[667] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii. seq., and Kroker, p. 9.
[668] See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.
[669] Page 64.
[670] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.
[671] Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.
[672] He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.
[673] Bindseil also remarked of the “Colloquia”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages, ibid., p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.
[674] Kroker, p. 2.
[675] Ibid., p. 192.
[676] Ibid., p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.