[464] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.
[465] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.
[466] See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.
[467] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.
[468] Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.
[469] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.
[470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353 seq. “Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.
[471] “Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften, 10, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio.”
[472] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.
[473] Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).