With regard to the fifth commandment, one first encounters Luther's concern here: "Whether men of war can also be in a blessed state?" The occasion for this writing was that, when the Elector John came to Wittenberg in 1525, among others Assa von Kram, or, as it was written at that time, Asche von Cramm, a Brunswick nobleman, spoke with Luther and had a discussion with him about the state of war, whether one could go into it with a good conscience, and also asked him to put his thoughts about it in writing, as Luther himself indicates in the letter to the said von Kram. He undertook this work and elaborated the matter properly and thoroughly in the tract. He affirms the presented question and proves his opinion with important reasons, but in such a way that he determines the matter properly and adds the necessary restrictions with all caution. He remembers very well that if one wants to serve in war with a good conscience, one must know beforehand, either certainly or probably, that the war itself is just, that it is not waged with the intention of attacking and robbing others, but rather to defend oneself against the enemy, and that therefore no ambition or other sinful desires and affects are at the root of it. He will soon show how pious soldiers show themselves and go to God.
He rejects the wars against the superiors, even if they were tyrants, does not want to excuse those who wage war against kings who have made themselves obligated by certain treaties or have come to the empire by election, and disapproves of what the Danes have done against King Christian.) With this opinion he himself saw that in such a way tyrannical authorities are given security, but he believed that he could not make any other judgment by virtue of the divine word. After he had written it, he submitted it for printing and it was published under the title: "Whether men of war can also be in a blessed state? Mart. Luther zu Wittenberg 1526" in quarto, whereupon it was printed again in quarto also in Wittenberg in the following year 1527. These two editions are in Olearius' Verzeichniß der "Autograph. Luth.", p. 26. 27, and in von der Hardt's "Autograph. Luth.", tom. I, p. 227 unb 241. [Luther sent a copy of this booklet to Michael Stiefel and commemorated it in a letter to him with these words: "Mitto libellum de militari christianismo" (i.e. "I hereby send you the booklet on the Christian state of war"). The letter is dated Jan. 1.
-) The proceedings against Christiern or Christian II. King of Denmark, is viewed and judged unequally by the scribes. Some take his word for it and agree with what Luther wrote, as was done, among others, by the author of the "Hallische auserlesenen Anmerkungen," Vol. II, p. 50, and Ericus Pontoppidanus in the "Kurzgefaßte Reformations-Historie der Dänischen Kirche"- p. 139 ff. The latter cites the passage from Luther's writing that belongs here in its entirety, especially with the intention of proving that the king's flight from the country could not be attributed to the Lutherans, as Samuel Andreä wanted to pretend among the Reformed, since the procedure of the Danish nobles was flatly contrary to Luther's principles. Others, who are not well disposed toward this king, do not want to approve Luther's judgment. When Seckendorf in "Histor. Lutheranismi", lib. II, § 30, p. 82, cites this point from Luther's writing, he adds: regulam recte a Luthero positam esse, dubitari non debet; sed an omnes casus et specia- tim res Daniae satis illi innotuerint et expensae fuerint, non liquet (i.e., "that the rule established by Luther is correct, may not be doubted; but whether he was also exactly aware of all the cases and especially of Denmark's situation, has not yet been determined").
1527 and is found in his letters, Aurif. II, p. 321. ^De W. Ill, 146.^ This writing is in the Jena (Thl. Ill, p. 343), Wittenberg (Thl. VI, p. 684), Altenburg (Thl. Ill, p. 658), and Leipzig collections (Thl. XXII, p. 316).
[The Erl. Ausg., Vol. 22, 244-290, is based on the same edition of 1527 as Walch and cites five other editions of the same year. D. Red.]
Cyriacus Spangenberg tells the following about this writing: When it was printed for the first time in Wittenberg, Luther's name and the name of the city of Wittenberg were omitted from some copies, along with the preface and a few words, and then such copies were brought into the hands of Duke George of Saxony in such a way that he thought they came from a distant place. He then read through the book and was so pleased that he said to Lucas Kranach, who was working with him in Dresden at the time: "See, Lucas, you always praise your monk in Wittenberg, Luder, how he alone is so learned and can speak good German and write good books; but you are mistaken in this as well as in other things. Behold, I also have a little book, which is so good and better than Luder could ever make it. With this, he gave it to the painter, and when he looked at it, he said, "My lord and master, Luther made this booklet, except that his name is not on it. For I also have one here with me, which he himself gave me, with his name printed on it." The duke, seeing that this was the case, became angry about it, cursed and said: "It is a pity that such a hopeless monk should have made such a good little book. This news is given by Spangenberg in the first part of the "Adel-Spiegel" in the 8th B. and 3rd Cap., p. 131, and it has been subsequently placed in the Altenburg and Leipzig collection at the place mentioned Luther's tract itself.
§ XXVI.
After this writing of the soldier's stand follow some concerns of Luther and others
Wittenberg theologians, concerning the resistance, in case the Protestant estates should be attacked by force for the sake of religion. Such are:
a) "Letter to Elector John of Saxony, concerning the counter-defense", which was written in 1530, and indeed on this occasion. Emperor Carl the Fifth had summoned the Diet to Augsburg, and although he promised in the summons that each party would be heard in love and kindness, and that whatever was not properly interpreted or acted upon on either side would be acted upon, the Protestants were nevertheless in doubt, because of various circumstances, whether they should trust the emperor so badly, and some had the idea that they should not stand at the Diet and rather take up arms against the emperor. This was also advised to the Elector of Saxony, John, and so that he would proceed conscientiously and safely in this matter, he presented the matter to Luther and ordered him to consider it carefully with Pomeranus and Melanchthon, which was done, and the letter mentioned shortly before was written. In it, Luther argues that, according to Scripture, no one can set himself against his authorities, and that a Christian must suffer violence and injustice from them. If the emperor did wrong and transgressed his duty and oath, he would still remain an authority and the obedience of the subjects would not be cancelled. The saying "to expel the emperor by force" does not apply here; otherwise the mayor of Torgau could protect the citizens against the Elector of Saxony by force. One must leave land and people open to the emperor and command the rest to God. If he should want to do something in matters of faith that would be against God and conscience, he must not be obeyed and divine providence must be trusted. Since the papists got hold of this concern, they were particularly pleased about it and thought that they could now the sooner persuade the emperor to use force against the Lutherans and to exterminate them, precisely because Luther was held to mean that one should not oppose the authorities and tolerate everything. It was not only many times
but also printed, although in such a way that the various copies differed from each other and in some something was added, but in others omitted, or thrown among each other. In one reprint, Bugenhagen's name had also been put on it; but because he had not contributed anything, this gave occasion for such a letter or concern of Luther's to be reprinted at Wittenberg by Hans Luft in 1547, and the said Bugenhagen as well as Melanchthon made special prefaces to it and stated therein how it had happened in the scattering of this thought. With these two prefaces, it is now included in this part. One has made use of the edition, which came to light with the title: "Rathschlag Martin Luther's und anderer Hochgelehrten zu Wittenberg, ob sich der Churfürst von Sachsen um des Evangelii willen mit dem Kaiser in Krieg einlassen" (Martin Luther's and other scholars at Wittenberg, whether the Elector of Saxony should engage in war with the Emperor for the sake of the Gospel) at Leipzig 1546, and, because the two prefaces are not found in the same, they have been added. Without them, it is also found in the Jena (Thl. VI, p. 31), Wittenberg (Thl. XII, p. 215), Altenburg (Thl. V, p. 13) and Leipzig (Thl. XX, p. 290) collections. There is this concern also in "Consilia theologica Vitebergensia", tom. III, p. 96. The two prefaces of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen are in Hortleder's "Sammlungen vom deutschen Krieg", vol. II, p. 131.
[The Erl. The edition also reprinted this opinion without the two prefaces according to the edition of 1546, vol. 54, 138-142. Cf. De W. Ill, 560.]
b) "Concerns to the Chancellor Dr. Gregorius Brück about the counter-defense", which was written in 1539, namely at the time when the Schmalkaldic League relatives were worried that they might be attacked by force by the Emperor, and therefore held consultations about it in Frankfurt. For before these took place, the Elector of Saxony had various objections raised concerning the resistance, and among these was also the one mentioned to the Chancellor Brück, in which Luther holds that the Elector is indeed guilty of defending his subjects against other princes.
However, he does not want to advise them to attack and anticipate their intentions, but believes that one must first expect what they will do. If the Landgrave does not want to follow, the Elector is not obliged to keep the alliance made with him. This concern is also found in the other collections of Luther's writings, as, in the Jenaische (Thl. VII, p. 384), Wittenbergische (Thl. XII, p. 216), Altenburgische (Thl. VII, p. 300), and Leipzigische (Thl. XXI, p. 299), likewise in "Consilia theolog. Vitebergensia", tom. III, p. 99, and in Friedr. Hortleder's "Sammlungen von dem deutschen Kriege," vol. II, p. 97.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 55, 264-268. De W. V, 247.]
o) A "Writing to Elector John of Saxony, Concerning the Defence", which is the concern that Luther had set out on November 18, 1529, before the Schmalkaldic Convention was held in the year now mentioned. Among other things, the Protestants wanted to discuss an alliance for the defense of religion at the same convention, and so that the Elector of Saxony John would proceed all the more safely and not do anything that was contrary to the rules of Christianity and prudence, he had the aforementioned Chancellor Brück order Luther and his two colleagues to consider the matter and to draft their opinion in writing. Luther reported this in the objection, and although he did not name his colleagues, they were Bugenhagen and Melanchthon. The decision in the above-mentioned objection was that the Elector could not agree to the alliance against the Emperor, because otherwise a great misfortune could result and much blood could be spilled over it. Among other things, Luther said: "We would rather be dead ten times over than have such a conscience that our gospel should have been the cause of some bloodshed or damage done on our account," and thereby testified to his firm trust in God that, as he had done well before, so he would do well in the future, help the Elector carry his cross and take care of the matter,
that one can see that it is his business. In such misgivings and otherwise, Luther held that the estates could not enter into an alliance or war against the emperor, and based this opinion on the fact that they were absolutely subject to the emperor. See what Seckendorf wrote in "Histor. Luthe- ranismi", lib. II, § 48, p. 141. Such a concern had such an impact on the Elector that he acted according to it. It has been printed in German in the collections of Luther's writings, as in the Jenaische (Thl. VI, p. 325), Wittenbergische (Thl. XII, p. 215), Altenburgische (Thl. IV, p. 564) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 21). It is this concern also in Friedr. Hortleder's "Sammlungen von dem deutschen Kriege", vol. II, p. 2. Latin is this writing in Georg Coelestin's ,,Histor. comitior. August. Vindelicor. cele- brat." tom. I, p. 20, and in "Supplementum epistolarum Lutheri", published with Dr. Buddeus' preface, p. 76.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 54, 110-112.]
d) A "writing to Joh. Lübeck, pastor in Cotbus, about the defense" if the emperor were to attack the Protestants, which was also written in 1539, like the previously mentioned concern to the chancellor Brück. Luther says here that it was too late to ask him whether the Protestants could defend themselves against the emperor, because this had already been decided, and even if he wanted to advise again, they would not follow him; Nevertheless, he holds that if the emperor should take up arms against the Protestants, they could justifiably resist and protect themselves against the emperor, not if he were to be regarded as emperor, but if he had allowed himself to be taken over by the pope and waged war on his behalf, so that the resistance would actually be against the pope. In the other collections of Luther's writings, this concern is placed alongside the one he wrote to Chancellor Brück, the passages of which have already been cited. It is also found in Hortleder's "Collections of the German War," Vol. II, p. 104.
[This letter is written in Latin and the present German print is based on the Latin version of the letter.
The original De W. V, 159, has been reviewed, corrected, and the missing passages completed and supplemented. D. Red.]
e) "Luther's Answer on Resistance," in which he briefly indicates that the question of whether one should resist the emperor belongs not so much before his tribunal as before the legal scholars.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 265.]
f) "The opinion of several legal scholars in Wittenberg on the question of whether one should resist a judge who proceeds unlawfully," which is answered in the affirmative, and it is also noted that because the emperor cannot even be a judge in matters of faith, resistance against him is all the more likely to take place.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 266-269.]
g) "Dr. Luther's, Dr. Jonas', Melanchthon's, Spalatin's and other theologians' concerns about the above-mentioned jurists' teaching of resistance," in which they put up with the opinion of the jurists and thereby indicate that they had indeed taught up to now that one should not resist the authorities; however, they had not been aware that this itself entailed the rights of the authorities.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 269.]
h) "Third Concern of the Theologians at Wittenberg on the Counter-defense", which also states that religion can and must be defended against the emperor and that the counter-defense must be used, and is signed by Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Amsdorf and Melanchthon.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 270-274.]
i) "Fourth Concern of the Theologians at Wittenberg about the Defense," which is the same as the immediately preceding one, that the defense of religion against the emperor is not only permitted, but also commanded; the signature of Luther, Jonas, Bucer, and Melanchthon was then done.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 274-276.]
These now mentioned concerns are also found in the already indicated parts of Luther's writings, also some in "Consilia theolog. Vitebergensia", tom. III, p. 94 sqq. and in Hortleder's "Sammlungen vom deut.
It can be seen from these that Luther was not of the same opinion about the resistance in religious matters against the emperor. At first, he thought that there was no such thing because the estates were absolutely subject to the emperor and a Christian, according to the precepts of the divine word, must patiently suffer the injustice done to him and command the matter to God. When, however, some legal scholars in Wittenberg had other thoughts on the matter, he joined them and accepted their statement. Sleidanus said: ,,Lutherus semper docuerat, magistratui non esse resistendum, et extabat ejus hac de re libellus; quum autem in hac deliberatione periti juris docerent, legibus esse permissum, resistere nonnumquam, et nunc in eum casum, de quo leges inter alia mentionem faciant, rem esse deductam, ostenderent ; Lutherus ingenue profitetur, se nescivisse hoc licere, et quia leges politicas evangelium non impugnet, aut aboleat, uti semper docuerit, deinde: quoniam hoc tempore tam dubio tamque formidoloso multa possint accidere, sic, ut non modo jus ipsum, sed conscientiae quoque vis atque necessitas arma nobis porrigat, defensionis causa foedus iniri posse, dicit, sive Caesar ipse, sive quis alius forte bellum ejus nomine faciat, in ,,Comment. de stat, religionis et reipublic.", lib. VIII, p. 195. (D. i.: Luther had always taught that one should not resist the authorities, about which there is also a booklet by him; but when the legal scholars stated in a consultation that resistance was permitted by the laws in some cases, and proved that just the present case was in such a case, which the laws declare to be permissible among others; Luther freely admitted that he had known nothing of such a permission, and since the gospel does not fight or abolish the laws of the state, as he had always taught, and since, furthermore, in such a precarious and terrible time, many things could happen that could compel us to take up arms, not only according to law, but also according to conscience, he had to declare that entering into a defensive alliance was permissible, if the emperor himself or someone else in his name
for example, to start a war. (See "Report on the State and Religion," Book 8, p. 195).
k) Luther's "Letter to a Citizen of Nuremberg, whether one can enter into an alliance against the Emperor's unjust authorities with a good conscience?" which was written on March 18, 1531, and says: as a theologian, he could not advise such an alliance; but if the legal scholars were of the opinion that such a thing could be established according to the secular laws, then he could not oppose it either. Such a letter is found in the Eislebische Theilen (Thl. II, p. 134), in the Altenburgische (Thl. V, p. 580) and Leipzigische (Thl. XX, p. 345). Urban Gottlieb Hausdorf also included this letter in the biography of Lazarus Spengler, p. 175, and added the assumption that perhaps the citizen of Nuremberg, to whom this was addressed, was Spengler, whose name was diligently concealed, because in Nuremberg one did not want to lose sight of the proper prudence in the religious affairs of that time, nor did one want to know anything about an alliance against the emperor. It concerned the Schmalkaldic League, when it looked dangerous because of the 1530 Augsburg parting with the Protestants. It has now also been brought into this collection.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 54, 221. 222. De W. IV, 232.]
I) Luther's writing "To Lazarus Spengler: whether one should resist the Emperor? 1531, in which he explains in what way he approves of the opinion expressed by the Wittenberg jurists in the previously mentioned objection to the question of whether one can resist the emperor, and at the same time considers whether it was intended that he revoke his previous opinion that one should not oppose the emperor, so that he was not aware of such a revocation, which letter is printed here from the Leipzigische Theilen (Supplement p. 65).
[Cf. Erl. ed. 54, 213. 214. De W. IV, 221.]
m) "Rathschlag Dr. Luther's, Melanchthon's and Bugenhagen's^: whether a prince can control his subjects.
may protect against the emperor's or other princes' persecution for the sake of the faith with war?" in which each opens his opinion in particular, but in an unequal way. Luther considers such a war permissible only under certain conditions. Melanchthon does not approve of it and writes, among other things, that it is not proper for a prince to wage war without the consent of his countryside and subjects, of whom he has the land and principality. Bugenhagen, however, believes that a prince must protect his subjects with the sword when necessity demands it. These concerns were written in 1523 and Friedrich Hortleder was the first to print them. This was done in the "Collections of the German War", Vol. II, p. 63.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 277-280.]
n) To these concerns listed so far, concerning the counter defense, one has added: "Some Conclusions of D. Martin Luther's in öffentlicher Disputation vertheidigt Anno 1539", namely that one should resist the pope and his patron against unjust violence and war. One finds these conclusions [in part] also in the other collections of Luther's writings, as, in the Jenaischen (Thl. VII, p. 392), Wittenbergischen (Thl. XII, p. 223), Altenburgischen (Thl. VII, p. 308) and Leipzigischen (Thl. XXI, p. 307), also in Hortleder's "Sammlung von dem deutschen Krieg," vol. II, p. 100. It has not been noted, however, that they are taken from the attracted disputation on the words: "Go and sell everything," etc.
o) These conclusions are a part of the immediately following disputation, which Luther held in the year 1539 in Wittenberg about the words: "Go and sell everything you have and give it to the poor", and which had not been in any German collection of his writings, but which have now been translated from Latin into German by Diaconus Rambach in Halle and incorporated into this part. In Latin, these sentences are found in the Jenaische (Thl. I, p. 523) and Wittenbergische Theilen (Thl. I, p. 407). The "Etliche Schlüsse" (Some Conclusions), before they were included in the collection, are especially described under the title: "Etliche Schlüsse D.
Mart. Luth., dass man dem Pabst und seinen Schutzherr wider unrechtliche Gewalt und Kriege Widerstand thun soll", printed in octavo in 1546. This disputation consists of short sentences, and in it Luther makes a frank confession about the pope, that he is not entitled to any kind of rule, that he is the one of whom Scripture predicts that he, as the repulsive one, as the child of destruction, will rise above everything that is called God and worship, and since he, as a monstrous, raging and possessed animal, seeks to destroy everything, one must resist him with all force.
[The Rambach translation is based on the Latin original, Erl. Op. lat. var. arg., tom. IV, p. 442-452, has been improved. D. Red.]
[p) In the last place, we give here another concern from the year 1532, similar in content to the previous ones, which Walch did not include, but which the Erlangen edition printed in vol. 54, p. 347. Vergl, de W. IV, 428. D. Red.]
§ XXVII.
For the explanation of the sixth commandment one finds here also different writings of Luther together. Among them there are first five sermons, as
a) A "on the marriage state" on Hebr. 13, 4, which he held on August 4, 1545 in Merseburg in the collegiate church, when he had left Wittenberg in that year because of all sorts of annoyances and on this journey came, among others, to Merseburg to Prince George of Anhalt, but at that time in his presence just Mr. Sigismund von Lindenau, cathedral dean, held his wedding feast. In it, he not only presents the dignity and benefits of the married state, but also shows his zeal against the celibate state of the clergy and against the vow of chastity. He had also preached a sermon there on the kingdom of Christ, and therefore Mag. Matthias Wankel, pastor at Halle, had it published at St. Moriz under the title: "Zwo Predigten D. Mart. Luther's, the first on the kingdom of Christ, from the 8th Psalm: HErr, our ruler etc., the other one
The author printed a quarto version of "The Marriage of the Holy Spirit, Hebrew 13, Marriage Should Be Honestly Held, Preached at Merseburg," at Wittenberg in 1546, and added a letter to the said Prince George of Anhalt. In the Altenburgische Theilen (Thl. VIII, p. 487), they have been left together, because here, the order of the time was followed. In the Leipzig collection, both sermons are separated. The sermon on the kingdom of Christ is in the XII. In the present collection, the sermon on marriage appears in this place, the other one on the kingdom of Christ is in the V. part, p. 349, and because the previously mentioned text has already been printed in the latter, it has been omitted.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 1st ed. 20, 45-56. 2nd ed. 20 d, 363-375.]
b) "A Sermon on Marital Life," which consists of three parts. In the first, it shows which persons may marry one another; in the second, which may be divorced; and in the third, how to lead the married life in a Christian and godly manner. He shows that it is not absolutely necessary to marry, and that those who have the gift of abstinence can live apart from it, although there are very few of them who have obtained such a gift by the grace of God. The accusation of his enemies, as if he taught that if a man could not adequately perform his wife's marital duty, she should go to another, he refutes here, as with several Seckendorf in "Historia Luthera- nismi" lib. I, § 131, p. 223, has already noted. When Johann Cochläus commemorates this writing in ,,Commentar, de actis et scriptis Lutheri", p. 61, he says: Foedissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et feminae, probans ex illo verbo Dei: Crescite et multiplicamini, necessariam esse ejusmodi commixtionem non minus, quam cibum, potum, somnum et alia naturae opera, addens, quemadmodum vir non potest mutare sexum suum, ita nec possit carere muliere, quia non sit liberum, aut consilium, sed res necessaria et naturalis, ut omnem virum oporteat habere mulierem et omnem mulierem habere
virum (i.e.In the nastiest way he speaks against the natural shame of the mixture of man and woman, by trying to prove from that word of God: -He tries to prove that such a mixture is just as necessary as food, drink, sleep and other natural needs, and then adds that just as a man could not change his sex, so he could not be without a woman; for this was not at his discretion or a matter of advice, but a natural and necessary thing, so that every man must have a woman and every woman a man"). But he interprets his words incorrectly and imputes to him such a necessity of the marriage state that he does not assert. He does not say that all men must necessarily enter the marriage state, but speaks of the matter with a difference. The text itself was published for the first time in quarto in Wittenberg in 1522 under the title: "On Married Life, Martin Luther". This edition has also been commemorated in von der Hardt's "Autographa Lutheri", tom. I, p. 132. However, it did not remain with this first one, but several more followed it in the same year 1522, as one can see from Olearius' list of the "Autographa Lutheri44 p. 13. Subsequently, this writing was brought into the collections, as, in the Jenaische (Thl. II, p. 150), Wittenbergische (Thl. VI, p. 167), Altenburgische (Thl. II, p. 208) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXH, p. 196). It is written also in "Consilia theologica Wite- berg.", tom. IV, p. 1. It is also translated into the Latin language. It is found in this language in the Latin Wittenbergische Theilen (Thl. V, p. 119). Now, however, it is reprinted in this part, according to the first edition mentioned immediately before, as according to which the copy was overlooked before.
[Cf. Erl. ed. I. ed. 20, 57-89.
2nd ed. 16, 508-543.]
c) "Sermon on Marriage", on the Gospel on the 2nd Sunday after Epiphany, Joh. 2, 1. ff. This sermon was printed in quarto at Leipzig in 1519 and included in the Halle (p. 341) and Leipzig (Thl. XII, p. 376) parts.
But because Luther did not know about this printing, nor was he satisfied with it, he himself provided an improved edition, which we now let follow.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 1st ed. 16, 150-158. 2nd ed. 16, 49-57.]
d) "Sermon on Marital Status, Modified and Corrected. It was also published in Wittenberg in 1519, under the inscription: "Ein Sermon vom ehelichen Stande, verändert und corrigirt durch D. Martin Luther, Augustinian at Wittenberg." It was reprinted in Strasbourg in the same year and in Wittenberg and Augsburg in 1520, as well as several other times. Of the various first editions of this improved sermon, one can find von der Hardt in "Autographa Lutheri," tom. I, p. 87 and 102, and Olearius in the index of the "Autographa Lutheri", p. 4 and 6. This sermon is not only in the German collections of Luther's writings, as, in the Jenaische (Thl. I, p. 172), Wittenbergische (Thl. VI, p. 165), Altenburgische (Thl. I, p. 299) and Leipzigische (Thl. XII, p. 379), but also in the Latin Jenaische (Thl. I, p. 333) and Wittenbergische (Thl. I, p. 90). In the short preface, Luther remembers that he would have preferred that this sermon not be printed. For although he remembers that he preached on such matters, nothing was written out and he therefore thought it would be good to change this sermon and print it himself. In it one finds many good reminders of the marriage state, both how it is to be begun and led, and also of the education of children. But if one or the other questionable thing occurs, as if he still considers the marriage state a sacrament, because it depicts the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ, then one must look at the time when he wrote this, and excuse him justly. In the present printing, the Wittenberg edition of 1519 has been compared.
[Cf. Ed. 1st ed. 16, 158-165.
2nd ed. 16, 57-67.]
e) "Predigt vom Marhestande" (Sermon on Marriage), which Luther preached in Wittenberg in 1525 and which Georg Buchholtzer accompanied with a letter to the duke
Julius zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg in 1560. Joh. Aurifaber placed it in the Eislebische Theile (Thl. I, p. 207) and omitted the above-mentioned attribution. Sagittarius, however, added it again in the Altenburg Collection (Thl. II, p. 865), and in this way it was also printed in the Leipzig Parts (Thl. XII, p. 382) and in this present one. In it, Luther presents the sovereignty of the marriage state and instructs how to enter into it in faith with prayer and the consent of parents; what duties men and women are to observe and how marriage, except in the case of adultery, is inseparable.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 1st ed. 16, 165-189. 2nd ed. 17, 116-140.]