[159] Rockwell, ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.
[160] Cp. Rockwell, ibid., p. 108.
[161] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.
[162] On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell, ibid., p. 117, n. 1.
[163] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell, ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)
[164] The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.
[165] See above, note 163.
[166] In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”
[167] Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.
[168] Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”