Second Commentary on the Doctrine of Abstinence

worthy of disapproval on the grounds that the illustrious Seckendorf had already rolled the same stone long ago with much praise? Would the praiseworthy work of FRIEDRICH WILHELM KRAFT, now an ornament of the people of Danzig, have been [unworthy], by which, in a dissertation which he held at Göttingen, written with such erudition and elegance, he maintained that Luther had by no means disputed out of envy against the hawking of indulgences, even though the same Triumvirs had already treated the same place here and there? Indeed, I maintain that those do a service who, as often as adversaries reweave the ancient and long-dispersed webs, think it permissible—nay, fitting—for themselves and for others to repeat the question that has been debated once or twice by defending it. Yet, lest I seem to have responded to you in sheer anger, I will refer you to those things which were brought forward in sections VIII and VIIII. For my purpose looks to this: not that I might bring forth something new, but that I might provide a small academic specimen and, at the same time, in some way satisfy the piety with which I embrace the dignity of the Saxons and such great Princes. In addition to this, you should weigh with yourself that the outstanding men whom I have praised, while they have indeed treated the question which we are to discuss more fully and with deliberate effort, have only indicated the sources of answering the accusations of Maimbourg or Arnold here and there, though briefly, leaving them to be more zealously completed by others. Finally, if I wish to tell the truth, I will whisper in your ear that the same scruple which you cast at me vexed me myself at the beginning, and nearly moved me