In particular, I must remember the immediately following writing, which is Luther's "Answer to Landgrave Philip of Hesse about his bigamy. This is the concern that has aroused many vexatious and adverse slander against Luther. It was not only written by him, but also by Philipp Melanchthon, who also wrote this answer. The Landgrave of Hesse, called Philip the Magnanimous, had become so fond of a noblewoman, Margarethe von der Sahl, when he saw her among the ladies of his wife's sister, Duchess Elisabeth, at Rochlitz, that he decided to have her married to him.
However, since he was already married and his conscience was bothering him, he did not want to go right away, but sent Martin Bucer to Wittenberg to discuss this matter with Luther and Melanchthon. Not only did he receive a letter, but he was also instructed at the same time to verbally state the most important causes that the landgrave thought he had and to open them under the seal of confession. There is still a letter of the landgrave to Luther, which was written almost eight months later and in which these words are written: "I confess that I loved the lady Margareth (namely even before the marriage), but in honor, and because I was able to obtain her for marriage, I have had her rather than all others. If I had not had her, I would certainly have looked for another. I hope that God has discovered to you what is troubling us; but if you are not yet satisfied, I will come to you and your gracious Lord and tell you things in confession that you will be satisfied with me; but they would be truly evil, God have mercy. If I speak falsehood, God punish me, I also have proof." With this, it seems, he wanted to indicate how he had such important causes that they would be sufficient for a divorce. After Luther and Melanchthon had understood the landgrave's intention and his reasons, and had given it some thought, they drew up their answer or objections on December 10, 1539, and in it they initially presented everything by which, in their opinion, the landgrave could be dissuaded from his mind, and although they thought that in some cases a dispensation had taken place in the divine order of marriage, they nevertheless showed what a great annoyance would arise against him and the Protestant Church if one wanted to dispense here. But because they heard from Bucer that the landgrave firmly insisted on it and believed that he could not advise his conscience and eternal salvation otherwise, nor avoid adultery, they added that if he decided to take another wife, it should be done secretly, so that only a few would have knowledge of it, to whom he had discovered his mind in confession. On such
In this way, there were no particular objections or arousal; for it was not unusual for princes to keep concubines etc. This is just the concern that occurs here. It should be noted, however, that in the parts of Luther's writings in which it appears, as in the Altenburgische (Thl. VIII, p. 977) and Leipzigische Theilen (Thl. XXII, p. 569), it was not printed in its entirety, but the last part was omitted, since the Landgrave's intentions were recognized as permissible. It came to light in full, among other things, when Laurentius Beger, under the name Daphnäus Arcuarius, published a treatise on marriage matters in 1679 and added the documents of this matter. Seckendorf remarks in "Historia Lu- theranismi", lib. HI, § 79, p- 277, that this was done by order of the Elector of the Palatinate, Carl Ludwig, and that Landgrave Ernst of Hesse had given the documents from the Hessian archives. Among others, this concern is also found in its entirety, in Latin, in Hieronymus Brückner's "Decisiones juris matrimonialis con- trovers.", p. 402. A French translation is also available.
[Walch, too, has brought only the first part of this thought according to the Altenburg and Leipzig editions; in this edition, however, the text has been corrected and the second part added according to the original of the Hessian archive mentioned here, as it was given by De Wette and from which Walch's text deviates substantially. D. Red.]
§ XXXIV.
This concern has aroused many adverse and detrimental judgments against Luther, as I have already reminded. The papists have not only narrated the matter itself with all kinds of unfounded circumstances, as if the Landgrave had therefore ordered a meeting of the theologians at Wittenberg, all the famous Saxon theologians had signed the resolution passed at that time, and the Landgrave had been favored merely for political reasons, so that he would not take the side of the Emperor and the Pope, but also sought an opportunity to attack Luther and the entire Protestant movement.
The first thing that happened was that some people started to accuse the Church of something and to increase its slander. This has always been done from the time the matter became known, and what some have started here, others have done under the French scribes Anton Varillas in ,,,,Histoire des heres.", lib. XII, p. 87, Jac. Benignus Bossuet in ,,Histoire des variatioris des eglises protestantes", lib. VI, tom. I, p. 226, together with several others. Those who took it upon themselves to speak out in favor of polygamy and to defend it as something permissible, thought that Luther agreed with them in their cause, and therefore invoked his applause. This has happened, among others, in the so-called Theophilus Alethet "Polygamia triumphatrix, id est, discursus politicus de polygamia", p. 550, who also cites other passages from Luther's writings beforehand and thus wants to prove as if he had considered polygamy permissible. Thomasius, in the Disputation de concubinatu, which came out in 1713, § 30, also refers to this concern as a proof that neither Luther nor the Wittenberg theologians at the beginning of the Reformation considered all celibate marriages to be a shameful and annoying state. However, since it is not other people's judgments that matter, but the matter itself, the nature of the matter is such that what Luther and Melanchthon did cannot be praised and approved, but must nevertheless be excused by reason of fairness. The error that occurred did not come from a wrong will, but from an incorrect and inadequate knowledge. They thought that in the divine law that only one man and one woman should live together in marriage, in some cases there was a dispensation, and were led to such a conceit especially by the examples of the patriarchs, without making a distinction, as should have been fair, between dispensation and tolerance. They thought that the circumstances of the landgrave, which had been discovered to them by way of confession, were such that they could be counted among the cases where a dispensation had taken place, and thus concluded that the landgrave could still take a wife.
If, however, there were to be a great deal of trouble, they demanded that the matter be kept secret in order to prevent it. That was the context of their thinking. And it is clear from this that Luther did not approve of polygamy per se. Whoever wanted to draw such a conclusion would certainly do him the greatest injustice. This does not flow from the objection itself, and there is no lack of reasons to prove the opposite. When one who hid under the name of Huldreich Neobulus was so impudent that he published a book under the title: Bigamia, oder ein freundliches Gespräch von zwiefacher Ehe" (Bigamia, or a friendly talk about twofold marriage) in quarto in 1541 and wanted to defend marriage with two persons at the same time, Luther heartily contradicted him. The papists especially have no reason to dwell on this. They know well that some of the great papal lords, especially in France, did exactly what the Landgrave of Hesse did, that their theologians and teachers also approved of such marriages and went much further in them than Luther; that at the Roman court one can easily obtain dispensation for money in cases that are obviously against divine law. In the meantime, it is readily admitted that it would have been better if Luther had not consented to the landgrave's action at all. Seckendorf gives more information about this matter in ,,Historia Lutheranismi", lib.III, § 79, p. 277 sqq., and at the same time indicates what serves as Luther's excuse. Among other things, he notes that he said that if the matter should become known, he would publicly confess that he had erred and been mistaken, and ask for mercy. At the same time, one can read: Johann Friedr. Mayer in the program: Utrum Lutherus Philippo HassiaeLandgravio bigamiam concesserit", 1702, Joachim Weickmann in der wider Samuel Friedr. Willenberg edirten "Apologia", part. II, p. 390, Jakob Basnage in ,,Histoire de la relig. des eglises rbform6es", tom. III, p. 95, and what is written in the "Bibliotheque germanique", tom. ΙΠ, p. 88 sqq.
[Cf. Erl. De W. V, 236-247. - Incidentally, we cannot agree with Walch's judgment just stated. With the distinction of "dis-
pensation" and "tolerance" nothing is gained here. The counsel of conscience which Luther gave to the landgrave, and which he wanted to be kept secret, rests on the premise that double marriage, though against the original order of the Creator and against the general custom of the land, does not violate the law of Moses. "And what is permitted in the law of Moses is not withdrawn or forbidden by the gospel." Luther would never have dispensed with a clearly expressed, positive commandment of God in any case. The newer theologians are hypocritical when they point with their fingers to this supposed "black spot" in Luther's life and dispense today's princes, counts, nobles from their open fornication and immorality by silence.
D. Red.]
§ XXXV.
After this little digression I come back to the point and continue in the enumeration of those writings which concern the marriage state, namely all kinds of unnamed cases belonging to it. There is to be mentioned first
a) Luther's writing "Von Ehesachen", which was first published under the title: "Von Ehesachen, Mart. Luther", printed in Wittenberg by Hans Lufft, came to light in 1530 in quarto, in the same year in Marburg in octavo (cf. Olearius' Verzeichniß der ,,Autographa Lutheri", p. 32) and subsequently reprinted several times with some additions. Then in Wittenberg, in 1540, it was published twice in quarto, together with Bugenhagen's "Vom Ehebruch und Weglaufen" (On Adultery and Running Away) and Melanchthon's "De arbore consanguinitatis et adfinitatis" (i.e. On the Family Tree of Kinship and Weakness) (cf. von der Hardt's "Autographa Luth."I, p. 389) and was also printed with Bugenhagen's addition under the inscription: "Von Ehesachen, Dr. Martin Luth. Item vom Ehebruch und weglaufen, Dr. Johann Bugenhagen Pommer, an Königliche Majestät zu Dänemark", at Wittenberg 1592 in quarto. In addition to these and other special prints, there are also those that can be found in the German collections of Luther's writings, as, in the Jenaische (Thl. V,
p. 238), Wittenbergischen (Thl. VI, p. 257), Altenburgischen (Thl. V, p. 371), Leipzigischen (Thl. XXII, p. 439) and now in this collection. One has used the first edition and overlooked the copy after it. In the scripture itself, Luther deals with betrothal and divorce. In regard to the latter, he shows that a secret betrothal must give way to a public one, and among two public ones, the former must take precedence over the latter; [if, however, carnal intermarriage has taken place in the secret betrothal, but not in the public one, then the public one must give way to the secret one. Furthermore,] whoever touches another after a public betrothal in order to be able to marry her with it and to annul the first betrothal, is to be regarded as an adulterer; to which he adds that forced betrothals should have no validity.
[The Erlangen edition, vol. 23, 91-154, mentions two editions of this writing from 1530 and three from 1540. It has used the second from 1540. D. Red.]
b) "Defense of a Marital Union with Sister Daughter," dated January 5, 1526.
c) "Concerns about a marriage case to Johann Weißbach," dated August 23, 1527.
d) "Bedenken, weß man sich in der Ehesache gegen den jungen H. und seinen Vater hatten", 1528.
e) "Letter to Joseph Levin Metzsch, concerning a marriage in the third generation", that such is not forbidden by God, of April 9, 1528. These four letters and concerns are found in the Eislebische Theilen (Thl. I, p. 415 f. and p.270), Altenburgische (Thl. Ill, p. 515. 893. 913) and Leipzigische (Thl. VIII, p. 970, and XXII, p. 434 and 437).
[Cf. Erl. Eds. 53,364-367. 53,466. 64, 285. 286. 53, 443. 444. De W. Ill, 83-85. Ill, 188. Ill, 300. 301.]
f) "Antwort und Bericht auf eine Ehesache," 1528. Such a report is found in the following German collections, as, in the Jenaische (Thl. IV, p. 425), Wittenbergische (Thl. IX, p. 284), Altenburgische (Thl. IV,
p. 456) and Leipzig (Thl. XXII, p. 439).
[Cf. Erl. ed. 64, 286-288.]
g) "Letter to Elector John Frederick of Saxony for Mitigation of a Severe Legal Sentence," October 17, 1532.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 54, 333. 334. De W. IV, 408.]
h) "Letter to Count Albrecht zu Mansfeld in Matrimonial Matters", dated October 2, 1536. Both letters to the Elector and Count are included in the Eislebische Theilen (Thl. II, p. 315. 368), the Altenburgische (Thl. V, p. 1030, VI, p. 1060) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 465. 467).
Dergl. Ed. 55, 147. 148. De W. V, 25. 26.]
i) "Advice and Concerns to a Pious Man, How He Should Behave Toward His Slept-In Bride," January 27, 1538, in which he advised that if she wanted to show herself righteous in the future, she should not be disowned but shown mercy. See the Jenaische Theile (Thl. VI, p. 570), the Wittenbergische (Thl. XII, p. 205), the Altenburgische (Thl. VI, p. 1250) and the Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 468).
[Cf. Erl. ed. 55, 198. 199. De W. V, 98. 99.]
k) "Letter to Gabriel Zwilling, pastor at Torgau, in a matrimonial matter," April 29, 1534.
Dergl. Ed. 55.46. De W. IV, 533.)
I) "Letter of Comfort to Prince Wolf von Anhalt", August 9, 1545, because of a coincidence that had affected the Prince's wife. This letter and the one immediately preceding it are taken from the "Supplement der Leipzigischen Sammlung," pp. 73 and 110.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 56, 141. 142. De W. V, 755. 756.]
m) "Letter to one of the nobility concerning the engagement of his son", dated July 5, 1531. This letter is found in the Eislebische Sammlung (Thl. II, p. 500), Altenburgische (Thl. V, p. 590) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 465).
[Cf. Erl. ed. 54, 239. 240. De W. IV, 272. 273.]
§ XXXVI.
In regard to the seventh commandment, five writings of the blessed Luther are found together here, which deal with usury, interest purchase, and the act of sale.
The first of these is "The Great Sermon on Usury," which first came to light in Quarto in 1519 to counter the usurious contracts introduced by some Saxon jurists. Luther shows great zeal in it and shows that he already had a deep insight into morality at that time. Among other things, he not only rejects the papal doctrine of the so-called evangelical counsels, which included lending without legally reclaiming what had been borrowed, and considers them to be divine laws; He also shows how one should behave with regard to temporal goods and how one should take care of one's poor neighbor in such a way that one does not have to think that one should not help him sooner than in the case of extreme need, whereby he also complains about the stinginess of the clergy, which they show in their usury.
The other writing belonging here is "the little sermon on usury", which also appeared in 1519 in quarto in Wittenberg and Leipzig, and which contains exactly what the previous one contains, but very briefly. Both are in the Jena (Thl. I, p. 191. 202), Wittenberg (Thl. VI, p. 308 and 298), Altenburg (Thl. I, p. 316. 328) and Leipzig (Thl. XXII. p. 151. 164) parts. Dr. Löscher's "Vollständige Reformation-Acten", Vol. Ill, p. 949 should also be consulted. Here one finds them printed after such a copy, which was held against the first edition and overlooked.
Dergl. ed. ed., 1st ed. 20, 89-127.)
Thirdly, there follows an "Admonition to pastors to preach against usury," which is entitled: "An die Pfarrherren, wider den Wucher zu predigen, Vermahnung. D. Mart. Luther" was printed in quarto in Wittenberg in 1540 and reissued there in the same year. There are these editions in von der Hardt's "Autographa Lutheri44 , tom. I, p. 388, and Olearius' Verzeichniß der "Autographa Luth.", p. 41. According to-
It is often found in the German collections of Luther's writings, such as the Jenaische (Thl. VII, p. 396), Wittenbergische (Thl. VI, p. 306), Altenburgische (Thl. VII, p. 401) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 167). This writing is also found in Latin in the Wittenbergische Theilen (Thl. VII, p. 417). In the present collection it is printed after the original copy. In it, Luther recalls that he had written against usury before, but that this vice had subsequently become so rampant that no improvement could be hoped for. But the pastors must not cease to preach against it. All those who took five, six or more of the hundred thalers lent [Luther says: that "all those who lend something and take something above it or - which is as much - something better in return"] would be usurers and could not be saved if they did not do true penance. In the pulpits, preachers should diligently practice the words of Christ: "Lend, if you hope for nothing," Luc. 6:34, although it is to be feared that no one would lend anything more to another. [The preachers should not let themselves be misled by any objections, but should stick to the text and say: "Let no one lend, or let someone lend, or let anyone lend, so it says: whoever lends and takes something in return is a usurer. Do not leave this text if a hundred thousand objections come. One should not take on loan anything more or better (than what was borrowed)." And further on he exhorts the preachers again: "That we confidently rebuke and condemn usury in the pulpit, saying the text, as said above, diligently and aridly, namely: He who lends and takes above or better is a usurer and condemned like a thief, robber and murderer."] Should the creditor suffer any damage from his loan, the debtor must compensate him cheaply. The priests must not only be zealous against all usurers, large and small, but also deny them communion. With regard to widows and orphans, Luther adds that if they could not otherwise support themselves, they should be allowed to take an interest in such an emergency. Seckendorf states more extensively in "Historia Lutheranismi",
lib. Ill, § 83, p. 310, presents the content of this writing.
(Cf. Erl. ed. 23, 282-338.)
After this writing, a "Concern about the purchase of interest" appears, which Luther wrote to the Electoral Chancellor Gregor Brück in 1523. In it, he argued that the purchase of interest, especially as it had been practiced until then, was usurious and should therefore be abolished; however, he did not yet see how this could be done. The opportunity for this was given by Dr. Jakob Strauß, who also considered interest to be absolutely unjust and published his own paper on this in 1523, which I have already mentioned above and talked about the matter itself. Luther probably means such a writing when he says in the beginning of this reflection: "We have read over Dr. Strauss' booklet", and hereupon he suspends his opinion of interest, that he goes too far in it. (Luther says that the error of Strauß' writing is not that he condemns the purchase of interest as usury, but that he does not sufficiently show and justify the usurious nature of the purchase of interest; "for this reason the book would not stand the test if it were to be challenged by the opponents; although it makes a good mouth for the common man with lofty words"). This objection is found in the Jena (Thl. II, p. 275), Wittenberg (Thl. IX, p. 178), Altenburg (Thl. II, p. 365) and Leipzig (Thl. XXII, p. 305) parts.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 53, 219. 220.]
To this is immediately appended, as the fifth writing belonging here, the concern "Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher" ("On Merchandising and Usury"), in which many beautiful and useful reminders occur, which concern merchants, and instruct how one should conduct trade and commerce according to the rules of Christianity. [In the first part, he condemns bailment and establishes four rules of Christian conduct. "The first is that one should let take and rob our goods. ... The other is to give freely to anyone who needs it. ... The third is to lend or borrow, that I may give my goods and take them again if they are brought back to me, and to spare them if they are not brought back. For he who thus lends, that he may take it back better or more, the
is a public and damned usurer; since those also do not yet act Christianly, who thus borrow, that they again demand or hope for the same, and do not freely venture whether it will return or not. ... The fourth is to buy and sell, and that with cash money, or pay goods with goods." Then he goes on to show in detail "the swift, wicked grips and fraudulent finances that go to rack and ruin among merchants"; and in conclusion still points to the societies as to common harmful "vain right monopolies", "which also the secular heathen rights forbid as a publicly harmful thing of all the world/Z It came thatelbige under the title: "Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher. Martin Luther", at Wittenberg 1524 in quarto, and was not only published there in the same year (see von der Hardt's "AutographaLuth.", tom. I, p. 176, and Olearius' Verzeichniß der, "Autographa Luth.", p. 20), but also subsequently reprinted, and brought into the collections of Luther's writings, as into the Jenaische (Thl. II, p. 470), Wittenbergische (Thl. VI, p. 300), Altenburgische (Thl. II, p. 817) and Leipzigische (Thl. XXII, p. 306). The first edition mentioned immediately before was consulted for the imprint in this part.
[Cf. Erl. ed. 22, 199-226.]