WAR HAM, Zuinglius and Gry næus. Zuinglius is pretty full for the king's purpose. First, he Abp. Cant. disproves the pope's power of dispensing with the law of God: then he lays it down for a maxim, that the apostles had made no alterations concerning matrimonial engagements: that the marrying within near degrees was the aversion of the Greeks and other heathen nations. And whereas Grynæus (a protestant of reputation) seemed to be of opinion, that though the marriage was ill made, yet it ought not to be dissolved; so that this divine advised the king to marry another, and live with the queen still; Zuinglius combats this opinion, determines for nulling an unlawful marriage, and rejects the expedient of polygamy. But then he concludes, that the queen should be honourably dismissed, and treated according to her character. This divine has some farther reserves of civility and good nature. He throws in a salvo for the legitimacy of the issue, and since the marriage had continued so long without scruple or remonstrance, he thought it unreasonable there should be any blemish or mark of disadvantage laid upon the children. A pretended letter of Calvin's. The reasoning in this letter not There is a letter of Calvin's upon this subject, but without either date or person to whom it was directed: in this letter, the marriage is declared null, and that the king ought to part with the queen upon the law of Leviticus. And whereas it was objected, the law was only meant of marrying the brother's wife, living the brother: he argues, this interpretation was foreign to the text. For since all the prohibited degrees are forbidden in the same style, they ought to be understood in the same sense. Since therefore, the marrying the father's, son's, uncle's, or nephew's wives after the death of their husbands, is uncontestedly unlawful, by parity of reason it must be likewise a sin to marry the brother's relict. And as for the law in Deuteronomy, of "marrying the brother's wife," &c. he conceives that by brother, we are to understand a near kinsman, of which we have some instances in holy writ. By this expedient, he reconciles the two laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and fortifies his exposition by the case of Boaz and Ruth. But here we are to observe, that this letter having neither date nor person, seems not to belong to the matter in question. conclusive. Besides, Calvin was born in the year 1509; now this letter is supposed to be written in the year 1530, when Calvin was but twenty-one years of age. It is very improbable therefore, VIII. a controversy of this importance should be referred to so HENRY young a divine. Farther, his exposition of the text in Deuteronomy, seems forced and new. For first, this interpretation does not agree with the language of the New Testament, where kinsfolk are expressed by Zvyyeviç, and not by adeλpoì in the original. Secondly, Calvin's exposition destroys Africanus's scheme of reconciling the seeming differences in our Saviour's genealogy mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke. Now the learned Valesius allows Africanus's expedient, Luke ii. 44. and supposes the marrying the brother's wife common among the Jews. But notwithstanding this letter seems embarrassed Annot. in in the exposition of the text, yet it must be said, the author Euseb. Hist. made a push at the main difficulty. lib. 1. Eccles. c. 7. Our learned Church historian observes, that Melancthon Melancthon advised the king's taking another wife, and offered to justify of polygamy. a favourer polygamy from the Old Testament. But this he cannot believe. However, he grants "the lawfulness of polygamy was much controverted at this time. And as in all controversies newly started, many crude things are said; so some of the Helvetian and German divines seem not so fierce against it. But of Melancthon's being of that mind, great evidences appear to the contrary; for there is a letter of Osiander's to him, giving him many reasons to persuade him to approve of the king's putting away the queen, and marrying another." The letter also shows he was of opinion, that the law in Leviticus was dispensable. Bp. Burnet, pt. 1. p. 93. But with due deference to this historian's judgment, his reasoning looks short of proof. Indeed he seems to overthrow his remark, by what he observes afterwards. For he tells us, that "Melancthon, and others, had no mind to enter much into the dispute about the king's divorce, both for fear of the emperor, and because they judged the king was led in it by dishonest affections:" and thus this learned author has answered himself: for the reason, as he observes, why Melancthon would not Ibid. approve of the second marriage, might be because he was afraid of the emperor, or thought the king was led into it by dishonest affections, and not upon the score of his believing polygamy unlawful. But that Melancthon, and other German divines, were not very orthodox in this, and some other matters, appears from Cranmer's letter to Osiander. In this letter, "he complains 56. WAR- of the loose casuistry and mistaken opinions of the German Abp. Cant. divines, and what scandal they gave to the reformation. For Some Ger- instance, he tells us, they allowed the younger sons of man divines noblemen to entertain strumpets, to prevent the parcelling out abetting this their estates, and lessening the figure of the elder family: that doctrine by divines who allowed this liberty, were altogether unqualified to charged with Cranmer. Mark x. Luke xvi. Rom. vii. 1 Cor. vii. make invectives against any indulgence in the Church of Rome. Farther, I desire," says he, "to know what excuse can be made for your permission of a second marriage after divorce, while both the parties are living; and, which is still worse, you allow a man a plurality of wives without the ceremony of a divorce. That this is matter of fact, you acquainted me, as I remember, in some of your letters, adding withal, that Melanethon himself was present at one of these second weddings, and gave countenance to it. 6 "But this practice disagrees both with the nature of marriage, which does not make two but one flesh,' and is likewise a clear contradiction to the holy Scriptures." And here the archbishop (for that was his distinction when he wrote Matt. xix. this letter) cites several texts in the New Testament. "From these places," he continues, "it is plain from the institution of our Saviour and his apostles, that matrimony ought to be a single relation; and that this engagement must not be repeated, till the death of one of the parties. If you reply, the case of fornication must be excepted: if this is your answer, I desire to know whether the loss of the wife's honour was the reason of Melancthon's indulging the husband in polygamy: if he went upon this ground, then we have the received doctrine of the Church, from the first ages to our own times, against this exposition. Now we ought to interpret the Scriptures in conformity to the sense of the ancients. What St. Austin's opinion, or rather what the opinion of the Church was, in the century in which this father lived, he gives us to understand in Lib. de his discourse to Pollentius. I would gladly know," continues Conjugiis. the archbishop, "how they disengaged themselves from this Adulterinis charge! Whether they maintained the lawfulness of polygamy, and endeavoured to reconcile it with the New Testament? Or whether they believe something of condescension or connivance, necessary to the present juncture? and that unless they should relax a little upon this point, some greater mischief might happen. If they go upon the first grounds (which I VIII. fancy they do not,) they have more of the Turk than the HENRY Christian in them. And if they rely upon the latter scheme, they will find themselves extremely encumbered: for which way can they indulge that liberty which Christ, his apostles, and the whole Church, has directly forbidden?" He proceeded to answer some other of their objections, from the Old Testament, and exposes the indulgence with sufficient force and smartness: but what I have already translated, may serve to show the German divines, and particularly Melancthon, were no good casuists in this matter. Biblioth. Cleop. fol. 111. tion of the To go on as to the body of the Lutheran divines, consulted by the king, their resolution is better guarded. They declare E. 5. now at last, "that the law in Leviticus against marrying The resolu the brother's wife, whether dead or living, was of a moral nature, and by consequence unalterable. That therefore it was their opinion, the practice of all Christians ought to be governed the divorce. by it; that they should never give an allowance for a marriage within such a relationship. But then as to the divorce, they were not informed far enough to deliver their opinion. That is, they were not furnished with sufficient reasons, whether the king might be divorced after the solemnization of the marriage. And therefore, they desire his highness not to take it amiss, that they suspended their judgment as to this part of the question. The learned Church historian abovementioned, takes notice, See Bishop "that the protestants expressed great sincerity in this matter; Collection, such as became men of conscience, who were actuated by true pt. 1. principles, and not by maxims of policy." I hope they did so, p. 94. Id. pt. 1. but am sorry to find this commendation no better proved. For in the paragraph immediately foregoing, he tells us, these German divines had no mind to engage in the dispute, for fear of the emperor. Now if they were over-awed by this passion, they were in some measure governed by their interest: and how then does it appear, that they stood clear of politic maxims? Ex MSS. Burnet's book 11. P. Bp. Burnet, pt. 1. p. 93. See Records, num. 16. However, as the learned historian goes on, "none of them went so far as the pope did, who plainly offered to grant the king a license to have two wives." And for this we have the authority of Cassaley's letter to the king. Now, notwithstanding the colour in this letter, I rather think Whether the pope allowed it will appear the pope did not indulge this liberty. For first, polygamy. VOL. IV. M WAR- Page 302. as to Cassaley's authority, the lord Herbert, who cites the letter, Abp. Cant. tells us this Cassaley was a man of no integrity: that notwithstanding his being employed as the king's agent, he held a private correspondence with the Imperialists: and he farther tells us, it does not appear whether any credit was given to this letter at the English court. And that the pope was either misreported, or Cassaley misunderstood, seems farther probable, from what is delivered by Bp. Burnet, our learned Church historian: who informs us, that sir Francis pt. 1. p. 60, compared Bryan and Peter Vannes, the king's agents at Rome, had with p. 93. instructions to propose, whether in case other expedients were rejected, the pope would not dispense with the king's having two wives? Id. p. 93. An abstract of the argu- And elsewhere he acquaints us, that this "motion was consented to, and promoted by the Imperialists." That is, the emperor was willing to gratify the king, and come up to his fancy. Now if the pope and the emperor were thus flexible to the king's inclination, and agreed to his terms, how comes it about his highness did not take these princes by the hand, and close with them upon his own proposal? It was never pretended the king moved for more than two wives at once; why then did he not acquiesce, when thus fairly offered? What made him come to the last extremities, break wholly with the pope, and make the emperor his enemy, when they consented to oblige him, by so unusual a favour, and complied to the length of his demands? I own these questions are too hard for me, and therefore I must leave them. Having already mentioned the universities, and other divines, who declared for the divorce, it may not be improper to say something of the authorities on the other side. Amongst these, we have Fisher, bishop of Rochester; John Holiman, bishop of Bristol; Clark, bishop of Bath and Wells; Tonstal, bishop of Durham; and West, bishop of Ely; to whom we may add, Thomas Abel, Edward Powel, Richard Featherstone, and one Dr. Ridley, all English canonists. And for foreigners, Francisco Royas, Alphonso de Verves, Alphonso de Castro, and Sanders de Sepulveda, Spaniards: the famous cardinal Cajetan, and LudoAnglic.p.79. vico Nugarrola, Italians: Alvarus Gomesius, a Portuguese : Johannes Cocleus, a high-German: Equinarus, Duarenus, Convanus, Frenchmen: and Ludovicus à Schota, a Low Countryman. But after all, whether these Englishmen abovementioned were Schism. Fuller's Ch. Hist. book 5. p. 182. |