with D. Mart. Luther's refutation and short preface.*)
Before May 12, 1528.
Translated from Latin.
Martin Luther to the godly reader.
1) Recently, one who did not name himself, has scattered some conclusions against the other marriage (digamiam) of the bishops, which are poisonous and almost inflammatory enough, stating that the rabble has the right to raise a common complaint against those who marry for the other time. 1)
(2) Because I realized that this spiteful attack was also directed against me, since I first approved the marriage of the bishops against the celibate state, I considered it good to counter its poison with counter-conclusions, so that it would not confuse the weak consciences and from this little spark, if it were not respected, a new fire would arise.
(3) It is an invention of Satan to make sin where there is none, and to deny righteousness where it is in truth; to this this secret disputer has offered himself as an instrument, so that he makes every effort to put even the authorities in danger, both of their conscience and of their office. He is skillful enough, but one has to wonder that man takes pleasure only in snake bites, that is, secret bites, and does not prefer to argue in public. But it is spitefulness that cannot rest, and yet, because of an evil conscience, does not dare to come out into the open. Read, beloved reader, both conclusions and judge freely about them. The Lord be with you, amen.
1) This refers to the 26th thesis of the next series of theses of the unnamed.
[The Unnamed Thesis.]
These conclusions are to be publicly defended with divine help.
Anno 1528.
(1) Whoever acts contrary to the clear and plain word of God is obviously building for hell.
Now, two-women-ness (bigamia) 2) is obviously forbidden in the word of God for a priest.
3 Thus a bishop or priest who takes the second wife acts against the clear word of God and builds on hell.
4. whoever presumes to distort or pervert the clear and bright words of the holy Scriptures must not be heard, but must be rejected.
5 The words of the apostle to Timothy, that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, are bright and clear.
6. and are explained by the following still more, that a widow must be chosen, who was a man's wife.
Therefore, whoever allows or defends bisexuality in a priest must be rejected and expelled as a falsifier of the Holy Scriptures.
8. the same words that have been uttered in the same case must be understood in the same way.
(9) Whoever, then, understands the words of the apostle to mean that a bishop or priest may not have two wives at the same time and at the same time.
2) In all the theses of this unnamed one, the word bigamia and bigamus is used throughout to give the impression that taking a second wife after the death of the first would be the same sin punishable by secular laws as taking two wives at the same time (bigamy).
*This writing was first published in Wittenberg in 1528 under the title: vo äiAamta opiseoporum propositioQss Martini Lutheri; 8vo. It is also found in the Wittenberg Thesensammlungen of 1538 and 1558. Then in the Latin collective editions: in the Wittenberg (1550), Dom. I, tot. 380; in the Jena one (1579), Dom. I, toi. 495 d; and in the Erlangen, opp. var. ars. Vol. 1 V, p. 360. We have translated according to the Jenaer. The time determination is according to Luther's letter to Link of May 12, 1528, Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2716.
1748 N- V. a. IV, 361-361. 182. concluding Against the other marriage of the priests. W. XIX, 2178-2180. 1749
10 He must also admit, according to the same words of the apostle, that even a woman can have two husbands at the same time and at the same time, if she should not be chosen, which would be completely inconsistent.
(11) No credible scripture can show that the Jews in the apostle's day (except the kings) had two wives at the same time.
There are many testimonies that the Greeks and Gentiles in the apostle's time were satisfied with only one wife.
(13) So the mind of two wives taken at the same time is fictitious, false, and quite contrary to the truth.
(14) One must remain with the general conciliarities and decisions of the fathers, especially the ancient ones, if they are not obviously in conflict with the word of God, but are in agreement with it and promote righteous conduct.
(15) According to the words of the apostle, the decree was made by the reputation of the fathers that no bishop or priest could take a second wife after the death of his first.
16 If he cannot abstain, he is not forbidden to marry a second time, but he must resign from the church.
The Fathers considered this the greatest offense in the Church of God, that a bishop or priest, who has divided his flesh among several, should administer a church office (because Christ is the Bridegroom of One Church).
18 Therefore, it is fitting and proper that whoever is so horny that he cannot abstain from unchaste pleasures and chooses a second marriage should also abandon his priestly office.
19 Although the papists were very greedy and sold everything for money, they never wanted to dispense the worldly two-women (as they are called) against the apostle's teaching for no money.
20. He commits a mortal sin who gives the two-women their sustenance from church funds.
(21) If a bishop or priest has been promised his salary from the church funds even for life, this promise ceases when he falls into the sin of bigamy through his fault, with knowledge and will.
(22) The princes and rulers who allow one who is in the second marriage to administer a church office, against the teaching of the apostle and against the decrees of the ancient fathers, and do not prevent it if they can, commit a mortal sin.
(23) Also, those who knowingly listen to the word of God from the mouth of a two-woman, which is thereby defiled, sin.
(24) The bisexual priests, according to the words of the apostle and the reputation of the fathers, are deprived of all ecclesiastical privileges, and may not be defended by anyone, but must be regarded and held like other laymen.
(25) The two-women who remain in the priesthood commit incest, and their children are to be considered bastards.
26 The complaint against a bisexual is one that is entitled to anyone from the people (popularis), such that such a person can be accused by anyone from the congregation and can be urged by the latter that he be removed from his church service.
(27) Not only the one who takes two virgins is to be considered a two-woman, but also the one who takes a widow or any other weakened woman.
28. Briefly: Whoever prefers his own lusts and what his lasciviousness drives him to, to the words of the apostle and the honorable decrees of the fathers, but does not think that such a one deserves to be deprived of his priestly office and the salary of the church, must not only not be tolerated, but must be led to the gallows (ad corvos abigendus), lest a mangy sheep infect the whole flock and stain such a laudable, good and ancient use by his harmful example.
D. Martin Luther's Sentences on the Second Marriage of Bishops.
Anno 1528.
1. St. Paul commands that such a one be appointed bishop in the church of God who is blameless and leads an irreproachable life.
2. not that any man might live without all sin; but that he should walk without gross sin, or honorably.
3. for the Greek word άνίγχλητος be
means as much as without gross sin no man can accuse.
4 He himself declares this in several places, where he teaches that believers in all classes should walk carefully.
5 This is that they live honorably, so that they do not give opportunity to the adversaries to accuse, blaspheme and revile them.
1750 V. V- L. rv. 36t f. XII. L. 's writings v. marital stan/ priest etc. ÄS. XU. srso-ri83. 1751
(6) Thus Samuel and Moses testified before the people that they were blameless, boasting that they had not taken an ox or an ass from anyone, nor had they slandered anyone.
7 Therefore it is evident that Paul is speaking of such gross sins, which are also offensive in the sight of the world.
(8) He himself is an example of this, namely, if he does not rule his house well, if he does not discipline his children, if he is a winebibber, puffed up, stingy, cruel, etc.
(9) As great a sin as it is not to discipline one's children and not to take care of one's own house, it is just as great, or even greater, that he should be forbidden to have more than one wife.
10 This cannot be understood in any other way than that he does not transgress the boundaries of an honest marriage and an immaculate marriage bed.
(11) But be content with one, and that with his own wife, lest he either profane virgins, or have dealings with strange wives, or commit fornication with any.
For in order for him to be able to take evil pleasure in other counts, he himself must first be pure of it.
(13) And in order that he may preach praiseworthy chastity with profit, he himself must be chaste above all things.
14 For it is not credible that, since Paul requires so many gifts from a bishop, he would have passed over chastity alone.
15 Therefore, there is no doubt that the apostle insists on chastity by demanding that a bishop be the husband of one wife, but he did not mean to set up a new rope and impulse of a dangerous outward statute.
(16) He understands, of course, that chastity which is the most secure and which can be kept without that special gift, namely, conjugal chastity.
(17) For since all the other gifts are spiritual, and none is a mere statute, it is very true that even chastity is not merely ceremonial, that is, a ceremonial gift.
such that someone marries only once (mo- nog amicam).
18That therefore "one wife's husband" is as much as what Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:2, "Let every man have his own wife."
(19) What he calls there "his own wife," he calls here "one wife," and he does not want to defile different or strange wives.
20 He also commands that the deacons be one wife's husband, that is, that each one live chastely with his one wife.
(21) How inconsistent it would otherwise appear if Paul were to be regarded as having decreed that many deacons should be men of one wife, as of one common whore.
22 For Paul understands by these two words: of a woman, nothing other than what we express in Latin simply by the word uxor.
23 For the Greek word is actually not only uxor, but also mulier in general; like "Weib" in German.
24 If he had said there that a bishop must be the husband of a woman (mulieris), it could not have been understood by a wife, and he would have given the adversary the opportunity for sophistry.
25 Therefore, in order that he might properly designate a husband, he preferred to say with a kind of circumlocution: "A wife's husband.
26 For the use of the Scriptures also brings it about that the adulterers and fornicators are called the husbands of wives. Thus Christ says John 4:18: "Whom thou hast therefore is not thy husband."
27 In this way, the apostle, by speaking of a woman, affirms the Christian freedom of the bishops to marry; but even more, with this word, he forbids the lewd licentiousness of horny airs.
28. for he has been diligent to forestall the diabolical teachings of those who would forbid the bishops to become conjugal.
29 Therefore it pleased the Holy Spirit rather to say, "He shall be the husband of one wife," than: He shall not be an adulterer, a fornicator or an unchaste man.
1752 L. v. L.iv,sss-W7. 182. conclusions against the other marriage of priests. W. xix, 2133-2186. 1753
(30) Paul, who otherwise liked to use compound words, could also have used the word monogamus here if he had wanted to condemn those who marry a second time.
31 Namely, he uses monogamus and dM other words of the kind; but he abstains from the word monogamus and rather wants to put for it: "A woman's husband",
The first is that the first is the first, the second is the first, the third is the third, and the third is the third, the third is the third.
For the little word "one" is necessarily not to be taken both affirmatively and negatively.
For if it were an affirmative commandment, a bishop should never remain single, but should necessarily always be a wife's husband.
35 And as often as a wife departs with death, he must continue to marry without end (polygamus) and take another, so that he as bishop would not ever not be "a wife's husband," contrary to Paul's saying.
For as he should at all times be temperate, sober, sedentary, etc. so he should be constantly a woman's husband according to this same set of virtues.
37 If a woman died, he would be a bishop, but not a woman's husband, which is what Paul is said to command.
Now it would be a ridiculous thing for a bishop to be called by a dead woman, that is, by one who is not a wife. A woman's husband should be named and he should be commanded to be a woman's husband.
39. one could just as easily call a bishop of a dead adulteress or a dead robber or a dead impious 1) an adulterer, miser and impious man.
1) Latin: spiseopum esse ackultsrum, avarum [1 irnpiuW, n ästuveta ackultsra, rnpinn, st impietats. These words seem to us to admit only the translation we have given. The expression is, however, bold, but has its anologon in the next following thesis, where Luther speaks of the "dead circumcision" and the "dead idols".
(40) Nor could one call anyone less of the long-dead circumcision and idolatry a Jew or a Gentile.
41 Therefore the apostle speaks of a woman who is still alive and who is with the man, because a dead woman is no more a wife than stone or wood,
42 And Paul uses to speak of a dead woman's husband in such a way that he is free and free from the woman, Rom. 7, 2. 1 Cor. 7, 39, which also brings the matter itself.
43 Paul does not say that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, but says, "He should be the husband of one wife.
44 Thus it is clear that Paul's words are more negative, and are not meant to prevent the second marriage, but the dissolute evil lusts.
(45) If one deduces something else from these words, one must necessarily force out a violent, doubtful mind that is not sure to base the conscience on it. If one deduces something else from these words, then one must necessarily force out a violent, doubtful mind, which is not sure that one is basing one's conscience on it.
46) But that this is wrong is also proved by this one word ανέγκλητος, that is,
blameless (inaccusabilis).
47 Therefore, this word necessarily forbids a gross offense, which causes offense to the pagans and gives an evil appearance to them.
(48) Now it has never happened or been heard that those who live in second marriages were considered by the Gentiles to be reproached, and not rather to be highly honored.
At the same time, it is known that the second marriage is a divine work, which is approved by Paul and is included in the blessing of God, Genesis 1:28.
But if it is a nuisance, it is a nuisance only to the godless papists, to whom all the words and works of God are nothing but a nuisance.
51) This is the example of Paul himself, who counts himself among the widowers, when he says in 1 Cor. 7:7, "He wanted them all to remain like him.
52] And yet he attaches to himself and to Barnabas the power to make a sister the
1754 L. V. L. IV. 367f. XII. L.'s writings on the marital status of priests etc. W. XIX. 2186-2188. 1755
to lead a woman around, following the example of the other apostles.
53. which power he would have boasted in vain and which would be nothing if the second marriage prevented him from being an apostle or bishop.
54 Even Jerome, although otherwise almost an enemy of the second marriage, defends the bishop in Spain who had lived in a second marriage.
55 And concludes quite rightly so: If a fornicator, as a man of many fornicators, can become a bishop, the much better man, who lives with a female in second marriage, will not be excluded.
The contrary opinion of St. Augustine, according to which he says that a bishop must present Christ as the bridegroom of a community, is not very significant, although it has been almost universally accepted.
In this way, every husband would not have to marry more than once, because the whole marriage state is an image of Christ and His church, according to Ephesians 6.
(58) Yes, a bishop should receive his wife as a virgin, so that he would be like Christ, the bridegroom of the virgin church.
(59) So also he had to give a bill of divorcement to some former wife, just as Christ gave a bill of divorcement to the synagogue.
(60) If then his wife had died, -in what way would a bishop who has no wife be like Christ, the [trusted] man of the church?
(61) Therefore, if the image of Christ and His church must be presented, it is sufficiently presented, in the case of a wife, even by one who is in the second and third marriage.
62 For it is said, but not admitted, that among the Gentiles polygamy (pluralitatem uxorum), which is based on the Mosaic Law, is considered a crime and an annoying thing;
(63) So that among the Gentiles, who are free from the Law of Moses, a bishop must be a woman's husband for the sake of offense:
64 It is not certain that a bishop among the Jews would be bound by this decree.
For the Mosaic laws concerning the wife of the deceased brother and the daughter defiled against her father's will, which impose the necessity that one must be the husband of several wives, are well enough known.
These are no more abolished than any other, that is, they are free, neither forbidden nor commanded.
(67) Unless it be said that lawful polygamy is forbidden, which arises from divorce, which has also been revoked and rejected by Christ.
Otherwise, such a bishop would say that no polygamy is forbidden except that which is not enforced by law or generally established by usage, but which is sought out for pleasure.
(69) But that the fathers understood by one wife only one marriage is the same as that by five pounds they understood the five senses, and by a hundredfold fruit virginity,
70 Because faith does not suffer the Gentiles to have the pound of Christ and the fruits of the gospel, which also have the five senses and virginity.
However, they must be excused for having gone too far on this side out of love for chastity, fearing to go astray into pleasure,
(72) Because it seemed to them unworthy that that which they saw was somewhat accomplished among some of the Gentiles should not be found in more excellent condition among the believers.
But what is said of a woman's husband must also be understood of a widow who has been a man's wife,
74. that such a widow must be an honorable woman, who, content with her own and one husband, has not become involved with adulterers and fornicators.
75 Or, if you want him to speak of the Jews among the Gentiles, understand it of divorced women and other women, whom the Mosaic Law requires to be taken care of, so that the Gentiles will not be offended.
76. for it is shameful that the church should be
should feed an allermanus woman (as they say), or that she should put a bishop, who is the husband of all women, into a church office.
Accordingly, those who think that the second marriage is here rejected by Paul to the bishops are mistaken.
(78) Also, those who consider the second marriage a sin are guilty of blasphemy both against the work of God and against the saying of Paul.
79) Even more abominable are those who teach that Paul forbids a bishop to take an honest widow as his wife.
(80) Yes, if they make a fornicator a bishop, I do not see why they do not want a fornicator, who, having repented, has become a true member of Christ, to become a bishop's wife.
I, for my part, would not even forbid a bishop a desecrated woman if she had been desecrated by force or by trickery, but afterwards had led an honorable life.
But how much more unjustly do the papists proceed, as a cesspool and a basic soup of all lecherous lusts, that they even reject one who has ignorantly married a weakened virgin,
Since they accept a man, no matter how many whores he keeps, and even defend a public fornicator in office.
It is a manifest effect of Satan that, since they hold all other gifts of bishops in low esteem, they tyrannically insist on the snare of chastity alone.
And this is the glory of the adversary, that the papists, though they are very stingy, have never wanted to dispense money to the one who marries for another time.
In this there would be as much honor, or rather shame, if you said: Although the papists surpass Sodom and Rome in lustful pleasure, they never consent even to the chaste single marriage (monogamiam) of a bishop;
87) And Phalaris, 1) although he had an abhorrence of all virtue and respectability.
1) A cruel tyrant at Agrigento.
Nevertheless, he never let himself be moved to indulge the wretched people in their torture.
As if it were not the most shameful, shameless act to make teachings for the community of God out of the most shameful customs of godless people.
It would be just as wise if, in order to teach a virgin, you were to take rules of life and examples from a whore and a harlot.
90. Or would you exhort a young man to virtue and honor by the example of Absalom and Nero?
From this it is certain that the author of these conclusions was not moved to make them by love of the truth, but that he was inflamed with great hatred against the gospel.
(92) But even those who stubbornly claim that a bishop is forbidden to marry a second time are ungodly in their arguments against Christ and Paul.
For Christ also says to the apostles themselves without distinction of persons: "Whoever can grasp it, let him grasp it", likewise: "Not everyone can grasp this word" [Matth. 19, 12. 11.].
(94) But let him be accursed who falsifies the words of Christ by adding the distinction of persons, which he himself would have spoken and understood without distinction of persons.
95 Paul also commands in 1 Cor. 7:2 that everyone should be content with his wife, but does not exclude the person of a bishop or any other.
96 And that it was better to be free than to be in heat, he advised all who were at Corinth (as the inscription teaches).
97. and will not throw a rope on anyone to put his conscience in danger, but only indicate what is honorable and useful.
(98) Indeed, since Paul publicly asserts to Timothy that those who forbid marrying are devilish teachers, it is certain that the second marriage is free and permitted to a bishop.
Finally, this word, "Be fruitful and multiply," is created and imposed by necessity on all people in general.
L.A.L.IV, 370-372. XII. L.'s writings v. marital status of priests etc. W. XIX, 2191-2194. 1759
100. No one may command or live contrary to this, unless he receives another, more certain word, work, or gift from God.
For just as no one is permitted to kill himself or to cut himself with his own hand, so no one is permitted to destroy his generation (without God's will) or to hinder its performance.
Since there is no promise from God that the bishops are exempt from this general saying, the bishops are not to be considered as the bishops of God:
Thus it is obvious that the bishops cannot be forced by any statute into any kind of celibate state, except by devilish teachers and adversaries of God.
When the papists condemn those who cut themselves on their bodies as unworthy of the office and the bishopric, they are not to be considered as the "papists",
How much more should they reject those who, against their sex (that is, against God's will), presume to live without a wife!
106. rather, in the register of Paul, one should have seen to it that one would make a righteous and godly selection among the gifts of the bishops themselves [1 Tim. 3, 2. ff. Tit. 1, 6. ff.],
107. so that those gifts which most promote the benefit of the Church may be preferred to those which are special and personal.
(108) For it is most inequitable and wrong to prefer the special to the common benefit, and to wreck the common welfare for the sake of a personal cause;
109) How it happens when a bishop, who is wholesome in doctrine and powerful in word before others, is expelled from office because of his private marriage,
(110) And another, who is not so fit for the ministry of the word, because of his private celibate state, is set as a stone in the same place:
That he be compelled, for the sake of his innocent private business, to forsake the word and the salvation of souls, and to serve at table,
112 Yes, against the Lord, to destruction
of souls to bury his pound entrusted to him in the earth,
But this lump, for chastity's sake alone, is a mockery to Satan and a disgrace to the church, sitting like an idol on the bishop's chair.
How much better it would be if the learned and wholesome man, who may be in his second or third marriage, were elevated to the episcopal office even from the midst of the rabble,
The celibate, however, with his useless chastity, would be pushed down into the midst of the rabble.
(116) Care must be taken lest he who is sent to advance the kingdom of heaven by teaching be compelled to look behind him against Christ and bury the dead.
Therefore, one must rather look at the received pound and at the handling of the word, as a common and necessary good,
The first is the marriage to a woman (monogamiae) and celibacy, which is only a private and not a necessary good.
(119) Therefore, if the bishops must be deprived of their office by the papists, it should rather be the annoyance of their ignorance and unlearnedness, than that of marriage, that should deprive them of their office.
And if one had to tolerate the annoyance of both, the annoyance of the second marriage would be much more bearable than that of unlearning.
It is also a cruel and ungodly thing that a bishop, through no fault of his own, should be deprived of the counsel and means given by Paul, and after the death of his wife either remain celibate or resign his office.
Now a bishop who has taken a wife for fear of evil lusts and who dies again two or three years later cannot use Paul's means and advice.
In truth, Paul does not seem to have given advice (since the death of a woman is uncertain), but to have made a mockery, not to have set up the marriage state as a means, but a certain danger and snare.
124. for it would be safer, not at all
WßO L. V. L. IV, 372 f. 182. Conclusions Against the Other Marriage of Priests. W. XIX, 2194-2196. 1761
Bishop, or not to avail himself of Paul's counsel, than to be in so great danger either of evil desire, or of losing his office.
Just as in the early church it was considered praiseworthy to exalt virginity and celibacy against the untamed freedom of Jewish marriage and pagan fornication:
It is now praiseworthy to raise the married state against the celibate state of the derivative church, that is, against the whorehouse of the papal abomination.
Because nowadays the celibate state is almost an empty word without the deed, namely, because it becomes a most harmful example,
Thus, even those who are not in great heat would be right to help the cause of marriage by their example, to condemn that [harmful example].
For since Daniel and Paul foretold of the Antichrist that he would be an enemy of the married state, an author of evil desire and of all sin:
It is therefore advisable and good that one be set free from this most impure realm of lust through some kind of marriage.
It is more holy to live in the third or even in the sixth marriage than to perish in this public and unpunished abominable collection of all pleasures.
132 And even if one who lives in the second marriage, in fact, incurs a debt.
If he had been deposed, he could not rightly have been deposed if the papists, who are much more guilty, had not first been eradicated from the bottom of the earth with their highly impure celibate state.
Otherwise, the tolerable people who live in second marriages would be punished and the intolerable fornicators in the priesthood would be allowed to go free.
Therefore, our adversary should have first become aware of the beam in his own before pretending that a splinter would be found in our eyes,
135) So that he would not make himself the patron and participant of all the abominations of the papists, by attaching a stain of shame to innocent people with fictitious sin.
And what need is there of many words? According to the usage of no nation or language, one is called a two-wife (digamus) who has married several wives in succession or who has married a widow,
137) But according to the nature of the word, only the one who has had several wives at the same time is called digamus.
138. such was Lamech, Gen. 4, 19. also Abraham and Jacob, who are not only called priests, but also prophets of Christ and God.
So it is a mere quarrel of words and a godless empty talk of the papists that a digamus, with reversal of the word, is called the one who lives in marriage either with a second wife, or a widow, or with a weakened woman.
On digamy, compare Luther's Table Talks, Cap. 43, § 48. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1150.
This also includes D. Martin Luther's preface to Lic. Steph. Klingenbeil's booklet on priestly marriage. Anno 1528.
Walch, old edition, vol. XIV 252.