About a year later a Hessian preacher, by the name of Johann Lening, undertook to justify the bigamy of the Landgrave.  Under the pseudonym “Huldricus Neobulus” he published a “Dialogus,” that is, “an amicable conversation between two persons on the question whether it is in accordance with, or contrary to, divine, natural, imperial, and spiritual laws for a person to have more than one wife at a time,” etc.  The writer defended bigamy.  In an unfinished reply to this book Luther takes strong grounds against him.  Referring to the author’s argument that bigamy was sanctioned by Moses, Luther says:  “The reference to the fathers of whom Moses speaks is irrelevant:  Moses is dead.  Granted, however, that bigamy was legal in the days of the fathers and Moses, —­which can never be established,—­still they had God’s word for it that such a permission was given them.  That we have not.  And although it was permitted to the Jews and tolerated by God, while God Himself considered it wrong, . . . it was merely a dispensation. . . .  Now, there is a great difference between a legal right and a dispensation, or something that is tolerated or permitted.  A legal right is not a dispensation, and a dispensation is not a legal right; whoever does, obtains, or holds something by a dispensation does not do, obtain, or hold it by legal right.”  Luther then enters upon a brief discussion of the bigamous relationships which were created by the Mosaic laws, and explains that legislation as emergency legislation.  He says:  “What need is there why we should try to find all sorts of reasons to explain why the fathers under Moses were permitted to have many wives?  God is sovereign; He may abrogate, alter, mitigate a law as He pleases, for emergency’s sake or not.  But it does not behoove us to imitate such instances, much less to establish them as a right.  But this Tulrich [so Luther calls the unknown author] rashly declares carnal lust free, and wants to put the world back to where it was before the Flood, when they took them wives, not like the Jews by God’s permission, or because of an emergency or for charity’s sake towards homeless women, as Moses directs, but, as the text says, ‘which they chose’ (Gen. 6, 2).  That is the way nowadays to rise to the stars.  In this way we have Moses and the fathers with their examples as beautiful cloaks for carnal liberty; we say with our lips that we are following the examples of the fathers, but in very deed we act contrary to them.  Lord, have mercy!  If the world continues, what all may we not expect to happen these times, if even now shameless fellows may print what they please.” (21b, 2691 f.)