devil. Again :
“ The Pope, the Cardinals, and the whole Romish Court and
mob, are nothing else but a stable full of big, coarse, stupid, dis­
graceful donkeys." There is no mistaking the meaning of the
following passage: “ You are indeed a coarse donkey, and you
remain a donkey, you donkey of a Pope" Luther wrote only
a year before the Council of Trent. Addressing himself to
the “ Emperor, the King, the Princes and Lords, and who­
ever is able to attack ” the supreme rulers of the Catholic
Church, he says : “The Pope, the Cardinals....... ought to be
taken and (as they are blasphemers) their tongue ought to be
torn out through the back of their neck and nailed to the
gallows....... After that let them hold one Council, or as
many as they like, on the gallows, or in Hell among all the
Devils.” In fact this long work of one hundred and fifty­
seven pages is overflowing with these and similar expressions:
“ Devil, all the Devils, thousand Devils, the Devil and his
mother, devilish, hellish, Antichrist, rascal, archrascal,
murderer, donkey, fool, stupid fool,” etc., etc.10
d. Luther concludes his famous work with the
following words : “ Now, listen, Donkey of a Pope,
with your long donkey ears and your damned lying
$. Ibidem, 127-128.
•a Ibidem. 130, 132. 20, 00.

13

mourn.........But here I must stop ; if it is the will of God, 1
will do it still better in another book. If I die in the
meantime, may it please God that some one else should do
it a thousand times stronger. For the devilish Popery is the
last misfortune on earth, and the first thing that all the
Devils proclaim with all their might. May God help us.
Amen.”11
I have come across several such utterly vulgar, coarse,
and disreputable expressions in this work of Luther, that I
would not venture to give them, even in the original German.
I can only say in conclusion, that I believe this is one of
the most monstrous books that has ever been written. In
satanical expressions it will never be surpassed, except,
perhaps, by Antichrist himself. If this book were accurately
translated into English, extensively published, and carefully
read by every Protestant Englishman, the whole nation
would turn away with horror and disgust from the monster,
who was capable of writing such a scandalous work

Chapter II.—LUTHER ADMITS THE AUTHORITY
OF THE DEVIL.

1. The long passage, which I am about to quote, is
taken from the original Wittenberg edition of Luther’s work
against Private Mass and the Ordination of Priests. The
copy lying before me while I write was printed in 1533.12
2. In the introduction, Luther tells us, how wonderfully he
had succeeded in doing away with Indulgences, and he then
expresses the wish, that God would also do away with Mass
and Ordination, so that there would be neither Popes nor
Bishops.
3. After this, Luther commences as follows : “I will begin
with myself, and make a little confession to you, holy
Fathers ; give me a good absolution, that will also do you
xi. Ibidem, 157.
12, Von der win-ckelmesse vnd
Pfaffen Weihe.
D. Mart. Luther.
Wittemberg
DMXXXHI. This is the
title page. On the last page we read: “ Gedruckt zu Wittemberg
durch Nickel Schir-lentz.
ΛΒΕ)ΧΧ.ΧΙΠ."
Î do not find any English word that fully expresses the contempt against Mass that
the German word does. I translate “winckelmesse” simply by Private Mass;
literally it is “ Corner Mass” (Mass said in a Corner!

14
no harm. I once awoke at midnight, when the Devil began
to dispute with me in my heart after the following manner (as
he is able to make many a night of mine bitter and miserable
enough) : ‘ Listen [it is the Devil who speaks to Luther],
listen, you learned man, do you know that for fifteen years
you have almost daily said Mass privately ? How will it be
if, in such Masses, you have merely been practising idolatry,
and have adored, and held up for tne adoration of others, not
the Body and Blood of Christ, but merely bread and wine?’
I (Luther) answered : ‘ I am a consecrated Priest, have
received chrism and ordination from the Bishop, moreover,
I did all that according to order and obedience, why then
should I not have consecrated, since I repeated the words
seriously, and said Mass with all possible devotion ? You (the
Devil) certainly know that.’—‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘it is true.
But Turks and heathens also do everything in their churches
according to order and earnest obedience. The Priests of
Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel did everything with perhaps
greater devotion than the true Priests in Jerusalem. What,
if your ordination, chrism and consecration were also un­
christian and false, like that of the Turks and of the
Samaritans ?’”13
4. “Here indeed the sweat broke forth and my heart began
to tremble and to beat. The Devil knows well how to put
his argument, and to push it further, and he has a
deep, powerful voice. In suchlike disputations there are
no frequent nor long pauses ; but in the twinkling
of an eye answer follows answer.
And from my own
experience I can well understand how it is, that in the
morning people may be found dead in bed. He (the Devil)
can strangle the body. That is one way. But he can like­
wise so frighten the soul in disputing with it, that in
an instant it is forced to depart, as many a time almost
happened to me. Well, he (the Devil) had attacked me in this
disputation. And, in the sight of God, I did not wish to leave
such an endless list of abominations lying on myself, but
to defend my innocence.” Immediately after this Luther
continues : “ Listen to the reasons which he (the Devil)
alleged against my ordination and consecration.^4
13, Ibidem, 7-8.
«4, Ibidem, 8.

ts

5. “ · For the first,’ he (the Devil) said : ‘ You know that
you did not believe properly in Christ, and that concerning faith
you have been as good as a Turk. For the Turk, yes,
even I, with all the Devils, also believe all that is written
about Christ (James II), that is, how He was born, died,
ascended into heaven. Yet none of us rejoice or trust in Him
as in a Saviour. Bui we fear Him as a severe Judge. Such a
faith you also had, and no other, when you were ordained
and said Mass; and all the others, both the ordaining Bishop,
- and those whom he ordained, also believed the same. There­
fore, you also all went over from Christ to Mary and to the
Saints ; they had to be your consolation and your helpers
against Christ. This neither you, nor any other Papist, can
deny. Therefore, you were ordained and have said Mass
as heathens, and not as Christians. How, then, have you
been able to consecrate (to change bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of Christ) ? For you have not been the
persons who should consecrate.’”15
6. The Devil then gives several further reasons against
Private Mass.
At the end of the second reason he
exclaims, “ What an ordination and consecration is that !
....... Christ knows nothing of such an ordination. That
is certain.”16
7. The Devil sums up his reasons against Private Mass
with the following words : “ Here you see that in your
Mass, there is, first of all, not the person who ought to con­
secrate, and is able to do so, namely, a man of Christian faith.
Secondly, you have not the person before you, for whom
you ought to consecrate and to whom you ought to give it
(the Sacrament), namely, the Christian congregation or
people. But you, impious, unbelieving Priest, stand there
alone, and you think that Christ has ordained it for your
sake.........Thirdly, the final intention (die endlich meinung),
and the fruit or use desired by Christ are wanting. For it
(the Sacrament) is instituted in order to feed and
strengthen the Christian people (gemeine), and to preach
and praise Christ.
Now’, the Christian congregation
knows nothing about your Maes, hears nothing from you,
«5. Ibidem, 8-9.

«ό. Ibidem, 10.

ÎO

receives nothing from you. But you are silent there ..i the
corner, and you swallow it alone, although you are an unbe­
liever and unworthy, and you feed nobody with it, but you sell
it, as you do your other good works...... Therefore your ordina­
tion and also your consecration are nothing but blasphemy,
and a tempting of God, and neither are you a Priest, nor is
the bread in your Mass the Body of Christ.”17
8. Luther endeavours to defend himself. He says : “In
this fear and danger I tried to drive the Devil away. I took
hold of the old harness, which I had learnt to put on and to
wear in Popery, scilicet intentionem et fidem Ecclesiæ
(namely, the intention and the faith of the Church), that is
to say, I said those Masses according to the faith and to the
intention of the Church. For even if I had not the proper
faith and intention, nevertheless, the Church has the proper
faith and intention. Therefore, my Mass and ordination must
have been valid. Thereupon he (the Devil), attacked me
th J s : ‘ Friend, tell me, where is it written that an
impious, unbelieving person can step forward and consecrate
according to the faith and intention of the Church ? ”’x 8
• The Devil is evidently not satisfied with the teaching
of Catholic Theology.
9. Luther ends by saying : “ This is pretty exactly the sum
and substance of the disputation.”^
10. The discussion with the Devil covers exactly eleven
pages of the Wittenberg edition. As soon as Luther has
finished his account of it; he says : “ Here the Holy Papists
will make fun of me, and will say, ‘Are you the great
Doctor, and don’t know how to answer the Devil ? Do
you not know that he is a liar ? ’ ”
Luther’s reply to this question shows how fully convinced
he felt, that it was really his Satanic Majesty, who had been
contending against Private Mass.
Luther begins with
abusing the Papists, he then tells us, that David and the
Prophets complained about such disputations with the
Devil, that even Christ suffered from his assaults, and that
Emser and Oecolompad most likely died so suddenly
through the force of his fiery onslaughts. Luther then
17. Ibidem, 12-13.
id. Ibidem, 16.
1«. Ibidem. 18.

Continues : “ He is a liar, that is true. But he can tel)
lies better than a bad liar can.........For he ouotes a truth in
his own favour, which you cannot deny, and supports his lies
with it, so that you cannot defend yourself.
It was the
simple truth, when he forced the conviction on the heart of
Judas, that he had betrayed innocent blood; Judas could not
deny that ; for it was a fact. But it was a lie, when he told him to
despair of God....... No, dear brother, the Devil tells no lies,
when he accuses us of our public evil works and life. There
he has two witnesses, that nobody can drive out of court,
namely, the commandment of God, and our conscience.”20
11. Luther’s idea therefore is this: The devil told me the
perfect truth about my wickedness in saying Mass privately
during fifteen years, but he sought to force a lie upon me,
when he tried to drive me to despair.
12. I will now make a few remarks about this famous
passage.
a. The Devil did not appear to Luther in a visible form on
this occasion, as is evident from the words : “ In my
heart.”21
b. Luther’s conversation with the Devil about justification
by faith alone, was, however, not a dream ; for Luther
writes : “ I once awoke at midnight, when the Devil
began....... ”22
c. Luther’s conference with the Devil was also not a piece
of mere imagination.
When Satan tempts us, he does
not indeed manifest himself in any visible form, yet the
temptation is not an effect of simple imagination. On the
contrary, his temptation is a very serious reality, and so
powerful, that it often leads people into sin, and through sin
to everlasting ruin. Now, such a temptation is a work of the
Evil Spirit on the heart of a person. The Devil suggests
reasons and motives why we should sin.
And there is
sometimes a disputation in the heart of man with the Devil,
man’s reason arguing against the suggestions of Satan. Now,
it is in this sense, that I look upon Luther’s celebrated dis­
cussion with the Devil.
d. But was it really the Devil 1 There cannot be the
10. Ibidem, 18-19.
ST. Ibidem, 7.
»2. ibidem. 7.

ι8
slightest doubt. Listen to Luther’s words : “ I once awoke
at midnight, when the Devil began to dispute with me.” This
disputation with the Devil was so real that “ the sweat broke
forth” from the noble brow of Dr. Martin Luther, who there­
upon continues : “ The Devil knows well how to put his
argument, and to push it further.” Luther is so thoroughly
convinced of the presence of the Devil, that he mentions his
; deep, powerful voice.”
Luther says : “ Listen to the
‘reasons which he(the Devil)alleged against my ordination and
consecration.” Then the Devil begins to speak : “ ‘For the
first,’ he (the Devil) said: ‘Youknow that you did not believe
properly in Christ...... For........ even I, with all the devils^ also
believe all that is written about Christ....... Yet none of us
...trust in Him as in a Saviour. But wre fear Him as a severe
’ Judge. Such a faith you also had, and no other, when you
were ordained (Priest) and said Mass; and all the others.....
....... also believed the same. Therefore, you also all went
over from Christ to Mary and to the Saints....... This neither
you, nor any other Papist, can deny.’”23*
In 1534 Luther wrote a letter of twenty pages about his
work on the Mass. In this letter he says, that he believes in
the Real Presence of our Lord and hates Mass, but he does
not retract one word which he said about the Devil.2 4
e. Now, I do not, say that Luther here for the first
time learnt the doctrine of justification by faith alone, or
that he was taught for the first time on this occasion to do
away with Mass, with Mary and the Saints. It is quite
possible that some, or all of these doctrines, were preached by
Luther before this celebrated disputation. But this I do say,
and I say it most distinctly and most emphatically : Luther
received the full and unqualified approval of the Devil for
these new doctrines. It was the Devil who spoke in favour
of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and against
■ Mass, Mary, and the Saints.
f. Did Luther tell a deliberate falsehood in a question
of such immense importance? If so, are we to believe the
rest of his teaching? Or, was Luther perhaps miserably
23, Ibidem, 7-9.
«4, Ein brieff
D. Mart. Luth.
Von seinem
.
Buch der
Winckel messen, an einen
guten freund.
Wittemberg.
M.D.XXXII1L Last page: ‘‘Gedruck zu Wittemberg,
durch Hans Lufft.
ZB.S.XXXHI I.”

'9
deceived ? Was it possibly, after all, only the outcome of
his over-excited brain ? If so, at any rate, Luther himself
believed that it was the Devil, and the Great Reformer of
Germany continued preaching, although he firmly believed
that the Devil had spoken in favour of the principal articles
of his new Creed. Or, did Luther perhaps tell us the plain,
honest truth ? L so, his teaching really has the approval
and sanction of Satan.
For, can any man of ordinary
common-sense believe, that in a disputation covering eleven
pages, every word of the Devil from beginning to end was
the pure Word of God, and that Satan kept so strictly to
the truth, in order to drive Luther to despair ? Moreover,
I have read the eleven pages, and the Devil does not say
one word about despair.
g. Be that as it may, I simply say : What are straight­
forward Englishmen, what, I say, are they to think of a man,
who in his own hand .vriting, openly and publicly confesses
that Satan speaks in fai our of his teaching ?
13. Luther’s book against Private Mass may be divided
into two parts ; in the first, Luther gives the Devil's
reasons ; in the second he gives his own. This extraordinary
arrangement of a work containing about one hundred pages,
shows us how fully Luther agrees with the Devil’s teaching
concerning Mass. It is, therefore, not unfair to say that
this lengthy book may be thus divided :—
Part I. The reasons of the Devil against Private Mass.
Part II. The reasons of the Disciple of the Devil against
Private Mass.
Chapter III.—LUTHER PROCLAIMS HIS OWN
AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY.

I. Let us see what Luther says about his Authority
and Infallibility, in the book which he published against the
King of England, in 1522 :—
1. “I am certain that I have my teaching from
heaven.”25
2. “My doctrines will stand, and the Pope will fall,
25, CONTRA HENRICVM
REGEM ANGLIAE
'
MARTINVS LV-THER
VV1TTEMBERGÆ.
1522. Ρ·7·

20

notwithstanding all the gates of hell, and all the powers of
the air, the land and the sea.”2627
3. Luther enumerates nineteen different articles of his
creed, “the Sacrament of the Altar” being one of these.
For let it be remembered, that Luther firmly believed in the
Real Presence. He then says : “I will for ever stick to
such points as I have taught, and will say, ‘Whoever teaches
differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns
me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell'
II. We select two quotations from Luther’s work against
the Pope and the Bishops. He writes :
1. “ If I were to call myselt an Evangelist by the grace
of God, I think I could prove it easier than one of you
(Catholic Bishops) could prove your episcopal title or name.
I am certain that Christ Himself calls me thus, and looks
upon me as such, for He is the Master of my doctrine, and
on the last day He will also be a witness, that it is not mine,
but His own pure Gospel....... ”28
2. “I herewith let you know that in future, I will no
longer do you the honour of allowing you, or even an Angel
from Heaven, to judge my doctrine..................... There has
been enough of this stupid humility now for the third time at
Worms, and, nevertheless, it was of no use ; but I will
make myself heard, and, as St. Peter teaches, I will prove the
motives and reasons for my teaching before the whole world,
and 7 will not allozv it to bejudged by anybody, not even by any
of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means
of it, to be your judge and also (as St. Paul says), that of the
Angels; so that whoever does not accept my teaching, can­
not be saved. For it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my
judgment is at the same time God’s and not mine.”29
Did any Pope ever proclaim his Authority and Infalli­
bility in ?. more unmistakeable manner ?
26. Ibidem, 7.
27, Antwortt
deutsch
Mart. Lu-thers auff
. Kônig
Henrichs von
Engellandbuch.
Liigen thun myr nicht,
Warheyt schew ich nicht,
1522· On the last page
we read : “Gedruckt tzu Wittemberg, durch
Nickell Schyrlentz,
p. 4-5.
38. Wider den
falsch genanttë
geystlichen stand
des Babst
vn
der bisch-offen.
D. Mart.
Luther
Ecclesiasten
tzu Wittemberg.
1522. On the
last page we read : “ Gedruckt tzü Wittemberg durch
Nickel
Schyrlentz. my
tzwey vn tzwentzigstë
Jar.” p. 2.
IQ. Ibidem, p. 3.

21

Chapter IV.—LUTHER ACTS WITH AUTHORITY
AND INFALLIBILITY.

§ I. Luther’s Authoritative and Infallible Decrees
Concerning the Bible.
I.

Luther’s

Decrees
of

Concerning
Bible.

Whole

Books

the

The five passages which follow are taken from Luther’s
New Testament. I have a copy of the very first edition op
Luther’s version of the New Testament before me, while
writing these words.
It was published in Wittenberg
in 1522.30
1. Luther says : “Because John writes very little about the
works of Christ, but very much about his sermons ; whereas
the other three Evangelists write much about his works, and
little about his words, the Gospel of John is the one choice
(zart) really principal Gospel, and is to be very much pre­
ferred to, and to be esteemed higher, than the other three.
As also the Epistles of SS. Paul and Peter far surpass the
three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.”31*
2. “ The Epistle of St. James is really a straw Epistle in
comparison to them;” (j.e., to “St. John’s Gospel and his
First Epistle, to St. Paul’s Epistles......... and to St. Peter’s
First Epistle.”)33
3. In his introduction to the Epistles of SS. James and
Jude, Luther says of the Epistle ej St. James “I do not
look upon it as the writing ot any Apostle, and this is my
reason. First of all, because in direct opposition to St. Paul,
and to all the other Scriptures, //(the Epistle of St. James)
attributes justification to the works, and says, Abraham was
justified by his works when he sacrificed his son. Whereas
30. Das Newe Testa-ment Deutzsch.
Vuittemberg.
31, Das Newe Testa-ment Deutzsch.
Vuittemberg. Last page : “Gedruckt
zu zVittenberg durch Mel-chior Lotther yhm tausent funff-hundert zavey
vnnd
zaventzigsten
Jar."
The passage quoted occurs after the Introduction, in an article headed: “avilchs
die rechten vnd Edlisten bûcher des neaven testa-ments sind."
v and v printed dose to each other form aw; thus, zv is the same as w ; at any rate
the sign is very much like a a, and together with the following v it is meant
for w.
4»- Ibide».

22

St. Paul, Rom. 4, on the contrary, teaches that Abraham
was justified without works, through his faith alone.........
Secondly (I reject the Epistle), because it professes to instruct
Christians, and in such a long treatise (lere), it does not
even mention the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of
Christ....... Whatever does not teach Christ, that is not
apostolic, even if Peter or Paul were to teach it Whereas,
whatever teaches Christ, that is apostolic, even if Judas,
Annas, Pilate and Herod were to do it. But this James does
nothing else but drive on to the law and to its works, and
he mixes up things in such disorder, that I should say he
was some good, pious man, who had heard certain sayings
from the disciples of the Apostles, and then committed them
to paper; or perhaps it (the Epistle) has been taken from
his own discourse by some one else....... Therefore, I will not
have him in my Bible in the number of the truly principal
books : but I will not forbid any one to place him and to
keep him as he pleases.”38
4. “ That this Epistle to the Hebrews is neither St. Paul’s,
nor that of any other Apostle, can be proved, because we read
in the second chapter : ‘ This teaching has come down to us
from those who have heard it from the Lord.’....... But it is
not known who wrote it, and it will also remain unknown for
some time, but this does not matter.”34
5. Luther also rejects the Apocalypse or Book of Revela­
tions. He writes in his introduction to it, in the same New
Testament, published at Wittenberg, 1522: “As to this
book of the Revelations of John, I will let everybody please
himself. I will not bind anyone to my opinion or judg­
ment. I say what I feel. I find many things defective in
this book, so that I look upon it as neither apostolic nor
prophetic. My first and principal reason is, that the Apostles
did not concern themselves with visions, but they prophesied
in clear and simple words...... This is reason enough for me
not to think much of it, because Christ is neither taught nor
known in it.”35

IL Luther’s Decree Concerning Rom. III. 28.
i. The English Protestant Bible thus translates Rom. HI.
33. Ibidem, II. fol. LXVI.
34. Ibidem, II. fol. LIX. '
35. Ibidem, II. fol. LX*I'

'

=

"*

23
28 : “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law.” Luther’s translation, taken
from one of the copies of the original Wittenberg edition
of 1522» is. as follows: “So halten wyrs nu, das der mensch
gerechtfertiget werde, on zu thun der werck des gesetzs, alleyn
dutch den glawben.” 3 8
The literal. translation of this into English is : “ So
we now hold it, that man is justified, without doing the
works of the law, alone through faith."
2. The German word (“ alleyn ’’) used by Luther, some­
times means “but” sometimes “alone.” The question is,
does not the word, as used by Luther, mean “but?” Or,
to express it differently, ought not our translation of Luther’s
text to be : “ So we now hold it, that man is justified with­
out doing the works of the law, but by faith.” ? My answer
is : I am as certain that Luther’s “alleyn” (Rom. III. 28)
means '■'■alone” and does not mean "but” as I am of my
own existence. Seventeen years spent in Germany, or among
educated Germans, enable me to speak with authority on a
question of this kind.
3. It has been said that Luther’s “ alleyn ” must mean
“but” because it precedes the substantive (“glawben ”). This
is an argument that would never have been used by a German,
or by a man thoroughly acquainted with German. Every
German knows that the following sentence is thoroughly in
accordance with the idiom of the German language: “So
halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch nicht gerechtfertigt
wird durch die Werke des Gesetzes, sondern allein durch
den Glauben.” Now the only possible way of translating
these words is : “ So we now hold it, that man is not justified
by the works of the law, but alone through faith.”
Never­
theless, “allein” has here exactly the same position with
regard to the substantive “ Glauben,” as in Luther’s text
4. Modern German Dictionaries and Grammars are
not of much authority in this question, because Luther
wrote German, as it used to be in the sixteenth century, and
not as it is at present in the nineteenth.
But independent
of this, it is very dangerous for Luther’s English advocates to
quote German Grammars or Dictionaries. If they are
36.

Das Newe Testa-ment Deutzsch.

Vuittemberg.

24
not very careful, they may be surprised to find that the
real meaning of a rule quoted by them is quite different
from what they understand it to be.
“ Alleyn ” does not
immediately precede the substantive “ glawben ” (faith), but
is separated from it by the preposition “durch” (through),
which comes between them : “ alleyn durch den glawben.”
Now even according to the Winchester Tracts in such a
case “alleyn” may mean “ ale ne." How ridiculous it is for
the author to quote this rule on page 7, and on page 8 to
forget all about it, and to come to the “irresistible con­
clusion ”(! !) that according to German Dictionaries “alleyn'’
(Rom. HL 28) must mean “but.”37
We can only attribute this to downright ignorance or
prejudice.
5. But I have a far stronger proof, a proof which can only be
disregarded by a man, who is willing to deny that the sun
is shining in the skies on a bright summer-oay.
Nobody
is so good a judge of the meaning of “ alleyn ” (Rom. III. 28),
as Luther himself, who is the author of the translation. For
an Englishman to expect me to accept his interpretation of
Luther’s words, and to reject Luther’s own authoritative
explanation of his own translation, betokens something
very much like literary insanity.
6. Now, Luther wrote to Wenceslaus Link on this very
subject.. That part of the letter, which deals with the word
“alleyn,” covers exactly nineteen pages. Luther wrote for the
express purpose of explaining why he used the word “alleyn”
(Rom. HI. 28).
I have read the letter in the old Witten­
berg edition of 1530 from beginning to end most carefully,
and will now give the principal passages along with exact
references to the whole context.
A. The Introduction.
Luther says: “ I have received your letter with the two
questions or inquiries....... first, why in the third chapter
to the Romans, the words of St. Paul: ‘Arbitramur hominem
justificari ex fide absque operibus legis,’ were translated
37. Winchester Tracts VII. Anno 1859. By Charles Hastings Collette.
The eract words, (p. 7) are : “ One may perceive hereby that altein, like many other
adverbs, can stand also with substantives : the rea-on of this is shown in the
note. It stands then after the substantive, except when a preposition fclarws
it, or just precedes, as it can also stand before it." (These latter itali s ar«
my own).

25

by me into German in the following manner: ‘We hold
that man is justified without the works of the law,....... (allein)
through faith.’ And at the same time you tell me what
great fuss the Papists make, because the word Sola (“alone”)
is not in the text of Paul.”38
B. Luther’s Answer to the Papists.
1. You Papists do not know how to translate. I have
taken great pains to translate correctly, nevertheless, you
must find fault with me, although one of you has published
my translation with only some slight changes.—Such is the
substance of his first answer to the Papists.3940
*
2. Luther continues : “ And in order to return to the
point. If your Papist makes much unnecessary fuss about
the word (Sola, alone), say straight out to him, Doctor
Martinus Luther τυίΙΙ have it so, and says, Papists and
donkeys are one and the same thing. Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro
ratione voluntas (thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will
is reason enough). For we will not be the scholars or the
disciples of the Papists, but their masters and judges. We
must once in a way act a little haughtily and noisily with
these jack-asses. ” 4 0
3. Luther then tells us that he is more learned than the
Papists, and continues: “This is my answer to your first
question ; and as to their unnecessary noise about the word
• Sola, 1 beg of you not to give those donkeys any other or
further answer, but simply this much : D. Luther will have
it so, and says he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole oj
Popery." 4 1
C. Luther s Answer to his Protestant Friends.
I. “But as to you and our friends (den vnsern), Twill
give you my reasons for using the word (Sola). Although
Rom. III. I did not use Sola, but Solum or Tantum. So
carefully (fein) do the donkeys look at my text
But,
38. Eîn Send-brieff, von Dolmet-schen, vnd Fürbit-te der Hei-ligen.
D. Mart. Luther.
Wïttemberg.
M.D.XXX. Last rage:
“ Gedriickt ju Wit temberg durch
George n
Ehaw." p. 5.
Luther does not give the exact words of the Wittenberg New Testament of 1522;
He also writes “ allein ” in this letter, and “ alleyn " in hs' New Testamenu
39. Ibidem, 5-9.
40. Ibidem, 9.
4t. Ibidem, 9-19,
·'

20

nevertheless, elsewhere I have said Sola fide and I will have
both Solum and Sola.”^'1
2. Luther then assures his friends that he took very great
pains to translate the Bible into good German, and adds :
“ I knew very well that here, Rom. III., the word (Sola) is not
in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for
the Papists to teach me that.
It is true, these four
letters, SOLA, are not in it, which letters the jack-asses
look at as a cow looks at a new gate ; but they do not
see that, nevertheless, it expresses the meaning of the text ;
and if our German translation is to be clear and powerful^
it ought to be put in....... But this is the idiom of our
German language, if mention is made of two things, of which
one is asserted and the other excluded, we use the word
Solum (alone) with the word (not or no), as when we say :
‘ The peasant brings only corn (allein korn) and no money.’
So also: ‘I have really no money now, but only corn.’ ‘I have
only eaten, and not yet drunk? * Have you only written,
and not read it over ? ’ and so on in innumerable expressions
of daily life. Although in all these sentences the Latin or
Greek language does not do so, nevertheless, the German
does (use Solum), and it is customary (in German) to add
the word (alone\ in order that the word (not or no) may be
more powerful and clear.
For although I also say: ‘The
peasant brings corn and no money,’ nevertheless, the word
(no money) is not as powerful and clear, as when I say
‘ The peasant brings only corn, and no money.’ ”42
43
These examples selected by Luther show most clearly and
most strikingly, how manifestly wrong and incorrect it was on
the part of one of Luther’s lawyers, to say that the German word
“alleyn” must necessarily mean “but” (Rom. HI. 28), because
it precedes the substantive Glawben (faith), instead offollowing
it.
One of the sentences used by Luther is: ‘Ich
hab warlich itzt nicht gelt, sdndern allein korn.’
Now,
in this sentence “allein ” precedes the substantive.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely impossible to translate “ allein”
with “but.” Let us try to do so. Our translation would then
42, Ibidem, n. “Solum” and “Taninm” mean "alone," and never can mean anything
else. The Latin word for but '*Sed" does not occur even once in the whole
letter, which is written by Luther for the express purpose of giving his reasons
for using the word “ allein.” (. -om. HI. 28.)
43, Ibidem, Ji-13.

27

be : “ I have really no money now, but but corn ; ” which is
perfectly ridiculous, whereas, if I translate “allein” with
“ alone” I have perfect sense : “ I have really no money now,
but only corn.” Now, Luther tells us that he used the word
“allein” in Rom. III. 28, in the same sense in which he
uses it in this sentence. It would, therefore, be a monstrous
mistranslation, if Luther’s German text was given in English:
“ Man is justified without the works of the law, but through
faith.”
3. Luther then explains in the following pages, how
necessary it is to consider the idiom of the German language
when translating, and again tells us what great pains he
himself took.44
Now, we are quite willing to admit that Luther’s render­
ing of Rom. III. 28 is thoroughly good German, there
cannot be the slightest doubt about that, but, as a translation,
it is outrageous.
The perfectly literal translation: “So
halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch gerechtfertigt wird
durch den Glauben ohne die Werke des Gesetzes,” would be
quite as good German, as the translation given in the English
Protestant Bible: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justi­
fied by faith without the deeds of the law,” is good English.
4. He then argues that his translation fully expresses the
meaning of St. Paul, and tries to prove the doctrine of
justification by faith alone.45
5. He concludes his work by stating : “ It is not only
correct, but also most necessary to say it straight out in the
clearest and most powerful manner: ‘Faith alone, without
the works, makes us pious.’ And I am sorry that I did not
also add ί all' and ‘of all] thus: ‘ without all works of all
laws,’ so that it might come out full and clear (rund).
Therefore it shall remain in my New Testament, and if all
the Popish donkeys were to get mad and crazy, they will not
get it out
But this is enough for the present.
I will
(if God gives His grace) say more about it in the book :
Dé Justificatione.”4*5
6. It is therefore absolutely certain that Luther really
added the word alone (Solum or Tantum) to Rom. III. 28
44. Ibidem, 13-19.
45. Ibidem, 19-23.
40. Ibidem, 23·

28

We have it on the infallible authority of Dr. Martin
Luther himself, that such is indeed the case.
For in the
nineteen pages, which Luther wrote for the express purpose
of explaining why he used the word “ allein,” he never once
tells us, that this word may mean “ but." On the other
hand, he constantly reminds us, that his “allein,” Rom. III.
28, means “ Solum" or “ Tantum."
Now “ Solum" or
“ Tantum ” are never used in the sense of the conjunction
“ but" (sondern, aber) ; on the contrary, both “Solum" and
“ Tantum ” necessarily mean “ alone." We certainly do not
agree with Luther, but after all, we prefer the bold straight­
forwardness of the German Reformer, to the petty dishonesty
of his English lawyer.
7. But Luther is determined to express his doctrine oj
justification by faith alone, in a “ clear and powerful" manner.
The words of St. Paul: “Without the works of the law,” are
not ''■clear andpowerful" enough for him. Luther must trans­
late them: “Without doing the works of the law.” Again, St
Paul’s words : “A man is justified by faith,” are not sufficiently
“clear and powerful.” Luther must translate them : “A man
is justified alone through faith” (Solum or Tantum), whence
his text would be: “A man is justified alone through
faith without doing the works of the law.”
But even that
can be made still more “ clear and powerful.” Therefore
the sentence is turned round, so that the opposition between
faith and good works may come out still more pointedly and
strikingly. For, whereas the English Protestant Bible, in
strict conformity with the Greek text, simply says : “ A man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” Luther
boldly translates the passage : “ A man is justified without
doing the works of the law, alone through faith.”47
This position of “ faith” at the end of the whole sentence
adds more power and emphasis to the expression.
8. Yet even this is scarcely enough, for Luther is sorry, that
he did not make the text still more “ clear and powerful,”
and translate it : “ Man is justified without all works of all
laws, alone through faith.”48
47. Das Newe Testa-ment Deutzsch.
..^.uuerg
48. Ein Send-brieff, von Dolmet-schen, vnd Fürbtt-ic der Hei-lieen.
D. Mart. Luther.
Witttmberg.
M.D.XXX.
Last page I
“ Gedrückt zu Wit temberg durch
Georgen
Ehaw.’’ p. az-

-29

If this is not reckless tampering with scripture, I do not
know what is.
9. As to the text itself, it is sufficient to say, that St Paul
is not speaking at all about good works in general, but only
about “ the works of the law” We Catholics also believe
that we are justified by faith, as opposed to the works of the
Jewish law ; but we do not believe, that wre are justified by
faith, as opposed to good works. An act of faith is in
itself a good work ; whoever, therefore, believes that he is
justified by faith, also believes that he is justified by a good work,
But according to St. Paul, faith without charity is of no use
(I Cor., xiii.). We Catholics also believe, with St. Paul, that
faith, including charity, is an unfailing pledge of eternal
salvation.
§ II. Luther’s Authoritative and Infallible Decrees
Concerning Marriage.
1. In a letter to Chancellor Briick, January, 1524, Luther
gives his opinion concerning the intention of a man to marry
a second wife. He writes : “ I confess that I cannot forbid
er person to marry several wives, nor is it contrary to the
Holy Scriptures ·' but I should not like to see this kind of
thing now for the first time introduced among Christians.”49
2. In the year 1539, Luther positively allowed Prince
Philip of Hesse to have two wives at the same time. I quote
from de Wette, who gives the whole document both in Latin
and in German. According to de Wette, the German seems to
be only a translation, the original copy written by Melanchthon
is then the original. De Wette was a Protestant Professor
of theology at Basle, in the early part of this century. In a
few introductory remarks to this important document, which
is signed by Luther and other theologians, de Wette says :
“ It (the letter) concerns the double marriage of this Prince
(Philip of Hesse)....... In the document written out by
Melanclithon’s own hand (literally, “Through Melanchthon’s
pen”) the theologians granted the dispensation, accompanied
with a representation of the difficulties of the case, and
under condition of its being kept secret.”50
49. “ Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis pbres velit uxores ducere, ne:
repugnat sacris literis." De Wette 11. 459.
The letter was written >u
January, 1524.
50. D» Wette V 236.·

30
3· De Wette also informs us that this document is found
m the Altenburg (viii. 977), the Leipsic (xxii. 469), and the
Walch (x. 886) editions of Luther’s works, but that these
three editions suppressed the passage which grants the dis­
pensation for the second marriage. Is this honest?51
4. I do not quote from the document, without having
read every word of it most carefully, from beginning to end,
in the original Latin text. The letter is addressed “ To the
most Serene Prince and Lord, Philip. Landgrave of Hesse,
Count in Catzenelnbogen, Diez, Ziegenhayn, Nidda and
Schauenburg, our most gracious Lord.”5253
5. I will now give a summary of the whole document,
which covers about five pages of de Wette. It will then be
impossible to tell me that I am quoting without the context.
The more important passages will be given in full.
After the introduction, the principal thoughts occur in
the following order :
6. Luther and the seven other theologians inform the
Prince, that they could not sanction the universal introduc­
tion of polygamy. “ Your Highness will yourself see clearly
enough, what a difference there is between making a universal
law, and making use of a dispensation in a certain case for
grave reasons, by virtue of a divine concession. But no
dispensation, granted in opposition to God, can be valid.”33
7. The theologians then answer the objection which they
themselves raise : “ What is right before God, certainly ought
to be allowed.” That is to say, God does not forbid polygamy;
why then do you not allow any one who chooses, to have
several wives?
In answer to this Luther remarks, that
“other circumstances must be taken into consideration.”54
8. Luther and the rest then “ approach nearer to the
question” of the double marriage. First of all they remind
his Highness, that in the beginning of the world only one
husband and one wife were allowed by God.
After that
these theologians continue : “ It is certain that later on, in
the law of Moses, men were allowe 1 to have two wives, as the
Scripture, Deut. XXI., testifies.” ’J his is oerfectly true.
51.
52.
53.
54.

Ibidem,
Ibidem,
Ibidem,
Ibidem,

236.
237.
237-238.
238.

Luther and the others, however, declare that on account of
the first institution of marriage by God, and also on account
of the words of Christ : “ Them will be two in one flesh,” a
law allowing two wives must r.ot be made in the Church.
Nevertheless they add the followi ig important words : Never­
theless, in certain cases there is room for dispensation.
If
a person were a prisoner among foreign nations, and were to
take another wife, for the welfare and health of his body, or
if a person had a wife suffering from leprosy, we do not
know on what ground it would be justifiable to condemn
such a man, were he, in these cases, to marry another woman,
with the advice of his pastor, having no intention to introduce
a new law, but (only) seeking a remedy for his necessity.”5556
58
57
9. Luther then gives powerful motives, why it would be
better or safer if the Prince were to give up the thought of
a second marriage ; he also advises him to abandon his
impure life.5 8
10. The document continues: “Finally, if your Highness
has altogether made up your mind to marry another wife,
we declare under an oath that it ought to be done secretly....... No
contradictions or scandals of any importance will be the
consequence of this (of keeping the marriage secret), for 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 under­
stand it, and this modest way of living (!!!) would please
more than adultery....... nor are the sayings of others to be
cared for, if our conscience is in order.
Thus and thus
far oiily do we approve of it.”*1
“ For what was allowed in the law of Moses concerning
marriage, the Gospel does not revoke or forbid........ Your
Highness has, therefore, not only the decision (testimonium)
of us all in case of necessity, but also our foregoing
considerations.”53
55. Ibidem, 238. “ Certis tamen casibus locus est dispensationi.”
56. Ibidem, 238-241.
57. Ibidem, 241, Latin: “Si recte cum conscientia agatur.”
hoc approbamus "
58. Ibidem, 241. Latin: “Nam quod circa matrimonium in lege
sum, Evangelium non revocat aut vetat....... Habet itaque
tantum omnium nostriim testimonium in casu necessitatis,
dentes nostras considerationes **

“ Sic et in tantum

Mosis fuit permis­
Ceis. Vestra non
sed etiam antece­

3>
That is to say : We allow the marriage, but at the same
time we wish you also to consider, whether it would not be
more advisable to give up all thoughts of the double
marriage.
11. The letter concludes by saying that it would not be
expedient for the Prince to take counsel of the Emperor in
this matter.5 ·
X». ‘‘Given at Wittenberg on the Wednesday after the
Feast of St. Nicolas MDXXXIX. (Dec. io, 1539).
Your Highness*
Willing and obedient Servants,
Martinus Lutherus.
Philippus Melanchthon.
Martinus Bucerus.
Antonius Corvinus.
Adam F...................
Johannes Leningus.
Justus Winther.
Dionysius M elander.”59
60
13. The second marriage of Prince Philip of Hesse took
place a few months later, early in 1540.
14.
Kôstlin, Luther’s most prominent German
champion, confesses that “this double marriage” is the
"greatest blot in the history of the Reformation and in
the life of Luther."61
We may add that the blot is so great, as to blot out
every possibility of our ever looking upon Luther as a
Reformer sanctioned and commissioned by Almighty God.
For marriage is one of the most important and most essential
elements both of the social and of the religious order. And
God would not allow a Reformer really chosen by Himself to
trample under foot the law concerning the unity of marriage,
which was promulgated by Christ, the first-born Reformer
of the World.
15. If this weighty document, which sanctioned
bigamy, had been issued by one of the Popes of the
59. Ibidem, 241.
60. Ibidem, 242.
61. Kôstlin, Luther und J. Janssen, Third edition. 1883, p. 5?,

33
Catholic Church, with what an outburst of indignation would
it not have been hailed by the whole Protestant world ! How
many Anti-Romish tracts would have been written on the
subject ! To what a pitch of excitement would not the
eloquence of the Exeter Hall declamator have raised his
astounded audience !
But, alas ! this dispensation
was granted — not in Rome, but in Wittenberg — the
cradle, the head, the heart, and the centre of Protestantism
in those days.
Unfortunately, it does not bear the
signature of any Roman Catholic Pope, but the
name of Martin Luther is written under it in indelible cha­
racters. And only a few years before this took place, Pope
Clement VII. absolutely refused to sanction the second
marriage of Henry VIIL, King of England. In consequence
of this, England was lost to the Catholic faith. But the Pope
would sooner see a whole country torn away from the unity
of the Church, than give his sanction to a marriage, that was
opposed to the law of God.
16. However outrageous this document may oe, it is far
out-done by one of the most disgraceful sermons, that have
ever been preached.
I allude to Luther’s sermon on
marriage, which I quote with a clear knowledge of the whole
context. It was preached in Wittenberg, in 1522.
17. With the authority of a Christian preacher, with the
additional authority which the extraordinary power of his
popular eloquence gave him, with the unlimited authority
which his exceptional position conferred upon him, from the
lofty eminence of a once Christian pulpit, in the presence of
men and women, married and unmarried, young and old,
Luther positively sanctioned adultery in the clearest and most
unmistakeable manner. It is true that he only allows it in
certain given circumstances, and that he requires the previous
annroval of the community. But this does not alter the
truth of my statement.02
18. I have read the whole sermon from beginning to
ind in the original Wittenberg edition of 1522. On my
own authority, I calmly, deliberately and conscientiously
accuse Luther of publicly sanctioning adultery. Moreover,
1 consider it to be a most aggravating circumstance that
■1 Vcm Eelichen
Leben.
œ.s.ïjü. p. 17.18.

Martin us Luther.

Wittemberg.

34
Luther did «ο—not in the excitement of the moment—but
in a printed sermon that is a most carefully-worded,
systematic treatise on marriage.
19. The substance of the passage will be found in
Kostlin.6 8
Now I ask, is this the teaching of God or of Satan?

Chapter V.—LUTHER’S INTOLERANCE AGAINST
THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO HIS
AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY.

I. Luther’s Intolerance against the Jews.
I. Luther writes: “ Now what are we Christians to do with
this rejected, damned people of the Jews?....... I will give my
honest advice (trewen rat).”
“ First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire,
and whatever will not burn, is to be covered and heaped
over with earth, so that never again shall one find
stone or cinder of them left.
And this is to be
done in order to honour our Lord and Christianity, so that
God may see that we are Christians....... ”
“ Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and
destroyed, for they do exactly the same in them as they
also do in their schools. Therefore they may perhaps
be allowed a roof or a stable over them, as the Gypsies are, in
order that they may know they aie not the lords in
our country, as they boast to be....... ”
“ Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Taimuds are to
be taken away from them, in which such idolatry, lies,
curses, and blasphemies are taught.”
“Fourthly, their Rabbis (Priests) 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 (Das man den Jiiden
das Geleid vnd Strasse....... auffhebe), for they have
no business to be in the country....... ”
“ Sixthly, usury is to be forbidden them, and all their
cash and their treasures of silver and sold are to be taken
$3. Kôstlin, Luther and J. Janssen, page 99.

âS

away from them, and to be put aside to be preserved. And
for this reason. All that they have (as was said above), they
have stolen and robbed from us through their usury.”64*
,
2. Thirty-seven pages further on, Luther addresses him­
self to the princes, and says : “Burn their synagogues. Forbid
them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work,
and treat them with every kind of severity (nach aller
vnbarmhertzigkeit), as Moses did in the desert and slew three
thousand....... If that is of 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. I have done my duty. Let every one see how
he does his. lam excused.”6667
3. These words are taken from the old edition of 1543.
The title of the book is: “About the Jews and their Lies.”
It contains very nearly poo pages, and was published only
three years before Luther’s death.
II. Luther’s Intolerance Against Roman Catholics
1. Luther says: “All those that step in to defend the
authority of the Bishops and are subject to them with willing
obedience are the real (eygê) servants of the Devil, and
fight against the order and law of God.”66
2. Luther writes : “ Nobody can be a Papist, without
being at least a murderer, a robber, a persecutor........... It is
clear enough that they (the Papists) are the Christians of the
Devil.”6'
3. Luther says that Bishops under the Pope are “Wolves,
tyrants, murderers of souls, and the Apostles of Antichrist to
corrupt the world. And, not to mince matters (erauss
schutte), everybody ought to know that the Bishops who
64, Von den Jü-den vnd jren
Lügen.
D. M. Luth.
Gedrückt zu Wittemberg,
Durch Hans Lufft.
•flD.ID.XLIII. p. 220-224.
6g Ibidem, 261-262.
66. Wider den
falsch genantti
geystlichen stand
des Babst vn
der bisch-offen.
D. Mart.
Luther
Ecclesiasten
tzu Wittemberg.
1522
“ D. Luthers Bulla vnd Reformation.” p. 38.
67, Erlanger Ausgabe, LXV. 26-27. Only part of this work was published by
Luther himself. He withdrew it in deference to Kurfürst John, who did not
wish Duke George to be mentioned in it. It was not withdrawn on account
of any harsh language against Catholics in general.

36

now rule over many towns are not Christian Bishops accord­
ing to Divine order, but according to devilish order and
human wickedness. It is also certain that they are the
messengers and vicars of the Devil.”68
Some of the Protestant Bishops who also “ rule over many
towns” have been lately praising Luther ; let them remember
what the German Reformer says about such Bishops.
4. As to the “Cardinals........... Archbishops, Bishops,
Abbots,” etc., Luther tells us that “the Rhine would be
scarcely large enough to drown all the scoundrels. (Buben)”69
5. “ If the fury of the Romanists goes on in this way, it
seems to me that no remedy is available, unless the
Emperor, the Kings, and Princes should put on full
strength to wage war against these pests of the whole
world, and decide the question, no longer with words,
but with the sword....... Why do we not wash our hands
in their blooa f’70
Luther’s Intolerance Against Protestants
Differing From Himself.
i. To simplify the matter I take nearly all my
quotations from one particular book of Luther.
It was pub­
lished in 1544, and again in 1545, only one year before the
Reformer’s death. It is written against those who will not
believe that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body
and Blood of Christ ; and it will be so much the more
interesting, since many of Luther's admirers here in England
still refuse to believe in the Real Presence. The edition of
1544 contains forty-four pages. I have looked through the
whole of it and have selected the first ten passages according
to the order in which they occur in the work itself. I am
certain that I quote in perfect harmony with the context.
2. Luther writes: “ As I am now near the grave, I will
bring this testimony and this glory with me before the
judgment seat of my dear Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
III.

68, Wider den
falsch genanttê
geystlichen stand
des Babst vn
der bisch-offen.
D. Mart.
Luther.
Ecclesiasten
tzu Wittemberg.
1522.
“ Die vierde tugent des Bapst." p. 36.
69. Erlanger Ausgabe XXIV. 166.
70. Totnus primus omnium operum Reverendi Patris D. M. L Tense. M.D.LXXLX
fol. 68.

V
that with all my heart I have condemned and avoided
the enthusiasts and the enemies of the Sacrament, Carlstadt,
Zwingli, Oecolampad, Stenckfeld, and their disciples in
Zürich, and wherever they may be....... ”7172
3. “ I have been obliged (and still am obliged) to despair of
the salvation of his soul (Zwingli, the Reformer of Switzer­
land), if he died in such sentiments, although his disciples
andfollowers make a saint and a martyr out of him. Oh,
Lord God, what a saint and martyr ! For in this book
(Christianæ fidei expositio), he not only remains an enemy
of the Blessed Sacrament, but he also becomes altogether a
heathen......”7a
4. “ I would, I say, far sooner be cut into pieces, or
burnt, a hundred times over, than be of one opinion or of one
mind with Stenckfeld, Zwingli, Carlstadt, Oecolampad, and
whoever else they may be, the wicked enthusiasts, or agree
with their teaching....... ”73
5. “I would have known well...... tmw to give them
their proper name, as being not m 'Jy devourers of
bread and swallowers of wine, but devourers of souls
and murderers of souls, and as haii'g a satanical, a
thoroughly satanical, a super-satanical, blasphemous heart and
a lying mouth. And I should have told the truth, because it
cannot be denied, that with such blasphemies of theirs they
have been telling shameless lies against their own conscience,
and as yet they do no penance for it, yea they even boast of
their wickedness. Well, no Christian....... ought to pray for
the enthusiasts ...... ”74
He adds that this is said of the teachers, not of the poor
people who are misled.
6. “I look upon them all as fanning one faction
(literally “cake”)....... who will not believe that the bread of
the Lord in the last Supper, is His true natural body, which
the wicked man or Judas receives into his mouth quite as
much as St. Peter and all the Saints. Whoever, I say, will
not believe that, he must not trouble me with letters, writings
71. Kurtz bekentnis Doctor
vom hetltgen Sa-crament.
72. Ibidem, 6.
73. Ibidem, 8-9.
74. Ibidem, 13.

Martini Luthers,
Anno
W.S.i’iiiii. p. 3.

or words. Ana he must not hope for any communion with
me........ ”7S
I would like to say to many Protestants in this country :
First believe in the Real Presence before you praise Luther, for
he will have nothing to do with you, if you do not believe in it.
7. Luther goes on to say that “they (Zwingli and others)
......have been found out and proved to be manifest blas­
phemers and liars. First, when in the beginning they taught,
there was nothing but merely bread and wine in the Last
Supper...... ”7 6
8. “ I should have to condemn myself with them into the
depths of Hell, were I to hold with them, or to have commu­
nion with them, or were I to be silent, if I find out or hear,
that they....... boasted of being in communion with me. The
Devil and his mother may do that, or be silent in such a case
(dazu), but not I....... ”77
9. “ For it is undoubtedly true that whoever neither does
nor will properly believe one article (after he has been advised
and instructed), certainly does not believe any one (article) with
earnest and true faith....... Therefore you must either believe
everything....... or nothing at all........ ”7 8
10. “Thus it will be of no use to the enthusiasts that
they talk very big about the Sacrament, about the
spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood
of Christ, and about the love and union of Christians. For
these are merely the leaves of the fig tree, with which Adam
and Eve wished to cover and adorn themselves, that.......
their sin might not be seen by God. Their great labours,
their teaching and writing, their earnest, chaste lives will be
of still less avail to them.
All that is mere heathenism.
Moreover, their belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and in Christ the Saviour is lost, all, 1 say, is lost,
with all the articles (of faith), however truly and correctly
they may mention or utter them with their false, blasphemous
mouths, because they deny this one article, and give the lie to
what Christ says in the Sacrament : ‘Take (the bread) and
eat, this is my body, which shall be delivered for you, etc.’”79
75.
76.
77.
”S.
79.

Ibidem, 24.
Ibidem, 25.
Ibidem, 26.
Ibidem, 29
Ibidem, 33-34.

39
ïï. On the following page, Luther makes this objection :
“ You might say, ‘ O, my dear Luther, it is to be hoped.......
that God will not be so very sternly and cruelly severe, as to
damn people on account of one article.’” His answei
is, that people will be damned, even if they deny only one
article.
“ It is to be hoped that His humble, sub­
missive, obedient creature will not deny and blaspheme a
single word....... Now, the heretics deal with the Word of
God, just as if it was the word of a man, or the word of a
fool ; they despise it, make fun of it, and blaspheme it. And
they could do everything better themselves, according to
their own pretty fancies, and at the same time (dazu) they
will not be taught. In such a case all is lost.
And here
the great [and] numerous good works and labours will not
counterbalance the one bad point.”8081
i2. Now, what is the doctrine concerning the Blessed
Sacrament which Luther defends in this book? Let him
answer himself. With unmistakeable clearness he assures us,
that it is the same doctrine “as was taught under the Pope,
which (doctrine) we also retain, and still teach, as the true,
ancient, Christian Church has taught forfifteen hundredyears.
(For the Pope did not institute the Sacrament nor did he
invent it).”8 1
13. Anybody who studies Luther’s writings will be surprised
at the vigour of his style when writing in defence of the Blessed
Sacrament. In one of his numerous works on the subject
he assures us, that his hatred against the Catholic Church
would most decidedly have led him to deny the Real Presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Last Supper, had it
been possible for him to do so ; but he adds that he could
not find any other satisfactory explanation of the words of
Christ : “ This is my body.”
Let us now listen to this extraordinary statement of the
Reformer; he writes: “If five years ago D. Carlstadt, or
anybody else, had been able to persuade me that there is
nothing but bread and wine in the Sacrament, he would, I
confess, have rendered me a great service.
I have under­
gone severe struggles and have twisted and turned to get over
80, Ibidem, 35-37.
81. Ibidem. 10.

4«

it (belief in the Real Presence), because I was fully aware
that it wozild have been the most severe blow which I could
have dealt against Popery....... But I am in prison. T cannot
escape, the text (‘This is my body’) is too powerful, and no
words can make it mean anything else.”*'2,
14. Now, after expressly mentioning the Blessed Sacra­
ment, Luther said in his book against the King of England :
“ Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught
herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must
be a child of Hell.”83
15. Thus, you must either believe in the Real Presence
of our Lord’s Body and Blood in the Last Supper, as the
Catholic Church does, or else you are a child of Hell.
Such is the infallible teaching of Pope Martin Luther L
concerning Protestants differing from himself.

Christen Zu
Straspurg
widder den schwer-tner geyst.
Martini Luther.
Der HERR kennet den weg der ge-rechten, aber der Gottlosen wrg wird
vmbkommen. Psal. 1.
Wittemberg. p. 7.
I3. Antwortt
deutsch
Mart. Lu-thers auff
Konig Henrichs von
Engelland buch. Lügen thun myr nicht,
Warheyt schew ich nicht,
1523
On the last page we read 1
“ Gedruckt tzu Wittemberg, durcb
Nickell Schyrlentt,
ïm.W.ïfil.” n. 4-e.
8z. Eyn brieff an die

Part TT.
RESULTS OF LUTHER’S TEACHING.
Chapter I.—POLITICAL RESULTS.
Tn order that the reader may have a correct idea of
Luther’s bearing on the dreadful Revolution of 1525, we
give our quotations in this chapter in chronological order.
1520.
1. February, 1520, Luther wrote to his friend George
Spalatin: “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, is perdition, is poison.”3 *
2. In the same year, Luther wrote these remarkable
words : “ If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with
the sword, heretics with fire, vhy do we not still more
attack with every kind of weapon these teachers of perdition,
these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of
the Romish Sodom, which, without ceasing, corrupts the
Church of God, and why do we not wash our hands in their
blood?”84
85*
The inflammatory power of this violent language is not
very much mitigated by saying, that Luther here addressed
himself only to the princes.
1522.
3. Luther publishes “A sincere advice of Martin Lutherto
all Christians to abstain from revolt and rebellion.”88
84, De Wette I. 417.

85. D Martini Lutheri Opera Latina, curavit Çr. Henricus Schmidt, Frankofurti ad

M.et Erlangi, Sumptibus C. Heyderi et H. Zimmeri. Seven Volumes, 18651873. My quotation is taken from Vol II. 107. The passage is so striking that
I will give the exact Latin words:
Si fures furca, si latrones, gladio, si
haereticos igne plectimus, cur non magis hos magistros perditionis, hos
Cardinales, hos Papas et totam istam romanae.Sodomae colluviem, quae
ecclesiam Dei sine fine corrumpit, omnibus armis impetimus, et manus nostras
in sanguine istorum lavamus?”
94, Eyn trew vormanung Mar-tini Luther tzu allen Chri-sten. Sich tzu vorhuten
fur auffruhr vnnd
Emporung.
Vuittemberg.

Now, I do not exactly doubt his sincerity, but the work
contains most inflammatory expressions, and the people, who
were becoming more and more excited from day to day, were
likely to disregard the sound “advice,” and to find new
nourishment for their revolutionary tendency in the violent
language to which Luther had recourse in some parts of
the work.
4 In this very book Luther writes : “ It seems as if a
rebellion is going to break out, and Priests, Monks, Bishops,
with 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, in excite­
ment and grief on account of the damage he has suffered
in his goods, his body, and his soul, has been tried
too much, and has been oppressed by them beyond all
measure, in the most perfidious manner.
Henceforth
he can and will no longer fut up with such a state
of things, and moreover, he has ample reason to break forth
with theflail and the club as Karsthans threatens to do.......”8 7
5. In the same work Luther, writes : “ Whereas I have
said....... that Popery and the clerical body will not be upset
by the hand of man, nor by rebellion, but that its wickedness
is so abominable that no punishment is sufficient for it, except
only the anger of God, without any (human) intervention ;
I have never yet been induced to keep those back who threaten
with the fist and with flails........ ”87
88
I ask, could the poor peasants be expected to listen to
Luther’s “ advice ” against rebellion, after having read such
inflammatory words as these ?
6. July 26th, 1522, Luther writes to George Spalatin:
M Do not either fear or hope that I will spare them (the
princes) ; if they have to suffer from disturbances and
reverses, they will not suffer it through any doing of ours,
but in consequence of their own tyranny.”89
7. In this year Luther also wrote a most violent book
against the Pope and the Bishops. It must be remembered
that at that time many Bishops were sovereigns in their own
87. Ibidem, 3.
88. Ibidem, 6.
80. De Wette II. 23.

43

dioceses, just as the Pope was formerly King in the Papal
States.
8. In this work Luther says : “ We must avoid a Bishop
who does not teach the word of God, no less than the Devil
himself........ But if they say there is reason to apprehend
(the outbreak of) a rebellion against the spiritual authority ;
then answer....... Is it reasonable that the souls of all should
be murdered for ever, in order that the temporal display
of these ghastly wretches (larven) should remain undis­
turbed ? It would be better if all the Bishops ivere murdered,
all institutions and convents rooted out, rather than one soul
should be lost.........Yet if they will not hear the Word of
God, but rage and break out into acts of banishing, burn­
ing, murdering [when did the Bishops do that ?] and all
kinds of evil, is it not most reasonable that they should en­
counter a powerful rebellion, which will root them out from
the earth ? And we could only laugh, were this to happen!9 0
9. In the same work Luther writes: “All those who
help to upset the dioceses and to destroy the power of the
Bishops, who cast bodily life, goods and honour into the scale,
they are the beloved children of God, and true Christians;
they defend the commandment of God, and contend against
the order of the Devil.” Luther, however, adds that he
does not wish the Bishops to be attacked “ with the fist and
the sword ; for they are unworthy of such a punishment, nor
is it of any avail.”91
10. It is with such revolutionary language as this that
“ D. Luther’s Bull and Reformation ” begin. The con­
cluding words of this remarkable document are worth
recording.
“ This is my Bull, D. Luther’s, which giveth
the grace of God as a reward to all those who observe it and
carry it out. Amenf92
i523·
11. The few quotations which follow are taken from
Luther’s work : “ About worldly authority, how far we are
ço, Wider den
falsch genanttë
geystlichen stand
des Babst vn
der bisch-offen.
D. Mart.
Luther
Ecclesiasten
tzu Wittemberg.
1522
Last page : “ Gedruckt tzü Wittemberg durch
Nickel Schyrlentz.
ym
tzwey vn tzwentzigstê
Jar.” p, 7-8.
Ji, Ibidem, “ D Luthers Bulla vnd Reformation.” p. 38.
02. Ibidem. 44.

44
obliged to obey it” The most critical German edition of
Luther’s Works, the Erlangen edition says : “This in
some places rather violent publication was occasioned by
the refusal to admit Luther’s translation of the N.T. in some
German countries, and by orders given that the subjects
who were in possession of it, should hand it over to the
authorities.”9394
12. In the second part of this work Luther answering the
question: “How far does worldly authority extend?”
savs : “ But do you want to know why God has
ordained that the temporal princes should make such
shameful mistakes ? I will tell you. God has handed them
over to their wicked heart, and will make an end of
them........ ”9i
13. “You must know that from the beginning of the
world a wise prince is a rara avis, and still more so a pious
prince ; they are generally the greatest fools or the worst
rascah on earth
therefore, as regards them we may
always look out for the worst and expect little good from
them.........”95
14. “ There are very few princes who are not looked upon
as fools or rascals........ ”9 6
15. Addressing the princes, Luther says, “People cannot,
people will not, put up with your tyranny and caprice for
any length of time...... ”97
16. He raises the objection, “There must be an
authority even among Christians.” And his answer is,
“Among Christians there ought not to be, and there cannot
be, any authority. But they are all at the same time subject
one to another.”98
i524.
17. We shall now consider in what choice language
Luther wrote, when, only one year before the outbreak ol
the Rebellion, he published a book, the title of which is :
93. Erlanger Ausgabe XXII. 59.
94. Von welltlich-er vberkeytt
wie weytt man
yhr gehorsam
schuldig sey.
Mart. Luther
Vuittemberg
HD.D.rritf.
On last page : “ Gedruckt zü Wittemberg Duict
Nickel
Schyrlentz, Anno. ΖΠ)..Ε).ϊϊϋί ’* p. 30.
95. Ibidem, 34.
96. Ibidem, 37.
97. Ibidem, 37.
$8. Ibidem, 38.

45

“Two Imperial, Inconsistent, and Disgusting Orders con·
cerning Luther.”®9
18. “ Here you see how the poor mortal sack of worms
(Madensack), the Emperor, who is not sure of his life for a
moment, shamelessly boasts that he is the true, supreme
protector of the Christian faith....... ”99
100
19. Nor are the last words of this work very compli­
mentary to the German princes. Luther writes : “ From
the bottom of my heart I bewail such a state of things in
the hearing of all pious Christians, that like me they may
bear with pity such mazy, stupid, silly, furious, madfools......
May God deliver us from them, and out of mercy give us other
rulers. Amen.”101
I525·
20. The rebellion is now on the point of breakingout. The
peasants appeal to Luther. He writes a book, in which he
advises them to keep quiet, and bids the princes give in to
such demands as are reasonable.103
It would be an injustice to Luther to say, that he was not
sincere in this his endeavour to stop the full outbreak of the
revolution.
All that can be said is, that even in this work
he more than once used language calculated, rather to
excite, than to calm the disturbed minds of the peasants.
21. This work also contains unmistakeable proofs of the
religious character of the rebellion. For the peasants published
twelve articles, in which they insisted on what they looked
upon as their rights. Now, Luther tells us that they “ tried
to prove (the articles) with sundry texts of Scripture”
Moreover the peasants say, that they are willing to be advised,
provided this be done '■’•with clear, manifest, undeniable texts of
Scripture? The “first article” ran thus : “The whole Parish
shall have the power of electing and of deposing
their Parish Priest.” The third article declared: “There are
to be no serfs, because Christ has liberated us all.”103
22. I said that even in this work Luther made use of
expressions which, unintentionally on his part, were calculated
99,
i«o.
101.
102.

Erlanger Ausgabe XXIV. 210.
Ibidem, 236.
Ibidem, 236-237.
Ermanunge zum fride auff die
in Schwaben.
Mart. Luther
103. Ibidem, 3, 31, 33.

twolff artickel der Bawer schafft
Wittemberg.
1525.

4ό

to increase the excitement among the peasants. He writes :
“ Firsts as to such disorder and rebellion, we are indebted to
nobody on earth but to you, Princes, and Lords, especially t<j
you, blind Bishops and mad Priests and Monks, who even
now-a-days are obstinate, and do not cease to rage and storm
against the Holy Gospel, although you know that it is true,
and you cannot refute it Moreover, in your worldly govern­
ment you do nothing else but cheat anct treasure up, in order
to serve your splendour and your pride, till the poor
simple people neither can, nor will, put up with it any
longer....... ”104
23. On the following page Luther continues : “For this
you must know, my dear Lords, God ordains it in
such a manner that people neither can, nor will, nor
ought to put up with your tyranny for any length of time.
You must change, and give in to the Word of God. If you
do not this in a friendly, willing spirit, you will have to be
forced into it by violent and subversive measures.
Ifthese peasants don't do it, others will have to do it. And even
if you were to overcome them all, they are nevertheless not
beaten. God will raise up others. For He is determined to
strike you, and He will strike you. My dear Lords, it is not
peasants who oppose you, it is God himself who opposes you, in
order to punish your fury........ ”105106
24. “They have presented twelve artides, some of which
are so reasonable and fair that they must deprive you of
your good name before God and the world
5,106
25. “As to the first article, in which they claim liberty
to hear the Gospel and the right of electing a Parish Priest,
you cannot refuse it and yet save appearances......”107*
26. “The other articles, in as far as they deal with
(anzeigen) bodily oppression....... are also reasonable........ 1,108
27. In the second part of the same work, Luther
addresses himself to the peasants, and says : “ My dear
friends, you have hitherto always heard of my admitting
what, I am sorry to say, is only too true and undeniable,
104.
los·
106.
107.
?p8.

Ibidem, 5.
Ibidem, 6.
Ibidem, 9.
Ibidem, 9.
Ibidem, o-xçt

47
that the princes and lords who forbid the preaching of the
Gospel and who oppress the people in such an unbearable
manner, are worthy, and have well deserved that God should
cast them down from their seats, as they sin mightily against
God and man, nor have they any excuse.......i,iOf>
28. After this, Luther most earnestly exhorts the^ people
to have nothing to do with rebellion or revolution. But was
it not almost certain, that the excited peasants would dêspiiê
the good advice, and w’ould lay stress only on those parts of
Luther’s work, in which he speaks most vigorously about the
injustice of the princes and the oppression of the peasants ?
29. At any rate, Luther’s well-meant advice was despised
by the peasants.
A most frightful revolution, which had
already partly broken out before the publication of Luther’s
work, swept over several parts of Germany. Luther became
so vexed, that he wrote a book “ Against the murderous
and rapacious hordes of the peasants.”109
110*
This was in 1525. I most carefully read the whole work
from beginning to end at the British Museum, London, in
one of the old copies printed in the same year.
30. Luther says : “ A rebellious man, of whom this
can be proved, is already an outlaw in the sight of God
and of the Emperor, so that the first who is able and
willing to strangle him, does what is right and good. For in the
case of a man in open rebellion, everyone is both chiefjustice
and executioner, just as when a fire breaks out, whoever can
extinguish it first, does the best service....... Therefore, who­
ever can, ought to strike in here, to strangle and stab, secretly
or openly, and he ought to remember that there is nothing
more poisonous, disastrous, diabolical than a man in
rebellion ; just as we must kill a mad dog if you don’t kill
him, he will kill you and a whole country with you....... ”11X
-31. Luther adds : “I think there is not one Devil left
in Hell, b,ut they have all gone into the peasants.
The
raging is exceedingly great and beyond all measure.”112
109. Ibidem, io.
mo, Wider die Mordischen vfi
.
Reubischen Rotten
der Bawren :
Martinus Luther :
Wittemberg.
Psalm, vii.
Seyne tuck werden jn selbs tref-fen,
Vnd seyn mOtwill, wird vber jn
aussgeen.
i5»J.
in. Ibidem, 3.
tis. Ibidem. 4.

4δ

32. Again he says: “For thefirst, ifthe authorities can and
will strike andpunish such peasants, without first offering them
just and reasonable terms, I will not forbid them, although
it is not according to the Gospel. For it (the authority) has
the full right to do so, since the peasants now no
longer fight for the Gospel, but have manifestly become
....... rebellious murderers, robbers, blasphemers, whom even
heathen authorities have the right and the power to punish;
yea, they are even obliged to punish such rascals....... ”113
33. Luther, however, advises that after having prayed to
God, the princes should, by way of superabundant generosity,
make just and reasonable offers to the “madpeasants” “ Then,
if that won’t do, let them immediately draw the sword...... ,u 14
34. He writes : “ The present time is so strange
that a prince can gain Heaven by spilling blood easier
than another person can by praying.”115
The times were, indeed, strange.
For while the
princes were gaining Heaven by spilling the blood of one
hundred thousand unfortunate peasants, Luther found that
the time had come for him to many Catherine Bora.
35. This cruel book of Luther caused such an amount
of excitement, even among the friends of the Reformer, that
he thought himself called upon to write a work in vindi­
cation of his previous publication. It was published in the
same year, 1525.
I have looked through it very carefully.
Luther retracts nothing, but upholds everything that he
had said in it.
He expressly maintains that it was quite
right for him to say, that everybody ought to strike into the
peasants, strangle them, stab them secretly or openly.
Luther’s deliberate opinion concerning his previous publi­
cation is clearly expressed in the following passage :
“Therefore 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.”116
36. In order to bring Luther’s behaviour towards the
peasants home to the people of this country, let me make the
following supposition. A man publishes a book in Ireland, in
X15. ibidem, 4-5, '
: .4. Ibidem, 5,
1... .bidem, 6.
Evianger Ausgabe, XXIV. 299.

49
which he says to the Irish Landlords : The tenants “ neither
can, nor will, nor ought to put up with your tyranny for any
length of time.” He tells the tenants that they have “ample
reason to break forth with the flail and the club.” A revo­
lution being on the point of breaking out, he now advises the
tenants to keep quiet, but it is too late ; and the rebellion
sweeps over the greater part of the Sister Isle. Our friend
then says, that “ whoever can, ought to strike in here, to
strangle and stab, secretly or openly. For in the case ofa man
in open rebellion* everybody is both chief justice and
executioner.”
What would Englishmen think of such a
monster? Yet, this is exactly the way Luther treated the
poor German peasants.
37. In order to show, that I am not unfair to Luther in
stating that he over-excited the poor German peasants, I will
refer the reader to the opinion expressed by an eminent
Protestant Historian of Germany.
Karl Hagen writes :
“Even Luther..... in his earlier writings, contributed consider­
ably to foster the rebellious feeling among the people; for once
he actually incited the German nation to bathe itself in the
blood of the Papists* and he declared that they do a thing
agreeable to God, who would make away with the Bishops,
destroy churches and convents!”....... He “called........ the
Princes....... impious, miserable rascals........silly fools, whose
tyranny and caprice people neither could, nor would put
up with for any length of time.
Was it surprising that
this judgment of the Reformer, concerning the reigning
powers remained uppermost in the minds of his readers,
and that on the other hand they doubted the correctness of
his doctrine of unconditional obedience?”117
38. Some people think that religion had nothing to do
with the outbreak of the rebellion. Let us again listen to
the same Protestant Historian, when he says : “ All those
preachers (of the new Gospel) who earned such extra­
ordinary applause, who gathered hundreds and thousands
of hearers round about them, were at the same time
men of free opinions in state matters* and in their speeches
did not neglect also to dwell upon political questions
siy, Karl Hagen, Deutsche Geschichte von Rudolf von Habsburg bis auf die neuest·
Zeit. Frankfurt a. M., Meidinger Sohn & Cie., 1855. Zweiter Band, Erste
Abtheilung, Nr, 16. Der Bauernkrieg, p, 183-184.

5°

ana on the necessity of a change for the better, and this
was done with the same fervour that they bestowed on
religious questions."11 *
Chapter IL—MORAL RESULTS.
Every reasonable person will agree with me, that Luther
can only have been a Reformer chosen by Almighty God,
if his teaching caused an increase of virtue and a decrease
of vice. If, however, it can be plainly shown, that in conse­
quence of his teaching there was, on the contrary, an increase
of vice and a decrease of virtue, we must come to the con­
clusion, that Luther had not the sanction of God for the
work which he undertook.
Now, under different headings, I quote forty-five passages
from his writings, all of which disclose a sad state of morality
among the followers of the new Gospel ; but in no less than
fifteen of these passages, Luther tells us in plain words that
people have become, worse than they formerly were under the
Pope. It is to these passages that I wish to direct the special
attention of the careful reader.

I.—Contempt

Word of God.
1. Luther says : “The security among the poor people is
now so great, that they laugh at the preachers.” He adds
that the time will come, when they will say : “ You are
a fool; why do you care much about a sermon ?”n9
2. “Peasants and nobles know the Gospel better than
St Paul or D. M. Luther ; they are wise and they think
themselves better than all their clergy.”120
3. “Peasants, citizens, and nobles....... boast that they
do not want any preacher........ and would not give a penny
for any number of sermons.”121
4. “ A poor village parson is now the most despised man
of all....... so that there is no peasant who does not........
trample him under-foot.”122*119
xx8,
119.
X2O.
xax,
X».

Ibidem, 184.
Erlanger Ausgabe, I. 103-104.
Walch. XIV. X360.
Erlanger Ausgabe, LI. 188.
Welch. V. 577.

of the

Si
5· “ It seems as if the world was determined to starve
the ministers of the Gospel to death.”123
6. Already in 1524 Luther tells us, why the preachers
of the new Gospel were so thoroughly despised. He says :
“ They lead such a bad life....... that they do more harm than
good." The Latin textis: “Vivuntque vitam sic pravam,
.......ut plus sane offendant, quam prosint.”124

IL—Contempt of the Sacrament.
“ People have now so little esteem for the Holy
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord....... it is as if
there was nothing on earth that they were less in want of.”12 5
2. “ Formerly under the Pope, when we were forced and
urged to receive the Sacrament, we went in crowds.......
now....... our behaviour towards it is as disgusting and
shameless, that it is as if we were not human beings (still
less Christians), but only sticks and stones, that stand in no
need of it.”12 6
1.

III.—Want

Generosity in Supporting the Clergy,
Churches, and Schools.
1. Luther says: “Under the Pope....... people were
very fervent in building churches....... Now that the true
Religion is taught, and that the people are properly instructed
concerning good works, everybody is cold, so much so
that we cannot help being surprised at it.”127
2. “Formerly, they could build convents and churches,
with an outlay which was quite unnecessary; now they cannot
repair a hole in the roof, in order that the clergyman may
be protected from the wet.”128
3. “Tell me where is there a town at present with
sufficient means or piety, to contribute enough for the
support of a schoolmaster or a clergyman?”129
4. “Such is the fate of the beloved Gospel, when it is
preached, nobody is willing to give anything towards feeding
of

»23,
124.
125.
126.
»7.

Walch. VI. 967.
Epp. ed. Aurifaber, II. 191.
Watch. X. 2666.
Watch. X. 2715.
Watch. VI. «it
i»8, Watch: XIII. 8.

H9. Watch. XI. ·5β3.

5’
and supporting the persons who ought to take charge of
the pulpit and schools.”130
5. “Formerly, when we served the Devil....... all purses
were open, and there was no measure in giving to
churches, schools....... But now that the proper kind of schools
and the proper kind of churches are to be built, nay, not
built, but only preserved as they now stand....... all purses
are bound up as with iron chains.”131
6. “According to its size every town could formerly
support with ease several convents....... now that in one town
two or three persons only are to be supported, who preach
the Word of God, administer the Sacraments, visit and
console the poor, instruct the youth....... everybody finds
that too much, although (the money has to come), not out 0/
their own pocket, but from the property of others, for which
we are indebted to Popery,”132
7· “ Our peasants want a Christian liberty, that will bring
them temporal gain, but if on the other hand they are to
give a penny to their clergyman, or do the least thing for the
Gospel, even the Devil cannot make them stir.”133134

IV.—Neglect

of the

Poor.

1. Luther informs us that his followers used to say, “ If

we are not saved on account of our good works, why should
we give alms to the poor ? υ1 Si
He adds that they maintain this at least in their way of
acting, if not in their words.
2. “ Formerly, under the Pope people gave very largely
indeed and beyond measure........ then they gave in heaps
for they looked....... upon the reward......... But now that
with the light of the Gospel we are told nothing about
our merits, nobody is willing to give and to help.”135
3. “ Formerly, when we served the Devil under Popery,
everybody was merciful and kind ; then they gave with
both hands, joyfully and with great devotion.......Now
that we ought to be merciful, to give willingly, and to show
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.

Watch. VIII. 2815.
Walch, X. 530
Walch, XI. 1758.
Walch. XIII. 89.
Walcl. Vlll. 2683,
Walch. Vlll, 946-947.

, ,

53
ourselves thankful to God for the Holy Gospel....... nobody
is willing to give, but only to takePxz&

V.—Neglect of the Sick.
In 1527 an gpidemic broke out at Wittenberg, Luther’s
beadquarters and residence. Luther writes : “The pest has
broken out here, but in rather a mild form (satis propitia) ;
however, the fear and flight of the people is something
dreadful.”136
137
2. kor the second time a contagious disease broke out
in the same town, during 1539. Writing to Wenceslaus Link
on the subject, Luther says : “ One person runs away from
flie other, so that you cannot find....... a servant.
I think
the Devil must have taken possession of the people with the
real pestilence, to fill them with such terrible fear, that the
brother forsakes his brother, the son his parents.”138
3. Again, he says : “ I am astonished, that the more we
preach about the life in Christ, the greater the terror of death
becomes among the people.”139140
4. One of Luther’s explanations of the fact, that
formerly, under the Pope, people were not so afraid is
“ because out of a false hope of life, they feared death tess.”14,0
1.

VI.—Sad State of the Youth.
Luther exclaims : “ It is a shame how badly we now
bring up our children..... Parents allow their children to please
themselves....... Mothers do not look after their daughters
....... do not punish them, do not teach them to lead a modest
and chaste life.”141142
2. “ Everywhere....... complaints are made about the dis­
obedience, lawlessness, and pride of the young people.”143
3. Luther tells us that drunkenness “ has spread.......
among the youth....... so that now the greater part of the finest,
most talented young men fespecially among the nobility and at
CourtJ, undermine their health, their body and their life.......
before the time.”143
1.

136.
137,
X38.
139.
140.
141.
142.

Walch. XI. 1758.
Epp. ed. Aurif. II. 345-346.
De Wette V. 219.
Walch. XXI. 1461.
Ibidem.

Walch. XI. 3095-3096*
Walch. XII. 895.

143. Walch. XII. 790.

54
VIT.—Increase of Drunkenness,
We have just seen the prevalence and the frightful
consequences of drunkenness among the youth.
2. Formerly, such was not the case. Speaking of drunk­
enness, Luther says : “I remember, when I was young, what
a very great shame this was considered to be among the
nobility.”1*4
Now, however, he tells us that these young men,
the greater part of whom are given to drunkenness, are
“especially among the nobility.”144
145
3. “ We have now got so far that coarse vices, excessive
drinking, rioting are no longer looked upon as a disgrace,
but....... drunkenness must now be called hilarity.”146
4. “ Drunkenness has now, I am sorry to say, come down
upon us....... like a deluge.”1*1
5. “ The people
look upon the Gospel as a doctrine
which teaches them to eat and drink.
Such
are the thoughts of almost everybody, from the lowest to the
highest."1**
6. “The people are like pigs, so to speak, dead and buried
in constant drunkenness.”14y
1.

VIII.—Increase in the Number of Suicides.
Suicides became more and more frequent among his
followers. On the 25th of July, 1542, three years and a
half before his death, he said some suicides among
his followers were caused by Satan, to whom God
had given this power in the Lutheran Church as a
punishment for contempt of the Word of God.
His exact words are : “ What you write concerning the
power that the Devil has shown in the case of three men
who have hanged themselves, I have read with fear, my
Anthony. God gives us, ungrateful and arrogant creatures, a
foretaste of His future anger, by conceding so much to
Satan in our Church.......
He (Satan) is the Prince of the
144.
145.
145.
347.
T48.

Ibidem.
Ibidem.
Walch. XIII. TS7».
Walch. XII. 788.
Walch. VII. 1896.
Walch. XII. 789. Auslegung der Epîsteî am Sonntage nach der Hïmmelfahrt
Chnsti.

55
world ; in order to bring us into contempt he pretends
that those men hanged themselves, whereas he killed them,
and, by working on their imagination, made them believe
they had hanged themselves.......
Satan’s presence is
visible.”160
IX.—Lower State of General Morality.
1. Luther says : “ As soon as our Gospel began.........
decency....... and modesty were done away with, and everybody
wished to be perfectly free to do whatever he liked.”1*1
2. “ We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of
the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they
were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal,
tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all
manner of vices.”152
3. “ After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out op
us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case
with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants.”15 3
4. “ In all classes frivolity and every kind of vice, sin,
and disgrace are now much greater than formerly.”164
5. “ I think it must needs be the case, that those who
follow the Gospel (literally “ who become evangelical ”),
should be worse after (receiving) the Gospel than they had
been before, not on account of the Gospel, but on account
of the people who so abuse the Gospel.”153
155
154
6. “ The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters
grow.”15 6
7. “ People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas
formerly they were possessed with one Devil ; the Devil· now
enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now
more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent........ than
formerly under the Pope.”157
8. “After the dominion and power of the Pope has
ceased....... the people, while despising the true doctrine,
are now changed into mere irrational animals and beasts ;
153.
15X.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.

De Wette V 487-488.
Walch. V. 114.
Walch. III. 2727.
Walch. III. 2717.
Walch. V. «4.
Walch. XIII. 2i9>
Walch. XII. 2120.

is?. Welch. XIII. ia.

56
the number of holy and pious teachers becomes constantly
less.”168

9. About a year before his death, Luther confesses : “ We
are living in Sodom and Babylon....... everything is daily
getting worse.”15*
10. The town of Wittenberg was the principal scene of
Luther’s activity. It was there that he resided. It was
there, if anywhere, that the results of his teaching ought to
have made themselves felt. Now, about seven months before
his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom
(Wittenberg)....... I will wander about, and sooner beg my
bread than -allow my poor old last days to be martyred ana
upset with the disorder of Wittenberg.^ 6 0
11. We find Luther owning that he would never have
begun to preach, if he had foreseen these unhappy results,
and that he scarcely knows whether he ought to continue
preaching. His words are · “ See how foolishly the people
everywhere behave towards the Gospel, so that I scarcely
know whether I ought to continue preaching or not.”158
*161*
159
12. Writing on the same subject, he says: “If God
had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals*
I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.”***
13. In 1538, more than twenty years after the beginning
of the Reformation, Luther dwells on the same thought :
“Who would have begun to preach, if we had known
beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal,
blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the
result I”163
14. The new Gospel did not even make Luther himself
better. He writes : “Z confess....... that"I am much more
negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now no­
where such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was
formerly seen among Monks and Priests.”*6 41
15. If all these testimonies, taken wholly and solely
from the very words of Dr. Martin Luther himself, should
158.
159.
ϊόο,
x6x.
X02.
163.

Watch, I. 615.
De Wette V. 722.
Luther’s Letter to his Wife, July, 1545, de Wette V. 753.
Watch. XI. 3052,
Watch. VI. 920.
Watch. V1H. 564.

X64. Watch. IX. x^xj.

57
not oe considered sufficient, to prove that the state of general
morality became worse in consequence of the teaching of
the Reformer, I still have another argument in store, which,
I think, will convince even the most prejudiced mind.
During the last few years, Janssen has been publishing the
first volumes of his History of Germany since the end of the
Middle Ages (Geschicte _des Deutschen Volkes seit dem
Ausgang des Mittelalters). This standard work has caused
a thorough Revolution throughout historical circles in
Germany. The excitement created by the publication of
these volumes is principally due to the unlimited acquaintance
of the author with the works and writings of Dr, Martin
Luther.
It is difficult to imagine a more thorough and
scientific condemnation of the Reformation, drawn to a great
extent from the words of Martin Luther himself. The sensa­
tion caused by Janssen’s History was so great, in both Pro­
testant and Catholic circles, that Protestant Germany could
not remain silent.
Professor Kostlin took up Luther’s
defence in a book entitled “Luther und J. Janssen.” The
proofs,, however, brought forward by Janssen, were so clear
and so striking, that Kostlin, the very man whose express
object was to defend Luther, could not help saying :
“ There was really a certain increase of corruption....... at the
time of the Reformation.
JIre may a.so unhesitatingly admit
that, in a certain sense, the Reformation had something to do
with z/.”1C5
16. I beg the reader to consider these two distinct
admissions, especially as they are made by the most
prominent and most weighty supporter of Luther’s cause
in Germany.
a. He acknowledges that there was an increase of
corruption at the time of the Reformation.
b. He “unhesitatingly” adds that, “in a certain sense-*
the Reformation contributed to this increase of corruption,
i
17. This fact that the Reformation had something to do
with the increase of moral corruption must, therefore, be
admitted by everyone who takes for the ground on which
he stands, not fancy and imagination, but historical truth.
165. KOstlin, Luther und J, Janssen, p. 58 ;

CONCLUSION.
The following facts have been clearly established from
Luther's own writings :
1. At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther acted as
a downright hypocrite towards Pope Leo X., and shortly
before dying, he wrote a most low, coarse, disreputable,
and satanical book of one hundred and fifty-seven pages,
against Pope Paul III. Even supposing Protestantism wras
right and the Catholic Church was wrong, such a book
as Luther wrote “ Against the Popery of Rome, instituted
by the Devil,” would be a lasting disgrace to any
author.166
168
167
2. Having rejected the authority of the Pope, he admits
the authority of Satan ; for he informs us in plain, un·
mistakeable words, that the Devil argued in favour of his
doctrine of justification by faith alone, and against Mass,
Mary, and the Saints.187
3. Strange to say, he expects Christ will approve of his
preaching those very doctrines, which had met with the
sanction of Satan. For Luther has the boldness to assure
us, that Our Lord looks upon him as an Evangelist, and
that he himself will not allow his teaching to be judged by
anyone, not even by an AngelP·**
4. Having thus set the authority of the Pope at nought,
admitted the authority of Satan, proclaimed his own
authority as that of an Evangelist, who is not even to be
judged by an Angel, Luther boldly rejects the inspired
Word of God, as contained in St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Hebrews, and in the Apocalypse or Book of Revelations.
As to the Epistle of St. James, it is only a straw epistle^
166. See above, pages 9-13,
167. Pages 13-19.
168. Pages ig-ao.

59
necause, in opposition to Luther, St. James ventures to
“attribute justification to the works.”169
5. Not satisfied with this, he even falsifies the Bible by
adding the word “ alone" to Rom. III. 28.
He has
the honesty to tell us why he does so.
It was in
order to express his doctrine of justification by faith alone
in a more “clear and powerful” manner. The text in the
English Protestant Bible is: “ AVe conclude that a manis
iustified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Luther
translates : “ So we now hold it, that man is justified, without
«Wa^the works of the law, alone by faith.”170
6. We can hardly expect, that a man who thus deals with
the inspired Word of God, will respect the laws of God.
Now, one of the most fundamental law.s, promulgated here
on earth by the Son of God, is the law concerning the
unity of Christian marriage. Luther’s teaching, however,
is in direct opposition to this. He says : “ I cannot forbid
a person to marry several tuives." Nor does he, in the case
of Prince Philip of Hesse, shrink from putting this his
doctrine into practice ; for Luther wilfully and deliberately
signed a document granting his Highness leave to have two
wives at the same time. Moreover, in one of his sermons,
the Reformer of Germany did not blush to sanction adultery
under circumstances, which ought never to be mentioned
from a Christian pulpit171
Is it God, or is it Satan who speaks through Luther?
7. Whilst constantly asserting his own authority and
acting with the utmost recklessness, concerning the Holy
Bible and the unity of marriage, Luther treats with an
insufferable arrogance and intolerance all those who refuse
to submit to his authority As to the Jews, it is well
known how, in the Middle Ages, they were constantly pro­
tected by the Popes, even in Rome itself, where
they had a special quarter of the town allotted to
them.
How differently Luther acts.
He says the
churches (synagogues) and schools of the cursed
Jews are to be burnt down, their houses destroyed,
their Prayer Books taken away from them, their Rabbis
169. Pages 21-22*
170. Pages 22-19,
171. Pages-.9-34,

6ô

forbidden to teach, they are to be refused all legal pro­
tection when they go into the country ; all their money is to
be taken from them, and if all that is not sufficient, they
are to be driven off like mad, dogs.172
8. A satanical hatred of the Pope and of all Roman
Catholics is one of the characteristic features in the history
and character of Luther. According to his views Popery is
instituted by the Devil, the Pope is Antichrist, whose tongue
ought to be torn out through the back of his neck and nailed
to the gallows ; the Catholic Bishops are “ wolves, tyrants,
murderers of souls, and the Apostles of Antichrist
every Catholic is “at least a murderer, a robber, a
persecutori' And he asks the Princes: “Why do we not
wash our hands in their blood ?”173174
*
9. But even Protestants differing from him do not fare
any better.
So, for example, he denounces those who do
not believe that the very same Body of Our Lord which
was nailed to the Cross is received in the Last Supper, as
blasphemers and enemies of Christ, and he adds that they
cannot hope for any communion with him (Luther). He says:
“7 should have to condemn myself with them into the depths
of Hell, if I were to hold with them"^ *
Now, many Protestants in this country do not believe in
the Real Presence, and, nevertheless, they praise Luther
who condemns them to the everlasting flames of Hell.
10. The results of his teaching are such as might be
expected from what we have already said. He maintains
that the poor man “has ample reason to break forth with
the flail and the club.” The peasants do break forth with
the flail and the club.
Luther now advises them to go
home quietly. They refuse. Luther then orders everybody
to “strike in......to strangle and stab, secretly or openly."
“For in the case of a man in open rebellion everybody is both
chief justice and executioner. "Ύ 7 5
One hundred thousand peasants are killed or executed.
11. Such were the political consequences of his teach­
ing. The moral results were even more disastrous; for
172.
173.
174.
175·

Pages 34-35.
Pages 35-36 and 11
Pages 36-40.
Paees 41-50.

6î

wherever Luther’s teaching was accepted, the Last
Supper was treated with contempt, the former generosity in
supporting the clergy, churches, schools, the sick and the
poor, ceased; children were neglected, drunkenness began to
spread like a deluge, in fact every virtue decreased, and
every kind of vice increased. Luther tells us that, under
the Pope, people had had only one Devil, and that now,
under the Gospel, they had “seven worse ones.”176
Would it not have been better if he had left the poor
people with the one Devil, and had spared them the six
other worse ones ?

i2. A man who pretends to be a Reformer is sent either
by God or by Satan. Now, every single sign of a Divine
mission is utterly wanting, both in Luther’s teaching,
and in the results of his teaching.
How different in
every respect are not Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel,
Ezekiel, and the prophets of old from the would be
Reformer ?
But, can Luther perhaps be compared
to the Apostles ? Let us see. Did St. Peter, or St. Paul,
or any of them, ever dare to allow a Christian to have two
wives at the same time? Is not this fact alone sufficient to
prove to every fair-minded man, that Luther W’as not sent
by God? Moreover, was the result of St. Paul’s teaching an
increase of drunkenness and every kind of vice, and a
decrease of every kind of virtue ? No, certainly not. Luther,
therefore, bears no resemblance to any of those men, of whom
the Scripture tells us that they were sent by God as Reformers
of their nation or ofthe world. We, therefore, refuse to believe
in his Divine mission, and that on Scriptiiral grounds. But
mark also another reason. Luther refused to believe that
Carlstadt had the sanction of Heaven, and for a reason which
is very instructive. Writing against this pretended Reformer,
he says, “ God does not break up the old order for a
new one without working great signs. Therefore we cannot
believe a person, who appeals to his own spirit and to his
inward feeling, and rushes head-long against the usual
order of God, unless he also performs miracles.”17 7
176. Pages So-57·
»77· Erlanger Ausgabe, XXIX. 173.

62
13. Now, Luther, I judge you by your own test. Where
are the miracles, with which you prove your Divine mission ?
You know very well, that you never performed a single one.
And therefore we would be acting in opposition to your own
advice, were we to believe in you.
14. But, if Luther was not commissioned by God, then the
glorious old Church of our Forefathers, the Church of which
we say, in the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in the Holy
Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church” is the true Church of
God. And, in that case, not Luther, but the great and
illustrious St. Ignatius, was the real Reformer of the
sixteenth century.

ERRATA,

Pag*.

Reference.

Line.

Read.

12

IO

I

26

20

12

IO

I

60

OO

20

28

5

28

47

I

41

86

I

86

(Indistinct.)
(Indistinct.)

42

89

I

236

23

55

’57

I

19

10

ym

Vuittemberg.

Instead of

my

These few corrections enable me to guarantee the absolute correctness
of every single reference.

Luther’s Own Statements.
PRESS NOTICES.
I. AMERICA.

1. THE CATHOLIC REVIEW, 1884, No. .16:
“ The best comment we haveseen on the Lutheran Cen­
tenary in any language. . . a work of the most minute and
patient research, conducted in the most dispassionate and
impartial manner—a true photograph of the Reformer pro­
duced by the irradiance of his own bold statements, without
any colouring on the part of the artist.”
2. THE CATHOLIC WORLD, July, 1884:
“There are as-many facts compressed into this little work
as would furnish material for a bulky volume, and
they are marshalled in such a manner that their force is
irresistible.”
■
3. THE CATHOLIC HERALD, June.14, 1884 :
“Of all the works concerning Luther, this one, literally
written by himself, is the best.”
II. GREAT BRITAIN.

''

r. THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RE­
CORD, October, 1884 : “ We advise every student of
Church History to provide himself with a copy.”
2. THE DUBLIN REVIEW, October, 1884:
“The work should be in every Priest’s library.”
3. THE MONTH, March, 1884 : “ Perhaps the most
solid and effective contribution tô the Luther literature of
the day.”
4- THE TABLET, May 17, 1884: “Full of the
most remarkable and useful historical extracts.”

5.. THE CATHOLIC TIMES,,March 13, 1885 :
“ The writer of this review, himself a German, has gone to
the trouble of testing the accuracy of a very considerable
portion of the references. He can unhesitatingly affirm
that he was not able to come across a single mis­
quotation, and that he invariably found the translation to
be in scrupulous conformity with the^original German or
Latin text.”