[219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.
[220] Ibid., 39, p. 356.
[221] Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.
[222] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.
[223] Ibid., p. 316.
[224] To Christoph Scheurl, ibid., p. 348.
[225] To Johann Lang, ibid., p. 410.
[226] To Willibald Pirkheimer, ibid., p. 436.
[227] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.
[228] Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.