![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/Luther-18-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Lucas\u2019 article, \u201cO protestantismo \u00e9 o culpado pela Revolta dos Camponeses de 1524?\u201d<\/a> [Is Protestantism to blame for the Peasants\u2019 Revolt of 1524?<\/em>] (2-8-18). Martin Luther\u2019s words will be in green<\/span>, with more incendiary or inflammatory portions in purple<\/span>. Statements of non-Catholic historians and Luther scholars will be in brown<\/span>.<\/p>\n I wrote at length (two parts: one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>, and 17,800 words) about this topic (i.e., Luther\u2019s role) on 31 October 2003. That is approximately 62 pages long, if printed out, whereas Lucas\u2019 chapter about it in his book (below) is about 56 pages. So I have done at least as much research as he has on this topic: all 19 years ago. First let me cite my own opinion expressed then (which hasn\u2019t changed, and which had been held for 12 years when I wrote in 2003):<\/p>\n Historians on both sides are in agreement that Luther never supported the Peasants\u2019 Revolt (or insurrection in general). Many, however (including Roland Bainton, the famous Protestant author of the biography\u00a0Here I Stand<\/i>), believe that he used highly intemperate language that couldn\u2019t help but be misinterpreted in the worst possible sense by the peasants. I agree with these Protestant scholars, . . .<\/p>\n No Catholic (or Protestant) historian I have found \u2014 not even Janssen \u2014 asserts that Luther deliberately wanted to cause the Peasants\u2019 Revolt, or that he was the primary cause of it. Quite the contrary . . .<\/p>\n My long-held position on this agrees, therefore, with the consensus opinion of historians of all stripes. I think Luther had the typical naivete of many sincerely, deeply-committed and (what might be called) \u201csuper-pious\u201d religious people. It is also undeniably true that Luther\u2019s thought is highly complex, nuanced, sometimes vacillating or seemingly or actually self-contradictory, and often difficult to understand.<\/p>\n Thus, for him to say the sort of extreme (seemingly straightforward) things that he said, have such opinions distributed by the tens of thousands in pamphlets, and to expect everyone (even uneducated peasants) to understand the proper sense and take into consideration context and so forth, is highly unreasonable and irresponsible. . . .<\/p>\n Luther believed that the papacy and the entire edifice of institutional Catholicism would come to an end, not by an insurrection or rebellion, but by a direct intervention of God Himself (in fact, by nothing less than the Second Coming, as he states more than once). In 1521 and 1522 he was caught up into and (arguably) obsessed by an apocalyptic vision of what was about to happen, in God\u2019s providence. This being the case, at first he didn\u2019t feel it was necessary to oppose even those who\u00a0threatened<\/i>\u00a0a rebellion (later he changed his mind, when the resulting societal chaos required swift action). Thus he wrote in December, 1521 (source information below):<\/p>\n The spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails. I know quite well that they will get no chance to do so. They may, indeed, use violence against some, but there will be no general use made of violence . . . it will not come to violence, and there is therefore no need that I restrain men\u2019s hands . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The relationship between this divine wrath and judgment and those whom God uses to execute it, however, remains somewhat obscure, unclear, and ambiguous in Luther\u2019s writings. Perhaps the key to this conundrum is found in a remarkable statement he made in a private letter, dated 4 May 1525: \u201cIf God permits the peasants to extirpate the princes to fulfil his wrath, he will give them hell fire for it as a reward.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n So, while Luther opposed insurrection on\u00a0principle<\/i>, there is a tension in his seemingly contradictory utterances between opposition to the populace taking up arms against spiritual and political tyranny, and a deluded confidence and at times almost gleeful wish that apocalyptic judgment was soon to occur, regardless of the means God used to bring it about (one recalls the ancient Babylonians, whom God used to judge the Hebrews). This produces an odd combination of sincere disclaimers against advocating violence, accompanied by (often in the same piece of writing) thinly-veiled quasi-threats and quasi-prophetic judgments upon the powers of the time, sternly warning of the impending Apocalypse and destruction of the \u201cRomish Sodom\u201d<\/span> and all its pomps, pretenses, corruptions, and vices.<\/p>\n On a more earthly, mundane, practical plane, however, it is astonishing to note how cavalierlry Luther sanctions wholesale theft of ecclesiastical properties (see proofs of this in the passages listed under 12 December 1522 and Spring 1523), on the grounds that the inhabitants had forsaken the \u201cgospel\u201d (as\u00a0he \u2014\u00a0<\/i>quite conveniently in this case\u00a0\u2014\u00a0<\/i>defined it, of course). This was to be a hallmark of the \u201cReformation\u201d in Germany and also in England and Scandinavia, and was justified as a matter of \u201cconscience\u201d by the Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, who flatly refused to return stolen properties, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation with the Catholics (see the section on the Diet of Augsburg in my\u00a0review of the 2003 movie Luther<\/i><\/a>). Luther was still rationalizing this outrageous and unjust criminal theft in 1541:<\/p>\n If they are not the church but the devil\u2019s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.<\/span> (Wider Hans Wurst<\/i>, or\u00a0Against Jack Sausage<\/i>, Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Generally speaking, Luther had a problem with his tongue. And the social repercussions were massive and tragic. The Bible speaks a lot about an unbridled tongue. It is no small sin at all. How German peasants (Luther was of rural peasant stock) may have habitually expressed themselves in the 16th century might be an interesting historical tidbit, but it has no bearing on Christian ethics, where the tongue and slander and causing uproar and divisions are concerned. One doesn\u2019t \u201cget off\u201d in God\u2019s eyes for real sins because of cultural context. It is all the more serious when such remarks are arguably a major cause in both provoking and violently quelling a rebellion in which some 130,000 human beings lost their lives: almost all violently and cruelly.<\/p>\n Luther might indeed mean one thing when he utters his impassioned hyper-polemical, quasi-prophetic jeremiads (I have no problem with that), but he was (by the looks of it) so naive and lacking in practical wisdom about human nature and human affairs (\u201cworldly\u201d or \u201creal-life\u201d considerations) that he apparently had no idea what harm and ill consequences his words might cause. I agree that this gets him \u201coff the hook\u201d to\u00a0some\u00a0<\/i>extent (I certainly freely grant him his good intentions and sincerity), but not all\u00a0that<\/i> much, in my opinion. I still think he bears much responsibility for the resulting extent of the sad division by virtue of his constant polemics (often involving much lying about the Catholic Church). Furthermore, he seemed to be absolutely naive as to how his own principles would be interpreted, extended, and applied by others. . . .<\/p>\n My purpose is not (at\u00a0all<\/strong><\/em>) to demonize Luther or make him out to be bad, evil, or the devil incarnate, but only to present a fuller historical picture (whatever the truth is: \u201cpositive\u201d or \u201cnegative\u201d) and to make some criticisms where I think they are warranted (with the background support of historians on all sides). This doesn\u2019t amount to equating Luther with Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, or Joseph Stalin; it is simply viewing him as a fallen, flawed man, as all of us are. He shouldn\u2019t \u201cget a pass\u201d simply because he opposed the Catholic Church: the thing that so many people detest and loathe.<\/p>\n Nor does every Catholic criticism of Luther or early or later Protestantism amount to deliberate slander, with a propagandistic, \u201cI must always make my own side come off looking righteous and saintly, at all costs\u201d intent. There is such a thing as legitimate historiography and reasonable opinions drawn therefrom. And (thankfully) such scholarship can (and very often\u00a0does<\/i>, at least on a scholarly level) unite Protestants and Catholics where it concerns certain verified facts. I write as a mere lay apologist and non-scholar, but I enlist reputable historians and copious quotations from Luther himself in order to arrive at my conclusions, both \u201cpositive\u201d and \u201cnegative\u201d \u2014 as the case may be (just as the professional historians do).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is my<\/em> view. Readers will know it before I begin citing Banzoli, then Luther himself (so folks can make up their own minds rather than simply be told what to believe), and summaries of historians.<\/p>\n The article below is part of my book on the Reformation (still under construction).\u00a0<\/span>The chapter in question covers everything about the Peasant Revolt of 1524, which Catholic apologists use to defame Luther and Protestantism.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t. I simply do research to determine the historical truth of the matter. As seen above, my view is nuanced and not simplistic. But there is a virtual consensus among historians that Luther bore some<\/em> blame for what happened, because his several outrageous, inflammatory comments that were widely circulated at the time.<\/p>\n As we clearly see, the peasant revolt was not an event that came out of nowhere instigated by a Protestant \u201creligious novelty\u201d.\u00a0On the contrary, it concerned a larger problem that had been going on for centuries, and that was only getting worse and worse, like a bladder that gets closer and closer to bursting the more it fills with air. Just to take into account the peasant revolts in Germany in the years\u00a0leading up\u00a0<\/i>to the Reformation, before Luther preached any thesis in Wittenberg or was excommunicated by a pope, there were riots in 1493, 1502, 1513, and 1517 \u2013 all of them. before the Peasants\u2019 War of 1524<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I basically agree. But the Protestant movement and Luther\u2019s rhetoric \u2014 to some<\/em> extent \u2014 exacerbated it or put more \u201cgasoline on the flames\u201d so to speak.<\/p>\n Cases like this are hardly or never remembered by Catholic apologetics, which is exclusively interested in exploring the Peasants\u2019 War of 1524, just because they dishonestly think they make some profit out of it by associating this particular revolt with Luther and the Protestants and thus trying to tarnish the Reformation.<\/span><\/p>\n I just did remember it by agreeing with historians and Lucas\u2019 general account, didn\u2019t<\/em> I? So I\u2019m not what Lucas perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be the typical Catholic apologist.<\/p>\n [Lucas continues on detailing all kinds of revolts of peasants, going all the way back to Spartacus in 73 BC, and in Catholic countries after Protestantism arose (e.g., in France many times during the 17th century. I have no reason to doubt his accounts of various revolts, nor of the deplorable conditions that peasants everywhere usually lived in. None of this affects my own opinion of Luther\u2019s relationship to the revolt of 1524-1525, and none of it is an \u201cissue\u201d that I would disagree with, excepting Lucas\u2019 expected jaded view of the Catholic Church\u2019s treatment of the poor]<\/p>\n Lucas continues his argumentation in his book, 500 Years of the Reformation: How Protestantism Revolutionized the World<\/em> (Vol. 1: 2018), which he graciously offers on his blog as a free PDF. It appears in chapter 3: pages 84-140.<\/p>\n The general tenor of his analysis is to blame the Catholic Church for the condition of the peasants. On one hand, he objects to any broad connecting of Protestantism<\/em> to the revolt (and I agree), but on the other hand he wants to blame Catholicism<\/em> for it (thus committing the same error<\/em> he chides us for committing). Neither<\/em> is a fair portrayal. If there is anti-Protestant bias in Catholic accounts and among despised Catholic apologists (real or imagined), by the same token there is anti-Catholic bias in his<\/em> account. I submit that we need to get beyond both<\/em> prejudiced mentalities and simply examine the facts, with the help of scholars who don\u2019t have an \u201cagenda\u201d one way or the other.<\/p>\n Lucas finally gets around to citing Luther writing to the German princes, on page 112 of his book (rightly noting that he sided with the peasants and their grievances at first):<\/p>\n There is so much equity in some of the twelve articles of the peasants, that they are a dishonor to you before God and the world; cover princes with shame, as Psalm 108 says. [I have] even more serious things to say to you with regard to the government of Germany, and I have already referred to you in my book dedicated to the German nobility. But you did not care for my words, and now all these complaints rain down on you. You must not ignore the their request for permission to choose pastors who preach the gospel; and it is up to the government alone to prevent the insurrection and rebellion from being preached; but there must be perfect freedom to preach both the true and the false gospel. The remaining articles, which deal with the social status of the peasant, are equally just. Governments are not established for their own interest, nor to make the people subservient caprices and evil passions, but to watch over the interests of the people. Your exactions are intolerable; you take from the peasant the fruit of his labor so that you may support your luxury and your pleasures.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What Lucas doesn\u2019t cite are the following words of Luther to the princes in early May 1525:<\/p>\n For you ought to know, dear lords, that God is doing this because this raging of yours cannot and will not and ought not be endured for long.<\/span> You must become different men and yield to God\u2019s Word.<\/span> If you do not do this amicably and willingly, then you will be compelled to it by force and destruction. If these peasants do not do it for you, others will . . . It is not the peasants, dear lords, who are resisting you; it is God Himself . . .<\/span> (An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia<\/i>, Philadelphia edition of Luther\u2019s works, 1930, IV, 219-244, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 220-227, 230-233, 240-244; WA, XVIII, 292 ff.; EA, XXIV, 259 ff.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lucas writes on pages 120-121 of his book: \u201cIt is evident that on Catholic apologetics websites the only part that appears, taken<\/span><\/span> [out of] context, is the one that talks about \u201ccrushing, killing and bleeding\u201d<\/span> the peasants.<\/span><\/span> But as is quite clear, Luther was not saying this about all the peasants, but specifically about the revolting peasants, the \u201chordes of murderers and looters\u201d.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m an apologist, and I included all<\/em> of the relevant Luther passages I could find. To prove that I cite Luther\u2019s inflammatory words and<\/em> conciliatory words, I set up a color-coded system in my original 2003 paper, which worked as follows:<\/p>\n Red<\/span>\u00a0= \u201cinflammatory, violent\u201d statements of Luther (not\u00a0<\/i>intended on my part to imply in any way, shape, or form that he was necessarily calling for\u00a0literal\u00a0<\/i>violence, but rather, to highlight remarks which were of a nature that arguably, understandably\u00a0could\u00a0<\/i>easily be interpreted \u2014 even if\u00a0wrongly<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 as advocating violence and insurrection of the sort characteristic of the Peasants\u2019 Revolt)<\/p>\n Blue\u00a0<\/span>= statements of Luther indicating his\u00a0fundamental opposition<\/i>\u00a0to insurrection of the non-governmental masses and resort to physical violence for spiritual or ecclesiastical ends and goals<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As readers can readily observe in my Part I, there is plenty of blue text: perhaps as much as the red text, and often in the same writing of Luther. It was a very mixed bag. But I present it all<\/em>: good, bad, and in-between. The problem with Lucas\u2019 analysis is that he places his overwhelming emphasis on Luther\u2019s words that I provide in blue-colored font (his \u201cconciliatory\u201d \/ \u201cpeaceable\u201d words), while ignoring virtually all of the explosive rhetoric that came from Luther in the years leading up to the revolt, and which was certainly inspirational to many of the leaders of the peasants.<\/p>\n This is a thoroughly slanted and one-sided revisionist version of what actually occurred. Lucas presents Luther as a virtual saint, according to his agenda. I present him as the brilliant but highly flawed and contradictory person that he actually was. By providing my readers with a much fuller<\/em> picture, they can see clearly how and why it is that many peasants felt that Luther was goading them on and encouraging the revolt (though they misinterpreted or exaggerated a lot of what he wrote).<\/p>\n Most of those who today accuse Luther in the comfort of their own homes and behind a<\/span><\/span> computer would not have the courage to expose themselves to this [level of intervention] in order to seek <\/span><\/span>peace in one\u2019s own homeland.<\/span><\/span> It would have been much easier to have omitted, hidden or<\/span><\/span> previously suggested a massacre, than risk one\u2019s life seeking<\/span><\/span> a friendly conciliation, even after other attempts had already<\/span><\/span> failed.<\/span><\/span> When we analyze the peasants\u2019 revolt in a responsible and<\/span><\/span> honest way, we conclude that, far from tarnishing the Reformation or the reformers, it<\/span><\/span> highlights how much Protestantism was not a \u201crevolutionary\u201d element in the<\/span><\/span> worst sense of the term \u2013 that of the armed social revolution, which Luther opposed<\/span><\/span> consistently throughout the entire process.<\/span><\/span> The former Augustinian monk did not<\/span><\/span> hesitate to oppose an armed revolt against the authorities \u201cfor God\u2019s sake<\/span><\/span> <\/span>instituted\u201d (Rom 13:1).<\/span> (p. 125)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Shortly I will post Luther\u2019s earlier incendiary rhetoric (that is, the great deal of relevant writing that Lucas chose to ignore<\/em> and omit<\/em> from his one-sided account) and let readers judge how much responsibility he bore for the revolt. It seems that Lucas feels he has to cover up what is unsavory in Luther. I feel no such need. I approach the topic as an amateur historian, and present Luther \u201cwarts and all\u201d; not hesitating to agree with the usual Protestant \u201cfavorable\u201d opinion of Luther, either, when the facts warrant it.<\/p>\n If I do say so myself, my treatment of this subject (in my original paper) is clearly<\/em> far more balanced and comprehensive than Lucas\u2019 treatment. If one seeks all<\/em> of the facts (not just a Protestant-slanted or Catholic slanted perspective), my two-part article will provide it. And it\u2019s true that strong bias is present in both camps. Catholics on the whole are far too negative against Luther, but Protestants are far too positive, and see him through rosy-colored glasses. I try to avoid both errors and to be as accurate, fair, and balanced as possible. I seek to be ecumenical, as well as to be an apologist. The first endeavor is rejoicing in what we can agree on; the second is defending our view when others disagree with it. Both are necessary and important.<\/p>\n In fact, when I wrote my 2008 book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise<\/a>, <\/i>the final 83 pages (out of 258, or just a little under one-third) were devoted to \u201cpraise and agreement\u201d with Luther. And when I did my second book, The \u201cCatholic\u201d Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His \u201cTraditional\u201d Utterances<\/a><\/i> (2014), it was comprised entirely<\/em> of Luther\u2019s words that Catholics would agree<\/em> with. So by no means am I \u201canti-Luther\u201d in a knee-jerk fashion. I \u201ccall it as I see it\u201d: the good and the bad. I did the same with John Calvin, too, in my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin<\/a><\/i> (2010). The final 66 pages were devoted to \u201cagreement\u201d with Catholics. It was a lower proportion (out of 388, or 17%), but then, Calvin agreed with Catholics a lot less than Luther did.<\/p>\n The overwhelming majority of these slanderers have never read<\/span> <\/span>a book by Luther in their lifetime . . .<\/span> (p. 128)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Just for the record, I possess in hardcover, the standard 55-volume set Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> in English (which set sits \u201cproudly\u201d in a bookshelf in one corner of my living room), as well as many other primary works and books about Luther.<\/p>\n Fortunately, some scholars with more patience than Job have refuted one-by-one the slanders and invective against the Protestant reformer. Among them stands out James Swan, a great Luther scholar, whose website has hundreds of such articles refuting the most diverse defamations. <\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been interacting with him off and on since 2003. He\u2019s not a scholar in the usual sense of the word (academic \/ professor), but an amateur researcher with a philosophy degree. He does a lot of good work correcting errors, but he is also thoroughly biased and anti-Catholic (and also quite the insulter towards those who disagree: as I well know). Readers can consult my several dozen refutations of his work by searching \u201cSwan\u201d on my Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n Among them, we can mention here the legend of Luther\u2019s \u201csuicide\u201d (refuted even in Catholic sources), accusations of that Christ had committed adultery, that Luther took James and other books from the canon, that he was drunk, that he was the forerunner of Hitler, that he instigated to sin, that he was an occultist, polygamist, murderer, Bible forger, demoniac and even (amazingly) who returned to Catholicism before he died! All these defamations and slanders that are widely disseminated on Catholic apologetics have already been refuted by both Swan and many others, whose point-by-point thematic refutation is available in two tables in articles from my site.<\/span> (p. 128)<\/p>\n I agree that all of these charges are false and slanderous. I have written articles defending him against the adultery charge<\/a>, have dealt with the false accusation that he removed the book of James, and have defended him in various ways when he is wrongly attacked.<\/p>\n On page 132, Lucas claims that Catholic Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar (1845-1932) lied about Luther being a manic-depressive (today usually called bipolar disorder). Many Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic historians agree that Luther \u2014 at the very least \u2014 suffered from severe recurring depression, if not bipolar disorder. I detailed this in my paper, Did Luther Suffer from Recurring Depression?<\/a> [7-4-07]. I wrote in that article:<\/p>\n I cited the very eminent Protestant Luther historians\u00a0Heiko A. Oberman<\/strong>, (citing Luther\u2019s own description of an acute crisis in 1527-1528: \u201cI have known these tribulations since my youth; but I never expected that they would so increase\u201d<\/span>),\u00a0David C. Steinmetz<\/strong>\u00a0(\u201cLuther continued to suffer periods of severe spiritual anxiety\u201d<\/span>), and\u00a0Roland Bainton<\/strong> (\u201c[T]he recognition is inescapable that he had persistent maladies . . . The recurrence of these depressions raises for us again the question whether they may have had some physical basis . . . His whole life was a struggle against them, a fight for faith\u201d<\/span>). . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I also cite in my article nine additional non-Catholic Luther biographers, including Mark U. Edwards, Martin E. Marty, and Martin Brecht. This is not a false \u201cattack\u201d: it\u2019s virtually established as historical fact. And it\u2019s not Luther\u2019s fault. Millions suffer from serious depression: including every single person in my family (myself, my wife, four children, and two daughters-in-law) at one time or another. Thankfully, I only had a single, six-month-long episode of very deep depression, in 1977, but it was quite traumatic, so that I understand depression \u201cfrom the inside.\u201d<\/p>\n Lucas goes on for pages, up to the end of the chapter, citing the history of some overzealous and inaccurate Catholic critics of Luther (likely deriving his material from James Swan). This is related<\/em> to the topic of the Peasants\u2019 Revolt, I grant, but technically off<\/em> of it. Anti-Catholics, with their sordid and disgraceful (and continuing) history of slanderous, ridiculous, facts-free \u201canalysis\u201d of Catholicism are hardly the ones to talk about historical inaccuracies regarding Luther. And Lucas is, unfortunately, in this tiny minority, fringe camp among Protestants.<\/p>\n Now I shall cite Luther\u2019s own words, and then some assessments of historians and scholars. It\u2019s but a small portion of my 63-page article (part one<\/a> \/ part two<\/a>). Anyone who wants to study the topic in depth is urged to read all of my two-part article. I am highlighting his inflammatory rhetoric, for the sake of brevity, but plenty of his conciliatory words are in the original paper. Footnotes will be at the end.<\/p>\n <\/p> <\/p> ***<\/p>\n MARCH 1521<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Emser lies again when he says that\u00a0I wish the laity might wash their hands in the blood of the priests<\/span>\u00a0[see 25 June 1520, above] . . .\u00a0I wrote against Sylvester\u00a0<\/span>per contentionem<\/span>\u00a0<\/i>[footnote: \u201cA term in rhetoric meaning a contrasting of one thought with another\u201d], as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows;\u00a0I said, if heretics are to be burned, why not rather attack the pope and his adherents with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that the Holy Scriptures derive their authority from the pope.\u00a0And since I do not approve of burning the heretics, I likewise do not approve of killing any Christian. I know very well that it is not in accord with the Gospel.<\/span> I simply showed what they deserved if heretics deserve to be burned.<\/span> It is not at all necessary to attack you with the sword\u00a0. . . your tactics with your burnings and bans, your raging and raving against the plain truth, look as if you were eager to stir up another Bohemian episode and bring about the\u00a0fulfillment of the prophecy which is going the rounds that the priests are to be slain.<\/span> If such destruction should come upon you, you must not blame me \u2014 just keep on, the road you are on leads right to it\u00a0. . .\u00a0I hope you realize that no one shall destroy the pope but yourselves, even his own creatures, as the prophet has said.<\/span><\/p>\n But tell me, dear Emser, since you dare to put it down on paper that it is right and necessary to burn heretics and think that this does not soil your hands with Christian blood,<\/span>\u00a0why should it not also be right to take you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your adherents and put you to a most shameful death?<\/span>\u00a0Since you dare to publish a doctrine that is not only heretical but antichristian, which all the devils would not venture to utter \u2014 that the Gospel must be confirmed by the pope, that its authority is bound up with the pope\u2019s authority, and that what is done by the pope is done by the church. What heretic has ever thus at one stroke condemned and destroyed God\u2019s Word?\u00a0<\/span>Therefore I still declare and maintain that, if heretics deserve the stake, you and the pope ought to be put to death a thousand times.<\/span>\u00a0But I would not have it done.\u00a0Your judge is not far off, He will find you without fail and without delay.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . what would become of the papacy . . . ?<\/span> Christ Himself must abolish it by coming with the final judgment; nothing else will avail.\u00a0<\/span>(Dr. Martin Luther\u2019s Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Superlearned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, With a Glance at His Comrade Murner<\/i>, PE, III, 307-401, translated by A. Steimle; citations from 343-344, 366)<\/p>\n <\/p> Now, I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. Perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny. Would to God their terror and fear were even greater.<\/span> But I feel quite confident, and have no fear whatever that there will be an insurrection, at least one that would be general and affect all the clergy . . .<\/span><\/p>\n . . . any man who can and will may threaten and frighten them, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled, which say of such evil doers, in Psalm xxxvi, \u201cTheir iniquity is made manifest that men may hate them\u201d . . .<\/span><\/p>\n According to the Scriptures such fear and anxiety come upon the enemies of God as the beginning of their destruction. Therefore it is right, and pleases me well, that this punishment is beginning to be felt by the papists who persecute and condemn the divine truth. They shall soon suffer more keenly . . . Already an unspeakable severity and anger without limit has begun to break upon them. The heaven is iron, the earth is brass. No prayers can save them now. Wrath, as Paul says of the Jews, is come upon them to the uttermost. God\u2019s purposes demand far more than an insurrection. As a whole they are beyond the reach of help . . . The Scriptures have foretold for the pope and his followers an end far worse than bodily death and insurrection . . .<\/span><\/p>\n These texts [having cited Dan 8:25, 2 Thess 2:8, Is 11:4, Ps 10:15] teach us how both the pope and his antichristian government shall be destroyed . . .<\/span><\/p>\n If once the truth is recognized and made known, pope, priests, monks, and the whole papacy will end in shame and disgrace . . .<\/span><\/p>\n . . . these texts [2 Thess 2:8, 1 Thess 5:3] have made me certain that the papacy and the spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails.<\/span> . . .<\/p>\n [I]nsurrection is an unprofitable method of procedure, and never results in the desired reformation. For insurrection is devoid of reason and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made. The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made, however wrong the cause they stand for . . . God has forbidden insurrection . . . insurrection is nothing else than being one\u2019s own judge and avenger, and that God cannot endure . . . God will have nothing to do with it . . . <\/span>(An Earnest Exhortation for all Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion<\/i>, PE, III, 201-222, translated by W.A. Lambert, citations from pp. 206-213, 215-216; also in LW, vol. 45, 57-74 [revised translation by Walther I. Brandt]; WA, VIII, 676-687, EA, XXII, 44-59)<\/p>\n Preserved Smith (p. 137): \u201cIt may be doubted whether this pamphlet was expressed in really prudent terms, and whether it would not be more likely to excite discontent than to allay it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 4 JULY 1522<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n But if they say that one should beware of\u00a0rebelling against spiritual authority, I answer: Should God\u2019s word be dispensed with and the whole world perish? Is it right that all souls should be killed eternally so that the temporal show of these masks is left in peace?<\/span>\u00a0It would be better to kill all bishops and to annihilate all religious foundations and monasteries than to let a single soul perish, not to mention losing all souls for the sake of these useless dummies and idols.\u00a0What good are they, except to live in lust from the sweat and labor of others and to impede the word of God? They are\u00a0afraid of physical rebellion\u00a0and do not care about\u00a0spiritual destruction. Are they not intelligent, honest people!<\/span> If they accepted God\u2019s word and sought the life of the soul, God would be with them, since he is a God of peace. Then there would be no\u00a0fear of rebellion.<\/span> But if they refuse to hear God\u2019s word and rather rage and rave with banning, burning, killing, and all evil, what could be better for them than to encounter a strong rebellion which exterminates them from the world? One could only laugh if it did happen, as the divine wisdom says, Proverbs 1[:25\u201327], \u201cYou have hated my punishment and misused my teaching; therefore I will laugh at your calamity and I will mock you when disaster strikes. <\/span>(Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called<\/i>; LW, vol. 39, 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Quotation from pp. 252-253; WA, vol. 28, 142-201)<\/p>\n Will Durant (p. 377) noted: \u201che branded the prelates as the \u2018biggest wolves\u2019 of all, and called upon all good Germans to drive them out by force.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 1523<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n All those who work toward this end and who risk body, property, and honor that the bishoprics may be destroyed and the episcopal government rooted out are God\u2019s dear children and true Christians. They keep God\u2019s commandment and fight against the devil\u2019s order.\u00a0Or, if they cannot do this, at least they condemn and avoid such a government. On the other hand, all those who obey the government of the bishops and subject themselves to it in willing obedience are the devil\u2019s own servants and fight against God\u2019s order and law . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Here you stand against St. Paul, against the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit stands against you. What will you say now? Or have you become dumb? Here you have your verdict:\u00a0all the world must destroy you and your government. Whoever stands on your side falls under God\u2019s disfavor; whoever destroys you stands in God\u2019s favor.<\/span><\/p>\n By no means do I want such destruction and extinction to be understood in the sense of using the fist and the sword, for they are not worthy of such punishment\u2014and nothing is achieved in this way. Rather, as Daniel 8[:25] teaches, \u201cby no human hand\u201d shall the Antichrist be destroyed. Everyone should speak, teach, and stand against him with God\u2019s word until he is put to shame and collapses, completely alone and even despising himself. This is true Christian destruction and every effort should be made to this end . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Since it is clear, then . . . that the bishops are not only masks and idols but also an accursed people before God \u2014 rising up against God\u2019s order to destroy the gospel and ruin souls \u2014 every Christian should help with his body and property to put an end to their tyranny. One should cheerfully do everything possible against them, just as though they were the devil himself. One should trample obedience to them just as though it were obedience to the devil; . . . <\/span>(Doctor Luther\u2019s Bull and Reformation<\/i>, LW, vol. 39, 278-283; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Published in LW as part of\u00a0Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called<\/i>; but originally published separately in two special editions in 1523, in Erfurt and Augsburg, entitled,\u00a0The Bull of the Ecclesiastic in Wittenberg Against the Papal Bishops, Granting God\u2019s Grace and Merit to All who Keep and Obey It<\/i>; WA, X-11, 98-158; citations from 278-280, 283)<\/p>\n <\/p>