[9] “Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.
[10] The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.
[11] Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.
[12] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”
[13] Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.
[14] [Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of. Note to English Edition.]
[15] Cp. Paulus, ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”
[16] “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”
[17] “Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.
[18] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.