"'God created Adam master and lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoilt all'".

     Martin Luther, Table talk, as translated by William Hazlitt, who began with the 1566 Colloquia oder Tischreden of Johannes Aurifaber, but supplemented that with the editions of others.
     Alternatively,

God created Adam master and lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoiled it all, or 

God created Adam lord of (all) living creatures, but Eve spoiled it all, etc.

     But that is not what Luther said precisely (WA TR 2847b (WA TR 3, 26)).  What he said was,

Deus fecit Adam dominum omnium creatorum, ut dominaretur omnibus animantibus, sed cum Eua persuaderet, ut esset dominus supra Deum, do verterbet ers.

Or, as translated on p. 197 of Luther on women: a sourcebook,

God made Adam the lord of all creatures so that he might rule all living things.  But when Eve persuaded him that he was a lord above God, he thereby spoiled it all.

     Granted, he continues, "'We have that to thank you women for'", etc.  But the translation by Hazlitt does not match the text as reproduced later in the Weimarer Ausgabe, which sports "ers", not "Eua".

Do not our hearts burn within us?

"Describe your conversion to Christ.
"One night the only food my wife and I had was a small portion of macaroni.  My wife prepared it very nicely.  Then one of her friends knocked on the door.  I told myself, The macaroni is not sufficient for even the two of us, so how will it be enough for three of us?  But because we have no other custom, we opened the door, and she came in to eat with us.
     "While we were eating, the macaroni started to multiply; it became full in the bowl.  I suspected that something was wrong with my eyes, so I started rubbing them.  I thought maybe my wife hid some macaroni under the small table, so I checked, but there was nothing.  My wife and I looked at each other, but because the guest was there we said nothing.
     "Afterward I lay down on the bed, and as I slept, Isa came to me and asked me, 'Do you know who multiplied the macaroni?'  I said, 'I don't know.'  He said, 'I am Isa al Masih.  If you follow me, not only the macaroni but your life will be multiplied.'
     "He didn't tell me that he was God; he didn't tell me that he died on behalf of me; he didn't say, 'I am the Son of God.'  He didn't talk to me about any complicated theological issues.  He only told me that if I followed him, he would multiply my life.  At that time, I was very happy if he only multiplied the macaroni like he did that day.  I didn't understand what he meant when he said that my life would be multiplied.  Now I understand what that means.  But at the time, I accepted him simply as the 'lord of macaroni.'

"Much like the crowds in the Gospels who accepted him as 'lord of bread.'
"Yes, I just accepted him as one who satisfied my needs.  That day I understood that because Allah loved me, Isa came to my home.
     "When I think back now, the kingdom of God came to my home.  Jesus said, '[I]f I cast out demons . . . the kingdom . . . has come upon you' (Luke 11:20, nasb).  Any miracle that takes place by Isa al Masih speaks of the kingdom of God.  It was not because I was poor that Isa came to my home; there are many poor.  It is not because he wanted to multiply my macaroni.  Maybe there might be many other people who can multiply macaroni, like magic.  So what is the purpose?  Isa al Masih came to my home with the kingdom of God.  He didn't completely explain theological issues, he only said, 'If you will follow.'"

     "Abu Jaz," as interviewed by "Gene Daniels," "a missionary in the Muslim community".  "What it's like to follow Christ embedded in Muslim culture:  an interview with a Muslim follower of Isa," a component of "Worshiping Jesus in the mosque"/"Where's Christian?", itself a component of a suite of short pieces on "The hidden history of insider movements," Christianity today 57, no. 1 (January/February 2013):  23-24/27/31).

"The theology of the Church is no random combination of various opinions, but a diligent, patient working out of one doctrine out of many materials."

     John Henry Newman, An essay on the development of Christian doctrine: the edition of 1845, ed. J. M. Cameron (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1974), 363 (VI.ii.2).

"nothing is more alien to the nature of a sacrament than to set before the people an empty spectacle, unaccompanied with explanation of the mystery."

     John Calvin, The necessity of reforming the church . . . (1544).  Tracts and treatises, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958 [Edinburgh:  Calvin Translation Society, 1844]), vol. 1, p. 166.  = Supplex exhortatio ad invictissimum Caesarem Carolum quintum et illustrissimus principes. . . . / Supplication et remonstrance sur la faict de la chrestienté, et de la réformation de l'église. . . .  See Wulfert de Greef, The writings of John Calvin, expanded ed., trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox, 2008), 147 ff.

“Nihil autem magis alienum a sacramentis natura, quam inane spectaculum populo, absque mysterii enarratione, exhiberi” (CO 6, 488, ll. 15 ff.).

“Il n’y a rien plus repugnant à la nature des Sacremens, que de mettre en auant vn spectacle au people, sans declaration du mystere” (Recueil des opuscules (1566), 534, ll. 35 ff.).

     I wouldn't want the quote-sleuthing to go to waste, though there is also, of course, the danger of burying the mystery under a mountain of ennaratio.

Fudge on Hus at Constance

"He had once argued that the function of canon law was to restrain whatever conflicted with the church and revealed truth.  During his own legal process, Hus was unable to see how that applied to him."

     Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus:  religious reform and social revolution in Bohemia (London:  I. B. Tauris, 2010), 143, citing "De decimis, in Historia et monumenta, vol. 1, p. 159."  This would be Historia et Monumenta Joannis Hus, 2 v. (Nuremberg 1558).  Assuming that the pagination is the same, that would be here in the 1715 printing in Google Books (though I have not read and translated anything more than the most obvious paragraph in the Latin):

Jus Canonicum vocatur Jus a Prælato vel Prælatis institutum & promulgatum, ad rebelles sacris regulis coercendum.  Et potest etiam intelligi, ut communicans juri Evangelico, ut sunt articuli fidei, in sanctis Synodis sive consiliis explanati.  Sicut enim idem est homo in vestibus aut accidentibus notitiam inducentibus varians, sic eadem est lex vel veritas Evangelica in Evangelio implicita vel detecta, & per Ecclesiam postmodum aliter, sed non contrarie explanata, ut patet de fide, quam credimus. 

Canon law is [(vocatur)] law instituted and promulgated by a prelate or prelates for coercing rebels by holy rules.  And it can even be understood as participating in the Evangelical law [(communicans juri Evangelico)], as do [(sunt)] the articles of faith articulated clearly by [(in . . . explanati)] holy synods or councils.  For just as a man [who] varies in the garments or [other] incidentals [he has] put on [(vestibus aut accidentibus . . . inducentibus)] is known to be the same, so the law or Evangelical truth implicit or uncovered in the Evangelium, and by the Church afterwards otherwise but in no contradictory manner explained, is [known to be] the same, so that it is revealed to be 'of the faith' we believe [(de fide, quam credimus)].

Neander had translated this somewhat more loosely as follows:

Das kanonische Recht wird das von den Prälaten bestimmte Recht genannt, welches dazu dienen sollte, die den heiligen Gesetzen der Kirche Widerstreitenden in Schranken zu halten.  Und es kann verglichen werden mit dem evangelischen Recht, wie die Glaubensartikel, die von den heiligen Synoden sind bestimmt worden.  So wie der Mensch derselbe ist, wenn er auch in verschiednen Kleidern und under anderen, wechselnden, zufälligen Merkmalen erscheint, so ist es dasselbe Gesetz oder dieselbe evangelische Wahrheit, wenn sie in dem Evangelium implicite enthalten ist oder entfaltet, und nachher durch die Kirche auf andre, aber keine widersprechende Weise erklärt worden.

This Torrey rendered in the following manner:

Law, as determined by the prelates, is styled canonical law; and its purpose is to restrain, within due limits, whatever stands in conflict with the holy laws of the church.  It may be compared with the evangelical law, the latter being the articles of faith which have been determined by the holy synods.  As the man remains the same, though he may appear in a different dress, and under different, changeable and accidental characters, so it is the same law or the same evangelical truth which is contained implicitly, or unfolded in the gospel, and is afterwards expounded by the church in another but not contradictory manner.

The Latin of Hus is closely related to that of Wyclif.

     "whatever conflicted with the church and revealed truth", whether "outright doctrinal deviance" or "contumacy":  One was as good as the other; either was more than sufficient for a heresy conviction under prevailing canonical legislation and custom" (Fudge, Jan Hus, 144, in summary of the discussion on 140-141).

     By "the church and revealed truth" Hus would undoubtedly have meant only something like the church insofar as conformed to revealed truth as impressed (somehow) upon the conscience ("since men like Hus already held the a priori assumption that secular and religious authority might be invalid if these powers existed in conflict with what Hus considered principles of the law of God" (131)).  Fudge's response:  this was precisely the problem.  "After all, few heretics ever imagined they were truly heretical" (137).

     Still, the claim of conscience returns with the rest of the sentence:  "and it is nearly impossible to impute error to oneself when one is convinced, as Hus clearly was, their focus is truth" (137, italics mine).

     Yet if Fudge (who follows Kybal) is to be believed, there remains the curious stand (or "psychological dependence") on St. Augustine.  For "In the final rejection of the submission formula Hus declared that he feared accepting it on the grounds that it would be to go against Augustine" (133, citing "De Vooght, p. 445", italics mine).

     As for "the function of canon law," "Hus did accept force in matters of faith, at least theoretically, but certainly not to the extent of death" (144 and 286n4, where the Contra octo doctores, in Opera omnia, vol. 2, pp. 464-465 is cited; cf. the introduction to Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, ed. and trans. Matthew Spinka (New York:  Columbia University Press, 1965), p. 63):

I concede therefore that manifest heretics should be subjected to force by the church, that they may truly confess Christ and his law, for while no one may believe apart from his own free will, one may be forced to physical acts which then may induce one to believe.

That as quoted in Thomas A. Fudge, "'Infoelix Hus: the rehabilitation of a medieval heretic," Fides et historia 30:1 (Winter-Spring 1998): 72 (57-73).

     Fudge should not, however, be taken as sympathetic to the Council of Constance:

In this major study of the trial of Jan Hus, Thomas Fudge argues that Hus was properly convicted of heresy, in a legal process that was on the whole procedurally sound.  His conclusions will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Fudge's 2010 biography of the Bohemian reformer, which advanced exactly these claims.  In the present study, however [(The trial of Jan Hus:  medieval heresy and criminal procedure (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2013))], he founds his case upon a remarkable breadth and depth of scholarship in canon law and in the history of the medieval Church's legal mechanisms for action against heresy. . . . .  What ultimately condemned Hus was less doctrinal unorthodoxy than his persistent refusal to subject his conscience to ecclesiastical authority, as manifested through (papal and conciliar) frameworks of law.  This is a richly detailed study, particularly in its scrutiny of the key texts for the Hus case, and it is sure to become an indispensable resource for anyone concerned with the beliefs and fate of the Bohemian reformer.  It should be added, however, that it is also a more committed account of its subject than its rather sober format suggests.  Those readers of Fudge's previous study of Hus who, he assures us (p. xxi), mistook its author for 'a right-wing Roman Catholic' cannot have been paying attention.  For Fudge's real point in arguing so forcefully that the fathers of Constance were, on their own terms, quite right to condemn a man to death for his sincerely-held beliefs is, of course, that we should judge those terms as fundamentally reprehensible. . . .  Fudge's valedictory anecdote, of Luther promising to hang his infant son with his own hands should the latter ever become a lawyer (p. 343), is offered to the reader as a key to the institution that condemned Hus.  If Fudge's ostensible subject matter is the trial of the reformer, his deeper business is with trying and condemning the late medieval Church itself" [(Len Scales, review of The trial of Jan Hus, Journal of ecclesiastical history 66, no. 4 (October 2015):  870-871)].

     

"Division is the schism, if schism there be, not interference."

"If unity lies in the Apostolic succession, an act of schism is from the nature of the case impossible; for as no one can reverse his parentage, so no Church can undo the fact that its clergy have come by lineal descent from the Apostles.  Either there is no such sin as schism, or unity does not lie in the episcopal ordination.  And this is felt by the controversalists alluded to; who in consequence are obliged to invent a sin, and to consider, not division of church from church, but the interference of church with church to be the sin of schism, as if local dioceses and bishops with restraint were more than ecclesiastical arrangements, and by-laws of the Church, however sacred, while schism is a sin against her essense.  Thus they strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.  Division is the schism, if schism there be, not interference.  If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater, but where division is a duty, there can be no sin in inteference."

     John Henry Newman, An essay on the development of Christian doctrine: the edition of 1845, ed. J. M. Cameron (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1974), 286 (IV.ii).

"If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God [(θεοτόκον, Dei genetricem)], . . . let him be anathema."

"he who existed and was begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have been begotten according to the flesh of a woman, without the divine nature either beginning to [(42)] exist in the holy virgin, or needing of itself a second begetting after that from his Father. . . . The Word is said to have been begotten of the flesh, because for us and for our salvation he united what was human to himself hypostatically and came forth from a woman.  For he was not first begotten of the holy virgin, a man like us, and then the Word descended upon him; but from the very womb of his mother he was so united and then underwent begetting according to the flesh, making his own the begetting of his own flesh. . . ."
[50] "the only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten from the very essence of the Father, true God from true God, the light from the light and the one through whom all things in heaven and [(51)] earth were made, for our salvation came down and emptying himself he became incarnate and was made man.  This means that he took our flesh from the holy virgin and made it his own, undergoing a birth like ours from her womb and coming forth a man from a woman.  He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth. . . . For although visible as a child and in swaddling cloths, even while he was in the bosom of the virgin that bore him, as God he filled the whole of creation and was fellow ruler with him who begot him. . . ."
     [58] "Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God [(θεοτόκον, Dei genetricem)], not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for 'the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God', and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.  This was not as though he needed necessarily or for his own nature a birth in time and in the last times of this age, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, in order that seeing that it was a woman that had given birth to him, united to the flesh, the curse against the whole race should thereafter cease. . . ."
". . . What is [therefore] required for your reverence to anathematise we subjoin to this epistle.
     "1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God [(θεοτόκον, Dei genetricem)] (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh), let him be anathema."

     Second and third letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, as translated in Decrees of the ecumenical councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Volume one:  Nicaea I to Lateran V (London:  Sheed & Ward Limited; Washington D. C.:  Georgetown University Press, 1990), 41-42, 50-51, 58, and 59.