Sunday, January 15, 2017

Calvin and Luther justified Christians Killing Muslims and Pagans?

The title of this post "Calvin and Luther justified Christians Killing Muslims and Pagans?" takes its name from an "Atheism/Agnosticism/Sec Humanism" discussion board comment. At some point on this particular forum a secularist inferred that Calvin and Luther advocated killing Muslims and pagans. The secularist was challenged to provide evidence. To challenge someone for evidence and documentation is justifiable. On the other hand, to do so while boldly claiming "all the atheists around here falsely claiming [Luther] advocated killing Muslims" and "neither one ever advocated killing Muslims, you screwed up," demonstrates that the inquisitor is not fully aware of Reformation history. 

Let's take a brief survey of Luther's attitude towards the Muslims. Luther was in favor of suppressing the Turks invading Europe. See On War Against the Turk, 1529 (LW 46:155-205), so in a basic sense, Luther was in favor of Christian Europe (through the authorities) "killing Muslims." The editors of LW 46 state:
Luther makes it clear that a war against the Turks cannot and must not be a crusade or religiously motivated and led by the church. Emphatically he states that it is not the business of church and clergy to promote and wage warfare. Luther’s concern throughout the book is to teach men how to fight with a clear conscience. In so doing he develops two major points. There are, he says, only two men who may properly fight the Turk. The first of these is the Christian, who by prayer, repentance, and reform of life takes the rod of anger out of God’s hand and compels the Turk to stand on his own strength. The second man who may wage war is the emperor. The Turk has wrongfully attacked the emperor’s subjects, and by virtue of the office to which God has appointed him, the emperor is duty-bound to protect and defend the subjects with whose care God has entrusted him (LW 46:159).
In an eschatological sense, Luther believed that the Muslim's were the tool of the Devil and would suffer an eternal death, so, in that sense Luther was in favor of "killing Muslims" because they were the agents of Satan. See his Preface and Afterword to Brother Richard (1542) in LW 60:251ff. If the inquisitor is looking for some sort of quote from Luther in which he says "A Christian should kill a Muslim walking down the street," I don't recall ever seeing anything like that. What Luther did say was that soldiers were within their right to defend the empire against Islam. Here are a few citations from On War Against the Turks:
"...there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks." (LW 46:161)
"I must write so that innocent consciences may no longer be deceived by these slanderers and made suspicious of me or my doctrine, and so they may not be deceived into believing that we must not fight against the Turks."(LW 46:162)
"The second man who ought to fight against the Turk is Emperor Charles, or whoever may be emperor; for the Turk is attacking his subjects and his empire, and it is his duty, as a regular ruler appointed by God, to defend his own." (LW 46:184)
"In the first place, if there is to be war against the Turk, it should be fought at the emperor’s command, under his banner, and in his name. Then everyone can be sure in his conscience that he is obeying the ordinance of God, since we know that the emperor is our true overlord and head and that whoever obeys him in such a case obeys God also, whereas he who disobeys him also disobeys God. If he dies in this obedience, he dies in a good state, and if he has previously repented and believes in Christ, he will be saved." (LW 46:185)
"I do not advise men to wage war against the Turk or the pope because of false belief or evil life, but because of the murder and destruction which he does." (LW 46:198)
"Nevertheless, the emperor should do whatever he can for his subjects against the Turk, so that even though he cannot entirely prevent the abomination, he may nonetheless try to protect and rescue his subjects by checking the Turk and holding him off. The emperor should be moved to do this not only by duty, his office, and God’s command, nor only by the un-Christian and vile government the Turk brings, as has been said above, but also by the misery and wretchedness that befalls his subjects. Doubtlessly they know better than I how cruelly the Turk treats those whom he takes captive. He treats them like cattle, dragging, towing, driving those that can move, and killing on the spot those that cannot move, whether they are young or old."(LW 46:200)
For a helpful overview of Luther's writings against Islam, see, Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles (Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1983), p.97-114. I suspect Luther would not have any problems with a Muslim who converted to Christianity.

Luther's comments on paganism (particularly witchcraft) will have to wait for another day (in fact, this will certainly be a future blog post). The most popular quote is from Luther's 1526 Exodus sermon in which he translates Exodus 22:18 something like "you shall not permit a witch to live" (WA 16:551). In the same sermon Luther calls killing witches "just" because of the evil and havoc they cause. There are a number of less than charitable comments from Luther about witchcraft. These will be explored in the future.   

It's important to try to avoid anachronism in historical studies. I'm fond of the Reformers, particularly Luther and Calvin, but they were people of their particular time period. The task for those of us in the Reformation tradition is to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Simply because I embrace the Reformation principles of sola fide and sola scriptura and I applaud their efforts against Rome does not mean I have to agree with or condone everything they said or did.

Addendum: Luther Was Pro-Islam?
Contrary to the discussion above, presents yet another batch of spin in their 2013 entry, Exposing Martin Luther’s Love Affair With Islam. is some sort of Anti-Islam pro-Roman Catholic website. Their Reformation information is typically horrid. In this entry they assert, "This will again come as a shock to those whom hold Martin Luther in high esteem, but Luther held Islam and her armies in admiration." They assert Luther only "appears... opposed to Islam on theological grounds" and Luther "is more tolerant towards Islam than he is towards the Jews." Quoting Luther, Shoebat states:

Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live. (On War Against the Turk).

This quote is from On War Against the Turks and can be found at LW 46:185-186. Note what Luther says in context, that the reasons to go to war against Islam is to be based on secular grounds, not spiritual: 
Therefore the urging and inciting with which the emperor and the princes have been stirred up to fight against the Turk ought to cease. He has been urged, as head of Christendom and as protector of the church and defender of the faith, to wipe out the Turk’s religion, and the urging and exhorting have been based on the wickedness and vice of the Turks. Not so! The emperor is not the head of Christendom or defender of the gospel or the faith. The church and the faith must have a defender other than emperor and kings. They are usually the worst enemies of Christendom and of the faith, as Psalm 2 [:2] says and as the church constantly laments. That kind of urging and exhorting only makes things worse and angers God deeply because it interferes with his honor and his work, and would ascribe it to men, which is idolatry and blasphemy.
And if the emperor were supposed to destroy the unbelievers and non-Christians, he would have to begin with the pope, bishops, and clergy, and perhaps not spare us or himself; for there is enough horrible idolatry in his own empire to make it unnecessary for him to fight the Turks for this reason. There are entirely too many Turks, Jews, heathen, and non-Christians among us with open false doctrine and with offensive, shameful lives. Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live. The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things, if God is not to become angry with us. If we pervert his order and throw it into confusion, he too becomes perverse and throws us into confusion and all kinds of misfortune, as it is written, “With the crooked thou dost show thyself perverse” [Ps. 18:26]. We can perceive and grasp this through the fortune we have had up to now against the Turk. Think of all the heartbreak and misery that have been caused by the cruciata,  by the indulgences, and by crusade taxes. With these Christians have been stirred up to take the sword and fight the Turk when they ought to have been fighting the devil and unbelief with the word and with prayer. (LW 46:185-186) goes on to say:

But that is not all. He even goes so far as to claim that a Muslim ruler (a Turkish ruler) is better than a Christian ruler: A smart Turk makes a better ruler than a dumb Christian.

The probable reason why Shoebat may have not provided a reference is because the statement is apocryphal. goes on to say:

It is no accident since Luther hated Jews and the Pope more than he did the Islamic religion and therefore, despite knowing what was wrong with the Islamic religion theologically and also in terms of what it would do given full swing over Europe, he urged his followers to side with the Muslim Turks in defeating Europe. After calling the Jews and the Pope some foul names such as “Antichrist” and “Devil incarnate”, he then urged his followers to look at the Turks in the best manner and even went so far as to say that some of his German contemporaries (read traitors), “actually want the Turk to come and rule, because they think that our German people are wild and uncivilized – indeed that they are half-devil and half-man” (Found in The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe, by Daniel Goffman, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p110).

Here is what Goffman actually stated: 

It appears Shoebat's comments are a weird reworking of Goffman in which they took the author's comments and turned them into Luther being thoroughly  pro-Islam. It appears to me that both Goffman and Shoebat have missed the real Luther. Goffman says Luther said the Turk is "the servant of  the devil," and this is somehow supposed to be less condemning than "antichrist" or "devils incarnate"! It is true that Luther did not "consider Mohammend to be the Antichrist" (LW 60:264), but in LW 60 (which came out many years after Goffman's book), Luther refers to "the beast the vile Mohammed to deceive and torment the world" and"the devil's son, Mohammed" (LW 60:263). Luther's view was not halfhearted

Did Luther (as Shoebat says)  "urge his followers" to look to the Turks "in the best manner"? If Shoebat took this from Goffman, he doesn't say this. Here is the text from Luther:
Grace and peace in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Serene, highborn prince, gracious lord, for the past five years certain persons have been begging me to write about war against the Turks, and to arouse and encourage our people. Now that the Turk is actually approaching, even my friends are urging me to do this, especially since there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks. Some are even so foolish as to say that it is not proper for Christians to bear the temporal sword or to be rulers. Furthermore, some actually want the Turk to come and rule because they think our German people are wild and uncivilized—indeed, that they are half-devil and half-man. The blame for this wicked error among the people is laid on Luther and must be called “the fruit of my gospel,” just as I am blamed for the rebellion, and for every bad thing that happens anywhere in the world. My accusers know better, but—God and his word to the contrary—they pretend not to know better, and they seek occasion to speak evil of the Holy Ghost and of the truth that is openly confessed, so that they may earn the reward of hell and never repent or receive the forgiveness of their sins. (LW 46:161)
In context Luther is mentioning the people negatively provoking him to write, and included in the group is the category described by Shoebat and Goffman. There is no urging to look favorably towards Islam.

Shoebat goes on to blame Lutheran and Protestants in general for the advancement of Islam, and then takes a few closing shots at Luther:

That is why it was so easy for Luther’s followers and the followers of John Calvin to collaborate with the Islamic forces attacking Europe. Luther laid the groundwork for this in his half-hearted statements regarding Islam along with his actions. 

...the followers of Luther and Calvin were willing allies and traitors to the forces of Islam due to the groundwork laid by the Reformers.

... Luther and his evil fruit have been responsible for the Islamic threat that is now threatening the West more than ever before. 

Another evil fruit of Luther’s duplicity with Islam is that many of the Lutheran churches today are anti-Israel and pro-Islamic terrorist.

Suffice to say, Luther has not only been worthy of Lucifer, but also Judas Iscariot and the Antichrist and has shown so by his sympathetic gestures to Islam, despite knowing their theological errors. Any Christian in Lutheran circles today who does not wish to participate in either Luther’s hatred of Jews or his pandering to the antichrist religion of Islam should have the courage to name him as a “firstborn of Satan”, as the Blessed St. John the Apostle named Cerinthus, and hopefully, leave Lutheranism for a genuine Christianity.

For, Luther's allegedly less than condemning attitude toward the Turks led future generations of Protestants to have a sympathy towards Islam! This charge is untrue at its foundation. Luther supported war against the Turks and throughout his writings considered them to be the servants of Satan.  He ended his 1542 treatise saying, "So, then, may God give us his grace and punish both the pope and Mohammed along with their devils" (LW 60:266).

Monday, January 09, 2017

Catholic Answers Discussion on Luther, Faith, and Reason

Here's a nifty little Luther discussion from Catholic Answers on Luther, faith, and reason. [edited to add: this link appears to have vanished (as well as the entire Catholic Answers "blog").]

Comments by Members

#1  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scripture OR BY EVIDENT REASON . . . I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the word of God"
"REASON is contrary to faith”... “REASON is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”
This may be the first written diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
January 6, 2017 at 11:15 am PST
#2  Mich Wieder - Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Eric @ #1,
YOU SAY: "REASON is contrary to faith"
BENEDICT XVI: "faith is not contrary to reason" (Vatican City, 21 November 2012)
May the Lord bless you!
January 6, 2017 at 11:40 am PST
#3  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota
Mich @ #2,
Reread my post. "Luther:...."REASON is contrary to faith"...
Please take better care to read the entirety of the comment rather than seemingly taking a small part to argue with.
January 6, 2017 at 12:01 pm PST
#4  Michael Flores - lacey, Washington
Faith is an insult to logic. Nobody speaks of having "faith" that George Washington existed. We just know.
January 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm PST

#6  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona
Eric McCabe, I think you should read the entire quote in context. I believe the quote you are referring to came from Luther's Table Talks, which are essentially a compilation of quotes provided by former students who used to reside in Luther's household. It is not meant to be a treatise, so do not try to treat a single quote (taken out of context by you) as such. That being said, Luther states many things in his Table Talk discussion that discusses the use of reason in the proper context (under the direction and control of the Holy Spirit). You can see the dichotomy in a few passages where Luther is condemning the secular use of reason apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
"The Holy Scriptures are full of divine gifts and virtues. The books of the heathen taught nothing of faith, hope, or charity; they present no idea of these things; they contemplate only the present, and that which man, with the use of his material reason, can grasp and comprehend. Look not therein for aught of hope or trust in God. But see how the Psalms and the Book of Job treat of faith, hope, resignation, and prayer; in a word, the Holy Scripture is the highest and best of books, abounding in comfort under all afflictions and trials. It teaches us to see, to feel, to grasp, and to comprehend faith, hope, and charity, far otherwise than mere human reason can..."
Not too shabby for dinnertime conversation. Here we see Luther is not condemning reason. He is condemning reason apart from faith. As you yourself pointed out in the first quote that you provided above, Luther was quite keen on the use of reason within the context of faith and the scriptures.
"We ought not to criticize, explain, or judge the Scriptures by our mere reason (emphasis again on reason alone), but diligently, with prayer, meditate thereon, and seek their meaning...The Holy Ghost must here be our only master and tutor (once again, the reason in subjection to the Holy Spirit); and let youth have no shame to learn of that preceptor."
"He who wholly renounces himself, and relies not on mere human reason, will make good progress in the Scriptures; but the world comprehends them not, from ignorance of that mortification which is the gift of God's word. Can he who understands not God's Word, understand God's works?"
This sentiment should be familiar to even the most casual student of the Apostle Paul who himself said something similar: "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
Perhaps you would prefer the sentiment of the Psalmist? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding."
Going back to Luther's view of wisdom: "Human reason, with all its wisdom, can bring it no further than to instruct people how to live honestly and decently in the world, how to keep house, build, etc., things learned from philosophy and heathenish books. But how they should learn to know God and his dear Son, Christ Jesus, and to be saved, this the Holy Ghost alone teaches through God's Word; for philosophy understands naught of divine matters. I don't say that men may not teach and learn philosophy; I approve thereof, so that it be within reason and moderation. Let philosophy remain within her bounds, as God has appointed, and let us make use of her as of a character in a comedy; but to mix her up with divinity may not be endured; nor is it tolerable to make faith an accidens or quality, happening by chance; for such words are merely philosophical - used in schools and in temporal affairs, which human sense and reason may comprehend. But faith is a thing of the heart, having its being and substance by itself, given of God as his proper work, not a corporal thing, that may be seen, felt, or touched."
Returning to the quote that you mentioned, it is grossly out of context. Luther was addressing another reformer whom he felt was at odds with the correct view of the sacrament of Holy Communion. He felt that Karlstadt's reasons for his view were based on shoddy reasoning apart from scripture. Hence his entire quote: "Let this be our answer to the arguments and reasons that Dr. Karlstadt presents for his dream from Scripture. They were threefold. First, a capital letter is found in some books, not all. Second, there was a punctuation mark. Third, the dear touto. What wonderful arguments, which no one would use except such heavenly prophets, who hear the voice of God. A fourth now is, that he cannot present a single verse of Scripture in his favor. This is the most damaging argument and will forever remain so. I shall not overthrow it but will rather strengthen it. Furthermore he teaches us what Frau Hulda,?? natural reason, has to say in the matter, just as if we did not know that reason is the devil’s prostitute and can do nothing else but slander and dishonor what God does and says. But before we answer this arch-prostitute and devil’s bride, we first want to prove our faith, not by setting forth capitals or periods or touto tauta but by clear, sober passages from Scripture which the devil will not overthrow."
Once more we see Luther putting reason in subjection to faith and the scriptures. To strengthen you apologetic stance in the future you may want to actually read Luther's works so that you can place them in proper context rather than grabbing them from message board to cut and paste random quotes into emails. I'm not saying I am in agreement with everything Luther says, nor do I need to be because the power of scripture does not rest on man; however, if you want to pursue an ethical Christian apologetic, you should have a desire to try to present issues in their proper context rather than purposely misrepresenting them to suit your purpose.
January 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm PST
#7  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota
Notice that all I did was post three verbatim quotes of Luther in concurrent succession. You can use the whole "context" argument all you want. But when Luther uses crass and vile language as he most certainly did in much of his works, so vile that the Catholic Answers pre-programmed auditor would censor, I think we all know in good conscience that his thoughts, doctrines, and ambitions were not from God.
January 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm PST
#9  Mich Wieder - Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Eric @ #1,
Please analyze one of your statements for bipolar disorder.
YOU SAY: "I, too, want you to be a part of the true Church. I personally want every living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."
MY OBSERVATION: You consider it presumptuous when a person thinks to be "a part of the true church in an arrogant and secure way."
ANOTHER OBSERVATION: You presently are a member of the Catholic Church.
MY QUESTION: Are you or aren't you presently a member of "the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit?"
May the Lord bless you!
January 6, 2017 at 12:58 pm PST
#10  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota
Mich at #9,
This is what I said: "I, too, want YOU to be a part of the true Church. I personally want EVERY living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."
Are you misreading what I wrote? I did not write "[I] want to be a part of the true Church. I also said "I, too, want YOU to be a part of the true church" as I also "want every living soul to be in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded and continues to maintain through His Spirit."
The fact is, I am a part of the true One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years go. Thanks and praise be to God through His grace and mercy. But I want you and every living soul as well to be a part of Her as well.
I really think you should try to read and reread the comments on these threads. You are missing pertinent information that makes many of your comments and questions incoherent. If you want to fine-comb and sift through comments of Catholics to argue and contend, then do so with more diligence and care so that your questions and comments can make more sense.
January 6, 2017 at 1:10 pm PST
January 6, 2017 at 2:39 pm PST
#15  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona
Eric, you actually didn't post three verbatim quotes. The last quote you provided is spurilously attributed to Luther and is a paraphrase. And once again, posting quotes that you know to be out of context is a poor apologetic and is inconsistent with a Christian ethic.
January 6, 2017 at 3:00 pm PST
#16  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona
And speaking to your comment that Luther was crass or earthy, please explain to me what you would consider Hosea when we compared Israel and Judah to prostitutes.
January 6, 2017 at 3:01 pm PST
#18  Sean McCoy - Glendale, Arizona
I want to address what I think you are trying to get at by attacking Luther's character. The thrust of your argument seems to be that if someone has sinned they must not be lead by the Holy Spirit. While I agree that when we sin we have not followed the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has departed from that person. It only means that we are simultaneously sinners and saints.
If you really and honestly look at the implication you have made and take it to its logical conclusion you only undercut the authority of your own church. If you assume, wrongly, that sin means that one no longer has a place in carrying out God's will, then such heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, and Paul have no place in leadership in the church and that they could not have been lead by the Holy Spirit.
In the context of the catholic church through the ages many things have occurred where the church has not followed the Holy Spirit, and by your arbitrary rule would then be unfit to be considered as a means of the Holy Spirit to accomplish his will in this world. Numerous atrocities were attributed to spreading the Catholic gospel in the ancient world with approval of the church. Men such as Clovis, Charlemagne, etc., have forced conversions on pain of death. The Crusades were encouraged by the Popes despite some of the most barbaric practices imaginable. After the reformation we saw atrocities committed by the Catholic church with full knowledge and approval of the church authorities under the Inquisitions. In more recent days we have the sex scandals that have plagued the church where known wrongdoing occurred and in some cases were covered up.
I say this not to take anything away from the Catholic Church. If I didn't love the Catholic church I would not be here to engage in debate and study of the scriptures. I only do so to point out the obvious inconsistency in your statement. My own faith history is equally guilty of sin. And yet, God has used the institutions of the church (the whole church) despite our flaws and sin to spread his gospel into the world. Be careful where you point your finger, because four more are pointing back at you. The power of the church is dependent on the Holy Spirit and the ability of the gospel to save. It isn't dependent on an infallible church or man. That's why I care enough to speak up.
January 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm PST

#24  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota
Sean @ #18,
You: "I want to address what I think you are trying to get at by attacking Luther's character"
I am sorry if you got that impression. I was not attempting to "attack Luther's character". However, I did and always will expose his writings for what they are, context or no context. Regardless of his coarse and sometimes even lewd style of writing, he is all over the place sloppily going from one tangent to another in an almost seeming chimerical way. Outside of all the contradictory statements regarding biblical doctrine, he had an unprecedented and scornful perspective on not only the seven books he himself removed from the Old Testament, but also for the canonical books of Esther that he wanted to "toss in the Elbe River", Saint James in which he called an "epistle of straw" and that he wanted to "throw Jimmy in the stove, and the book of the Revelation of Saint John in that it was "an aversion and should be rejected". Let us not forget his infamous addition of the word 'allein' (alone) in Romans 3:28 in his bible transliteration. I could literally go on and on unceasingly with quotes from Luther that would make any good-willed Christian cringe.
You: "The thrust of your argument seems to be that if someone has sinned they must not be lead by the Holy Spirit. While I agree that when we sin we have not followed the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has departed from that person. It only means that we are simultaneously sinners and saints"
I do not know about you, but I was not referring to anyone's moral disposition or how many times someone had fallen from grace. I merely was exposing illogical and contradictory quotes in writing from a self-anathematized Christian. I am sorry, Sean, but the writings of Martin Luther are not analogous to those of "Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, and Paul". Again, we are talking about sentiments that were written down, not immoral conduct. Show me something in writing from a Catholic Saint, Doctor, Pope etc. that compares to that of Luther. If you can do that, then your argument will carry some weight.
January 7, 2017 at 4:54 pm PST

Monday, January 02, 2017

Luther Wrote "Away In a Manger"?


Here's one from a Roman Catholic discussion board about Luther being the possible author of Away in a Manger:

For several years, many traditional choir directors have refused to sing Away in a Manger because they think it was written by Luther. A bit of detective work done by researchers at the US Library of Congress finds Luther was not the author. Further, regardless of who the author is, there is no heresy contained within the stanzas but only a sweet song about baby Jesus.

This link provides information to dispel this myth:
So how did a hymn that first appeared in the United States at the end of the 19th century become connected to the 16th-century German reformer Martin Luther? 
The culprit who made the false association between “Away in a Manger” and Luther appears to have been James R. Murray (1841-1905), who in his Dainty Songs for Little Lads and Lasses (1887)—a most Victorian-sounding title—called it “‘Luther’s Cradle Hymn,’ composed by Martin Luther for his children and still sung by German mothers to their little ones.” However, no one has uncovered an original German version by the reformer. 
Gealy, citing a 1945 article by Richard S. Hill, noted that “illicit inferences” to Luther are partly due to “the association of the carol with the glorification of Luther’s family life as depicted in a series of sentimental engravings done in the early nineteenth century by G.F.L. König . . . [including one that portrayed] Luther with his family on Christmas Eve as frontispiece [for a Christmas book].”
Theophilus Baker Stork (1814-1874), the author of this book, also wrote Luther at Home (1872), in which he stated, “Luther’s carol for Christmas, written for his own child Hans, is still sung.” The irony of this assertion is that we actually have a Luther hymn that may have been written for young Hans, “Von Himmel hoch da komm ich her” (1531), published in Joseph Klug’s Gesangsbuch (1535) and translated by Catherine Winkworth in 1885:
From Heaven above to earth I come,
To bear good news to every home;
Glad tidings of great joy I bring,
Whereof I now will say and sing.
Standards for attribution were much less rigorous before the 20th century. For example, in the 18th century, some works ascribed to J.S. Bach because of his stature were not written by the composer. Nineteenth-century shape-note tunebooks have vexed hymnologists for years as they have tried to discern authorship of specific tunes.

Here is "Luther's Cradle Hymn" from Dainty Songs for Little Lads and Lasses (1887). Note the text does read, "composed by Martin Luther for his children and still sung by German mothers to their little ones."

Here is Theophilus Baker Stork's comments from his book, Luther at Home:

Here is Gealy's comment (I have this book on order, and will revise this entry when it arrives):

Here are some comments from Roland Bainton's Martin Luther's Christmas Book:

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Zwingli: Hercules and Socrates are Redeemed and in Heaven?

What will be the eternal fate of non-Christian people? Rome's Council of Florence declared "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.'” The statement seems straight-forward and direct.  Later though the Catechism of the Catholic Church "clarified" it by stating:
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life"(843).
The harmony of these statements has been so construed that one defender of Rome, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers, goes as far as saying even some atheists may even have a positive eternal fate:  "It’s also possible for a person to die in God’s friendship even if the person didn’t consciously know God during life."

I point out this issue within Rome to segue into a similar situation that occurred between some of the early Protestant Reformers. Shortly before his death, Huldrych Zwingli wrote a document entitled, A Short and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King., 1531. In the chapter entitled "Everlasting Life" Zwingli presents a rebuttal to the notion of soul sleep. In conclusion he stated,
I believe, then, that the souls of the faithful fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever. Here, most pious King, if you govern the state entrusted to you by God as David, Hezekiah, and Josiah did, you may hope to see first God Himself in His very substance, in His nature and with all His endowments and powers, and to enjoy all these, not sparingly but in full measure, not with the cloying effect that generally accompanies satiety, but with that agreeable completeness which involves no surfeiting, just as the rivers, that flow unceasingly into the sea and flow back through the depths of the earth, bring no loathing to mankind, but rather gain and joy, ever watering, gladdening and fostering new germs of life. The good which we shall enjoy is infinite and the infinite cannot be exhausted; therefore no one can become surfeited with it, for it is ever now and yet the same. Then you may hope to see the whole company and assemblage of all the saints, the wise, the faithful, brave, and good who have lived since the world began. Here you will see the two Adams, the redeemed and the redeemer, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phineas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, Paul; here too, Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios; here Louis the Pious, and your predecessors, the Louis, Philips, Pepins, and all your ancestors who have gone hence in faith. In short there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God. And what can be imagined more glad, what more delightful, what, finally, more honorable than such a sight? To what can all our souls more justly bend all their strength than to the attainment of such a life? And may meantime the dreaming Catabaptists deservedly sleep in the regions below a sleep from which they will never wake. Their error comes from the fact that they do not know that with the Hebrews the word for sleeping is used for the word for dying, as is more frequently the case with Paul than there is any need of demonstrating at present.
Did you catch some of those who Zwingli says "fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever"? "Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios..." Zwingli says, "there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God."

These words from Zwingli did not go unnoticed. Luther wrote about it towards the end of his life:
[A]fter Zwingli’s death a book came out which he is supposed to have written shortly before his death. It was entitled Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King, etc., and was supposed to be better than all his previous books. That it had to be Zwingli’s was evident from his wild, confused language and from his previously held opinion [about the Lord’s Supper].
I have become very frightened about that book, not on my account but on his account. For, because he was able to write this after our agreement at Marburg, it is certain that in every respect he dealt with us with an insincere heart and tongue at Marburg. Therefore I had to despair (as I still must) of the salvation of his soul, if he died with such a disposition, regardless of the fact that his disciples and successors made him out to be a saint and martyr. O Lord God, this man a saint and martyr!
In this book he not only remains an enemy of the holy sacrament but also becomes a full-blown heathen. This is the marvelous improvement for which I had hoped. You can see what I mean: In somewhat different words he addresses the previously mentioned king thus: “There you will see in the same fellowship all holy, godly, wise, brave, honorable people, the redeemed and the Redeemer, Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phinehas, Elijah, Elisha, also Isaiah and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, and Paul; Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios and all your ancestors who have departed in the faith,” etc.
This is written in his book which (as has been said) is supposed to be his most excellent and best book, produced just before his death. Tell me, any one of you who wants to be a Christian, what need is there of baptism, the sacrament, Christ, the gospel, or the prophets and Holy Scripture if such godless heathen, Socrates, Aristides, yes, the cruel Numa, who was the first to instigate every kind of idolatry at Rome by the devil’s revelation, as St. Augustine writes in the City of God, and Scipio the Epicurean, are saved and sanctified along with the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles in heaven, even though they knew nothing about God, Scripture, the gospel, Christ, baptism, the sacrament, or the Christian faith? What can such an author, preacher, and teacher believe about the Christian faith except that it is no better than any other faith and that everyone can be saved by his own faith, even an idolater and an Epicurean like Numa and Scipio? (LW 38:289-291).

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Luther did Not Know What an Indulgence Was?

Here's one from an online discussion forum in which a defender of Rome argued: "Luther admitted later in his life that he actually didn't even know what an indulgence was" when the indulgence controversy erupted in 1517.  This assertion was shortly followed by this comment directed towards me: "Maybe our resident Genevan cyber defender can come in and white wash it for you guys." The straightforward argument appears to be that at the time of the indulgence controversy, Luther didn't know what an indulgence proper was: "He started his revolution on an abuse of something he later admitted he knew nothing about" (link). A source document to prove this claim from Luther was also provided (see below).

First this link was given, and then a specific page and paragraph were cited from the same document (from a different source). Both of these links refer to Luther's 1541 treatise,  Wider Hans Worst. The first link appears to be from the first printing (there were four 1541 German printings, LW states the first was by Hans Lufft- see LW 41:183). The second link was to an 1880 printing. From the second link, the paragraph in question is the following:

This same text can be found in WA 51:539. This text has been translated into English: Against Hanswurst (LW 41:179-256). The quote is on pages 231-232. This treatise was written towards the end of Luther's life. In the section under scrutiny, Luther reflects back on the beginning of the indulgence controversy.

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance. He had previously been rescued in Innsbruck by Duke Frederick from a sack—for Maximilian had condemned him to be drowned in the Inn (presumably on account of his great virtue)—and Duke Frederick reminded him of it when he began to slander us Wittenbergers; he also freely admitted it himself. This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture.
Now when many people from Wittenberg went to Jütterbock and Zerbst for indulgences, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were, as in fact no one knew, I began to preach very gently that one could probably do something better and more reliable than acquiring indulgences.(86) I had also preached before in the same way against indulgences at the castle and had thus gained the disfavor of Duke Frederick because he was very fond of his religious foundation. Now I—to point out the true cause of the Lutheran rumpus—let everything take its course.
(86) See, for example, a sermon Luther preached on February 24, 1517. LW 51, 26–-31. See also two Lenten sermons he preached in March, 1518. LW 51, 35-–49.
[LW 41:231-232]
Elsewhere in the same document, Luther says something similar:
So my theses against Tetzel’s articles, which you can now see in print, were published. They went throughout the whole of Germany in a fortnight, for the whole world complained about indulgences, and particularly about Tetzel’s articles. And because all the bishops and doctors were silent and no one wanted to bell the cat (for the masters of heresy, the preaching order, had instilled fear into the whole world with the threat of fire, and Tetzel had bullied a number of priests who had grumbled against his impudent preaching), Luther became famous as a doctor, for at last someone had stood up to fight. I did not want the fame, because (as I have said) I did not myself know what the indulgences were, and the song might prove too high for my voice (LW 41:234; WA 51:541; Halle, 52).
LW 41 translates the sentence: "I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were..." Luther does not say: I did not know what an indulgence is. I would be surprised if Luther, a Doctor of Theology in the Roman church did not know what the basic concept of an indulgence was. For example, Pope Boniface in the 14th Century made use of a general indulgence in which certain times a year a general indulgence could be obtained. Another popular example is Pope Sixtus IV (only a short time before Luther) had his particular slant on indulgences applying to the living and the dead. It would be odd if Luther was not familiar with either of these papal approved indulgences. From his written record, Luther was certainly familiar with indulgences previous to the 1517 controversy  Heiko Oberman has stated,
Three years earlier, in the autumn of 1514, Luther had already denounced indulgences in the university lecture hall, terming them proof of the nadir Christendom had reached. There were Christians who thought money and a sigh would get them into heaven: "It is dangerous to believe that we can draw on the treasures of the Church without adding anything ourselves."(34)
(34): WA 3. 416, 27f.; 424, 22f.; gloss Ps. 68; approx. autumn 1514.
In regard to Oberman's documentation, here is WA 3:416. Here is WA 3:424. These pages are found translated into English in LW 10 (Luther's early lectures on the Psalms). Here is the English text corresponding to WA 3:416-
The third is now the prevalence of the lukewarm and the evil [peace and security]. For surfeit now reigns to such an extent that there is much worship of God everywhere, but it is only going through the motions, without love and spirit, and there are very few with any fervor. And all this happens because we think we are something and are doing enough. Consequently we try nothing, and we hold to no strong emotion, and we do much to ease the way to heaven, by means of indulgences, by means of easy doctrines, feeling that one sigh is enough (LW 10:351).
Here is some of the English text corresponding to WA 3:424,
Therefore woe to us, who are so snatched away by present things and foolishly do not see the devil’s trap! We act like the foolish heir who knew only how to squander the magnificent estate left by his parents and did nothing to build it up but always carried away from the pile. So the popes and priests pour out the graces and indulgences amassed by the blood of Christ and the martyrs and left to us, and they do not think there is any need to build up this treasure, nor to acquire the remission of sins and the kingdom of heaven in any other way than by their merits. Yet no one can share in the public good unless he, too, makes his contribution. To take from the church’s treasure and not also to put something back is impossible and deceitful presumption. [“He who does not work, should not eat either” (2 Thess. 3:10). He who is not a partaker of sufferings will not be a partaker of consolations either (2 Cor. 1:7)]. But they think they have this treasure ready in the safe so that they can use it whenever they want to. In their smugness they therefore surrender themselves to all the things that are in the world. Since the treasure obviously abides, while the world passes away, and since they want both, they first go after the world before it perishes, believing that heaven will be left over for them in abundance later. I say, this is what they think, that is, they act thus, that in fact they seem to believe it and to say what we read in Wisd. of Sol. 2:8, 5: “Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they are withered; for our time is the passing of a shadow.” But I am afraid that what has happened to prodigal heirs will also happen to us, namely, that, after all our goods have been dissipated and squandered, we become beggars and must endure every need in disgrace. Not that the church’s treasure can be used up, but I say that it can be used up as far as we are concerned. The treasure is unlimited in itself, but not for us, since a minority shares in it. Such a wastefulness of merits is present also in the religious, who scatter their brotherhoods and indulgences in every corner, just so they might have food and clothing. If they have these, they have no concern about such things. It is dreadful madness and wretched blindness that now we do not preach the Gospel unless we have to, not because we want to. And the number of such people is extremely large! O beggars, beggars, beggars! But perhaps the excuse is offered that you receive alms for God’s sake and that you reciprocate with the Word of God and all things without charge. So be it: You will see! (LW 10:361-362)
A much more practical way to read the sentence from Against Hanswurst  is that Luther was not aware of what the details were of the particular indulgences that were being hawked in Jütterbock and Zerbst. A similar conclusion is put forth by Michael A. Mullett in his biography of Luther,
The ambiguous form of words, 'I did not know what the indulgences were...' cannot, of course, mean, 'I did not know what indulgences were', and must therefore mean that Luther was in ignorance about this particular indulgence, itself a slightly implausible claim, given the extraordinary publicity surrounding and running ahead of Friar Tetzel. 
Mullet goes on to say that Luther's claim to not knowing the particular nature of Tetzel's indulgences is "implausible" on account of Tetzel's "extraordinary publicity." At least this author makes a rational historical criticism rather than the myopic contextless literalism employed by the discussion forum Roman Catholic.

I did participate in  this discussion. From the time I stepped foot into it, it began to spiral out of bounds of the forum rules, provoking heavy deletions from the moderators, and in one case, a suspension of one of the Roman Catholic participants. There is a sense in which the recounting here of an interaction that occurred elsewhere is unfair.  If one wants to follow what remains of this discussion, the posts (that still remain, some edited by the moderators) from all interested parties occur in this order:

178; 181; 182; 185; 186; 188; 190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 196; 197; 198; 199; 200; 201; 203; 204; 205; 208; 209; 212; 213; 214; 215; 216; 217; 218; 219; 220; 221; 222; 223; 224; 225; 228; 231; 233; 242; 260; 261.

The ultimate argument this defender of Rome appears to be making is that Luther's use of indulgences in the 95 Theses was "merely a convenient excuse to start his own revolt." His Luther is not an honest monk confronting the rampant abuses involved with indulgences. Rather, his Luther was already a deviant predisposed to revolt and simply needed a means to revolt. It does not necessarily follow that the indulgences mentioned in the 95 Theses were simply a means to revolt because Luther knew nothing or something about indulgences. He states, "Indulgences and their abuse were simply a convenient catalyst to begin his revolt. One need merely look at his what is glaringly absent in his Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum, as many of what would become the core tenets of his own religious system were not yet crystallized." This use of "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum" also does not necessarily follow. Simply because something might be "glaringly absent" does not necessarily mean Luther was plotting to be a revolutionary and simply used indulgences as a means to revolt. I point this out to demonstrate on a presuppositional level, this defender of Rome's Luther appears to be his own concoction. He begins with a deviant man predisposed to revolt and then sifts Luther's writings to fill in what's needed.

Monday, December 26, 2016

Luther Privately Admitted He Was Wrong About the Lord's Supper?

On a discussion board I frequent someone mentioned "a myth which survived for centuries that Luther privately admitted he was wrong about the Supper but didn't want to admit it publicly because people might doubt his other doctrines," and further that "Schaff, a Reformed historian and polemicist, found it necessary or desirable to mention the myth and refute it in the nineteenth century."

These comments coincided with my recent entry, Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper? so I was intrigued enough to track down what  Philip Schaff stated. The comments in question appear in either Vol. 6 or 7 of Schaff's History of the Christian Church, "Modern Christianity: The German Reformation" depending on what edition is utilized. Google Books Second Revised Edition of 1916 has the comment at 6:659. After documenting Luther's last attacks on the Sacramentarians and his lifelong adherence to the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, Schaff states:
In view of these last utterances we must, reluctantly, refuse credit to the story that Luther before his death remarked to Melanchthon: “Dear Philip, I confess that the matter of the Lord’s Supper has been overdone;"(1) and that, on being asked to correct the evil, and to restore peace to the church, he replied: “I often thought of it; but then people might lose confidence in my whole doctrine. I leave the matter in the hands of the Lord. Do what you can after my death." (2)
(1) “Der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu viel gethan."
(2) Hardenberg, a Reformed minister at Bremen (d. 1574), reported such a conversation as coming from the lips of his friend Melanchthon; but Melanchthon nowhere alludes to it. Stahelin (John Calvin, I. 228 sq.) accepts, Kostlin (M.L., II. 627) rejects the report, as resting on some misunderstanding. So also C. Bertheau in the article “Hardenberg” in Herzog’, V. 596 sq. Comp. Diestelmann, Die letzte Unterredung Luthers mit Melanchthon uber den Abendmahlsstreit, Gottingen, 1874; Kostlin’s review of Diestelmann, in the “Studien und Kritiken," 1876, p. 385 sqq.; and Walte in the “Jahrb. fur prot. Theol.," 1883. It is a pity that the story cannot be sufficiently authenticated, for it certainly expresses what ought to have been Luther’s last confession on the subject.
Upon a little further digging I came across more details from The Lutheran Church Review:
Already during Luther's lifetime the rumor was circulated that he had after all abandoned his former view in regard to the Lord's Supper. This caused him to publish one more declaration on the subject in 1544. Besides it was no secret to him that his great associate Melanchthon, “with a dangerous yearning for peace which must have been hollow and transient” (Krauth), had left the position which he had so clearly expressed in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Moreover, Luther to his greatest indignation heard that one of his former students and housemates, Dévay, had smuggled the Reformed doctrine under his (Luther's) name into Hungary. These and similar provocations caused him to write this last declaration on the subject in the sharpest possible manner. In this “Short Confession” he does not argue; he simply reaffirms in the strongest possible terms his faith in the real presence; he also expresses his total and final separation from the Sacramentarians and their doctrine. “Standing on the brink of the grave and in view of the judgment-seat, he solemnly condemns all enemies of the sacrament wherever they are.” (Schaff). Still before a quarter of a century had passed the rumor again spread that Luther shortly before his death regretted the position he had taken against the Swiss. Hardenberg, a Reformed minister at Bremen, declared under oath that he had heard from the lips of Melanchthon that Luther had requested Melanchthon to come to him, and had then said: “Dear Philip, I confess that the matter of the Lord's Supper has been overdone.”—DerSache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu wicl gethan. And that on being asked to correct the evil he replied: “I often thought of it; but then people might lose confidence in my whole doctrine. I leave the matter in the hands of the Lord. Do what you can after my death.” Melanchthon never quotes such words in his writings or letters. Are they historical or not? Schaff very reluctantly rejects the correctness of the report, but adds in a foot-note: “It is a pity that this story cannot be sufficiently authenticated, for it certainly expresses what ought to have been Luther's last confession on the subject.” Several books and many articles were written on this question. The latest investigation is by Prof. Hausleiter, of Greifswald, in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, Vol. 1899. He proves (as we think beyond doubt) by unearthing new and so far unknown material that the words, at least in substance, came from Luther and Melanchthon, but referred to an entirely different subject. He proves that already during Luther's life-time the publication of Luther's collected writings was commenced (the Wittenberg Edition) though the printing of the first volume was not completed until two years after his death. In this first volume also the writings concerning the Sacrament were to be contained. Bucer, who now sided with Luther, desired that the scorching words of Luther referring to him and his miserable tactics (described in Article I.) should be omitted. He did not venture to ask this of Luther himself. but urged his request through the Elector and Melanchthon. Luther at first refused point blank, but a few days before leaving Wittenberg for Eisleben, where he died, consented to permit the change. The words quoted by Hardenberg referred to this omission. For this reason the words were omitted in the first Wittenberg edition. We have clear and very positive declarations of Luther made shortly before his death showing that he was far from abandoning or modifying his conviction in regard to the Lord's Supper. He remained steadfast in his confession unto the end.
That there have been historians that think Luther changed his view can be seen by the following example from Paul Emil Henry's  The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, Volume 2 (1849):
The testimony of Dr. Alesius Scotus, a professor at Leipzig, and the friend of Luther and Melancthon, is well known, and has been often printed. In his answer to Ruard Tapper's defence of the Louvain articles, he says, "They do as if they were ignorant of what Luther said to Philip, ere he set out for his native province, where he died. Philip related it to many, and in various ways, that Luther, unasked, said, 'I own that too much has been done respecting the sacrament:' and when Philip answered, 'Let us then, my good doctor, for the sake of the churches, publish some pacific treatise, in which we may clearly unfold our views'—Luther replied, 'My Philip, I have thought anxiously on this matter; but as I might throw suspicion upon the whole doctrine, I will only commend it to the good care of God. Do you do something after my death.' These words were written down from Melancthon's own mouth." It was the wish of the latter to mention the subject in his testament, but he died too soon. The witness of Dr. Alesius, who had the account from Melancthon himself, is therefore valuable. It seems certain, that as Zwingli had a deeper insight into the sacrament in the latter years of his life, Luther also, a year before his death, was of one faith and of one mind with Calvin. He regarded him as a brother, and viewed his doctrine as fitted to restore union to the distracted church. And as Luther inclined to Calvin, so did Calvin to Luther. He twice declared his assent to the Augsburg Confession, and stated that, in his opinion, the formulary of the Zurich Union contained whatever was found in the Confession.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper?

Here are two quotes attributed to Luther about Christ's not being present in the Sacraments.

The first is more indirect. Luther purportedly said in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received by faith (in other words, not literally):

 Of the Cause of the Sacrament.
THE operative cause of this sacrament, is the Word and institution of Christ, who ordained it. The substance is bread and wine; they prefigure the true body and blood of Christ, which is spiritually received by faith; the final cause of instituting the same, is the benefit and the fruit, the strengthening of our faith, not doubting that Christ's body and blood was given and shed for us, and that our sins by Christ's death certainly are forgiven. Now these graces and benefits we have obtained, in that he is our Saviour, our Redeemer and Deliverer; For though in Adam we are altogether sinners and guilty of everlasting death, and condemned; but now, by the blood of Christ, we are justified, redeemed, and sanctified; therefore let us take hold of this by faith.
Along with this, the second quote (from the same source) Luther is recorded as saying the pope forces people to believe in the real presence:
Of the Pope's Proceeding touching the Sacrament.
THE Pope denieth not the sacrament, but he hath stolen from the laity the one part or kind thereof; neither doth he teach the true use of the sacrament. The Pope rejecteth not the Bible, but he persecuteth and killeth upright, good, and godly teachers. Like as the Jews persecuted and slew the Prophets that truly expounded and taught the Scriptures. The Pope Well permitteth the substance and essence of the sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according to his will and pleasure, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented Transubstantiation and the real presence. The Pope doth nothing else, but perverteth and abuseth all that God hath commanded and ordained.
Besides my Lutheran readers howling "no way!", what's going on here? Did Luther contradict his well-established view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament? We'll see below these quotes may have been the result of one man's efforts in the seventeenth century to get a book of Luther's published in England. He appears to have added a few words to the text in order to appease the powers that be. The following is a representation of the research of Gordon Rupp from his book, The Righteousness of God (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1953), p. 76.

Both of these quotes come from the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second-hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. For these two quotes in the form they are in presented above, they come from the earliest English edition of Luther's Table Talk translated by Captain Henry Bell in 1652: Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia: Or, Dr Martin Luther's Divine Discourses at His Table, etc. The account of how Bell came across Luther's German Table Talk and had it translated into English can be found here.  It is a fantastical story, almost sounding made-up. Preserved Smith's critical study of Luther's Table Talk refers to Bell's account as "such a tissue of mistakes and improbabilities that it is hardly worth serious criticism," and also, "The whole thing has the air of being invented to heighten the interest of the translation." On the contrary though, Gordon Rupp sifted through the details of Bell's story and deems it a plausible account (See Rupp. pp. 56-77).

The Luther quotes occur on page 263 of Bell's translation:

Captain Bell translated these quotes from Aurifaber's edition of the Table Talk, but, as Rupp point out, "Bell's edition corresponds to known edition of Aurifaber" (Rupp, 75). Rupp compares what Bell translated against Aurifaber's 1566 edition (published in Eisleben). The quotes above can be found in German on page 232 of the 1566 Eisleben edition:

A later version of this German  text can be found here (p. 305 for the first quote, p. 306 for the second) The first quote can also be found in WA TR 3:281, including a Latin version, 3354b (p. 280-281). The Latin version is attributed to being recorded by Conrad Cordatus. The second quote can be found in WA TR 3:203.

 Of these texts, note Rupp's analysis on page 76. He mentions that the quote had English words inserted in that are not to be found in the German text of  Aurifaber:
But the most interesting section is the drastic abridgment by Bell of the long section in the original on "Vom Sacrament des Waren Leibs und Blutes Christi," now translated as "Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." It will have been noted that the Parliamentary committee which examined Bell's book specially noted that in it Luther had acknowledged "his error which he formerly held touching the real presence corporaliter in coena domini." 
Luther, of course, never did anything of the kind, and as far as I know there is no German edition of the Table Talk in which he makes any such dramatic retraction. It is obvious that this was the price paid by Bell to get his book authorized and published. The two alterations will be found in Bell's edition of Luther's "Divine Discourses" (1652), p.263: 
"Of the cause of the Sacrament of the Altar. 'The operative cause... of this Sacrament is the Word and Institution of Christ who ordained and erected it. The substance is bread and wine, the form is the true body and blood of Christ which is spiritually received by faith."(1)
That could conceivably hold the Lutheran interpretation. The next is more explicit: 
"The Pope well permitteth the substance and essence of The Sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according as his will and pleasure is to describe it, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter." (2) 
1.TR. (1566) Dieses Sacraments, sprach Dr. Martinus Luther, Ursach ist Das Wort und Einsetzung Christi der es gestifftet und aufgerichtet hat. Die Materia ist Brot und Wein, die Form ist der Ware Leib und Blut Christi, die endliche ursach warurmb es eingesetzt ist der Nutz und Frucht das wir unsern Glauben starcken. 232. 
2. TR. (1566). Was die Substanz und das Wesen belanget, so lasst der Bapst die Sacramente und Bibel bleiben, allein will er uns zwingen das wir derselben Brauch sollen wie er will und zuschreibet. 232.
The sentence about transubstantiation and the real presence has no place in the original. 
Lest anyone get lost in the details, Rupp is pointing out that in the first quote, the phrase "which is spiritually received by faith" has been inserted into the English text. In the second quote, "and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter" has been inserted into the text. These same insertions were picked up in later English editions of the Table Talk:

Martin Luther's Colloquia Mensalia Vol. 1 (1840), p. 382-383.

The Table Talk or Familiar Discourses... (Hazlitt) (1848), p. 168, 203.

That there was an attempt by Bell to appease the powers that be has corroborating evidence in the prefatory material to Bell's translation. Note these words from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in Bell's edition (also mentioned by Preserved Smith):