[1]On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.[2]To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3,ibid., pp. 92-8.[3]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).[4]See vol. iii., p. 259.[5]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87seq.[6]Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.[7]Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell,ibid., p. 208 ff.[8]Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.).[9]“Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.[10]The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.[11]Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.[12]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”[13]Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.[14][Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of.Note to English Edition.][15]Cp. Paulus,ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”[16]“Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”[17]“Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.[18]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.[19]Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.[20]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.[21]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.[22]Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!”[23]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.[24]Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “Confessio” and the “Apologia.’”[25]For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell,loc. cit., 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”[26]On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp.ibid., p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.[27]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.[28]Mentz,loc. cit., p. 11.[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).[30]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.[31]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.[32]Ibid., p. 326.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.[34]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.[35]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.[36]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.[37]Ibid., p. 145.[38]Ibid., p. 198.[39]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (ibid., p. 174).[40]For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.[41]To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.[42]“Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.[43]“Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.[44]We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.[45]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.[46]Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.[47]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[48]W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.[49]Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.[50]Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.[51]Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (ibid., 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.[52]Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.[53]Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.[54]This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.;ibid., p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).[55]Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.[56][Unless the reference be to certain reputedconsultaof Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii.Note to English Ed.][57]See above, p. 14.[58]Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.[59]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.[60]Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger,loc. cit., p. 192.[61]Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.[62]E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.[63]Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).[64]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[65]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.[66]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 30.[67]Rockwell,ibid., p. 31.[68]Ibid., p. 37.[69]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.[70]Rockwell,ibid., p. 43.[71]Ibid., p. 41 f.[72]Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[73]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542,ibid., 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “Monstroso corpore et animo est.”[74]Thus Rockwell,ibid., p. 48 f.[75]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.[76]Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.[77]“Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[78]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.[79]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.[80]Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.[81]To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.[82]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 53.[83]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 60.[84]“Carolina,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “Neminem” in “Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin.,” ed. Krüger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.[85]He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”[86]On July 8, 1540,ibid., p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it.Ibid., p. 174, Paulus,loc. cit., p. 507.[87]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.[88]Ibid., p. 183.[89]Ibid., p. 341.[90]“Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 353seq.Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 71, n. 1.[91]E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”[92]Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.[93]Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., pp. 154, 156.[94]Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.[95]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.[96]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.[97]“Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.[98]Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).[99]Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (ibid.) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.[100]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”[101]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.[102]“Briefe,” 6, p. 263seq.For the address see Rockwell,ibid., p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.[103]Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.[104]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.[105]Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “Epistolæ,” p. 205. Rockwell,ibid., p. 176.[106]The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “De Macedonico negotio,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.[107]On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.[108]Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)[109]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.[110]On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.[111]“‘Ipsi tamen occidunt homines[heretics],nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu.”[112]Cp.ibid., p. 139.[113]Ibid., p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.[114]Ibid., p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.[115]For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker,ibid., p. 158.[116]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.[117]Ibid., p. 138.[118]To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.”[119]Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.[120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.[121]Ibid., p. 478.[122]Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.[123]Vol. xviii., p. 461.[124]“Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.[125]Gualther, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 186, n. 1.[126]Ibid.[127]Ibid.[128]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.[129]Ibid., p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.[130]Ibid., p. 375.[131]Rockwell,ibid., p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’—Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”[132]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.[133]P. 182.—Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell,ibid., from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.—Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.[134]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.[135]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356seq.[136]“Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.[137]“Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.[138]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 357-360.[139]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 362seq.[140]Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.[141]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.[142]On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.[143]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 190. Cp. p. 61.[144]Ibid., p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.[145]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 193.[146]Ibid., p. 194.[147]“Alcibiadea natura non Achillea.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[148]“Hæc sunt principia furoris.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.[149]Ibid., on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.[150]Rockwell,ibid., p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.[151]Ibid., p. 102.[152]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.[153]To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.[154]Rockwell,ibid., p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077seq.[155]Ibid., p. 103.[156]“Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.[158]Ibid., p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.[159]Rockwell,ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.[160]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 108.[161]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.[162]On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell,ibid., p. 117, n. 1.[163]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell,ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)[164]The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.[165]See above, note 163.[166]In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”[167]Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.[168]Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”[169]Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.[170]To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 325: “pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri.”[171]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell,ibid., pp. 130, 132.[172]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.[173]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.[174]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 368 f.[175]Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.[176]No. 35, August 30, 1906.[177]“Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.[178]Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.[179]K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell,ibid., p. 132 f.[180]Rockwell,ibid., p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘dilaceratio ecclesiarum’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.[181]“Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est.” Rockwell,ibid., p. 134.[182]Rockwell,ibid., p. 131.[183]Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.[184]Page 221.[185]“Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.[186]Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.[187]“Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.[188]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.[189]“Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.[190]That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.[191]For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”[192]Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 324.[193]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus,ibid., p. 562.[194]Jonas,ibid., p. 397.[195]P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[196]G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 126.)[197]Th. Pressel, “Anecdota Brentiana,” 1868, p. 210: “Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime.”[198]Paulus,ibid., p. 569 f.[199]Ibid., p. 570 ff.[200]Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.[201]Ibid., p. 95.[202]Ibid., p. 154.[203]See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.[204]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.[205]“Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus.” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.[206]“Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum.” Pressel, p. 211.[207]Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.[208]The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.[209]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.
[1]On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.[2]To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3,ibid., pp. 92-8.[3]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).[4]See vol. iii., p. 259.[5]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87seq.[6]Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.[7]Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell,ibid., p. 208 ff.[8]Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.).[9]“Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.[10]The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.[11]Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.[12]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”[13]Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.[14][Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of.Note to English Edition.][15]Cp. Paulus,ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”[16]“Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”[17]“Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.[18]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.[19]Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.[20]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.[21]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.[22]Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!”[23]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.[24]Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “Confessio” and the “Apologia.’”[25]For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell,loc. cit., 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”[26]On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp.ibid., p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.[27]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.[28]Mentz,loc. cit., p. 11.[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).[30]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.[31]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.[32]Ibid., p. 326.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.[34]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.[35]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.[36]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.[37]Ibid., p. 145.[38]Ibid., p. 198.[39]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (ibid., p. 174).[40]For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.[41]To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.[42]“Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.[43]“Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.[44]We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.[45]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.[46]Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.[47]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[48]W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.[49]Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.[50]Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.[51]Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (ibid., 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.[52]Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.[53]Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.[54]This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.;ibid., p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).[55]Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.[56][Unless the reference be to certain reputedconsultaof Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii.Note to English Ed.][57]See above, p. 14.[58]Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.[59]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.[60]Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger,loc. cit., p. 192.[61]Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.[62]E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.[63]Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).[64]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[65]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.[66]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 30.[67]Rockwell,ibid., p. 31.[68]Ibid., p. 37.[69]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.[70]Rockwell,ibid., p. 43.[71]Ibid., p. 41 f.[72]Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[73]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542,ibid., 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “Monstroso corpore et animo est.”[74]Thus Rockwell,ibid., p. 48 f.[75]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.[76]Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.[77]“Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[78]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.[79]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.[80]Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.[81]To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.[82]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 53.[83]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 60.[84]“Carolina,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “Neminem” in “Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin.,” ed. Krüger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.[85]He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”[86]On July 8, 1540,ibid., p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it.Ibid., p. 174, Paulus,loc. cit., p. 507.[87]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.[88]Ibid., p. 183.[89]Ibid., p. 341.[90]“Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 353seq.Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 71, n. 1.[91]E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”[92]Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.[93]Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., pp. 154, 156.[94]Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.[95]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.[96]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.[97]“Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.[98]Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).[99]Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (ibid.) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.[100]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”[101]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.[102]“Briefe,” 6, p. 263seq.For the address see Rockwell,ibid., p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.[103]Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.[104]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.[105]Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “Epistolæ,” p. 205. Rockwell,ibid., p. 176.[106]The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “De Macedonico negotio,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.[107]On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.[108]Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)[109]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.[110]On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.[111]“‘Ipsi tamen occidunt homines[heretics],nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu.”[112]Cp.ibid., p. 139.[113]Ibid., p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.[114]Ibid., p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.[115]For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker,ibid., p. 158.[116]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.[117]Ibid., p. 138.[118]To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.”[119]Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.[120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.[121]Ibid., p. 478.[122]Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.[123]Vol. xviii., p. 461.[124]“Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.[125]Gualther, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 186, n. 1.[126]Ibid.[127]Ibid.[128]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.[129]Ibid., p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.[130]Ibid., p. 375.[131]Rockwell,ibid., p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’—Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”[132]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.[133]P. 182.—Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell,ibid., from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.—Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.[134]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.[135]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356seq.[136]“Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.[137]“Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.[138]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 357-360.[139]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 362seq.[140]Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.[141]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.[142]On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.[143]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 190. Cp. p. 61.[144]Ibid., p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.[145]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 193.[146]Ibid., p. 194.[147]“Alcibiadea natura non Achillea.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[148]“Hæc sunt principia furoris.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.[149]Ibid., on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.[150]Rockwell,ibid., p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.[151]Ibid., p. 102.[152]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.[153]To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.[154]Rockwell,ibid., p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077seq.[155]Ibid., p. 103.[156]“Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.[158]Ibid., p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.[159]Rockwell,ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.[160]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 108.[161]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.[162]On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell,ibid., p. 117, n. 1.[163]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell,ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)[164]The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.[165]See above, note 163.[166]In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”[167]Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.[168]Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”[169]Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.[170]To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 325: “pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri.”[171]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell,ibid., pp. 130, 132.[172]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.[173]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.[174]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 368 f.[175]Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.[176]No. 35, August 30, 1906.[177]“Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.[178]Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.[179]K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell,ibid., p. 132 f.[180]Rockwell,ibid., p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘dilaceratio ecclesiarum’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.[181]“Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est.” Rockwell,ibid., p. 134.[182]Rockwell,ibid., p. 131.[183]Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.[184]Page 221.[185]“Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.[186]Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.[187]“Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.[188]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.[189]“Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.[190]That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.[191]For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”[192]Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 324.[193]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus,ibid., p. 562.[194]Jonas,ibid., p. 397.[195]P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[196]G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 126.)[197]Th. Pressel, “Anecdota Brentiana,” 1868, p. 210: “Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime.”[198]Paulus,ibid., p. 569 f.[199]Ibid., p. 570 ff.[200]Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.[201]Ibid., p. 95.[202]Ibid., p. 154.[203]See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.[204]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.[205]“Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus.” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.[206]“Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum.” Pressel, p. 211.[207]Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.[208]The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.[209]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.
[1]On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.[2]To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3,ibid., pp. 92-8.[3]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).[4]See vol. iii., p. 259.[5]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87seq.[6]Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.[7]Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell,ibid., p. 208 ff.[8]Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.).[9]“Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.[10]The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.[11]Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.[12]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”[13]Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.[14][Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of.Note to English Edition.][15]Cp. Paulus,ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”[16]“Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”[17]“Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.[18]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.[19]Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.[20]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.[21]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.[22]Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!”[23]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.[24]Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “Confessio” and the “Apologia.’”[25]For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell,loc. cit., 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”[26]On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp.ibid., p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.[27]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.[28]Mentz,loc. cit., p. 11.[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).[30]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.[31]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.[32]Ibid., p. 326.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.[34]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.[35]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.[36]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.[37]Ibid., p. 145.[38]Ibid., p. 198.[39]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (ibid., p. 174).[40]For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.[41]To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.[42]“Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.[43]“Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.[44]We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.[45]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.[46]Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.[47]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[48]W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.[49]Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.[50]Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.[51]Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (ibid., 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.[52]Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.[53]Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.[54]This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.;ibid., p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).[55]Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.[56][Unless the reference be to certain reputedconsultaof Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii.Note to English Ed.][57]See above, p. 14.[58]Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.[59]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.[60]Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger,loc. cit., p. 192.[61]Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.[62]E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.[63]Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).[64]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.[65]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.[66]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 30.[67]Rockwell,ibid., p. 31.[68]Ibid., p. 37.[69]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.[70]Rockwell,ibid., p. 43.[71]Ibid., p. 41 f.[72]Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[73]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542,ibid., 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “Monstroso corpore et animo est.”[74]Thus Rockwell,ibid., p. 48 f.[75]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.[76]Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.[77]“Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[78]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.[79]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.[80]Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.[81]To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.[82]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 53.[83]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 60.[84]“Carolina,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “Neminem” in “Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin.,” ed. Krüger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.[85]He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”[86]On July 8, 1540,ibid., p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it.Ibid., p. 174, Paulus,loc. cit., p. 507.[87]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.[88]Ibid., p. 183.[89]Ibid., p. 341.[90]“Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 353seq.Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 71, n. 1.[91]E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”[92]Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.[93]Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., pp. 154, 156.[94]Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.[95]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.[96]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.[97]“Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.[98]Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).[99]Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (ibid.) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.[100]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”[101]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.[102]“Briefe,” 6, p. 263seq.For the address see Rockwell,ibid., p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.[103]Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.[104]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.[105]Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “Epistolæ,” p. 205. Rockwell,ibid., p. 176.[106]The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “De Macedonico negotio,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.[107]On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.[108]Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)[109]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.[110]On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.[111]“‘Ipsi tamen occidunt homines[heretics],nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu.”[112]Cp.ibid., p. 139.[113]Ibid., p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.[114]Ibid., p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.[115]For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker,ibid., p. 158.[116]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.[117]Ibid., p. 138.[118]To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.”[119]Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.[120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.[121]Ibid., p. 478.[122]Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.[123]Vol. xviii., p. 461.[124]“Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.[125]Gualther, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 186, n. 1.[126]Ibid.[127]Ibid.[128]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.[129]Ibid., p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.[130]Ibid., p. 375.[131]Rockwell,ibid., p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’—Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”[132]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.[133]P. 182.—Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell,ibid., from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.—Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.[134]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.[135]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356seq.[136]“Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.[137]“Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.[138]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 357-360.[139]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 362seq.[140]Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.[141]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.[142]On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.[143]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 190. Cp. p. 61.[144]Ibid., p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.[145]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 193.[146]Ibid., p. 194.[147]“Alcibiadea natura non Achillea.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.[148]“Hæc sunt principia furoris.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.[149]Ibid., on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.[150]Rockwell,ibid., p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.[151]Ibid., p. 102.[152]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.[153]To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.[154]Rockwell,ibid., p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077seq.[155]Ibid., p. 103.[156]“Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.[158]Ibid., p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.[159]Rockwell,ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.[160]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 108.[161]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.[162]On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell,ibid., p. 117, n. 1.[163]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell,ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)[164]The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.[165]See above, note 163.[166]In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”[167]Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.[168]Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”[169]Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.[170]To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 325: “pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri.”[171]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell,ibid., pp. 130, 132.[172]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.[173]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.[174]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 368 f.[175]Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.[176]No. 35, August 30, 1906.[177]“Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.[178]Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.[179]K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell,ibid., p. 132 f.[180]Rockwell,ibid., p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘dilaceratio ecclesiarum’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.[181]“Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est.” Rockwell,ibid., p. 134.[182]Rockwell,ibid., p. 131.[183]Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.[184]Page 221.[185]“Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.[186]Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.[187]“Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.[188]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.[189]“Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.[190]That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.[191]For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”[192]Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 324.[193]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus,ibid., p. 562.[194]Jonas,ibid., p. 397.[195]P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.[196]G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 126.)[197]Th. Pressel, “Anecdota Brentiana,” 1868, p. 210: “Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime.”[198]Paulus,ibid., p. 569 f.[199]Ibid., p. 570 ff.[200]Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.[201]Ibid., p. 95.[202]Ibid., p. 154.[203]See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.[204]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.[205]“Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus.” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.[206]“Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum.” Pressel, p. 211.[207]Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.[208]The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.[209]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.
[1]On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.
[2]To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3,ibid., pp. 92-8.
[3]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).
[4]See vol. iii., p. 259.
[5]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87seq.
[6]Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.
[7]Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell,ibid., p. 208 ff.
[8]Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.).
[9]“Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.
[10]The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.
[11]Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.
[12]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”
[13]Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.
[14][Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of.Note to English Edition.]
[15]Cp. Paulus,ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”
[16]“Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”
[17]“Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.
[18]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.
[19]Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.
[20]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.
[21]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.
[22]Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!”
[23]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.
[24]Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “Confessio” and the “Apologia.’”
[25]For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell,loc. cit., 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”
[26]On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp.ibid., p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.
[27]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.
[28]Mentz,loc. cit., p. 11.
[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).
[30]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.
[31]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.
[32]Ibid., p. 326.
[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.
[34]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.
[35]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.
[36]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.
[37]Ibid., p. 145.
[38]Ibid., p. 198.
[39]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (ibid., p. 174).
[40]For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.
[41]To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.
[42]“Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.
[43]“Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.
[44]We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.
[45]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.
[46]Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851seq.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.
[47]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.
[48]W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.
[49]Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.
[50]Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.
[51]Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (ibid., 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.
[52]Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.
[53]Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.
[54]This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.;ibid., p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).
[55]Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.
[56][Unless the reference be to certain reputedconsultaof Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii.Note to English Ed.]
[57]See above, p. 14.
[58]Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.
[59]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.
[60]Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger,loc. cit., p. 192.
[61]Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.
[62]E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.
[63]Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).
[64]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.
[65]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.
[66]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 30.
[67]Rockwell,ibid., p. 31.
[68]Ibid., p. 37.
[69]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.
[70]Rockwell,ibid., p. 43.
[71]Ibid., p. 41 f.
[72]Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.
[73]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542,ibid., 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “Monstroso corpore et animo est.”
[74]Thus Rockwell,ibid., p. 48 f.
[75]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.
[76]Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.
[77]“Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.
[78]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.
[79]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.
[80]Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.
[81]To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.
[82]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 53.
[83]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 60.
[84]“Carolina,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “Neminem” in “Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin.,” ed. Krüger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.
[85]He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”
[86]On July 8, 1540,ibid., p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it.Ibid., p. 174, Paulus,loc. cit., p. 507.
[87]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.
[88]Ibid., p. 183.
[89]Ibid., p. 341.
[90]“Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 353seq.Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 71, n. 1.
[91]E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”
[92]Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.
[93]Cp. Rockwell,loc. cit., pp. 154, 156.
[94]Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.
[95]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.
[96]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.
[97]“Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.
[98]Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).
[99]Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (ibid.) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.
[100]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”
[101]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.
[102]“Briefe,” 6, p. 263seq.For the address see Rockwell,ibid., p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.
[103]Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.
[104]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.
[105]Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “Epistolæ,” p. 205. Rockwell,ibid., p. 176.
[106]The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “De Macedonico negotio,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.
[107]On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.
[108]Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)
[109]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.
[110]On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.
[111]“‘Ipsi tamen occidunt homines[heretics],nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu.”
[112]Cp.ibid., p. 139.
[113]Ibid., p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.
[114]Ibid., p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.
[115]For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker,ibid., p. 158.
[116]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.
[117]Ibid., p. 138.
[118]To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.”
[119]Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.
[120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.
[121]Ibid., p. 478.
[122]Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.
[123]Vol. xviii., p. 461.
[124]“Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.
[125]Gualther, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 186, n. 1.
[126]Ibid.
[127]Ibid.
[128]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.
[129]Ibid., p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.
[130]Ibid., p. 375.
[131]Rockwell,ibid., p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’—Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”
[132]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.
[133]P. 182.—Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell,ibid., from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.—Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.
[134]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.
[135]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356seq.
[136]“Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.
[137]“Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.
[138]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 357-360.
[139]Kolde,loc. cit., p. 362seq.
[140]Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.
[141]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.
[142]On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.
[143]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 190. Cp. p. 61.
[144]Ibid., p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.
[145]Rockwell,loc. cit., p. 193.
[146]Ibid., p. 194.
[147]“Alcibiadea natura non Achillea.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell,ibid., p. 194.
[148]“Hæc sunt principia furoris.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.
[149]Ibid., on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.
[150]Rockwell,ibid., p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.
[151]Ibid., p. 102.
[152]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.
[153]To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.
[154]Rockwell,ibid., p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077seq.
[155]Ibid., p. 103.
[156]“Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.
[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.
[158]Ibid., p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.
[159]Rockwell,ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.
[160]Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 108.
[161]“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.
[162]On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell,ibid., p. 117, n. 1.
[163]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell,ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)
[164]The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.
[165]See above, note 163.
[166]In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”
[167]Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.
[168]Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”
[169]Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.
[170]To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell,ibid., p. 325: “pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri.”
[171]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell,ibid., pp. 130, 132.
[172]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.
[173]Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.
[174]“Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 368 f.
[175]Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.
[176]No. 35, August 30, 1906.
[177]“Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.
[178]Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.
[179]K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell,ibid., p. 132 f.
[180]Rockwell,ibid., p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘dilaceratio ecclesiarum’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.
[181]“Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est.” Rockwell,ibid., p. 134.
[182]Rockwell,ibid., p. 131.
[183]Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.
[184]Page 221.
[185]“Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.
[186]Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.
[187]“Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.
[188]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.
[189]“Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.
[190]That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.
[191]For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”
[192]Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell,ibid., p. 324.
[193]“Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus,ibid., p. 562.
[194]Jonas,ibid., p. 397.
[195]P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus,ibid., p. 563.
[196]G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell,ibid., p. 126.)
[197]Th. Pressel, “Anecdota Brentiana,” 1868, p. 210: “Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime.”
[198]Paulus,ibid., p. 569 f.
[199]Ibid., p. 570 ff.
[200]Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.
[201]Ibid., p. 95.
[202]Ibid., p. 154.
[203]See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.
[204]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.
[205]“Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus.” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.
[206]“Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum.” Pressel, p. 211.
[207]Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.
[208]The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.
[209]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.