[494] See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.
[495] To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.
[496] On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.
[497] On May 26, 1525, “Werke,” ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).
[498] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).
[499] Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”
[500] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.
[501] In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.
[502] Mathesius, ibid. For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”
[503] Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.