Full Text for Malicious Desertion (Text)

ion Inquiry MAIER, W. A .: Archeology - the N emesis . . KBETZMANN, P. E.: Znr Ge chichte der 1 teinischen Bibel KRETZMANN, P . E. ' W here and What Is Heaven? KRETZMANN, P. E.: Propositions on the Sabbath-Sunday Question LAETSCH, THEO.: Malicious Desertion KBETZMANN P E. : Die Hallpttchr:ften Luthers in chro- nologischer Reihenfolge Dispositionen u eber die altkirchliche Epistelreihe Miscellan eu Theological Observer. - Xirchlich-Zettgeschichtliches . Book Review. - Ltteratur Page 16 1 171 176 18 4 189 195 197 205 206 212 218 233 Ein r'recliger mw 01 t alleln 10 ,vIM!, .lise) da er die Schafe unterwel;tO, wl~ de reebte Chrl ten !IOlIen seln, ondem .ucb daneben den Woellen ICeMen. du .Ie die Schafe nlcht angreifen und mit faIRCher Lehre ,'erfuebren uud Imum ein· fuebrrn. - LH hr,. r ,t keln Ding, d' die J.eutl' mehr bel der Klrcbe behaelt deon die flUte l'redigt. - dpolo, ie, Art. ~ If the trumpet g1VI' an un~'ertahl loOund, who sbalI prepare bllll8elf to the battle? 1 Cor 4 , 8. Published for t he Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other 4tates CONCORDIA PUBLISHDlG HOUSE, St. Lo Mo. [ l I Malicious Desertion. 197 Malicious Desertion. The seventh chapter of Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians contains various instructions regarding marriage, all of which ap- parently were given in answer to questions proposed to the apostle by the congregation. After having discussed the question whether it were better to marry or to remain unmarried, the apostle turns his attention to such as have either before or after their conversion been married. He distinguishes two classes: such marriages in which both spouses are believers and such in which one spouse is a believer, the other an unbeliever. His instructions to believing couples, V.12, we have already considered, O. T. M., Vol. IV, p. 131 ff. But in the congregation at Corinth there were numerous in- stances of mixed marriages, one spouse being a believer, the other an unbeliever. When Christ laid down His rule of the indissolubility of marriage, Matt. 5, 32; 19,4 ff., there was no occasion to mention mixed marriages, for marriages between Jews and Gentiles occurred rarely, if ever, among the Jews, since Ezra and Nehemiah hv.d taken such drastic measures in annulling marriages of this kind, Ezra 9 and 10; N eh. 13,23-29. N a Lurally, the question arose among the Christians whether mixed marriages must be dissolved also in the New Testament Church. Perhaps many Christians also argued that such marriages conflicted with the clearly revealed will of God that believers should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Be that as it may, the question as to the status of mixed marriages had been proposed to the apostle, and he proceeds to answer it, vv.12-16. He takes into account two possibilities. One is that the unbelieving spouse "be pleased to dwell with" the believer. In this case the advice of the apostle is, Let not the believing husband put away his unbelieving wife, V.12, and let the believing wife not leave her husband, V. 13; for this mixed marriage is not an unclean, sinful union, displeasing to God and on that account to be severed, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, V. 14. The apostle regards the continuance of such a marriage on the part of the Christian spouse as so self-evident that he uses a word implying the willingness of the Christian to keep the marriage bond intact, not merely .V~O~Et", but the comp0und <1Vvav<3o~,rv, to be pleased together with some one, to agree. The Christian spouse, without ever denying his Christian convictions, must at all times be willing to keep the marriage tie inviolate. The Christian wife must to the limit of her ability by willing obedience and loving service seek to keep her husband, though an unbeliever, attached to herself; and the believing husband will by courteous treatment, loving respect, and kind consideration knit ever closer that bond of love and affection whereby his wife, though an 198 Malicious Desertion. unbeliever, is joined to him in a union that only death ought to sever. The unbelieving spouse ought to have no reason whatever to leave the Ohristian spouse. As far, therefore, as the Ohristian spouse in a mixed mal'l'iage is concerned, the apostle takes for granted willing compliance with the will of God that marriage is to be kept inviolate by man. If, then, the unbeliever be satisfied, i£ he consent to the good will of the Ohristian spouse, the marriage naturally con- tinues. Unbelief on the part of one spouse is no reason for divorce. There is, however, another possibility, and one which undoubtedly quite frequently occurred in those days, when public feeling so often ran high against the Ohristian religion. There may be.no UVYSVOOU"Y, no agreeing, to continue with the marriage on the part of the un- believer. He may be altogether averse to dwelling with his spouse. In fact, he may have shown his aversion by departing, by deserting the spouse, or by expelling her from the home, making cohabitation no longer possible, severing the marital relations. Since the apostle does not specify any motive for his departure, we have no right to assume any specific cause and limit the permission granted by the apostle in v. 15 to a departure for that one cause, be the underlying cause of the unbelievers departure whatever it may (excepting of course fornication and malicious desertion, of which a believer is assumed not to be guilty). The unbeliever has departed. What, then, is the believing husband 01' wife to do in this case? Must he still regard himself bound to his spouse who has left him? Must he con- tinue to make every effort to keep up the marital relations or force his presence upon the unwilling unbeliever? Must he at least remain unmarried, or is he free to marry another? The apostle removes all doubt on this question. Writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he says, If the unbelieving depart, let him depart, xwed;su{)w. By using the imperative, the apostle does not place the stamp of approval on the unbeliever's departure, he does not sanction his act of severing the marriage relation, just as little as the ayvOEl7:W, let him be ignorant, 1001'.14,38 approves of ignorance or the o.Otu't}ucil-w, Rev. 22, 11, permits or sanctions injustice. The apostle simply means to say, Let him depart. His guilt be upon him. That is a matter to be settled between him and his Maker. As far as the believing brother or sister is concerned from whom the unbeliever departed, he or she is not under bondage in such cases. The word OEOov,lu,.,;at means to be in a state of bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity. Hence the believer is not held by constraint of law "in these matters." The law for married people as laid down in the beginning, Gen. 2, 24, restated by Ohrist, Matt. 19, 6, and acknowledged by the apostle, 1 001'. 7, 11, this law that the marriage bond remain unsevered during the lifetime of the spouses, no longer obligates the deserted spouse. The relation of a person to a law is that of a ooiilo., a slave, to his Malicious Desertion. 199 master, so long as that law is in force. If, therefore, a person is declared to be no longer under bondage in a matter pertaining to the maintenance of the marriage relations, there can be no more law tying him to his spouse. Though the marriage has been broken in a manner utterly displeasing to God, though the departing unbeliever will be called to account by the Lord, yet the Supreme Legislator in these matters declares the deserted spouse to be no longer under bondage. We have no right to limit the scope of these words. It is a viola- tion of sound hermeneutics that Rome restricts this permission to a separation a mensa et thoro and that Bengel adds the remark: uSed cum exceptione illa: Maneat extra coniugium, v.ll" ;1) for v.ll applies to marriages in which both spouses are believers, while v. 15 speaks of mixed marriages. Therefore it is just as impermissible to entertain, with the Expos. Gr. N. T., a doubt "whether the freedom of the innocent divorced extends to remarriage," and to conclude, with Heinrici (quoted in Expos. Gr. N. T.), that "in view of v.ll the in- ference that the divorced should remain unmarried is the safer." The words mean exactly what they say: the brother or sister is not under bondage. Luther in his brilliant exposition of 1 Oor. 7 says: "If he is no longer under bondage, he is free and at liberty," and Ohemnitz expresses the same truth in his Examen (Loc. XIV, De Matr., canon 5, § 6): "Pronunciat Paulus: fidelem non esse serviliter alligatam deseriori, sed esse liberam. Servitus enim et libertas op- posita su·nt."2) Luther continues: "If he is at liberty and free, then he may marry just as if his spouse had died." (St. L. VIII, 1062.) Luther then answers in the affirmative the question whether he may remarry repeatedly though three or more spouses desert him. "And he does not say that it may be done only once, rather does he permit it (laesst es stehen 1tnd gehen) as often as the need arises; for he will have; none detained in the danger of unchastity for the sake of the) trespass and wickedness of another."3) And again: "Ought not the Ohristian spouse to wait until his unchristian spouse return or die, as has hitherto been the custom and ecclesiastical law 1 Answer: Whether he will wait for her depends on his good win; for since the apostle here declares him to be free and at liberty, he is not under obligation to wait for the spouse, but may marry in God's name." (L. c., 1063.) And again: "But if thc deserter return and is willing to reform (sich recht stellen), ought he to be again admitted and accepted? Answer: If the deserted spouse has not yet remarried, she may again accept him, and it is advisable that they again come l) "But with the exception: Let her remain unmarried, v. n." 2) Paul states that the believer is not slavishly tied to the deserter, but is free. For servitude and liberty are opposites." 3) Italics our own. 200 Malicious Desertion. together." (1063.) Luther therefore places the resumption of marital relations into the option of the spouse maliciously deserted. Though a reunion may be advisable and may be urged on the part of the pastor, yet it is not obligatory, and as we shall see, it may be in- advisable under circumstances. The deserted spouse cannot be com- pelled to accept the deserter after malicious desertion has been established. Naturally, it must be evident that the unbeliever departed not merely in a fit of anger, only to return after being calmed down. If the unbeliever has departed, the believing spouse will bear in mind that marriage according to God's intention is to be inseparable, and will therefore make every effort to effect a change of mind on the part of the unbeliever. Only if all his efforts in this direction are fruit- less or if the deserter has made such efforts practically impossible, e. g., by disappearing without leaving any clew as to his whereabouts, and sufficient time (varying of course in the individual case) has elapsed, may the believer regard the former spouse as a malicious deserter and his marriage to him as broken by the desertion. Nor will the believer rely solely on his own judgment. Knowing his own heart, which is a deceitful thing and desperately wicked, Jer.17, 9; endeavoring not to be wise in his own counsels, Rom. 12, 16; Provo 12, 15, he will consult with his pastor and other experienced Christian friends, so that finally with a good conscience he may say that he has done all in his power to prevent the breach from becoming a per- manent one and that his is a manifest, proved case of being mali- ciously deserted. Then with a good conscience before God and man the believer may obtain a divorce from the deserter, which divorce is not the severing of an existing marriage, but merely the public declaration that the marriage has been severed by the departure of the unbeliever. A divorce naturally must be obtained before the deserted spouse may enter upon a second marriage; else this second marriage would be regarded as bigamy by the State. Now a very pertinent question arises. Does this word of the apostle apply also to those cases of desertion in which both deserting and deserted spouses are members of a Christian congregation ~ It is true that, as fornication ought not to occur among ChriStians, so members of a Christian congregation ought never to be guilty of desertion. So it ought to be; yet so it is not. As the Lord in Matt. 19 takes into consideration the possibility of fornication among the members of Christian congregations and grants in this case to the innocent spouse permission to divorce even his repentant and hence believing spouse, so the Christian may become guilty of the sin of departing from his Christian spouse, of committing not for- nication, but adultery, the sin of breaking the marriage bond and severing it in a manner forbidden by God, Matt. 19, 9. May in this instance the innocent spouse at once obtain a divorce ~ There are Malicious Desertion. 201 such as answer in the affirmative. Referring to Matt. 19, they con- clude that, since the spouse has committed adultery, the innocent spouse has the right to divorce him; or they apply 1 Oar. 7,15 to this case. The fact is that neither of these passages applies im- mediately. Matt. 19 speaks not of adultery, but of fornication. De- parting from one's spouse is not fornication, the only reason for severing a marriage permitted in Matt. 19. Hence Matt. 19 does not apply. Nor does 1001'.7,15 at once apply, so that the innocent spouse were at liberty at once to obtain a divorce from the deserter. For 1 Oar. 7,15 speaks of unbelievers, while the case in question is one in which a member of the congregation has departed. Of course, that fact only increases his guilt, Luke 12, 47. Yet since he is a member of a Ohristian congregation, his case is not identical with the case described in 1 Oar. 7, 15 until the course of events will compel the congregation to. regard him as an unbeliever, in other words, until all the requirements of Matt. 18, 15~18 have been complied with and have proved ineffectual in gaining him. This disciplinary pro- ceeding, which of course should be begun at once, may require a long time. In its efforts to bring about a recoilciliation of the deserter with the deserted spouse the congregation will exercise due patienCA and not at once proceed to excommunication. During all this time the deserted spouse must make every effort to win back the deserter and must accept him if he returns since, and so long as, he has not committed the only sin which justifies repudiation on her part, fornication. If during these disciplinary proceedings the deserted spouse, A, would sue for divorce on the ground of malicious desertion or would refuse to take B back, then A would become equally guilty of malicious desertion and would become subject to church discipline. If, however, A has made every effort to effect a reconciliation, if in spite of the combined efforts of A and the congregation B persists in his refusal to retul'll, then B is to be declared, according to Matt. 18, a heathen man and a publican. He is then before God and man an unbeliever, Matt. 18, 18, and consequently 1001'.7,15 applies. A is no longer under bondage. A has the perfect right to declare that she no longer regards the deserter as her spouse. She is justified to have the State declare her marriage severed because of the desertion of the guilty spouse. She is at liberty to marry any other person not denied to her by some divine or civil law. On the other hand, we must not construe the words of the apostle as obligating the deserted spouse to relinquish his claims on the de- serter. The apostle tells us that the believer is not under obligation, that he is a free agent in these matters. If he so chooses, he certainly has the right to regard and claim the deserter as his God-given spouse, with whom he is willing to resume marriage relations as soon as he returns. 202 Malicious Desertion. This liberty granted to the deserted spouse does not extend to the deserter. Says Dr. A. L. Graebner: "When the breach has become complete by the malicious and persistent withdrawal of the marriage consent of one party against the will of the other party, the parties are no longer husband and wife in the state of betrothal,4) but single and separate. The discarded woman, having been permanently robbed of her betrothed husband, is no longer a wife. She is free and in- nocent. And as there can be no husband without a wife, the former husband, having broken and thrown away the marriage bond, is no longer a husband. He is free, but guilty, guilty of the breach of marriage, until he restore what he has robbed> if restoration is pos- s'ible.."5) (Theol. Quar·t., Vol. 4, p.475.) The deserter is guilty of adultery. As long as he remains without the Ohristian Ohurch, the congregation cannot deal with him, 1 Oor. 5, 12. As soon, however, as he seeks admission or readmission into the congregation, his breach of marriage is one of the sins for which he must repent and make amends. Such amends are made by means of a confession, public to the extent that his sin is known, thus seeking to remove, as far as that i:s possible, the offense given by his desertion. Such amends must furthermore be madc by a sincere effort on his part to reestablish his marriage with the deserted spouse, if that is at all possible. If that is made impossible because the deserted spouse has remarried or re- fuses to resume marital relations with the deserted (and she has the right to do so, 1 Oor. 7, 15), then of course the congregation cannot insist on the return of the deserter to his former spouse, but must be satisfied with the confession of, and apology for, his desertion. But if the deserted spouse has never relinquished his rights, if he is still willing to continue marriage relations with the deserter, then the deserter is obliged to return to the deserted party, and the congrega- tion must insist on his return befOTe admitting him into membership. IT nwillingness to return to his spouse would clearly prove his deter- mination to continue in the sin of adultery, a sin which excludes from the kingdom of God, Gal. 5, 19. 21; 2 Oor. 6, 9. 10. Even though the deserter had married and become one :flesh with his second spouse, he would be under obligation to return to his first wife if she still insisted upon her right of claiming him as her husband, - though she should be earnestly dissuaded from this course, - for in this case the second marriage of the deserter is in fact an adulterous one, according to Matt. 19, 9. Only by the declaration of the deserted spouse that she no longer regards the deserter as her husband or by her tacit acquiescence in the second marriage of the deserter, is the deserter set free to cohabit with a second wife; and should the 4) Dr. Graebner very properly regards valid betrothal and marriage as synonymous terms as far as the marital obligation is concerned. 5) Italics our own. Malicious Desertion. 203 deserter and his wife thereafter repent, they may remain in wedlock with a free conscience, whether the deserted spouse contract a new marriage or not. See Theol. Quart., VoL 4, p. 476; L. u. TV., XVI, 321-334. Malicious desertion therefore, according to the word of the apostle, frees the deserted spouse from marital obligations to the deserter. Not every separation nor every cessation of carnal inter- course is eo ipso malicious desertion. The apostle 1001'.7,5 speaks of temporarily abstaining from carnal intercourse by mutual agree- ment "that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer." This is certainly not that depal'ting which he had in mind in v.15.-Dr. Fritz cOl'l'ectly observes: "While the 'rendering of due benevolence' does not constitute the essence of mal'l'iage, yet it is included in the mar- riage vow and constitutes one of the pm'poses of mal'l'iage. There- fore its persistent refusal despite instruction and admonition mnst be considered to be equal to malicious desertion, 1 001'. 7,1-5. This, of course, does not hold good when other causes, such as illness or an accident and not mere stubborn resistance, prevent conjugal cohabita- tion." (Fritz, Pa,,[oral The'ology, p. 183.) - Imprisonment, deporta- tion, confinemcnt to an asylum or sanitarium for some physical or mental ailment, even though such confinement be lifelong, does not constitute malicious desertion.-Non-support, so often erroneously re- garded as a species of malicious desertion, is not desertion, nor does it justify divorce. If the non-supporting husband is a member of a congregation, let the congregation admonish him and, if necessary, excommunicate him on the basis of Eph. 5, 28. 29 and 1 Tim. 5, 8, and then let the wife appeal to the civil courts. Only if the non-supporting husband persistently refuses to return to the wife or expels the wife fnnn the home, does he become a malicious deserter. - If persistent qual'l'els, petty jealousies, etc., threaten to disrupt the mal'l'iage, the pastor must make every effort to effect a reconciliation and admonish the spouses to keep peace and harmony. Such admonition is best given to each spouse privately, showing to each one his particular failings and special duties. Then ask them to come to your home and there pray with them; show them the duties and privileges of married people, the blessings of a truly Ohristian union, the harm wrought by their quarreling to themselves, their home, their environment, the offense to the world, etc. In some instances of long-continued quar- rels a separation from bed and board may be advisable, although this advise ought to be the last resort, and the separation must always be only a temporary one, implying the willingness to resume cohabitation after the lapse of the time agreed upon, if not before. Such a separa- tion from bed and board may become necessary if the one party is guilty of coarse brutality, of threats against, and attacks upon, the life of the spouse; but even in these cases the separation should be 204 Malicious Desertion. temporary, contingent on the promise of better behavior. Continued threats and attacks in spite of all admonition, making cohabitation impossible, will eventually constitute malicious desertion; for Quenstedt correctly notes that, while certainly a person departing from his spouse is guilty of malicious desertion, yet one who causes his spouse to leave him by his brutality and tyranny is just as much guilty of desertion. (Quoted in Lehre u. Wehre, V 01. 17, p. 206.) - In a divorce by collusion, both parties agreeing to separate because of incompatibility, etc., neither party can claim to be maliciously de- serted, since both agreed to the separation. However, either party, or both, will become guilty of malicious desertion by persistently refus- ing to resume marital relations despite all admonitions on the part of pastor and congregation, who are in duty bound to deal with such spouses at once according to Matt. 18. We have seen that, while according to God's institution marriage is inseparable so long as both spouses live, Matt. 19,5 fl., that same God has permitted the party whose spouse has committed fornication to sever the marriage bond, and the spouse who has been maliciously desertbQ to consider himself as under no obligation to the deserter. There are such as assert that practising according to this policy will open wide the door to divorce and eventually undermine the sanctity of wedlock. Let us in conclusion briefly show that this charge is an unfounded one. 1. It is God Himself who grants the right of divorce in the two instances named. Surely, God would not establish a policy that would undermine holy wedlock, His own institution. If divorce becomes prevalent in our Lutheran Church, if the divine institution of mar- riage is undermined by our practise, then this is due, not to an observance of the principles outlined above, but to a perversion, a deliberate setting aside, of these principles. 2. A proper application of these principles will reduce divorces to the minimum, as the history of the Lutheran Ohurch shows, whenever these principles have not been neglected. A. Divorces because of provable fornication will by the very nature of the case be exceedingly rare. B. Even where fornication is proved, the marriage must not, but may be dissolved; and in many instances pastor and congregation will advise a continuation of the marriage and be successful in avert- ing a divorce. C. Malicious desertion must not only be positively proved to the satisfaction of the Ohristian congregation, but, if the deserting spouse is a member of the congregation, disciplinary proceedings will at once be instituted against him, and many a deserter will, if dealt with in a spirit of brotherly love, repent and return to his spouse. :nie &:laul'tfd)riften 2ut1)erg in d)ronologifd)et lRei1)enfolge. 205 D. All cases of divorce except for fornication and malicious deser- tion are subject to church discipline and will eventually lead to the excommunication of the guilty party. 3. Faithful pastors will properly indoctrinate their congregations on all questions pertaining to marriage and divorce. This may be done in the public sermon, in the congregational meetings, in the societies, in the homes of the members by private conversation. Above all, faithful pastors by preaching the pure Gospel, the doctrine of justification by grace, for Ohrist's sake, will make the members of their congregations willing and able to submit in all these questions to the Word of God, to regard marriage as a divine institution to be held sacred by all, to look upon divorce as an infraction of God's will, to enter into this estate and live therein in the fear of God and according to His Word, to bear with their spouse's infirmities, to share not only the joys, but also the burdens of this estate, to make it, by the help of their Savior, an antitype of that blessed and happy union of Ohrist and His bride, the Ohurch. THEO. LAETSOH. '!)ie ~aulJtf~riften £ut~er~ in .!J~l.ln.,,;ilgi;~tr ~~tilj"U(l.lr9(:. WHt ~nmetfultgen. (B'ottfetuulJ.) 1526. ,,:net 112. ~falm :nabibg ... gelmbig±." - nber bicfen ~falm, ,,\)on ilteid)tum, ~!)re unb 2uft, roie bie ®md)ten bet roo!)l gelitnud)en unb bie 0ott~ lofen mif3braud)en ll, l'rebigte .I3ut!)et im :;'S(1)re 1526. lIDer bie ~rebigten nad)~ gefd)rielien ~at unb fie bann im SDrucf gat ausge~en laffen, ift nid)t liefannt. ~rs SDrucfer roirb &:lans lIDeif3 bon lIDittenberg genannt. :nie i:'toerfetung unb bie ~begefe 1)aIten fid) 3iemlid) ftreng an ben !)elirctifd)en %e6t, roie 2utger 3U m.5 liemetU: 1I~5 ift cine 1)ebtctifef)e lRebe. lIDir finb bet !)cotctifef)en Sl'taef)e noel), nief)t mctd)ttg, man gat fie fint (l;1)tijU 8eiten 1)er nid)t rein ge!)aJit j barum mUf3 man immerbar baran f£icfen. 1I ~s folgt nann tin ~bfurfus tiber bas Ijebrctifd)e lIDott dabar. (St . .l3ouifcr ~usgaoe V, 1098-1131.) 1526. II SDer ~tojJljet &:labafuf ausgelegt." - :nie ftir3ere ~uslegung biefes l'rol'1)etifd)en mud)cil, bic bie motlejungen .l3ut!)eril bom 18. :;Sufi bt§ 3um 2. l1luguft ent~iift, etjc1)ien in bemfe!ben :;Saf)re. ,s';;lier {jegt feinc lctngcte~usfegung bor, bie er felber etroa WHite :;Suni 1526 in beutf ef)er Sprad)e 1)erausgegeben 1)at. SDa!! mud) etfd)ien 3U lIDittenberg bet ·9JUd)el 2otter. SDie Sef)rift ift oft abgebrucft roorilen. Illuef) ~ier flagt .l3ut~et tiber geroiffe Sdjroierigfeiten ber ~ebtitifd)en Sl'rad)e: f/:nas mad)t 3um %etl, baf3 bie ~ebraifd)e SjJrad)e unbefannt geroefen ift, bie Sd)rift, fonberlid) bie ~rojJ!)eten, an eHief)en Orten nitrItef) 3U berfte~en." SDie fd)neUe merbreitung ber 15 d) tift edIctrt fief) aus i~rer molfstiimlic1)feit trot ber 1)ebritifc1)en Stubien. (St. ~ouifer Illusgabe XIV, 1416-1507.) 1526. umorrebe 3U ber etften bcutfd)en ~us\lCtbe bes S~ngramma.f/ - ilas fogenannte Syngramma Suevioum erfc1)ien am 21. OUoner 1525 in fateinifd)er SjJrad)e. Seine merfaffer waren angefe~ene fef)roitbifd)e %1)eologen, unter i1)nen :;So1)cmn mrena. C\:il ~anbelte fief) um cine griinblid)e, faef)lid)e .RritU ber SteUung ocofaml'abs, bet fid) jett ilefinitiil 3U 8roingH gefdjfagen 1)atte. 3u biefer Sd)rift lieferte .l3ut~et 1m Sommer bes :;Sa~res 1526 eine beutf d)e morrelle. Sie umfaf3t nut bieqe!)n ~aragtajJ~en, aber fie \JiM genau an, roorum eil fid) in bem ~benb" ma~filftreit ~anbefte. (,l;f)araftetiftifd) iit ~ut~ets tutOe ~ngabe ber Sd)roierigfeit: f/~ufs erfte ift biefe SeUe fo fruc1)tbat, !laf3 fie inroenbig einem :;Sa~t ftinf ober