Note 445 — Chapter XXII · (continued 2)

Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher10,” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.