In defense of the double marriage of Landgrave Philip of Hesse, a Hessian preacher, Johann Leimig, pastor at Melsingen, had a "Dialogus" (the full title of this book is given in No. 2712) written under the pseudonym Huldrichus Neobulus on March 27, 1541, which Luther intended to answer with this writing, but which he did not complete.
The original (according to the librarian H. Lindner) is in the Dessauer Gesammtarchiv with the inscription: "Antwort D. M. 4,. auf das Buch Nebulonis." Handwritten in Cod. 436 of the Heidelberg library, with the addition: "but has not even been finished". Printed by Walch, vol. XXI, 1577, without indication of source, with the superscription: "Luthers Schrift wider die Bigamie." Cf. De Wette-Seidemann, vol. VI, p. 294 f. We give the text according to Walch.
I had resolved to despise the disgraceful booklet Nebulonis 2) Tulrichi, and let it be answered with silence, as I have done to many other evil, poisonous books, as Schunds, Rotzleffels, 3) Wizels 2c., which have all at once perished without my answer, which perhaps, if I had spent the time, effort and thought on them, would not have disappeared so shamefully. But because many of our people leave me no peace, and shower me with letters, as if by my silence the fool's writing would gain a reputation, I must do something and let myself be heard a little, at least what my opinion is in this, as I also answered those evil books in a few words. For it would always be a pity to answer all useless chatter of the loose fool, both for the time and the effort, moreover, since I thought that such loose arguments or reasons can easily be overturned by others who are more idle, because the fool, the master of the book, himself wants, feels and sufficiently gives to understand that he does not consider certain truth or right, what he
1) For this timing, compare Luther's letter to Justus Menius of January 10, 1542. Printing was interrupted by the Elector on January 31, 1542,
2) nebulo == knave, rogue.
3) "Rotzleffels" is our conjecture for "Rockfels". This is how Luther calls the Cochläus (cooking spoon) in the writing "Von den Conciliis und Kirchen", St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVI, 2276, § 256.
and probably worried that a woman might answer more than enough.
That this is so, notice that: First, where the Nebulo is certain of the things, and would know them as right and for right to publicly represent or answer for, he would not have shied away from the light, but would have given his right name freely to the day. But if he is a child of darkness and a blind sneak under a false name, and wants to be no one who tempts the mob with dangerous speeches and loose reasons, whether it is right or not, that he has a quandary and wants to say: Yes, No, according to which the wind would be directed: then he is certainly not a good spirit, but the tiresome devil himself, a prince of darkness. And in this very piece, the master has disgraced himself in his wisdom, and condemned himself and his book alone, so that for this reason this book should be condemned, as it describes itself in its title as a book of darkness. For thus says Christ our Lord Himself, John 3:20 ff: "He who does evil hates the light; he who does the truth comes to the light," and especially he who wants to teach someone publicly, so that it may be known who and where it comes from. Although Christ does not mean to condemn what kings, princes, and rulers do secretly in their offices, even if they do not reveal it. Nor what is done in confession, nor what husband and wife speak to each other in the marriage bed, as I once heard a married matron punish her husband who wanted to talk out of the marriage bed: Marriage talk (she said), judgment talk, confession talk, secret counsel talk are to be kept silent, and are not wrong afterwards, whether they do not come to light, because God wants to know them alone; of it now is not time to speak. So also in the papacy the legend has always remained: Whoever sages confession should have his tongue torn out from behind his neck.
I must say this, not to the master Nebulo, but to the devil, who perhaps wanted to stuff this saying of Christ our Lord, that many things must remain secret, which are nevertheless right and true; therefore he may also keep his name secret 2c. Non est simile, frater. He who publicly
Letters from the year 1542. No. 2870.
If a man wants to teach and act in public, he should also present his person in public, and not like Heinz Mordbrenner, Meinz and their companions set fire secretly and then say: My name is Nobody or Nebulo Tulrichius. No, Frater, that's not it, but ex ore et facto tuo judicaberis, and you have condemned yourself with your book, forced by your pusillanimous conscience to put a false, fictitious assassin's name on the book.
The other knavery is that he introduces the examples of the fathers and of some kings, when he himself knows well that such things are of no consequence, for he is not the first nor the only one who has read such examples and histories, and yet no one has ever been found who has based himself on teaching such things, except this Tulrichus alone and the first. Thus we have proved by so many writings that Mosi's law is none of our business and is no longer a right; and not the examples of the history of the saints, much less of the kings, but God's commandment and their faith are to be looked at, as Hebr. 13,1) 7. says: "See their beginning all, and follow their faith", does 2) not say: Follow their stories.
And tell me, what does such an evil spirit and false master deserve, who deceives people and poor consciences, and laughs at their ruin in his fist? Well, you shameful Nebulo, you are struggling for harm, which God has prepared for you on your head.
The third and worst part is that he interprets the Proverbs Gen. 16,4) Matth. 19, 7. f. and others more so impudently and mischievously, and knowingly willfully perverts them, since he knows well that his interpretation is a filth, which distorts me to the utmost on the boy. And [I] realize well that he is away 5) from the rest of the thorns and thistles, which carried us the beautiful roses against the sacrament, baptism and original sin and other more Christian doctrinal articles, since they also interpret the Scriptures in their blasphemous errors, regardless of their own faith.
1) Walch, "Heb. 11."
2) Walch: "speak".
3) Walch: "the".
4) Walch: "Gen. 11."
5) "That he is gone" means here: that he comes from.
They know that they themselves are convinced that their glossing over would be vain dirt. Even before they want to give way to the known truth, they would much rather lead the poor people to hell with them.
So this Nebulo wants to deceive people with words that he himself would not build on, that I know, where he would be otherwise sane.
Finally, he himself confesses that he does not want to conclude anything, but to think further and then speak. Then the assassin turns around, if he lets himself think that he has started the fire and done the damage. If these are faithful, pious teachers who instruct consciences, then Heinz, Meinz, Pabst and all the devils are also pious fellows. I don't need to know who this or these masters are, and I don't surrender my delusion, even though the stench gets strongly into my nose. But if it were to come to light, it would awaken me, the old scribe, so that I would pound my pen on his head and stain his nose with my ink, as he deserves. But God has found him, as he has found his like before.
Whoever now desires my judgment about this book, let him listen: Thus says Doctor Martinus about the book Neobuli: Whoever follows this boy and book, and takes more than one wife on it, and wants it to be a right, may the devil bless the bath in the abyss of hell, amen. I know how to get that, praise God, and if it were to snow Neobulos Nebulones Tulrichs together with the devil for a whole year. I don't want anyone to make a right out of it, I will keep it safe. Much less shall they make it a right for me that a man may divorce his wife by right (if she has not divorced herself before by public adultery), which this knave would also like to teach.
But that I also talk a little bit about the thing where he introduces the fathers from Moses, I have said above: it helps nothing. Moses is dead. But let it be said immediately that it would have been a right with the fathers and Moses, as can never be proven, so they had God's word that permitted them; we do not have that. And even though the Jews were permitted and tolerated by God, God Himself considered it unjust, as the Zealots,
Letters from the year 1542. No. 2870.
The law of Moses was not right, but a dispensation, a decree, not for the weak and needy, but for the hard, disruptive, wanton peelers. Now there is a great difference between the right and the imposition, patience or permission. Right is not doom, doom is not right, and he who does, gets or has something out of doom, does it, gets it or has it not out of right.
If the letter of divorce had been a right, the holy fathers would probably have kept it. But there is no example of this in Scripture. We do find that those who did not keep this law are praised, and those who used this law are scolded, as can be clearly seen in Malachi, chapter 2. Abraham would not let go of his Hagar until he was forced by God. But what is a right, one must praise those who keep it and rebuke those who do not. Having so many wives is by no means proof that it was a right, but may well have been a fate. For there must have been very pious, holy men at that time, who took more than one wife according to the law 5 Mos. 25, 5. than to provide for the poor, abandoned women's bodies, among them some who were ugly or hostile, who were very difficult to accept and to raise, whom this Tulrich himself would have fled as the devil. The others really did not want to take and provide for more than one wife. They were free from such a law, as one can read in the book of Ruth [Cap. 4, 6], that their brother-in-law did not want to have them. If it had been a right, he would have had to do it. Now God does not punish him, neither in soul, nor in body, nor in good, for transgressing such a law without wearing a shoe and being called barefoot, which indicates what God thought of such a law. Therefore, taking many wives was certainly not a right, but a doom, no doubt to the benefit of the abandoned, poor womenfolk, so that they would have comfort from their friends, who wanted to be merciful to their poor friend.
Thus it had also at that time another form in Judenthum neither with us. For women who did not bear children were almost worthless and despised according to the law: benedixit eis, as can be seen in Samson's and Samuel's mother, also in Sarah, Rachel 2c. Therefore, for their sake, God was all the more patient with them, so that they would have husbands and children, since they could not all have husbands of their own, just as it is now the case with us that many must remain without husbands and children. So there was a special need here that pushed for such a dispensation. With us, however, it does not take this form, because virginity and widowhood, even though they live without fruit, are not despised or worthless, but honest and praiseworthy according to the Gospel. It may have been just such a need that a man had to take a wife, won in war, so that the wretched, poor woman would also have a comfort and be provided for. So we may say against Tulrich, who proves nothing at all, and shall prove it thereby; and what is it necessary that we seek all cause, why the fathers and under Moses were permitted many wives? God is Lord, he may abolish, change, and mitigate his law as he pleases, out of necessity or without necessity. But it does not behoove us to do so, much less to establish a right that must apply or become an example.
But our Tulrich leads along and gives free rein to carnal lust, and wants to create a world like before the flood, since they do not, like the Jews, out of God's permission, not out of necessity or mercy against wretched women, like Moses does 2c., but as the text says [Gen. 6:2]: "Which they chose according to their desire," not that it was necessary for their conscience, or useful for their wives' bodies; not that they desired the fruit of the womb, but because, he says, "they were beautiful"; seeking no more than carnal pleasure. So shall we also do, and do right and well (says Master Tulrich), may we take pretty matzos, as much as we want, and atone for the lust, not for the fruit of the womb, nor for the women's need, which the Jews had to do; let the ugly ones sit, even if they were fertile and might have help. Sic itur ad astra, so we go to heaven. So then we have Moses
Letters from the year 1542. no. 2870. 2871. 2872.
and the fathers with their examples to beautiful covers of carnal freedom; say with the mouth, we want to follow the example of the fathers, and with the deed we do against it. Help God! What will this time become, when the world shall stand, when now such impudent boys are allowed to print everything they desire, and let us watch, who also should have consulted us beforehand, who have church rule and live publicly in office, but Tulrich is a mere nobody and wants to rule. Lupus in ovili. They want to adorn all courage from the Scriptures, since they themselves feel that it will not do, and the Christians will not suffer. But perhaps we have sinned too little under the papacy, and afterwards we have founded too little heresy. The longer the greater the abomination, the more we must commit it, otherwise God would remain too merciful to us. As I said, I do not want to answer the hopeless wretch for all his foolishness; others will do that. Also be aware that any layman who is a true Christian can easily mislay everything, as there is the and such foolishness, as he writes, although it is not written that Seth, Enos, Methuselah have had many wives 2c. Who does not see here that the fool deals with mockery and knavery and does not even take for truth what he says, namely Seth has had many wives. If the scripture does not say it, then I say it, or think so, that one should believe.
No. 2871.
To the Elector Johann Friedrich.
Luther approves the request of the mayor of Zwickau to support the boys' school there.
The original is in the Weimar Archives, Reg. N, fol. 108. 41. Printed in the Leipzig Supplement, p. 97, no. 181; in Walch, vol. XXI, 459; in De Wette, vol. V, p. 421 and in the Erlangen edition, vol. 56, p. 1.
Your most illustrious highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. Johann Friedrich, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen and Burgrave of Magdeburg. Roman Empire Archmarshall and Elector, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen and Burgrave of Magdeburg, my most gracious Lord.
G. u. F. in Ch. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! The
Mayor of Zwickau M. Oswald Losan, in which way they intend to improve the school in Zwickau, which he will know how to request of E. C. F. G.. And even though I considered it unnecessary that I should make my Commendation to E. C. F. G., because I know that E. C. F. G. (praise God) is inclined to support churches and schools, but he did not want to desist, I humbly request that E. C. F. G. (praise God) would be so kind. C. F. G. would graciously hear and understand his request; for it is true that the two boys' schools in Zwickau and Torgau are, before others, two excellent, delicious and noble Kleinoder in E. C. F. G. Land, where (as we can see) God bestows special blessings and grace in abundance, so that many boys are well educated there, and they produce useful and comforting persons for the country and its people. And it pleased me very much that those in Zwickau take on such things so seriously and bravely, since otherwise in other cities and towns such lundtroses 1) and scoundrels or godless misers rule, who have so much worldly devotion that they would like Christ to be with churches and schools, where Leviathan rules. So it does not seem to me to be a great thing that they desire from E. C. F. G., especially because it should not last forever, but for six years, so that some wealthy citizens, moved by E. C. F. G.'s example, would also do it. E. C. F. G. will know how to graciously show itself in this. Hiemit GOtt befohlen, Amen. On New Year's Day [Jan. 1] 1542.
Mart. Luther.
No. 2872.